-------
sitecqoe; iqquoiniFni
't «v
«v X
o^-oj-a*
1AC A*TIDN 5 HILKES-BABBF
NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK
-flUARTFRt Y FRFCUEMC.Y_QI STR IBUJXQN.
. STATE (39): PENNSYLVANIA
i '
PAGE 39-0319
AUcNCY/PKOJtCT: F01
AGcNCY TTPt: STATE
CITY fOfULATIONI ,
AUCK POPULATICH: 2,018,114
cHh-KLGlON: 1
.SI ,SSI
COUNTY <5220): LUZERNE CO
SITE AOOR: CHILUICK C WASHINGTON STS
¦ STATION T-tRF C2?):. SuaugB-AN^-RESi.O£N.TIAL-
iUPPORI 1N G Aii C-U
AOCR'(151): NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA-UPPER OELAWARE VALLCY
SMSA''(5745): NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA
pa nFPT FHvrnnwMPMTAi gpsnngfFS ;
LATITUDE: 41 D. IS M. 56 S. N
LONGITUDE: 075 0. 50 H. 48 S. W
UTM ZONE: 18
.UTJj NORTHING: _4568370 .
UTM EASTING: 00429078
ELEVATION ABOVE GROUND: 013 FT.
_ELE.VLAT10N A80V£_MSL:_0565 ET .
CbMMcNTS: ALjiCENi TO HOLLENBACK GOLF COURSE
iiUOOHZB PA SITc CCOE CMOVcD COPAMS SITE S21)
DIFF. ght: W5ST 05 H0U9S
pulluiani name
.HLLLiJl ANT-tltThnn-\mtfbvai -IIMTT s fnnF
KEP * A EXCURSIONS HIN
YR-OT ORG UBS OBS PRI ScC DETEC
HETHOO OF.COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
INTERVAL
STANDARD UNITS
HIN
OBS
10
30
PERCENTILES
50 70 '90
95
99
MAX
OBS
2ND
MAX
ARIT
MEAN
GEOM
MEAN
GEOM
STO DEV
OZONfc
AA2Qlrll-l-QjL
INSTRUMENTAL CHEMILUHINESCENCE
1-MOUR
PARTS PER MILLION
42-02 001 31
tt2-U3 UUl
.02-Q-, Qvl
Uj-01 001
dj-Q2 001
aj-03 QUI
31
28
0
0
87
ao
0
0
£ 3
79
0
0
89
B1
3
• 3
95
97
0
0
0.005 0.029 .0.042 0.046 0.057 0.076 0.099 0.107 0.112
0.005 0.026 0.037 0.049
0.005.
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.Q24
Q.QU
0.019
, 0.035'
''o.o^a
0.025
0.045
0.0S1'
0.057
Q^JQ2X-
0.030
0.053
0.063
0.069 0.087
Q. 04A.
0.034 0.042
0.064 0.090
0.080 0.100
0.102 0.116
_0.0 5 3 0.081-
0.044 0.057
0.095 0.135
JL..1H4 Dl. LL.4_
0.112
0.107
0.116
0.107
0.061
0.058
.4062
0.081
0.062
.0.027
0.022__-
.1466
0.057
0.049
0.030
0.029
.4191
0.135
0.130
0.058
0.054
.4309
0.114
_JQ. 107.
_0.066-
__0.06 2_
• 475L
WIND SPtEO
61101-20-1-12
.INSTRUMfiJIAL S RJ1T_B 5 J QJDiL
1-HQUR
KNOTS.
42-02
82-03
. 13 284
89 1962
0 .
0
0\. - 0.1 0.4V
0 0.1 0.4
0.4
0.4
O.A
0.7 1.7
i.i ¦>. •:
3.8
4. «;
5.1
* , 1
7.8
7 . n
9.1
in '5
8.1
9 . u
1.9
d*-o<>
83-01
d j-OZ
90 1993
91 1968
96 2104
0
0
0
0 0.1 0.4
0 0.1 0.2
0 0.1 0.2
0.6
0.8
0.2
1.2
2.0
drR
2.4 4.1
3.6 5.0
2.0 3.6
6.4
7.1
5.7
7.6
8.1
6.9.
