UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT JANUARY 1990 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING (E-TEC) FACiLITY IN EDISON, NEW JERSEY -j 1 EPA EDISON FACILITY BOUNDARY E-TEC FACILITY ------- ,o S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 PROJ OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT JAN 05 1990 To All Interested Government Agencies, Public Groups, and Citizens: Enclosed for your review is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Environmental Technology and Engineering ( E-TEC) Facility . This draft environmental impact statement (EIS) was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - Region II and EPA’S Office of Research and Development (ORD) with the assistance of Gannett Fleming Environmental Engineers, Inc. and EcoiSciences, Inc. The EIS is an issue—oriented decision—making tool that was prepared for the purpose of evaluating the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of an Environmental Technology and Engineering (E-TEC) Facility, and to evaluate the alternatives to locating the facility in Edison, New Jersey. The proposed E-TEC facility would be utilized by government, academic, and industry researchers to develop and evaluate innovative treatment and disposal technologies for hazardous substances. Major topics addressed in the EIS include potential impacts to air quality, water quality, and public health. Additionally, the EIS evaluates the suitability of alternative locations for the E-TEC Facility in terms of environmental impacts, engineering feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and implementability. Public participation, especially at the local level, is an essential component of the decision—making process. A public meeting and a public availability session were held during the preparation of the draft EIS to ensure input from local, state, and federal representatives. A public hearing has also been scheduled to receive formal comments on the draft EIS. The hearing information is presented below. February 27, 1990 at 7:00 PM Stelton Community Center 328 Plainfield Avenue Edison, New Jersey 08817 ------- Your participation at this hearing is encouraged. In addition, written comments concerning the content of this draft EIS will be accepted for 45 days after the date of publication of the notice of availability in the Federal Register. Please address all comments to: Robert W. Hargrove, Chief Environmental Impacts Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 26 Federal Plaza, Room 500 New York, New York 10278 If you need additional information regarding the draft EIS, please contact Mr. Hargrove, at (212) 264-1840. Sincerely yours, Erich W. Bretthauer Acting Assistant Administrator for Research and Development Enclosure ------- Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Environmental Technology and Engineering Facility Edison, New Jersey Prepared by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Abstract : The proposed action addressed in this draft environ- mental impact statement (DEIS) is the construction and operation of an Environmental Technology and Engineering (E—TEC) Facility in Edison, New Jersey. The proposed facility would be utilized by government, academic, and industry researchers to develop and evaluate innovative treatment and disposal technologies for hazardous substances. The DEIS addresses the following topics: potential impacts to air and water quality; potential impacts to public health; and alternative locations for the proposed facility. The alternative proposed in the DEIS involves the renovation of existing buildings at the EPA - Edison Facility. This alternative represents the most environmentally sound, cost- effective, and implementable alternatives evaluated in the DEIS. In addition, the DEIS concludes that implementation of the proposed alternative will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts, or represent a significant risk to public health. Public Hearing: Contact for Information: cD C., C t , C) C-;) ‘j) Mr. Robert Hargrove EPA - Region II 26 Federal Plaza, Room 500 New York, New York 10278 (212) 264—1840 Erich W. Bretthauer Acting Assistant Administrator for Research and Development ( J ) 11 February 27, 1990 Stelton Community Center 328 Plainfield Avenue Edison, New Jersey 08817 Approved by: Written comments will be received by EPA for 45 days following publication of a notice of availability in the Federal Register / / / - / Daj e US EPA Headquarters and Chemical Libraries EPA West Bldg Room 3340 Mai code 3404T 1301 ConstitutiOn Ave NW Wash;ngtOfl DC 20004 202 566-O556 ------- ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING FACILITY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARED BY: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITH ASSISTANCE FROM: GANNETT FLEMING ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. HARRISBURG, PA IN ASSOCIATION WITH: ECOLSCIENCES, INC. ROCKAWAY, NJ JANUARY 1990 ------- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ------- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose and Need The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 specifically authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a technology research, demonstration, and evaluation program to promote the development of innovative treatment technologies for hazardous substances. In response to this legislation, the EPA’s goal is to establish an Environ- mental Technology and Engineering (E-TEC) facility, having state-of-the-art capabilities, for the testing and evaluation of hazardous substances control technologies in a safe and environmentally secure manner. The proposed E-TEC facility would be equipped with appropriate treatment technologies to protect the health of the facility users and the surrounding community. Because of the nature of the proposal and public interest and concern, the EPA determined that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is needed to address key con- cerns, including feasible alternatives to and environmental impacts of the proposed action, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Alternatives Four categories of alternative actions were evaluated in detail to identify the preferred location of the proposed E-TEC facility. The four categories are identified below: i. no action, ii. construction of a complete facility, iii. leasing of space in an existing building or facility, and iv. renovation of existing buildings at the EPA Edison Facility. The alternatives were screened based on the criteria of: 1) the availability of siting locations, 2) implementability, 3) environmental soundness, and 4) cost. ES-i ------- Implementation of the no action alternative would mean that EPA would not build and outfit a new E-TEC facility. Hazardous substance treatment tech- nology research and evaluation would have to take place, as needed, at exist- ing EPA facilities. This alternative would not meet the goals and objectives of the SARA legislation. Also, the research would be carried out under less environmentally safe conditions and in a less coordinated manner. In evaluating the remaining alternative actions, it is necessary to reduce the quantity of possible locations to a finite number that meet the siting criteria. These criteria include: (1) meeting the goals and mission of the SARA legislation and the Superfund Innovative Technology and Evaluation (SITE) Program, (2) coordinating the research activities with industry, academia and other government agencies, and (3) locating the facility on a property large enough to house a large warehouse type building(s) and provide a buffer zone. The urbanized northeast meets these siting criteria and it has many designated Superfund sites, whose clean-up would be greatly facilitated with the location of the proposed E-TEC facility in this geographic region. The northeast has many urbanized areas where the infrastructure, academic institutions, and large scale building facilities would be available. The second category of alternatives involves the construction of a complete facility on undeveloped land. This alternative would require acquisition of a large plot of land (100 acres) and complete construction of a warehouse type building(s). A desirable attribute of the proposed facility would be to have it located in close proximity to major transportation net- works, educational institutions and industrial entities. The cost of undeveloped land in northeastern areas fitting this description is very high. In addition, the cost of constructing a complete, new facility would be very high in an industrial, developed area. A logical alternative to constructing a complete facility would be to lease space at an existing facility. This category could include leasing space at an EPA facility, military installation, other government property, academic institution, or industrial complex. All of these possibilities were examined in the alternatives analysis but were ruled out on the basis of lack of available space, conflicting use or the cost of leasing private space. ES -2 ------- The remaining alternative, renovation of existing warehouse buildings at the EPA Edison Facility, involves upgrading two existing warehouse buildings on a site currently owned by EPA and operated by EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD). From an implementability and cost perspective, this alternative is superior to the others. No change in land use or conversion from undeveloped land to developed land would be required with this alternative and the ORD personnel already on-site would operate the proposed E-TEC facility so no relocation of staff would be required. Additionally, the EPA Edison Facility (see Figure ES-l) is located near major transportation routes and supporting governmental, academic, and industrial institutions. The proposed alternative was determined to be the renovation of the existing warehouse buildings at the EPA Edison Facility. The discussion of the affected environment and environmental impacts will focus on this alterna- tive. Affected Environment The affected environment includes both the natural environment (geology, soils, ground water, surface water, floodplains, wetlands, air, and ecology) and the man-made environment (land use, cultural resources, noise, aesthetics, and socioeconomics). The 110 acre site proposed for the E-TEC facility is situated within the northern reach of the Inner Coastal Plain subprovince of the New Jersey Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The soils in the vicinity, with the exception of the Urban Land, Pits and Psamuients, are typical of the coastal plain and include: urban land; pits; sand and gravel; Psamments, nearly level; Atsion sand; Manahawkin muck; klej loamy sand, 0 to 3% slopes; and sassafras loam, 2 to 5% slopes. The coastal plain includes the Farrington Sand Aquifer which flows southeast toward the Raritan River in the vicinity of the proposed E-TEC facility. The Farrington Sand Aquifer serves as a major water source in eastern and southern Middlesex County but the closest potable wells (located 1.5 to 2 miles away) would be upgradient from the proposed facility. The aquifer is considered a sole source aquifer under Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. ES-3 ------- / / STATEN SLAND PROPOSED E-TEC FACILITY ED!SON 1 NEW JERSEY VICINITY MAP 4 0 4 SCALE IN MILES uS. ENVIRONMENTAL PRO’ECTION AGENCY PROPOSED E-TEC -FACILITY LOCATION 7 y 0 R% 4Y ES—4 FIGURE ES-I ------- The proposed site lies within the Raritan River drainage basin. The drainage from the proposed site would flow through swales, small streams and culverts, to eventually discharge into the Red Root Creek. Red Root Creek is a tributary to the Raritan River. There are no floodplains (100-year or 500- year) in the vicinity of the proposed site. There are some wetland areas associated with small streams or in areas of hydric soils but all of these areas occur in the southern portion of the 110-acre tract, well removed from the existing warehouse buildings and service roadways. The air quality in the region of the proposed E-TEC facility is in compliance with all established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) except ozone. The State of New Jersey is in violation of the ozone standard. Because of the development of the area around the proposed site and the fencing of the site itself, few migratory animals can be found on the proposed site, with the exception of some bird species. The undeveloped portion of the proposed site could provide habitat for small mammals and reptiles that could satisfy all of their habitat requirements on the site itself. The general area to the south and east of the proposed 110-acre site is dominated by light industrial development. The Middlesex County College borders the site to the west. The proposed site itself has been greatly disturbed and has only one area where a natural surface may exist. No known prehistoric sites are recorded in the area but a cultural resources survey is being conducted in the vicinity of the undisturbed area. The major source of noise in the surrounding area of the proposed site is vehicular traffic and the operation of motorized equipment; the warehouse buildings on the proposed site are not currently in use so the site does not currently contribute significantly to the background noise. Aesthetically, the proposed site is not very appealing. The view is one of abandonment, with overgrown shrubbery, crumbling roads and deserted articles strewn about. The majority of the residents, 73%, in the surrounding community are over the age of 18 and the property is dominated by residential parcels. There is ES-S ------- a substantial transportation network in the vicinity of the proposed site. Interstates and major highways converge near the site and an Amtrak rail line passes through the area. Environmental Consequences The main environmental concerns of the operation of the proposed facility focused on five areas - water quality, ground water quality, transportation, air quality, and public health. These issues were examined in the EIS to determine if the facility would cause significant impacts. Mitigative measures would be incorporated into the design and operation of the proposed facility to minimize the potential for adverse environmental impacts. The primary source of potential impacts to surface water quality would be the discharge of process water from the facility. Thus, rather than establishing a new discharge, the process water generated at the proposed facility would be collected in a holding tank and would be treated, if necessary, prior to discharge to the Middlesex County Utilities Authority (MCUA) plant. No process water would be discharged to the sewer system until the concentrations of contaminants were below the allowable effluent limits specified in the facility’s discharge permit. The maximum quantity of process water discharged to MCUA on a daily basis would not be expected to exceed 100,000 gallons per day. Because the capacity of the MCUA treatment plant is 110 million gallons per day, the flow from the proposed facility would not cause a significant impact to the operation of the MCUA plant. The aquifer underlying the proposed facility has been designated a sole source aquifer by EPA pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Accordingly, the proposed project would have to comply with Section 1424e of the SDWA. The siting and operation of the proposed facility would not cause significant impacts to the ground water quality and, therefore, would comply with the provisions of this Act. The possibility of liquid spills impacting the aquifer would be minimized by the following: ES-6 ------- o Product handling would occur on impervious areas. o Soils tend to attenuate the transport of most hazardous substances through adsorption or absorption. o Transported materials would be packaged according to the codes and standards established by state and federal regulations. o The proposed facility staff would be trained in spill containment and clean-up procedures. o The closest ground water wells in the area are upgradient from the proposed facility. Material transported to or from the proposed facility would include con- taminated or uncontaminated surface water, ground water or soil, as well as equipment. The rate of delivery would average approximately one truckload per week. All transported items would be under the management control of the EPA, which would include the following: 1) all materials would be packaged according to federal and state regulations, 2) only licensed haulers would be used, 3) trucks would travel on major roads and highways to the extent possible, 4) the facility staff would work together with the local agencies to establish contingency plans for traffic accidents, and 5) the proposed E-TEC facility would have a trained emergency response team that could assist local emergency response personnel in the containment and clean-up of spills. These control measures and the low volume of trucks entering and exiting the proposed facility would minimize the potential for a transportation accident and would help to minimize adverse impacts if such a spill occurred. During the EIS process, air modeling, using EPA-approved models and methodologies, was conducted to determine the impact of the proposed facility’s operation on the air quality of the area. The model results indicated that, with the backup air pollution control equipment proposed for installation in the buildings, the operation of the facility would not violate ES-7 ------- the NAAQS for the criteria pollutants. The background air concentration for ozone in the State of New Jersey currently violates the NAAQS, but the operation of the proposed facility would not be expected to contribute significantly to this existing problem. The proposed facility would have to obtain and comply with an air discharge permit issued by the State of New Jersey which would specify the maximum concentration of pollutants that could be discharged from the proposed facility. Public health concerns involve both long-term (chronic) exposures from expected daily activities and short-term (acute) exposures from a hypo- thetical catastrophic release. A risk assessment for each of these health effects was conducted. Chronic health effects include the potential for carcinogenesis so the chronic risk assessment quantitatively addressed the excess risk of developing cancer from exposure to chemicals emitted from the proposed E-TEC facility over 70 years. Public exposure to emissions would be minimized to the extent possible through the use of air pollution control systems and management practices, such as using the least quantity of hazardous substances possible in conducting evaluations. In the EIS, a catastrophic event causing the vaporization of all stored chemicals was simulated to determine the health impacts of such a release. It was assumed that all chemicals stored within the buildings would become entrained in the air and exit the proposed facility. The health impact of concern with this type of event would be acute exposure to hazardous substances. The risk assessment determined that potential adverse impacts to the exposed public could be mitigated by instituting management controls that would restrict the quantity of chemicals within the buildings to that quantity that would prevent exposure to contaminant concentrations above the threshold concentration (the concentration below which no irreversible adverse impacts are expected to occur), even in the event of a catastrophic release. ES-S ------- Proposed Action In summary, with appropriate mitigative measures and precautions implemented, the proposed alternative, locating the proposed E-TEC facility at the EPA Edison Facility, would meet the goals and objectives of the SARA legislation and would cause minimal environmental impacts to the surrounding community. ES-9 ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Sununary ES-i Table of Contents i List of Figures vii List of Tables vii List of Acronyms x List of Unit Abbreviations xiii CHAPTER 1 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED FACILITY 1-1 1.2 NEED FOR PROPOSED FACILITY 1-3 CHAPTER 2 2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 NO ACTION 2-4 2.2 CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW COMPLETE FACILITY 2-5 2.3 LEASING AN EXISTING BUILDING AT AN ALTERNATIVE LOCATION 2-8 2.4 RENOVATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AT THE EPA-EDISON 2-9 FACILITY 2.5 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 2-10 CHAPTER 3 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 3-1 3.1.1 Geology 3-1 3.1.2 Soils 3-2 3.1.3 Ground Water 3-5 3.1.4 Sole Source Aquifer 3-9 3.1.5 Surface Water 3-10 3.1.6 Floodplains 3-15 3.1.7 Wetlands 3-15 3.1.8 Climate 3-17 3.1.9 Air Quality 3-19 3.1.10 Ecology 3-21 3.1.10.1 Terrestrial 3-21 1 ------- 3.2.1 3.2.1.1 3.2.1.2 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.4.1 3.2.4.2 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7 3.2.7.1 3.2.7.2 3.2.7.3 4.1 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS & MITIGATION MEASURES Page 3-26 3-26 3-29 3-29 3-29 3-30 3-32 3-33 3-34 3-34 3-35 3-36 3-36 3-36 3-36 3-37 3-37 4-1 4.1.1 4.1.1.1 4.1.1.2 4.1.1.3 4.1.1.4 4.1.1.5 4.1.1.6 4.1.2 4.1.2.1 4.1.2.2 4.1.2.3 4.1.2.4 4.1.2.4.1 4. 1.2 .4.2 4. 1.2 .4. 3 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 Natural Environment Geology and Soils Water Quality Floodplains Wetlands Air Quality Ecology Man-Made Environment Land Use Cultural Resources Noise and Aesthetics Socioeconomic Impacts Population Transportation/Traffic Economics 4-1 4-1 4-2 4-2 4-2 4-3 4-3 4-4 4-4 4-4 4-5 4-5 4-5 4-5 4-6 4-6 4-7 4-7 4-7 4-7 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d.) 3.1.10.2 Aquatic and Estuarine Ecology 3.1.10.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 3.2 MAN - MADE ENVIRONMENT Land Use Existing Land Use Future Land Use Site History and Cultural Resources Current Users of Raritan Depot Previous Contaminant Investigations Hazardous Materials Radiation Aesthetics Noise Socioeconomics Population Transportation and Traffic Economics CHAPTER 4 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.2 OPERATIONAL IMPACTS Land Use Impacts Noise and Aesthetics Impacts Socioeconomic Impacts Impacts on Facility Users 11 ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d.) Page CHAPTER 4 (Cont’d.) 4.2.5 Impacts on Ground Water and the Sole 4-8 Source Aquifer 4.2.6 Impacts on Water Quality 4-10 4.2.7 Impacts on Ecology 4-11 4.2.8 Impacts to Transportation 4-12 4.2.9 Impacts on Air Quality 4-13 4.2.10 Impacts on Public Health 4-14 4.3 SECONDARY IMPACTS 4-18 4.4 MITIGATION OF OPERATIONAL IMPACTS 4-18 4.5 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 4-21 4.6 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE RESOURCE COMMITMENTS 4-22 CHAPTER 5 5. COORDINATION 5.1 INTRODUCTION 5-1 5.2 COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND KEY ISSUES 5-1 5.3 FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL AND OTHER SOURCES FROM 5-2 WHICH COMMENTS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED CHAPTER 6 6. PREPARERS/REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 6.1 LIST OF PREPARERS 6-1 6.2 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 6-2 111 ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d.) APPENDIX A Page A. FEDERAL FACILITIES SCREENED DURING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS A-i APPENDIX B B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED FACILITY B.i PHYSICAL PLANT B-i B.l.l Pre-Existing Physical Plant B-i B.l.2 Proposed Modifications to the Facility B-i B.l.2.l Laboratories B-3 B.l.2.2 Treatment Systems Process Water B-4 B.l.2.3 Treatment Systems - Air B-5 B.l.2.4 Ventilation Systems 6-6 B.l.2.5 Storage and Containment Structures B-7 B.l.2.6 Security Systems 6-8 6.2 FACILITY USERS B-B 6.3 SCOPE OF EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES 6-9 B .4 EXPERIMENTAL WORK PLANS B -9 6.5 TOXIC SUBSTANCES ON SITE B-li B.5.l Hazardous Chemicals B-li B.5.2 Hazardous Wastes B-l2 B.6 PROPOSED EFFLUENT STANDARDS B-12 6.7 APPROVALS NECESSARY FOR OPERATION B-14 APPENDIX C C. VEGETATIVE & WILDLIFE SPECIES C-i APPENDIX D D. DESCRIPTION OF AIR MODELING D.l INTRODUCTION D-i D.2 MODELING PARAMETERS D-l iv ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d.) Page APPENDIX D (Cont’d.) D.2.l Terrain Analysis D-l D.2.2 Assumed Stack Data D-2 D.2.3 Receptor Locations D-2 D.2.4 Criteria Pollutant Emission Rates D-5 D.3 SIMPLE SCREENING ANALYSIS D-5 D.4 DETAILED SCREENING ANALYSIS D-8 D.4.l Air Quality Assessment D-9 D.5 REFINED MODELING - RISK ASSESSMENT D-ll D.6 CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO MODELING D-12 D.7 DESCRIPTIONS OF COMPUTER MODELS D-l5 D.7.l Industrial Source Complex (ISC) D-l5 D.7.2 Complex-I - Version 86064 D-l7 D.7.3 VALLEY D-17 D.8 ASSUMED MODEL INPUTS D-17 D.8.l ISCLT and COMPLEX-I Assumed Model Inputs D-17 D.8.2 VALLEY AssumedModel Inputs D-18 D.8.3 ISCLT Assumed Model Inputs D-l8 D.8.4 ISCST Assumed Model Inputs - Catastrophic D-18 Release APPENDIX E E. RISK ASSESSMENT - CHRONIC EXPOSURE E.l HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT - LONG-TERN, LOW-LEVEL RELEASE E-l E.l.l Risk Assessment Limitations E-2 E.l.2 Hazard Identification E-4 E.l.3 Exposure Assessment E-5 E.l.4 Dose-Response Assessment E-9 E.l.5 Risk Characterization E-l0 E.2 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS E-l4 V ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d.) Page APPENDIX F F. RISK ASSESSMENT - CATASTROPHIC RELEASE F.l HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT - CATASTROPHIC RELEASE F-i F.1.l Hazard Identification F-2 F.1.2 Dose - Response Assessment F-2 F.1.3 Exposure Assessment - Catastrophic Release F-5 F.l.4 Risk Characterization - Catastrophic Release F-9 F.2 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS - CATASTROPHIC RELEASE F-14 APPENDIX C C. MITIGATION PROCEDURES G.l EMERGENCY SERVICES AND COORDINATION PROCEDURES WITH C-i LOCAL AUTHORITIES C.2 TRAINING PLAN FOR SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PROCEDURES C-i G.3 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM C-2 C.4 PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT G-3 G.5 DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES G-4 C. 6 OTHER SAFETY MEASURES C -5 APPENDIX H H. COMPUTER PRINTOUTS FOR AIR DISPERSION MODELS H-i vi ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d.) LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title Page ES-i Vicinity Map ES-4 2-1 Vicinity Map 2-il 2-2 Location Map 2-12 2-3 Site Plan 2-13 3-1 SCS Soils Mapping 3-4 3-2 Geological Cross-Section 3-6 3-3 Approximate Wetlands Locations 3-16 3-4 Wind Rose From Newark Airport 3-18 3-5 Vegetation Mapping 3-22 3-6 Surrounding Landfills & Superfund Sites 3-31 0-1 Receptor Location Map D-4 0-2 Receptor Location Methodology D-7 E-i Risk Assessment Isopieths - Long-Term Exposure E-15 F-i E-TEC Storage Volume and Concentration F-16 to Capacities to F-12 F-27 LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 2-1 Federally-Owned Properties Potentially 2-7 Suitable for E-TEC Facility Siting 3-1 Background Air Quality Data 3-20 vii ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d.) LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 4-i Risk Characterization - Worst-Case Long-Term, 4-15 Low Level Release 4-2 Risk Characterization - Catastrophic 4-17 Release A-i Listing of Federally-Owned Properties of A-i 110 Acres or More in New Jersey and New York States B-i Examples of Treatment Technologies to be B-b Evaluated in the Proposed E-TEC Facility B-2 Examples of Chemicals that Could be Stored B-i3 in the Proposed E-TEC Facility C-i Vegetative Species Found in Upland Areas C-i Proposed E-TEC Facility Site, Edison, NJ C-2 Vegetative Species Found in Wetland Areas C-3 Proposed E-TEC Facility Site, Edison, NJ C-3 Wildlife Species Found in Upland or Wetland C-5 Areas Proposed E-TEC Facility Site, Edison, NJ D-l Stack Parameters D-3 D-2 Receptor Locations D-3 D-3 Simple Screening Input Parameters D-6 D-4 Model Results for Complex-I D-lO D-5 Air Quality Impact Assessment D-ll D-6 Comparison of ISCST and VALLEY D-l4 D-7 ISCST Model Input and Results D-l6 E-i Indicator Chemicals Selected for Carcinogenic E-5 Health Effects E-2 Stack Emission Rates for Indicator Chemicals E-6 E-3 Exposure and Dose Predictions for Indicator E-8 Chemicals viii ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d.) LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page E-4 Toxicity of Indicator Chemicals E-ll E-5 Risk Characterization - Worst-Case Long-Term, E-13 Low Level Release E-6 Activities Resulting in 1 x 10-6 Cancer Risk E-17 F-i Indicator Chemicals Selected for Potential F-2 Acute Health Effects F-2 Toxicity Limits for Indicator Chemicals F-4 F-3 Calculation of Total Quantity of Contaminated F-7 Liquid On-Site F-4 Catastrophic Release Exposure Assessment F-8 F-S Calculation of Pressure Increase F-b F-6 Calculation of Volumetric Flow Rates F-il F-7 Risk Characterization - Catastrophic Release F-13 ix ------- LIST OF ACRONYMS ACGIH - American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygenists CRAVE - Carcinogen Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor DERP - Defense Environmental Restoration Program DO - Dissolved Oxygen DOD - Department of Defense EED - Exposure Evaluation Division EIS - Environmental Impact Statement EPA/USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency E-TEC - Environmental Technology and Engineering Facility FDA - Food and Drug Administration FENA - Federal Emergency Management Agency FIT - Field Investigation Team GEMS - Graphical Exposure Modeling System GSA - Government Services Administration HEPA - High Efficiency Particulate Adsorption ID - Induced Draft ISCLT - Industrial Source Complex Long-Term ISCST - Industrial Source Complex Short-Term MCC - Middlesex County College MCIJA - Middlesex County Utilities Authority MHW - Mean High Water MSL - Mean Sea Level NAAQS - National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAS - National Academy of Sciences NJDEP - New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection NJIT - New Jersey Institute of Technology x ------- NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission NWI - National Wetlands Inventory ORD - Office of Research and Development OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSWER - Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response OTS - Office of Toxic Substances PAH - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons PCBs - Polychlorinated Biphenyls PM-lO - Inhalable Particulates PUD - Planned Urban District q* - Carcinogenic Potency Factor RCRA - Resource Conservation & Recovery Act RD&D - Research, Development and Demonstration RfD - Reference Dose RREL - Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory SARA - Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SCS - Soil Conservation Service SDWA - Safe Drinking Water Act SITE - Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation STEL - Short-Term Exposure Limit TCE - Trichioroethylene T&E - Test and Evaluation TLV - Threshold Limit Value TSCA - Toxic Substances Control Act TSD - Treatment, Storage & Disposal TSP - Total Suspended Particulates xi ------- TSS - Total Suspended Solids TWA - Time Weighted Average USDA - United States Department of Agriculture USF JS - United States Fish and Wildlife Service UST - Underground Storage Tank WEP - Wet Electrostatic Precipitator WWTP - Waste Water Treatment Plant xii ------- LIST OF UNIT ABBREVIATIONS dBA - decibel (using scale similar to human car) - degree Fahrenheit ft - feet gal - gallon g/s - grams per second - degree kelvin kg - kilogram km - kilometer L - liter lb/hr - pounds per hour MCD - million gallons per day rng/L - milligram per liter ml - milliliters rn/s - meters per second ppb - parts per billion ppm - parts per million ppt - parts per thousand T - ton ug/L - microgram per liter ug/m 3 - microgram per cubic meter xiii ------- CHAPTER 1 ------- 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED FACILITY The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to consolidate several of its hazardous waste treatment engineering research programs in a new facility, termed an Environmental Technology and Engineering (E-TEC) facility. Within this proposed E-TEC facility, EPA staff and associated research groups could develop new and innovative technologies for the safe and efficient treatment of soils, leachates, or other waste materials that are found at contaminated sites throughout the country. The proposed E-TEC facility would be a laboratory facility in which hazardous waste treatment techniques could be safely tested using small amounts of waste material, with appropriate treatment systems to protect the health of the facility users and the surrounding community. The development work would be conducted in closed systems with sophisticated emission controls that would minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, the transport of chemicals from contaminated test materials to the air or water. After testing, the equipment could be transported to an appropriate waste site for further field testing; the technologies would never be used at the proposed E-TEC facility to treat waste sites. The proposed facility would be operated in compliance with all applicable environmental permits regulating the safe discharge of air and wastewater from the facility. A further description of the proposed facility is presented in Appendix B. The proposed E-TEC facility would provide a specialized location having state-of-the-art capabilities for the testing and evaluation of hazardous substances control technologies in a safe and environmentally secure manner. Evaluations of technologies could be at bench, pilot, and full-scale levels of testing. Emphasis would be placed on research pertaining to treatment of excavated soils and treatability studies in support of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Regional Offices. The volume of material used in 1-1 ------- such testing would be small, would be stored in secure areas, and would be stored at the facility for a limited time period (less than 90 days). As noted above, all discharges from the building - - air and water - - would be closely monitored and treated to levels stipulated in the requisite State discharge permits. The purpose and mission of the proposed E-TEC facility derive directly from recent legislation. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 specifically authorized the EPA to establish a technology research demonstration and evaluation program to promote the development and use of innovative programs directed toward the treatment of hazardous substances and the cleanup of Superfund sites. Pursuant to the SARA legisla- tion, EPA has proposed to implement this Congressional mandate for hazardous substances technology research by establishing an E-TEC facility. The proposed E-TEC facility would provide a dedicated research environment in which new and innovative treatment technologies, principally alternatives to conventional landfilling of wastes, could be investigated. In general, the proposed E-TEC facility would be intended to be used by any research entity, internal or external to EPA, that needed a specialized facility for the development and testing of environmental contamination control technologies. Entities external to the EPA could include academic institutions and/or academic consortia, private industries, or other research and development groups or individuals. The proposed E-TEC facility would primarily support research and development programs funded by EPA t s Superfund program, but could also be available to serve non-Superfund needs. The proposed facility could also entail a broad based training center. The proposed facility would contain conference rooms, classrooms, and inside and, potentially, outdoor training areas. These activities could include the training of personnel located at the proposed E-TEC facility as to proper hazardous substance handling and spill cleanup procedures as well as the training of emergency response teams that deal with the containment and cleanup of hazardous material emergencies. (Appendix C describes the elements of a safety training program for the facility staff). 1-2 ------- 1.2 NEED FOR PROPOSED FACILITY The need for a dedicated facility, such as the proposed E-TEC facility, has been pointed out in the “Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Strategy and Program Plan” issued by EPA in 1986. The SITE document indicates: “Concern over the ability to fully characterize contamination at sites and the long-term reliability of containment technologies used for cleanup actions at the Superfund sites is receiving much attention. At present, remedial actions usually consist of moving wastes to land disposal sites (which themselves may become Superfund candidates) or containing the waste in the ground onsite. In some cases, hazardous substances continue to be released to the environment. In response to these concerns regarding both characterization of sites and reliability of technologies, the public and Congress are demanding that innovative and alternative technologies be used to effect permanent cleanups.” Among the goals of the SITE Program is the need and commitment “to conduct a demonstration program of the more promising innovative technologies to establish reliable performance and cost information for site characteriza- tion and cleanup decision-making” (EPA, 1986c). This is intended to be a significant, ongoing effort involving the Office of Research and Development (ORD), the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), EPA regions, and the private sector. The first round of the demonstration program includes five to ten technology demonstrations of alternative techniques for hazardous site cleanup, all of which must have appropriate preliminary testing results, quality assurance/quality control protocols, and data evaluation procedures in place before field testing can be conducted. The creation of one or more testing and evaluation facilities is necessary to provide a controlled environment in which to carry out these initiatives - to test innovative or alternative technologies as precursors to field demonstrations, to determine appropriate design details, and to conduct follow-up studies to determine the flexibility of a technology to treat additional wastes and/or media. These alternative technologies will support 1-3 ------- the general goals of the SITE Program. At present, EPA has testing and evaluation facilities dedicated to improving conventional technologies (e.g., incineration, sludge disposal), but has no dedicated facility where innovative technologies can be evaluated under rigidly controlled conditions and strin- gent emission safeguards. The proposed E-TEC facility would provide such a resource to the EPA. 1-4 ------- CHAPTER 2 ------- 2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION The identification of a preferred location for the proposed E-TEC facility resulted from a systematic evaluation and comparison of a reasonable spectrum of alternative actions. Four categories of alternative actions were evaluated in detail. These alternatives included: i. No Action; ii. Construction of a Complete Facility; iii. Leasing of Space in an Existing Building or Facility; and iv. Renovation of Existing Buildings at the EPA Edison Facility. The first category of alternatives, that of No Action, is qualitatively different than the latter three alternative categories. Adoption of the No Action alternative would mean that EPA/ORD would not proceed with the acquisition and outfitting of a new E-TEC facility. Rejection of the No Action alternative as the preferred action would be based on a finding that one or more locations, appropriate for the facility, could be identified, that a facility could be constructed at reasonable cost and with minimal environ- mental impact, and that such a facility could effectively serve the missions of EPA. The remaining three categories of alternatives follow from the finding that a positive action should be taken - - that construction of a new E-TEC facility could be done in a feasible, environmentally sound, and cost effective manner at one or more appropriate locations. The bulk of the evaluation under these latter three alternatives is thus directed toward comparing different location alternatives for the facility and evaluating the comparative costs of the new construction, leasing or renovation options. These comparisons can be at the level of general areas and siting options, or, where data permits, at the level of location-specific attributes. 2-1 ------- In evaluating these three categories of action alternatives, it is necessary to reduce the realm of possibilities to a finite, and preferably limited, number of locations that could meet the siting requirements for the facility. If such a general screening is not performed early in the analysis, the spectrum of potential sites remains too broad to permit any systematic analysis. Such a general screening was conducted; the initial step was the establishment of a set of boundary conditions that, taken together, define the minimum properties of a suitable E-TEC site. These boundary conditions were then used to screen various location alternatives. Some of the conditions in the screening analysis arose from the enabling legislation and the mission of the proposed facility relative to other EPA facilities; other constraints arose from considerations of the preferred geo- graphical/demographical area in which the facility might be located; still others addressed the services (e.g., space requirements, transportation net- works) that would be needed at a potential site. The constraints that were used to screen alternatives are explained below, and are listed in the order in which they were incorporated into the screening analysis: 1. Enabling Legislation - SARA specifically authorizes the EPA to establish a technology research, demonstration, and evaluation program to promote the development and use of innovative tech- nologies to treat hazardous substances and clean up Superfund sites. One goal of that program is the establishment of an E-TEC facility to research, develop, and evaluate new and innovative treatment technologies that may provide alternatives to landfilling of hazardous substances. The E-TEC facility would provide a location where equipment could be isolated, with all necessary safety features, emission controls, and logistical support in place; thereby, providing an ideal testing environment. 2. Mission - The SITE strategy and program plan includes implementation procedures whereby some development work on treatment technologies will be carried out at EPA facilities. At present, the available facilities include: 2-2 ------- - Combustion Research Facility; Pine Bluff, Arkansas. - Combustion Research Facility; Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. - Test and Evaluation Facility; Cincinnati, Ohio. - Center Hill Facility; Cincinnati, Ohio. The SARA legislation calls for five to ten innovative technology demonstrations on an annual basis. To conduct this number of demonstrations using a variety of new technologies, an additional facility with dedicated laboratory resources and space would be highly desirable. The proposed E-TEC facility would provide dedicated research space for such development work on technology research and demonstration. 3. Regional Perspective - SARA identifies some specific locations (i.e. , the Gulf Coast and West Coast) where facilities should be sited. The northeast, although not specifically named, is a third location of equivalent importance in hazardous waste treatment research. At present, some major technological facilities of EPA are relatively centralized, while other operations are conducted in specific EPA regions on a less structured “as-needed” basis. As the listing of the existing research facilities above shows, centralized laboratories are located in Ohio, North Carolina, and Arkansas. To involve fully the government, academic, and industrial experts in these technology demonstrations, it is desirable to site a facility where such participation can be encouraged. Certainly, the north- east, and particularly EPA Region II, is an area with many designated Superfund sites, and clean-up of such sites would be greatly facilitated by having a technology center in this geographic region. 4. Coordination of Research - under the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act as amended by the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) facilities are to be made available to industry, academia, and other government agencies to pursue cooperative treatment studies, process controls, 2-3 ------- equipment research, and development activities. The government, academic, and industrial participation desired in these research efforts can be best accomplished by locating an E-TEC facility in an area close to concentrations of government offices or laboratories, industries, and consortia of universities and colleges. Such siting would preclude the need for extensive relocation of EPA personnel and equipment, and would encourage close coordination of activities among the regulatory, industrial, and academic entities involved in this work. Further, the research/development interests of these three components should lie in the investigation of technologies for treating hazardous substances. 5. Facilities Availability - the minimum site requirements to carry out the missions of the proposed E-TEC facility would dictate the con- struction or acquisition of a minimum 100-acre property having ware- house-style space of at least 200,000 square feet, with structural steel framing, loading docks, ceilings in excess of 25 feet in height, railroad siding and/or major highway access, and access to adequate public wastewater treatment facilities. Use of these screening conditions clearly indicates that candidate loca- tions for the E-TEC facility are most likely to be in or on the periphery of urbanized areas, where the infrastructure, academic institutions, and large scale building facilities would be available. This screening information is then applied to consideration of the four categories of alternatives intro- duced earlier. 2.1 NO ACTION Under the no-action alternative, no new E-TEC facility would be con- structed, leased, or renovated. As noted earlier, the SITE program formulated in response to SARA calls for five to ten demonstrations of innovative alternative technology to be carried out annually; these demonstrations are to be performed at high-priority sites. A principle role of the proposed E-TEC facility would be to serve as a dedicated centralized location for safe testing of certain of these technologies before use on specific sites. 2-4 ------- Without such a dedicated facility, the requisite laboratory work could still be carried out as needed in existing EPA facilities, but under less than optimum conditions and in a less coordinated fashion, thus slowing the development process considerably. 2.2 CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW COMPLETE FACILITY One logical category of alternative actions to locating the proposed E-TEC facility at the Edison site would be the purchase of undeveloped land, followed by construction from the ground up of one or more buildings to house the proposed E-TEC operations. In theory, any parcel of land of adequate size (on the order of 100 acres) could be considered a candidate location; in reality, an acceptable or viable location alternative should satisfy the boundary conditions discussed in the introduction to Section 2. The direct cost of purchasing 100 acres of developable land in a loca- tion close to major transportation networks and infrastructural support systems would clearly be quite substantial. Developable land in the urban northeast is considerably higher in cost than any nationwide average and may vary in cost over two orders of magnitude (i.e., by a factor of 100), depend- ing on the desirability of the particular location. A reasonable, even some- what conservative expectation for the cost of commercially-developable land in the urban northeast could range from $25,000 to $150,000 per acre. Based on these unit values, the cost of acquiring a 100-acre site in the Northeast would likely be between $2.75 and $16.5 million. New construction costs for warehouse-stylestructures in this geographic area are likely to range from $70 to $100 per square foot; for a 200,000 square foot facility, the con- struction costs would range from $14.0 to $20.0 million. The total costs for acquiring new property and building on that property would thus be in a range between $16 and $36 million. Direct costs notwithstanding, acquisition of privately-owned land could have a variety of other negative considerations. It is likely that EPA personnel and equipment would need to be relocated, that environmentally sensitive areas could possibly be subject to adverse impact, or that the geographic location would not be conducive to the interactive mission of the facility. 2-5 ------- The negative considerations of cost in acquiring a privately-owned site could be partially offset by identifying a Federally-owned parcel of land that might be acquired at a lower cost than privately-owned land. Other considera- tions such as proximity to industry, academic institutions and consortia, the local and regional environmental setting, existing uses of such parcels and risk factors would still need to be considered. The possibility of identifying such Federally-owned parcels was investi- gated by screening comprehensive listings of Federal properties (non-DOD (Department of Defense)) in New York and New Jersey. These listings tabulate 844 such properties in New Jersey and 903 in New York. In addition, the listing of DOD military installations in these states (totalling 51 installa- tions), were reviewed. An initial screening to eliminate parcels under 100 acres was carried out; although a full 100 acres is not strictly required for the proposed E-TEC facility buildings, substantial acreage in excess of the buildings themselves is necessary to provide a buffer zone, parking areas, delivery areas and roadways. It is assumed that existing Federal properties (except for preservation areas) have ongoing functions and facilities that occupy much of their respective areas. The size-dependent screening identified 64 properties greater than 100 acres in size (See Appendix A, Table A-l); the listings were further reduced to eliminate areas whose stipulated uses were incompatible with the proposed mission of the E-TEC facility (e.g., National Wildlife Refuge areas, dams, dredge spoil disposal areas, medical centers, cemeteries, etc.). Of these eleven larger tracts that were not immediately identifiable as unsuited for an E-TEC facility (Table 2-1), some are listed as being 100% occupied (Brookhaven, Niagara Falls and Knolls), some have rather remote locations (Seneca), four have sensitive and incompatible activities (Picatinny, McGuire Air Force Base, Fort Monxnouth and Knolls Atomic Power Lab), one has a highly uncertain future (Fort Dix), and one has already been sold (BelleMead). The conclusion of this screening is that there are apparently no easily-identified Federal properties that could easily and immediately incorporate an E-TEC facility into their operations. 2-6 ------- Table 2-1 Facility Federally-Owned Properties Potentially Suitable for E-TEC Facility Siting New Jersey - Non-DOD Properties Status BelleMead GSA Depot EPA Edison Facility New Jersey - DOD Properties Picatinny Arsenal Fort Monmouth Fort Dix 1cGuire Air Force Base Property Sold Space Available Incompatible Use Incompatible Use Highly Uncertain Future Remote Location; Incompatible Use New York - Non-DOD Properties Binghamton GSA DMS Warehouse Niagara Falls Storage Site (Lewistown) Brookhaven National Laboratory Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Inaccessible to Universities and Industries; Incompatible Use Incompatible Use; 100% Occupied 100% Occupied 100% Occupied; Incompatible Use; Security Problems; Training for Nuclear Subs New York - DOD Properties Seneca Army Depot Remote Location 2-7 ------- 2.3 LEASING AN EXISTING BUILDING AT AN ALTERNATIVE LOCATION An alternative to the purchase of land for a new E-TEC facility could be the leasing of space in which to outfit the laboratories required for the E-TEC facility’s mission. The initial costs of such an alternative could be lower than for purchase of land; however, the boundary conditions for candi- date locations would be equivalent, as would the environmental soundness and implementability concerns. The approximate annual cost of leasing a warehouse-style facility at a new location would be based on a leasing rate that could vary from $2.25 to $7.50 per square foot. To lease a facility of 200,000 square feet could cost between $.045 and $1.5 million annually. Over a 30-year operational period, such leasing costs could total between $13.5 and $45.0 million. These cost estimates are only for the building itself; additional open space around the buildings (for a buffer zone, parking lots, delivery area, roadways) would elevate these basic costs. An alternative to leasing private space could be to carry out the E-TEC missions for technology evaluation, if space, equipment, and staffing would permit, using facilities at existing major EPA laboratories. Upon considera- tion of present and future space requirements of these existing laboratories, the implementability of this alternative, as discussed in the following paragraphs, appears remote. The Cincinnati area operations do not have space adequate to accommodate the research anticipated to be carried out at the proposed E-TEC facility. The latest facility to be constructed in the Cincinnati area, the Full Containment Facility, was proposed for a new building because existing space was inadequate (EPA, 1987a). More remote locations were considered not to meet the programmatic needs of the facility and its intended mission. There- fore, adding an additional research orientation at the Cincinnati area EPA facilities would be even less feasible. 2-8 ------- The Arkansas facility has as a principal focus the investigation of combustion technologies for hazardous substances, and the broader ranges of investigations proposed for the E-TEC facility are not fully compatible with this restricted focus. The Arkansas Facility is located in a rural area; the location does not encourage the governmental, academic, and industrial inter- actions sought for the proposed E-TEC facility. The EPA facilities at the Environmental Research Center, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina were recently reviewed (EPA 1988b). This review found that, in order to carry out the existing programs of that facility, new or renovated space would be needed. To attempt to carry out an additional set of research missions at a facility already considered to be too small to accommodate existing research would be infeasible. The possibility of leasing space at one of the academic institutions or industries who are members in the Hazardous Substance Management Research Center (a consortium of industries and institutions in the New Jersey area researching hazardous waste treatment technologies) was investigated; the finding was that there is no appropriate space available at any of the consortium institutions or industries. Neither the industries nor the institutions have the space to house a facility the size of the proposed E-TEC facility (personal communication with Dr. Dan Watts, NJIT). 2.4 RENOVATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AT THE EPA-EDISON FACILITY Under this alternative, EPA would construct the proposed E-TEC facili- ties in existing buildings 245 and 246 on the Edison site. (See Figures 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3). Because it is an active EPA facility, the characteristics of the site are well known. The EPA Edison Facility already houses several EPA offices, research areas, and contractors’ facilities. Much of the staffing for the proposed E-TEC facility would be drawn from the personnel already working at the Raritan Depot. The warehouses (Buildings 245 and 246) are conveniently located, being close to other EPA operations and situated on a parcel that provides more than adequate room for the activities proposed for the E-TEC facility mission. An academic consortium comprised of local universities is already in existence, and is prepared to take advantage of the 2-9 ------- research and development opportunities that an E-TEC facility would offer. The local area, and the greater surrounding area, has a wide variety and large number of industrial, commercial and educational enterprises that also would be expected to participate in development of innovative technologies for treatment of hazardous substances. (Appendix contains a detailed descrip- tion of the proposed facility and its operation). The existing warehouse buildings at the Edison site need substantial renovation; the walls, roofs, and other structural elements need repair before interior renovations can be made. The estimated cost of renovating Buildings 245 and 246 at the EPA Edison Facility is $5.6 million. EPA has acquired title to the 110-acre property at nominal cost. The ground surface of the EPA Edison site has been significantly disturbed for decades by Raritan Arsenal activities, and the outfitting of the facility would have minimal impacts on the natural environmental features of the project site and the surrounding area. Further, the variety of site investigations carried out in the general area of the Raritan Arsenal tract provide a substantial data base from which environmental impact assessments could be readily made. Finally, supporting infrastructural elements (transportation network, utilities, work force) are largely in place and no significant impacts on demographic characteristics of the region would be anticipated. Land use in the vicinity of the EPA Edison Facility is a mix of residential, commercial, academic, and open space areas. 2.5 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES The No-Action Alternative is by definition the option incurring lowest costs, impacts, and problems with implementation. However, not building an E-TEC facility ignores the pressing needs for dedicated research space for development work integral to the overall SITE program. Those needs have been addressed in Section 1.2 of this EIS, and support the conclusion that the No-Action Alternative is not the preferred alternative. 2-10 ------- PROPOSED E-TEC FACILITY LOCATION PROPOSED E-TEC FACILITY EDISON,NEW JERSEY VICINITY MAP SCALE IN MILES U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 8A ’ NEW yO 2—11 FIGURE 2- I ------- CR(EK / / V PROPOSED E-TEC FACILITY EDISON,NEW JERSEY LOCATION MAP 0 2000 2000 SCALE IN FEET U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECiON AGENCY ( 2—12 FIGURE 2-2 ------- LEGEND EPA EDISON FACILITY BOUNDARY PROPOSED E-TEC I-AUILIIY EDISON,NEW JERSEY 0 SITE PLAN 0 SCALE IN FEET ________ _________________ //woO [ ) B r i I GE V E ______________ ________________ 600 PROPOSED E-TEC FACILITY AREA US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ------- Among the three categories of alternative positive actions, the important comparisons become the availability of siting locations for an E-TEC facility, and the relative implementability, environmental soundness, and costs for each location alternative considered. The preferred alternative would be the location where the optimum combination of implementability, environmental soundness, and cost factors can be realized. The alternative of leasing warehouse-style space suitable for outfitting an E-TEC facility is likely to be, over the long-term, the most costly option of the three positive actions. In addition, it is uncertain whether any available building facility would have substantial open space around the building. In terms of environmental soundness, the leasing of an existing facility would have fewer construction-related impacts than would construction of a new building on undeveloped land; in this regard, the leasing and renova- tion alternatives are generally equivalent. The high, long-term costs and the uncertainty of acquiring adequate open space at an existing warehouse-type facility make the leasing alternative less desirable than either the new construction or renovation alternatives. Even the lower end of the range of estimated costs for construction of a new building exceeds the estimated cost of renovating the existing buildings at the EPA Edison Facility. Further, the new building alternative would result in a change in land use, with construction-related environmental impacts, and that such environmental impacts would be minimized by renovating structures on the Edison site that has experienced prior land disturbance, the new building alternative is less environmentally sound than the renovation alternative. The implementability attributes of the renovation alternative are clearly superior to any other alternatives; the proposed site is adjacent to an active EPA facility, the proposed site is already owned by EPA, and the building dimensions, transportation networks, and infrastructural support are all eminently suitable for the requirements of an E-TEC facility. Thus, the alternative of the renovation of existing buildings at the EPA Edison facility is superior to the new building alternative. Based on these comparisons and relative ranking of alternatives, the renovation of existing buildings at the EPA Edison Facility is the alternative recommended for detailed assessment. 2-14 ------- CHAPTER 3 ------- 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 3.1.1 Geology The 110 acre site proposed for the E-TEC facility is situated within the New Jersey Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, part of the Atlantic Coastal Plain that extends north through Long Island and south along the Atlantic Coast into Mexico. In New Jersey, the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province is further divided into two subprovinces, the Inner and Outer Coastal Plains. The proposed E-TEC facility site is situated within the northern reach of the Inner Coastal Plain, less than 1.5 miles south and west of this subprovince’s junction with the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The geological formations at the surface in the project area and vicinity are Coastal Plain sedimentary deposits, laid down during periods of sea level rise and fall. In the Edison Township region, the deposits belong to the Raritan Formation of Cretaceous age and consist of several layers of uncon- solidated clays, silts, sands, and gravels that dip and widen to the south- east. Because the sedimentary layers dip to the southeast, progressively younger sediment layers are exposed as one approaches the Atlantic Ocean (Widmer, 1964). The Coastal Plain deposits that are exposed at the surface in the project area are themselves underlain by older crystalline bedrock. North of the Delaware-Washington Canal, this parent bedrock is Triassic Brunswick Shale, which dips at 5 to 15 degrees to the northwest. In the vicinity of the Delaware-Washington Canal (south of the project area), the parent bedrock is diabase - an igneous rock that has intruded through the Brunswick Shale to form a sill of highly resistant rock (this diabase is the same resistant rock that has formed the Palisades along the lower Hudson River). The Raritan Formation is divided into three members: the Raritan Fire Clay, the Farrington Sand, and the Woodbridge Clay. The Farrington Sand is the oldest and deepest of the water-bearing Cretaceous sediment layers; it 3-1 ------- is described as light gray, well-sorted and fine-grained at the top; medium grained at the middle, and coarser-grained with abundant pebbles and yellowish color at the bottom of the stratum. As part of the larger Raritan Magothy aquifer, the Farrington Sand serves as an important aquifer in eastern and southern Middlesex County. The Farrington Sand is exposed at the surface in an elongated outcrop region extending northeast from South Brunswick to Woodbridge. The Farrington Sand aquifer is hydrologically separated from a shallower aquifer layer, the Old Bridge Sand, by the relatively impermeable Woodbridge Clay layer. No site-specific geological investigations have been conducted at the proposed E-TEC facility site, but studies conducted in the vicinity of the site, at the abutting Raritan Center area, indicate that consolidated bedrock is not present near the surface. Test borings have confirmed bedrock at depths of 42 feet in the vicinity of the Raritan River, 47 feet near Old Red Root Creek, and 25 to 32 feet in the center of the Raritan Center study area. (Schmid & Co., Inc., 1987). Alluvial deposits resulting from glacial meltwater flow and scouring of the Raritan River form the most extensive surficial deposits in the vicinity of the project site. Two additional unconsolidated deposits are exposed near the proposed E-TEC site: the Cape May Formation, found in a narrow band to the north of the alluvium, and the Pennsauken Formation, which extends along Woodbridge Avenue. Surface exposures of both the Cape May and Pennsauken formations are more prevalent in southern New Jersey. 3.1.2 Soils According to the Middlesex County Soil Survey, as prepared by the United States Soil Conservation Service (SCS, 1987, Sheets 10 and 11), two soil mapping units and five soil phases representing five soil series occur on the project site. These include: Urban land (UL); Pits, sand, and gravel (PM); Psamments, nearly level (PN); Atsion sand (At); Manahawkin muck (Ma); Klej loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes (K1A); and Sassafras loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes (S1B). 3-2 ------- With the exception of the Urban land and Pits and Psamnients, the soils present on the site are typical of the Coastal Plain. The characteristics of each soil are described below. (Figure 3-1 shows the location of the soil types and the proposed 110 acre E-TEC site). Urban land (UL ) - This mapping unit is situated directly adjacent to and north of buildings 245 and 246. Urban land exists as excavated or filled land and is almost totally paved or covered by structures. Pits, sand, and gravel (PM ) - This mapping unit is located to the south of building 246 and corresponds to an eroded area identified on aerial photographs dating back to 1939. Pits generally are the remaining spoil materials following resource extraction operations. The characteristics are highly variable; however, the water table is generally within several feet of the ground surface. Psamments, nearly level (PN ) - This soil phase is located south of building 255 and east of buildings 245 and 246. Psaminents are generally moderately well-drained to well- drained soils in regraded sand pits or borrow areas. Sassafras loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes (SiB ) - A small pocket of Sassafras soil is located to the south of building 246. The Sassafras series consists of well-drained soils that formed in acidic, moderately fine-textured Coastal Plain sediments. These soils are found in upland areas on side slopes. The depth to the seasonal high water table usually extends to six feet below the ground surface. Kiel loamy sand. 0 to 3 percent slopes (KIA ) - Klej soils underline the wooded portion of the property in the vicinity near the southern boundary. The Kiej series consists of somewhat poorly drained to moderately well-drained soils formed in acidic, coarse-textured Coastal Plain sediments. These 3-3 ------- NOT [ LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE T ’ 7 T ii I I 245 K / 1 H _____________________ I I I [ ! t ROADC , . . : 1 1!