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.

-------