9.9
9.8
R.9
12.9
12.6
l?.9
12.7
12.1
12.2
3.1
3.3
2.6
OJ-03
95 2097
0
0 * 0.1 , 0.2
' * .
0.2.
I
• 0.3
C V * •
>> - i
0.9 2.0
4.1
5.0
6.9
9.4
8.4
1.6
WIND OIRICUUN
O1102-20-1-14
INSTRUMENTAL
SPOT READING
1-HOUR
DEGREES.
..11 238 •
a
0. 1. 1. _
14.
24J. .
?».
346.-
346.
350.
is? .
3*7.
398.
3«.q .
360. --
360.
360.
359.
82-04
83-01
83-02
90 1934 i
91 1968
96 2107
0
0
n
0 ¦ . 1• 1 . .
0 ;*1.'I ' . l.> -
o - t. 1 .
37:
1.17.
?3.
•'243.,
215/
?!<>.•-
259. 300.
263.' 312.
*OA.
334.
343.
.
JAQ.
3A0.
260.
360.
242.
222.
229.
237.
83-03
9i 2097
0
0 1. 1.
4
24.
233.
260. 309.
341.
350.
359.
360.
ORY-BULB TEMPERATURE
62101-20-1-15 • 1
«2-0y 14 7'
0
' n-^-oqfl.<)
INSTRUMENTAL
¦- . ,S„
¦7V. c'.o ¦'
SPOT READING
on.R. '-998.9'' '34.1
79.5
53.3"
• 86.9 <
i>60.6
92.9 98.6
68.9 7S.9
106.7
86.9
109.7
93.2
113.7
99.8
117.3
106.2
116.7
105.5
92.3
69.1
-------
¦4^
02-03-d*
11
sitecooe: ~j9i4QoiooFni
,>U'
'-J.*.
-LnCftTinMs
¦ct,
• «. -
.»> . :
NATIONAL AEROMETRIC OATA BANK
-0UA8XEB Li-f-R£i3 UfcW CJT-OIi IB ISO 14.0 N-
PAGE 39-0070
" ,U
CARftONDALE
STATE (39): PENNSYLVANIA
AGENCY/PROJECT: rOl
AiicNCt TYPc: STATt
L111. POPULATI CMS l 1 .?-ss ;
AUCK POPULATION: "27018,114 '
tPA-RfcOIONS 3
COUNTY (4o40): LACKAWANNA CO
SITE AOOR: SEVENTH AVE '
¦STATfnN TYPF. C?3): .SUaUBfcAN - CflMHEHCXAL
AQCR <151): NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA-UPPER OELAWARE VALLEY
*V SMSA: (5745): NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA
CuMMfcNTS: ARMY RESERVE OPERATIONAL MAINTENANCE SHEO
PAQSS MONITORING FOR OZONE
I ATTTlin£:_41_D._34__M 11 _S ._N
LONGITUDE: 075 0. 30 M. 41 S. W
UTM ZONE: 18
_UTM_N0RTHING:- 4602010--
UTM EASTING: 00457363
ELEVATION ABOVE GROUND: 010 FT.
ELEVATION-JBQVE-MSl: 1050 FT.
DIFF. GMT: WEST 05 HOURS
POLLUTANT NAME t H
EflLLUTANX=JjfcXtUn-INTER VA1 -IINTT S fnnF
METHOD OF COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
INTERVAL
STANOARO UNITS
REP *
YR-QT ORG JUS
V EXCURSIONS
OBS PRI SbC
MIN
DETEC
MIN
OBS
10
30
PERCENTILES
50 70 90
95
99
MAX
OBS
2ND
MAX
ARIT
MEAN
GEOM
MEAN
GEQM
STO OEV
OZONE
.44201. rl-Lri-JlX.
rf .
INSTRUMENTAL CHEMILUHINESCENCE .
1-HOUR
PARTS PER MILLION
d^-0 1
uOl
82
74
0
0
0.005
0.017
0.024 •
0.031,
0.037
0.044 0.053 0.056 0.063
0.063
0.061
0.038
0.036
di-02
001
83
80
1
1
0.005
0.031
0.042
0.048
0.054
0.063 0.073 0.088 0.132
0.132
0.101
0.058
0.056
d2-03
.001_
97
at
0
0
0.005
0.017
n.nn '•
0.044
n.DJi 0.064 o.oao 0.091 0.119
0.119
0. 104
0.054.