- __ 1 ‘- [ , ‘ 24 • I - _____________ H ___ . -... ___ 50 ___________ + + + 4 4 + 4 ‘ 4 4 + + 4 4 + 4 , ::. :;;;::. !::. + + 4 4 4 4 4,4 + + +\ — LEGEND PN PSAMMENTS,NEARLY LEVEL j::j:j AT - ATSION SAND KIA-KLEJ LOAMY SAND,O-3% SLOPES MA- MANAHAWKIN MUCK ______ PM- PITS, SAND AND GRAVEL ______ SIB- SASSAFRAS LOAM, 2-5% SLOPES ] UL- URBAN LAND PROPOSED E-TEC FACILITY EDISON,NEW JERSEY ScS 1fl - (A1F IN FEET / SOILS MAPPING 41)1) PROJECT AREA t s r Nv1PrJ MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ------- soils are generally encountered on terraces and at the bases of slopes. The seasonal high water table is encountered at depths of 1.5 to 2.0 feet below the ground surface. Atsion sand (At ) - A band of Atsion soil is mapped within the wooded portion of the site, near the southern boundary. The Atsion series soils are poorly drained soils formed in acidic, sandy Coastal Plain sediments. These soils occupy low positions in the landscape and are classified as hydric soils by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. Manahawkin muck (Ma ) - An isolated pocket of Manahawkin muck is located at the southeastern corner of the site. This series consists of very poorly drained organic soils that formed in acidic organic sediments. The seasonal high water table is at the surface. These soils are categorized as hydric soils by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 3.1.3 Ground Water Edison Township is located on the northern edge of the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The Coastal Plain of New Jersey is composed of a wedge-shaped mass of unconsolidated sediments composed of alternating layers of clay, silt, sand, and gravel over crystalline bedrock. These sediment layers dip gently to the southeast at a slope from 10 to 60 feet/mile. This dip in the bedding of the sediments means that, at the edge of this Province, successively older layers (strata) become exposed (Figure 3-2). The oldest of these sedimentary layers is the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy (or Raritan Magothy) formation, a major aquifer in the Coastal Plain. This aquifer is confined except in outcrop areas by underlying bedrock and by the overlying Merchantville-Woodbury confining unit. In the northern part of the 3-5 ------- A QUATERNARY r;. A11u i a Cope l y fo. Pensa sn fa. Raritan L Center 0 C 0 C., Kit (nglishta.t sond k Woo ury cloy Kay P srctiantvi11i cloy Ka Mogothy f . Kos *.. oy ston r 5 cloy Koo Old Bridge sand Ksa South Ai oy fire cloy Ks Sayreville sond K c Ibodbridge cloy Kf Forrington sond Krf Raritan firs cloy PRE-CAMBRIAN ? Wissohickon fm. PROPOSED E-TEC FACILITY EDISON, NEW JERSEY GEOLOGICAL CROSS -SECTION 0 I 2 SOURCE: SCHMID & COMPANY, INL CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS SCALE IN MILES US ENVIRONWENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FIGURE 3-2 Feet 200 S . C —200 A -600 CRETACEOUS TRIASSIC r . t: :: i Q.Ay Diobose sill Ne rk group 3—6 ------- Coasta1 Plain, the Raritan Magothy aquifer is divided into the Farrington (Raritan age) and Old Bridge (Magothy age) aquifers (Vowinkel and Foster, 1981). According to the Critical Natural Features Series maps prepared by the Middlesex County Planning Board (Aquifer Outcrop Areas map, December 1981), the proposed E-TEC facility site is located within an outcrop area of the Farrington Sand Aquifer. The Farrington Sand outcrops exist as a continuous band approximately one mile wide and 18 miles long along the southeastern edge of Farrington Lake and Lawrence Brook in East Brunswick, extending northward into Edison and Woodbridge. The outcrop is divided by the Raritan River estuary. The total outcrop area is approximately 17 square miles; 6.8 square miles lie north of the Raritan River, while 10.2 square miles lie to the south. Near the Raritan River in the vicinity of a diabase sill, the Farrington Sand becomes thin and discontinuous. This has led some investigators to conclude that the Farrington Sand serves, in effect, as two separate aquifers (to the north and to the south of the Raritan River) due to the poor hydraulic connection across the river (Turk, 1977). The direction of ground water flow from the proposed E-TEC facility site is south, toward the Raritan River. The general direction of ground water movement in the Farrington Sand Aquifer is southeast toward the Raritan River, with the regional dip. The aquifer has an average thickness of 80 feet, and dips gently to the southeast at a rate of 45 to 55 feet per mile. The Farrington Sand Aquifer is the principal waterbearing unit in the Raritan Formation and serves as a major water source in eastern and southern Middlesex County. As a result of large-scale ground water withdrawals and development within the aquifer recharge area, salt water intrusion and reduction in yields have led to the abandonment of wells and conversion to public water supply. No potable water supply wells are located within a one- mile radius of the proposed E-TEC facility. Four residential wells are 3-7 ------- located approximately 1.5 to 2 miles from the proposed facility; these wells are all north of Woodbridge Avenue, upgradient from the EPA Edison Facility (Edison Township Health Department, 1989). The Middlesex and Elizabethtown water companies are the major public water purveyors supplying water to Edison Township (Edison Township Health Department, 1989). Water is withdrawn from the water-bearing formations of the Newark Group that lie north of the Coastal Plain (up-gradient from the EPA-Edison Facility), or from the Delaware River via the Delaware and Raritan Canal. South of the Raritan River, the Farrington Sand Aquifer is still utilized as a water source. The Farrington Sand outcrop has been extensively developed, particularly north of the Raritan River. According to 1986 estimates, 25 percent of the total outcrop had been urbanized, and 13 percent of this urbanized area had been paved. Continued loss of recharge area is significant because ground water in the Coastal Plain Aquifer system is derived from precipitation. Recharge to the Farrington Sand Aquifer is estimated to be 16.2 MCD, while actual daily withdrawals are estimated at 18.5 MCD. Total aquifer rights, which include authorized diversions and grandfathered rights, are 68.58 MCD, four times greater than the safe yield (Middlesex County Planning Board, June 1986). Large scale ground water withdrawal and reduction in the recharge (out- crop) area has reduced the piezometric head of the Farrington Sand Aquifer to elevations below sea level. This has resulted in salt water intrusion into the aquifer. As early as the 1930’s, salt water intrusion in the Sayreville area was detected as a consequence of large-scale ground water withdrawals. The advancement of saltwater into the aquifer led to abandonment of wells by several industries in the Sayreville area. Malcolm Pirnie (1986) monitored fourteen monitoring wells in the south- west portion of the Raritan Center tract. Due to the close proximity of this monitoring area to the proposed E-TEC site, the data collected in the Malcolm Pirnie study should reflect existing ground water conditions at both areas. 3-8 ------- Ground water quality characteristics, as shown by the Malcolm Pirnie study, did not comply with CW-2 drinking water standards established by NJDEP, largely as a result of naturally elevated concentrations of some ground water constituents. Salinities ranged from 1 to 2 parts per thousand (ppt); pH levels ranged from 5.8 to 6.6, indicating slightly acidic conditions. Iron concentrations generally exceeded the 0.3 mg/i criterion, with readings of 100 mg/i in two wells. Iron levels are typically elevated in Coastal Plain ground and surface waters (Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan, 1980). Manganese levels reached a maximum of 15.6 mg/I, well in excess of the 0.05 mg/l drink- ing water standard. Sulfate, chloride, and dissolved solids exceeded drinking water standards, but remained within the range typically found in tidal marsh environments. Mean depth to ground water at these wells was in the range of 12 to 18 feet below ground level. Ground water samples collected during 1988 on and adjacent to the proposed E-TEC facility site (O’Brien and Gere Engineers, Inc. , 1988) showed total dissolved solids levels less than 40 ppm and hardness levels less than 15 ppm. Iron levels ranged from 2-6 ppm, well in excess of the 0.3 ppm GW-2 ground water standards. Volatile organics, petroleum hydrocarbons, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, and mercury were detected in several of the 30 monitoring wells. Lead and selenium levels were found to exceed GW-2 standards, while high concentrations of sodium and calcium were recorded. 3.1.4 Sole Source Aquifer As noted earlier, the proposed E-TEC facility site is located within the New Jersey Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. Pursuant to Section 1424(e) of the Safe Water Drinking Act, the EPA administrator has designated the New Jersey Coastal Plain Aquifer System as a Sole Source Aquifer. Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act states that: [ I]f the Administrator [ of the EPA] determines.., that an area has an aquifer which is the sole or principal drinking water source for the area and which, if contaminated, would create a significant hazard to public health, he shall publish notice of 3-9 ------- that determination in the Federal Register, after the publica- tion of any such notice, no commitment for Federal financial assistance (through a grant, contract, loan, guarantee or otherwise) may be entered into for any project which the Adxnin- istrator determines may contaminate such aquifer through the recharge zone so to create a significant hazard to public health .... A commitment for Federal assistance may, if authorized under another provision of law, be entered into to plan or design the project to assure that it will not con- taminate the aquifer.” On December 4, 1978, the Environmental Defense Fund and the New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club petitioned the EPA Administrator to designate the New Jersey Coastal Plain Aquifer System a Sole Source Aquifer. The petition stated in part that the Raritan Magothy Formation is an exceptionally productive aquifer for supply purposes and is probably the most important water supply aquifer of the Coastal Plain. The petition was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 44, No. 56, pp. 17208-17213) on March 21, 1979. Notice of the Sole Source Aquifer Designation by the EPA was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 53, No. 122, pp. 23791-23794) on June 24, 1988. The determination became effective August 8, 1988. The Raritan Magothy aquifer is recharged by precipitation and by vertical leakage from upper sedimentary layers. In the outcrop area of the Farrington sand aquifer, the recharge to ground water is approximately 12 inches per year (approximately 27 percent of annual precipitation). Approximately 30 percent of the recharge to the Raritan Magothy aquifer system may come from vertical leakage from overlying aquifers (Vowinkel and Foster, 1981). 3.1.5 Surface Water The site proposed for the E-TEC facility lies within the Raritan River watershed. The Raritan River drainage basin encompasses approximately 1,105 square miles and discharges to Raritan Bay. 3-10 ------- Locally, drainage from the proposed E-TEC facility site flows in a southeasterly direction through swales, small streams, and culverts, eventually draining into Red Root Creek, a tributary of the Raritan River. The confluence of Red Root Creek with the Raritan River proper is located approximately 1.5 miles south and east of the site, and approximately 2.5 miles west of the confluence of the Raritan River with Raritan Bay (See Figures 2-1 and 2-2 presented in Chapter 2). From Landing Lane Bridge to Raritan Bay, the Raritan River and its saline water tributaries are classified as Saline Estuary (SE1) waters by the NJDEP. By definition, SE1 waters must be acceptable for primary and secondary contact recreation, the maintenance, migration and propagation of the natural and established biota, and shellfish harvesting. All freshwater tributaries to the Raritan River downstream of Landing Lane Bridge are classified as FW-2 Non-Trout (NT) waters. The small tribu- taries on the proposed E-TEC site tract are freshwater, and thus are classi- fied as FW-2 NT. By definition, FW-2 waters are suitable for public potable water supply after required treatment. This classification category requires that waters be acceptable for primary contact recreation, industrial and agricultural use, and maintenance and migration of the established biota. Waters further classified as non-trout do not possess properties suitable for the maintenance of trout populations, such as high dissolved oxygen levels, relatively low summer temperatures, and low pollutant loadings. However, more tolerant fish species may flourish in such waters. The Raritan River discharges an average of 503 cubic meters per second into Raritan Bay. The mean tidal range is 5.4 feet at the Sayreville Generat- ing Station. Salinity profiles measured by Schmid & Co. at two transects near Raritan Center area on 21 May 1985 varied from 7.0 to 21.5 ppt, showing typical vertical, longitudinal, and tide-related gradients. A 300-foot wide navigational channel reaching depths of 25 feet extends along the northern portion of the river; this artificial channel has been maintained by dredging since the nineteenth century. 3-11 ------- The tidal portion of the Raritan River experiences marginal to poor water quality. Point sources (there are 105 permitted point-source discharges in the lower Raritan River and Bay), and nonpoint sources such as runoff from industrial, residential, and other developed lands are in part responsible for this degraded water quality (Schmid & Co., 1987). Due to these cumulative loadings, the quality of the river water becomes poorer toward its mouth. Excessive fecal coliform bacteria, low dissolved oxygen concentrations, and elevated nutrient levels have commonly been recorded. The river and much of the bay are closed to swimming and commercial fishing. Elevated PCB levels measured in fish tissue prompted the NJDEP and NJ Department of Health to place a fishing advisory on the tidal portion of the River (NJDEP, 1983). The advisory recommended that striped bass, bluefish in excess of 6 pounds or 24 inches, white perch, white catfish, and American eel not be consumed more than once per week. The lands encompassing the proposed E-TEC facility site, and the adjoin- ing Raritan Center lands, appear to follow the historical drainage basin of Red Root Creek. The Red Root Creek drainage has been extensively altered, as evidenced by the ditching, piping, diking, and development of the area. Five ditches and the inainstern of Red Root Creek currently discharge to the Raritan River. Waters from West/Southwest Ditch, Central Ditch, lower Red Root Creek, and Black ditch pass through outlet pipes equipped with hinged flaps (tide gates) that exclude tidal water from progressing upstream into these water- courses. Within the Raritan Center area through which Red Root Creek meanders, there are six drainage areas nearly or completely separated by fill and embankments (Schrnid & Co., 1987). Surface water studies were performed by Schmid & Co., Inc. during 1985- 1986 on the Raritan Creek property adjoining the proposed E-TEC site. Thirty- three water quality parameters were analyzed at 18 sampling stations. The following paragraphs summarize the results of the Schmid & Co. surface water testing: 3-12 ------- Salinity - Near the tide gates on Black Ditch and Red Root Creek, salinities were 1 and 2 ppt, respectively, but there was no measurable salinity at stations 1,000 feet upstream of these tide gate locations. Apparently, some tidewater leaks through the tide gates at the ends of the ditches. Total Suspended Solids (TSS ) - TSS values ranged from 3.2 to 67.4 ppm, and exceeded FW-2, the criterion at Stations A, D, 2, 5 and 10. Concentrations of less than 25 ppm are not known to limit the growth of fish; however, TSS concentrations in the 25 to 80 ppm range are considered capable of reducing fish production. - pH values ranged from 2.72 to 8.15. Low pH readings were recorded in the upper (freshwater) portions of the water- courses. The acidic nature of the surface water is typical of Coastal Plain waters and is likely to be the result of soil influences rather than man-made loadings. Dissolved Oxygen (DO ) - DO concentrations were variable, with summer minima of 1.4 and 2.1 ppm recorded at two small creeks crossing Magazine Road, respectively. These levels are well below the threshold at which fish are stressed. Generally, DO levels were above 5.0 ppm. Phenol - Phenol concentrations ranged from 0.010 to 0.367 ppm. The high end of this range (measured in West Ditch) could potentially have deleterious effects on fish. Total and Ortho Phosphate - Total phosphate concentrations ranged from 0.020 to 0.226 ppm. Orthophosphate ranged from 0.003 to 0.008 mg/l. At four stations, total phosphate levels were sufficient to promote eutrophication. 3-13 ------- Ammonia - At all stations, un-ionized ammonia concentrations (0.018-1.20 ugh) were within the range considered deleterious to fish. Nitrate Nitrogen - Nitrate concentrations ranged from <0.01 to 0.884 ppm. These concentrations are not harmful to aquatic biota. Metals - Total chromium, arsenic, and selenium concentrations were not present in sufficient concentrations to pose a harm to aquatic biota; however, the possibility exists that the measured concentrations could interact synergistically with other aqueous constituents and/or properties to affect aquatic life. Iron, copper, nickel, zinc, and cadmium concentrations were elevated at one or more locations, and could adversely affect the aquatic biota. Coliform Bacteria - total coliform estimates ranged from <4 to 12,399 colonies per 100 ml, well in excess of State standards, suggesting the possibility that sanitary wastes are present in drainage to the waterways. O’Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., under contract to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, collected surface water samples at six locations within the Raritan Center area and analyzed them for organic compounds, petroleum hydrocarbons, total metals, dissolved metals, TNT, and general indicator parameters. Three samples contained detectable levels of volatile organics. Trichioroethylene (TCE) was detected at concentrations from 5 to 22 ppm. Petroleum hydro- carbons were not detected in any of the six samples. One sample contained cadmium (0.010 ppm), while another sample contained chromium (0.01 ppm). Lead was found in four samples (0.008 to 0.109 ppm); magnesium was found in four samples (2-7 ppm). Calcium, sodium, and potassium ions were commonly detected (O’Brien and Gere, 1989). 3-14 ------- 3.1.6 Floodplains Floodplain areas within Edison Township have been mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FENA); in addition, flood elevations of the Raritan River have been determined by the New Jersey Department of Environ- mental Protection, Bureau of Floodplain Management. The FEMA maps show no encroachment of floodplains within the 110-acre site for the proposed E-TEC facility. Schmid and Co. (1987) report that the 100-year flood elevation for the Raritan River in the vicinity of the arsenal is 10.1 to 12.1 feet (NCVD). The State of New Jersey cites the 12.1 foot elevation as the limit of the 100-year flood, and also cites the 500-year flood elevation as 15.5 feet in the reach of the Raritan River in the vicinity of the project area (personal communication; J. Scordato, NJDEP). Elevations within the 110-acre project site range from a low of 25 feet at the southeast corner of the site to a high of 90 feet in the northwest corner of the site; all elevations within the project site are well above the 100- and 500-year flood elevations. The flood hazard area for the 100-year flood extends northward from the Raritan River to Newfield Avenue, approxi- mately 2,000 feet south of the southern boundary of the project site (Schmid and Co., 1987); the 500-year flood elevation is in the vicinity of Mayfield Avenue, approximately 1,200 feet from the southern boundary of the project site. 3.1.7 Wetlands The U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping (Perth Ainboy Quadrangle, 1972) does not show any wetland areas within the proposed 110-acre site. The NWI mapping does indicate the presence of wetlands, principally forested (PFO1) and emergent (EM) wetlands, in areas lying closer to the Raritan River. Field investigations conducted in April 1989 by EcolSciences, Inc. revealed the presence of freshwater wetlands on the 110-acre site of the proposed E-TEC facility. These wetlands, whose approximate limits are shown in Figure 3-3, occur in association with the small streams traversing the site 3-15 ------- NOTE: LOCATIONS ARE 75 L4 PROPOSED E-TEC FACILITY EDISON,NEW JERSEY LEGEND APPROXIMATE VZ WETLANDS WETLAND LOCATIONS STREAMS AND DITCHES LAI E IN f [ El PROJECT AREA U rr vIf MFr i PROTECTION AGENCY ------- or in areas of hydric soils (e.g., where Manahawkin muck soils occur). Apart from an isolated circular wetland area northwest of the Underground Storage Tank (UST) facility, the wetland areas occur in the southern portion of the 110-acre tract, well removed from the existing warehouse buildings and service roadways. The hydrology and vegetation of these wetlands areas have been characterized in a Terrestrial Ecology Survey report detailing the results of the field investigations (EcoiSciences, 1989). 3.1.8 Climate Middlesex County, which contains the proposed project site, has a typical northern temperate zone climate. The average annual temperature at Newark Airport for the period 1942 to 1981 was 54.3°F, with the minimum monthly mean of 31.5°F occurring in January and the maximum monthly mean of 76.4 °F occurring in July. Extremes of cold weather are due to moving masses of cold air that travel southeastward from the Hudson Bay region. Periods of very hot weather, which may last as long as a week, are associated with a west-southwest air flow over land to the left of the Bermuda high - pressure system. Higher than average temperatures were observed during June and July, 1987 and during July through August 1988 in northern New Jersey. Over this same period (1942-1981) of climatic monitoring, the mean annual precipitation was 42.11 inches. Precipitation is well distributed throughout the year. Thunderstorms occur on about 25 days each year, generally in summer months (SCS, 1987). Precipitation acidity levels increased at all state ambient air quality monitoring stations in 1987. The greatest increases were observed in summer, when, for the first time on record, all sites had some pH values below 4.0. Prevailing winds for the area are from the southwest (See Figure 3-4), with a mean windspeed (based on records from 1941 to 1970) of 10 mph. Maximum monthly mean windspeeds occur in March. The terrain in this area of New Jersey is of low relief, with ridges to the northwest. Winds from the northwest are downslope and undergo adiabatic temperature increases; the drying effects of these downslope winds account for the relatively few conven- tional thunderstorms recorded at the meteorological station at Newark Airport. 3-17 ------- F-F LULILNLY U I - WINU 5F—’uW & DIRECTION* N / I / / / w Is * ‘I STABILITY’ . CLASS DISTRIBUTION A— 0% 8— 3% C — 10 s D—61 % E —15 F — 10 % 1—3 4—6 7—10 11—16 I7- 22—99 (3 •) (26 .)(36 )(26 s)(5 ‘) (1 ) WIND SPEED SCALE (KNOTS) * NOTE — WIND DIRECTION IS TI4E C 12 9 6 I I I I I I / I I , I / / 15 % / / PROPOSED E—TEC FACILITY EDISON,NEW JERSEY NEWARK, NJ STATION 14734 1983 — 1987 u.s (NVI ONN WTAL PROTCCTION AUNCY FIGURE 3 ’4 / -9 CTION WIND IS BLOWING FROM I 3—18 ------- 3.1.9 Air Quality Edison Township is located within the New Jersey/New York/Connecticut air quality control region. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has classified this region as Priority One, indicating that violations of estab- lished standards, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), for each criterion air pollutant have been recorded at one or more monitoring stations within the region. New Jersey as a whole is in violation of the ozone standard. Air quality monitoring stations located within a 20-mile radius of the project site include: Perth Amboy, 5 miles east of the site; New Brunswick, 4 miles southwest of the site; Elizabeth, 15 miles northeast of the site; Newark, 20 miles northeast of the site; Linden, 11 miles northeast of the site; and Plainfield 6 miles north of the site. The NAAQS are established for the purpose of protecting the public health and welfare, and are divided into primary and secondary standards. Primary standard limitations are intended to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety. The secondary standard limitations are intended to protect the public welfare from known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant (e.g., corrosion, vegetation damage). The ambient air quality levels at the monitoring stations listed above are in compliance with all criterion pollution standards except total suspended particulates and ozone (as noted above, New Jersey is in violation of the ozone standard). Table 3-1 lists background air concentrations for criteria pollutants and metals. The monitoring station for each criteria pollutant was chosen on a proximity basis. 3-19 ------- Table 3-1 Background Air Quality Data Monitoring Averaging NAAQS Year (ug/m 3 ) PolLutant Station Period 1988 1987 1986 Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) Perth Ant,oy 3-hour 1,300 235.5 178 274.7 24-hour 365 160 123 128.2 AmuaL 80 30 31.4 28.8 Total Suspended New Brunswick 24-hour 260 216 223 339 Particulates (TSP) AmuaL 75 42.3 46 54.1 Ir iaLthle Particulates Elizabeth Lab 24-hour 150 71 94 85 Amual 50 28.1 40.1 39.2 Carbon Monoxide (CU) Perth Ant oy 1-hour 40,000 10,875 9,730 11,103.8 8-hour 10,000 6,067 6,868.4 7,784.1 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) PlainfieLd AnnuaL 100 45.9 50.8 45.1 Ozone (03) New Brunswick 1-hour 235 423.9 343.4 310 Lead New Brunswick 3-month N/A - .226 .370 Arsenic Elizabeth 3-month N/A 001 .01 .003 Bariun Elizabeth 3-month N/A .031 .071 .039 Ca*niun New Brunswick 3-month N/A .001 .006 .017 Chrcxniun New Brunswick 3-month N/A .002 .064 .006 Copper New Brunswick 3-month N/A .074 .255 .107 Iron New Brunswick 3-month N/A .799 2.996 1.445 Magnesiun New Brunswick 3-month N/A .245 1.072 .293 Manganese New Brunswick 3-month N/A .022 .120 .015 Nickel New Brunswick 3-month N/A .012 .075 .030 Potassiun Elizabeth 3-month N/A .104 .305 .163 Vanadiun Elizabeth 3-month N/A .009 .031 .023 Zinc New Brunswick 3-month N/A .118 1.306 .494 Source: NJDEP, 1988. 3-20 ------- 3.1.10 Ecology 3.1.10.1 Terrestrial The utility of an area as wildlife habitat depends on many factors. All wildlife species require food, water, cover, and space. The relative abundance or lack of these resources will, in part, determine the species composition of a particular area. In addition, the types of vegetative com- munities present, the size, shape, and complexity of the habitat, and sur- rounding land uses will further interact to determine the success of various wildlife species. The location of the project site, situated between the developed and highly managed areas of the Raritan Center and Middlesex County College, leaves few corridors for the immigration or emigration of wildlife species. Any such movement would be further inhibited by the presence of fences along the southern property line and between the site and the College grounds. The faunal communities, except for the bird species found on the site, are likely to be those that can satisfy all of their habitat requirements in areas on the site. EcolSciences, Inc. conducted field surveys of the terrestrial ecological systems of the site in April 1989, and has detailed the findings of these surveys in a Terrestrial Ecology Survey report (EcolSciences, 1989). Based on floral species present, SCS soil mapping, and visual indications of prevailing hydrological conditions, four vegetative communities were identified. These are: successional field, upland forest, palustrine scrub/scrub-emergent wet- lands (PSS1/EM), and palustrine forested wetlands (PFO1). Each of these communities is briefly described below; a complete listing of plant species identified within the study area and their corresponding U.S. Fish and Wild- life Service (USFWS) indicator status are shown by community type in Tables C-l and C-2). Wildlife species observed directly or by sign are listed in Table C-3, categorized by the habitat in which they were found. (Figure 3-5 shows the location of the vegetation types). 3-21 ------- NOTE LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 78 / J SUCCESSIONAL FIELD! FiIiit I UI UPLAND FOREST PALUSTRINE FORESTED WETLAND(PFOI) L ] PALUSTRINE SCRUB/SHRUB PROPOSED E-TEC FACILITY EMERGENT WETLAND (PSSI/EM) EDISON,NEW JERSEY II : j PALUSTRINE OPEN WATER WETLANDS(POW) VEGETATION MAPPING 40() 0 400 STREAM’; AND DITCHES S(,I 1 F IN FEET PROJECT AREA U LNVI1 ONM NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ------- Successional Field - species of this community cover most of the northern half of the site, having invaded abandoned parking and storage areas and areas around buildings. Scattered saplings include red oak, black oak, black cherry, pitch pine, and sassafras. Common shrub species include bayberry, smooth and winged sumac, crab apple, and gray birch. The bulk of the vegeta- tive cover is herbaceous, including goldenrod, common mullein, horse nettle, mugwort, Queen Anne’s lace, knapweed, English plantain, and clover; these herbaceous species are interspersed with common grass species such as switch grass, broomsedge, poverty oats grass, and orchard grass. Due to the presence of roadways, buildings, and human activities, limited large mammal use of this area would be expected. However, abundant herbaceous grazing and cover afforded by scattered copses of brush could support deer- mice, cottontail rabbits, and meadow voles, while the numerous seed-producing plants may attract songbirds. Predatory species such as shrews, kestrels, and red-tailed hawks could forage on the small mammal community using these grassy areas. A rock wall and debris pile located near the southeastern corner of the site could provide some cover for snakes and small mammals. Wildlife species observed directly or by sign in the successional field areas included Eastern cottontail, crow, mockingbird, house sparrow, and American kestrel. Successional field communities located within the southern half of the study area were generally smaller in extent than those to the north, and were found interspersed with upland forest and wetlands communities. Such habitat geometry offers ecotonal (edge) environments that could enhance the overall wildlife value of such field areas. These areas in the southern portion of the project also appeared to have a lesser degree of human disturbance. The successional field areas in this southern portion of the site were more diverse than were those to the north, ranging from primary successional areas of bare sand to densely vegetated, late-successional shrub and sapling areas. Woody vegetation included small stands of aspen and gray birch, arrowwood, pussy willow, greenbriar, highbush blueberry, staggerbush, and sweet pepperbush. Ground cover was generally sparser here than in the larger tracts to the north; species included woodsedge, false heather, field garlic, trailing arbutus, sheep laurel, and broomsedge. 3-23 ------- The wildlife value of these more southerly successional field areas is likely higher than the value of areas to the north. As noted, recent disturbance is less pronounced, and the vegetative communities are more diverse in pattern and in species composition. The fruiting shrubs could attract frugivorous songbirds by offering feeding, cover, and breeding sites. Watercourses found in this southern portion of the site provide aquatic habitats and potential breeding areas for aquatic insects, which in turn could provide food for a variety of birds. The shrubs also provide browse for whitetail deer. Species observed in this area included flicker, robin, mockingbird, cardinal, and gray squirrel. Deer trails and Eastern cottontail scat were also noted. UDland Forest - this community was restricted to the relatively undisturbed southern portions of the site. An extensive area dominated by mature oaks was located in the southwestern portion of the site. Dominant canopy species included chestnut oak, white oak, and red oak, in association with blackguin, red maple, sweetgum, pitch pine, and black-jack oak. Under- story species included gray birch, highbush blueberry, greenbriar, red maple, sassafras, fetterbush, and sweet pepperbush. The relatively sparse ground cover included sheep laurel, trailing arbutus, cinnamon fern, lady slipper, and tree club moss. Mature trees, especially oak species, are important providers of hard mast that is used by many birds and mammals. In addition, trees and snags provide nesting sites for cavity-nesting species such as woodpeckers, rac- coons, and gray squirrels. Insect feeding on the leaves of trees provide a food resource for insectivorous birds. The proximity of these wooded areas to open fields and wetland areas provides access to additional food supplies and cover types. Wildlife species observed directly or by sign in upland forest areas on the site included killdeer, chickadee, tufted titmouse, red-tailed hawk, and whitetail deer. Palustrine Forested Wetland (PFO1 ) - this forested wetland community was found in association with streams and ditches in the less disturbed southern portion of the site. Red maple and black gum were the dominant canopy species, with pin oak, white oak, and black willow as less common associates. 3-24 ------- The understory varied from sparse to moderately dense, with red maple sap- lings, highbush blueberry, sweet pepperbush, and sweet bay magnolia as the dominant species, and spicebush, swamp azalea, gray birch, arrowwood, black- gum, and smooth sumac also represented. The herbaceous layer included cinnamon fern, sheep laurel, sensitive fern, false nettle, wild yam, and skunk cabbage. This latter species dominated the stream channels and seepage areas. Wildlife habitat may be provided by the larger overstory species, supply- ing hard mast for small mammals and whitetail deer. In addition, mature trees provide nesting sites for cavity-nesting birds and mammals. Insect species seeking cover or foraging on leaves or on other insects provide food for insectivorous birds. Wetlands may serve as nesting, feeding, and resting locations for various fur-bearing species (e.g., raccoon, opposum, skunk). Semi-aquatic species such as frogs, turtles, snakes, and salanianders often depend on wetlands for reproduction. The mosaic arrangement of wetlands, upland forest, and open fields increases the value of habitats found on the site. Palustrine Scrub/Shrub-Emergent Wetlands (PSS1/EM ) - this wetland vege- tative community was found generally on the southern portion of the site, in association with ditches that channel drainage to lower elevations. In addition, a small pocket of this habitat occurred in the northern portion of the site, north of the UST test apparatus and at the base of a section of steep slopes. Red maple and pin oak occurred on the edges of this pocket on the side slopes. The understory varied from sparse to moderate, with highbush blueberry and sweet pepperbush dominating the vegetation. Lesser amounts of conmion elder, smooth sumac, pin oak, red maple, gray birch, and bayberry were also noted. Herbaceous species included tussock sedge, burreed, sphagnum moss, common reed, meadow beauty, sensitive fern, soft rush, willow- herb, woolgrass, sheep laurel, and bog clubmoss. The wildlife habitat afforded by the vegetative community in this pocket of wetlands is similar to that of the forested wetlands described above. 3-25 ------- 3.1.10.2 Aquatic and Estuarine Ecolozy The principal surface water bodies on the project site proper are small creeks apparently originating from the collection of surface water runoff from urbanized areas upgradient of the site. The site also has a small open water area located just south of the bermed road bordering the south side of Building 246. The freshwater creeks all show evidence of substantial channel- ing and appear to have permanent flows; the substrata of the streams support some rooted macrophytes and filamentous algae. These aquatic environments may serve as habitats for insects that have aquatic egg and larval (or nymphal) stages, and may also serve as breeding habitats for amphibian species. As noted in Section 3.1.5, the Raritan River in the vicinity of the project is under tidal influence, and the aquatic communities of the river and contiguous intertidal zone are those tolerant of estuarine conditions. Salinities in the Raritan River at Raritan Center range from 7 to 21 ppt, fluctuating within this general range with depth, tidal phase, and freshwater flow in the river. This range of salinities characterizes the Raritan River in this reach as a mesohaline to estuarine system. Common reedgrass ( Phragmites ) and saltmarsh cordgrass ( Spartina ) are dominant marsh plants on the wetlands bordering the river, yielding further inland to the freshwater wetland and upland plant communities described in the preceding section (Scbmid & Co., Inc., 1987). 3.1.10.3 Threatened and Endangered Species The United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was requested to provide information on the presence of federally listed or proposed endangered and threatened species within the area of the proposed E-TEC facility. The USFWS response (06/09/89 correspondence from Clifford Day [ USFWS] to Robert Hargrove [ EPA Region II]; see Appendix C) indicated that: 3-26 ------- “Except for occasional transient species, bald eagle ( Haljaeetus leucocephalus ) and peregrine falcon ( Falco perezrinus) , no federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered flora or fauna are known to exist within the study area. Therefore, no further consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is required with the Service.” The USFWS letter further recommended that the New Jersey Natural Heritage Program be contacted for information concerning State species. The New Jersey Natural Heritage Program was requested to supply information on the presence of threatened or endangered species on the project site. The Natural Heritage response (04/17/89 correspondence from Thomas Breden [ New Jersey Natural Heritage Program]) indicated that: “The Natural Heritage Data Ease does not have any records for managed areas, rare plants, animals or natural communities on the site.” The NJDEP Division of Fish, Came and Wildlife has for several years surveyed the wildlife resources of New Jersey. None of the terrestrial efforts thus far have focused on the lands in the vicinity of the Raritan Depot. An ongoing wildlife inventory and evaluation program maintained by the NJDEP has not designated any area in the vicinity of the Raritan Depot as worthy of special study (Schmid & Co., Inc., 1987). Sixteen species of threatened or endangered species, as designated by the NJDEP, potentially occur in Middlesex County. However, the NJDEP Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife has indicated a low potential for impacts upon endangered or threatened species at the proposed E-TEC site (8/5/88 correspon- dence from George Howard [ NJDEP]). Endangered or threatened faunal species were not identified by EcoiSciences’ personnel during field reconnaissance of the proposed E-TEC site in April 1989. However, avifaunal surveys performed on an adjoining property by Schmid & Co., Inc. confirmed the presence of eleven state designated endangered or threatened birds. These include: pied-billed grebe, American bittern, yellow-crowned night heron, northern harrier, Cooper’s hawk, 3-27 ------- peregrine falcon, merlin, osprey, short-eared owl, bobolink, and savannah sparrow. Red-shouldered hawks were not observed during the course of the Schmid study, but have been reported from Middlesex County Park. The habitat present on the proposed E-TEC facility site suggests that the above-named avifaunal species could utilize the area on a limited basis, primarily for feeding and resting. It is unlikely that breeding and nesting occurs, due to the absence of documented breeding and nesting activities and the lack of critical nesting habitat. As reported by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), bald eagles and peregrine falcons, USFWS Species of Special Interest, may pass through the subject property. Considering the mobility of these species (and other species listed or proposed under the USFWS jurisdiction), and the patterns of existing land use in the vicinity of the proposed site, it is unlikely that significant adverse impacts from the facility’s construction would result (correspondence dated 8/2/88 from Clifford Day [ USFWS]). Three species of threatened fish (New Jersey listing) are recorded in the lower Raritan estuary: American shad, Atlantic sturgeon, and Atlantic tomcod. American shad and Atlantic tomcod were collected from the Raritan River in the vicinity of the Raritan Depot during the 1970’s. Although striped bass are no longer classified as threatened in New Jersey, the South River, which is nearby, is recognized as one of the two significant nursery areas for this species in the state (Schmid & Co., Inc., 1987). According to the New Jersey Natural Heritage Program, two reptile species (bog turtle and wood turtle) and two species of amphibian (long-tailed salamander and Pine Barrens treefrog) potentially occur in Middlesex County. Lack of critical habitat, combined with the disturbed nature of the site, makes it unlikely that threatened or endangered reptiles or amphibians utilize the proposed E-TEC site. Approximately 350 plant species have been recorded in the areas adjacent to the proposed E-TEC facility site (Schmid & Co., Inc., 1987). None of these plants are recorded on the Snyder (1984) list of plant species whose continued 3-28 ------- survival is in jeopardy in New Jersey or in the United States. None of the plants observed on the proposed site by EcolSciences’ personnel have been recorded on the Snyder list. 3.2 MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT 3.2.1 Land Use 3.2.1.1 Existing Land Use The proposed E-TEC facility site consists of a 110-acre parcel of land located within a property known as the Raritan Arsenal. The proposed E-TEC facility site is shown as Open Space on the land use map included in the 1989 Master Plan of Edison Township. The land to the south and east of the proposed site is identified as Light Industrial. The proposed E-TEC facility site is bordered to the north and east by portions of the Raritan Depot, to the south by the Conrail Railroad (formerly Lehigh Valley Railroad), and to the west by Middlesex County College. The 110-acre site includes two unused warehouse buildings (Buildings No. 245 and 246), an inactive railroad spur, undeveloped land, consisting of forested woodland and successional fields. The general area to the south and east of the 110-acre proposed E-TEC facility site is dominated by light industry. This zoning district encom- passes light manufacturing, and assembly and warehousing uses. A large industrial park, known as Raritan Center, is located to the east of the site. Prominent companies located at Raritan Center include Nestle, Michelin, UPS, Consumers Distributing, AT&T, Sir Speedy, Wakefern, Inland Container Corp., Shoprite, ITT, and Wilson Sporting Goods. An Office Hotel zone is located along portions of Woodbridge Avenue and Raritan Center Parkway, to the east of the proposed site. This district provides office, convention center, and support retail uses. A Ramada Inn and a Holiday Inn are located within this zone, as are office buildings used by National Community Bank, SGC Federal Credit Union, Singer, and Summit Associates. 3-29 ------- Middlesex County College is located to the immediate west of the project site. To the south of the College is Thomas Edison Park, a Middlesex County recreational facility. Several large apartment complexes are situated to the west of the College, across Mill Road. North of the site, along Woodbridge Avenue, land use is principally residential, with single family homes, a church, small businesses, a senior citizens center, a gas station, and several restaurants. To the southwest of the community college and park is another large industrial area known as Heller Park. Prominent companies located here include Valvoline Oil Co., Castrol, Dean, Twin County Grocers, Emerson Quiet Cool, and United Stationers. A day-care facility, the Family and Children Center, is located in Heller Park, to the east of the principal warehousing area. Four landfill areas are located to the southwest of the proposed E-TEC site: three of these (Kin-Buc, ILR, and Middlesex County Park Commission) are presently closed; the Edison Township landfill is presently active. The Kin-Buc Landfill and Chemical Insecticide Corporation Sites have been designated EPA Superfund sites and remedial investigations are being conducted to identify ways to manage them. The ILR Landfill also has been shown to have leachate contamination problems. Figure 3-6 shows the locations of these sites relative to the proposed E-TEC site. 3.2.1.2 Future Land Use The 1989 Edison Township Master Plan indicates a Planned Urban Develop- inent District (PUD) to the southwest of the project site. A development called Rivertown is proposed for construction at this site which fronts on the Raritan River. In June of 1988, the plan proposing a 4,000-unit residential development and marina was conditionally approved by Edison Township. The development could add from 8,000 to 14,000 residents to the Township at buildout, estimated to be about 25 years (Enviresponse, 1989). 3-30 ------- SUPER FUND SITES PROPOSED E—TEC FACILITY EDISON,NEW JERSEY SURROUNDING LANDFILLS AND SUPERFUND I 0 SITES SCALE IN MILES SOURCE: SCNMID & COMPANY, INC. CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS 3—31 U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG NCT FIGURE 3-6 ------- A facility for providing housing for the homeless is currently proposed on Woodbridge Avenue to the west of the project site, at the western border of the Raritan Depot tract. This facility is proposed to be constructed on land now owned by the U.S. Government. More specific details regarding exact site locations were unavailable at the time this EIS was written. A third proposal that would alter land use in the vicinity of the proposed project site is that for a connector roadway (the Edison-Woodbridge Industrial Connector Highway) that would bisect Raritan Center. This proposed roadway would provide relief for existing roadways outside Raritan Center and improve access to existing and proposed facilities within the Center. 3.2.2 Site History and Cultural Resources A Stage IA Cultural Resources Survey was conducted on the 110-acre site by Historic Sites Research in 1989. Background information was obtained from Princeton University and South Brunswick Libraries, from the files of the New Jersey State Museum and the Office of New Jersey Heritage, and from EPA. A particularly rich source of material was found in the Alexander Library at Rutgers University, in the files on the Edison and Piscataway Townships and the Raritan Arsenal. This included several base newspapers, information pamphlets, and numerous clippings. No known prehistoric sites are recorded for the vicinity, but it lies adjacent to a well-traveled contact period Indian Trail, and the banks of the Raritan must have represented an attractive hunting and gathering ground throughout prehistoric times. Occupation of the fast land sites overlooking the extensive marsh lands is probable. An early colonial map shows a road running from Bonhamtown to the edge of the fast ground adjacent to the salt marsh near the end of Red Root Creek. A structure is indicated somewhere near this point. In the 19th century, this same road alignment is shown with a subsequent fork trending south and southwest, and three structures along it. By 1876 a fourth structure is shown, which appears to have stood in the eastern half of the study area, east 3-32 ------- of the colonial road. An increasing proportion of the study area was disturbed during the latter 19th century. By the early 20th century the northern portion of the fast land below Bonhamtown has been mined away for sand and clay prospecting. The Raritan Arsenal acquired the tract in about 1917, and it has been enlarged and developed to the present, as a military base until 1964 and under various auspices since then. Most of the study area has been massively disturbed during this period, as indicated in maps and aerial photographs. Based on research and field conditions, it appears that the location of the 1876 structure has been completely destroyed. Visual examination of surface conditions has confirmed the documentary evidence for massive disturbance of most of the study area. However, aerial photographs indicate that one section of woods was of its present shape in 1939, and has not been disturbed since. This wooded knoll, extending about 500 feet along Avenue D, opposite the middle of Building No. 246, and 300 to 400 feet deep to the study area boundary, was further studied in a Stage lB Cultural Resource Survey. The survey, conducted by Historic Sites Research in August of 1989, did not reveal any prehistoric or historic archaeological resources. Immediately adjacent to this wooded knoll on the northeast was a scraped area or former sand pit where two firing ranges were found. Within 120 feet of Avenue D was a pistol range with a covered firing shelter, range markers, and a sand backstop about 150 feet to the northeast. Further southeast along the same embankment was a bunker and spotting tower for small arms practice, with a collapsed firing shelter 300 feet away on the edge of the wooded knoll. Spent bullets are present in the embankment, and some brass casings were seen near the pistol firing shelter. Aerial photographs showed that the north- western or upistol range was constructed between 1951 and 1961, and that the southeastern range was built between 17 April 1961 and 4 May 1963, both in an area that had been stripped of vegetation and possibly excavated since at least 1939. 3.2.3 Current Users of Raritan Depot Approximately 240 acres of the former Raritan Arsenal now remain as Raritan Depot. As indicated previously, EPA has acquired 190 acres, and General Services Administration (GSA) owns 50 acres. Thirteen buildings and 3-33 ------- approximately 15 mobile trailers are located at Raritan Depot; these are used by various branches of the EPA and their contractors. 3.2.4 Previous Contaminant Investigations 3.2.4.1 Hazardous Materials Since the phase-out of Raritan Arsenal began in 1961, several contamina- tion studies have been undertaken at the Arsenal area. The initial study was conducted by the Army (managed by the Letterkenny Army Depot) in 1961 as a survey for potential contamination. Based on this survey, 17 areas were identified as being potentially contaminated with ordinance and/or chemicals and were classified into three categories: “non-use”, “surface use only”, and “unrestricted use”. Deed restrictions to limit soil disturbance in these contaminated areas were imposed during the sale of some parcels. One of these 17 areas is located within the 110-acre site proposed for the E-TEC facility. This area, Area 1 according to the Letterkenny identifi- cation is located in the southeastern corner of the site and was used as a demolition ground for boosters, point- and base-detonating fuses, and 37 mm to 6-inch gun projectiles. These ordinance demolition activities were carried out from the post-WI era through the early 1930’s. Estimates of the areal extent of Area 1 range from approximately 0.6 acres to 11 acres. In 1963, portions of Area 1 were surface-cleaned, and the Army recommended that this area be cleared for surface use only. In June 1985, EPA’s Field Investigation Team (FIT) conducted a pre- lirninary site inspection of the GSA-Raritan Depot property, during which soil and water samples were taken to determine the presence and extent of chemical contamination. The results of this investigation, issued in December 1985, indicated that low level contamination exists within the Raritan Depot. Four main classes of chemicals were detected: metals, pesticides, semi-volatile aromatic hydrocarbons (PAN’s) and volatile hydrocarbons (N1JS, 1985). The FIT concluded that the levels found were not excessive, were representative of routine use rather than storage or disposal activities, and did not pose a significant public health hazard. 3-34 ------- In December 1985, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Kansas City, Missouri Office) initiated a confirmation study under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP). This study, intended to confirm the presence or absence of ordinance and chemical contamination within the 3,200-acre former Raritan Arsenal site, focused on the 17 sites identified in the Army’s 1961 investigation and other areas of suspected contamination. The scope of work for this study was finalized in October 1987, and the field work was initiated by the Corp’s contractor, O’Brien & Gere, in July 1988. Field work included collection of a series of ground water, surface water, deep soil, and shallow soil samples taken in the vicinity of the 17 areas of known and suspected contamination. Sampling conducted within the 110-acre site proposed for the E-TEC facility was limited to the vicinity of Area 1. These samples were analyzed for purgeable organics, total and dissolved metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, TNT and mustard gas residues, cyanides, and general indicators of explosives (sulfate, chloride, nitrate, magnesium, calcium, sodium, potassium, and bicarbonates). Results of this confirmation study are contained in a March 1989 A-E Quality Control Summary Report for the Former Raritan Arsenal (O’Brien & Gere, 1989). Contamination due to volatile organics, petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, TNT, and indicators of explosives was evident in ground water, surface water, and soils. Little contamination was noted in Area 1; no traces of explosives disposal were found, while slightly elevated levels of trichloro- ethylene (TCE) were found in ground water samples (J. Valdez, 1989; pers. comm.). In addition, an ordinance search using geophysical survey methods (magnetometers and ground-penetrating radar) was conducted in the vicinity of Area 1; blasting wire was found in this area, but no chemical traces of explosives were found (J. Valdez, 1989; pers. comm.). 3.2.4.2 Radiation In 1986, the FIT conducted a radiation survey and radon monitoring program for the buildings at the GSA-Raritan Depot. Elevated gamma radiation levels were found in nine buildings, and elevated radon levels were found in one building. A follow-up radiation/radon survey was conducted for three 3-35 ------- occupied buildings (Building 205 at the GSA site and buildings 216 and 219 on what is now Middlesex County College property) by the EPA Eastern Environ- mental Radiation Facilities (EERF). The EERF survey confirmed the results of the FIT survey; buildings 205 and 216 were found to have elevated radiation levels and all three buildings were found to have elevated radon levels. Buildings 245 and 246 do not have elevated radiation levels. 3.2.5 Aesthetics Currently, the proposed site is comprised of two warehouses and untended land. The view is one of abandonment, with overgrown shrubbery, crumbling roads and deserted articles strewn about. 3.2.6 Noise The warehouse buildings on the proposed E-TEC facility site are not being actively used at the present time, although portions of Building 245 are serving to store equipment for EPA’s Emergency Response Unit. Ambient sound levels within the proposed site are thus largely a function of surrounding land use. Given the surrounding land use (see Section 3.2.1.1), the principal source of noise would be vehicular traffic and the operation of various motorized equipment. Such activities, concentrated at the boundaries of the EPA Edison Facility, would be expected to produce ambient sound levels ranging from 40 to 90 dBA (EPA, 1976). 3.2.7 Socioecononiics 3 . 2 . 7. 1 Population The Township of Edison has a population of 84,159 (provisional estimate, as of July 1, 1987) (New Jersey Department of Labor, 1988). This 1987 population estimate is a 20 percent increase over the 1980 censused population of 70,193. In the decade between 1970 and 1980, the Township population increased by approximately 4.6 percent (from 67,120 to 70,193). 3-36 ------- The demographic profile of the population, as per the 1980 census data, shows a median age of 31.3 for residents of the Township, with 73 percent of the population of age 18 or older. Most of the residential areas for the Township’s existing population are located north of the New Jersey Turnpike, which traverses the Township on a northeast-southwest axis. Some small residential tracts are found to the south of the Turnpike, and a Planned Urban Development (PUD) district is located southeast of the project site along the Raritan River. 3.2.7.2 Transportation and Traffic Edison Township is situated at a point of convergence for several arterial roadways. Interstate 80 is located approximately 20 miles to the north, Interstate 287 runs to the east of the Township, and the New Jersey Turnpike passes through the Township proper (with Interchange 10 located two miles east of the project site). U.S. Highway 1 and N.J. Highway 27 are major roads within the Township. An Amtrak rail line runs in a northeast-southwest direction through the Township, with one spur line terminating in the Raritan Depot (See Figures 2-1 and 2-2). These roadways serve to connect major industrial, commercial, and resi- dential centers within the Township, County, and State. Large volumes of traffic are generated by such land uses, particularly in peak morning and evening commuter hours as employees enter or leave the Raritan Center, Heller Industrial Park, Middlesex Community College, and local businesses or residences. The preferred location of Edison for warehousing also generates substantial truck traffic on the major arterial roadways and connectors to industrial/commercial areas. 3.2.7.3 Economics The overall real property valuation of the Township in 1984 was dominated by residential parcels (55.2 percent), industrial parcels (24.7 percent) and commercial parcels (10.9 percent) (New Jersey Associates, 1987). The 1985 general tax rate was $2.34 per $100, slightly less than that in preceding 3-37 ------- years. Total Township revenues in 1985 amounted to $91,748,60, with a total tax levy per capita of $827. Debt service per capita (1984) was approximately $70. 3-38 ------- CHAPTER 4 ------- 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS & MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1.1 Natural Environment 4.1.1.1 Geology and Soils Construction activity commonly results in short-term impacts related to soil loss or excavation of bedrock. Removal of topsoil and organic layers during clearing and grading operations reduces the productivity of the soil community, removes ground cover vegetation, generates fugitive dust, and creates unsightly conditions. The introduction of eroded soil materials into surface water bodies may temporarily diminish water quality and disrupt aquatic communities. Excavation of bedrock, where necessary, would have the potential to disrupt the geological integrity of local formations, or alter ground water conditions. Because of the highly disturbed nature of the proposed E-TEC facility site, and because the modifications proposed for the site would be of limited extent and restricted to existing leveled areas, the potential for adverse impacts to soils and geological formations would be minimal. Standard soil erosion and control measures, including stone tracking pads at access points for construction vehicles, installation of sediment filters along the limits of disturbance, and spraying to control fugitive dust would minimize soil loss and associated adverse impacts. Stabilization of disturbed soils by seeding and mulching would further serve to prevent windborne loss of soil. These control measures would be specified in the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan which would be approved by the Freehold Soil Conservation District. The site modifications would focus on renovation of existing structures, and only limited disruption of the existing geology of the area would be anticipated. 4-1 ------- 4.1.1.2 Water Quality Short-term impacts on surface water quality would be generally associated with erosion and sedimentation during construction activities. Soil loss could increase concentrations of suspended material in the water column, leading to increased turbidity, decreased light penetration, and deposition of silt and clay particles on the aquatic substratum and/or biota. As noted in the prior section, adherence to soil erosion and control measures would minimize the export of eroded sediments to surface water bodies draining from the site. Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces at or around the facility would follow existing drainage patterns from upland areas to the channelled streams on the site; the volume of storniwater runoff is not anticipated to increase significantly. Parking areas would be situated on previously disturbed areas of the Site, portions of which were graded and possibly paved around the time when the warehouses were active. because many of the vehicles that would be using parking facilities around the facility would belong to employees already working at the EPA Edison Facility, expansion of parking space would be limited, and the increase in stormwater loadings from the construction of the proposed project would be small. Therefore, no adverse impacts to surface water quality would be anticipated. 4.1.1.3 Floodplains There are no floodplains within the proposed project area boundaries, and construction of the proposed E-TEC facility would have no impact on the Raritan River floodplain, located approximately one half mile from the site. 4.1.1.4 Wetlands The proposed renovation of the existing warehouse buildings for the proposed E-TEC facility would have no adverse impacts on the wetlands on the 110-acre parcel; the wetlands are located in the southern half of the parcel, and no operations are proposed for that area. However, future expansion of the proposed facility could potentially involve construction or activities in 4-2 ------- the vicinity of the wetlands. Measures appropriate to assess and mitigate potential impacts, including receipt of necessary permits (e.g., Section 404 Permit), would need to be undertaken if the future expansion of the proposed facility involved the disturbance of wetlands. 4.1.1.5 Air Quality Short-term impacts on air quality during construction would be related to fugitive dust production and exhaust emissions from construction equipment. These short-term impacts to air quality from construction of the proposed E-TEC facility would be negligible because few modifications to topography would be required; the bulk of the effort would be building renovation. Mitigating measures to be included in the overall construction plan would include dust control practices and the use of efficient anti-pollution control devices on construction equipment. 4.1.1.6 Ecology Short-term ecological impacts during construction would be associated with the loss of vegetative cover on cleared soils, and the displacement of wildlife species from the area affected by construction activities and noises. The vegetative cover is successional field, a habitat relatively common in the general project vicinity; thus, some vegetative loss would not substantially reduce the availability of this kind of habitat for mobile wildlife. The areas that would be likely to be directly disturbed during construc- tion would be the warehouse buildings and the immediate surrounding areas. As noted earlier, the area on which the warehouses were constructed was leveled and graded prior to 1961; the area to the east of the warehouses was apparently used for storage and/or parking of vehicles. This level area has grown back in a successional field community dominated by opportunistic plant species; loss of this vegetation would not constitute a significant ecological impact. The wildlife using this successional field community would likely retreat to less-disturbed areas of the EPA Edison Facility. The majority of 4-3 ------- wildlife species observed on the proposed project site are those that appear to tolerate a high level of human activity, and are commonly seen in urban or suburban areas. The swales and wetlands located in the southern portion of the site would remain in their present state, continuing to serve as wildlife habitat. No threatened or endangered floral or faunal species are documented for, or were observed on, the proposed site. Thus, no impacts on threatened or endangered species would be anticipated. 4.1.2 Man-Made Environment 4.1.2.1 Land Use Construction of the proposed E-TEC facility at the EPA Edison Facility site would not significantly alter land use patterns of Edison Township. The proposed site is within a tract designated as Open Space by the Township in its 1989 Master Plan; thus, the proposed site is not in a parcel that is identified for, or could be easily used for, alternate purposes. The ware- house area was at one time an active site; re-use of this location would not constitute a significant change in land use. 4.1.2.2 Cultural Resources Construction and operation of the proposed E-TEC facility would occur on land that has been disturbed during and prior to the Raritan Arsenal opera- tions. A Stage IA Cultural Resources Survey of the site has not identified any cultural resources of potential value in the northern portion of the site, where the proposed E-TEC facility operations would be centered. However, a wooded knoll was identified in the undeveloped land to the south of the ware- house buildings. This land would not be disturbed with the currently proposed activities, but could potentially be impacted during future facility expansion. Because of the potential for future impacts, a Stage lB archaeo- logical study was conducted in the wooded knoll area. The study determined that no prehistoric or historic archaeological resources were present. 