. 0.051
d
-------
U2-0 3-84
NATIONAL AEROHETRIC OATA BANK
_fiUARi£fiLY_FRfcCUJE-NGt—0 ISiaiSU I ION-
PAGE 39-0168
STATS (39): PENNSYLVANIA
ilJLttQDi; 3963001DOFQ1
LllCAtTbNlVNANTICOKE
LATITUDE: 41 D. 12 H. 37 S. N
"cNCI/PKOJeCT: F01
¦,'cNCt JYfc: STATE
Clfl PuKULAIIQft: 13,044.
a^ck population: „2,oi8,ii4
cPA-KtGION! 3 . ' '
COUNTY ($220): LUZERNE CO
SITE AODft*i 255 LOUER BROAOWAY(NEXT TO LEONEEDDY'S)
STATION..TYPE C23):. SU&USIB AR—COHMESlCIAL-
AQCR (151): NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA-UPPER DELAWARE VALLEY
SMSA (5745)! NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA
^uppukting Ar.FNr.Y: PA- nfPT. riF FMtfTBnMMPMTAi RFSnnprf<:
COMHcNTi: PA. ilTE CODE S400426
LONGITUDE: 076 D. 00 H. 15 S. U
UTM 20NE: IB
-UT-M-NORTHING: 4562374
UTH EASTING: 00415314
ELEVATION ABOVE GROUND: 007 FT.
_£LE-VATJCN_ABOVE_MSL:_0540-F_T.
DIFF. GMT: WEST 05 HOURS
PULLU1ANT NAME
Piiiniuiir-wHHnn-liiTfB«Ai-iiHiu rnnp
rttP I » EXCURSIONS MIN HIN
rK-ur urg OoS oas pri sec oetec obs
METHOD OF COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
INTERVAL
STANOARO UNITS
10
'30
PERCENTILES
50 70 90
95
99
MAX
OBS
2ND
MAX
ARIT
MEAN
GEOM
MEAN
GEOH
STO DEV
5
I
OiUNc
INSTRUMENTAL CHEMILUHINESCENCE
I-HOUR
PARTS PER MILLION
U2-01 UO1 4tf 43 0 0
Oul uO 73 , 1 1
m-ni jm _ il as • o o
02-u* t>01 U6 79 0 0
aj-ui uui at 77 b o
83-02 (JIM as 86 0 0
dJ-UJ U01 i5 32 0 0
0.005 ' 0.003 0.029" 0.033 0.038 0.045 0.052 0.057 0.086
0.005
Q.PQS.
0.021
Q.Olfl.,
0.039
0.027
0.050
0.041
0.055
_Q.0A9_
0.005
0.005
..(UOOS .
0.003 '
0.005'-
0.024 ^
0.010
'0.016
0.033
0.019
0.026
0.044
0.072 0.089 0.097 0.125
_Jtt .J) 53 D.0J3 0.088 0.JJ94_
0.027 0.042 0.051 0.065
0.035. 0.043 0.046 0.051
0.005 0.015 0.030 0.033
0.025
0.030
-Dj.Q-52 0 .-0.62 Q .J183 Q..JLa£ a. 12 Q_
0.048 0.057 0.076 0.096 0.096
0.086 0.059
0.125 0.098
<1.(194 0.091
0.065 0.062
0.051 0.048
_0.iiQ 0.103 0.056 .
0.096 0.096
I I
0.061
0.051
0.024
0.030
0.057 1.3933
0.048 1.4724
0.022 1.7118
0.023 1.5285
.0.053 1.4106
i
I
j, I
i
..>i
-------
Region IV
-------
Georgi a
G£-l
-------
0 3 flu
Validation of Atlanta Oione Deta
Doyle T. BritLata
Environmental Services Division
J. Son McHenry
A&WKD
On February 1, 1983, X mat with Bill Estas and Rafael Ballsgas for the purpose
of validating the Atlanta oxone data queetlooed la the January 14, 1983 letter
from J. Leonard Ladbettar Co Cbarlea Jeter, in Chat letter, three mala questions
wove raised concerning the validity of daea collected at Che South. DeJCalb aits.
However, before addressing those questions, two background pointa norit noting.
Pirst, on Juna 20, 1980, Mr. Ledbetter submitted the Quality Assurance Plan for
the Georgia Mr Sampling Network which was approved by Rabecca V. Hanaar on
Kerch 5, IS81. The introduction of that document states is part chat:
"The Environmental Protection Division, State of Georgia, In compliance
with the requirements outlined In Appendix A, Part 58.51 of the May 10,
1979 Federal Register la committed to achieve the maximum precision and
accuracy io air quality measurements by Implementing « comprehensive
program Co Includex (1) compliance with oil guidance and regulatory
documents Issued by the U.S. EPA in Technical Guide*in* Serlea and Fed-
eral Registers; (2) performance of all necessary precision and accuracy
checks) (3) development of written standard operating procedures for
routine operational activities; (4) explaining to all personnel the
importance and need of Quality Assurance and Quality Control requirements;
(5) documenting properly and completely specific activities which Influ-
ence data quality; (6) assessing and reporting data quality; and (7)
revising and updating Quality Assurance activities on an as-needed basis."
TVelva specific commitments are than made on how the above cornel tmencs are to be
carried out. Detailed standard operating procedures are provided.
Second, on January 24-25, 1963, Ray Hemphill conducted the Annual System Audit
in accordance with 40 CFR 58, Appendix A, Section 2.4. In summary, Mr, Hemphill
concluded that the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) haa Implemented
Chair SPA approved Quality Assurance Plan and have met the criteria necessary
for Rational approval of their ambient air monitoring program.
Mr. Ladbactar'a letter raises questions about the validity of certain osone data
collected on June 6, 1932 and July 2, 1982 at Che South DeKalb ozone site. It
shoold be noted that these data were collected by Georgia EPD personnel, paaaad
Georgia'a Quality Control audit chacka, and were submitted by Georgia to the
SAKOAD system where they have been scored.
management
02/06 14:38
GA-2
7209065 #0£
-------
Slnca carta in data were questioned At Che South DeJCalb osone ilea, they vera
coopered to data collected at ths Conyexs osone site for general pattarns. The
Conyers site la roughly twenty miles further downwind of tha South DeKalb alta,
which la downwind of tha city of Atlanta. Dates for which data vara no re eMeely
eonparad ara:
o June 6-8, 1982
o July 1-3, 1982
o July 12 - 14, 1982
0 July 19-22* 1982
In general, tha data conpere favorably and there la a general pattern. Whan the
concentrations are lov at one alta, they ara alao low ac tha other. When tha
concentretlone are elevated at one alta, they ara elevated at tha other. When
the concentration* increase or decreaae et one site, they alao increase or decreeaa
at tha other. Tha main difference la In tha actual concentrationa aeaaurad, the
duration of tha elevated concentrationa, and soae Lag in tiae to allow for trana-
port of an air uai fro* the South DeKalb site to the Coayara alte.
The South DeKalb anal tor blew a fuaa about 8il5 A. H. on Juna 6, 1982. The fuaa
waa replaced about 7:45 A. M, on Juna 7, 1982. The monitor vaa allowed to wara-
up end stabilize until about 9)40 A. H. et which tiae it vaa calibrated.
o A "sero-check" vaa performed before and after tha calibration to esaura
the absence of osone froa the txmitor before the calibration waa perforaed and
before the aonltor waa return&d to easpling aabient air.
o The xero~checka and the calibration point* were stable (there waa no
drift) Indicating the wara-up and stabilisation tiae waa adequate. Thia alao in-
dicate* the abaence of any osone being collected in tha lnstruaent at one tiae,
and raleaaed and measured aa residual ozone at another time.
a At aost, a 0.5Z recorder chart acala adjustment was aade on the monitor.
Thia correaponda to tan nicrograma per cubic meter (10 ug/H-®) of ozone. Thia
attaata to tha stability of the monitor'¦ calibration and aeasureaent ability even
though Interrupted by a blown fuse*
The aonltor was returned to saapllog aoblant air about 12:10 7. M. A fuaa blsv
again about 9»35 ?. K. Thia fuae was replaced on June 8, 1982 about 7:33 A. M.
The aequanca of zero-check, apan-check, followed by taro-chack waa perforaed,
oonaldered acceptable, and the aonltor returned to sampling aabient air about
8t4S A. H.