4-4 ------- 4.1.2.3 Noise and Aesthetics Construction activities at the proposed E-TEC facility site could temporarily increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the warehouses. Sound levels generated during renovation and outfitting activities could be expected to be in the range of 66 to 78 dBA at 50 feet from construction equipment, based on the use of best available technology for noise reduction (EPA, 1976). Construction equipment in this range of noise generation includes bulldozers, backhoes, concrete mixers and vibrators, mobile cranes, and heavy trucks. Increased sound levels would be of short-term duration, and would be spatially limited to the vicinity of the construction activities. The aesthetic value of the proposed site would not be adversely affected; the site now presents a view of an abandoned warehousing facility surrounded by overgrown cleared areas. Renovation and outfitting of the facility would temporarily create a cluttered site, with construction equipment generating substantial activity. In the long-term, the building renovations and other site improvements (general cleanup, repaving) would create a view of upgraded facilities on landscaped property which would enhance the vista from adjacent properties. 4.1.2.4 Socioeconomic Impacts 4.1.2.4.1 Population Construction of the proposed E-TEC facility would not significantly alter the population of the Township. The construction work force would likely be drawn from contractors in the general area of New Jersey; this would not cause significant relocation of construction workers to different residential areas. 4.1.2.4.2 Transportation/Traffic Construction activities at the proposed E-TEC facility would increase the volume of traffic entering and leaving the EPA Edison Facility. The movement of workers in and out of the site would tend to coincide, or at least partially overlap, peak commuter movements into and out of the Township. This 4-5 ------- additional traffic would be an insignificant increase along roadways presently carrying high volumes of commuter traffic. Movement of heavier vehicles carrying equipment to the proposed site would be distributed somewhat more evenly through the day, and would have negligible impact on existing traffic patterns. 4.1.2.4.3 Economics Construction of the proposed E-TEC facility at the EPA Edison Facility would have little effect on the economics of the Township. The residential population would not be expected to change significantly and other sources of additional revenue would likely be limited to markets, restaurants, and hotels used by the additional working personnel. 4.2 OPERATIONAL IMPACTS The day to day operation of the proposed E-TEC facility could potentially affect the surrounding environment - land, air, surface water, and ground water - as well as the human environment - health, economics, traffic, noise and aesthetics. The manner in which each of these items could be affected is described in detail in the following section. The health of the population surrounding the proposed E-TEC facility site could be impacted through contact with surface water, ground water or air. The potential for the proposed facility to cause a health impact from the public coming into contact with surface water, ground water or soil that was contaminated with materials from the proposed facility was examined. It was determined that there was not a significant potential for exposure from these routes. The major route of exposure of the population to contaminants handled at the proposed facility would be through the atmosphere. Therefore, the risk assessment conducted in this study focused on health effects caused by airborne contaminants. 4-6 ------- 4.2.1 Land Use Impacts The operation of the proposed E-TEC facility would not significantly affect the plans for land use delineated in the Edison Township 1989 Master Plan. Operation of the facility would be only a resumption of activity at a warehouse site that has been temporarily inactive. 4.2.2 Noise and Aesthetics Impacts Assuming that the operation of heavy equipment outside of the proposed E-TEC facility would occur sporadically rather than constantly, background noise levels at the facility during normal operation could be expected to be in the 63 to 72 dBA range. When outside equipment would be operated, noise levels could transiently increase to the 90 dBA level in the immediate vicinity of the facility. For individuals or residences in the vicinity of Woodbridge Avenue, these noise levels would be virtually indistinguishable from the background noise conditions (principally heavy traffic) that exist at present. 4.2.3 Socioeconomic Impacts Operation of the proposed E-TEC facility would have a minor fiscal impact on the Township. The small number of additional personnel employed by the facility would contribute some revenue by using stores, gas stations, and hotels in the area, but these would be minor shifts in the Township’s socio- economic structure. 4.2.4 Impacts on Facility Users Impacts on facility users could result from routine handling of hazardous wastes and chemicals or from accidents involving these materials. The hazardous substances and chemicals used at the proposed facility would have varying degrees of toxicity and/or hazards associated with them. 4-7 ------- Impacts could occur during either the experimentation with or the storage and handling of these materials. The severity and type of impacts on facility users would depend on several factors: toxicity of materials, volume of material involved in an incident, personal protective equipment used by staff, adequacy of laboratory/storage area safety features (e.g., ventilation hoods and proper training of personnel), and managerial safeguards (e.g., separating worker from hazardous zones). The implementation and continued use of safety procedures for handling, operating and storing materials would help to minimize impacts. Maintaining only minimum volumes of materials and separating containers in the storage area would also reduce the severity of impacts. All staff would receive the appropriate safety training and would be knowledgeable in the use of personal protective equipment. (See Appendix C for more information concerning train- ing and equipment). L ..2.5 Impacts on Ground Water and the Sole Source AQuifer Impacts to ground water quality could potentially occur if there were contamination of recharge water. Such impacts would be associated with a short-term spill of waste material or test reagents during delivery or handling. If a liquid spill occurred, the material would have to flow to a pervious area and percolate through the surface soil in order to impact ground water quality. If it were a spill of solid material, runoff water would be required to transport the material to the ground water. The likelihood of impacts to ground water quality are greatly reduced because: o Product handling would occur on impervious areas. o Soil tends to attenuate the transport of most hazardous substances. o There are strict packaging and transport regulations for hazardous materials. o Knowledge and training of EPA and contractor personnel working at the proposed facility. 4-8 ------- Severity of impacts to ground water quality would be determined by the type and extent of the contamination as well as the existing condition and use of the ground water. As described in Section 3.1.3, there are no water supply wells within a 1 mile radius of the proposed E-TEC facility site. The closest supply wells are the four residential wells within 1.5 to 2 miles of the site. These wells, as well as the water supply wells for the Middlesex and Elizabethtown water companies, lie up-gradient from the proposed E-TEC facility site. Therefore, in the unlikely event of a liquid spill onto unprotected ground, any seepage of chemicals into the ground water would not flow toward the supply wells, thus minimizing the potential for direct con- tamination of water supplies. The ground water in the vicinity of the proposed E-TEC facility flows toward the Raritan River (Schrnid & Co., 1987). Any chemicals or substances that entered the ground water would have the potential to enter the Raritan River. The extent of migration of substances from the ground water to the Raritan River would depend on the quantity entering the ground water, the ability for the soil to adsorb or absorb the substance and biological, physical or chemical transformations of the chemical. Contamination would be minimized by instituting appropriate spill containment and clean-up measures immediately following the spill. Some examples of these procedures include: adsorbing the spilled material onto a sorbent and placing containment around the spill to prevent it from leaving impervious areas. The aquifer underlying the proposed E-TEC facility (the Raritan Magothy Aquifer) has been designated a sole source aquifer by EPA pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Accordingly, the construction and operation of the proposed facility would have to comply with Section 1424e of the SDWA. This section includes a provision that prevents federal financial assistance for any project that would cause contamination of the sole source aquifer. The construction activities associated with renovating the proposed facility would not result in contamination of the aquifer. The activities associated with the operation of the facility would be contained within the buildings, which would have adequate pollution abatement equipment, and the process water generated from the operational activities would be discharged to the Middlesex County Utilities Authority (MCUA) treatment plant, not to the ground water. 4-9 ------- Therefore, it is unlikely that the operation of the proposed facility would adversely impact the sole source aquifer. Additionally, only small quantities of chemicals would be transported to and from the facility so the potential quantity that could be spilled would be small, and the personnel operating the facility would be trained in the proper spill containment and clean-up procedures. The proposed E-TEC facility has been determined to be consistent with Section 1424(e) of the SDWA. 4.2.6 Impacts on Water Quality The primary potential source of water quality impacts would be the discharge of wastewater to the MCUA treatment plant. This treatment plant discharges its final effluent to Raritan Bay. Because only sanitary wastewater (e.g., showers, toilets) would be connected directly to the sewer system, water quality impacts would be minimized. Process water generated during testing would be collected in a holding tank and would be pretreated, if necessary, before discharge to MCUA. Process water that could not be treated below pretreatment standards would not be discharged to the treatment plant. This process water would be transported off-site for treatment and disposal. The quantity of wastewater discharged from the proposed facility to MCUA is not expected to exceed 100,000 gallons per day (gpd). The current capacity of the MCUA plant is 110 million gallons per day (MCD) so the input from the proposed E-TEC facility would represent less than 0.1% of the total flow. This additional flow would be negligible and would not cause any significant impact to the MCIJA treatment plant. The possibility would exist that small quantities of materials could be spilled into the sinks or other utilities connected directly to the sewer system. It is not anticipated that the spilled quantity would be sufficient to cause explosive and/or toxic levels to build up in the sewer system. Also, given the capacity of the MCI.JA treatment plant (110 MCD) compared to potential spilled quantities, the spilled chemicals would not be expected to cause detrimental effects to the MCIJA treatment plant or collection system. 4-10 ------- Larger spills in storage areas or testing bays would be contained by dikes. No floor drains connecting those diked areas to the sewer system would be installed to prevent larger spills from entering the system. Spilled liquids would be pumped out of the diked areas via suction and collected in the process water holding tank. Another possible source of water quality impacts would be a traffic accident involving a vehicle transporting waste material to or from the proposed E-TEC facility. If such an accident occurred near a storm drain or surface water, the possibility of contamination would exist. However, the personnel working at the proposed E-TEC facility would be experienced in hazardous substance handling and spill clean-up and would be able to contain and clean-up the spills to keep potential impacts to a minimum. Because of the safety features that would be built into the site (treat- ment systems, dikes, no floor drains, personnel training) and the expertise of the personnel, no significant water quality impacts would be expected. 4.2.7 Impacts on Ecology The overall impacts of operation of the proposed E-TEC facility on local environmental characteristics would be minimal. The proposed site has been disturbed and has many areas in intermediate stages of recovery from these prior disturbances. Operation of the proposed E-TEC facility would generate background noise levels somewhat higher than currently exist on the site; most wildlife species would habitate to these activities, while intolerant species would be displaced to less active areas. Activities around the warehouses (parking, training exercises) would result in the loss of much of the successional field vegetation in the graded area east of the warehouses. As noted earlier, the swales and wetlands located in the southern portion of the proposed site would currently remain in their present state, experiencing no adverse impacts and would continue to serve as wildlife habitat. No threatened or endangered 4-11 ------- floral or faunal species are documented for, or were observed on, the proposed project site. Thus, no impacts on threatened or endangered species are anticipated. 4.2.8 Impacts to Transportation The testing activities of the proposed E-TEC facility would require input material, such as contaminated or uncontaminated soils, surface water, or ground water. The material would be transported to the site via trucks at an average rate of approximately 1 truck load per week. The delivery rate of materials could be more than 1 truck load per week when a new test would be undertaken in order to transport the necessary equipment and feed material to the site. However, there could also be weeks when no material would be trans- ported to or from the facility. Overall, the average rate would be expected to be close to 1 truck load per week. In addition, process wastes, either solid or liquid, would be transported off-site for treatment or disposal or to be returned to the site of origin. The material entering and exiting the proposed facility would be under the management control of the EPA. This control would include the following safeguards: o Materials would be packaged in compliance with all federal and state regulations regarding the transport of hazardous materials. o Materials would be transported by a licensed and approved hazardous waste hauler. o The truck would carry a list of the materials being transported and the procedures that should be followed in an emergency situation involving the substances. o The trucks would travel on highways as much as possible to minimize the need for trucks to travel on smaller, more densely populated secondary roads. 4-12 ------- o The facility staff would work with local agencies to establish contingency plans for traffic accidents. o The proposed E-TEC facility would have trained emergency response personnel who would be available for transportation emergencies. In addition, Edison also has its own emergency response personnel. These safeguards and the low number of trucks entering and exiting the facility would minimize the potential for a transportation accident and would help to minimize adverse impacts if such an accident occurred. In addition to materials, the facility staff would also have to enter and exit the proposed facility. Much of the staff of the proposed facility would be made up of the existing work force at the EPA Facility. Some additional workers would be added but this additional work force would be small and would not be expected to have a significant impact on transportation. 4.2.9 Impacts on Air Quality Air quality modeling, using EPA approved methods and models, was con- ducted to determine the impact of the proposed facility’s operation on the air quality of the surrounding area. The air quality modeling, including a discussion of the models used, procedures followed, and printouts of model results, is included as Appendix D. Currently, the NAAQS has established ambient concentration limits for criteria pollutants, which include: sulfur dioxide, total suspended particulates, inhalable particulates, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone. The modeling results indicated that the operation of the proposed facility would not violate the NAAQS standards for the criteria pollutants. However, the background concentration of ozone in the State of New Jersey already exceeds the NAAQS standard. The proposed facility would not be expected to contribute significantly to the existing ozone problem. Prior to facility operation, an air permit would have to be obtained from the State of New Jersey. Included in the application process is a requirement for air modeling to verify that there would not be a significant impact to the 4-13 ------- air quality of the area. The proposed facility could not operate until the air permit was issued and would be required to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits imposed by the air permit on a continuing basis. 4.2.10 Impacts on Public Health To adequately address concerns regarding impacts to public health, it is necessary to examine exposures to both long-term, low-level (chronic) releases of chemicals due to the daily operational activities at the proposed facility and short-term, higher level (acute) releases caused by a catastrophic event (i.e., a fire in the building). Because of the uncertainties involved in the operation of the facility (e.g., any of the hazardous or toxic substances could be used on-site), a worst case approach was taken with the risk assess- ments; the assumptions used were based on the worst possible conditions. This health impact evaluation deals only with exposure to airborne contaminants because this route of exposure would provide the greatest potential for the public to be exposed to contaminants from the facility. A detailed risk assessment of chronic releases was conducted as part of this EIS, following EPA approved methodology, and is included as Appendix E. The potential for chronic exposures to cause carcinogenic health effects was evaluated quantitatively. There is no level of exposure to carcinogenic substances that is considered to be completely safe; therefore, the risk of developing cancer from exposure to chronic releases must be minimized. The risk is minimized by the installation of appropriate air pollution control systems, the use of the least quantity of chemicals possible in the testing activities, and management controls. The preliminary risk assessment con- ducted as part of this EIS indicated that carcinogenic risks would be minimized to the maximum extent possible. The potential risks from chronic exposure to 21 indicator chemicals were evaluated and the greatest individual risk of developing cancer from exposure to a single chemical was lx10 6 , or stated as a population risk, one person out of every million people exposed (see Table 4-1 for chemicals and potential risks). This risk estimate was based on very conservative assumptions and represents the risk to the hypo- thetical maximally exposed individual. The lxlO 6 risk falls within the range of risks (lxlO 4 to 1x10 7 ) the EPA considers acceptable when evaluating 4-14 ------- Table 4-1 Risk Characterization - Worst-Case Long-Term, Low Level Release Chemical ’ Excess Individual Lifetime Risk Estimates 2 Arsenic Benzene Benz idine Bis (2- chloroethyl)ether Beryllium Cadmium Carbon tetrachioride Chlordane Chloroform Chromium VI 1, l-Dichloroethylene Dieldrin DDT Hexachl oroe thane Methyl chloride Methylene chloride Nickel 1,1,2 , 2 -Tetrachloroethane 1,1, 2-Trichioroethane Trichloroethylene Vinyl chloride Total 2 E-7 [ A] 1 E-9 [ A] 1 E-6 [ A] 1 E-9 [ B2] 1 E-l1 [ B2J 2 E-9 [ Bl] 7 E-8 [ B2} 7 E-7 [ B2] 9 E-1O [ B2] 9 E-9 [ A] 3 E-ll [ C] 1 E-7 [ B2J 2 E-9 [ B2] 2 E-1l [ C] 3 E-l3 [ C] 3 E-8 {B2} 7 E-8 [ A] 8 E-ll [ C] 4 E-lO [ C] 5 E-9 [ B2] 1 E-1O [ A] 2 E-6 1 The chemicals Benzo(a)pyrene, 2,4-Dinitrotoluene, Di-n-octyl phthalate, Hexachlorobenzene, PAH, PCB, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD were not included because an inhalation slope factor was not available. 2 Because of risk assessment uncertainties, only one significant digit should be reported with the risk estimate and the weight of evidence to classify the compound as a carcinogen should be reported with each estimate (EPA l987c). Weight of evidence letters are reported in brackets following the estimate. A Human carcinogen. 81 Probable human carcinogen, limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. 82 Probable human carcinogen, sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals but inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. C — Possible human carcinogen. 4-15 ------- alternatives in Superfund remediation projects (EPA, 1986b). This risk value also falls below the risks other governmental agencies consider acceptable, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (10-3), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (10-6) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (5x10 3 ). A catastrophic event (i.e., a fire at the proposed facility causing the vaporization of all stored chemicals) was simulated to determine the health impacts of such a release. This catastrophic release scenario was chosen because it represents the worst case for the various assumptions. For example, this event would cause a temperature high enough to vaporize even the low volatility compounds, such as PCB’s. Also, this event would cause a sudden release of all stored chemicals which would result in exposure to higher concentrations of chemicals than would a slow release caused by an event such as a smoldering fire. Other scenarios were considered but were abandoned because they would not have yielded as conservative results as the case presented in this EIS. As part of the worst case analysis, it was assumed that all chemicals stored on-site would become entrained in the air and exit the proposed facility. (The details of the catastrophic release health risk assessment are presented in Appendix F). In the case of a catastrophic release, the health impact of concern is acute exposure to hazardous substances. Unlike carcinogenisis, there is an assumed threshold exposure level below which no irreversible, adverse health impacts would be expected in the exposed population. The quantitative health risk assessment determined whether the public’s exposure to airborne contaminants from the catastrophic release would be above or below the threshold concentration for each chemical at the point of maximum impact from the facility (i.e., approximately 1.86 miles from the facility depending on wind speed and direction). In performing the health risk assessment for a catastrophic release, twelve chemicals, that are expected to be found at the facility and have a high potential to cause acute toxic health effects, were evaluated. The assessment is based on the maximum concentrations of these chemicals expected to be stored at the facility, as well as the planned storage capacity (i.e., 5000 gallons of liquid and 70 tons of soil). Ten of the twelve chemicals evaluated were determined not to have the potential for adverse health impacts, at the maximum concentration and storage volumes expected, from a catastrophic release (see Table 4-2). In the 4-16 ------- Table 4-2 Risk Characterization - Catastrophic Release Exceeds Risk Characterization Toxicity Chemical ( Exposure/Toxicity) Limit Benzene 0.03 No Beryllium <0.01 No Cadmium 0.06 No Carbon tetrachioride 0.35 No Chlordane 21 Yes Chromium VI 0.04 No 2,4-Dinitrotoluene <0.01 No Methyl chloride <0.01 No Methylene chloride 0.28 No Polychiorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 7 Yes Trichloroethylene (TCE) <0.01 No Vinyl chloride <0.01 No 4-17 ------- other two cases, for which contaminant concentrations were expected to be above the threshold concentration, management controls would be instituted to restrict the quantity of chemicals stored within the existing buildings to levels that would prevent adverse health impacts in the event that a cata- strophic release were to occur. 4.3 SECONDARY IMPACTS Secondary impacts are the effects of additional development likely to be constructed or otherwise induced as a result of the construction of a particular project. Secondary impacts can include increases in traffic. demands for infrastructural services, increased rates of construction of residential, and/or commercial space, population shifts, and other off-site impacts generated by project operations that affect the surrounding region. Construction of the proposed E-TEC facility at the EPA-Edison Facility is anticipated to induce only minor secondary impacts. Because the proposed facility would be built at an active EPA facility and would draw much of its staffing from EPA personnel at the EPA-Edison facility, peak traffic hour volumes and patterns are not expected to be significantly altered. The operation of the facility would not create a significant new demand for housing space or infrastructural services, nor would it induce significant demographic changes in the surrounding region. The presence of an additional EPA facility in Edison Township could induce some additional influx of commercial or industrial firms that conduct developmental research in waste testing and/or site reinediation; this would be expected to add to the existing population of such firms in the Edison region rather than create a new category of commercial business in the region. 4.4 MITIGATION OF OPERATIONAL IMPACTS The following subsections summarize procedures to mitigate operational impacts. The potential impacts to humans, from the standpoint of release of toxic substances to the atmosphere, are presented and discussed in detail in Sections 4.2.9 and 4.2.10 and Appendices D, E and F. Air pollution impacts 4-18 ------- would be mitigated through the use of appropriate pollution control equipment. The process off-gasses would pass through a series of pollution control devices that would reduce the concentration of contaminants prior to discharge of the gas to the atmosphere. The concentrations would be reduced so that the potential for adverse health effects from day-to-day exposure would be minimized. As indicated in Section 4.2.10, ten of the twelve chemicals evaluated in the catastrophic release health risk assessment would not exceed the threshold concentrations for acute toxic health effects at the point of maximum impact from the facility (i.e., approximately 1.86 miles away depending on wind speed and direction) when evaluated at the current plans for maximum concentrations of the chemicals and facility storage levels (i.e. , 5000 gallons of liquid arid 70 tons of soil). Adverse health effects that could result from a catastrophic release of the other two chemicals would be mitigated by limiting the concentrations and/or amounts of the chemicals present at the facility, at any time, to safe levels. The safe storage quantities of the twelve chemicals for the range of possible concentrations have been calculated and are represented graphically in Appendix F. These graphs would be incorporated into the management plan for the facility to ensure the protection of public health should a catastrophic release occur. The facility’s management plan would also include provisions for screening testing operations involving other chemicals that have not yet been evaluated and for adjusting the graphs based on revised operational data or final design data. Specifically, at the time of the review of the work plan for a potential new technology evaluation, both the concentration and amount of the chemicals needed to conduct the research would be evaluated. It would be determined whether the specified values would have the potential to cause adverse health impacts if a catastrophic release occurred. If that quantity of chemicals could cause adverse impacts, either the concentration of chemical or the amount (or both) would have to be reduced, or storage outside the bays would need to be considered. With this type of management control plan, the level of chemicals on-site would not cause adverse health effects. Storage of materials outside of the building would reduce the potential 4-19 ------- for gaseous emissions of the chemicals. There would be a much lower potential for a fire of sufficient heat to cause the vaporization of the chemicals. Also, the gaseous emissions would be spread out over a much larger area, which would lower the maximum ground level impact concentration compared to a similar quantity release from the building. However, the potential for a liquid spill would be greater. To minimize this possiblity, any outside storage area(s) would be designed in accordance with all applicable regulations (e.g., TSCA, RCRA). The air dispersion modeling presented in Appendix D is also designed to be used within the framework of the management plan. The model could be used to predict the impact concentration for chemicals that would be specified in the work plan that were not included in the DEIS. The management plan would be incorporated into the operations plan of the proposed facility. The plan would be subject to change as more complete design and operational information would become available or additional modeling would be conducted. Also, the model (presented in Appendix D) would be subject to change based on more refined toxicity data, more accurate facility data or the availability of a more suitable model. Transportation of materials to and from the proposed facility would also be a concern. Trucks bearing potentially hazardous materials would travel to the proposed E-TEC facility via highways and major roads, where possible, rather than secondary roads or side streets. The use of major roads and highways would minimize exposure of populations to hazardous materials and improve access to the spill for emergency response teams dealing with spill cleanup. The traffic flow to or from the proposed E-TEC facility would be very small relative to the total volume of traffic, thereby minimizing the potential increased risk of accidents for people residing along transportation corridors. As required by appropriate statutes (e.g., the New Jersey Administrative Code), only licensed waste haulers would be used to transport hazardous and/or toxic materials to or from the proposed facility. Any hazardous samples that would be transported to or from the proposed E-TEC facility would be packaged according to federal and state regulations regarding the transport of hazardous materials. The packaging and handling 4-20 ------- procedures specified in the regulations are designed to minimize container breakage and contain any leakage within the package, and the packages would be labeled. Required packaging should be able to withstand most vehicular collisions, but could result in some release if exposed to a protracted fire or explosion on the road. The laboratory and testing areas of the proposed facility would be designed for a “shirt-sleeve” environment. Appropriate protective clothing would be worn, as required, during experimentation in the laboratory, pilot plant, and T&E bays to minimize potential exposure. Chemicals of high toxicity, reactivity, flainniability, and/or explosivity are used. Development of safety procedures for handling and working around these hazardous wastes would be initiated as exact compositional data for these wastes would become available. The proposed E-TEC would comply with the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 (SARA Title III). Pursuant to Subtitle A of SARA Title III, an Emergency Response Plan would be prepared and a facility representative would be designated to participate in local emergency planning (40 CFR 355). Subtitle B of SARA Title III sets forth requirements for hazardous chemical inventory forms and toxic chemical release reporting. The proposed E-TEC facility may have to comply with the requirements of this subtitle depending on the quantity of substances used at the proposed facility. If the quantity on-site exceeded the specified amount in Subtitle B, the proposed facility would comply with this requirement. Appendix E contains information relating to additional mitigation procedures. Included are: fire protection, training plan, fire protection equipment, decontamination procedures, and spill and leak protection. 4.5 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The development of the proposed E-TEC facility at Edison would have unavoidable minor impacts on the local area due to construction. For the most part, these impacts would be short-term in nature. They would consist primarily of traffic congestion, construction noise, dust and minor soil 4-21 ------- erosion. The traffic congestion would result from transportation of construction materials and workers to and from the site. After project completion, the increased work force, including consortium researchers, could result in a slight increase in overall traffic flow on a localized, long-term basis. 4.6 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE RESOURCE COMMITMENTS There would be a number of irretrievable and irreversible resource commitments due to construction of the proposed facility. Due to the existence of the buildings at the site, there would be a small resource commitment for this facility, in terms of the consumptive use of construction materials, fuel, potable water and electrical energy for construction and operation. On a long-term basis, there would be consumptive use of chemicals and utilities for the work that would be conducted at the proposed E-TEC facility. It is not likely, however that construction would result in the irretrievable consumption of critical materials in limited supply or other resources of local, regional or national significance. 4-22 ------- CHAPTER 5 ------- 5. COORDINATION 5.1 INTRODUCTION There has been a relatively high level of community awareness regarding the Raritan Depot and the proposed E-TEC facility. As such, a public partici- pation program is being conducted as a key element of the planning process for the proposed E-TEC facility. Public participation activities were initiated in the early stages of project planning by the EPA-Office of Research and Development. These activities have continued during EIS preparation. Future phases of the project, including permitting, construction and operation of the proposed E-TEC facility would also involve public participation activities. The primary goal of all of these public participation activities is the establishment and maintenance of a two-way communications network between the affected public and EPA. 5.2 COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND KEY ISSUES A public scoping meeting was held on September 22, 1988 and was followed by a two week comment period in order to afford the public with the oppor- tunity to provide input on the scope of the DEIS for the proposed E-TEC facility. During the EIS scoping process, a number of comments were received regarding the project’s potential impacts on the environnient and the surround- ing community. Key issues and concerns identified by the public were: impacts associated with air emissions; impacts of the proposed E-TEC facility when combined with the landfills and other hazardous operations that currently exist within the project vicinity; assuring safe operations at the facility through competent operators, suitable technology, and enforcement; identifica- tion of the hazards associated with incineration; transportation hazards; storage and disposal of waste samples and hazardous by-products; and health and safety. These have been considered fully and are addressed in the EIS. 5-1 ------- 5.3 FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL, AND OTHER SOURCES FROM WHICH COMMENTS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED Federal Agencies: Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, N.Y. Council on Environmental Quality Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary, Washington, D.C.; Soil Conservation Service, New Brunswick, NJ Department of Commerce Department of Defense - Army, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ; Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, MD Department of Health and Human Services Department of Housing & Urban Development Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Project Review, Washington, D.C.; Bureau of Land Management; Fish & Wildlife Service, Pleasentville, NJ; Geological Survey, West Trenton, NJ Department of Transportation Coast Guard Federal Emergency Management Agency Public Health Service United States Senate: New Jersey Honorable William Bradley Honorable Frank Lautenberg United States House of Representatives: New Jersey Honorable Bernard Dwyer State Agencies: New Jersey Office of the Governor Department of Environmental Protection Department of Transportation State Police 5—2 ------- ew York Office of the Governor Department of Environmental Conservation New Jersey State Senate: Senator Thomas Paterniti Chaiman, Energy & Environment Committee New Jersey State Assembly: Assemblyman Frank Pelley Assemblyman George Spadoro Chairman, Energy & Environment Committee Regional Agencies: Interstate Sanitation Commission Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Local Agencies: County Middlesex Board of Freeholders Department of Health Department of Solid Waste Management Planning Board Utilities Authority Municipal Edison Township Mayor’s Office Township Clerk Business Administrator Building Department Department of Civil Defense Department of Health and Human Services Department of Public Works Engineering Department Environmental Commission Fire Department Health Departmen Planning Board Police Department Zoning Board Edison Township Board of Education 5-3 ------- News Media Asbury Park Press Bergen Record Home News of Central New Jersey Metuchen—Edison Review New Jersey Network News News Tribune Star Ledger WCTC - Radio Groups and Organizations Alliance for Action Citizens Committee to Close Kin BUC Citizens Union Foundation Clean Water Action Colorado State University Crummy, Deldeo, Dolan, Griffinger Elf-Aquitaine Environmental Defense Fund Environmental Lobby Jersey Shore Audubon Society League of Women Voters of New Jersey Middlesex County Conununity College National Academy of Sciences National Audubon Society National Science Foundation National Wildlife Federation New Jersey Institute of Technology New York Academy of Sciences Princeton University Regional Plan Association Rutgers University Sierra Club Stevens Institute of Technology University of Medicine and Dentistry Women’s Environmental Coalition Industrial/Commercial AT&T Engineering Allied-Signal, Inc. American Cyanamid Company Amoco Oil Company B.F. Goodrich Company BP American 5-4 ------- Bethlehem Steel Corporation Bristol -Meyers Products CE Environmental Technical Marketing CIBA-GEIGY Corporation Chemical Waste Management, Inc. Exxon Research & Engineering Company Federal Business Centers Fuel & Energy Consultants, Inc. Heller Construction Company Hoffman—LaRoche, Inc. IBM Corporation Jersey Central Power & Light Manville EMI—Biodex Merck & Company, Inc. Middlesex Publications Mobile Oil Corporation Public Service Electric & Gas Schering-Plough Corporation Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation Summit Associates S & W Waste Incorporated TANS Repositories Edison Township Municipal Building 100 Municipal Boulevard Edison, New Jersey 08817 Edison Public Library 340 Plainfield Avenue Edison, New Jersey 08817 EPA - Region II Edison Library Woodbridge Avenue Edison, New Jersey 08837 EPA - Region II Library 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 5—5 ------- CHAPTER 6 ------- 6. PREPARERS/REFERENcE DOCUMENTS 6.1 LIST OF PREPARERS The project team for this EIS consisted of staff members of Gannett Fleming Environmental Engineers, Inc. and EcoiSciences, Inc., under the tech- nical direction of EPA Region II ’s Environmental Impacts Branch and EPA’s Office of Research and Development. The EPA personnel involved in this project are listed below: Robert W. Hargrove Chief, Environmental Impacts Branch, EPA Region II William P. Lawler, P.E. Chief, Environmental Analysis Section, EPA Region II Robert J. Turner Environmental Scientist, Environmental Impacts Branch, EPA Region II John S. Farlow Chief, Releases Control Branch, EPA Office of Research & Development Richard A. Griffiths Chief, Releases Technology Section, EPA Office of Research & Development Hugh Masters Physical Scientist, Releases Control Branch, EPA Office of Research & Development James J. Yezzi Physical Scientist, Releases Control Branch, EPA Office of Research & Development The staff members of Gannett Fleming Environmental Engineers, Inc. and EcolSciences, Inc. who prepared this document and their areas of responsi- bility are listed below: Gannett Fleming Staff : Thomas M. Rachford Project Administrator Frank J. Swit Project Manager Heather C. Mcllvried Environmental Engineer, Principal EIS Writer 6-1 ------- EcolScjences Staff : Michael S. Friedman Project Administrator David M. Bell Project Manager, Principal EIS Writer Carol L. Campman Biologist, Public Participation 6.2 REFERENCE LIST American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygenists. 1988. Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices for 1988-1989 . ACGIH, Cincinnati, Ohio. Auer, Jr. A. H. 1978. “Correlation of Land Use and Cover With Meteorological Anomalies”. Journal of Applied Meteorology . 17:636-643. Crouch, E. and Wilson, R. 1982. Risk/Benefit Analysis . Ballinter Publishing Co. , Cambridge, MA. Dourson, M. L. and Stara, J. F. 1983. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharma- cology . 3:224-238. EcolSciences, Inc. 1989. Terrestrial Ecology Survey for a Proposed E-TEC Facility. Raritan Depot. Edison Township. Middlesex County. New Jersey . Prepared for USEPA, Region II, New York, New York. Edison Township, New Jersey. 1989. Edison Township Master Plan. Edison Township Health Department. 1989a. Personal Communication; Jay Elliot. Edison Township Health Department. 1989b. Storet Retrieval of Well Data. Federal Register. 1979. Part 44(56): 17208-17213, March 21, 1979. Federal Register. 1987. Part 52(74): 12866-12870, April 17, 1987. Federal Register. 1988. Part 53(122): 23791-23794, June 24, 1988. Foster Wheeler USA Corporation. 1989. Phase I A/B Report Initial Concept Studies - E-TEC Facility . Prepared for the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Hallenbeck, W.H. and Cunningham, K.M. 1986. Quantitative Risk Assessment for Environmental and Occupational Health . Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, Michigan. Lindsay, Willard L. 1979. Chemical Eauilibria in Soils . John Wiley & Sons, New York. 6-2 ------- Middlesex County Planning Board. 1986. An Inventory of Water Supply Sources Available to the Middlesex County Area. New Brunswick, New Jersey. National Academy of Sciences. 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process . National Academy of Sciences Press, Washington, D.C. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 1974. Land Oriented Reference Data System (LORDS) . Bulletin 74, Trenton, New Jersey. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1980. Endangered and Threatened Species of New Jersey . Trenton, New Jersey. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Environmental Quality. 1988a. Air Quality Report . New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. l988b. Correspondence from George Howard to Michael Zickler. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resources. l989a. Personal Communication; Kevin Berry. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 1989b. Storet Retrieval; Surface Water Quality Data for Raritan River. O ’Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 1989. A-E Quality Control Summary Report (A-E QCSR) for Former Raritan Arsenal, Edison/Woodbridge, New Jersey. Investigation for the Development of Design Criteria . Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District, Kansas City, Missouri. Rogers, Golden and Halpern. 1987. New Jersey Hazardous Waste Facility Site Search: Task 3 Report - Results of On-Site Testing at the Edison Township Site . Submitted to the New Jersey Hazardous Waste Siting Commission. Robichaud, B., and M. Buell. 1973. Vegetation of New Jersey . Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Schmid & Company, Inc., Consulting Ecologists. 1987. Environmental Inventory of the Raritan Center Study Area. Vols. I and II . Prepared for Federal Business Centers, Edison, New Jersey and Summit Associates, Inc., Edison, New Jersey. Sittig, Marshall. 1985. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens . Noyes Publications, New Jersey. Snyder, D. B. 1985. New Jersey’s Threatened Plant Species . Office of Natural Lands Management, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, New Jersey. 6-3 ------- Turk, A. C. and Frishman, A. M. 1977. Environmental Impact Report on Kin Buc II Sanitary Landfill , Edison, NJ. Dames and Moore. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service. 1982. “Estimating Soil Bulk Density from Particle Size Analysis and Organic Matter Content.” Soil Science . pp. 123-125. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 1987. Soil Survey of Middlesex County. New Jersey . New Brunswick, New Jersey. U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey. 1981. Hydro- geological Conditions in the Coastal Plain of New Jersey . Report 81-405, Trenton, New Jersey. U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey. 1981. Perth Aniboy Quadrangle. U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey. 1987. Physical and Chemical Properties and Health Effects of Thirty-three Toxic Organic Chemicals . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Direct Environmental Factors at Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works: Evaluation and Control of Site Aesthetics. Air Pollutants. Noise, and Other Operation and Construction Factors . EPA 430/9-76-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Facilities Evaluation and Long-Term Planning Study for the United States Environmental Protection Agency at Research Triangle Park. North Carolina . Prepared by Odell. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. l985a. Site Analysis: Raritan Arsenal, Edison, New Jersey. TS-PIC-85022. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. l985b. A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in Surface and Ground Water - Part 1 (Revised 1985). EPA/600/6-85/002a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. l986a. Environmental Assessment of the New EPA Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility . Prepared by Vapora, Inc. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. l986b. Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual . EPA/540/l-86/060. OSWER 9285.4-1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986c. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Strategy and Program Plan . EPA/540/G-86/OOl. OSWER 9380.2-3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. l986d. Guidelines of Air Quality Models (Revised) . EPA/450/2-78-027R. 6-4 ------- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Full Containment Facility. Andrew W. Breidenbach. Environmental Research Center. Cincinnati. Ohio . Prepared by U.S. EPA Region V with assistance from Science Applications International Corporation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. 1987b. Briefing on Edison Testing and Evaluation CT & E) Facility . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987c. The Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986 . EPA/600/8-87/045. U.S. U.S. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988a. Program for the Testing and Evaluation Facility for the Office of Research and Development in Edison, NJ. Environmental Protection Agency. l988b. Environmental Audit. Revised Draft Report. Environmental Research Center, Research Triangle Park. NC. Prepared by Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988c. Environmental Information Document for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory. Releases Control Branch. Environmental Technology and Engineering Facility at GSA Raritan Depot. Edison. NJ. Prepared by Enviresponse, Inc. January 1989. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988d. Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual . EPA/540-l-88/OOl. OSWER Directive 9285.5-1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. l989a. Briefing on Environmental Technology and Engineering (E-TEC) Facility . January 27, 1989. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. l989b. Description of Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory Test and Evaluation Facilities . EPA/600/M-89/002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. l989c. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables . OSWER (OS-230). ORD (RD-689). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1976. National Wetlands Inventory , Perth Amboy, New Jersey Quadrangle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Correspondence from Clifford Day to Michael Zickler. Vowinkel, E. F. and Foster, W. K. 1981. Hydrogeological Conditions in the Coastal Plain of New Jersey . USGS Open-File Report 81-405. Widmer, K. 1964. The Geolo v and Geography of New Jersey . D. Van Norstrand Company, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey. 6-5 ------- APPENDIX A ------- APPENDIX A FEDERAL FACILITIES SCREENED DURING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Table A-i Listing of Federally-Owned Properties of 110 Acres or More in New Jersey and New York States New Jersey - Non-DOD Properties BelleMead GSA Depot ICWW Cape May Canal Cape May Training Center Lyons V.A. Medical Center Morristown National Park Service NHP Mt. Holly National Park Disposal Area Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge Pedricktown COE Disposal Area Penns Neck COE Disposal Area Pomona Federal Aviation Administration HDQ Somerville GSA PDMS-Depot Somerville V.A. Supply Depot Wildwood Crest USCG Electric Generating Station COE Artificial Island COB Delaware River Kilicokook Disposal Area COB Penns Grove Disposal Area Department of Justice Bureau of Prisons, Newark USGWS Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Federal Aviation Administration New Jersey - DOD Properties Evans Area Military Ocean Terminal-Bayonne Picatinny Arsenal Chas Wood Area Fort Moninouth Fort Dix Earle Naval Weapons Station Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering Center Atlantic City Map AGS Warren Grove WRS Range McGuire Air Force Base New York - Non-DOD Properties Bath V.A. Medical Center Fire Island USCG Station Big Flats Soil Conservation Service PMC A-I ------- Table A-i (Cont’d.) Listing of Federally-Owned Properties of 110 Acres or More in New Jersey and New York States New York - Non-DOD Properties (Cont’d.) Binghamton GSA DMS Warehouse Buffalo COE Disposal Project Canandaigua Federal Communications Commission Monitoring Station Cassadaga Department of Labor Training Administration Castle Point V.A. Medical Center Cortland USFWS Tunison Laboratory Farmingdale V.A. National Cemetery Franklin COE East Sidney Lake Glenrnont Department of Labor Training Administration Hornell COE Almond Lake Hyde Park Vanderbilt Mansion National Historic Site Hyde Park Home of FDR National Historic Site Hyde Park Home of Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site Islip USFWS Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge Lake Placid Federal Correctional Institution Lewiston Department of Energy R&D Administration Lewiston Department of Labor Training Administration St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Montrose V.A. Hospital Mount Morris COE Project New Baltimore Hudson River Hough Disposal Area New York Gateway NRA Niskayuna Department of Energy R&D Administration Northport V.A. Medical Center Oyster Bay USFWS National Park Service Fire Island National Seashore Riverhead V.A. National Cemetery Salainanca COE Kinzua Dam Sayville Federal Aviation Administration IFST Seneca Falls USFWS Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge Southampton USFWS Morton National Wildlife Refuge Stiliwater National Park Service Saratoga National Park Upton Department of Energy R&D Administration COE Arkport Darn COE Whitney Point Lake Department of Energy Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Department of Justice Federal Correctional Institution Department of Agriculture Plum Island Animal Center Forest Service Green Mountain LUA USFWS Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge USFWS Iroquois National Wildlife Refuge National Park Service Appalachian Trail GSA National Lead Company A-2 ------- Table A-i (Cont’d.) Listing of Federally-Owned Properties of 110 Acres or More in New Jersey and New York States New York - DOD Properties Fort Hamilton Fort Wadsworth Stewart Annex Seneca Army Depot Galeville Training Site Fort Drum Watervliet Arsenal West Point Military Reservation Bethpage Naval Weapons Reserve Brooklyn York Naval Station Calverton Naval Weapons Reserve Ava Test Annex Forest Port Test Annex Lewiston Air Force Plant Merrillsville Stockbridge Test Annex New Winsor Stewart Military Airlift Group Niagara Falls TAC Airlift Group Piattsburg AFB Criffiss AFB Schenectady Airport TAC Airlift Group Hancock Field TAC Fighter Wing Verona Test Annex A-3 ------- APPENDIX B ------- APPENDIX B DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED FACILITY B.1 PHYSICAL PLANT B.l.l Pre-Existing Physical Plant The proposed facility would be located in two interconnected buildings, Building 245 and 246, which are surrounded by 110 acres of land. The build- ings are approximately 30 years old and are currently in fair condition. Buildings 245 and 246 consist of 160,000 square feet (sq. ft.) and 240,000 square feet of floor space, respectively, and are set up in large, open 200 ft. by 200 ft. bays. The construction of the bays is concrete block fire walls with 70 ft. column spacing and a floor to ceiling height of 27 ft. The buildings are steel framed, have a raised dock floor (3 ft. -9 in. above grade) and uninsulated concrete block exterior walls. The structures, constructed by the Department of Defense in 1955-56, were used for warehouse purposes until 1984. Currently, EPA uses a small portion of Building 245 for storage of mobile treatment equipment and other miscellaneous purposes. Figure 2-3, presented in Chapter 2, shows the layout of the existing Raritan Depot site with the proposed 110 acre E-TEC facility site highlighted. B.l.2 Proposed Modifications to the Facility in order to meet the goals of the proposed E-TEC facility, renovation and modification of Buildings 245 and 246 would be required. The proposed renova- tions to the buildings could potentially provide the following: o Offices and related spaces o Technology information library B-i ------- o Laboratory areas: - A regular analytical laboratory - A pilot plant laboratory for small-scale equipment - Test and environmental (T&E) areas for larger-scale equipment o Engineering, fabrication, and maintenance shops o Indoor and outdoor personnel training facility o Storage space for prefabricated chemical and hazardous waste storage trailers o Indoor and potential outdoor areas for storing supplies, materials and equipment o Process water treatment systems - Some examples of potential treat- ment systems are presented below. The specific system(s) that would be necessary would be determined during process design. - Physical/chemical mobile wastewater treatment system - Flocculation/sedimentation mobile wastewater treatment system - Air stripper wastewater treatment system o Air pollution control systems - High efficiency particulate adsorption (HEPA)/carbon adsorption unit with an ID fan and stack - Afterburner, quench, caustic scrubber, wet electrostatic precipitator ID fan and stack o Fugitive emission control system The current design of the proposed modifications calls for two of the existing four bays in Building 245 and one or two of the existing six bays in Building 246 to be renovated for immediate use. The remaining bays would be available for future renovation to provide for facility expansion. The wastewater and air pollution control systems would most likely be housed in a new enclosed area between the two buildings. B- 2 ------- B.l.2.l Laboratories Analytical work in support of the functions of the proposed E-TEC facility would take place in the regular analytical laboratories. The follow- ing facilities would be installed in all laboratories conducting experiments with toxic substances to ensure worker safety. o Handwashing facility o Shower facility o Eye wash facility o Exhaust air pollution control equipment o Exhaust ventilation system to control laboratory room air movement In addition, some operational policies of the laboratories are highlighted below. o All toxic substance work areas must be identified. o Only authorized personnel may enter toxic substance work areas. o Work surfaces must be made of a material suitable for use with toxic substances. o All procedures generating toxic vapors must take place in a primary containment facility (e.g. fume hood). o Cases or vapors generated by analytical instrumentation must be captured. o Respirators must be provided as personal protective equipment to all employees who must enter areas with inhalation hazards. o The chemicals on-site must be stored in a secured storage area and inventory records must be kept. o Hazardous and toxic waste must not remain on site for more than 90 days. o Standard transport practices (i.e. unbreakable outside container) must be used when transporting toxic substances. o Housekeeping procedures that suppress the formation of aerosols must be followed. o Vacuum lines must be protected with an absorbent or a liquid trap and a HEPA filter to prevent the entry of toxic substances into the system. B-3 ------- o Prior to initiation of laboratory activities, procedures for the handling and disposal of toxic chemicals must be established. B.l.2.2 Treatment Systems - Process Water All process water generated from the activities at the proposed E-TEC facility, with the exception of the sanitary wastewater (e.g. , toilets, handsinks), would be collected in an influent holding tank. The sanitary wastewater would be piped directly to the sanitary sewer system and would flow to the Middlesex County Utilities Authority (MCUA) wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) located in Sayreville, New Jersey. Samples of the collected process water in the influent holding tank would be analyzed to determine the concentrations of the various pollutants in the wastewater. If these concentrations were below permissible limits (as defined in applicable permits), the process water would be discharged to the sanitary sewer system and would flow to the MCUA WWTP for further treatment. However, if the concentrations were above permit limits, one of three actions could be taken: 1) on-site pretreatment could be conducted to reduce the concentra- tions prior to discharge to MCUA, 2) the process water could be returned to its point of origin, or 3) the process water could be transported off-site to an approved treatment facility for treatment and disposal. The actual pretreatment systems that would be available on-site would be determined during process design. Some examples of pretreatment systems that could be used on-site include the following: 1) a flocculation/sedimentation mobile treatment system, 2) a physical/chemical mobile treatment system and 3) an air stripper treatment system. Any process water treated on-site would not flow directly to the MCUA treatment plant; following treatment, the process water would be collected in an effluent storage tank. Laboratory analysis would be conducted of the effluent to verify pollutant concentrations were below permit limits prior to discharge. B-4 ------- If the contaminant concentrations were not below compliance standards following on-site treatment, two options would be available. The process water could be recycled back through one or more of the on-site pretreatment systems for additional treatment, or it could be transported, via an approved waste hauler, to receive appropriate treatment off-site. The process water would then be disposed of by the off-site treatment company. As stated previously, not all process water would be treated on-site. If on-site treatment was determined to be infeasible due to the complexity of the waste or the expense of treatment, the process water could either be trans- ported to its point of origin or to an appropriate off-site treatment company. Some tests may be conducted that would produce process water containing relatively high concentrations of one or more contaminants or difficult to treat contaminants. This process water would be segregated from the general process water and collected in an alternate process water holding tank. By segregating this process water, the volume of process water requiring a specific type of removal would be kept to a minimum. If the contaminant was one that was difficult or costly to remove with the processes available at the proposed E-TEC facility, the volume and cost of wastewater that would have to be transported off-site for treatment would be minimized. The process water generation rate would be approximately 100,000 gallons per day. This flow would allow the entire day’s generation of process water to be collected, analyzed, and treated, if required, prior to discharge to the MCUA treatment plant or transport off-site for further treatment. B.l.2.3 Treatment Systems - Air The proposed E-TEC facility would be equipped with air pollution control systems to reduce the concentrations of contaminants in process off-gases. All process off-gases would flow through the facility treatment equipment; if pollution control equipment would be supplied with the equipment to be tested, this equipment would be used in tandem with the facility equipment. The units to be tested would not be required to have pollution control equipment. B-5 ------- Process off-gases, gases generated during the testing of large-scale units, would be treated by components of the following three systems to minimize pollutant concentrations prior to discharge to the atmosphere. The system components selected would depend on the quantity and type of contami- nants contained in the off-gas. The final process design would determine the type and capacity of equipment that would be used; however the components of the three systems would most likely be similar to those listed below. 1) Afterburner, quench, wet electrostatic precipitator (WE?), and induced draft (ID) fan in series or similar treatment system. 2) High efficiency particulate adsorption (HEPA) filter, carbon adsorption filter and ID fan in series. 3) Off-gas combustor or flare. Treated gases, gases containing contaminant concentrations below NJDEP air permit compliance levels, would exit the facility through a stack. The final design of the proposed facility would specify the exact number of stacks and the stack parameters. The stack height and diameter would be determined through air modeling and state and federal regulations and would be included in the final air permit issued to the proposed E-TEC facility by the State of New Jersey. In addition to process off-gases, the gases produced in the analytical laboratories may receive treatment before discharge. The final design of the facility would determine whether the laboratory fume hoods, which would collect the gases produced in the laboratories, would need to be equipped with individual air pollution control equipment and stacks. 6.1.2.4 Ventilation Systems Three separate ventilation systems would be used in the proposed facility. One system would supply ventilation air to the office space. The discharge air from this system would not contain contaminants and would not require treatment prior to discharge. The second system would serve the bench 6-6 ------- and pilot scale laboratory. This air may or may not contain contaminants so the ventilation system would be piped in such a way to provide discharge flexibility. The air could either be discharged directly to the outside with no treatment or it could be vented to some or all of the components of the air pollution control system. Which component(s) were selected would depend on the type and quantity of contaminants. The third system would supply ventilation to the T&E Bays and would operate in a manner similar to the laboratory system described above. This air could be vented to either the outside with no treatment or could be vented to some or all of the components of the air pollution control system. The final detailed design would determine if there would be a separate fugitive emission control system, consisting of a caustic scrubber, installed in the facility. If this system was installed, the ventilation air from the T&E and laboratory systems would pass through the scrubber prior to exiting the facility. If a separate fugitive emission control system was not installed, the ventilation air would be passed through the caustic scrubber used in the pollution control system. B.l.2.5 Storage and Containment Structures In accordance with Federal regulations, chemical storage areas either inside or outside of the proposed E-TEC facility would be equipped with impervious floor material and a dike. The diked areas would not contain floor drains; if a spill occurred, the liquid would be contained within the diked area. The collected liquid could then be pumped out, via suction, and treated on-site or transported off-site for treatment and disposal. The design of the proposed facility calls for inside storage areas and limited outside storage. The outside storage areas would have appropriate storage structures that could contain sample material or equipment. Future expansion requirements could necessitate the construction of additional outside storage areas. All storage areas would conform to all applicable codes and standards. Such mandates ensure designs that would help prevent and control spills and minimize environmental impacts. B-7 ------- The entire facility would be designed to control spills and minimize releases that could be caused by the storage and processing of hazardous and toxic substances. B.l.2.6 Security Systems Currently, the entire EPA Edison Facility that contains the proposed 110 acre E-TEC facility site is surrounded by a chain link fence with site access controlled through an entrance gate and a guard house. Figure 2-3, presented in Chapter 2, shows the location of this existing guard house. A guard is on duty 24 hours per day. The entrance gate is currently open during normal working hours (7:30 AM to 6:00 PM) and then closed at all other times, with access controlled by the security guard stationed in the guard house. B.2 FACILITY USERS EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) Releases Control Branch (RCB) would manage the operation of the proposed E-TEC facility and support the research program requirements of the facility users. The groups that would be expected to use the facility are listed below: 1. EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) and its contractors. 2. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and its contractors. 3. Academic Institutions, such as the Industrial/University Cooperative Centers for Research in Hazardous and Toxic Substances (consortium). 4. Technology developers and offerors. B-8 ------- B.3 SCOPE OF EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES The proposed facility is not a treatment, storage and disposal (TSD) facility under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and would not be used for the treatment, disposal or storage of hazardous wastes. The only wastes treated or stored on-site would be those minimal quantities necessary for testing purposes. Evaluation and experimentation would be conducted at all levels from bench scale to full scale and would take place inside the buildings. The proposed facility would evaluate prototype equipment, small-scale units, and full-sized modular waste treatment units. Development and performance tests would be conducted to determine the effectiveness of the equipment, along with reliability tests that would be used to assess the operating range and safety characteristics. Treatment technologies tested may include chemical, physical, biological or thermal processes which would be operated in either batch, continuous or in-situ mode, in combination or separately, to accomplish extraction, immobilization, destruction, or detoxification of wastes. Examples of specific technologies are presented in Table B-i; however, this table is not intended to be all inclusive. The technologies tested at the facility generally would be equipped with their own pollution control devices. However, the facility would also be equipped with pollution control systems that could be operated in tandem with the equipment’s devices. For those units not equipped with individual pollution control devices, the facility’s systems would provide full treat- ment. Emergency shutdown procedures would be implemented in the event of process irregularities, in accordance with regulatory requirements and sound engineering practices. B. 4 EXPERIMENTAL WORK PLANS Work plans of all experiments would be submitted to EPA for environmental and safety review and approval. No testing would be conducted prior to work plan approval, and the work plans would have to include a determination of the quantity of waste material necessary to conduct the research. B-9 ------- TabLe B-i Ex ipLes of Treatment Technotogies to be Evaluated in the Proposed E-TEC Facility Technology Type Chenical BioLogicaL PhysicaL Inmobitization ThermaL Technology Process Process Process Process Process Catalytic Oxidation X Dechlorination X Etectrochemicat X Neutralization X Precipitation X Aerobic Fixed-Film Fluidized X Bed Anaerobic Fixed-Film Fluidized X Bed In-Situ Biorectamation X Powdered Activated Carbon X Carbon Adsorption X Centrifugation X Distillation X Evaporation X Fittrat on X Ion Exchange X Soil Washing X Solvent Extraction X Stri ing X In-Situ Vitrification X StabiLization/SoLidification X Circulating Ftuidized Bed X Infrared Incineration X Plasme Arc X Pyrotysis X Rotary Kiln Incineration X S*4ercriticaL Water Oxidation X Iet Air Oxidation X Source: EPA, 1988a. -10 ------- The work plans would include the following steps: 1. Planning - Experimental Design (including environmental and safety considerations) - Quality assurance/quality control objectives 2. Equipment setup and shakedown 3. Equipment performance and reliability testing 4. Decontamination - Equipment and facility - Demobilization, removal from site 5. Data reduction and analysis; report preparation B.5 TOXIC SUBSTANCES ON SITE B.5.l Hazardous Chemicals The testing and evaluation that would be conducted at the proposed E-TEC facility could potentially involve almost any chemical or compound including those substances classified as hazardous or toxic. A general list of hazardous substances, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency, can be found in 40 CFR 261, Subparts C and D, and Appendix VIII. A more specific list of the classes of compounds that may be incorporated into testing at the proposed E-TEC is given below (EPA, l989c). o Halogenated non-polar aromatics o Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) o Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins o Polychlorinated dibenzofurans o Halogenated phenols, cresols and other aromatics o Halogenated aliphatic compounds o Halogenated cyclic aliphates/ethers/esters/ketones o Nitrated arornatics and aliphatics o Simple non-polar aromatics and heterocyclics o Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons o Other polar organics o Non-volatile metals o Volatile metals B-ll ------- Along with the chemicals and compounds that would be transported to and temporarily stored in the proposed E-TEC facility for use in research, chemicals necessary to facilitate the efficient operation of the laboratories at the proposed E-TEC (e.g., reagants, solvents) would be stored on site. These chemicals would be stored in relatively small quantities. Table B-2 presents a list of chemicals that could be stored at the proposed facility at some time during the life of the facility to facilitate testing and the quantities at which these chemicals might be stored (EPA l988a). B.5.2 Hazardous Wastes The testing and evaluation of hazardous waste treatment technologies may require the use of clean, uncontaminated soils; surrogate materials; and actual wastes, in the form of solids (i.e., clean or contaminated soils) or liquids (i.e., contaminated surface water or groundwater). These materials would have to be transported to and stored at the proposed E-TEC facility. Such wastes would most likely be obtained from Superfund sites and would be transported and stored in the minimum quantity necessary to conduct research. In all cases, the amount of hazardous waste on-site would be limited to that quantity that could be safely stored at the proposed facility. All wastes stored on-site would be kept in appropriate storage containers and would be placed in the diked storage areas. The process of testing treatment technologies would not only require hazardous waste as an input, but could also generate hazardous waste as a by-product. Any process water generated would be collected in a holding tank and treated with the process water treatment systems described in Section B.l.2.2. Any solid hazardous wastes generated would be contained and most likely be transported back to the site of origin for disposal. These wastes could also be shipped off-site for further treatment or disposal. .6 PROPOSED EFFLUENT STANDARDS Because of the wide variety of activities that would be conducted at the proposed E-TEC facility, the process water generated would vary greatly in its strength and composition. The treated process water would have to comply with B- 12 ------- Table B-2 Examples of Chemicals that Could be Stored in the Proposed E-TEC Facility 1 Typical Chemical Quantity Acetone 10 gal. Benzene 2 gal. Carbon tetrachloride 2 gal. Chloroform 2 gal Ethanol, 95% 20 gal. Ethylacetate 1 gal. Formaldehyde solution, 37% 5 gal. Freon 2 gal. Hexane 10 gal. Methanol 10 gal. Methyl ethyl ketone 2 gal. Methylene chloride 5 gal. Mineral spirits 50-gal. drum Toluene 10 gal. Tributyl phosphate 3 gal. Trichioroethylene 1 gal. Triisooctylamine 10 gal. Triton NiOl 5 gal. Xylene, mixed isomer 3 gal. p-xylene 30 gal. Acetic acid 5 gal. Hydrochloric acid 20 gal. Hydroflouric acid, 37% 5 gal. Nitric acid, 70% 20 gal. Perchloric acid, 70% 5 gal. Phosphoric acid 3 gal. Sulfuric acid, 95% 5 gal. Anunonium hydroxide 15 gal. Sodium hydroxide 50-gal. drum Specialty gases 40 cylinders (A-l) L-ascorbic acid 75 grams avg. (3 bottles) Boric acid powder 7-8 liters avg. (3 bottles) Cyclohexane 20 liters avg. (5 bottles) Ether 2 liters avg. (2 bottles) Hydrogen peroxide 1 liter avg. (1 bottle) Monochioracetic acid 1,500 gm. avg. (3 bottles) Nitric acid, fuming 500 gm. avg. (1 bottle) Sodium chloride, granular 50 kg. on hand (5 boxes) 1 Chemicals that could be stored at the proposed facility at some time during the life of the facility. Source: EPA, l988a. B-13 ------- the effluent limits imposed by the NJDEP. These limits, contained in the facility’s indirect discharge permit, would represent concentrations below which no adverse impacts would be expected in the operation of the MCUA treat- ment plant. .7 APPROVALS NECESSARY FOR OPERATION Prior to the initiation of any activities at the proposed E-TEC, various permits and approvals would be required which are listed below (EPA, 1988c). Permit/Approval Applicable Regulation o Research, Development, and U.S. EPA - 40 CFR Part 270.65 Demonstration (RD&D) Permit and related RCRA regulations. o Toxic Substances Control Act U.S. EPA - 40 CFR 761.40 et. seq. (TSCA) Permit Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, Dis- tribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions. o Permit to Construct and New Jersey Department of Environ- Certificate to Operate Air mental Protection (NJDEP) Admin- Pollution Control Permit istrative Code 7:27-8.1 et. seq. o NJPDES Indirect Discharge NJDEP Administrative Code 7:14 Permit A-i et. seq. o Pretreatment Works Requirements NJDEP Administrative Code 7:9-1. o Sewer Extension Permit (Agreement MCUA. to discharge pretreated effluent to Domestic Treatment Works) B- 14 ------- APPENDIX C ------- APPENDIX C VEGETATIVE & WILDLIFE SPECIES Table C-i Vegetative Species Found in Upland Areas Proposed E-TEC Facility Site, Edison, NJ Common Name Taxonomjc Name Trees Red oak Quercus rubra Pin oak Quercus palustris Black oak Quercus velutina White oak Quercus alba Chestnut oak Quercus prinus Blackjack oak Quercus marilandica Black gum Nyssa sylvatica Black cherry Prinus serotina Red maple Acer rubrum Sweet gum j styraciflua Red cedar Juniperus virginica Pitch pine Pinus rigida Sassafras Sassafras albidium Shrubs/Vines American holly hex opaca Arrowwood Viburnum dentatum Bayberry Myrica pennsylvanica Winged sumat Rhus co allina Gray birch Betula populifolia Willow sp. Salix sp. Tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissima Pussy willow Salix discolor Aspen sp. Populus sp. Crab apple Pyrus sp. Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora Silktree Mimosa sp. Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica Bittersweet Celastrus scandens Greenbrair Smilax rotundifolia Blackberry Rhus sp. Highbush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum Maleberry Lyaria lingustria Chokeberry Aronia sp. Smooth sumac Rhus glabra Staggerbush Lyonia mariana Fetterbush Leucothoe racemosa Blue beech Carpinus caroliniana C-l ------- Table C-i (Cont’d.) ‘Vegetative Species Found in Upland Areas Proposed E-TEC Facility Site, Edison, NJ Common Name Taxonomic Name Herbs Azalea Rhododendron sp. Sweetbay magnolia Magnolia virginica Sweet fern Comptonia peregrina Sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia Evening primrose Oenothera biennis Path rush Juncus sp. Switch grass Panicum virEatum Deptford pink Prianthus armeria Goldenrod sp. Solidago sp. Moth mullein Verbascum blattaria Common mullein Verbascum thapsus Bracken fern Pteridium agulinum Sweet everlasting Gnaphalium sp. Aster sp. Aster sp. Sweet clover Melilotus sp. Horse nettle Solanum carolinense Poverty oats grass Dathonia spicata Mugwort Artemesia vulgaris Indian hemp Apocynum cannabirium Heal all Prunella vul aris Yarrow Archillea millefolium Queen Anne’s lace Daucus carota English plantain Planto o lanceolata Knapweed Centaurea maculosa Orchard grass Dactylis glomerata Whorled loosestrife Lvsimachia sp. Field garlic Allium uneale Broomsedge Andropogon virginicus False heather Hudsonia tomentosa Wood sedge Carex sp. Trailing arbutus Epigaea repens Sheep laurel Kalmia angustifolia Cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnarnonea Tree pine clubmoss Lycopodium obscurum Lady slipper Cypripedium sp. Indian grass Sorghastrum nutans Bluestein grass Andropogon sp. Earth star Graster sp. British soldier Cladonia cristatella Roundheaded bush clover Lepedeza caeitata C-2 ------- Table C-2 Vegetative Species Found in Wetland Areas Proposed E-TEC Facility Site, Edison, NJ Common Name Taxonomic Name Trees Red maple Acer rubrurn Pin oak Quercus palustris Sweet gum j styraciflua White oak Quercus alba Black gum Nyssa sylvatica Black willow Salix nigra Shrubs/Vines Common elder Sambucus canadensis Smooth sumac Rhus glabra Highbush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum Gray birch Betula populifolia Bayberry Myrica pennsylvanica Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica Sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia Sweetbay magnolia Magnolia virginica Azalea Rhododendron sp. Arrowwood Viburnum dentatuin Smooth alder Alnus serrulata Spicebush Lindera benzojn Herbs Slender mountain mint Sedge sp. Carex sp. Common reed Phragmites australis Sphagnum moss Sphagnum sp. Soft rush Juncus effusus Woolgrass Scirpus cyperinus Purple willowherb Epilobium coloratum Sheep laurel Kalmia angustifolia Yellow bartonia Bartonia virginica Bushy broomsedge Andropogon glomeratus Bog clubmoss Lycopodium appressum Hayscented fern Dennstaedtia sp. Cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamomea Skunk cabbage Symplocarpus foetidus Yam Dioscorea villosa False nettle Boehmeria cylindrica Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis Canada rush Juncus canadensis C-3 ------- Table C-2 (Cont’d.) Vegetative Species Found in Wetland Areas Proposed E-TEC Facility Site, Edison, NJ Common Name Taxonomic Name Herbs Cottongrass Eriphorum sp. Burreed Sparganium sp. Tussock sedge Carex stricta Meadow beauty Rhexia virginica Swamp St. Johnswort Hypericum virginicum C-4 ------- Table C-3 Wildlife Species Found in Upland or Wetland Areas Proposed E-TEC Facility Site, Edison, NJ Common Name Taxonomic Name Mammals Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Opossum Didelphis marsupialis Racoon Procyon lotor Whitetail deer Q virginianus Grey squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Woodchuck Marmota morax Birds Cardinal R. cardinalis Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Flicker Colaptes sp. Robin turdus migratorius Redtailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Blackcapped chickadee Parus atricapillus Crow Corvus brachyrhinchos American kestrel Falco sparverius Rock dove Columba livia House sparrow Passer domesticus Herring gull Larus argentatus Downy woodpecker Dendrocopos pubescens Tufted titmouse Parus bicolor House finch carpodacus mexicanus Mourning dove Zenaidura niacroura Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Amphibians Spring peeper Hyla crucifer C-5 ------- APPENDIX D ------- APPENDIX D DESCRIPTION OF AIR MODELING D.l INTRODUCTION An assessment of the potential air quality impacts caused by operational activities of the proposed E-TEC facility can be accomplished using air quality dispersion modeling techniques. These modeling techniques estimate the air pollutant concentrations that may be observed in the areas surrounding the source. The concentration predictions are based on the design and operational parameters of the proposed facility, and meteorological and topographical conditions of the proposed site location. The EPA’s Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 10 (Revised): Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality Impact of New Stationary Sources (Guidelines) presents a three-phase approach for evaluating the air quality impact of proposed new sources. The rationale of the phased approach is to first use simple screening procedures to evaluate the new source impacts on air quality. If the analysis predicts no potential problems, no further analysis is required. If the simple screening procedures indicate a potential problem, detailed screening procedures are applied and the results evaluated. If the detailed screening procedures indicate a potential problem, refined modeling techniques, as outlined in the Guidelines, are applied to the analysis. D.2 MODELING PARAMETERS D.2.l Terrain Analysis Ry definition, complex terrain is terrain that exceeds stack height. This type of terrain has the potential to be significantly impacted by the source being modeled. Local terrain elevations at the proposed Edison site rise above the stack tip elevation of 145 feet mean sea level (MSL), creating a complex terrain situation. The EPA Guidelines on Air Quality Models (Revised) suggest that pollutant concentration impacts for sources to be D-1 ------- located in complex terrain be calculated using both a simple terrain model and a complex terrain model, and results used for the analysis be dependent upon the relationship of the stack and plume height to the receptor elevation. The models to be used for this initial screening analysis are the COMPLEX-I Screening Technique for complex terrain analysis and the ISCST model for simple terrain analysis. D.2.2 Assumed Stack Data The number of stacks and the design parameters of each would be included in the detailed design of the proposed facility. In the absence of detailed specifications of the stacks, the following stack parameters were assumed (Table D-l). These parameters represent plausible values but would not necessarily be the final design parameters used. The final values would be determined through air modeling and state and federal regulations. D.2.3 Receptor Locations According to the Guidelines, receptors must be located up to a distance of 50 km from the proposed source. A total of 27 receptors 0.5 to 50 km from the proposed stack were input into the model. The first 3 receptors were chosen for their close proximity to the proposed stack and for having eleva- tions close to the stack tip. The remaining receptors were chosen because they were points of highest elevation or were approximated to provide a receptor location between two terrain features. For example, if a receptor would happen to be located 5 km away at an elevation of 150 feet and the next closest receptor happened to be 10 km away at an elevation of 200 feet with a valley in between, the receptors located at 6, 7, 8, and 9 km away would be assigned an elevation between 150 and 200 ft. This approximation results in higher concentration predictions for these receptors than would actually be experienced and therefore, provides “worst case” results. The first 6 receptors were within relatively close proximity to the proposed stack location and are shown on Figure D-1. Table D-2 presents a list of the receptor distances from the proposed source and elevations. D-2 ------- Table D-l Stack Parameters Parameter Value Stack Height (ft.) 75 Stack Diameter (ft.) 2.5 Stack Base Elevation (ft.) 70 Stack Tip Elevation (ft.) 145 Stack Gas Temperature (°F) 175 Stack Gas Exit Velocity (m/s) 10.36 Source: EPA, 1988c. Table D-2 Receptor Locations Receptor Distance (km) Height (ft ) 1 0.5 70 2 0.64 80 3 0.762 100 4 1.0 103 5 1.5 105 6 2.0 110 7 2.5 115 8 3.0 117 9 3.81 120 10 4.0 143 11 4.18 150 12 4.3 180 13 4.4 200 14 5 210 15 6 215 16 7 220 17 8 230 18 9 250 19 10 300 20 13 400 21 14 500 22 15 540 23 16 600 24 20 600 25 30 600 26 40 600 27 50 600 D-3 ------- LEGEND •R2 RECEPTOR LOCATION / I I I ‘V / / ,- V V ‘7 -, ) / a’ / ./ -‘V / - ‘ V a, 1/ (C , / / V PROPOSED E-TEC FACILITY EDISON,NEW JERSEY RECEPTOR LOCATION MAP 2000 SC _E N EE S EP PONM(NTA PPOEC ON AGE’ C FIGURE D-I / I I I B— 4 ------- D.2.4 Criteria Pollutant Emission Rates Specific emission rates for the criteria pollutants (e.g. SO 2 , TSP) could not be determined because of the variable nature of the activities at the proposed E-TEC facility. An emission rate of 1 g/sec was assumed for each of the pollutants. The use of an equivalent emission rate for all pollutants permitted one modeling run using a “generic” pollutant. The testing and research activities at the proposed facility would use wastes containing low concentrations of contaminants (on the order of parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb)) and all process off-gases would pass through the facility’s air pollution control system prior to discharge. The emission rate of the criteria pollutants was conservatively estimated to be 1 g/sec. It should be understood that all criteria pollutant modeling results and interpretations presented in this document are based on the assumed 1 g/s emission rate, which may or may not accurately describe the emissions of the facility. D.3 SIMPLE SCREENING ANALYSIS To conduct the simple screening analysis, the first of the three modeling phases, a simplistic, worst-case approach was taken. The wind was assumed to blow one direction only, from the proposed stack directly to each receptor, at it’s maximum speed and most stable condition. The most stable wind, stability Class F, prohibits vertical mixing. In addition, the terrain features of the area were not accounted for in the analysis; the surrounding area was con- sidered to be flat and mean sea level (MSL) was input for the elevation of each receptor. To enable the wind to directly impact each receptor, the model would have to be run 27 times (once for each receptor) with the wind direction adjusted to impact the receptor being modeled. To reduce th e computer run time without altering the results, the receptors can be lined up in a straight line and the wind can be input as blowing in a direction toward the receptors. D-5 ------- The actual distances from the proposed stack location to the receptors were maintained while the receptors were aligned. Figure D-2 shows this procedure graphically. A widely used, EPA approved model, COMPLEX-I with the VALLEY option, was used to estimate the air quality impact. The VALLEY model was chosen because its primary use is estimating the 24-hour average pollutant concentrations. This model has been integrated into the Graphical Exposure Modeling System (GEMS), prepared by the EPA ’s Exposure Evaluation Division (EED), Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) (EPA, l988d). A description of this model can be found in Section D.7.2. The input parameters for the model are shown in Table D-3. Table D-3 Simple Screening Input Parameters Parameter Input Receptor Heights MSL (ft.) at appropriate locations Emission Rate 1.00 g/s Stack Height 75 ft. Stack Temp. 352 K Stack Velocity 10.36 rn/s Stack Diameter 0.76 m Facility Elevation 70 ft. Wind Speed 2.5 rn/s (preset by model) Stability Class F (preset by model) The results of the simple screening analysis indicated that the maximum impact area would be the 200 ft. terrain feature 4.39 km to the northeast of the proposed site, Receptor 13. The maximum 24-hour ground level impact was predicted to be 0.66 ug/m 3 . With the 1 g/s emission rate, the simple screen- ing analysis assumed the plume would not impact terrain. Because the proposed site would be located in a complex terrain situation, a more detailed screen- ing analysis was required that considered the actual terrain features of the site. No conclusions regarding air quality impacts were based on these simple screening results; the simple screening results are presented here only to verify that detailed screening was required. Computer printouts of model results are included in Appendix H. D- 6 ------- R 27 R 26 R 25 R 24 R 23 R22 R 21 R 20 R 19 R 18 R 17 R 16 R(5 R 14 R 13 R 12 Rh RIO R9 RB R7 R6 R5 R4 R3 R2 RI WIND DIRECTION PROPOSED E-TEC FACILITY SITE PROPOSED STACK LOCATION LEGEND * ACTUAL RECEPTOR LOCATIONS IN RELATIONSHIP TO PROPOSED E-TEC FACILITY • RECEPTOR CONFIGURAT(ON FOR MODELING PURPOSES PROPOSED E-TEC FACILITY EDISON, NEW JERSEY RECEPTOR LOCATION M ETHODOLOGY U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC? S • S S S S S S S S S S S . S S S S S S S S . S S —--—. — — — R2 t B— 7 FIGURE D—2 ------- D.4 DETAILED SCREENING ANALYSIS The detailed screening analysis considered a somewhat more realistic worst case approach. As with the simple screening analysis, only one wind direction, directly toward the receptors was considered, but for the detailed screening analysis, the wind speed and wind stability were allowed to vary between 0.5 rn/s and 15.0 m/s, and between stability class A and stability class F. (Stability Class A allows complete vertical mixing while stability Class F allows no vertical mixing). The wind speeds and stabilities input were the standard 48 worst case meteorological conditions taken from the PTPLU model. In addition to allowing wind speed and stability variations, the detailed screening permitted consideration of the topographic features of the surround- ing area. Rather than inputting MSL for each receptor, the actual elevation of the receptor was used. As before, to facilitate modeling, the receptors were aligned to permit one modeling run. In this case, however, the distance from the proposed stack to the receptor and the elevation of the receptor were retained. The area around the proposed facility was modeled as a rural run type. This description was determined from the procedures outlined in the EPA- approved land use method of choosing the urban or rural classification (Auer, 1978). A 3 km radius circle was drawn around the proposed facility and the meteorological land use typing scheme, outlined by Auer, was applied to the total area to determine the rural classification. For the detailed screening, both the COMPLEX-I and ISCST models (model descriptions are contained in Section D.7) were run using the generic pollu- tant and the emission rate of 1.00 g/s. These two models were chosen due to their ability to model in a complex or rolling terrain situation. The COMPLEX-I and ISCST models handle industrial source complexes in rural or urban areas. The isc short-term model has been integrated into the GEM system because of its ability to produce sophisticated analyses of atmospheric fate (EPA, 1988d). The results of the COMPLEX-I and ISCST runs were compared, and D-8 ------- the results of the model that produced higher concentrations were used to estimate air quality impacts for a worst-case scenario. For this study, COMPLEX-I yielded higher concentrations. The COMPLEX-I model predicts the maximum one hour concentration at each receptor location that would result from the modeling conditions. In this case, the greatest maximum impact concentration occurred at Receptor 1 and had a magnitude of 27.55 ug/m 3 . To convert the one hour maximum concentrations into maximum 3 hour, 8 hour, 24 hour and annual average values, the EPA recommended factors of 0.9, 0.7, 0.4 and 0.12, respectively, are multiplied by each receptors one hour maximum. The COMPLEX-I results for each of the 27 receptors in terms of maximum 24-hour concentration are presented in Table D-4. As can be seen from the table, the maximum impact occurs at Receptor 1 and has a magnitude of 11.02 ug/m 3 (27.55 ug/m 3 x 0.4 = 11.02 ug/rn 3 ). Computer printouts of the COMPLEX-I model results are included in Appendix H. D.4.l Air Quality Assessment In order to determine compliance with the NAAQS, the COMPLEX-I model prediction of the maximum impact concentration caused by the proposed facility must be added to the background concentration. The maximum 1 hr., 3 hr., 8 hr., 24 hr. and annual average values occurred at Receptor 1 and were of magnitude 27.55, 24.80, 19.29, 11.02 and 3.31 ug/m 3 , respectively. These values were added to the 1988 background concentrations (see Table 3-1). The results of this analysis are presented in Table D-5. The table shows that none of the NAAQS would be violated with the estimated emissions. Therefore, the activities at the proposed E-TEC facility would have a minimal impact to the ambient air quality. These findings of no significant air quality impact were based on contrived wind conditions (one direction only and 48 worst case meteorological conditions). These conditions cause the model to predict higher results than would be expected to occur under the actual wind conditions of the area. D-9 ------- Table D-4 Model Results for Complex-I Receptor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Maximum 24-hour Concentration (ug/m 3 ) 11.02 8.50 7.90 5.62 2.83 2.37 2.22 2.00 1.64 1.63 1.58 1.61 1.62 1.40 1.10 0.90 0.74 0.63 0.54 0.38 0.34 0.31 0.28 0.20 0.11 0.07 0.05 Meteorological Wind Speed ( meters/sec. ) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.0 Conditions Stability Class A B B B B D B D B D B D D D D D B B B D B B D B D B F NOTE: A is a strongly unstable stability which allows vertical mixing. B is an unstable stability which causes a looping vertical mixing. D is neutral stability which causes a coning plume. For a coning plume, vertical mixing is adiabatic. F is a strongly stable stability which causes a fanning plume and prohibits vertical mixing. causes a looping plume and plume and allows D -10 ------- Table D-5 Air Quality Impact Assessment Maximum Concentration Averaging NAAQS & Background Pollutant Period ( ug/m 3 ) ( ug/m 3 ) SO 2 3-hour 1,300 260.3 24-hour 365 171.0 Annual 80 33.3 TSP 24-hour 260 227.0 Annual 75 45.6 PM-1O 24-hour 150 82.0 Annual 50 31.4 CO 1-hour 40,000 10,902.6 8-hour 10,000 6,086.3 NOx Annual 100 49.2 Therefore, if no significant impact occurs with the results of the detailed modeling, defined modeling, that uses actual meteorological data from the area, does not need to be conducted. The modeling presented here is preliminary and may change based on the final facility design. D.5 REFINED MODELING - RISK ASSESSMENT Because the risk assessment deals with long-term exposures to toxic substances, it was felt that the risk assessment should be based on a long- term model using refined modeling techniques. Refined modeling incorporates five years of actual meteorological data from the Newark Airport, the closest monitoring station to the proposed facility. In addition, the refined modeling should be based on specific stack parameters, which will not be available until the detailed design phase has been completed. Because refined modeling techniques allow the wind direction to change, the receptors can not be lined up in the manner such as the screening model- ing. In this case, a polar grid was used (a cartesian grid was used in the screening) and the receptors were defined in terms of their actual position D-ll ------- relative to the proposed stack location. This approach allows the receptors to be impacted by the magnitude and frequency of wind they would most likely be exposed to under actual conditions. Five years of surface meteorological data from Newark Airport and upper air data from Atlantic City were input into the ISCLT computer model to describe the actual wind conditions. The ISC long-term model was chosen for use in the risk assessment because it has the ability to assess the annual average concentrations that are needed in the risk assessment without the use of conversion factors. The long-term version of the ISC model is also included in GEMS (EPA, l988d). (A description of this model is contained in Section C.6). Using this information, five years of annual average concentrations were obtained for each of the chosen receptors. The highest annual average for the 5 years worth of results was chosen to represent the annual average concentration. This value occurred at Receptor 3 (see Figure D-l). The value of annual average concentration generated with the computer model assumed the proposed facility was emitting substances 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. The maximum number of days in which substances would be emitted per year would be 250 (5 days per week, minus 10 holidays). The facility would not emit substances to the atmosphere for a total of 365 days per year due to holidays, weekends and down time between tests. Therefore, the annual averages were multiplied by the factor 250/365 to account for the reduced operation. Taking this factor into account, the maximum annual average concentration, with a generic pollutant and a 1 g/s emission rate, would be 0.145 ug/m 3 . Computer printouts of model results can be found in Appendix H. D.6 CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO MODELING In this document, it was assumed that a catastrophic release would occur due to a fire at the proposed E-TEC facility. The heat caused by this event was assumed to cause the substances to vaporize and exit the facility through the ventilation fans and stacks located in the roof. D- 12 ------- The T and E Bay roofs have four fans each with 0.9 rn (3 foot) diameter “stacks” located above each fan. These fans would be lined up linearly along the centerline of the roof. The fan duct elevations would be 100 ft. (70 ft. above sea level and 30 feet above ground elevation) which is lower than some of the terrain features within the modeling area. The ISCST model cuts off receptor elevations at stack tip elevation (100 feet) which can affect the results. However, if stack downwash is a more important component in determining ground level concentrations than the complex terrain above stack height, the ISCST model can still be used to calculate results. To determine whether stack downwash is more important, the ISCST model should be run using the closest receptors and the VALLEY computer model (an option of COMPLEX-l) should be run with all receptors. The VALLEY model can accommodate receptors above stack tip elevation and is meant to be.a screen- ing model. If ISCST predicts higher 1 hour maximum ground level concentra- tions (indicating more conservative results), then stack downwash drives the results more than complex terrain and the ISCST model can be used to predict impacts. However, if the VALLEY results are higher, the ISCST model cannot be used. In this case, terrain features drive the results and a model that can account for complex terrain, such as COMPLEX-I, must be used to predict impacts. The ISCST and VALLEY models were run using the volumetric flow rate of 10.8 1113/s and velocity of 16.5 in/s (See Appendix F). The input data and results are contained in Table D-6. As can be seen on the table, ISCST yields higher results, indicating the ISCST can be used to predict impacts. (The computer printouts of the VALLEY model run and ISCST screening runs can be found in Appendix H). Once it was determined that stack downwash was more controlling than complex terrain features, the ISCST model was run with all of the receptors. D-13 ------- Table D-6 Comparison of ISCST and VALLEY Volumetric Max 1 Hour Ground Number flow rate Velocity Level Concentration Model of Fans per fan m 3 JS rn/S ug!rn 3 ISCST* 4 10.8 16.5 11.17 VALLEY 4 10.8 16.5 2.74 * Model run with closest receptors only (screening run only; results not used in catastrophic risk assessment). D-14 ------- The following were components of the model run: o A polar grid was used o Receptor elevations above stack tip were lowered to stack tip elevation (100 feet) o Wind speed 2.5 m/s, stability class F o Wind direction varied o Total volumetric flow rate 43 ni 3 /S o Total generic pollutant emission rate = 1 g/s The input data and model results are contained in Table D-7. The ISCST computer printouts are contained in Appendix H. The maximum 1 hour impact concentration was predicted to be 12.44 ug/m 3 with a generic pollutant emission rate of 1 g/s. The distance to the maximum impact concentration was 3000 meters. D.7 DESCRIPTIONS OF COMPUTER MODELS D.7.l Industrial Source Complex CISC ) The ISC Model is a steady state Gaussian plume model which can be used to assess pollutant concentrations from a wide variety of sources associated with an industrial source complex. The ISC model was developed by EPA. This model can account for settling and dry deposition of particulates, downwash area, line and volume sources, plume rise as a function of downwind distance, separation of point sources, and limited terrain adjustment. It operates in both short-term (ST) and long-term (LT) modes. The ISCST is the latest version 3.4 and the ISCLT is Version 6.5 (EPA, l986d). For regulatory use, ISC is appropriate for the following applications: - industrial source complexes - rural or urban areas - flat or rolling terrain - transport distances less than 50 km - one-hour to annual averaging times D-15 ------- Table D-7 ISCST Model Input & Results Number of Vents 4 Total Volumetric Flow Rate (in 3 /S) 43 Volumetric Flow Rate Per Fan (m 3 /S) 10.8 Velocity (m Is) 16.5 Ambient Temperature (°C) 25 Stack Gas Temperature (°K) 1000 Stack Height (ft) (above ground level) 30 Emission Time (mm) 60 Stack Diameter (mu) 0.914 Area (m 2 ) 0.656 Total Generic Pollutant Emission Rate (g/s) 1 Generic Pollutant Emission Rate Per Fan (g/s) 0.25 Maximum 1 Hour Ground Level Concentration (ug/m 3 ) 12.44 Distance to Maximum Impact Concentration (m) 3000 D-16 ------- D.7.2 COMPLEX-I - Version 86064 COMPLEX-I is a multiple point source code with terrain adjustment. It was developed by the complex terrain team at the Chicago Workshop on Air Quality Models, February 1980. It is a sequential model utilizing hourly meteorological data. It assumes a normal distribution in the vertical and a uniform distribution across a 22.5 degree sector. The initial screening technique for complex terrain applications has been incorporated as an option in COMPLEX-I which is the VALLEY screening model. The limitation of the model is that until the behavior of a plume in complex terrain situations can be documented and new mathematical constructs developed, the existing dispersion algorithms must be used. D.7.3 VALLEY The VALLEY is an analytical technique model. The primary use of this model is estimating the 24-hour average pollutant concentrations due to isolated sources in rural, complex terrain. This model is incuded as an option in the COMPLEX-I model for screening purposes. The limitation of this model is that it presets the worst-case meteorological conditions as stability class F at 2.5 rn/s. D.8 ASSUMED MODEL INPUTS D.8.l ISCST and COMPLEX-I Assumed Model Inputs - For Air Quality Modeling ( Section D.3 -D.4 ) 1. Cartesian Receptor Grid - used in screening modeling because only distance from stack to receptor is important not actual position relative to stack (only one wind direction). 2. Rural Run Type - justified due to site conditions. (See Section D.4) 3. Default Wind Profile Exponents - model default. D- 17 ------- 4. Default Vertical Potential Temperature - model default. 5. Final Plume Rise - regulatory default. 6. No Stack Tip Dowriwash - stack is at an adequate height to eliminate downwash. 7. Bouyancy Induced Dispersion - regulatory default. D.8.2 VALLEY Assumed Model Inputs 1. Stability Class F - preset by model. 2. 2.5 rn/s wind speed - preset by model. 3. 270° wind angle - receptors lined up to the east. D8.3 ISCLT Assumed Model Inputs 1. Polar Receptor Grid - necessary to locate the receptors in relation to the stack and to correspond to the wind direction data. 2. Rural Run Type - justified due to site conditions. (See Section D.4). D.8.4 ISCST Assumed Model Inputs - Catastrophic Release Risk Assessment ( section D.6 ) 1. Polar Receptor Grid - necessary to locate the receptors in relation to the stack and to correspond to the wind direction data. 2. Rural Run Type - justified due to site conditions (see section D.4). 3. Default Wind Profile Exponents - model default. 4. Final Plume Rise - regulatory default D- 18 ------- 5. Stack Downwash - stack elevation so low, downwash becomes important. 6. Wind Speed - 2.5 m/s, Stability Class F D -19 ------- APPENDIX E ------- APPENDIX E RISK ASSESSMENT - CHRONIC EXPOSURE E.l HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT - LONG-TERM, LOW-LEVEL RELEASE The purpose of this risk assessment is to quantify any additional potential health risks to which the human population surrounding the proposed E-TEC facility would be exposed. There are many potential routes of exposure to substances, such as swiimning in contaminated waters, eating fish or shell fish that came from contaminated water, drinking contaminated surface water or ground water, contacting contaminated soil or breathing contaminated air. Management controls, the experience and specialized training of the proposed facility’s staff and the pollution controls built into the proposed facility greatly reduce the chance that substances from the proposed facility would enter the soil, surface or ground water. These routes were examined, but are not considered significant sources of exposure and will not be part of the detailed risk assessment. (For general information regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed facility on surface and ground water see Chapter 4). The potential for children to be attracted to the site and directly contact the hazardous materials would be eliminated through management controls. The proposed facility would be surrounded by a fence and access into the facility would be controlled by a guard. The major route of potential exposure to hazardous substances would be via inhalation. A detailed risk assessment was conducted to determine the potential risks to the exposed public from this route of exposure. Health risks could be associated with both long-term, low-level (chronic) exposure due to day to day operational activities and short-term, high concen- tration (acute) exposure caused by a catastrophic release of a large quantity of a substance or substances (e.g., explosion in the building). (The chronic exposure health risk assessment is presented in Appendix E and the acute health risk assessment is presented in Appendix F). E-l ------- The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defines risk assessment as involving one or more of the following steps: hazard identification, dose- response evaluation, exposure assessment and risk characterization (NAS, 1983). The EPA has accepted this definition and uses this approach when conducting risk assessments. In assessing the potential public health risks from the proposed facility all four components were considered: 1. Hazard Identification - Information concerning the chemicals that would be used on-site, such as the health effects and the conditions that would cause exposure, is gathered. 2. ExDosure Assessment - The release of contaminants from the facility, the transport of these contaminants through the environment and environmental concentrations are determined or estimated. From this information, maximum individual exposure levels and doses can be estimated. 3. Dose-Restrnnse Evaluation - The quantitative relationship between the amount of exposure to a substance and the extent of toxic injury or disease is examined. 4. Risk Characterization - The first three steps are integrated to determine the risk that humans would experience adverse health effects due to the exposure to the contaminants. The methods used and the results obtained for each of these components are described in detail in this Appendix and Appendix F. E.l.l Risk Assessment Limitations The health risk assessment should reflect the activities and events likely to take place at the proposed facility and the potential for the surrounding community residents to be exposed to releases from these activities. Ideally, the following information should be known: E-2 ------- o Detailed characterization of experimental activities to enable the prediction of daily or weekly release rates of specific substances to the air pollution control system. o Removal efficiencies for specific contaminants in the air pollution control system. o Detailed design information about the air pollution control system (e.g., stack height, stack diameter). o Typical release rates of substances to the environment from the discharge stack on a daily or weekly basis. o Activity patterns of residents who potentially could be exposed to releases from the proposed facility. The detailed operational and design information (e.g., stack design parameters, air pollution control design) was not available at this stage of consideration of the proposed E-TEC facility, so the risk assessment had to be conducted based on the limited information available and realistic assump- tions. EPA ’s Office of Research and Development conducted a literature review to determine potential capacities for the types of treatment systems that might be evaluated at the proposed facility and possible quantities of chemicals that might be released to the pollution control system. The results of this literature review were used to determine estimated feed rates to the pollution control system. In the absence of specific information regarding removal efficiencies of various contaminants in the air pollution control system, the conservative assumptions were made that 99% of the organic substances would be removed and 98% of the inorganic substances would be removed. The actual removal efficiency of the pollution control system would depend on such factors as the specific equipment used, the size of the units, and the feed rate and composi- tion. The removal efficiencies would need to be determined as part of compliance with the air permit issued by NJDEP. E-3 ------- The detailed design parameters of the proposed stack(s) would be included in the final detailed design of the proposed facility. These parameters would be chosen based on the results of air quality modeling and state and federal regulations and would be specified in the air permit issued by the State of New Jersey. Because these parameters were not known, realistic values had to be assumed. The assumed parameters are included in Appendix D with the description of the air quality modeling input parameters. Release rates of substances to the environment were predicted based on the estimates of pollution control system feed rates (described above) and the conservative estimates of removal efficiencies. All of the techniques described above for predicting the information necessary to conduct the risk assessment lead to the prediction of “worst- case” results. In other words, the results obtained should represent the worst potential health risks to which the public would be exposed on a day to day basis. In all likelihood, the actual health risks would be less than the risks predicted by this risk assessment. E.l.2 Hazard Identification The operational activities at the proposed E-TEC could potentially involve almost any of the substances identified as toxic or hazardous. It would be neither practical nor possible to conduct a risk assessment involv- ing all of the chemicals that might be used on site. Instead, the recommended approach is to base the risk assessment on indicator chemicals. The selection of these chemicals is based on the following criteria: 1) the potential for the chemical to be found on-site in a significant quantity, 2) the physical and chemical properties of the chemical related to its environmental mobility and persistence, and 3) the toxicity of the chemical. No quantitative matrix was established to select these chemicals based on the criteria above; the selections were based on professional judgement and a qualitative review of the best available information. (This selection methodology is outlined in the EPA, Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual, 1986). Table E-l presents a list of the chemicals identified as indicator compounds for this study. E-4 ------- Table E-l Indicator Chemicals Selected for Carcinogenic Health Effects Arsenic 2 , 4-Dinitrotoluene Benzene Di-n-octyl phthalate Benz idine Hexachlorobenzene Benzo(a)pyrene Hexachloroethane Beryllium Methyl chloride Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether Methylene chloride Cadmium Nickel Carbon tetrachloride Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) Chlordane Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) Chloroform 2,3,7,8 - Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) Chromium VI 1,1,2, 2-Tetrachioroethane Dichlorodiphenyltrichloro- 1,1, 2-Trichioroethane ethane (DDT) 1, 1-Dichioroethylene Trichioroethylene (TCE) Die ldrin Vinyl chloride E.l.3 Exposure Assessment Following the identification of indicator chemicals, the potential exposure of the public to these chemicals must be assessed. In order to estimate exposure, the following procedure was used: 1) emission rates were estimated, 2) transport of contaminants was modeled, 3) maximum annual exposures were predicted, and 4) individual daily lifetime doses were calcu- lated. In all cases, conservative assumptions were used to protect public health. Potential emission rates of chemicals from the facility to the atmosphere were not known. Therefore, feed rates of contaminants to the air emission control system were estimated from the information compiled by ORD during a literature review of possible testing activities and quantities of chemicals that may be handled on-site. The feed rates were multiplied by conservative reduction efficiencies (99% for organics, 98% for inorganics) to obtain potential stack emission rates. Table E-2 presents those values. The actual reduction efficiency of the backup air pollution control equipment would have to be demonstrated to assure compliance with the NJDEP required air permit. E-5 ------- Table E-2 Stack Emission Rates for Indicator Chemicals Arsenic Chemical Benzene Benzidine Benzo (a)pyrene. Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether Beryllium Cadmium Carbon tetrachioride Chiordane Chloroform Chromium VI 1, 1-Dichioroethylene Dieldrin DDT 2 ,4-Dinitrotoluene Di-n-octyl phthalate Hexachloroberizene liexachioroethane Methyl chloride Methylene chloride Nickel Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PANs) Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 2 , 3 , 7 , 8- TCDD 1,1,2, 2-Tetrachioroethane 1,1, 2-Trichloroethane Trichioroethylene Vinyl chloride Feed Rate ( lb/hr) 1 0.043 0.762 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.00002 0.003 10.14 10.0 0.205 0.002 0. 0005 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.001 46.4 0.76 0.28 5.0 0.0048 0. 0077 0.132 8.6 0.001 Removal Efficiency (%) 98 99 99 99 99 98 98 99 99 99 98 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 98 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 Stack Emissions (g/sec) 1.08 E 4* 9.6 E-4 1.26 E-4 1.26 E-4 2.52 E-5 5.04 E-8 7.56 E-6 1.28 E-2 1.26 E-2 2.58 E-4 5.04 E-6 6.30 E-7 1.26 E-4 1.26 E-4 2.52 E-5 2.52 E-5 2.52 E-5 2.52 E-5 1.26 E-6 5.85 E-2 1.92 E-3 3.53 E-4 6.3 E-3 6.05 E-6 9.70 E-6 1.66 E-4 1.08 E-2 1.26 E-6 * Note: E — exponent (e.g., 1.08 E-4 represents 1.08 x 10k). 1 Source: Air Permit Application to State of NJ for Proposed E-TEC. E-6 ------- The ISCLT dispersion model was used to predict the maximum exposure levels of the substances. (See Appendix D, Refined Modeling - Risk Assessment for a description of the modeling methodology). The model was run using a generic emission rate of 1 g/sec to determine the maximum average annual ground level concentration. The maximum average annual ground level concen- tration predicted with the 1 g/sec emission rate was 0.212 ug/m 3 . However, this value assumes that the facility would operate for 365 days per year, 24 hours per day. ORD does not intend to operate the emissions systems for more than 250 days per year (5 days per week for 52 weeks minus 10 holidays). Therefore, the average value was multiplied by the factor 250/365 to account for the difference. The adjusted value was determined to be 0.145 ug/m 3 . This adjusted value was then multiplied by each specific chemical’s emission rate to determine maximum annual average exposure levels for each indicator compound. The maximum exposure levels were then converted into average daily lifetime doses which are expressed as mg of chemical/kg of body weight/day. These doses represent the quantity of chemical the maximally exposed individual would breathe over the course of his/her lifetime (assumed to be 70 years). This hypothetical individual is assumed to be located at the receptor that would receive the highest concentration of contaminants over his entire lifetime. It is also assumed that the maximally exposed individual weighs 70 kg (154 lbs) and breathes 20 m 3 /day of air (EPA, l986b). The assumptions upon which the daily lifetime dose is based are conservative to be protective of public health. An example calculation for benzene is presented below. Average Daily — Maximum Average x mg x breathing x 1 Lifetime Dose Annual Exposure 1000 ug rate body weight (mg/kg/day) (ug/m ) = (1.39 x l0 ug/m 3 ) ( mg ) (20 m 3 /d) 1 1000 ug 70 kg 3.97 x 10-8 mg of benzene/kg of body weight/day Table E-3 presents maximum average annual exposure levels and average daily lifetime doses for the indicator chemicals. E-7 ------- Table E-3 Exposure and Dose Predictions for Indicator Chemicals Maximum Average Average Daily Lifetime Annual Exposure Dose (mg Chemical/ Chemical Level (ug/m 3 ) 1 kz body weight/day) 2 Arsenic 1.57 E-5 4.49 E-9 Benzene 1.39 E-4 3.97 E-8 Benzidine 1.83 E-5 5.23 E-9 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.83 E-5 5.23 E-9 Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 3.66 E-6 1.05 E-9 Beryllium 7.32 E-9 2.09 E-12 Cadmium 1.10 E-6 3.14 E-lO Carbon tetrachioride 1.86 E-3 5.32 E-7 Chlordane 1.83 E-3 5.23 E-7 Chloroform 3.75 E-5 1.07 E-8 Chromium VI 7.32 E-7 2.09 E-lO 1,1-Dichloroethy lene 9.15 E-8 2.61 E-ll Dieldrin 1.83 E-5 5.23 E-9 DDT 1.83 E-5 5.23 E-9 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 3.66 E-6 1.05 E-9 Di-n-octyl phthalate 3.66 E-6 1.05 E-9 Hexachlorobenzene 3.66 E-6 1.05 E-9 Hexachioroethane 3.66 E-6 1.05 E-9 Methyl chloride 1.83 E-7 5.23 E-ll Methylene chloride 8.50 E-3 2.43 E-6 Nickel 2.79 E-4 7.97 E-8 Polynuclear aromatic 5.13 E-5 1.47 E-8 hydrocarbons (PAils) Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 9.15 E-4 2.61 E-7 2,37,8-TCDD 8.78 E-7 2.51 E-10 l,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.41 E-6 4.03 E-lO 1,1,2-Trichioroethane 2.41 E-5 6.89 E-9 Trichloroethylene 1.57 E-3 4.49 E-7 Vinyl chloride 1.83 E-7 5.23 E-l1 1 Annual values adjusted for 250 days of operation per year. 2 Assuming an individual weighing 70 kg (154 lbs), breaching 20 m 3 /d air located at the point of maximum impact (see Figure E-1). E-8 ------- E.l.4 Dose-ResDonse Assessment In evaluating the potential public health risks of long-term, low level releases of chemicals, it is necessary to focus on potential chronic toxicological effects. A chronic health effect of great concern is carcino- genesis; all of the chemicals identified as indicator chemicals are suspected carcinogens. The evaluation of a chemical as a potential human carcinogen is a two step process that includes the classification of the chemical as a human carcinogen and the quantification of the potency of the carcinogen (EPA, l986b). To evaluate a chemical’s carcinogenic potential, the available scientific data is evaluated to determine the likelihood that the agent is a human carcinogen. The scientific evidence is characterized for human studies and, separately, for animal studies in terms of sufficient, limited, inadequate, no data, or evidence of no effect. The results of the two characterizations are combined, and based on the extent to which the agent has been shown to be a carcinogen in experimental animals, or humans, or both, the agent is given a provisional weight of evidence classification. The EPA scientists then adjust the provisional weight of evidence upwards or downwards, based on other supporting evidence of carcinogenicity (e.g., pharmacokinetics, structure-activity). The weight of evidence classifica- tion is defined as: A - human carcinogen Bl or B2 - probable human carcinogen C - possible human carcinogen D - not classifiable E - evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans The weight of evidence classifications for the chemicals evaluated in this study are included in Table E-4. Following the determination of the weight of evidence classification, the toxicity value that defines quantitatively the relationship between dose and response, the “slope factor”, is calculated. To obtain the slope factor, the E-9 ------- data points are fit to an appropriate model, usually the linearized multi- stage model, to generate a dose-response curve. The upper 95th percentile confidence limit of the slope of the dose-response curve, the slope factor, is then calculated. This slope factor represents a plausible estimate of the probability that a response would occur from a unit intake of a chemical over a lifetime. Because a 95% confidence limit was used, there would only be a 5% chance that the actual probability of a response per unit intake could be greater than the estimated slope factor and a 95% chance that the response per unit intake could be less than the estimated value. Table E-4 summarizes the slope factors, route of exposure, and weight of evidence classification for the indicator compounds. Slope factors pertain to a specific route of exposure, either ingestion or inhalation, and can not be meaningfully interchanged (i.e., an oral slope factor should not be used to give an indication of the toxic effect due to inhalation of a chemical). The slope factors presented in the table are for the inhalation route, when available. In the absence of inhalation values, oral numbers are presented. However, it should be noted that in the risk characterization section, only those chemicals with, specified inhalation carcinogenic slope factors were included. E.l.5 Risk Characterization The procedure for calculating the risk from chronic exposure to carcinogenic compounds is well established (USEPA l987c). A non-threshold dose-response model is applied to the results of animal bioassay or human epidemiological studies to calculate a carcinogenic slope factor for each chemical. The slope factor is then multiplied by the estimated average daily lifetime dose experienced by the hypothetical maximally exposed individual to derive an estimate of risk. The following equation is used to derive the quantitative risk from exposure to a chemical. E- 10 ------- Table E-4 Toxicity of Indicator Chemicals Carcinogenic Slope Factor,(q 1 *)l Route of Weight of Chemical ( mg/kg/dayY l Exposure 2 Evidence 3 Arsenic 50.0 I A Benzene 2.9 E-2 I A Benzidine 2.3 E+2 I A Benzo(a)pyrene ND B2 Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 1.1 i 82 Beryllium oxide 7.0 I B2 Cadmium 6.1 I Bi Carbon tetrachioride 0.13 I 82 Chiordane 1.3 I 82 Chloroform 8.1 E-2 I B2 Chromium V1 4 41 I A l,l-Dichloroethylene 1.2 I c Dieldrin 20 I B2 DDT -0.34 I B2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.31 0 82 Di-n-octyl phthalate ND Hexachlorobenzene 1.7 0 82 Hexach loroethanç 1.4 E-2 I C Methyl chloride’ 4 6.32 E-3 I c Methylene chloride 1.4 E-2 I 82 Nickel 0.84 I A Polycyclic aromatic ND B2 hydrocarbons (PAl-Is) Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 7.7 0 B2 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.56 E+5 0 B2 l,l2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.2 I C l,l,2-Trichloroet ane 5.7 E-2 I C Trichloroethylene 1.1 E-2 I B2 Vinyl chloride 2.3 I A 1 -Carcinogenic slope factors represent upper-bound estimates (within 95% confidence estimate) of the slope of the dose - response curve. S1o e factors are given for the inhalation route of exposure (I), when available. Values for the oral route of exposure, (0), are listed in the absence of inhalation data. When no information was available, the letters ND, not determined, were entered into the table. Source: EPA, 1989c and the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) unless otherwise noted. 2 I — inhalation, 0 — oral. Indicates route of exposure to which the carcinogenic potency factor in the table corresponds. 3 The classification system for carcinogens is outlined in the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA, 1989c). A — Human carcinogen 81 — Probable human carcinogen, with limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans 82 = Probable human carcinogen, with sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals but inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. C — Possible human carcinogen D Not classified 4 Source: EPA, l986b Slope factor subject to change based on current EPA Carcinogen Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor (CRAVE) review. E-ll ------- K — D x D — average daily lifetime dose in units of (mg/kg body weight/day) — carcinogenic slope factor in units of (mg/kg body weight/dayyl R is a probabilistic estimate of risk that ranges between 0 and 1. Its value represents the excess risk of developing cancer when exposed to a continuous, constant lifetime exposure, the magnitude of the average daily lifetime dose. Lifetime exposure is defined as 70 years. The excess lifetime risk of developing cancer caused by a concurrent, continuous lifetime exposure can be characterized by summing the individual chemical lifetime cancer risks (EPA, 1987c, Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment). The following equation is used to calculate the risk from concurrent exposure. 11 RT — I [ Dj x qj*j) i—l — average daily lifetime dose for chemical i — carcinogenic slope factor for chemical 1. — excess lifetime risk from concurrent exposure to carcinogens Table E-5 presents the average daily lifetime doses, slope factors and excess individual lifetime risk estimates for the indicator compounds. (The indicator compounds that currently do not have established inhalation potency factors were excluded from this table. These compounds included: Benzo(a)pyrene, 2,4-Dinitrotoluene, Di-n-octyl phthalate, hexachioroberizene, PAIL, PCB, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD). The table also presents an estimate of the increased cancer risk caused by concurrent exposure to all 21 indicator chemicals. As shown in Table E-5, the potential individual risk estimates for exposure to each of the subject chemicals were in the range of 1 x 10-6 [ AJ to 3 x 10-13 [ C]. The potential total risk estimate for exposure to all 21 compounds was calculated to be 2 x 10-6. E-12 ------- Table E-5 Risk Characterization - Worst-Case Long-Tern, Low Level ReLease Average DaiLy Carcinogenic Excess Individual Lifetime Dose SLope Factor 2 1 q 1 * Lifetime Risk Chemicall ( mg/kg/day) ( mg/kg/day) - 1 Estimates 3 Arsenic 4.49 E-9 50.0 2 E-7 (A] Benzene 3.97 E-8 2.9 E-2 1 E-9 (A] Benzidine 5.23 E-9 2.3 E+2 1 E-6 (A] Bis(2-chtoroethyt)ether 1.05 E-9 1.1 1 E-9 (B2] Beryttiun 2.09 E-12 7.0 1 E-11 (82] Cadniun 3.14 E-10 6.1 2 E-9 (81] Carbon tetrachLoride 5.32 E-7 0.13 . 7 E-8 (B2] chLordane 5.23 E-7 1.3 7 E-7 (B2] chtoroforn 1.07 E-8 8.1 E-2 9 E-10 [ 82] chromiun VI 2.09 E-10 41 9 E-9 (A] 1,1-Dichtoroethytene 2.61 E-11 1.2 3 E-11 (C] DieLdrin 5.23 E-9 20 1 E-7 (B2] DOT 5.23 E-9 0.34 2 E-9 (82] Hexachtoroethane 1.05 E-9 1.4 E-2 2 E-11 (C] MethyL chLoride 5.23 E-11 6.32 E-3 3 E-13 (C] Methytene chLoride 2.43 E-6 1.4 E-2 3 E-8 [ 82] NickeL 7.97 E-8 0.84 7 E-8 (A] 1,1,2,2-Tetrachtoroethane 4.03 E-10 0.2 8 E-11 (C] 1,1,2-Trichtoroethane 6.89 E-9 5.7 E-2 4 E-10 (C] Trichioroethytene 4.49 E-7 1.1 E-2 5 E-9 (82] Vir ’l chloride 5.23 E-11 2.3 1 E-10 (A] TotaL 2 E-6 1 The chemicals Benzo(a)pyrene, 2,4-DinitrotoLuene, Di-n-octyl phthalate, HexachLorobenzene, PAH, PCB, and 2,3,7,8-TCDO were not incL x ed because an inhaLation sLope factor was not availabLe. 2 Source: EPA, 1989c (Chroiniun VI and Methyl Chloride potency factors were obtained from EPA, 1986b). 3 Because of risk assessment ircertainties, only one significant digit should be reported with the risk estimate and the weight of evidence to classify the coapound as a carcinogen shouLd be reported with each estimate (EPA 1987c). Weight of evidence Letters are reported in brackets foLLowing the estimate. A = Ht nan carcinogen. 81 = Probable hu an carcinogen, Limited evidence of carcinogenicity in hunans. 82 = Probable hunan carcinogen, sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animaLs but inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in hunans. C = PossibLe hunan carcinogen. E-13 ------- The risk estimates presented thus far correspond to an individual’s probability of contracting cancer due to continuous exposure to the average daily lifetime dose of a chemical. The risk estimates can also be inter- preted as population cancer risks. For example, the potential individual risk of 1 x 10-6 can also be expressed as the probability that 1 person will contract cancer for every million people in the exposed population over a lifetime (70 year) exposure. The risk calculations were based on the maximum impact concentration that the air modeling, conducted during the exposure assessment phase, predicted. The location of the predicted maximum impact concentration is shown on Figure E-1. The concentrations in the surrounding areas would be less than the maximum impact concentration and would result in a lower risk of developing cancer. E.2 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS The numerical estimates of risk assessment must not be interpreted without also considering the assumptions and uncertainties on which the numbers were based. These assumptions include the following: o The selection of indicator compounds as the focus of the public health assessment provided an adequate basis for characterizing the risks associated with the operation of the proposed E-TEC facility. o The average daily lifetime dose was calculated for a maximally exposed individual who was assumed to be an adult weighing 70 kg (154 lbs) and breathing 20 m 3 /d of air. This individual was also assumed to be breathing the maximum concentration of contaminants continuously over the course of his/her assumed 70 year lifetime. o In conducting the air transport modeling used to determine maximum annual exposure, the subject chemicals were treated as conservative (i.e., no physical, biological or chemical transformation occurred). E- 14 ------- NOTE THE RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATIOIIS WERE BASED ON THE MAXIMUM IMPACT CONCENTRATION THE RISK ASSESSMENT DETERMINED THERE WOULC BE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AT THIS CONCENTRATION THE RISK AT ALL OTHER CONCENTRATWNS WOULD BE LESS. THE PERCENTAGES REPRESENT THE PERCENT OF THE MAXIMUM IMPACT CONC MTRATION PROPOSED E-TEC FACILITY EDISON,NEW JERSEY RISK ASSESSMENT ISOPLETHS LONG TERM EXPOSURE 200’ 2COC S _E ! . FEET .j S £ POf ME’ .’ PpCrECTO E? C FIGURE E-I E— 15 ------- o The removal efficiency of the air pollution control equipment was assumed to be 99% for organics and 98% for inorganics. The actual removal efficiency would need to be demonstrated to assure compliance with the required NJDEP air permit. o In the absence of detailed design information, stack parameters were assumed. o The quantity of chemicals released to the atmosphere was based on a literature review of the types of substances that could potentially be handled at the facility and the treatment methodologies that might be evaluated. o Releases from the proposed E-TEC facility would be continuous and constant for 24 hours a day, 250 days per year. o The carcinogenic potency factors published by the EPA were used to quantify chemical toxicity. Inherent in these numbers are numerous assumptions and uncertainties, such as the extrapolation from animal studies to humans or the extrapolation of data from one route of exposure to another. The potency factors are determined with the use of the linearized multistage model which results in a 95% confidence limit. It is anticipated that the actual risks could be at this level or less. o The effects of exposure to multiple carcinogens were assumed to be additive. No specific interactions between chemicals were con- sidered. The assumptions discussed above and the limitations in the available data necessitate the use of a worst cases type of approach to the risk assess- ment. If the worst case approach demonstrates that the risks to human health would be acceptable, no further evaluation is required. E- 16 ------- Because there is no threshold of exposure to carcinogens below which there would be no risk of cancer, the potential risks must be minimized. The EPA considers the range of risks of to l0 to be acceptable when evaluating clean-up alternatives in the Superfund program (EPA 1986b). Other governmental agencies, such as OSHA, FDA and the NRC suggest acceptable risks of 10-6, and 5x10 3 respectively (Hallenbeck, et. al., 1986). The maximum estimated potential risk related to exposure to specific chemicals resulting from the daily operational activities at the proposed E-TEC facility of 1 x 10-6 [ A] and the maximum estimated risk of concurrent exposure to all the indicator compounds of 2 x 10-6 fall within the ranges of acceptable risks presented above. To provide a context in which to evaluate the 1 x 10-6 maximum individual chemical risk, Table E-6 presents other activities that would result in a 1 x 10-6 risk. Table E-6 Activities Resulting in 1 x 10-6 Cancer Risk 1 Source of Risk Example of Exposure Cosmic Rays One transcontinental round trip by air Living 1.5 months in Colorado compared to New York. Camping at 15,000 feet for 6 days compared to sea level. Other Radiation 20 days of sea level natural background radiation. 2.5 months working in masonry rather than wood building. 1/7 of a chest x-ray with modern equipment. Eating and Drinking 40 diet sodas with saccharin. 6 lbs. of peanut butter. 180 pints of milk. 200 gallons of drinking water from Miami or New Orleans. 90 lbs. of broiled steak Smoking 2 cigarettes. 1 Source: Crouch and Wilson (1982). E-l7 ------- APPENDLX F ------- APPENDIX F RISK ASSESSMENT - CATASTROPHIC RELEASE F.i HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT - CATASTROPHIC RELEASE In addition to assessing the potential risks of long—term, low level releases of chemicals, it is necessary to evaluate the potential risks that would be caused by a catastrophic release, such as a fire. A catastrophic release is by definition, a low probability event that would result in a short-term, high level release of chemicals. It should be understood that management controls would be in place to ensure that, in the event of a fire, emissions from the facility would not exceed the threshold value (the level below which no irreversible adverse health effects would be expected to occur). Among these management controls would be restrictions on the amount of a given toxic substance that could be stored in the facility at a particular concentration. The catastrophic release scenario evaluated in this document involves the following improbable series of events: The natural gas line feeding the facility springs a leak. The concentration of gas builds up to sufficient levels such that a spark in the building causes a fire. The heat of the fire causes all stored chemicals to enter the air. The entrained chemicals then exit the facility through the ventilation stacks in the roof, over the course of an hour. To evaluate the risks associated with such a catastrophic release, the following items must be determined or estimated. 1. The total quantity of chemicals stored in the building. 2. The rate at which chemicals would exit the building. F-i ------- 3. The details of the exit of the chemicals from the facility. 4. The acute toxicity of chemicals emitted from the facility. The method of estimating each of these items is discussed in detail in this Appendix. F.l.i Hazard Indentification Indicator chemicals formed the basis of this risk assessment, similar to the case of the chronic exposure risk assessment. The chemicals were selected based on the following criteria: 1) the potential for the chemical to be found in the building in a significant quantity, 2) the physical and chemical properties of the chemical related to its environmental mobility and per- sistence, and 3) the potential for the released chemical to cause acute health effects in the exposed population. The selected chemicals are presented in Table F-i. Table F-i Indicator Chemicals Selected for Potential Acute Health Effects Benzene 2 ,4-Dinitrotoluene Beryllium Methyl chloride Cadmium Methylene chloride Carbon tetrachloride PCBs Chlordane Trichioroethylene Chromium VI Vinyl chloride F.l.2 Dose - Response Assessment Unlike chronic exposure to carcinogens, there is an assumed threshold value or toxicity limit associated with acute, non-carcinogenic health effects, below which no irreversible, adverse health effects would be antici- pated. To assess potential acute health risks, therefore, the acute toxicity limit associated with each chemical has to be obtained. Acute health effects are defined as being the result of a short-term exposure, on the order of less than a day. F-2 ------- The toxicity limits of choice would ideally be Reference Doses (RfD) for acute toxicity via the inhalation route of exposure. A limited number of inhalation chronic and subchronic (less than a lifetime exposure) RfDs have been developed but none are available for the subject chemicals (Personal Communication, EPA Risk Assessment Personnel). In lieu of appropriate acute RfD values and in consideration of the fact that the anticipated exposure would be on the order of hours and not days or weeks, the ACGIH short-term exposure limits (STELs) were chosen as the toxicity limits. The STEL is defined as a 15-minute time weighted average exposure which should not be exceeded at any time during the work day. Exposures at the STEL level should be no longer than 15 minutes and should not be repeated more than 4 times in an 8 hour day with at least an hour between exposures (ACGIH, 1988). Not all chemicals have an established STEL. As a substitute, the threshold limit value time weighted average (TLV-TWA) was selected. The TLV-TWA is defined as the time-weighted average concentration to which nearly all workers can be repeatedly exposed, for a normal 8-hour work day and a 40-hour work week without adverse effect (ACGIH, 1988). The ACGIH did not establish these values to represent acute toxicity limits and the numbers were developed for populations of healthy workers and not the varying population at large. These limitations are acknowledged in this EIS, but the values are used due to the lack of more appropriate data. To account for some of the uncertainty in using the STEL and TLV-TWA values, a safety factor of 10 has been applied. The EPA uses a value of 10 to account for the variation in sensitivity among humans (i.e., the safety factor provides extra protection of sensitive groups, including children, elderly and unhealthy workers) (Dourson and Stara, 1983). Table F-2 lists the toxicity limit used for each indicator compound. When available, the STEL was preferentially chosen over the TLV-TWA. A safety factor of 10 was applied to each value to account for variations in sensi- tivity among humans. F-3 ------- Table F-2 Toxicity Limits for Indicator Chemicals 1 Acute Toxicity STEL 2 TLV-TWA 3 Limit 4 Chemical ( mg/rn 3 ) ( mg/rn 3 ) ( ug/m 3 ) Benzene 30 3,000 Beryllium 0.002 0.2 Cadmium 0.05 5 Carbon tetrachioride 30 3,000 Chiordane 0.5 50 Chromium VI 0.05 5 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 1.5 150 Methyl àhloride 205 20,500 Methylene chloride 175 17,500 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 0.5-1 75* Trichioroethylene 1,080 108,000 Vinyl chloride 10 1,000 1 Source: ACGIH, 1988. 2 STEL — Short-term exposure limit — value not to be exceeded for greater than 15 minutes 4 times daily with at least 60 minutes between successive exposures at the STEL. TLV-TWA — Threshold Limit Value - Time Weighted Average the time weighted average for a normal 8 hour workday, 40 hours a week to which workers can be exposed repeatedly without adverse effect. ‘ Safety factor of 10 was applied to account for variation in sensitivity among humans. * Average value for PCB’s. F-4 ------- F.l.3 Exposure Assessment - Catastrophic Release The exposure assessment involves two major components - the determination of the release rates associated with an explosion and the application of an atmospheric transport model to estimate ambient exposure levels of the subject compounds. For the catastrophic release scenario, it was assumed that the total quantity of chemicals stored in the building would be released to the atmosphere. The first step of the exposure assessment involved determining what the maximum quantity of each chemical would be. The proposed E-TEC facility would store contaminated liquids and solids for testing activities. For the purposes of the EIS, liquids were assumed to be contaminated surface or ground water and solids were assumed to be con- taminated soils. The proposed storage levels are 5000 gallons of liquid and 70 tons of solids. The quantity of chemicals stored in the building, which is a major component of the risk calculation, is determined by the combination of the concentration of chemical(s) in storage and the quantity of contaminated material. The overall storage capacity of the facility itself is not the important factor because some storage space could be used for the containment of uncontaminated solids or liquids. The 5,000 gallon liquid and 70 ton solid storage levels represent preliminary design estimates but the facility would likely have additional capacity. However, the amount of total chemical in the building would not exceed the quantities indicated as posing a potential health threat if a catastrophic event were to occur. These limitations in the quantity of material stored in the building would be specified in the operations plan of the proposed facility. To conduct a worst case analysis, it was assumed that each indicator chemical would be found at its maximum anticipated concentration in each of the storage tanks, both solid and liquid. Only a portion of the total quantity of chemicals stored in the building would be available to volatilize and become entrained in the air. The available portion was assumed to be 100% F-S ------- of the chemicals contained in liquid storage, 100% of the chemicals contained in the liquid portion of the stored soils and 0% of the chemicals contained in the solid portion of the stored soils. (Soils consist of two fractions - solid soil particles and void spaces. The void spaces of natural soils are generally filled at least partially with water. In this study, the water in these void spaces was considered to constitute 25% of the total soil quantity). Chemicals have preferences for either the water in the soil or the soil itself and each chemical would be expected to be found in a higher concen- tration in one than the other. However, to simplify the analysis, it was assumed that the concentration of chemicals in the liquid portion of the stored soils would be equivalent to the maximum concentration anticipated. The total quantity of chemicals in the building could then be determined by multiplying the maximum anticipated concentration by the total quantity of liquid stored in the building (the liquid storage + liquid portion of solid storage). The calculation of the total liquid stored in the building is presented in Table F-3. Table 1-4 shows the maximum anticipated concentration of each chemical (determined by ORD through literature survey and past experience) and the total quantity that could be contained in the building in the liquid phase. For the purposes of air modeling, it was assumed that the total stored quantity of chemicals was released over a one hour period. Therefore, to obtain emission rates, the stored quantity was divided by 3,600 seconds (see Table F-4). No physical or chemical transformations were assumed to occur in the atmosphere following the release. The air dispersion modeling for the short-term release was conducted using the ISCST model. A description of the ISCST model and a description of the procedures used in conducting this modeling are contained in Appendix D. The model was used to estimate maximum one hour ground level concentrations. The roofs of the T and E bays are equipped with ventilation fans 3 feet in diameter with discharge stacks, of the same diameter, located directly F-6 ------- Table F-3 Calculation of Total Quantity of Contaminated Liquid On-Site A. Total Contaminated Liquid On Site contaminated liquid storage + con- taminated liquid in soil B. Contaminated Liquid Storage — 5,000 gal C. Contaminated Liquid in Soil Storage Contaminated Liquid in Soil — (wgt. of soils) x (bulk density) x (water content) Total weight of soil — 70 T Average bulk density of soila 1.4 g/cm 3 Average water content of soilb 25% Contaminated Liquid in Soil — (70 T)x(2.000_lb)x(452_g)x(cm 3 _)x( a 3 )x(264.2_gal)x(0.25) Ton lb l.4g (lO0 cm) 3 a 3 2,990 gal. Liters (2,990 gal) (3.785 L/gal) — 11,317 L use 11,300 liters (L) D. Total Contaminated Liquid in Storage — (5,000 gal) (3.785 L/gal) + 11,300 L — 18,900 L + 11,300 L — 30,200 L use 30,000 L a Source: USDA, 1982. b Source: Lindsay, 1979. F- 7 ------- Table F-4 Catastrophic Release Exposure Assessment Maximum Total Maximum Quantity Emission Concentration 1 On-Site Rate Chemical ( DDm) ( g ) ( g/s ) Benzene 762 22,860 6.3 Eeryllium 0.02 0.6 1.7 E-4 Cadmium 3 90 2.5 E-2 Carbon tetrachloride 10,140 304,200 85 Chiordane 10,000 300,000 83 Chromium VI 2 60 1.7 E-2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 20 600 0.17 Methyl chloride 1 30 8.3 E-3 Methylene chloride 46,400 1,392,000 390 Polychlorinated biphenyls 5,000 150,000 42 (PCBs) Trichioroethylene 8,600 258,000 72 Vinyl chloride 1 30 8.3 E-3 1 Source: Air Permit Application to the State of New Jersey, 1989. F- 8 ------- above each fan. It was assumed that the entrained chemicals would exit the facility through these ventilation ports. It was further assumed that the ventilation fans would not be operating during the release because the fire could cause a loss of electricity. The fire was assumed to cause the temperature in the building to rise to l000°K (730°C). This value was chosen because it was necessary to have a temperature great enough to volatilize the least volatile chemical chosen in the analysis. This increased temperature would cause the pressure to rise inside the building and the evaporation of the liquid storage tank. The additional gas from the evaporation would also cause an increase in the pressure. The pressure gradient created between atmospheric pressure outside the building and increased pressure above atmospheric inside the building would cause a rapid discharge of gas from the building through the ventilation ports. To determine the discharge rate, the pressure inside the building was calculated using the ideal gas law relationships. The volumetric flow rate was then determined by dividing the quantity of pressure that had to be released by the time period of the event (1 hour). The calculations used in this detrmination are presented in Tables F-5 and F-6. The volumetric flow rate per fan was determined to be 10.8 m 3 /S, with a corresponding velocity of 16.5 rn/s. The maximum hourly ground level concentration predicted using the ISCST model and the input data described above was 12.44 ug/m 3 with a 1 g/s “generic” emission rate. This concentration occurred 1.86 miles away from the proposed facility. No direction can be associated with the maximum impact distance because the direction would be dependent upon the wind direction at the time of the catastrophic release. F.l.4 Risk Characterization - Catastrophic Release Characterization of noncarcinogenic risks of exposure to toxicants is accomplished by comparing estimated exposure levels to a selected acceptable toxicity limit or threshold value for the compound under consideration (USEPA 1987c). This method, often referred to as the quotient method, is based on F- 9 ------- Table F-5 Calculation of Pressure Increase A. Condition #1 - building prior to fire V — 1,080,000 ft 3 — 77F — 536.7R P 1 — 1 atm — number of moles air in building before release @ 1 atm & 32’F, air occupies 359 ft 3 /lb mol ni. — V/(359 ft 3 /lb inol (T77/’I 32°F)] — 1,080,000 ft 3 / [ 359 ft 3 /lb mol (536.7°R/491.7°R)] — 2,756 lb mol air 8. Condition # 2 - building during fire T 2 — l000K — 1800R N 2 — + ne (evaporated tank water) assume MW of tank — MW o f H 2 0 — 18 lb/mol 5,000 gal. of water — (5,000 gal) (8.34 lb/gal) — 41,700 lb — 41,700 lb/18 ib/mol — 2317 lb mol Total n — — ni. + e — 2756 + 2317 — 5,073 lb inol C. Pressure Calculation @ Condition #2 P 1 V 1 /n 1 RT 1 P 2 V 2 /n 2 RT 2 Vj—V , R — constant Pi/niTi. P 2 /n 2 T 2 - -> P 2 — P 1 ( 2/ l) (T 2 /T 1 ) P 2 — (1 atm) (1000K/298°K) (5073/2756) — 6.2 atm F- 10 ------- Table F-6 Calculation of Volumetric Flow Rates A. Total Volumetric Flow Rate Total Pressure — 6.2 atm Must leave 1 atm in building to satisfy equilibrium Need to evacuate: 6.2 atm - 1 atm 5.2 atm Assume catastrophic release occurs over 1 hour 5.2 atm/3600 Sec. — 0.0014 atm/sec 1 atm — 1,080,000 ft 3 — 30,586 m 3 0.0014 atm/sec (30,586 m 3 /atm) 43 m 3 /sec must be evacuated B. Volumetric flow rate per fan 4 fan ducts flow rate per fan — 43 m 3 /sec/4 fans 10.8 m 3 /s/fan C. Velocity Diameter of each duct — 3 ft = 0.914m Area of 1 fan — 0.656 m 2 Velocity — 10.8 m 3 /s/0.656in 2 — 16.5 rn/s F-li ------- the assumption that, for noncarcinogenic effects, there is a threshold exposure level below which adverse toxicological effects are not anticipated to occur. Risk of noncarcinogertic effects is characterized as follows: R E/Rf B E — expected exposure RfD — Inhalation Reference Dose. The factor R is not a probabilistic estimate of the likelihood of adverse health effects (as is the case for the assessment of carcinogens). In this case, the value of R will vary from <1 to >1. If R is >1, then adverse health effects in exposed receptor groups may be anticipated. The magnitude of the risk numbers (i.e., how far above or below 1) is not a component of this type of risk characterization. (The magnitude of the number above 1 is not used to assess the health impacts to the exposed population.) It is important to recognize that, depending upon the selection of the acceptable limits, risk characterization using the equation above may be used to evaluate a full spectrum of health effects ranging from eye/throat irritation, to central nervous system effects, to mortality. In this assessment, conservative toxicity limits were selected; as discussed in the section on toxicity assessment, STEL or TLV-TWA values were chosen. These threshold values, when exceeded for a short period of time, would be associated with minor, reversible health effects in exposed individuals -- for example, eye, nose, or throat irritation, dizziness, mild nausea. These limits should thus be considered “trigger levels” indicating concern for potential adverse effects at higher concentrations. Table F-7 presents a list of the indicator chemicals, the associated maximum one hour exposure levels, acute toxicity endpoints and risk characterization. As shown on the table two of the chemicals had risk numbers greater than one, chiordane and PCBs. The significance of this finding will be discussed in the next section, Interpretation of Results - Catastrophic Release. F- 12 ------- TabLe 7 Risk Characterization - Catastrophic ReLease Maxinun ()te-Hour Acute Toxicity Exceeds Exposure Level Er oint 1 Risk Characterization Toxicity Chemical Cue /rn 3 ) Cue/rn 3 ) ( Exposure/Toxicity) Limit Benzene 78.7 3,000 0.03 No Beryttiun 2.1 E-3 0.2 <0.01 No Caäniun 0.31 5 0.06 No Carbon tetrachtoride 1,057 3,000 0.35 No th tordane 1,032 50 21 Yes thromiun VI 0.21 5 0.04 No 2,4-Dinitroto luene 2.10 150 0.01 No Methyl chLoride 0.10 20,500 <0.01 No Methytene chLoride 4.9 E3 17,500 0.28 No Potychtorinated biphenyts (PCSS) 522 75 7 Yes Trichloroethylene (iCE) 896 108,000 <0.01 No VinyL chLoride 0.10 1,000 <0.01 No 1 Source: ACGIH, 1988 (See Table F-2). F-13 ------- F. 2 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS - CATASTROPHIC RELEASE For 10 of the 12 indicator compounds evaluated, it was determined that no adverse irreversible public health effects would be expected. For these chemicals, the risks are considered acceptable. However, for 2 of the chemicals, chiordane and PCBs, it was determined that there could be adverse health effects due to the catastrophic release. It is important to remember that the risk assessment was based on an absolute worst case scenario which considered all chemicals to be stored at their maximum concentration in each of the storage vessels. This is a very conservative assumption. The tests that would be conducted at the facility would require a wide variety of inputs with different chemical compositions, so specific chemicals would not be expected to be found in each and every storage vessel and not necessarily at their ntaxiinuxn concentrations. In addition, the assumption that all chemicals stored on-site would be released to the atmosphere is unrealistic. In actuality, only a fraction of the total quantity of each chemical found in the liquid phase would volatilize to the air. The fraction would depend on the temperature inside the building and the vapor pressure of the chemical. The quantity of chemicals in the liquid phase of solid storage was overestimated also. In this study, it was assumed that the chemicals would show no preference for the solid portion of the soil over the liquid portion. In actuality many chemicals, including PCEs, bind tightly to the soil and would be found at much lower concentrations in the liquid portion of the soil than the solid. Therefore, the quantity that would be available to volatilize would be much lower than the study suggests. It was intended that the catastrophic release scenario be conducted based on an absolute worst case approach to provide a large margin of safety for the public. Therefore, to continue to provide this margin of safety, it would be necessary to institute management controls to limit storage within the buildings to levels that would not cause adverse health effects. F -14 ------- Because the total quantity of chemicals on-site would be dependent on both the concentration of the chemical in storage and the quantity stored, the management control plan would have to incorporate both of these parameters. At low concentrations, a relatively high quantity of chemical could be stored within the existing buildings without causing potential adverse health effects in a catastrophic release. At high concentrations, only a small quantity could be safely stored. Figures F-l through F-12 show graphically the relationship between concentration and quantity stored for the 12 indicator chemicals. The line on the graphs represents the maximum quantity that could bestored within the buildings to prevent the potential for adverse health impacts. Any concentration/gallon combination below the line -would not be expected to cause adverse health effects. Chemicals should not be stored inside the buildings at levels that would fall above the line on the graphs. The indicator chemicals discussed in this appendix represent example results based on preliminary design data and the approach to management controls. The actual chemicals used and stored in the facility would vary depending on the nature of the research activities. At the time of review of a work plan for a new technology evaluation, it would be necessary to review the chemicals that would be required in the test and the quantity (both concentration and amount) needed. At that time, the management control plan would be used to evaluate whether the needed quantity would have the potential to cause adverse health impacts from a catastrophic release. F-iS ------- 101 1 C .2 (5 C (5 (5 0 (I, (5 (5 .2 1 o6 Concentration in PPM NOTE : THE MAXIMUM EXPECTED CONCENTRATION OF BENZENE 762 PPM DASHED LINE INDICATES THE CORRESPONDING MAX. ALLOWABLE STORAGE WITHOUT EXCEEDING THRESHOLD LIMIT. SOLID LINE REPRESENTS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN ALLOWABLE STORAGE (BELOW THE LINE ) AND QUANTITIES THAT WOULD EXCEED THE THRESHOLD LIMIT IF COMPLETELY RELEASED (ABOVE THE LINE ). PROPOSED E-iE. VOLUME AND CONCENTRATION CAPACITIES BENZ ENE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 101 log io8 i a 6 10 10 io2 F- 16 FIGURE F- I ------- io6 U, 0 (5 C 0, (5 0 C /) 0 .0 (5 10 100 1 o6 Concentration in PPM NOTE : THE MAXIMUM EXPECTED CONCENTRATION OF BERYLLIUM = 0.02 PPM DASHED LINE INDICATES THE CORRESPONDING MAX. ALLOWABLE STORAGE WITHOUT EXCEEDING THRESHOLD LIMIT. SOLID LINE REPRESENTS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN ALLOWABLE STORAGE (BELOW THE LINE ) AND QUANTITIES THAT WOULD EXCEED THE THRESHOLD LIMIT IF COMPLETELY RELEASED(ABOVE THE LINE ). PROPOSED E-TEC S1OF AGL VOLUME AND CONCENTRATION CAPACITIES ‘I BERYLLIUM U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FIGURE F- 2 io2 10_i 10 F- 17 ------- 108 10.1 10 Concentration in PPM NOTE I THE MAXIMUM EXPECTED CONCENTRATION OF CADMIUM 3PPM DASHED LINE INDICATES THE CORRESPONDING MAX. ALLOWABLE STORAGE WITHOUT EXCEEDING THRESHOLD LIMIT. SOLID LINE REPRESENTS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN ALLOWABLE STORAGE (BELOW THE LINE ) AND QUANTITIES THAT WOULD EXCEED THE THRESHOLD LIMIT IFCOMPLETELY RELEASED(ABOVE THE LINE ). 1 o6 PROPOSED E-TEC STORAGE VOLUME AND CONCENTRATION CAPACITIES CADMIUM U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PRO1EC1 ION AGENCY 10 106 io a, C .2 C S 0 C / ) 2 .2 10 io2 101 100 0 FtGURE F- 3 F-18 ------- 101 101 10 io8 C 0 C5 C 0 ) C5 0 C /) 0 .0 0 .2 io 6 Concentration in PPM NOTE : THE MAXIMUM EXPECTED CONCENTRATION OF CARBON TETRACHLORIDE= 10,140 PPM DASHED LINE INDICATES THE CORRESPONDING MAX. ALLOWABLE STORAGE WITHOUT EXCEEDING THRESHOLD LIMIT. SOLID LINE REPRESENTS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN ALLOWABLE STORAGE (BELOW THE LINE ) AND QUANTITIES THAT WOULD EXCEED THE THRESHOLD LIMIT IF COMPLETELY RELEASED (ABOVE THE LINE. PROPOSED E-TEC STORAGE VOLUME AND CONCENTRATION CAPACITIES CARBON TETRACHLORIDE C U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FIGURE F- 4 106 io io 2 F- 19 ------- log U) C .2 U) C U) 2 Cl) U) (S .2 101 1 o 6 Conc.ntration in PPM NOTE : THE MAXIMUM EXPECTED CONCENTRATION OF CHLORDANE 10,000 PPM DASHED LINE INDICATES THE CORRESPONDING MAX. ALLOWABLE STORAGE WITHOUT EXCEEDING THRESHOLD LIMIT. SOLID LINE REPRESENTS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN ALLOWABLE STORAGE ( BELOW THE LINE ) AND QUANTITIES THAT WOULD EXCEED THE THRESHOLD LIMIT LF COMPLETELY RELEASED ( ABOVE THE LINE ). PROPOSED E-TEC STORAGE VOLUME AND CONCENTRATION CAPACITIES CHLORDANE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FIGURE F- 5 108 io 6 lo io2 100 F- 20 ------- io8 Concentr ion in PPM NOTE : THE MAXIMUM EXPECTED CONCENTRATION OF CHROMIUM VI: 2 PPM DASHED LINE INDICATES THE CORRESPONDING MAX. ALLOWABLE STORAGE WITHOUT EXCEEDING THRESHOLD LIMIT SOLID LINE REPRESENTS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN ALLOWABLE STORAGE ( BELOW THE LINE ) AND QUANTITIES THAT WOULD EXCEED THE THRESHOLD LIMIT IFCOMPLETELY RELEASED(ABOVE THE LINE ). 1 o6 PROPOSED E-TEC STORAGE VOLUME AND CONCENTRATION CAPACITIES CHROMIUM VI US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECflON AGENCY FIGURE F-6 10 106 U) C a (5 C, C (5 0 C l , .0 I 102 101 100 10_i 1 0 q S 0 F- 21 ------- 101 C .9 15 C, C 15 0 U) 2 .0 I io6 Concentration in PPM NOTE : THE MAXIMUM EXPECTED CONCENTRATION OF 2,4-DIN ITROTOLUENE 20 PPM DASHED LINE INDICATES THE CORRESPONDING MAX. ALLOWABLE STORAGE WITHOUT EXCEEDING THRESHOLD LIMIT. SOLID LINE REPRESENTS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN ALLOWABLE STORAGE (BELOW THE LINE ) AND QUANTITIES THAT WOULD EXCEED THE THRESHOLD LIMIT IF COMPLETELY RELEASED (ABOVE THE LINE. ) PROPOSED ETEC STORAGE VOLUME AND CONCENTRATION CAPACITIES 2,4 DINITROTOLUENE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY log 108 102 101 F-22 FIGURE F - 7 ------- 101 101 101 10 io 8 7 io 6 110 1 o6 Concentration in PPM NOTE : THE MAXIMUM EXPECTED CONCENTRATION OF METHYL CHLORIDE: I PPM DASHED LINE INDICATES THE CORRESPONDING MAX. ALLOWABLE STORAGE WITHOUT EXCEEDING THRESHOLD LIMIT. SOLID LINE REPRESENTS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN ALLOWABLE STORAGE ( BELOW THE LINE ) AND QUANTITIES THAT WOULD EXCEED THE THRESHOLD LIMIT IF COMPLETELY RELEASED(ABOVE THE LINE ). PROPOSED E-TEC STORAGE VOLUME AND CONCENTRATION CAPACITIES METHYL CHLORIDE U.S ENV,RONMENIAL PROTECTIOPI AGENCY FIGURE F- 8 F-23 ------- 101 101 101 log io8 C .2 0 C 3 0 7 10 .0 .2 i o 6 Concentration in PPM NOTE . THE MAXIMUM EXPECTED CONCENTRATION OF METHYLENE CHLORIDE: 46,400 PPM DASHED LINE INDICATES THE CORRESPONDING MAX. ALLOWABLE STORAGE WITHOUT EXCEEDING THRESHOLD LIMIT. SOLID LINE REPRESENTS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN ALLOWABLE STORAGE (BELOW THE LINE ) AND QUANTITIES THAT WOULD EXCEED THE THRESHOLD LIMIT IF COMPLETELY RELEASED(ABOVE THE LINE. PROPOSED E-TEC STORAGE VOLUME AND CONCENTRATiON CAPACITIES METHYLENE CHLORIDE US ENVIRONMENTAL PRO EZrION AG(NC’ ’ FIGURE F - 9 106 F- 24 ------- 10 U, C 0 C 0 C / , .2 1 o6 Concentration in PPM NOTE : THE MAXIMUM EXPECTED CONCENTRATION OF PCB 5000 PPM DASHED LINE INDICATES THE CORRESPONDING MAX. ALLOWABLE STORAGE WITHOUT EXCEEDING THRESHOLD LIMIT. SOLID LINE REPRESENTS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN ALLOWABLE STORAGE (BELOW THE LINE ) AND QUANTITIES THAT WOULD EXCEED THE THRESHOLD LIMIT IF COMPLETELY RELEASED(ABOVE THE LINE. PROPOSED E-TEC STORAGE VOLUME AND CONCENTRATION CAPACITIES PCB 0 - U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FIGURE F - 10 io8 10 io6 102 101 100 F-25 ------- Concentration in PPM NOTE THE MAXIMUM EXPECTED CONCENTRATION OF TRICHLOROETHYLENE = 8600 PPM DASHED LINE INDICATES THE CORRESPONDING MAX. ALLOWABLE STORAGE WITHOUT EXCEEDING THRESHOLD LIMIT. SOLID LINE REPRESENTS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN ALLOWABLE STORAGE (BELOW THE LINE ) AND QUANTITIES THAT WOULD EXCEED THE THRESHOLD LIMIT IF COMPLETELY RELEASED(ABOVE THE LINE. PROPOSED E-TEC STORAGE VOLUME AND CONCENTRATION CAPACITIES TRICHLOROETHYLENE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PPOTECTION AGENCY 101 101 101 10 C I 1 o6 F-26 FIGURE F-H ------- 101 .2 CD 0 U) .2 102 1 o6 Concentrat n in PPM NOTE : THE MAXIMUM EXPECTED CONCENTRATION OF VINYL CHLORIDE I PPM DASHED UNE INDICATES THE CORRESPONDING MAX. ALLOWABLE STORAGE WITHOUT EXCEEDING THRESHOLD LIMIT. SOLID LINE REPRESENTS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN ALLOWABLE STORAGE (BELOW THE LINE ) AND QUANTITIES THAT WOULD EXCEED THE THRESHOLD LIMIT IF COMPLETELY RELEASED(ABOVE THE LINE. ) PROPOSED E-TEC STORAGE VOLUME AND CONCENTRATION CAPACITIES VINYL CHLORIDE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCV FIGURE F-12 10 io8 io6 io 101 F- 27 ------- APPENDIX G ------- APPENDIX C MITIGATION PROCEDURES G.l EMERGENCY SERVICES AND COORDINATION PROCEDURES WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES A Contingency Plan has been prepared for the operation of the proposed E-TEC, in accordance with 40 CFR 264.50 et. seq., Subpart D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This plan is part of the RD&D permit application that has been prepared on behalf of the proposed facility. The Contingency Plan contains procedures that would minimize or prevent damage to human health and the environment in the event of a fire, explosion, or unplanned sudden or non-sudden release of hazardous wastes to air, soil, or surface water. Arrangements have been made to coordinate this plan with the local police department, fire department, hospitals, and local emergency response teams if the proposed facility were located in Edison. Middlesex County maintains a specialized unit to respond to hazardous materials incidents. In addition, the EERU, Region II ERT, and OSWER ERT are head- quartered at the EPA Facility. These organizations assist the EPA in response to environmental emergencies and could assist local authorities in the event of an incident. G.2 TRAINING PLAN FOR SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PROCEDURES A hazardous waste training program for employees of the proposed E-TEC would provide the training necessary to ensure that all research personnel: o Appreciate the health and environmental risks associated with the hazardous wastes that would be treated; o Understand the appropriate research and experimentation methods that would minimize such risks; o Are familiar with all applicable procedures related to storage, treatment, and disposal of the hazardous wastes that could be required within the scope of the RD&D activity; and G-l ------- o Would be able to handle effectively accidents and emergency situations. In addition to the initial training of employees, periodic refresher courses should be provided. Also, all necessary management controls should be instituted to ensure that personnel attend the training sessions and comply with safety procedures. C.3 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM It is intended that all laboratories and testing areas would incorporate safety features designed to safeguard life and property. Such features would include automatic fire protection systems, toxic fume monitoring systems, spill and leak containment, as well as any other code recommended devices. The facility would have an automatic fire protection system capable of detecting a fire, sounding alarms, and initiating an extinguishing process. An appropriate extinguishing medium would be used where there would exist a potential for a fire that could not be extinguished with water. Additional fire protection system components would consist of: o Water-based sprinkler systems installed throughout the facility. o Portable fire extinguishers located throughout the facility. o A water supply sufficient to meet the fixed fire demand, plus a total of at least 500 gallons per minute for hose lines. o Manual pull boxes located at all entrance doorways to each storage area, as a minimum. o All emergency exit doors with automatic alarm devices. o Fire hydrants located on each side of the building, spaced per code. G-2 ------- G.4 PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT It is intended that personnel at the proposed E-TEC would wear appropri- ate protective equipment when their activities involved known or potential atmospheric contamination; when vapors, gases, or particulates could be released by experimental activities; or when direct contact with skin- affecting substances could occur. Management controls would be required to ensure that personal protective equipment was worn when needed and used correctly. Equipment that would protect the body against contact with known or anticipated toxic chemicals is classified into four categories according to the degree of protection afforded: Level A: Should be worn when the highest level of respirator, skin, and eye protection is needed. Level B: Should be worn when the highest level of respiratory protection is needed, but a lesser level of skin protection. Level C: Should be worn when the criteria for using air purifying respirators are met. Level D: Should be worn only as a work uniform and not in areas of potential respiratory or skin hazards. It provides no protection against chemical hazards. The level of protection selected for workers at the proposed E-TEC would be based on: o Type, measured concentration, and toxicity of the chemical substance in the workplace atmosphere; o Potential for exposure to substances in air, splashes of liquids, or other direct contact with material due to work being done; and G-3 ------- o Type of operation/experiment being undertaken, and the particular task involved. G.5 DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES The areas of concern in terms of the potential for contamination would be: the regular analytical laboratories, the bench/pilot unit testing area, the T&E bays, and the designated chemical and hazardous waste storage areas. Both personnel and facilities could become contaminated. Although appropriate safety practices, including protective equipment, will be mandatorily followed, personnel working in these areas could potentially become contaminated in a number of ways, including: o Contacting vapors, gases, mists, or particulates in the air; o Being splashed by materials while sampling or opening containers; o Walking through puddles of liquids or on contaminated solids; and o Using contaminated instruments or equipment. Decontamination consists of physically removing contaminants or changing their chemical nature to innocuous substances. The extent of decontamination that would be necessary would depend on a number of factors, the most important being the type of contaminants involved. The more harmful the contaminant, the more extensive and thorough the decontamination would have to be. Less harmful contaminants would require less decontamination. Combining decontamination, the correct method of wearing personnel protective equipment, and the use of designated work zones would minimize cross-contamination from protective clothing to wearer, equipment to personnel, and one area to another. Laboratory decontamination procedures would generally follow accepted and standard practices identified in laboratory safety manuals. C-4 ------- C. 6 OTHER SAFETY MEASURES Spill and Leak Protection The existing slabs on grade would be retrofitted with a spill containment system consisting of an impervious floor and a dike of each test area. The exposed slab and all exposed edges of the sumps and trenches would be coated with a sealant to insure an impervious surface. The objective of the spill containment system would be to protect the environment from leakage as well as to facilitate cleanup operations. Other Protection Hazardous condition monitoring units would be incorporated in the facility. These units would monitor levels of combustible gas, toxic gas, and oxygen deficiency. Monitoring units gould provide visible and audible alarms, operate via battery power and be explosion proof. Spill absorption kits would be provided for cleanup of small spills. A combination eyewash and deluge shower Station would also be installed at locations per codes, applicable standards and policy. G-5 ------- APPENDIX H ------- APPENDIX 1-I COMPUTER PRINTOUTS FOR AIR DISPERSION MODELS H.l Source Emission Data for the Proposed E-TEC Facility H.2 Simple Screening Using COMPLEX-I with VALLEY H.3 Detailed Screening Using COMPLEX-I H.4 Refined Modeling Using ISCLT 11.5 Catastrophic Release 1odeling H.5.1 Screening Using Valley Option of COMPLEX-i H.5.2 Screening Using ISCST with Closest Receptors H.5.3 Catastrophic Release Modeling Using ISCST H-i ------- SOURCE EMISSION DATA FOR PROPOSED E-TEC FACILITY (F l. 1) H-2 ------- UPOINTIS 1 NEPA FACILITY H COORDS OF STACK 0.000000E+OO 0 .000000E+OO ENISSIOW RATES 1.000000 0 .000000E+O0 0.000000E+O0 0 .000000E+OO STACK PARAMETERS 44.200000 7.620000E-O1 10.360000 352.000000 0.000000 0.00000000 70.013120 H—3 ------- SIMPLE SCREENING USING COMPLEX-I WITH VALLEY (H.2) H-4 ------- COMPLEX-i (DATED 86064) AN AIR QUALITY DISPERSION MODEL IN SECTION 4 ADDITIONAL MODELS FOR REGULATORY USE IN UNAMAP (VERSION 6) JULY 86. SOURCE: FILE 31 ON UNAMAP MAGNETIC TAPE FORM NTIS. DATE & TIME OF THIS RUN - 06/28/89 12:16:08 INPUT FILE - EDISONV.DAT COMPLEX I - VERSION 86064 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVPI GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN VALLEY SCREENING OPTION GENERAL INPUT INFORMATION THIS RUN OF COMPLEX I/VALLEY OPTION IS FOR THE GENERIC POLLUTANT FOR 1 WIND DIRECTIONS. A FACTOR OF L0000000 HAS BEEN SPECIFIED TO CONVERT USER LENGTH UNITS TO KILOMETERS. 0 ADDITIONAL SIGNIFICANT SOURCES ARE TO BE CONSIDERED. THIS RUN WILL NOT CONSIDER ANY POLLUTANT LOSS. HIGH-FIVE SUMMARY 24-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION TABLES WILL BE OUTPUT FOR EACH RECEPTOR. A FACTOR OF .3048000 HAS BEEN SPECIFIED TO CONVERT USER HEIGHT UNITS TO METERS. OPTION OPTION LIST OPTION SPECIFICATION : 0= IGNORE OPTION 1= USE OPTION TECHNICAL OPTIONS 1 TERRAIN ADJUSTMENTS 1 2 DO NOT INCLUDE STACK DOUNWASH CALCULATIONS 1 3 DO NOT INCLUDE GRADUAL PLUME RISE CALCULATIONS 0 4 CALCULATE INITIAL PLUME SIZE INPUT OPTIONS 5 READ MET DATA FROM CARDS 1 6 READ HOURLY EMISSIONS 0 7 SPECIFY SIGNIFICANT SOURCES 0 8 READ RADIAL DISTANCES TO GENERATE RECEPTORS 0 PRINTED OUTPUT OPTIONS 9 DELETE EMISSIONS WITH HEIGHT TABLE 1 10 DELETE MET DATA SLM4ARY FOR AVG PERIOD 1 11 DELETE HOURLY CONTRIBUTIONS 1 12 DELETE MET DATA ON HOURLY CONTRIBUTIONS 1 13 DELETE FINAL PLUME RISE CALC ON HRLY CONTRIBUTIONS 1 14 DELETE HOURLY SIJIARY 1 15 DELETE MET DATA ON HRLY SUMMARY 1 16 DELETE FINAL PLUME RISE CALC ON HRLY SUMMARY 1 17 DELETE AVG-PERIOD CONTRIBUTIONS 1 18 DELETE AVERAGING PERIOD SUMMARY 1 19 DELETE AVG CONCENTRATIONS AND HI-S TABLES 0 OTHER CONTROL AND OUTPUT OPTIONS 20 RUN IS PART OF A SEGNENTED RUN 0 21 WRITE PARTIAL CONC TO DISK OR TAPE 0 22 WRITE HOURLY CONC TO DISK OR TAPE 0 23 WRITE AVG-PERIOD CONC TO DISK OR TAPE 0 24 PUNCH AVG-PERIOD CONC ONTO CARDS 0 25 COMPLEX TERRAIN OPTION 0 26 CALM PROCESSING OPTION 0 27 VALLEY SCREENING OPTION 1 ANEMOMETER HEIGHT IS: 10OO EXPONENTS FOR POWER- LAW WIND INCREASE WITH HEIGHT ARE: .10 ,15 ,.2O .25 ,.3O,.30 TERRAIN ADJUSTMENTS ARE: .500, .500. .500. .500, .000, .000 ZMIN IS 10.0 H—5 ------- BECAUSE THE VALLEY OPTION HAS BEEN SELECTED, THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS AND PARAMETERS HAVE BEEN SET BY THE MODEL. OVERRIDING VALUES PROVIDED BY THE USER: IOPT(5) , IOPT(1O), IOPT(12). IOPT(15), IOPT(l7) IOPT(18) = 1 IOPT(6), IOPT(20) THRU 10PTC26) = 0 NAVG1 NAV5 O INSIRT = 1 c 0NTER(6) = 0. ZMIN = 10. IKST = 6 D l i = 2.5 OHL = 9999. EAST NORTH COORD COORD (USER UNITS) POINT SOURCE INFORMATION GRD-LVL ELEV USER NT UNITS 1 EPA FACILITY .00 .00 1.00 .00 44.2 352.0 .8 10.4 70.00 2.47 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION EMISSION INFORMATION FOR 1 (NPT) POINT 0 SIGNIFICANT POINT SOURCES(NSIGP) ARE TO THE ORDER OF S!GNIFICAMCE(11S) FOR 25 OR ON SOURCES. SOURCES HAS BEEN INPUT BE USED FOR THIS RUN LESS POINT SOURCES USED IN THIS RUN AS LISTED BY POINT SOURCE NUMBER: SQ.RcE (G/SEC) PART(GISEC) STACK STACK STACK STACK EMISSIONS EMISSIONS HT(M) TENP(K) DIAM(M) VEL(M/SEC) BUOY FLUX F M* 4/S 3 RECEPTOR INFORMATION RECEPTOR IDENTIFICATION EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR GROUND LEVEL COORD (USER COORD ABV LOCAL GRO LVL UNITS) (METERS) ELEVATION (USER NT UNITS) 1 REC 1 .500 .000 .0 70.0 2 REC 2 .640 .000 .0 80.0 3 REC 3 .762 .000 .0 100.0 4 REC 4 1.000 .000 .0 103.0 5 REC 5 1.500 .000 .0 105.0 6 REC 6 2.000 .000 .0 110.0 7 REC 7 2.500 .000 .0 115.0 8 REC 8 3.000 .000 .0 117.0 9 REC 9 3.810 .000 .0 120.0 10 REC 10 4.000 .000 .0 143.0 11 REC 11 4.180 .000 .0 150.0 12 REC 12 4.300 .000 .0 180.0 13 REC 13 4.390 .000 .0 200.0 14 REC 14 5.000 .000 .0 210.0 15 REC 15 6.000 .000 .0 215.0 16 REC 16 7.000 .000 .0 220.0 17 REC 17 8.000 .000 .0 225.0 18 REC 18 9.000 .000 .0 230.0 19 REC 19 10.000 .000 .0 250.0 20 REC 20 13.000 .000 .0 300.0 21 REC 21 14.000 .000 .0 400.0 22 REC 22 15.000 .000 .0 500.0 23 REC 23 16.000 .000 .0 540.0 24 REC 24 20.000 .000 .0 600.0 25 REC 25 30.000 .000 .0 600.0 26 REC 26 40.000 .000 .0 600.0 27 REC 27 50.000 .000 .0 600.0 H-6 ------- VALLEY METEOROLOGICAL INPUT DATA PRESET BY MOGEL: MIXING HEIGHT (N) = 9999 STABILITY = 6 WiND SPEED (NISEC) = 2.5 INPUT BY USER: TEMPERATURE ( Z) = 293.0 WIND DIRECTIONS (DEG) = 270.0 RECEPTOR 1 VALLEY: FIVE HIGHEST 24-HOUR GENERIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS (WIND DIRECTION) (MICROGRAMS/M 3) 2 3 4 5 1( .50. .00) .00 (270.0) *000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 ( .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 2( .64, .00) .00 (270.0) 000000.00( .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 ( .0) 000000.00 C .0) 3( .76, .00) .00 (270.0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 4( 1.00, .00) .01 (270.0) 000000.00 ( .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 ( .0) 000000.00 C .0) 5C 1.50, .00) .07(270.0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 6( 2.00, .00) .18 (270.0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 ( .0) 000000.00 ( .0) 71 2.50. .00) .25 (270.0) 000000.00 ( .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 81 3.00, .00) .29 (270.0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 1 .0) 91 3.81, .00) .29 (270.0) 000000.00 ( .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 10( 4.00, .00) .40 (270.0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 ( .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) liC 4.18, .00) .43 (270.0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 ( .0) 000000.00 C .0) 121 4.30, .00) .58 (270.0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 ( .0) 13( 4.39, .00) .66 (270.0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 14( 5.00, .00) .60 (270.0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 ( .0) 15( 6.00, .00) .49 (270.0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 ( .0) 161 7.00, .00) .41 (270.0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 1 .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 17( 8.00, .00) .35 (270.0) 000000.00 ( .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 18( 9.00, .00) .30 (270.0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 ( .0) 000000.00 C .0) 191 10.00, .00) .27 (270.0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 ( .0) 20C 13.00, .00) .19 (270.0) 000000.00 ( .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 211 14.00, .00) .16 (270.0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 ( .0) 000000.00 ( .0) 221 15.00, .00) .13 (270.0) 000000.00 ( .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 1 .0) 000000.00 ( .0) 231 16.00, .00) .11 (270.0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 24( 20.00, .00) .08 (270.0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 25( 30.00, .00) .05 (270.0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.001 .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 ( .0) 26( 40.00, .00) .03 (270.0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 ( .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 ( .0) 27( 50.00, .00) .02 (270.0) 000000.00 ( .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) 000000.00 C .0) H—7 ------- DETAILED SCREENING USING COMPLEX-I (H.3) H-8 ------- COMPLEX-i CDATED 86064) AN AIR QUALITY DISPERSION MODEL IN SECTION 4. ADDITIONAL MODELS FOR REGULATORY USE IN U$IAMAP (VERSION 6) JULY 86. SOURCE: FILE 31 ON UNAMAP MAGNETIC TAPE FORM NTIS. DATE & TIME OF THIS RUN - 06/28/89 12:18:26 INPUT FILE - EDISON.DAT COMPLEX I - VERSION ,86 0M EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I AIR QUALITY MVN GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS GENERAL INPUT INFORMATION THIS RUN OF COMPLEX I -VERSION 86064 IS FOR THE GENERIC POLLUTANT FOR 2 24-HOUR PERIODS. CONCENTRATION ESTIMATES BEGIN ON HOUR- 1,JULIAN DAY- 1, YEAR-1989. A FACTOR OF 1.0000000 HAS BEEN SPECIFIED TO CONVERT USER LENGTH UNITS TO KILOMETERS. O SIGNIFICANT SOURCES ARE TO BE CONSIDERED. THIS RUN WILL NOT CONSIDER ANY POLLUTANT LOSS. HIGH-FIVE S&NI1ARY CONCENTRATION TABLES WILL BE OUTPUT FOR 4 AVERAGING PERIODS. AVG TIMES OF 1,3,8, AND 24 HOURS ARE AUTOMATICALLY DISPLAYED. A FACTOR OF .3048000 HAS BEEN SPECIFIED TO CONVERT USER HEIGHT UNITS TO METERS. OPTION OPTION LIST OPTION SPECIFICATION : 0= IGNORE OPTION 1= USE OPTION TECHNICAL OPTIONS 1 TERRAIN ADJUSTMENTS 1 2 DO NOT INCLL E STACK DO fl1WASH CALCULATIONS 1 3 DO NOT INCLWE GRADUAL PLUME RISE CALCULATIONS 0 4 CALCULATE INITIAL PLUME SIZE 1 INPUT OPTIONS 5 READ MET DATA FROM CARDS 1 6 READ HOURLY EMISSIONS 0 7 SPECIFY SIGNIFICANT SOURCES 0 8 READ RADIAL DISTANCES TO GENERATE RECEPTORS 0 PRINTED OUTPUT OPTIONS 9 DELETE EMISSIONS WITH HEIGHT TABLE 1 10 DELETE MET DATA SLJI4ARY FOR AVG PERIOD 1 11 DELETE HOURLY CONTRIBUTIONS 1 12 DELETE MET DATA ON HOURLY CONTRIBUTIONS 1 13 DELETE FINAL PLUME RISE CALC ON HRLY CONTRIBUTIONS 1 14 DELETE HOURLY SLII4ARY 0 15 DELETE MET DATA ON HRLY SLJ4ARY 0 16 DELETE FINAL PLUME RISE CALC ON HRLY SUMMARY 0 17. DELETE AVG-PERIOD CONTRIBUTIONS 1 18 DELETE AVERAGING PERIOD SUMMARY 1 19 DELETE AVG CONCENTRATIONS AND HI-5 TABLES 0 OTHER CONTROL AND OUTPUT OPTIONS 20 RUN IS PART OF A SEGMENTED RUN 0 21 WRITE PARTIAL CONC TO DISK OR TAPE 0 22 WRITE HOURLY CONC TO DISK OR TAPE 0 23 WRITE AVG-PERIOD CONC TO DISK OR TAPE 0 24 PUNCH AVG-PERIOD CONC ONTO CARDS 0 25 COMPLEX TERRAIN OPTION 1 26 CALM PROCESSING OPTION 0 27 VALLEY SCREENING OPTION 0 ANEMOMETER HEIGHT 15: 10.00 EXPONENTS FOR POWER- LAW WIND INCREASE WITH HEIGHT ARE:.1O ,.15,.20,.25,.30,.30 TERRAIN ADJUSTMENTS ARE: .500, .500, .500, .500, .000, .000 ZMIN IS 10.0 ------- POINT SOURCE INFORMATION SOURCE EAST NORTH (G/SEC) PART(G1SEC) STACK STACK STACK STACK P01EV. IMPACT EFF GRD-LV I. BUOY FLUX COORD CUORD EMISSIONS EMISSIONS HT(M) TENP(K) DIAM(M)VEL(N/SEC)(NICRO G/M**3) HTCM) ELEV F (USER UNITS) USER HI M**4/S** UN ITS 1 EPA FACILITY .00 .00 1.00 .00 44.2 352.0 .8 10.4 13.78 58.28 70.00 2.47 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SOURCES. EMISSION INFORMATION FOR 1 (NPT) POINT SOURCES HAS BEEN INPUT 0 SIGNIFICANT POINT SOURCES(NSIGP) ARE TO BE USED FOR THIS RUN THE ORDER OF SIGNIFICANCE(IMPS) FOR 25 OR LESS POINT SOURCES USED ZN THIS RUN AS LISTED BY POINT SOURCE NUMBER: RECEPTOR iNFORMATION RECEPTOR IDENTIFICATION EAST NORTH RECEPTOR HI RECEPTOR GROUND LEVEL COORD CCORD ABV LOCA l. GRD LV1. ELEVATION (USER UNITS) (METERS) (USER HI UNITS) 1 REC 1 .500 .000 .0 70.0 2 REC 2 .640 .000 .0 80.0 3 REC 3 .762 .000 .0 100.0 4 REC 4 1.000 .000 .0 103.0 5 REC 5 1.500 .000 .0 105.0 6 NEC 6 2.000 .000 .0 110.0 7 NEC 7 2.500 .000 .0 115.0 8 REC 8 3.000 .000 .0 117.0 9 REC 9 3.810 .000 .0 120.0 10 REC 10 6.000 .000 .0 143.0 11 NEC 11 4.180 .000 .0 150.0 12 NEC 12 4.300 .000 .0 180.0 13 REC 13 4.390 .000 .0 200.0 14 NEC 14 5.000 .000 .0 210.0 15 REC 15 6.000 .000 .0 215.0 16 REC 16 7.000 .000 .0 220.0 17 REC 17 8.000 .000 .0 225.0 18 REC 18 9.000 .000 .0 230.0 19 REt 19 10.000 .000 .0 250.0 20 REt 20 13.000 .000 .0 300.0 21 REC 21 14.000 .000 .0 400.0 22 REC 22 15.000 .000 .0 500.0 23 REC 23 16.000 .000 .0 540.0 24 NEC 24 20.000 .000 .0 600.0 25 REC 25 30.000 .000 .0 600.0 26 NEC 26 60.000 .000 .0 600.0 27 NEC 27 50.000 .000 .0 600.0 EDISON NEW JERSEY I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY $VN GENERI C I GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / CORPLEX- I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 IiIRST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SLJI4ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICROGRAMSIM 3) 89/ 1 HOUR 1 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) NEIGMT(M) (K) CLASS 1 270.00 .50 5000.00 293.00 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL HI (N) 86.44 01ST FIN NT (EM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. MAlE COORD COORD ABV GRD (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGN I F POINT ALL SOURCES RANK H-iD ------- (USER HI UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 27.5487 1 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 15.9945 2 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 9.9106 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 4.4038 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 1.2615 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .5157 6 7 REC 1 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .2574 7 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .1458 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .1066 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .1016 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .0972 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .0945 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .0926 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .0813 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .0677 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .0580 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .0508 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .0451 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0406 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0313 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0290 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0271 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0254 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0203 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0135 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0102 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0081 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVI4 GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN I WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS S 1JINARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICROGRAMS/M *3) 89/ 1 : HOUR 2 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 2 270.00 .80 5000.00 293.00 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT CM) 86.44 01ST FIN HI (KM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV GRD CM) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER HI UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 10.0 000000.0000 27.5487 1 2 REC 2 64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 15.9945 2 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 9.9106 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 4.4038 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 1.2615 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .5157 6 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .2574 7 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .1458 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .1066 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .1016 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .0972 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .0945 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .0926 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .0813 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .0677 15 H—il ------- 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .0580 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .0508 17 18 REC 18 9.O() .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .0451 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0406 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0313 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0290 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0271 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0254 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0203 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0135 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0102 24 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0081 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIR0 I(TAL II ACT STATEMENT I AIR QUALITY N W GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE I C cLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN I WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SLM ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICROGRAMS/M3) 89/ 1 : HOUR 3 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEI STABILITY CDEG) (MIS) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 3 270.00 1.00 5000.00 293.00 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT CM) 80.60 01ST F 1N NT (K14) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR HI RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORO COORD ABV GRD CM) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGIIIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 24.8271 1 2 REC 2 .66 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 14.0067 2 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 8.6047 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 3.8064 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 1.0877 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .4445 6 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .2219 7 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .1257 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .0919 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .0876 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .0838 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .0814 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .0798 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .0700 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .0584 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .0500 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .0438 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .0389 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0350 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0269 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0250 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0233 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0219 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0175 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0117 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0088 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0070 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIROSENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY NW GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE I CGI ’tEX-I RUN SECOND RIM / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SUII4ART CONCENTRATION TA8LECMICROGRAMS/M 3) 89/ 1 HOUR 4 H- 12 ------- H JR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (M/S) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 4 270.00 1.50 5000.00 293.00 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT CM) 68.47 DIST FIN HT CKN) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD LOORD ABV (3RD CM) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER HT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 17.9899 1 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 9.6129 2 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 5.8140 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 2.5471 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 .7257 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .2964 6 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .1479 7 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .0838 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .0613 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .0584 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .0559 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .0543 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .0532 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .0467 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .0389 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .0334 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .0292 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .0259 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0233 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0180 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0167 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0156 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0146 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0117 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0078 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0058 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0047 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVM GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN I WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SL1 4ARY CONCENTRATION TASLEQIICROGRAMS/M**3) 89/ 1 : HOUR 5 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 5 270.00 2.00 5000.00 293.00 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL HT CM) 62.40 DIST FIN NT (K .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRAT ION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV CR0 CM) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 13.9969 1 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 0000000000 7.3020 2 3 REC3 .76 .00 .0 000000.0000 4.3860 3 ------- 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 1.9138 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 .5445 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .2223 6 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .1109 7 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .0629 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .0460 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .0438 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .0419 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .0407 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .0399 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .0350 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .0292 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .0250 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .0219 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .0195 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0175 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0135 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0125 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0117 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0109 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0088 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0058 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0044 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0035 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I AIR OUALITY Wd11 GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND R IM / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAl. CONDITIONS SIJ ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(NICR0GRAMSIM 3) 89/ 1 : HOUR 6 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 6 270.00 2.50 5000.00 293.00 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL MT CM) 58.76 01ST FIN HI (KM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR MT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABY GRO (N) GRO- LVL ELEV SIGNI F POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 11.4282 1 2 REC 2 .66 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 5.8829 2 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 3.5200 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 1.5326 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 .4356 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .1779 6 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .0888 7 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .0503 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .0368 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .0350 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .0335 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .0326 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .0319 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .0280 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .0233 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .0200 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .0175 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .0156 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0140 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 .300.0 000000.0000 .0108 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0100 21 1 1-14 ------- 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0093 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0088 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0070 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0047 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0035 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0028 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVM GENERIC 1 GRAIl/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SLM1ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICROGRAI4S/M**3) 89/ 1 : HOUR 7 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (M/S) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 7 270.00 3.00 5000.00 293.00 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL HT (N) 56.33 DIST FIN NT (KIl) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV GRO (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIG1IIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 9.6472 1 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 4.9242 2 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 2.9392 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 1.2779 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 .3631 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .1482 6 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .0740 7 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .0419 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .0306 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .0292 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .0279 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .0271 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .0266 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .0233 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .0195 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .0167 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .0146 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .0130 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0117 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0090 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0083 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0078 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0073 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0058 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0039 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0029 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0023 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVM GENERIC 1 GRAIl/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SIJ4ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICR0GRAMS/M 3) 89/ 1 : HOUR 8 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 8 270.00 .50 5000.00 293.00 2 H— 15 ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT (N) 86.44 01ST FIN HT (KM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAI COORD COORD ABV CR0 (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER HT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 19.9582 2 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 21.4202 1 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 19.7551 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 14.0481 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 7.0798 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 4.0909 6 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 2.6242 7 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 1.8122 B 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 1.1088 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 1.0038 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .9165 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .8652 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .8293 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .6326 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .4324 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .3133 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .2369 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .1852 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .1485 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0857 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0734 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0635 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0555 23 24 REC 26 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0347 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0148 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0102 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0081 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIR0 ENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR JALITY MVN GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS S1JI4ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(NICROGRAMS/M 3) 89/ 1 : HOUR 9 HQ.R THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (bEG) (M/S) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 9 270.00 .80 5000.00 293.00 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL HT CM) 86.44 01ST FIN NT (KM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAI COORD COORD ASV CR0 (N) GRD-LVL ELEY SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 19.9582 2 2 REC 2 .66 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 21 .4202 1 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 19.7551 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 14.0481 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 7.0798 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 4.0909 6 7 REC 7 230 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 2.6242 7 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 1.8122 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 1.1088 9 H-16 ------- 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 1.0038 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .9165 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .8652 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .8293 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .6326 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .4324 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .3133 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .2369 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .1852 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .1485 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0857 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0734 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0635 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0555 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0347 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0148 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0102 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0081 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVM GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS S1J MARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICROGRAMS/M**3) 89/ 1 : HOUR 10 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 10 270.00 1.00 5000.00 293.00 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL HI (M) 78.00 DIST FIN HI (KM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR HI RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV GRD (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER HT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 20.3014 1 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 19.8238 2 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 17.4386 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 11.8776 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 5.7966 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 3.3135 6 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 2.1154 7 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 1.4573 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .8898 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .8052 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .7350 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .6937 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .6648 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .5068 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .3463 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .2508 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .1897 17 18 REC 18 9 .00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .1482 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .1189 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0686 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0587 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0508 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0444 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0278 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 ‘000000.0000 .0119 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0081 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0065 27 H—i 7 ------- EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIROSNENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY NVM GENERIC 1 GRAM1SECOS EMISSION RATE I COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SLRSNARY CONCENTRATION TARLE(MICROGRAMS/M 3) 89/ 1 : HOUR 11 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 11 270.00 1.50 5000.00 293.00 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT CM) 66.73 DIST FIN NT (Ku) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV CR0 CM) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER HT UNITS) SOURCES 1 NEC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 18.1801 1 2 NEC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 15.7373 2 3 NEC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 13.0566 3 4 NEC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 8.4458 6 S NEC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 3.9688 5 6 NEC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 2.2403 6 7 NEC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 1.4224 7 8 NEC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .9771 8 9 NEC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .5952 9 10 NEC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .5383 10 11 NEC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .4913 11 12 NEC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .4635 12 13 NEC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .4441 13 14 NEC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .3384 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .2311 15 16 NEC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .1673 16 17 NEC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .1265 17 18 NEC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .0988 18 19 NEC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0793 19 20 NEC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0457 20 21 NEC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0392 21 22 NEC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0339 22 23 NEC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0296 23 24 NEC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0185 24 25 NEC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0079 25 26 NEC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0054 26 27 NEC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0043 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I AIR QUALITY HVN GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE I COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN I WITH TIlE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SIJS ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(NICROGRAMSIM* 3) 89/ 1 HOUR 12 HQJR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGNT(N) (K) CLASS 12 270.00 2.00 5000.00 293.00 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT CM) 61.10 01ST FIN HI (EM) .086 .RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORO COORD ABV CR0 (H) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGN IF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK H-18 ------- (USER HI UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 15.5955 1 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 12.7609 2 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 10.3068 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 6.5157 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 3.0113 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 1.6905 6 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 1.0707 7 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .7346 8 9 REt. 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .4471 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .4042 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .3688 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .3479 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .3333 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .2540 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .1734 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .1255 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .0949 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .0741 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0595 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0343 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0294 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0254 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0222 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0139 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0059 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0041 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0033 27 EDISON MEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVM GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX- I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SUIIIARY CONCENTRAT ION TABLE(MI CROGRAMS/M* 3) 89/ 1 : HOUR 13 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (M/S) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 13 270.00 3.00 5000.00 293.00 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL HI (M) 55.47 DIST FIN HT (KM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FRC*4 TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV GRD (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER HI UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 11.7722 1 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 9.1368 2 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 7.1976 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 4.4559 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 2.0286 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 1.1332 6 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .7162 7 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .4908 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .2984 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .2698 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .2461 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .2321 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .2224 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .1694 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .1156 15 H- 19 ------- 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .0837 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .0633 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .0494 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0396 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0229 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0196 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0169 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0148 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0093 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0040 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0027 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0022 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY I ENVIR0 ENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY NVM GENERIC 1 CRAM/SECOI EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RIJI SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAl. CONDITIONS SUII ARY CONCENTRATION TASLE(MICROGRAMS/M**3) 89/ 1 : HOUR 14 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXiNG TEMP STABiLITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGI4T(N) (K) CLASS 14 270.00 4.00 5000.00 293.00 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT (N) 52.65 01ST FIN NT (KM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. MAlE COORD COORD MV CR0 (N) GRD-LVI. ELEV SIGN I F POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT (JIlTS) SOURCES I REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 9.3568 1 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 7.0833 2 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 5.5148 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 3.3813 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 1.5288 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .8520 6 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .5380 7 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .3685 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .2240 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 1430 000000.0000 .2024 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .1847 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .1742 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .1668 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .1271 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .0867 15 16 BR 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .0628 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .0475 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .0371 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0297 19 20 REt 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0172 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0147 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0127 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0111 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0069 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0030 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0020 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0016 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY I ENVIROSNENTAt. IMPACT STATEMENT I AIR QUALITY NW GENERIC 1 CRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SEC I) RUN / WITH THE 68 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SIJI ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICR0GRAI4S/N 3) 89/ 1 HOUR 15 H-20 ------- HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGWI(M) (K) CLASS 15 270.00 5.00 5000.00 293.00 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL HI (M) 50.96 01ST FIN NT (KM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV GRO (N) GRD-LV . ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 7.7401 1 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 5.7754 2 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 4.4661 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 2.7232 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 1.2264 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .6826 6 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .4307 7 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .2950 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .1792 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .1620 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .1 /.78 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .1394 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .1335 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .1017 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .0694 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .0502 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .0380 17 18 REC 16 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .0297 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0238 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0137 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0117 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0102 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 560.0 000000.0000 .0089 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0056 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0024 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0016 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0013 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVM GENERIC I GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE I COMPLEX -I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS StJ ARY CONCENTRATION TA8LE(MICROGRAMS/ *3) 89/ 1 HOUR 16 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGHT(N) (K) CLASS 16 270.00 2.00 5000.00 293.00 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL HI CM) 59.89 01ST FIN NT (KM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR HT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV GRD (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 8.6537 3 2 REC 2 .61. .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 10.41 2 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 10.6135 H—21 ------- 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 8.2487 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 4.6945 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 2.9343 6 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 1.9896 7 8 REC a 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 1.4326 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .9233 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .8666 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .7805 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .7430 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .7162 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .5605 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .% .0 215.0 000000.0000 .3966 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .2958 16 17 NEC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .2294 17 18 NEC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .1833 18 19 NEC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .1499 19 20 NEC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0908 20 21 NEC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0788 21 22 NEC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0691 22 23 NEC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0610 23 24 NEC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0398 24 25 NEC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0183 25 26 NEC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0106 26 27 NEC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0069 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY NVM GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX- I RUN SEC RUN / WITH THE 48 I RST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SIJIIARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICR0GRAMSfl 3) 89/ 1 : HOUR 17 HCXW THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) NEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 17 270.00 2.50 5000.00 293.00 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT CM) 56.75 DIST FIN NT (KM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR HI RECEPTOR TOTAl. FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD MV GRD (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIG1II F POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER HI UNITS) SOURCES 1 NEC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 8.1557 3 2 NEC 2 .66 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 9.2516 1 3 NEC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 9.1359 2 4 NEC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 6.9011 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 3.8370 5 6 NEC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 2.3771 6 7 NEC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 1.6048 7 8 NEC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 1.1528 8 9 NEC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .7414 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .6794 10 11 NEC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .6262 11 12 NEC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .5959 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.D000 .5742 13 14 NEC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .4491 14 15 NEC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .3177 15 16 NEC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .2369 16 17 NEC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .1836 17 18 NEC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .1467 18 19 NEC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .1200 19 20 NEC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0727 20 21 NEC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0631 21 H-22 ------- 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0553 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0488 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0319 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0147 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0085 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0055 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I AIR QUALITY MVM GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SIJ ARY CONCENTRATION TABLECM1CROGRAflS/M 3) 89/ 1 HOUR 18 H JR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (M/S) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 18 270.00 3.00 5000.00 293.00 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAl. HT CM) 54 66 DIST FIN NT (KM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV GRD (M) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 7.5570 3 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 8.2459 1 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 7.9771 2 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 5.9168 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 3.2412 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 1.9966 6 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 1.3443 7 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .9643 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .6193 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .5673 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .5228 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .4973 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .4792 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .3747 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .2649 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .1975 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .1531 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .1223 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .1000 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0606 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0525 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0460 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0407 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0266 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0122 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0070 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0046 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVM GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SIIIARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICROGRAMS/M 3) 89/ 1 HOUR 19 NOI.W THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 19 270.00 4.00 5000.00 293.00 3 H-23 ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL HI CM) 52.04 0 1ST FIN NT (K14) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR HI RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COCRD COORD ABV GRD (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER HI UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 6.4457 2 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 6.7058 1 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 6.3267 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 4.5907 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 2.4705 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 1.5117 6 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 1.0145 7 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .7264 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .4658 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .4265 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .3929 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .3737 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .3600 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .2813 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .1989 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .1482 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .1149 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .0917 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0750 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0454 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0394 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0345 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0305 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0199 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0092 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0053 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0034 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I AIR QUALITY N W GENERIC 1 GRN(/SEC0I EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RtJ SEC9I) RtJI I WITH THE 68 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONOITIONS SUN4ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICROGRAIS/N 3) 89/ 1 : HQJR 20 THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGHTCM) (K) CLASS 20 270.00 5.00 5000.00 293.00 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT (N) 50.48 01ST FIN NT (KM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR HI RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV GRD (N) GRD-LVL ELEY SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER HI UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 5.5575 2 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 5.6218 1 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 5.2269 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 3.7448 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 1.9948 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 1.2159 6 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .8145 7 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .5826 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .3732 9 H-24 ------- 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .3417 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .3147 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .2992 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .2882 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .2252 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .1592 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .1186 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .0919 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .0734 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0600 t9 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0363 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0315 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0276 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0244 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0159 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0073 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0042 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0028 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVM GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SUNMARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICROGRANS/M**3) 89/ 1 : HOUR 21 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (M/S) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 21 270.00 7.00 5000.00 293.00 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT CM) 48.68 DIST FIN HI (KM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV CR0 CM) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER HI UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 4.3145 1 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 4.2294 2 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 3.8684 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 2.7329 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 1.4394 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .8736 6 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .5840 7 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .4173 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .2671 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .2444 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .2251 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .2140 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .2061 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .1610 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .1137 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .0848 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .0657 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .0524 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0429 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0260 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0225 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0197 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0174 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0114 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0052 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0030 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0020 27 H-25 ------- EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVN GENERIC 1 GR.AM/SECO.m EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SEC3 RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SLJI ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(NICROGRAMS/N* 3) 89/ 1 : HOUR 22 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (M/S) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 22 270.00 10.00 5000.00 293.00 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT (N) 47.34 01ST FIN NT (Ku) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. HAlE COORD COORD ABV OW) (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNI F POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER HT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 3.2096 1 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 3.0744 2 3 NEC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 2.7784 3 4 NEC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 1.9429 4 S REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 1.0150 5 6 NEC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .6162 6 7 NEC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .4099 7 8 NEC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .2927 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .1872 9 10 NEC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .1713 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .1577 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .1499 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .1444 13 14 NEC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .1127 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .0796 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .0593 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .0460 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .0367 18 19 NEC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0300 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0182 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0158 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0138 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0122 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0080 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0037 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0021 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0014 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY NVN GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SI1I ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(NZCROGRAMS/N’ 3) 89/ 1 HOUR 23 11(11 THETA SPEED MIXiNG TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) NEIGNT(M) (K) CLASS 23 270.00 12.00 5000.00 293.00 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT (N) 46.81 01ST FIN NT (KM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV GRO (N) GRD- LV I ELEV 5101 11 F POINT ALL SOURCES RANK H-26 ------- (USER HI UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 2.7376 1 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 2.5991 2 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 2.3381 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 1.6287 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 .8482 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .5126 6 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .3420 7 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .2441 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .1561 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .1428 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .1315 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .1250 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .1203 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .0940 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .0664 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .0495 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .0383 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .0306 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0250 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0151 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0131 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0115 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0102 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0066 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0031 2.5 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0018 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0011 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVN GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SIJI4ARY CONCENTRATION TA8LE(MICR0GRAMS/M 3) 89/ 1 HOUR 24 HCXJR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (M/S) HEIGNT(N) (K) CLASS 24 270.00 15.00 5000.00 293.00 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL HT (N) 46.29 01ST FiN NT (KN) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR HI RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV GRD (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 2.2411 1 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 2.1091 2 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 1.8886 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 1.3106 4 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 .6804 5 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .4108 6 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .2739 7 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .1954 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .1249 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .1143 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .1052 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .1000 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .0963 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .0752 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .0531 15 H-27 ------- 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .0396 16 17 NEC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .0307 17 18 NEC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .0245 18 19 NEC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0200 19 20 NEC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0121 20 21 NEC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0105 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0092 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0081 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0053 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0024 25 26 NEC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0014 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0009 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIROIIENTAL 1*ACT STATEPENT / AIR QUALITY NVN GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COI LEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE IETEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SIJS4ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICROGRAMS/N 3) 89/ 2 : HOUR I HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TE* STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) NEIGHT(M) (K) C!.ASS 270.00 .50 5000.00 293.00 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT (N) 86.44 DIST FIN NT (KN) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV GRD (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGN! F POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .0778 27 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 .4679 23 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 1.4864 16 4 NEC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 3.5370 10 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 5.4393 3 6 NEC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 5.8558 1 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 5.5581 2 8 NEC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 4.9956 4 9 NEC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 4.0991 5 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 4.0843 6 11 NEC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 3.9464 9 12 NEC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 4.0184 8 13 NEC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 4.0428 7 14 NEC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 3.4848 11 15 NEC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 2.7570 12 16 NEC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 2.2412 13 17 NEC 1? 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 1.8627 14 18 NEC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 1.5764 15 19 NEC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 1.3645 17 20 NEC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .9439 18 21 NEC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .8566 19 22 NEC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .7710 20 23 NEC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .6986 21 24 NEC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .4961 22 25 NEC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .2654 24 26 NEC 26 60.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1725 25 27 NEC 2? 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1234 26 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONIENTAL IMPACT STATEHENT / AIR QUALITY MVM GENERIC I GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE JETEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS S&J!SARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICR0GRAMS/M 3) 89/ 2 : HOUR 2 H -28 ------- HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGHT(N) (K) CLASS 2 270.00 .80 5000.00 293.00 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT (N) 80.61 DIST FIN NT (KN) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. )IJ.J4E COORD COORD ABV GRD (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SQ RCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .1087 26 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 .6466 21 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 1.9484 14 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 t03.O 000000.0000 4.2213 5 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 5.8519 2 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 5.9342 1 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 5.4275 3 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 4.7615 4 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 3.8143 6 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 3.7734 7 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 3.6304 10 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 3.6752 9 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 3.6834 8 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 3.1473 11 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 2.4669 12 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 1.9923 13 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 1.6479 15 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 1.3895 16 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 1.1985 17 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .8237 18 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .7423 19 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .6679 20 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .6050 22 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .4292 23 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .2293 24 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1489 25 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1065 27 EDISON MEW JERSEY I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I AIR QUALITY MVN GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE I COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SU 1ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(NICROGRANS/N 3) 89/ 2 HOUR 3 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (M/S) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 3 270.00 1.00 5000.00 293.00 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT (N) 73.33 DIST FIN NT (KN) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV GRD (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER HT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .1797 25 2 REC 2 .6k .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 .9875 17 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 H—29 100.0 000000.D000 2.6923 11 ------- 4 NEC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 5.0635 3 5 NEC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 6.1109 1 6 NEC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 5.7479 2 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 5.0242 4 8 NEC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 4.2814 5 9 NEC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 3.3334 6 10 NEC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 3.2688 7 11 NEC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 3.1289 10 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 3.1450 8 13 NEC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 3.1371 9 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 2.6534 12 15 NEC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 2.0576 13 16 NEC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 1.6495 14 17 NEC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 1.3570 15 18 NEC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 1.1395 16 19 NEC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .9788 18 20 NEC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .6677 19 21 NEC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .5974 20 22 NEC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .5373 21 23 NEC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .4864 22 24 NEC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .3447 23 25 NEC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1839 24 26 NEC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1194 26 27 NEC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0853 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY I ENVIROS NTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY NVM GENERiC I GRAB/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I NUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS J4ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICROGRN4S/N 3) 89/ 2 : HQJR 4 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MiS) HEIGIIT(N) (K) CI.ASS 4 270.00 1.50 5000.00 293.00 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT (N) 63.62 01ST FIN NT (KM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION HO. NAI COORD COORD ABV ORD (H) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES I NEC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .3853 21 2 NEC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 1.6718 13 3 NEC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 3.7708 5 4 NEC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 5.6870 1 S NEC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 5.6657 2 6 NEC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 4.8334 3 7 NEC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 3.9906 4 8 NEC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 3.2809 6 9 NEC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 2.4673 7 10 NEC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 2.3926 8 11 NEC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 2.2758 9 12 NEC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 2.2662 10 13 NEC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 2.2467 11 14 NEC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 1.8775 12 15 NEC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 1.4381 14 16 NEC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 1.1430 15 17 NEC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .9345 16 18 NEC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .7810 17 19 NEC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .6676 18 20 NEC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .4496 19 21 NEC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .4010 20 H-30 ------- 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .3605 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .3262 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .2309 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1230 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0798 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0570 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVM GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS StN4ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICROGRAMS/M 3) 89/ 2 : HOUR 5 H THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 5 270.00 2.00 5000.00 293.00 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT (M) 58.76 01ST FIN HT (KM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV CR0 (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER HT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .5539 18 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 2.0234 7 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 4.0706 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 5.4545 1 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 4.9423 2 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 4.0256 4 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 3.2369 5 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 2.6181 6 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 1.9383 8 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 1.8695 9 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 1.7731 10 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 t80.O 000000.0000 1.7575 11 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 1.7373 12 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 1.4440 13 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 1.1002 14 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .8713 15 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .7104 16 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .5926 17 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .5054 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 3383 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .3017 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .2711 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .2453 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1735 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0923 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0599 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0428 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVN GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SIJI4ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(NICROGRAMS/M**3) 89/ 2 HOUR 6 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (M/S) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 6 270.00 3.00 5000.00 293.00 4 H-3 1 ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT (N) 53.91 01ST FIN NT (KM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR HT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION MO. NAME COORD COORD ASV GRO (H) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .7251 15 2 NEC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 2.1668 6 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 3.8545 2 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 4.5853 1 5 NEC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 3.7909 3 6 NEC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 2.9556 4 7 NEC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 2.3185 5 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 1.8471 7 9 NEC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 1.3478 8 10 NEC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 1.2933 9 11 NEC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 1.2233 10 12 NEC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 1.2071 11 13 NEC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 1.1898 12 16 NEC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .9842 13 15 NEC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .7463 14 16 NEC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .5891 16 17 NEC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .4792 17 18 NEC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .3990 18 19 NEC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .3394 19 20 NEC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .2262 20 21 NEC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .2017 21 22 NEC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .1812 22 23 NEC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .1639 23 24 NEC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1159 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0616 25 26 NEC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0400 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0285 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIROSIqENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I AIR QUALITY MVM GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE I COMPLEX-I RtI SEccim RIJI I WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAl. CONDITIONS SLJqARY CONCENTRATION TASLE(MICROGRAMS/N 3) 89/ 2 : HOUR 7 THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (M/S) NEIGIIT(M) (K) CLASS 7 270.00 4.00 5000.00 293.00 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT CM) 51.68 DIST FIN NT (K 14) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION MO. NAME COORD COORD ABV ORD (N) GRO-LYI. ELEV SIGN I F POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES I NEC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .7640 13 2 NEC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 2.0490 5 3 NEC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 3.4212 2 4 NEC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 3.8379 1 5 NEC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 3.0363 3 6 NEC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 2.3187 4 7 NEC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 1.7978 6 8 NEC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 1.4221 7 9 NEC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 1.0308 8 H-32 ------- 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .9866 9 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .9320 10 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .9177 11 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .9032 12 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .7455 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .5641 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .4446 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .3613 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .3006 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .2550 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .1699 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .1514 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .1361 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .1231 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0870 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0462 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0300 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0214 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVN GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS StIIIARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICROGRAMS/M**3) 89/ 2 HOUR 8 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (M/S) HEIGHT(K) (K) CLASS 8 270.00 5.00 5000.00 293.00 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL HI (N) 50.03 01ST FIN HT (KN) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR HI RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD MV GRD (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER HI UNITS) SOURCES I REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .7490 11 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 1.8791 5 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 3.0199 2 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 3.2722 1 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 2.5229 3 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 1.9036 4 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 1.4660 6 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 1.1550 7 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .8339 8 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .7970 9 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .7523 10 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .7398 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .7275 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .5997 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .4532 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .3569 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .2899 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .2410 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .2042 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .1360 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .1212 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .1089 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0985 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0696 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0370 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0240 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0171 27 ------- EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVN GENERIC 1 GRAJI/SECONI) EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX- I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROI.OGICAL CONDITIONS S 1JI4ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICROGRAMS/M 3) 89/ 2 HOUR 9 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGHT(N) (K) CLASS 9 270.00 7.00 5000.00 293.00 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL HT (N) 48.36 DIST FIN HI (KM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR HI RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD MV GRD (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIONIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .6738 8 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 1.5647 4 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 2.4070 2 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 2.5083 1 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 1.8793 3 6 NEC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 1.3991 5 7 NEC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 1.0695 6 8 NEC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .8388 7 9 NEC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .6030 9 10 NEC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .5753 10 11 NEC 11 4.13 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .5427 11 12 NEC 12 430 .00 .0 130.0 000000.0000 .5328 12 13 NEC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .5235 13 14 NEC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .4309 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .3252 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .2559 16 17 NEC 17 3.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .2077 17 18 NEC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .1726 18 19 NEC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .1460 19 20 NEC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0972 20 21 NEC 21 16.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 0867 21 22 NEC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0779 22 23 NEC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0704 23 24 NEC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0498 24 25 NEC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0264 25 26 NEC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0171 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 60GM 000000.0000 .0122 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVM GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX- I RUN SECOND RUN I WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS S*J 4ARY CONCENTRATION TABLECNICROGRAMS/N 3) 89/ 2 : HOUR 10 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEI STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGMT(M) (K) CLASS 10 270.00 10.00 5000.00 293.00 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT (N) 47.11 01ST FIN NT (EM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAPE COORD COORD ABV GRO (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGMIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK H-34 ------- (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .5597 8 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 1.2262 4 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 1.8256 2 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 1.8485 1 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 1.3562 3 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .9999 5 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .7602 6 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .5942 7 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.)000 .4259 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .4058 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .3826 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .3752 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .3683 13 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .3029 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .2284 15 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .1796 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .1457 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .1209 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .1023 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0681 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0607 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0545 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0493 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0348 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0185 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0120 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0086 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY M GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SLM4ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICR0GRAMS/M 3) 89/ 2 : HOUR 11 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (M/S) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 11 270.00 12.00 5000.00 293.00 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT CM) 46.63 01ST FIN HT (KM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV CR0 (M) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER HI UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .4983 7 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 1.0671 4 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 1.5687 2 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 1.5710 1 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 1.1434 3 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .8398 5 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .6372 6 8 REC 8 3.00 00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .4975 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .3561 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .3392 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .3196 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .3134 12 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .3076 13 14 REC 14 5.0° .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .2528 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .1906 15 H-35 ------- 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .1498 16 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .1215 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .1008 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0853 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0568 20 21 NEC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0506 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0454 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0411 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0290 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0154 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0100 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0071 27 EDISON MEW JERSEY / ENVIRO.IEIITAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY NVM GENERIC 1 .AM/SECOS(I EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX -I RUM SECOND RUM / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS 9JSARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICROGRA$S/M 3) 89/ 2 : HOUR 12 HU.W THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) NEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 12 270.00 15.00 5000.00 293.00 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL HI (N) 46.14 0 1ST FIN NI (EM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR HI RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. MANE COORD COORD ABV GRD (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGN IF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER HI UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .4258 7 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 .8913 4 3 REC 3 76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 1.2937 1 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 1.2815 2 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 .9252 3 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .6771 5 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .5127 6 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 3998 8 9 NEC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .2858 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .2721 10 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .2564 11 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .2512 12 13 NEC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .2465 13 14 NEC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .2026 14 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .1527 15 16 NEC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .1200 16 17 NEC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .0972 17 18 NEC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .0807 18 19 NEC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0683 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0454 20 21 NEC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0405 21 22 NEC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0364 22 23 NEC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0329 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0232 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0123 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0080 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0057 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRO.IENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I AIR QUALITY MVI4 GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE I COMPLEX- I RUN SECOND Rtld I WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SIJIIARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICR0GRAMS/M 3 ) 89/ 2 : HOUR 13 H—36 ------- HQJR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) CM/S) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 13 270.00 2.00 5000.00 293.00 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL HI (N) 71.69 DIST FIN HI (KM) .250 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR HT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ASV GRD (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER HI UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .0010 27 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 .0227 26 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 .2295 21 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 .7823 16 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 1.6367 10 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 2.1180 4 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 2.1991 3 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 2.0688 5 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 1.7947 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 1.9942 7 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 1.9816 8 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 2.2180 2 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 2.3349 1 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 2.0243 6 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 1.5933 11 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 1.2948 12 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 1.0782 13 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .9154 14 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .8005 15 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .5542 17 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .4615 18 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .3831 19 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .3361 20 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .2292 22 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1314 23 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0885 24 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0663 25 EDISON NEW JERSEY I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVM GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SLM1ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICROGRAMS/M**3) 89/ 2 : HOUR 14 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 14 270.00 2.50 5000.00 293.00 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL HI (N) 69.72 DIST FIN HT (KN) .313 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR HI RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME OORD COORD ABV GRD (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER HI UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .0010 27 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 .0231 26 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 .2293 21 H-37 ------- 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 .7484 14 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 1.4828 10 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 1.8556 3 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 1.8894 2 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 1.7551 5 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 1.5019 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 1.6568 6 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 1.6414 8 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 1.8242 4 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 1.9115 1 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 1.6497 7 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 1.2935 11 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 1.0483 12 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .8712 13 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .7384 15 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .6640 16 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .4432 17 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .3674 18 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .3048 19 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .2674 20 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1822 22 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1045 23 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0704 24 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0527 25 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY M 4 GENERIC I GRAI4/SECOEi EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SLJI4ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(NICROGRAMS/M 3) 891 2 : HOUR 15 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (HIS) HEIGHT(N) (K) CLASS 15 270.00 3.00 5000.00 293.00 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT (N) 68.22 01ST FIN NT (KM) .375 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD MV GR E ’ (N) GRD-I.Vl. ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER HI UNITS) SOURCES I REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .0010 27 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 .0234 26 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 .2275 20 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 .7157 14 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 1.3579 9 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 1.6558 2 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 1.6609 1 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 1.5281 5 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 1.2942 10 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 1.4199 6 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 1.4034 7 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 1.5512 4 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 1.6197 3 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 1.3931 8 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 1.0894 11 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .8811 12 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .7311 13 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .6190 15 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .5387 16 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .3681 17 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .3050 18 H -38 ------- 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .2530 19 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .2219 21 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1512 22 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0867 23 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0584 24 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0437 25 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR DUALITY NVPI GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SU I4ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICR0GRAMS/M 3) 89/ 2 HOUR 16 HØJR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (M IS) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 16 270.00 4.00 5000.00 293.00 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL HI (N) 66.02 01ST FIN NT (KM) .500 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR HI RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV CR0 (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .0010 27 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 .0238 26 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 .2216 19 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 .6570 13 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 1.1671 6 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 1.3697 1 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 1.3443 2 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 1.2198 4 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 1.0179 10 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 1.1077 7 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 1.0913 8 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 1.1966 5 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 1.2430 3 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 1.0640 9 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .8288 11 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .6685 12 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .5535 14 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .4679 15 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .4060 16 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .2747 17 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .2275 18 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .1886 20 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .1654 21 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1126 22 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0645 23 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0435 24 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0326 25 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I AIR QUALITY M W GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SUNMARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICROGRAMSIM 3) 89/ 2 : HOUR 17 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGHT(N) (K) CLASS 17 270.00 5.00 5000.00 293.00 5 N -39 ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL MT (N) 64.46 01ST FIN NT (KN) .625 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR HI RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRAT 1011 NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV CR0 (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGHIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .0016 27 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 .0238 26 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 .2145 18 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 .6072 12 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 1.0276 3 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 1.1733 1 7 c 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 1.1338 2 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 1.0188 4 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .8415 10 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .9105 7 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .8949 8 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .9756 6 13 NEC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 1.0097 5 14 NEC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .8614 9 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .6692 11 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .5388 13 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .4455 14 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .3762 15 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .3256 16 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .2189 17 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .1813 19 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .1502 20 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .1317 21 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0896 22 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0514 23 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0346 24 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0259 25 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIROSENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE I COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS S 1.N4ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(NICROGRAMS/M 3) 89/ 2 : HOUR 18 HO.* THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) $EIGMT(N) (K) CLASS 18 270.00 2.00 5000.00 293.00 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT (N) 67.01 DIST FIN NT (KN) .189 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV CR0 (N) GRD-LVL ELEY SIG1IIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES I REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .0000 27 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 .0001 26 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 .0049 25 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 .0453 24 5 NEC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 .3013 20 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .7573 16 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 1.1150 13 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 1.2887 12 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 1.3529 10 H-40 ------- 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 1.8819 7 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 2.0091 5 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 2.7377 3 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 3.1861 1 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 2.9261 2 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 2.3903 4 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 1.9972 6 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 1.7081 8 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 1.4828 9 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 1.3428 11 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .9350 14 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 30.0 000000.0000 .7785 15 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .6483 17 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .5740 18 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .4040 19 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .2370 21 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1646 22 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1240 23 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I AIR QUALITY MVM GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH TIlE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SUPIARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICROGRANS/M**3) 89/ 2 HOUR 19 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 19 270.00 2.50 5000.00 293.00 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL HI CM) 65.38 01ST FIN NT (KM) .236 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORO COORD ASV GRD CM) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALl. SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .0000 27 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 .0001 26 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 .0050 25 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 .0458 24 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 .2911 20 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .7015 15 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 1.0052 13 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 1.1404 11 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 1.1754 10 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 1.6143 7 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 1.7142 5 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 2.3037 3 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 2.6563 1 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 2.4197 2 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 1.9638 4 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 1.6329 6 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 1.3917 8 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 1.2046 9 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 1.0847 12 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .7457 14 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .6206 16 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .5166 17 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .4573 18 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .3217 19 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1887 21 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1310 22 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0987 23 H-4 1 ------- EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVN GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOStI EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 68 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS S 1JI4ARY CONCENTRATION TA8LE(NICR0GRAMS/N’ 3) 891 2 : HOUR 20 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 20 270.00 3.00 5000.00 293.00 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT CM) 64.13 DIST FIN HT ( ) .284 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV GRD CM) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGIIIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .0000 27 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 .0001 26 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 .0051 25 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 .0461 24 S REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 .2808 19 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .6538 14 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .9172 12 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 1.0256 10 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 1.0422 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 1.4171 6 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 1.4987 5 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 1.9926 3 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 2.2812 1 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 2.0652 2 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 1.6681 4 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 1.3820 7 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 1.1748 8 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 1.0148 11 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .9069 13 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .6199 15 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .5158 16 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .4291 17 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .3798 18 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .2672 20 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1567 21 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1088 22 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0820 23 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVM GENERIC 1 GR*$/SECOND EMISSION RATE I COMPLEX-I RUN SECOS RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS StI ARY CONCENTRATION TA8LE(MICROGRAMS/M 3) 89/ 2 HOUR 21 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (M/S) NEIGHT(M) (K) CUSS 21 270.00 4.00 5000.00 293.00 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL Hi CM) 62.31 DIST FIN NT (KM) .378 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR HT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV GRD (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK H-42 ------- (USER HT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .0000 27 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 .0001 26 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 .0052 25 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 .0460 24 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 .2614 19 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .5771 14 7 REC 7 250 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .7841 11 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .8583 9 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .8542 ‘0 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 1.1446 6 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 1.2031 5 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 1.5744 3 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 1.7836 1 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 1.6005 2 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 1.2840 4 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 1.0585 7 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .8966 8 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .7722 12 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .6810 13 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .4633 15 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .3853 16 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .3204 17 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .2835 18 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1993 20 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1169 21 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0811 22 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0611 23 EDISON NEW JERSEY I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I AIR QUALITY MVI4 GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SIJ1ARY CONCENTRATION TA8LE(MICR0GRANS/N’ 3) 89/ 2 : HOUR 22 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGHT(N) (K) CLASS 22 270.00 5.00 5000.00 293.00 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL HT (N) 61.01 DIST FIN HT (KN) .473 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR HT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV GRD (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .0000 27 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 .0001 26 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 .0053 25 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 - .0 103.0 000000.0000 .0454 24 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 .2442 18 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 .5181 14 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .6878 11 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .7414 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .7270 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .9639 6 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 1.0088 5 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 1.3050 3 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 1.4672 1 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 1.3085 2 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 1.0449 4 H-43 ------- 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .8585 7 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .7253 10 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .6235 12 19 NEC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .5453 13 20 NEC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .3696 15 21 NEC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .3073 16 22 NEC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .2555 17 23 NEC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .2260 19 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1588 20 25 NEC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0931 21 26 NEC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0647 22 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0487 23 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONIENTAI. IMPACT STATEIENT / AIR QUALITY MVM GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN I WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS SIJI4ARY CONCENTRATION TA8LE(HICR0GRAMS/M 3) 89/ 2 : HOUR 23 HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (N/S) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 23 270.00 2.50 5000.00 293.00 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL HT CM) 57.72 01ST FIN NT (EM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR HT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. MAlE COORD COORD ABV GRD CM) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGIIIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER NT UNITS) SOURCES I REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 13.4590 1 2 NEC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 10.6642 2 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 8.4832 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 5.2946 4 5 NEC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 2.4246 5 6 NEC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 1.3570 6 7 NEC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 .8583 7 8 NEC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 .5885 8 9 NEC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 .3579 9 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 .3236 10 11 NEC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 .2952 11 12 NEC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 .2785 12 13 NEC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 .2668 13 14 NEC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 .2032 16 15 NEC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .1387 15 16 NEC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .1004 16 17 NEC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .0759 17 18 NEC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .0593 18 19 NEC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .0476 19 20 NEC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .0274 20 21 NEC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .0235 21 22 NEC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .0203 22 23 NEC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .0178 23 24 NEC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0111 24 25 NEC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0048 25 26 NEC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0033 26 27 NEC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0026 27 EDISON NEW JERSEY I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVN GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX- I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 ST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS S JS4ARY CONCENTRATION TABLE(MICR0GRAMS/M 3) 89/ 2 : HOUR 24 H -44 ------- HOUR THETA SPEED MIXING TEMP STABILITY (DEG) (MIS) HEIGHT(M) (K) CLASS 24 270.00 2.50 5000.00 293.00 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL NT (N) 55.85 01ST FIN NT (KM) .086 RECEPTOR EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR TOTAL FROM TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION NO. NAME COORD COORD ABV GRD (N) GRD-LVL ELEV SIGNIF POINT ALL SOURCES RANK (USER HI UNITS) SOURCES 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 000000.0000 .6632 16 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 000000.0000 2.1538 7 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 000000.0000 4.0277 3 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 000000.0000 5.0244 1 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 000000.0000 4.3068 2 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 000000.0000 3.4160 4 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 000000.0000 2.7057 5 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 000000.0000 2.1683 6 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 000000.0000 1.5911 8 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 000000.0000 1.5299 9 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 000000.0000 1.4487 10 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 000000.0000 1.4320 11 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 000000.0000 1.4131 12 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 000000.0000 1.1711 13 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 000000.0000 .8896 14 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 000000.0000 .7031 15 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 000000.0000 .5725 17 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 000000.0000 .4770 18 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 000000.0000 .4063 19 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 000000.0000 .2711 20 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 000000.0000 .2417 21 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 000000.0000 .2172 22 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 000000.0000 .1965 23 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .1390 24 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0739 25 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0479 26 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 000000.0000 .0342 27 COMPLEX I VERSION 86064 EDISON NEW JERSEY I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVM GENERIC 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN SECOND RUN / WITH THE 48 WORST CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS RECEPTORS RECEPTOR IDENTIFICATION EAST NORTH RECEPTOR NT RECEPTOR GROUND LEVEL AVG CONC FOR PERIOD COORD COORD ABV LOCAL GRD LVL ELEVATION DAY 1.HR 1. TO DAY 2.HR24. (USER UNITS) (METERS) (USER HI UNITS) (MICROGRAMS/M**3) 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 * 6.76 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 5.60 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 4.95 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 3.74 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 2.40 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 1.80 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 1.44 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 1.18 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 .90 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 .93 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 .90 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 .96 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 .99 ------- 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 .84 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 .65 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 .52 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 .43 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 .36 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 .31 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 .21 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 .18 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 .16 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 .14 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 .10 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 .05 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 .04 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 .03 FIVE HIGHEST 1-HOUR GENERIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS((ENDING OW JULIAN DAY, HOUR) (NICROGRANS/ 143) RECEPTOR 1 2 3 4 5 1( .50, .00) 27.55 C 1, 1) 27.55 C 1, 2) 24.83 C 1, 3) 20.30 C 1,10) 19.96 C 1, 8) 2( .64, .00) 21.42 C 1, 8) 21.42 ( 1, 9) 19.82 C 1,10) 15.99 C 1, 1) 15.99 C 1, 2) 3( .76, .00) 19.76 C 1, 8) 19.76 C 1, 9) 17.64 C 1,10) 13.06 C 1,11) 10.61 C 1,16) 4( 1.00, .00) 14.05 C 1, 8) 14.05 C 1, 9) 11.88 C 1,10) 8.45 C 1,11) 8.25 C 1,16) 5( 1.50, .00) 7.08 ( 1, 8) 7.08 C 1, 9) 6.11 C 2, 3) 5.85 C 2, 2) 5.80 C 1,10) 6( 2.00, .00) 5.93 C 2, 2) 5.86 ( 2, 1) 5.75 C 2, 3) 4.83 C 2, 4) 4.09 ( 1, 8) 7( 2.50, .00) 5.56 C 2, 1) 5.43 C 2, 2) 5.02 C 2, 3) 3.99 C 2, 4) 3.24 C 2, 5) 8( 3.00, .00) 5.00 C 2, 1) 4.76 C 2, 2) 4.28 C 2, 3) 3.28 C 2, 4) 2.62 C 2, 5) 9( 3.81, .00) 4.10 ( 2, 1) 3.81 C 2, 2) 3.33 C 2, 3) 2.47 C 2, 4) 1.94 C 2, 5) 1OC 4.00, .00) 4.08 C 2, 1) 3.77 C 2, 2) 3.27 C 2, 3) 2.39 C 2, 4) 1.99 C 2,13) 11( 4.18, .00) 3.95 C 2, 1) 3.63 C 2, 2) 3.13 C 2, 3) 2.28 C 2, 4) 2.01 C 2,18) 12( 4.30, .00) 4.02 C 2, 1) 3.68 C 2, 2) 3.14 C 2, 3) 2.74 C 2,18) 2.30 C 2,19) 13( 4.39, .00) 4.04 C 2, 1) 3.68 C 2, 2) 3.19 C 2,18) 3.14 C 2, 3) 2.66 C 2,19) 14( 5.00, .00) 3.48 C 2, 1) 3.15 C 2, 2) 2.93 C 2,18) 2.65 C 2, 3) 2.42 C 2,19) 1SC 6.00, .00) 2.76 C 2, 1) 2.47 C 2, 2) 2.39 C 2,18) 2.06 C 2, 3) 1.96 C 2,19) 16( 7.00, .00) 2.24 C 2, 1) 2.00 C 2,18) 1.99 C 2, 2) 1.65 C 2, 3) 1.63 C 2,19) 17( 8.00, .00) 1.86 C 2, 1) 1.71 C 2,18) 1.65 C 2, 2) 1.39 C 2,19) 1.36 C 2, 3) 18( 9.00, .00) 1.58 C 2, 1) 1.48 C 2,18) 1.39 C 2, 2) 1.20 C 2,19) 1.14 C 2, 3) 19( 10.00, .00) 1.36 C 2, 1) 1.34 C 2,18) 1.20 C 2, 2) 1.08 C 2,19) .98 C 2, 3) 20( 13.00, .00) .96 C 2, 1) .94 C 2,18) .82 C 2, 2) .75 C 2,19) .67 C 2, 3) 21( 14.00, .00) .86 C 2, 1) .78 C 2,18) .74 C 2, 2) .62 C 2,19) .60 C 2, 3) 22( 15.00, .00) .77 C 2, 1) .67 C 2, 2) .65 C 2,18) .54 C 2, 3) .52 C 2,19) 23( 16.00, .00) .70 C 2, 1) .60 C 2, 2) .57 C 2,18) .49 C 2, 3) .46 C 2,19) 24( 20.00, .00) .50 C 2, 1) .43 C 2, 2) .40 ( 2,18) .34 C 2, 3) .32 ( 2,19) 25( 30.00, .00) .27 C 2, 1) .24 ( 2,18) .23 C 2, 2) .19 C 2,19) .18 C 2, 3) 26C 40.00, .00) .17 C 2, 1) .16 C 2,18) .15 C 2, 2) .13 C 2,19) .12 C 2, 3) 27C 50.00. .00) .12 C 2,18) .12 C 2, 1) .11 C 2, 2) .10 C 2,19) .09 C 2, 3) H-46 ------- REFINED MODELING USING ISCLT (H.4) H-47 ------- ISCLT (DATED 88167) A K AIR QUALITY DISPERSION MODEL IN SECTION 1. GUIDELINE MODELS IN UNAMAP (VERSION 6) JUNE 88. SOURCE: UNAMAP FILE ON EPA’S UNIVAC AT RTP, NC DATE & TIME OF THIS RUN - 06/26/89 12:45:18 INPUT FILE - EDISON.DAT ISCLT EPA \ EDISON,EIS REFINED MODELING FOR RISK ASSESSMENT \ M4 PAGE 1 - ISCLT INPUT DATA - NURSER OF SOURCES = 1 WI ER OF X AXIS GRID SYSTEM POINTS = 20 IU ER OF Y AXIS GRID SYSTEM POINTS = 36 NUNDER OF SPECIAL POINTS z 6 R14BER OF SEASONS z 1 N$JSER OF WIND SPEED CLASSES • 6 NURSER OF STASILITY CLASSES 6 NURSER OF WIND DIRECTION CLASSES s 16 FILE INMBER OF DATA FILE USED FOR REPORTS w I THE PROGRAM IS RUN IN RURAL MODE CONCENTRATION (DEPOSITION) UNITS CONVERSION FACTOR s .I0000000E.07 ACCELERATION OF GRAVITY (NETERS/SEC 2) * 9• 5 HEIGHT OF MEASUREMENT OF WIND SPEED (METERS) • 10.000 CORRECTION AKGLE FOR GRID SYSTEM VERSUS DIRECTION DATA NORTH (DEGREES) • .000 DECAY COEFFICIENT • •00000000€+O0 PROGRAM OPTION SWITCHES • 1, 2, 1, 1, 0, 3, 2, 2, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, ALL SOURCES ARE USED TO FORM SOURCE CONBIMATION 1 H -48 ------- **** ISCLT ** * **m EPA \ EDISON,EIS \ REFINED MODELING FOR RISK ASSESSMENT \ MVI4 ******** PAGE 2 **** - GRID SYSTEM RECEPTOR TERRAIN ELEVATIONS (METERS) - 500.000 Y AXIS (AZIMUTH BEARINGS DEGREES - GRID SYSTEM RECEPTORS - - X AXIS (RANGE , METERS) - 1500.000 2500.000 3500.000 4500.000 ) - ELEVATIONS 5500.000 6500.000 7500.000 8500.000 - GRID SYSTEM RECEPTORS - X AXIS (RANGE • METERS) - 9500.000 10500.000 11500.000 12500.000 13500.000 14500.000 15500.000 16500.000 17500.000 AXIS (AZIMUTH BEARING, DEGREES ) - ELEVATIONS 350.000 43.586490 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 1.4.196090 44.196090 44.196090 350.000 340.000 330.000 320.000 310.000 300.000 290.000 280.000 270.000 260.000 250.000 240.000 230.000 220.000 210.000 200.000 190.000 180.000 170.000 160.000 150.000 140.000 130.000 120.000 110.000 100.000 21.336040 21.336040 21.336040 21.336040 21.336060 21.336060 21.336040 21.336040 21.336040 21.336040 21.336040 21.336060 21.336040 21.336040 21.336040 21.336040 21.336040 21.336040 21.336040 21.336040 21.336040 21.336040 21.336040 21.336040 21.336060 21.336040 24.381.050 24.384050 24.384050 24.384050 26.384050 24.384050 24.384050 24.384050 24.384050 24.384050 24.384050 24.384050 24.384050 24.384050 24.386050 24.384050 24.384050 24.386050 24.384050 24.384050 24.384050 24.384050 24.384050 24.384050 24.384050 24.384050 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 30.480060 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 31.396460 31.394460 31.394460 31.394460 32.004060 32.004060 32.004060 32.004060 32.004060 32.004060 32.004060 32.004060 32.006060 32.004060 32.004060 32.004060 32.004060 32.004060 32.004060 32.004060 32.006060 32.004060 32.004060 32.004060 32.004060 32.004060 32.004060 32.004060 32.006060 32.004060 32.004060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 33.523060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 33.528060 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.052070 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 35.661670 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 36.576070 90.000 21.336040 24.384050 30.480060 31.394460 32.004060 33.528060 35.052070 35.661670 36.576070 80.000 21.336040 24.384050 30.480060 31.394460 32.004060 33.528060 35.052070 35.661670 36.576070 70.000 21.336040 24.384050 30.480060 31.394460 32.004060 33.528060 35.052070 35.661670 36.576070 60.000 21.336040 24.384050 30.480060 31.394460 32.004060 33.528060 35.052070 35.661670 36.576070 50.000 21.336060 24.384050 30.480060 31.394460 32.004060 33.528060 35.052070 35.661670 36.576070 40.000 21.336040 24.384050 30.480060 31.396460 32.004060 33.528060 35.052070 35.661670 36.576070 30.000 21.336040 24.384050 30.480060 31.394460 32.004060 33.528060 35.052070 35.661670 36.576070 20.000 21.336040 24.384050 30.480060 31.394460 32.004060 33.528060 35.052070 35.661670 36.576070 10.000 21.336040 24.384050 30.480060 32.004060 33.528060 35.052070 35.661670 36.576070 H -49 ------- ISCLT *‘ EPA EDISOW,EIS \. REFINED MODELING FOR RISK ASSESSMENT \ WiN **mm PAGE 3 - GRID SYSTEM RECEPTOR TERRAIN ELEVATIONS (METERS) (CONT.) - - GRID SYSTEM RECEPTORS - - X AXIS (RANGE • METERS) - 9500.000 10500.000 11500.000 12500.000 13500.000 14500.000 15500.000 16500.000 17500.000 Y AXIS (*21*1 11 1 BEARING. DEGREES ) - ELEVATIONS - 340.000 43.586490 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 330.000 43.586490 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 320.000 43.586490 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 310.000 43.586490 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 300.000 43.586490 44.196090 44.196090 44.198090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 290.000 43.586490 46.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 280.000 43.586490 46.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 270.000 43.586490 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 260.000 43.586490 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 250.000 43.586490 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 240.000 43.586490 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 230.000 63.586690 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 220.000 43.586490 64.196090 44.196090 34.747270 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 210.000 43.586490 64.196090 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 64.196090 64.196090 64.196090 44.196090 200.000 43.586690 44.198090 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 190.000 43.586490 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 180.000 43.586490 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 64.196090 170.000 43.586690 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 46.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 64.196090 160.000 43.586490 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 150.000 43.586490 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 64.196090 44.196090 140.000 43.586490 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 130.000 43.586490 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 46.196090 44.198090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 120.000 43.586490 64.198090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 64.196090 44.196090 64.196090 110.000 43.586490 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.198090 44.198090 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 100.000 43.586690 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 64.196090 64.196090 90.000 43.586490 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 46.196090 80.000 43.586490 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 70.000 43.586490 64.196090 64.198090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 64.196090 64.196090 60.000 43.586490 44.196090 44.196090 46.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 50.000 43.586690 64.196090 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 40.000 43.586490 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 30.000 43.586490 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 20.000 43.586490 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 10.000 43.586490 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 44.196090 46.196090 .000 43.586490 64.198090 44.196090 44.196090 64.196090 64.196090 44.196090 44.196090 44.196090 - GRID SYSTEM RECEPTORS - X AXIS (RANGE • METERS) - 18500.000 19500.000 V AXIS (AZIIIJTN BEARING. DEGREES ) ELEVATIONS - 350.000 44.196090 44.196090 340.000 64.196090 44.196090 H-50 ------- *‘ ISCLT ** *** EPA \ EDISON ,EIS \ REFINED MODELING FOR RISK ASSESSMENT \ MVM ****** PAGE 4 GRID SYSTEM RECEPTOR TERRAIN ELEVATIONS (METERS) (CONT.) - - GRID SYSTEM RECEPTORS - X AXIS (RANGE • METERS) 18500.000 19500.000 Y AXIS (AZIi!JTH BEARING, DEGREES ) - ELEVATIONS 330.000 64.196090 44.196090 320.000 64.196090 64.196090 310.000 64.196090 44.196090 300.000 44.196090 44.196090 290.000 44.196090 44.196090 280.000 44.196090 64.196090 270.000 44.196090 44.196090 260.000 44.196090 44.196090 250.000 44.196090 44.196090 240.000 44.196090 44.196090 230.000 44.196090 44.196090 220.000 44.196090 44.196090 210.000 44.196090 44.196090 200.000 64.196090 44.196090 190.000 44.196090 44.196090 180.000 44.196090 44.196090 170.000 44.196090 44.196090 160.000 64.196090 44.196090 150.000 44.196090 44.196090 140.000 44.196090 44.196090 130.000 44.196090 44.196090 120.000 44.196090 44.196090 110.000 44.196090 44.196090 100.000 44.196090 44.196090 90.000 44.196090 44.196090 80.000 44.196090 44.196090 70.000 44.196090 44.196090 60.000 44.196090 44.196090 50.000 44.196090 44.196090 40.000 44.196090 44.196090 30.000 44.196090 44.196090 20.000 44.196090 44.196090 10.000 44.196090 44.196090 .000 64.196090 44.196090 - DISCRETE RECEPTOR TERRAIN ELEVATIONS (METERS) (CONT.) X Y ELEVATION X Y ELEVATION X Y ELEVATION DISTANCE DISTANCE DISTANCE DISTANCE DISTANCE DISTANCE (METERS) (METERS ) (METERS) (METERS ) (METERS) (METERS -270.0 -210.0 22.860040 -400.0 210.0 24.384050 -550.0 -150.0 30.480060 -850.0 -300.0 31.394460 -1000.0 1130.0 32.004060 1170.0 1740.0 33.528060 H—5 1 ------- ISCLT £lL4 .p**$*i** EPA EDISCSI,EIS \ REFINED MODELING FOR RISK ASSESSMENT \ MVI I ***** PAGE 5 - ISCLT INPUT DATA (CONT.) - AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE (DEGREES KELVIN) STABILITY STABILITY STABILITY STABILITY STABILITY STABILITY CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 CATEGORY 6 CATEGORY 5 CATEGORY 6 SEASON 1 293.0000 293.0000 293.0000 293.0000 293.0000 293.0000 MIXING LAYER HEIGHT (METERS) - SEASONt WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 CATEGORY 4 CATEGORY 5 CATEGORY 6 STABILITY CATEGORY 1 .500000E’04 .500000E+04 .500000E 04 .500000(404 .500000E+04 .500000E+06 STABILITY CATEGORY 2 .500000(04 .500000(+04 .500000E+04 .500000E+04 .500000E+06 .500000E.04 STABILITY CATEGORY 3 .500000(+06 .500000E+04 .500000E+04 .500000( 104 .500000E+06 .500000E+04 STABILITY CATEGORY 4 .S00000Ei04 .S00000E.04 .500000E+06 .500000E+04 .500000(#04 .500000E+04 STABILITY CATEGORY 5 . 10000 0E.OS . 100 000E+05 . t0 0 0 0 0E .05 . 100000(+05 . 10000 0E+05 . t 0 0 0 00E+05 STABILITY CATEGORY 6 . 1 0 0 00 0E.05 . 100000E.05 .100000(105 . 10 000 0E’O S .100000(405 . 1 0 0 00 0E. 05 - FREaJENCY OF OCD*RENCE OF WIND SPEED 1 DIRECTION AND STABILITY SEASON I STABILITY CATEGORY I WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WI ND SPEED CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 CATEGORY 4 CATEGORY 5 CATEGORY 6 DIRECTION C 1.5000 S)( 2.5000MPS)( 4.3000MPS)( 6.8000 S)( 9.5000NPS)C12.500ONPS) (DEGREES) .000 .00018001 .00011001 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 22.500 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 45.000 .00003000 .00011001 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 67. 500 .00010001 .00034002 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 90.000 .00003000 .00011001 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 112.500 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 135.000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 157.500 .00003000 .00011001 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 180.000 .00003000 .00011001 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 202.500 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 225.000 .00003000 .00011001 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 267. 500 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 270.000 .00003000 .00011001 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 292.500 .00010001 .00034002 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 315.000 .00003000 .00011001 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 337.500 .00007000 .00023002 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 H-52 ------- ISCLT EPA \ EDISOI,EIS \ REFINED MODELING FOR RISK ASSESSMENT \ NVM PAGE 6 - ISCLT INPUT DATA (CONT.) - - FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF WIND SPEED 1 DIRECTION AND STABILITY SEASON 1 STABILITY CATEGORY 2 WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 CATEGORY 4 CATEGORY 5 CATEGORY 6 DIRECTION ( 1.5000MPS)( 2.5C3OMPs)( 4.3000MPS)( 6.8000MPS)( 9.5000MPS)(12 .500ONps) (DEGREES) .000 .00057004 .00137010 .00126009 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 22.500 .00029002 .00068005 .00114008 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 45.000 .00016001 .00068005 .00023002 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 67.500 .00019001 .00103007 .00046003 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 90.000 .00007000 .00114008 .00080006 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 112.500 .00020001 .00126009 .00057004 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 135.000 .00006000 .00103007 .00171012 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 157.500 .00041003 .00080006 .00068005 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 180.000 .00019001 .00114008 .00057004 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 202.500 .00019001 .00114008 .00126009 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 225.000 .00056004 .00126009 .00160011 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 247.500 .00067005 .00103007 .00148010 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 270.000 .00110008 .00205014 .00126009 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 292.500 .00032002 .00126009 .00171012 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 315.000 .00053004 .00068005 .00103007 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 337.500 .00006000 .00103007 .00034002 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 SEASON 1 STABILITY CATEGORY 3 WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 CATEGORY 4 CATEGORY S CATEGORY 6 DIRECTION ( 1.5000MPS)( 2.5000MPS)( 4.3000MPS)( 6.8000MPS)( 9.5000NPS)(1Z.S000MPS) (DEGREES) .000 .00053004 .00137010 .00537038 .00114008 .00000000 .00000000 22.500 .00030002 .00137010 .00571040 .00046003 .00000000 .00000000 45.000 .00005000 .00126009 .00308022 .00080006 .00000000 .00000000 67.500 .00002000 .00057004 .00126009 .00011001 .00000000 .00000000 90.000 .00003000 .00068005 .00114008 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 112.500 .00002000 .00057004 .00285020 .00011001 .00000000 .00000000 135.000 .00030002 .00148010 .00559039 .00126009 .00000000 .00000000 157.500 .00040003 .00114008 .00422029 .00068005 .00000000 .00000000 180.000 .00090006 .00160011 .00422029 .00103007 .00000000 .00000000 202.500 .00018001 .00137010 .00240017 .00091006 .00000000 .00000000 225.000 .00005000 .00126009 .00434030 .00171012 .00000000 .00000000 247.500 .00031002 .00171012 .00662046 .00148010 .00000000 .00000000 270.000 .00055004 .00171012 .00651046 .00114008 .00000000 .00000000 292.500 .00028002 .00103007 .00400028 .00342024 .00011001 .00023002 315.000 .00003000 .00080006 .00331023 .00194014 .00011001 .00000000 337.500 .00014001 .00057004 .00263018 .00148010 .00011001 .00011001 H-53 ------- ISCIT EPA \ EDISON ,EIS \ REFINED MODELING FOR RISK ASSESSMENT \ NVM PAGE 7 ISCLT INPUT DATA (COWl.) - FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF WIND SPEED, DIRECTION AND STABILITY - SEASON 1 STABILITY CATEGORY 4 WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WINO SPEED WIND SPEED CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 CATEGORY 4 CATEGORY 5 CATEGORY 6 DIRECTIOaI C 1.S000MPS)( 2.500ONPS)( 4.3000MPS)( 6.8000MPS)( 9.5000MPS)(12.5000NPS) (DEGREES) .000 .00056004 .00502035 .01621113 .01963131 .00582041 .00126009 22.500 .00026002 .00651046 .02694188 .04258297 .00388027 .00023002 45.000 .00061005 .00502035 .01450101 .01473103 .00240017 .00011001 67.500 .00097007 .00354025 .00868061 .00765053 .00023002 .00000000 90.000 .00120006 .00628044 .00691034 .00422029 .00126009 .00011001 112.500 .00089006 .00753053 .00799056 .00525031 .00103007 .00023002 135.000 .00129009 .00856060 .01142080 .00354025 .00046003 .00000000 157.500 .00065003 .00537038 . 00868061 .00645031 .00023002 .00000000 180.000 .00065005 .00731051 .01461102 .00776054 .00057006 .00000000 202.500 .00026002 .00354025 .00765053 .00479033 .00091006 .00000000 225.000 .00066005 .00457032 .01406096 .01553109 .00194014 .00057004 247.500 .00046003 .00263018 .01404098 .02021141 .00297021 .00057004 210.000 .00103007 .00502035 .02055144 .02637184 .00571040 .00148010 292.500 .00044003 .00205014 .00879061 .02295160 .00662046 .00377026 315.000 .00031002 .00194014 .00788055 .03219225 .01176082 .00400028 337.500 .00030002 .00148010 .00765053 .02123148 .00651046 .00114008 SEASON 1 STABILITY CATEGORY 5 WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 CATEGORY 4 CATEGORY 5 CATEGORY 6 DIRECTION ( 1.500ONPS)( 2.S000NPS)( 4.3000NPS)( 6.8000NPS)( 9.5000NPS)c12.5000HPS (DEGREES) .000 .00007000 .00291021 .00913066 .00036002 .00000000 .00000000 22.500 .00034002 .00668033 .01016071 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 45.000 .00017001 .00217015 .00114008 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 67.500 .00050003 .00126009 .00023002 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 90.000 .00026002 .00114008 .00057004 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 112.500 .00007000 .00308022 .00080006 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 135.000 .00016001 .00171012 .00023002 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 157.500 .00009001 .00388027 .00130310 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 180.000 .00039003 .00674067 .00571040 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 202.500 .00037003 .00605042 .00422029 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 225.000 .00066003 .00679033 .01358095 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 247.500 .00005000 .00228016 .01221065 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 270.000 .00050003 .00651066 .01016071 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 292.500 .00016001 .00183013 .00571040 .00023002 .00000000 .00000000 315.000 .00003000 .00137010 .00902063 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 337.500 .00003000 .00126009 .00594061 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 H-54 ------- ISCLT EPA \ EDISON,EIS \ REFINED MODELING FOR RISK ASSESSMENT \ NVI4 PAGE 8 STABILITY CATEGORY I STABILITY CATEGORY 2 STABILITY CATEGORY 3 STABILITY CATEGORY 4 STABILITY CATEGORY 5 STABILITY CATEGORY 6 WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 .000000E.OO . 000000E+OO . 000000E+OO • 0 0 0 0 0 0E+OO . 0 000 0 0E+OO . 000000E.OO . 0 0 0 00 0E+OO . 0 0 0 0 0 0E+OO . 000000E+OO • 00000 0E+OO . 000000E+OO .000000E+OO .200000E-O1 .200000E-Ol .200000E-O1 .350000E-O1 .350000E-01 •350000E-O1 WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED CATEGORY 4 CATEGORY 5 CATEGORY 6 • 00 0 000E+00 . 000000E+OO .000000E+O0 • 00 00 0 0E+0O . 000000E+OO . 000000E+OO .0000001+00 .0000001+00 . 000000E+OO .0000001+00 .000000E+OO .O0OOOO1 OO .200000E-01 •200000E-O1 •200000E-O1 .350000E-O1 .350000E-01 .350000E-O1 - WIND PROFILE POWER LAW EXPONENTS - STABILITY CATEGORY 1 STABILITY CATEGORY 2 STABILITY CATEGORY 3 STABILITY CATEGORY 4 STABILITY CATEGORY S STABILITY CATEGORY 6 WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 CATEGORY 4 CATEGORY 5 CATEGORY 6 • 100000 1 +00 . 100000E+OO .1000001+00 .1000001+00 . 100 0 00E.OO . 100000E+OO .1500001+00 .1500001+00 .1500006+00 .1S0000E+OO .1500001+00 .1500001+00 .2000001+00 .200000E+OO •200000E+OO .2000001+00 .200000E+OO .200000E+OO .2500001+00 .2500001+00 . 250000E+OO .2500001+00 .2500001+00 .2500001+00 .300000E+OO .3000001+00 .3000001+00 .3000001+00 .3000001+00 .300000E+OO .3000001+00 .3000001+00 •300000E.OO .300000E+OO .3000001+00 .3000001+00 - ISCLT INPUT DATA (CONT.) - • FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF WIND SPEED, DIRECTION AND STABILITY - SEASON 1 STABILITY CATEGORY 6 WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WINO SPEED WIND SPEED CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 CATEGORY 4 CATEGORY S CATEGORY 6 DIRECTION ( 1.500CIMPS)( 2.5000Mps)( 4.3000Mps)( 6.8000MPS)( 9.5OOOMPS)(12 .5OOOI ?S) (DEGREES) .000 .00106007 .00377026 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 22.500 .00246017 .00719050 .00023002 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 45.000 .00148010 .00400028 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 67.500 .00148010 .00126009 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 90.000 .00147’OlO .00114008 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 112.500 .00094007 .00114008 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 135.000 .00147010 .00114008 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 157.500 .00173012 .00388027 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 180.000 .00386027 .00970068 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 202.500 .00321022 .01062074 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 225.000 .00296021 .00982069 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 247.500 .00086006 .00514036 .00023002 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 270.000 .00304021 .00765053 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 292.500 .00135009 .00491034 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 315.000 .00135009 .00400028 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 337.500 .00039003 .00274019 .00011001 .00000000 .00000000 .00000000 VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENT (DEGREES KELVIN/METER) H-cc ------- ISCLT EPA \ EDISON,EIS \ REFINED MODELING FOR RISK ASSESSMENT MVM PAGE 9 - SOURCE INPUT DATA C T SOURCE SOURCE X Y EMISSION BASE / A A NLJ4BER TYPE COORDINATE COORDINATE HEIGHT ELEY- / - SOURCE DETAILS DEPENDING ON TYPE - R P (N) CM) CM) ATION / DE CM) / X 1 STACK .00 .00 44.20 21.34 GAS EX.T TEMP (DEG K) 352.00, GAS EXIT VEL. (M/SEC)= 10.36, STACK DIAMETER (M) .762, HEIGHT OF ASSO. BLDG. (M)= .00, WIDTH OF ASSO. BLDG. (M) .00, WAKE EFFECTS FLAG = 0 SOURCE STRENGTHS (GRAMS PER SEC ) SEASON I SEASON 2 SEASON 3 SEASON 4 1.000006 .00 ANNUAL GRCLIC LEVEL CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CL$IC METER ) FROM ALL SOURCES COMBINED - GRID SYSTEM RECEPTORS - • X AXIS CRANGE , METERS) - 500.000 1500.000 2500.000 3500.000 4500.000 5500.000 6500.000 7500.000 8500.000 Y AXIS (A2IWJTH BEARING, DEGREES ) - CONCENTRATION - 350.000 .087767 .105444 .079235 .058020 .045062 .037119 .031408 .026731 .023222 340.000 .081743 .086752 .062177 .044390 .033920 .027574 .023099 .019529 .016870 330.000 .085322 .090655 .062128 .042905 .032033 .025528 .021054 .017612 .015076 320.000 .095524 .102149 .067276 .045104 .032956 .025766 .020926 .017319 .014687 310.000 .091930 .102591 .067418 .044836 .032522 .025237 .020361 .016771 .014160 300.000 .074024 .092132 .062416 .041960 .030640 .023874 .019313 .015936 .013474 290.000 .061943 .082331 .056994 .038701 .028406 .022224 .018031 .014908 .012625 280.000 .054376 .073716 .051440 .035120 .025907 .020375 .016609 .013780 .011707 270.000 .050321 .065665 .045657 .031285 .023177 .018320 .015004 .012490 .010645 260.000 .050517 .066542 .046320 .031773 .023566 .018649 .015289 .012738 .010864 250.000 .053637 .067864 .046800 .032064 .023778 .018818 .015429 .012856 .010966 240.000 .058931 .082525 .056803 .038894 .028847 .022842 .018740 .015623 .013331 230.000 .069129 .102064 .069738 .047667 .035327 .027966 .022941 .019121 .016316 220.000 .083495 .135317 .093614 .064258 .067723 .037822 .031045 .025885 .022092 210.000 .108695 .183275 .128177 .088334 .065708 .052107 .042773 .035660 .030429 200.000 .129708 .211786 .148289 .102250 .076046 .060270 .049438 .041192 .035130 190.000 .125553 .180650 .125717 .086369 .064041 .050608 .041410 .034445 .029329 180.000 .131549 .150412 .102662 .069930 .051517 .040471 .032951 .027308 .023178 170.000 .103216 .1260% .086307 .058764 .043286 .033997 .027677 .022937 .019467 160.000 .081001 .102364 .069590 .067229 .034721 .027231 .022143 .018336 .015551 150.000 .082095 .109239 .074540 .050724 .037386 .029401 .023966 .019882 .016891 140.000 .095391 .126702 .086467 .058989 .043533 .034361 .028072 .023326 .019846 130.000 .105435 .132327 .090049 .061559 .065587 .036037 .029513 .024567 .020936 120.000 .113663 .126028 .085255 .058420 .043389 .034414 .028271 .023584 .020139 110.000 .126766 .128917 .087357 .060221 .044941 .035806 .029524 .024693 .021134 100.000 .162289 .1585% .111075 .077653 .058417 .046814 .038762 .032509 .027886 90.000 .165743 .188914 .134489 .094738 .071567 .057517 .047713 .040061 .03.4398 80.000 .144998 .164524 .116558 .081725 .061515 .049277 .040770 .034171 .029291 70.000 .132814 .140965 .098361 .068354 .051110 .040700 .033509 .027988 .023918 60.000 .121765 .133111 .096.380 .068506 .052021 .041982 .034933 .029391 .025277 50.000 .114629 .131207 .100064 .073208 .056671 .046470 .039146 .033206 .028761 40.000 .103122 .117514 .092846 .069586 .054742 .045505 .038741 .033098 .028841 30.000 .083914 .092090 .075460 .058150 .046616 .039372 .033931 .029222 .025637 20.000 .074846 .079193 .066297 .052018 .042211 .036016 .031278 .027068 .023847 10.000 .086565 .101552 .081090 .061700 .069118 .041282 .035461 .030480 .026698 .000 .098896 .124795 .096324 .071558 .056075 .046516 .039558 .033772 .029419 - GRID SYSTEM RECEPTORS - - X AXIS (RANGE • METERS) 9500.000 10500.000 11500.000 12500.000 13500.000 14500.000 15500.000 16500.000 17500.000 Y AXIS (AZI*JTH BEARiNG, DEGREES ) - CONCENTRATION 350.000 .021942 .019381 .017212 .015426 .013934 .0126Th .011596 .010675 .009874 340.000 .015779 .013896 .012313 .011015 .009933 .009021 .008244 .007579 .007002 H-56 ------- ** ISCLT EPA EDISON,EIS \ REFINED I400ELING FOR RISK ASSESSMENT \ MVM ******** PAGE 10 **** -- ANNUAL GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER ) FROM ALL SOURCES COMBINED (CONT.) - GRID SYSTEM RECEPTORS - - X AXIS (RANGE • METERS) 9500.000 10500.000 11500.000 12500.000 13500.000 14500.000 15500.000 16500.000 17500.000 1’ AXIS (AZflIJTH BEARING. DEGREES ) - CONCENTRATION - 330.000 .013864 .012143 .010722 .009560 .008597 .007787 .007100 .006513 .006005 320.000 .013268 .011559 .010166 .009034 .008099 .007315 .006653 .006088 .005600 310.000 .012673 .011009 .009663 .008572 .007673 .006921 .006286 .005745 .005278 300.000 .012071 .010492 .009215 .008178 .007323 .006608 .006003 .005488 .005043 290.000 .011336 .009863 .008669 .007699 .006898 .006228 .005661 .005177 .004759 280.000 .010585 .009228 .008123 .007224 .006680 .005857 .005329 .004878 .004489 270.000 .009695 .008675 .007472 .006654 .005976 .005408 .004926 .004514 .004158 260.000 .009908 .008661 .007638 .006803 .006112 .005532 .005039 .004619 .004255 250.000 .010002 .008746 .007714 .006872 .006174 .005588 .005092 .004667 .004300 240.000 .012176 .010647 .009391 .008367 .007518 .006805 .006200 .005684 .005237 230.000 .014905 .013035 .011497 .010243 .009203 .008330 .007590 .006959 .006412 220.000 .020177 .017642 .015560 .012946 .012455 .011273 .010271 .009416 .008675 210.000 .027754 .024264 .021399 .019062 .017126 .015500 .014120 .012943 .011924 200.000 .031990 .027962 .024653 .021956 .019721 .017845 .016256 .014898 .013722 190.000 .026625 .023239 .020474 .018221 .016356 .014792 .013465 .012333 .011354 180.000 .020903 .018216 .016024 .014242 .012770 .011536 .010493 .009603 .008833 170.000 .017557 .015292 .013452 .011956 .010719 .009684 .008807 .008059 .007412 160.000 .014007 .012199 .010728 .009533 .008545 .007718 .007019 .006422 .005907 150.000 .015269 .013309 .011714 .010416 .009344 .008444 .007805 .007033 .006471 140.000 .017996 .015705 .013833 .012309 .011048 .009990 .009094 .008329 .007667 130.000 .019055 .016667 .014673 .013064 .011732 .010614 .009667 .008858 .008158 120.000 .018417 .016107 .014208 .012659 .011376 .010297 .009383 .008602 .007927 110.000 .019418 .017009 .015017 .013391 .012042 .010907 .009946 .009124 .008412 100.000 .025707 .022541 .019919 .017775 .015995 .014497 .013224 .012136 .011194 90.000 .031740 .027856 .024626 .021983 .019787 .017938 .016370 .015027 .013863 80.000 .026948 .023615 .020860 .018608 .016739 .015167 .013831 .012690 .011701 70.000 .021874 .019136 .016880 .015040 .013515 .012234 .011148 .010219 .009416 60.000 .023400 .020544 .018170 .016226 .014611 .013250 .012092 .011103 .010245 50.000 .026978 .023784 .021096 .018886 .017043 .015486 .014161 .013026 .012039 40.000 .027370 .024214 .021527 .019312 .017458 .015889 .014550 .013402 .012403 30.000 .024655 .021890 .019508 .017538 .015885 .014482 .013281 .012252 .011354 20.000 .023119 .020576 .018364 .016531 .014990 .013679 .012560 .011597 .010756 10.000 .025615 .022727 .020244 .018191 .016471 .015010 .013761 .012691 .011758 .000 .027924 .024709 .021966 .019705 .017814 .016212 .014849 .013679 .012660 - GRID SYSTEM RECEPTORS X AXIS (RANGE , METERS) 18500.000 19500.000 V AXIS (AZIP JTH BEARING. DEGREES ) - CONCENTRATION - 350.000 .009171 .008551 340.000 .006497 .006051 330.000 .005561 .005170 320.000 .005174 .004801 H—57 ------- ISCLT EPA t EDISON,EIS \ REFINED MODELING FOR RISK ASSESSMENT \ MVM PAGE 11 **** - - ANNUAL GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER C IC METER ) FROM ALL SOURCES COMBINED (CONT.) ** - GRID SYSTEM RECEPTORS - X AXIS (RANGE • METERS) - 18500.000 19500.000 Y AXIS (A2I*JTH BEARING, DEGREES ) - CONCENTRATION - 310.000 .004872 .004516 300.000 .004656 .004316 290.000 .004395 .004076 280.000 .004149 .003851 270.000 .003847 .003574 260.000 .003937 .003658 250.000 .003979 .003697 240.000 .004847 .004506 230.000 .005934 .005515 220.000 .008029 .007661 210.000 .011034 .010252 200.000 .012696 .011795 190.000 .010501 .009750 180.000 .008162 .007573 170.000 .006849 .006355 160.000 .005457 .005063 150.000 .005982 .005552 140.000 .007090 .006584 130.000 .007547 .007011 120.000 .007337 .006818 110.000 .007790 .007243 100.000 .010370 .009645 90.000 .012845 .011949 80.000 .010837 .010077 70.000 .008714 .008098 60.000 .009495 .008835 50.000 .011175 .010412 40.000 .011526 .010751 30.000 .010565 .009866 20.000 .010017 .009362 10.000 .010938 .010213 .000 .011766 .010976 0 ISCRETE RECEPTORS - X Y CONCENTRATION X Y CONCENTRATION X Y CONCENTRATION DISTANCE DISTANCE DISTANCE DISTANCE DISTANCE DISTANCE (METERS) (METERS ) (METERS) (METERS ) (METERS) (METERS ) -270.0 -210.0 .041701 -400.0 210.0 .077780 -550.0 -150.0 .106193 -850.0 -300.0 .119272 -1000.0 11300 .123796 1170.0 1740.0 .103703 H-58 ------- CATASTROPHIC RELEASE MODELING (H.5) H -59 ------- SCREENING USING VALLEY OPTION OF COMPLEX-i (H.5.1) H-60 ------- COMPLEX-i (DATED 86064) AN AIR QUALITY DISPERSION MODEL IN SECTION 4. ADDITIONAL MODELS FOR REGULATORY USE IN UNAMAP (VERSION 6) JULY 86. SOURCE: FILE 31 ON UNAMAP MAGNETIC TAPE FORM NTIS. DATE & TIME OF THIS RUN - 12/20/89 15:00:44 INPUT FILE - CAT4.DAT COMPLEX I - VERSION 86064 EDISON NEW JERSEY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVM 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE / COMPLEX-I RUN CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO WORST-CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS GENERAL INPUT INFORMATION THIS RUN OF COMPLEX I/VALLEY OPTION IS FOR THE GENERIC POLLUTANT FOR 1 WIND DIRECTIONS. A FACTOR OF 1.0000000 HAS BEEN SPECIFIED TO CONVERT USER LENGTH UNITS TO KILOMETERS. 4 SIGNIFICANT SOURCES ARE TO BE CONSIDERED. THIS RUN WILL NOT CONSIDER ANY POLLUTANT LOSS. A FACTOR OF 3048000 HAS BEEN SPECIFIED TO CONVERT USER HEIGHT UNITS TO METERS. OPTION OPTION LIST OPTION SPECIFICATION : 0= IGNORE OPTION 1= USE OPTION TECHNICAL OPTIONS 1 TERRAIN ADJUSTMENTS 1 2 DO NOT INCLUDE STACK DOWNWASH CALCULATIONS 0 3 DO NOT INCLUDE GRADUAL PLUME RISE CALCULATIONS 1 4 CALCULATE INITIAL PLUME SIZE 1 INPUT OPTIONS 5 READ MET DATA FROM CARDS 1 6 READ HOURLY EMISSIONS 0 7 SPECIFY SIGNIFICANT SOURCES 0 8 READ RADIAL DISTANCES TO GENERATE RECEPTORS 0 PRINTED OUTPUT OPTIONS 9 DELETE EMISSIONS WITH HEIGHT TABLE 1 10 DELETE MET DATA SUMMARY FOR AVG PERIOD 1 11 DELETE HOURLY CONTRIBUTIONS 1 12 DELETE MET DATA ON HOURLY CONTRIBUTIONS 1 13 DELETE FINAL PLUME RISE CALC ON HRLY CONTRIBUTIONS 1 14 DELETE HOURLY SUMMARY 0 15 DELETE MET DATA ON HRLY SUMMARY 16 DELETE FINAL PLUME RISE CALC ON HRLY SUMMARY 0 17 DELETE AVG-PERIOD CONTRIBUTIONS 1 18 DELETE AVERAGING PERIOD SUMMARY 1 19 DELETE AVG CONCENTRATIONS AND HI-5 TABLES 1 OTHER CONTROL AND OUTPUT OPTIONS 20 RUN IS PART OF A SEGMENTED RUN 0 21 WRITE PARTIAL CONC TO DISK OR TAPE 0 22 WRITE HOURLY CONC TO DISK OR TAPE 0 23 WRITE AVG-PERIOD CONC TO DISK OR TAPE 0 24 PUNCH AVG-PERIOD CONC ONTO CARDS 0 25 COMPLEX TERRAIN OPTION 0 26 CALM PROCESSING OPTION 0 27 VALLEY SCREENING OPTION 1 ANEMOMETER HEIGHT IS: 10.00 EXPONENTS FOR POWER- LAW WIND INCREASE WITH HEIGHT ARE:.1O,.15,.2O,.2 5 ,. 3 O,. 30 TERRAIN ADJUSTMENTS ARE: .500, .500, .500, .500, .000, .000 ZMIN IS 10.0 BECAUSE THE VALLEY OPTION HAS BEEN SELECTED, THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS AND PARAMETERS HAVE BEEN SET BY THE MODEL, OVERRIDING VALUES PROVIDED BY THE USER: IOPT(5), IOPT(iO), IOPT(12), IOPT(15), IOPT(17), IOPT(18) = 1 IOPT(6), IOPT(2O) THRU IOPT(26) 0 NAVG1 NAV5O IHSTRT = 1 CONTER(6) = 0. ZMIN = 10. IKST = 6 D l i = 2.5 OHI = 9999. POINT SOURCE INFORMATION SOURCE EAST NORTH SO2(G/SEC) PART(G/SEC) STACK STACK STACK STACK GRD-LVL BUOY FLUX COORD COORD EMISSIONS EMISSIONS HT(M) TEMP(K) DIAM(M) VEL(M/SEC) ELEV F ** (USER UNITS) H—61 USER HT M 4/S 3 ------- UNITS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION EMISSION INFORMATION FOR 4 (NPT) POINT 4 SIGNIFICANT POINT SQJRCES(NSIGP) ARE TO THE ORDER OF SIGNIFICANCE(IMPS) FOR 25 OR 1 2 3 4 Oti SOURCES. SOURCES HAS BEEN INPUT BE USED FOR THIS RUN - LESS POINT SOURCES USED IN THIS RUN AS LISTED BY POINT SOURCE NUMBER: VALLEY METEOROLOGICAL INPUT DATA PRESET BY MODEL: MIXING HEIGHT (N) = 9999 STABILITY = 6 WIND SPEED (M/SEC) = 2.5 INPUT BY USER: TEMPERATURE (K) = 293.0 WIND DIRECTIONS (DEG) = 270.0 EOSOW NEW JERSEY I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / AIR QUALITY MVM I GRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE I COMPLEX-I RUN AIASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO WORST-CASE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS 1 NUMBER ONE V .02 .00 .25 .00 9.1 1000.0 .9 16.5 70.00 23.88 2 NUMBER TWO V .01 .00 .25 .00 9.1 1000.0 .9 16.5 70.00 23.88 3 NUMBER THREE -.01 .00 .25 .00 9.1 1000.0 .9 16.5 70.00 23.88 4 NUMBER FOUR - .02 .00 .25 .00 9.1 1000.0 .9 16.5 70.00 23.88 RECEPTOR INFORMATION RECEPTOR IDENTIFICATION EAST COORD (USER NORTH RECEPTOR HT COORD ABV LOCAL GRD LVL UNITS) (METERS) RECEPTOR GROUND LEVEL ELEVATION (USER HT UNITS) 1 REC 1 .500 .000 .0 70.0 2 REC 2 .640 .000 .0 80.0 3 REC 3 .762 .000 .0 100.0 4 REC 4 1.000 .000 .0 103.0 5 REC 5 1.500 .000 .0 105.0 6 REC 6 2.000 .000 .0 110.0 7 REC 7 2.500 .000 .0 115.0 8 REC 8 3.000 .000 .0 117.0 9 REC 9 3.810 .000 .0 120.0 10 REC 10 4.000 .000 .0 143.0 1 REC 11 4.180 .000 .0 150.0 12 REC 12 4.300 .000 .0 180.0 13 REC 13 4.390 .000 .0 200.0 14 REC 14 5.000 .000 .0 210.0 15 REC 15 6.000 .000 .0 215.0 16 REC 16 7.000 .000 .0 220.0 17 REC 17 8.000 .000 .0 225.0 18 REC 18 9.000 .000 .0 230.0 19 REC 19 10.000 .000 .0 250.0 20 REC 20 13.000 .000 .0 300.0 21 REC 21 14.000 .000 .0 400.0 22 REC 22 15.000 .000 .0 500.0 23 REC 23 16.000 .000 .0 540.0 24 REC 24 20.000 .000 .0 600.0 25 REC 25 30.000 .000 .0 600.0 26 REC 26 40.000 .000 .0 600.0 27 REC 27 50.000 .000 .0 600.0 VALLEY: SO2 24-HR INAL NT (H) 61.95 GIST FIN NT (KM) .147 RECEPTOR EAST NO. NAME COORD AVERAGE SUMMARY CONCENTRATION TABLE (MICROGRAMS/M**3) 2 3 4 5 6 61.95 61.95 61.95 .147 .147 .147 NORTH RECEPTOR NT COORD ABV ORD (N) RECEPTOR GRD-LVL ELEV (USER HT UNITS) TOTAL FROM SIGNIF POINT SOURCES 10 1 REC 1 .50 .00 .0 70.0 2 REC 2 .64 .00 .0 80.0 3 REC 3 .76 .00 .0 100.0 4 REC 4 1.00 .00 .0 103.0 5 REC 5 1.50 .00 .0 105.0 6 REC 6 2.00 .00 .0 110.0 7 REC 7 2.50 .00 .0 115.0 (WIND DIRECTION (DEG) = 270.0) 7 8 9 TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION ALL SOURCES RANK .0388 26 .0956 23 .3056 17 .4187 16 .5485 13 .6670 9 .7092 7 - 0388 .0956 .3056 .4187 .5485 .6670 .7092 ------- 8 REC 8 3.00 .00 .0 117.0 .6868 .6868 8 9 REC 9 3.81 .00 .0 120.0 .6224 .6224 11 10 REC 10 4.00 .00 .0 143.0 .7790 .7790 6 11 REC 11 4.18 .00 .0 150.0 .8018 .8018 4 12 REC 12 4.30 .00 .0 180.0 .9947 .9947 2 13 REC 13 4.39 .00 .0 200.0 1.0980 1.0980 1 14 REC 14 5.00 .00 .0 210.0 .9777 .9777 3 15 REC 15 6.00 .00 .0 215.0 .7854 .7854 5 16 REC 16 7.00 .00 .0 220.0 .6491 .6491 10 17 REC 17 8.00 .00 .0 225.0 .5509 .5509 12 18 REC 18 9.00 .00 .0 230.0 .4754 .4754 14 19 REC 19 10.00 .00 .0 250.0 .4190 .4190 15 20 REC 20 13.00 .00 .0 300.0 .2870 .2870 18 21 REC 21 14.00 .00 .0 400.0 .2391 .2391 19 22 REC 22 15.00 .00 .0 500.0 .1991 .1991 20 23 REC 23 16.00 .00 .0 540.0 .1764 .1764 21 24 REC 24 20.00 .00 .0 600.0 .1245 .1245 22 25 REC 25 30.00 .00 .0 600.0 .0734 .0734 24 26 REC 26 40.00 .00 .0 600.0 .0511 .0511 25 27 REC 27 50.00 .00 .0 600.0 .0386 .0386 27 H-63 ------- SCREENING USING ISCST WITH CLOSEST RECEPTORS (H.5.2) H-64 ------- ISW(1) = 1 ISW(2) = 2 ISW(3) = 2 ISW(4) = 1 ISW(5) 0 ISW(6) = 2 ISW(7) = 1 ISW(8) = 0 !SW(9) = 0 ISW(10) = 0 ISW(11) = 0 ISW(12) = 0 ISW(13) 0 ISW(14) = 0 ISW(15) = 0 ISW(16) = 1 ISW(17) = 0 ISW(18) = 0 ISW(19) = 2 ISW(20) = 0 ISW(21) = 1 ISW(22) = 1 ISW(23) = 0 ISW(24) 1 ISW(25) = 2 ISW(26) = 1 ISW(27) = 2 ISW(28 = 2 ISW(29) = 2 ISW(30) = 2 ISW(31) 0 ISW(40) = 0 NUMBER OF INPUT SOURCES NUMBER OF SOURCE GROUPS (=0,ALL SOURCES) TIME PERIOD INTERVAL TO BE PRINTED (=O,ALL INTERVALS) NUMBER OF X (RANGE) GRID VALUES NUMBER OF Y (THETA) GRID VALUES NUMBER OF DISCRETE RECEPTORS NUMBER OF HOURS PER DAY IN METEOROLOGICAL DATA NUMBER OF DAYS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA SOURCE EMISSION RATE UNITS CONVERSION FACTOR HEIGHT ABOVE GROUND AT WHICH WIND SPEED WAS MEASURED LOGICAL UNIT NUMBER OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA ALLOCATED DATA STORAGE REQUIRED DATA STORAGE FOR THIS PROBLEM RUN 4, *** SOURCE NUMBERS DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS (IDSOR) 1, 2, 3, 4, *** UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES (METERS/SEC) 1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80, ISCST - VERSION 3.4 (DATED 88348) DATE & TIME OF THIS RUN - 12/20/89 14:45:32 INPUT FILE - CATASTRO.DAT CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM CALCULATE (CONCENTRATION=1,DEPOSITION=2) RECEPTOR GRID SYSTEM (RECTANGULAR=1 OR 3, POLAR=2 OR 4) DISCRETE RECEPTOR SYSTEM (RECTANGULAR=1,POLAR=2) TERRAIN ELEVATIONS ARE READ (YES=1,NO=O) CALCULATIONS ARE WRITTEN TO TAPE (YES=1,NO=0) LIST ALL INPUT DATA (N00,YES=1,MET DATA ALSO=2) COMPUTE AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (OR TOTAL DEPOSITION) WITH THE FOLLOWING TIME PERIODS: HOURLY (YES=1 , NO=O) 2-HOUR (YES=1,NO=O) 3-HOUR (YES=1,NO=O) 4-HOUR (YES=1,NO=O) 6-HOUR (YES=1,NO=O) 8-HOUR (YES=1 ,NO=O) 12-HOUR (YES=1,NO=O) 24-HOUR (YES=1,NO=O) PRINT ‘N’-DAY TABLE(S) (YES=1,NO=0) PRINT THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF TABLES WHOSE TIME PERIODS ARE SPECIFIED BY ISW(7) THROUGH ISW(14): DAILY TABLES (YES=1,NO=0) HIGHEST & SECOND HIGHEST TABLES (YES1,NO=O) MAXIMUM 50 TABLES (YES=1,NO=0) METEOROLOGICAL DATA INPUT METHOD (PRE-PROCESSED ’1,CARD2) RURAL-URBAN OPTION (RU.0 ,UR. MODE 1=1,UR. MODE 2=2,UR. MODE 3=3) WIND PROFILE EXPONENT VALUES (DEFAULTS=1,USER ENTERS=2,3) VERTICAL POT. TEMP. GRADIENT VALUES (DEFAULTS=1,USER ENTERS=2,3) SCALE EMISSION RATES FOR ALL SOURCES (N00,YES>O) PROGRAM CALCULATES FINAL PLUME RISE ONLY (YES=1,NO=2) PROGRAM ADJUSTS ALL STACK HEIGHTS FOR DOWNWASH (YES=2,NO=1) PROGRAM USES BUOYANCY INDUCED DISPERSION (YES=1,NO=2) CONCENTRATIONS DURING CALM PERIODS SET = 0 (YES1,N02) REG. DEFAULT OPTION CHOSEN (YES1,NO2) TYPE OF POLLUTANT TO BE MODELLED (1=S02,2OTHER) DEBUG OPTION CHOSEN (YES1,NO2) ABOVE GROUND (FLAGPOLE) RECEPTORS USED (YES1,NOO) USE RUNNING AVERAGES (O=NO,1=YES) NSOURC = 4 NGR OUP = 1 IPERD = 0 NXPNTS = 3 NYPNTS = 36 NXWYPT = 0 NHOURS = 16 NDAYS = 1 TK .10000E+07 ZR = 10.00 METERS IMET 1 LIMIT = 55000 WORDS MIMIT = 1620 WORDS *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM *** NUMBER OF SOURCE NUMBERS REQUIRED TO DEFINE SOURCE GROUPS (NSOGRP) *** RANGES OF POLAR GRID SYSTEM H -65 ------- (METERS) 500.0, 640.0, 750.0, RADIAL ANGLES OF POLAR GRID SYSTEM *** (DEGREES) 10.0, 20.0, 30.0, 40.0, 50.0, 60.0, 70.0, 80.0. 90.0 100.0 110.0, 120.0, 130.0, 140.0, 150.0, 160.0, 170.0, 180.0. 190.0, 200.0 210.0, 220.0, 230.0, 240.0, 250.0, 260.0, 270.0, 280.0, 290.0, 300.0 310.0, 320.0, 330.0, 340.0, 350.0, 360.0, CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO I 11/89 / MVM * ELEVATION HEIGHTS IN METERS * * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * DIRECTION / RANGE (METERS) (DEGREES) / 500.0 640.0 750.0 360.0 I 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 350.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 340.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 330.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 320.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 310.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 300.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 290.0 I 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 280.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 270.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 260.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 250.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 240.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 230.0 I 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 220.0 I 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 210.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 200.0 I 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 190.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 180.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 170.0 I 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 160.0 f 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 150.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 140.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 130.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 120.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 110.0 I 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 100.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 90.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 80.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 70.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 60.0 I 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 50.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 40.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 30.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 20.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 10.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / Mvt4 SOURCE DATA *** EMISSION RATE TEMP. EXIT VEL. TYPE=0 ,1 TYPE=O TYPE=O I U (GRANS/SEC) (DEG.K); (M/SEC); BLDG. BLDG. BLDG. V A NUMBER TYPE2 BASE VERT.DIM HORZ.DIM DIAMETER HEIGHT LENGTH WIDTH SOURCE P K PART. (GRAMS/SEC) x V ELEV. HEIGHT TYPE=1 TYPE=1,2 TYPE=O TYPE=O TYPE=0 TYPE 0 NUMBER E E CATS. *PER METER**2 (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) 1 0 0 0 .25000E+O0 22.9 .0 21.3 9.10 1000.00 16.48 .91 8.20 54.10 54.10 2 0 0 0 .25000E+O0 7.6 .0 21.3 9.10 1000.00 16.48 .91 8.20 54.10 54.10 H-66 ------- 3 0 0 0 .25000E+OO -7.6 .0 21.3 9.10 1000.00 16.48 .91 8.20 54.10 54.10 4 0 0 0 .25000E+O0 -22.9 .0 21.3 9.10 1000.00 16.48 .91 8.20 54.10 54.10 MET. DATA DAY CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR DAY 1 * POT. TEMP. FLOW WIND MIXING GRADIENT WIND DECAY VECTOR SPEED HEIGHT TEMP. (DEG. K STABILITY PROFILE COEFFICIENT HOUR (DEGREES) (MPS) (METERS) (DEG: K) PER METER) CATEGORY EXPONENT (PER SEC) 1 .0 2.50 10000.0 298.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 2 22.5 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+D0 3 45.0 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 4 67.5 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+O0 5 90.0 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 6 112.5 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 7 135.0 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 8 157.5 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 9 180.0 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 10 202.5 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 11 225.0 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 12 247.5 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+0O 13 270.0 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 14 292.5 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 15 315.0 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .O0OOOOE OO 16 337.5 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO DAILY: 1-HR/PD 1 SGROUP# *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO I 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 1 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 9.47194 AND OCCURRED AT ( 750.0, 360.0) * 1-HR/PD 2 SGROUP# *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO I 11/89 / M W * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 2 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 6.23961 AND OCCURRED AT ( 750.0, 20.0) * 1-HR/PD 3 SGROUP# 1 *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 3 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 1.36803 AND OCCURRED AT C 750.0, 40.0) * 1-HR/PD 4 SGROUP# *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * H-67 ------- * ENDING WITH HOUR 4 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 6.195Th AND OCCURRED AT C 750.0, 70.0) * 1-HR/PD 5 SGROUP# *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 5 FOR DAY * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * VALUE EQUALS 11.16520 AND OCCURRED AT ( 750.0, 90.0) * 1-HR/PD 6 SGROUP# *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 6 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIPUJ4 VALUE EQUALS 6.19572 AND OCCURRED AT ( 75DM, 110.0) * 1-HR/PD 7 SGROUP# *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 7 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIPU4 VALUE EQUALS 1.36801 AND OCCURRED AT C 750.0, 14DM) * 1-HR/PD 8 SGROUP# *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 8 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 6.23961 AND OCCURRED AT C 750.0, 160.0) * 1-HR/PD 9 SGROUP# *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 9 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 9.58714 AND OCCURRED Al C 750.0, 180.0) * 1- HR/PD 10 SGROUP# CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / NVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * H-68 ------- * ENDING WITH HOUR 10 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 6.23962 AND OCCURRED AT ( 750.0, 200.0) * 1-HR/Poll *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO I 11/89 I MVM SGROUP# * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDiNG WITH HOUR 11 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 1.36801 AND OCCURRED AT ( 750.0, 220.0) * 1 -HR/PD12 SGROUP# CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 12 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 6.19579 AND OCCURRED AT C 750.0, 250.0) * 1 -HR/PD13 SGROUP# *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 13 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 11.16520 AND OCCURRED AT C 750.0, 270.0) * 1 -HR/P014 SCROUP# *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 14 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 6.19582 AND OCCURRED AT ( 750.0, 290.0) * - - - - l-HRJPD15 SGROUP# *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 15 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 1.36801 AND OCCURRED AT C 750.0, 320.0) * 1- HR/PD 16 SGROUP# *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * ------- * ENDING WITH HOUR 16 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EOUALS 6.23960 AND OCCURRED AT C 750.0, 340.0) * H-70 ------- CATASTROPHIC RELEASE MODELING USING ISCST (H.5.3) H-7 1 ------- ISCST - VERSION 3.4 (DATED 88348) DATE & TIME OF THIS RUN - 12/20/89 14:10:36 INPUT FILE - CATASTRO.DAT CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM CALCULATE (CONCENTRATION=1 ,DEPOSITION=2) ISW(1) = 1 RECEPTOR GRID SYSTEM (RECTANGULAR=1 OR 3, POLAR=2 OR 4) ISW(2) = 2 DISCRETE RECEPTOR SYSTEM (RECTANGULAR=1,POLAR=2) ISU(3) = 2 TERRAIN ELEVATIONS ARE READ (YES=1,NO=O) ISW(4) = 1 CALCULATIONS ARE WRITTEN TO TAPE (YES=1,NO=O) ISW(5) = 0 LIST ALL INPUT DATA (NOO ,YES=1 MET DATA ALSO=2) ISW(6) = 2 COMPUTE AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (OR TOTAL DEPOSITION) WITH THE FOLLOWING TIME PERIODS: HOURLY (YES1,NOO) ISW(7) = 1 2-HOUR (YES1,NOO) ISW(8) = 0 3-HOUR (YES1,N00) ISW(9) = 0 4-HOUR (YES=1,NOO) ISW(10) = 0 6-HOUR (YES=1 ,NO=O) ISW(11) = 0 8-HOUR (YES=1,NO=0) ISW(12) = 0 12-HOUR (YES=1 ,NOO) ISW(13) = 0 24-HOUR (YES=1,NO=0) ISW(14) = 0 PRINT ‘N’-DAY TABLE(S) (YES=1 ,NO=O) ISW(15) = 0 PRINT THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF TABLES WHOSE TIME PERIODS ARE SPECIFIED BY ISW(7) THROUGH ISW(14): DAILY TABLES (YES=1 ,NO=0) ISW(16) = 1 HIGHEST & SECOND HIGHEST TABLES (YES=1 ,NO=O) ISW(17) = 0 MAXIMUM 50 TABLES (YES=1NO=0) ISW(18) = 0 METEOROLOGICAL DATA INPUT METHOD (PRE-PROCESSED=1.CARD=2) ISW(19) = 2 RURAL-URBAN OPTION (RU.O ,UR. MODE 11,UR. MODE 2=2,UR. MODE 3=3) ISW(20) = 0 WIND PROFILE EXPONENT VALUES (DEFAULTS=1 ,USER ENTERS=2,3) ISW(21) = 1 VERTICAL POT. TEMP. GRADIENT VALUES (DEFAULTS=1,USER ENTERS=2,3) ISW(22) = 1 SCALE EMISSION RATES FOR ALL SOURCES (NO=0,YES>O) ISW(23) = 0 PROGRAM CALCULATES FINAL PLUME RISE ONLY (YES=1,NO=2) ISW(24) = 1 PROGRAM ADJUSTS ALL STACK HEIGHTS FOR DOWNWASH (YES=2,NO=1) ISW(25) = 2 PROGRAM USES BUOYANCY INDUCED DISPERSION (YES1,NO ’2) ISW(26) = 1 CONCENTRATIONS DURING CALM PERIODS SET = 0 (YES=1 ,NO=2) ISW(27) = 2 REG. DEFAULT OPTION CHOSEN (YES=1,NO=2) ISW(28) = 2 TYPE OF POLLUTANT TO BE MODELLED (1=S02,2=OTHER) ISW(29) = 2 DEBUG OPTION CHOSEN (YES=1,NO=2) ISW(30) = 2 ABOVE GROUND (FLAGPOLE) RECEPTORS USED (YES=1NO=O) ISW(31) = 0 USE RUNNING AVERAGES (O=NO,1=YES) ISW(40) = 0 NUMBER OF INPUT SOURCES NSOURC = 4 NUMBER OF SOURCE GROUPS (=0,ALL SOURCES) NGROUP = 1 TIME PERIOD INTERVAL TO BE PRINTED (=O,ALL INTERVALS) IPERD = 0 NUMBER OF X (RANGE) GRID VALUES NXPNTS = 27 NUMBER OF Y (THETA) GRID VALUES NYPNTS = 36 NUMBER OF DISCRETE RECEPTORS NXWYPT = 0 NUMBER OF HOURS PER DAY IN METEOROLOGICAL DATA NHOIJRS = 16 NUMBER OF DAYS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA NDAYS 1 SOURCE EMISSION RATE UNITS CONVERSION FACTOR 1K =.10000E+07 HEIGHT ABOVE GROUND AT WHICH WIND SPEED WAS MEASURED ZR = 10.00 METERS LOGICAL UNIT NUMBER OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA IMET = 1 ALLOCATED DATA STORAGE LIMIT = 55000 WORDS REQUIRED DATA STORAGE FOR THIS PROBLEM RUN MIMIT 5100 WORDS *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM *** NUMBER OF SOURCE NUMBERS REQUIRED TO DEFINE SOURCE GROUPS (NSOGRP) 4, SOURCE NUMBERS DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS (IDSOR) 1, 2, 3, 4, *** UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES (METERS/SEC) 1.54, 3.09, 514, 8.23, 10.80, *** RANGES OF POLAR GRID SYSTEM H -72 ------- (METERS) 500.0, 640.0, 750.0, 1000.0, 1500.0, 2000.0, 2500.0 3000.0 3810.0 4000 0 4180.0, 4300.0, 4390.0, 5000.0, 6000.0, 7000.0 8000.0 9000 0 10000 0 130000 14000.0, 15000.0, 16000.0, 20000.0, 30000.0, 40000.0, 50000.0, RADIAL ANGLES OF POLAR GRID SYSTEM *** (DEGREES) 10.0, 20.0, 30.0, 40.0, 50.0, 60.0, 70.0, 80.0 90.0 100 0 110.0, 120.0, 130.0, 140.0, 150.0, 160.0, 170.0, 180.0 190.0’ 200:0 210.0, 220.0, 230.0, 240.0, 250.0, 260.0, 270.0, 280.0 290.0’ 300.0 310.0, 320.0, 330.0, 340.0, 350.0, 360.0, CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * ELEVATION HEIGHTS IN METERS * * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRiD * DIRECTION / RANGE (METERS) (DEGREES) / 500.0 640.0 750.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3810.0 360.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 350.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 340.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 330.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 320.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 310.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 300.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 290.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 280.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 270.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 260.0 / 21 .33604 24.38405 30.48006 31 .39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 250.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 240.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 230.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 220.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 210.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 200.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 190.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 180.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 170.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 160.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 150.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 140.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31 .39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 130.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 120.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 110.0 / 21 .33604 24.38405 30.48006 31 .39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 100.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 90.0 I 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 80.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31 .39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 70.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 60.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31 .39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 50.0 / 21 .33604 24.38405 30.48006 31 .39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 40.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 30.0 / 21 33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 20.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 10.0 / 21.33604 24.38405 30.48006 31.39446 32.00406 33.52806 35.05207 35.66167 36.57607 *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MW * ELEVATION HEIGHTS IN METERS * * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * DIRECTION / RANGE (METERS) (DEGREES) I 4000.0 4180.0 4300.0 4390.0 5000.0 . 6000:0 - - 7000.0 - . 8000:0 - 9000.0 ------- 360.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 350.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 340.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 330.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 320.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 310.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 300.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 290.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 280.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 270.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 260.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 250.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 240.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 230.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 220.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 210.0 / 43.58669 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 200.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 190.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 180.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 170.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 160.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 150.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 140.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 130.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 120.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 110.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 100.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 90.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 80.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 70.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 60.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 50.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 40.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 30.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 20.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 10.0 / 43.58649 45.72009 54.86411 60.96012 64.00813 65.53213 67.05613 68.58013 70.10414 *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * ELEVATION HEIGHTS IN METERS * * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * DIRECTION / RANGE (METERS) (DEGREES) / 10000.0 13000.0 14000.0 15000.0 16000.0 20000.0 30000.0 40000.0 50000.0 360.0 / 76.20015 91 .44018 121 .92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.8801 .0 182.88040 182.88040 350.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 340.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 330.0 / 76.20015 91 .44018 121 .92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 320.0 / 76.20015 91 .44018 121 .92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 310.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 300.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 290.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 280.0 / 76.20015 91 .44018 121 .92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 270.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121 .92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 260.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 250.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 240.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 230.0 / 76.20015 91 .44018 121 .92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 220.0 / 76.20015 91 .44018 121 .92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 210.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 200.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 190.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 180.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 170.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 160.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 150.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 140.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 130.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 120.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 110.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 100.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 H -74 ------- TW Y A NUMBER SOURCE P K PART. NUMBER E E CATS. EMISSION RATE TYPE=O, 1 (GRAMS/SE C) TYPE2 (GRAMS/SEC) *PER METER**2 TEMP. TYPE=O (DEG.K); VERT.DIM TYPE=1 (METERS) EXIT VEL. TYPE=O (M/SEC); BLDG. HORZ.DIM DIAMETER HEIGHT TYPE=1,2 TYPE=O TYPE=O (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM *** DIRECTION SPECIFIC BUILDING DIMENSIONS *** *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM DATA FOR DAY 1 * H-75 90.0 / 76.20015 91 .44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 80.0 / 76.20015 91 .44018 121 .92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 70.0 / 76.20015 91 .44018 121 .92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 60.0 / 76.20015 91 .44018 121 .92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 50.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 40.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121 .92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 30.0 / 76.20015 91 .44018 121 .92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 20.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121 .92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 10.0 / 76.20015 91.44018 121.92020 152.40030 164.59230 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 182.88040 CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO I 11/89 / MVM SOURCE DATA BASE X V ELEV. HEIGHT (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BLDG. LENGTH TYPE=0 (METERS) 1 0 0 0 .25000E+O0 22.9 .0 21.3 9.10 1000.00 16.48 .91 -8.20 54.10 54.10 2 0 0 0 .25000E+00 7.6 .0 21.3 9.10 1000.00 16.48 .91 -8.20 54.10 54.10 3 0 0 0 .25000E+OO -7.6 .0 21.3 9.10 1000.00 16.48 .91 -8.20 54.10 54.10 4 0 0 0 .25000E+00 -22.9 .0 21.3 9.10 1000.00 16.48 .91 -8.20 54.10 54.10 BLDG. WIDTH TYPE=O (METERS) SOURCE 1 1EV BK 1 8.2, 7 8.2, 13 8.2, 19 8.2, 25 8.2, 31 8.2, 8W 61.9, 64.9, 79.6, 61.9, 64.9, 79.6, IFV 2 8 14 20 26 32 BK 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, BW 64.9, 61.9, 79.6, 64.9, 61.9, 79.6, IFV 3 9 15 21 27 33 BK 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8W 70.4, 61.0, 70.4, 70.4, 61.0, 70.4, 1EV 4 10 16 22 28 34 BR 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, SW 79.6, 61.9, 64.9, 79.6, 61.9, 64.9, 1FV 5 11 17 23 29 35 BK 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, SW 79.6, 64.9, 61.9, 79.6, 64.9, 61.9, IFV 6 12 18 24 30 36 BK 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2. SW 70.4, 70.4, 61.0, 70.4, 70.4 61.0, SOURCE 2 1EV BK 1 8.2, 7 8.2, 13 8.2, 19 8.2, 2 8.2, 31 8.2, BW 61.9, 64.9, 79.6, 61.9, 64.9, 79.6, IFV 2 8 14 20 26 32 BH 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8W 64.9, 61.9, 79.6, 64.9, 61.9, 79.6, IFV 3 9 15 21 27 33 BK 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8W 70.4, 61.0, 70.4, 70.4, 61.0, 70.4, IFV 4 10 16 22 28 34 BH 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8W 79.6, 61.9, 64.9, 79.6, 61.9, 64.9, IFV 5 11 17 23 29 35 BK 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8W 79.6, 64.9, 61.9, 79.6, 64.9, 61.9, IFV 6 12 18 24 30 36 BH 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, BW 70.4, 70.4, 61.0, 70.4, 70.4, 61.0, SOURCE 3 1EV BK 1 8.2, 7 8.2, 13 8.2, 19 8.2, 25 8.2, 31 8.2, BW 61.9, 64.9, 79.6, 61.9, 64.9, 79.6, IFV 2 8 14 20 26 32 BK 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8W 64.9, 61.9, 79.6, 64.9, 61.9, 79.6, IFV 3 9 15 21 27 33 BH 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, BW 70.4, 61.0, 70.4, 70.4, 61.0, 70.4, IFV 4 10 16 22 28 34 BK 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, BW 79.6, 61.9, 64.9, 79.6, 61.9, 64.9, IFV 5 11 17 23 29 35 BK 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, BW 79.6, 64.9, 61.9, 79.6, 64.9 , 61.9, IFV 6 12 18 24 30 36 BH 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, BU 70.4, 70.4, 61.0, 70.4, 70.4, 61.0, SOURCE 4 1FV BK 1 8.2, 7 8.2, 13 8.2, 19 8.2 25 8.2, 31 8.2, 8W 61.9, 64.9, 79.6, 61.9, 64.9, 79.6, !FV 2 8 14 20 26 32 BH 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8W 64.9, 61.9, 79.6, 64.9, 61.9, 79.6, 1EV 3 9 15 21 27 33 BH 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, BW 70.4, 61.0, 70.4, 70.4, 61.0, 70.4, IFV 4 10 16 22 28 34 BH 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, BW 79.6, 61.9, 64.9, 79.6, 61.9, 64.9, 1EV 5 11 17 23 29 35 BK 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, BW 79.6, 64.9, 61.9, 79.6, 64.9, 61.9, IFV 6 12 18 24 30 36 BK 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, 8.2, SW 70.4, 70.4, 61.0, 70.4, 70.4, 61.0, MET. DATA DAY 1 * METEOROLOGICAL ------- POT. TEMP. FLOW WIND MIXING GRADIENT WIND DECAY VECTOR SPEED HEIGHT TEMP. (DEC. K STABILITY PROFILE COEFFICIENT HOUR (DEGREES) (MPS) (METERS) (DEG. K) PER METER) CATEGORY EXPONENT (PER SEC) 1 .0 2.50 10000.0 298.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 2 22.5 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 3 45.0 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 4 67.5 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 5 90.0 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 6 112.5 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 7 135.0 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 8 157.5 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 9 180.0 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 10 202.5 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+O0 11 225.0 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 12 247.5 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 13 270.0 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+O0 14 292.5 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO 15 315.0 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+O0 16 337.5 2.50 10000.0 293.0 .0350 6 .5500 .000000E+OO DAILY: 1-HR/PD 1 SGROUP# *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 1 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 12.07261 AND OCCURRED AT ( 3000.0, 360.0) * DIRECTION / RANGE (METERS) (DEGREES) / 500.0 640.0 750.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3810.0 360.0 / .00021 .01243 .40424 1.74365 6.50163 9.85063 11.55022 12.07261 11.64788 350.0 / .00000 .00000 .00002 .00002 .00001 .00001 .00000 .00000 .00000 340.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 330.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 320.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 310.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 300.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 290.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 280.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 270.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 260.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 250.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 260.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 230.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 220.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 210.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 200.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 190.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 180.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 170.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 160.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 150.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 140.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 130.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 120.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 110.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 100.0 .i .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 90.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 80.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 70.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 60.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 50.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 40.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 30.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 20.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 10.0 / .00000 .00000 .00002 .00002 .00001 .00001 .00000 .00000 .00000 H—76 1-HR/PD 2 ------- CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM SGROUP# 1 * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 2 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 4.59551 AND OCCURRED AT ( 2500.0, 20.0) * DIRECTION / RANGE (METERS) (DEGREES) / - 500.0 - 640.0 750.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3810.0 360.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 350.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 340.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 00000 330.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 320.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 310.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 300.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 290.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 280.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 270.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 260.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 250.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 240.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 230.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 220.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 210.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 200.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 190.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 180.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 170.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 160.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 150.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 140.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 130.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 120.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 110.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 100.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 90.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 80.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 70.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 60.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 50.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 40.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 30.0 I .00000 .00008 .00157 .00292 .00386 .00303 .00218 .00155 .00089 20.0 / .00022 .00959 .26681 .96634 3.02665 4.17477 4.59551 4.57444 4.15354 10.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 DAILY: SGROUP# 1 *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 3 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS .27180 AND OCCURRED AT ( 2000.0, 40.0) * DIRECTION / RANGE (METERS) (DEGREES) / 500.0 640.0 750.0 - - 1000:0 - - 1500.0 - - - 2000:0 - - 2500.0 - - 3000.0 - 3810.0 360.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 350.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 340.0 ,‘ .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 330.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 320.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 310 0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 300.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 290.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 280.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 H—77 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 ------- 270.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 260.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 250.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 240.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 230.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 220.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 210.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 200.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 190.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 180.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 170.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 160.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 150.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 140.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 130.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 120.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 110.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 100.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 90.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 80.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 70.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 60.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 50.0 / .00003 .00111 .03043 .09309 .22719 .26279 .25162 .22375 .17322 40.0 / .00006 .00178 .03978 .10742 .24160 .27180 .25730 .22693 .17506 30.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 20.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 10.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 DAILY: 1-HR/PD 4 SGROUP# *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 4 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * KAXIMIJI VALUE EQUALS 4.52215 AND OCCURRED AT ( 2500.0, 70.0) * DIRECTION / RANGE (METERS) (DEGREES) / 500.0 640.0 750.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3810.0 360.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 350.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 340.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 330.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 320.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 310.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 300.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 290.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 280.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 270.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 260.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 250.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 240.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 230.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 220.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 210.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 200.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 190.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 180.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 170.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 160.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 150.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 140.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 130.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 120.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 110.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 100.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 90.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 80.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 70.0 I .00017 .00803 .23737 .89993 2.91883 4.08169 4.52215 4.51790 4.11794 60.0 I .00000 .00004 .00077 .00164 .00264 .00232 .00180 .00133 .00080 50.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 40.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 30.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 H—78 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 ------- 20.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 00000 10.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 DAiLY: 1-HR/PD 5 CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM SGROUP# 1 * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR S FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 12.43516 AND OCCURRED AT C 3000.0, 90.0) * DIRECTION I RANGE (METERS) (DEGREES) / - 500.0 - 640.0 750.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3810.0 360.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 00000 350.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 340.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 330.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 320.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 310.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 300.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 290.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 280.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 270.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 260.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 250.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 240.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 230.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 220.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 210.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 200.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 190.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 180.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 170.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 160.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 150.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 1400 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 130.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 120.0 ,‘ .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 110.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 100.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 90.0 / .00043 .01863 .53651 2.07586 7.10963 10.42042 12.02019 12.43516 11.90036 80.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 70.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 60.0 ,‘ .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 50.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 40.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 30.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 20.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 10.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 DAILY: 1-HR/PD 5 1-HR/PD 6 SGROUP# 1 *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 6 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 4.52213 AND OCCURRED AT ( 2500.0, 110.0) * DIRECTION / RANGE (METERS) (DEGREES) / 500.0 660.0 750.0 1000.0 - 1500.0 - - 2000:0 - - 2500.0 - - - 3000:0 - 3810.0 360 0 / 00000 00000 00000 00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 350:0 , :00000 :00000 :00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 340.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 330 0 / 00000 00000 00000 00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 320.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 ------- 310.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 300.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 290.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 280.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 270.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 260.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 250.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 240.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 230.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 220.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 210.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 200.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 190.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 180.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 170.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 160.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 150.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 140.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 130.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 120.0 / .00000 .00004 .00077 .00164 .00264 .00232 .00180 .00133 .00080 110.0 / .00017 .00803 .23737 .89993 2.91882 4.08168 4.52213 4.51789 4.11792 100.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 90.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 80.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 70.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 60.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 50.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 40.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 30.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 20.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 10.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 DAILY: 1-HR/PD 7 SGROUP# CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 7 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXD JN VALUE EQUALS .27179 AND OCCURRED AT ( 2000.0, 140.0) * DIRECTION / RANGE (METERS) (DEGREES) / 500.0 640.0 750.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3810.0 360.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 350.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 340.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 330.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 320.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 310.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 300.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 290.0 ,‘ .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 280.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 270.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 260.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 250.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 240.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 230.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 220.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 210.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 200.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 190.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 180.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 170.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 160.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 150.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 140.0 / .00006 .00178 .03978 .10742 .24160 .27179 .25729 .22692 .17506 130.0 / .00003 .00111 .03043 .09309 .22719 .26280 .25162 .22375 .17323 120.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 110.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 100.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 90.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 80.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 70.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 H80 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 ------- 60.0 / O0OOO .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .ooooo .ooooo .00000 50.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 40.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 30.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 20.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 10.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 DAILY: 1-HR/PD 7 SGROUP# 1 CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 8 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 4.59552 AND OCCURRED AT ( 2500.0, 160.0) * DIRECTION / RANGE (METERS) (DEGREES) / 500.0 640.0 750.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3810.0 360.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 350.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 340.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 330.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 320.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 310.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 300.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 290.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 280.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 270.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 260.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 250.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 240.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 230.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 220.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 210.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 200.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 190.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 180.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 170.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 160.0 / .00022 .00959 .26681 .96634 3.02666 4.17477 4.59552 4.57445 4.15355 150.0 / .00000 .00008 .00157 .00292 .00386 .00303 .00218 .00155 .00089 140.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 130.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 120.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 110.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 100.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 90.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 80.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 70.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 60.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 50.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 40.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 30.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 20.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 10.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 DAILY: 1-HR/PD 8 SGROUP# 1 *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 9 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 12.22959 AND OCCURRED AT ( 3000.0, 180.0) * DIRECTION / RANGE (METERS) (DEGREES) / 500.0 640.0 750.0 1000.0 1500.0 - - - 2000.0 - - 2500.0 - - - 3000:0 - - 3810.0 36O0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 350.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 H—81 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 ------- 340.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 330.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 320.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 310.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 300.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 290.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 280.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 270.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 260.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 250.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 240.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 230.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 220.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 210.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 200.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 190.0 / .00000 .00000 .00002 .00002 .00001 .00001 .00000 .00000 .00000 180.0 / .00026 .01393 .43668 1.83711 6.70215 10.05944 11.73950 12.22959 11.76901 170.0 / .00000 .00000 .00002 .00002 .00001 .00001 .00000 .00000 .00000 160.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 150.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 140.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 130.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 120.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 110.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 100.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 90.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 80.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 70.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 60.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 50.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 40.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 30.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 20.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 10.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 DAILY: 1- HR/PD 10 SGROIJP# 1 CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE COMCEMTRATIQN (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 10 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIf .J4 VALUE EQUALS 4.59553 AND OCCURRED AT ( 2500.0, 200.0) * DIRECTIObJ / RANGE (METERS) (DEGREES) / 500.0 640.0 750.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3810.0 360.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 350.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 340.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 330.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 320.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 310.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 300.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 290.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 280.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 270.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 260.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 250.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 240.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 230.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 220.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 210.0 / .00000 .00008 .00157 .00292 .00386 .00303 .00218 .00155 .00089 200.0 I .00022 .00959 .26681 .96634 3.02666 4.17479 4.59553 4.57446 4.15356 190.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 180.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 170.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 160.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 150.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 140.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 130.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 120.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 110.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 100.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 H— .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 ------- 90.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 80.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 70.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 60.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 50.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 40.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 30.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 20.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 10.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 DAILY: 1- HR/PD 10 1-IiR/PD11 SGROUP# 1 *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO I 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 11 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS .27179 AND OCCURRED AT C 2000.0, 220.0) * DIRECTION / RANGE (METERS) (DEGREES) / 500.0 640.0 750.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3810.0 360.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 350.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 340.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 330.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 320.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 310.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 300.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 290.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 280.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 270.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 260.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 250.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 240.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 230.0 / .00003 .00111 .03043 .09309 .22719 .26279 .25162 .22375 .17322 220.0 / .00006 .00178 .03978 .10742 .24160 .27179 .25730 .22692 .17506 210.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 200.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 190.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 180.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 170.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 160.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 150.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 140.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 130.0 ,‘ .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 120.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 110.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 100.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 90.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 80.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 70.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 60.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 50.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 40.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 30.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 20.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 10.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 DAILY: 1-HR/Poll l-HR/PD12 SGROUP# 1 CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MiCROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 12 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3. 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 4.52222 AND OCCURRED AT C 2500.0, 250.0) * DIRECTION I RANGE (METERS) H-83 ------- (DEGREES) / 500.0 640.0 750.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3810.0 360.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 350.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 3.40.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 330.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 320.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 310.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 300.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 290.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 280.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 270.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 260.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 250.0 / .00017 .00803 .23738 .89994 2.91887 4.08175 4.52222 4.51798 4.11801 240.0 I .00000 .00004 .00077 .00164 .00264 .00232 .00180 .00133 .00080 230.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 220.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 210.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 200.0 / 00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 190.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 180.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 170.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 160.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 150.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 160.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 130.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 120.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 110.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 100.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 90.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 80.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 70.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 60.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 50.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 40.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 30.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 20.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 10.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 DAILY: 1-HR/PD 12 1- HR/PD 13 SGROIJP# CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO I 11/89 I MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 13 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1. 2, 3, 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIP .$ VALUE EQUALS 12.43516 AND OCCURRED AT ( 3000.0, 270.0) * DIRECTION / RANGE (METERS) (DEGREES) / 500.0 640.0 750.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3810.0 360.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 350.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 340.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 330.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 320.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 310.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 300.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 290.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 280.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 270.0 / .00043 .01863 .53651 2.07586 7.10963 10.42042 12.02019 12.43516 11.90036 260.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 250.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 240.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 230.0 ,‘ .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 220.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 210.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 200.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 190.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 180.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 170.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 160.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 — .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 ------- 150.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 140.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 130.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 120.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 110.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 100.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 90.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 80.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 70.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 60.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 50.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 40.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 30.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 20.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 10.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 DAILY: 1- HR/PD 14 SGROUP# 1 *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 14 FOR DAY 1 * * FROM SOURCES: 1, 2, 3. 4, * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 4.52226 AND OCCURRED AT ( 2500.0, 290.0) * DIRECTION / RANGE (METERS) (DEGREES) / 500.0 640.0 750.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3810.0 360.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 350.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 340.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 330.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 320.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 310.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 300.0 / .00000 .00004 .00077 .00164 .00264 .00232 .00180 .00133 .00080 290.0 / .00017 .00803 .23738 .89995 2.91889 4.08179 4.52226 4.51802 4.11805 280.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 270.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 260.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 250.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 240.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 230.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 220.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 210.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 200.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 190.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 180.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 170.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 160.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 150.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 140.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 130.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 120.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 110.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 100.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 90.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 80.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 70.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 60.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 50.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 40.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 30.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 20.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 10.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 DAILY: 1- HR/PD 14 1- HR/PD 15 SGROUP# *** CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVM * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * * ENDING WITH HOUR 15 FOR DAY 1 * 1, 2, 3, 4, * FROM SOURCES: H—85 ------- * FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID * * MAXI*Jl VALUE EQUALS .27179 AND OCCURRED AT ( 2000.0, 320.0) * DIRECTION / RANGE (METERS) (DEGREES) ,‘ 500.0 640.0 750.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3810.0 360.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 350.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 340.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 330.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 320.0 / .00006 .00178 .03978 .10937 .24160 .27179 .25729 .22692 .17506 310.0 / .00003 .00111 .03043 .09309 .22719 .26280 .25162 .22375 .17323 300.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 290.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 280.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 270.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 260.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 250.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 240.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 230.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 220.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 210.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 200.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 190.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 180.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 170.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 160.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 150.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 140.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 130.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 120.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 110.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 100.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 90.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 80.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 70.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 60.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 50.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 40.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 30.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 20.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 10.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 DAILY: 1-HR/PD 16 SGROUP# aa CATASTROPHIC RELEASE SCENARIO / 11/89 / MVN * DAILY 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) * ENDING WITH HOUR 16 FOR DAY 1 * FRt 4 SOURCES: 1, 2, 3, 4, a FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID a a MAXIMIJ4 VALUE EQUALS 4.59550 AND OCCURRED AT C 2500.0, 340.0) * DIRECTION / RANGE (METERS) (DEGREES) / 500.0 640.0 750.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3810.0 360.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 350.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 340.0 / .00022 .00959 .26681 .96634 3.02664 4.17475 4.59550 4.57442 4.15352 330.0 / .00000 .00008 .00157 .00292 .00386 .00303 .00218 .00155 .00089 320.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 310.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 3000 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 290.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 280.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 270.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 260.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 250.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 240.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 230.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 220.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 210.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 200.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 H -86 ------- 190.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 180.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 170.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 160.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 150.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 140.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 130.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 120.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 110.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 100.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 90.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 80.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 70.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 60.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 50.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 40.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 30.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 20.0 I .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 10.0 / .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 1-HR/PD 16 H—87 Recycled paper used to produce this job. ------- |