Because of the calibration and checks perforaed on the monitor, and tha monitor's
response during thia tiae period, there la no reason to invalidate any of these
aabient air data. It la especially Interesting to note that the data measured
at the Conyers site for this tiae period have higher concentretions than thosa
acta cured at the DeKalb site.
On July 2, 1982, the South DeKalb aonltor experienced a flovaater problea which
wee corrected about 8:00 A. M. on July 2, 1982. The aonltor was allowed to
stabilize until about 12:20 P. M. at which else it was calibrated. Aa described
02/06 14:39
GA-3
7£09065 #03
-------
UNITED states environmental protection agency
- 3 -
above for che June 7, 1982 calibration, a i»ro-check was performed before and
after the calibration. The zero-checks and th« calibration pointa vera stable.
Ac most, a 0.5X recorder chart aeala adjustment was aad a on the mooitor. The
monitor was re turned to sampling ambient air about 2:40 P. M. There is no
reason to Invalidate soy ambient air data subsequent to this calibration. It
Is interesting to note that tha Conyers recorder chart trace compares favorably
to tha South DaKalb chart trace; tha only difference is that tba Conyers site
did aot measure concentrations aa high as tha DaKalb site.
Finally, Mr. Ledbetter's latter raises a question about residual ozone lingering
in the monitor and being measured along with ambient air after a calibration was
performed. Ibis issue was slao raised during the February 1, 1983 meeting. A
representative of the company which manufactured the monitor was quoted aa tha
source of this concept. So, Mr. Ballagaa and I called this representative, a Mr.
Sloan, and discusaed the natter with hla. He did not support that concept in
our conversation.
Ihe concept of raaidual ozone lingering In the capillaries of the monitor is not
even reaotely possible, for tha following reasons:
o The design of the monitor prohibits such a possibility.
o The stability of the zero- and span- checks demonstrate the absence
of residual ozone.
o The Federal reference and equivalent method determinations, 40 CFft 53,
would have Identified such a design inadequacy during the required monitor test-
ing. Such a determination would have prohibited this namitor from being designated
as either a Federal reference or equivalent method.
In conclusion, there is no sound basis for invslidatlng the ambient air osone data
collactod at the South DeKalb site on June 7, 1982-or'July1982. I recommend
that theae data be considered as valid and used at face-value.
Please, incorporate these coanents in Mr. Jeter's response to Mr. Ledbetter.
Doyle T. Brittain
ec: Janes H. Finger
Ray Hemphill
Bcc: Lee Tebo
Dave Hill
D.nRnTAIH:bh:ESD:X3197:2/3/83
CONCURREHCeS
svueoi. S
a*RNAMC 9
®ATe n
CT>A Pen" 11f0.1 (IMS OFFICIAL FILE COPT
GA-4
02/06 14:40 7209065
02/06 14:39
#04 OF 04
ft t' :>
-------
Alabama
AL-1
-------
VALIDATION OF THE 1980-1982 JEFFERSON COUNTY,
ALABAMA OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
June 28, 1983
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region IV
Athens, Georgia
AL-2
-------
SUMMARY
At the request of the Air and Waste Management Division, EPA Region IV, the
Environmental Services Division, EPA Region IV, evaluated the 1980-1982 ozone
and carbon monoxide data collected by the Jefferson County (Alabama) Bureau
of Environmental Health. These data are acceptable for decision-making pur-
poses. Violations of the ozone standard were measured at all monitoring sites.
Exceedances of the carbon monoxide eight-hour standard were measured at two
sites.
Carbon monoxide monitoring is not being performed where the general public
would be exposed to maximum concentrations. The carbon monoxide network
needs to be re-designed. This is a major issue.
During the data validation, several minor issues also became apparent. These
include the addition to or deletion from SAROAD, as appropriate, of certain
data, improved documentation, a monitoring system improvement, and instrument
replacement.
AL-3
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The 1980-1982 ozone and carbon monoxide data collected by the Jefferson County
(Alabama) Bureau of Environmental Health are acceptable for decision making
purposes. Violations of the ozone standard have been measured. Exceedances
of carbon monoxide standard have been measured.
Certain data were identified as being available but not in SAROAD. These need
to be entered. Certain data were identified in SAROAD which should not be.
These need to be deleted.
The current carbon monoxide network design does not provide for monitoring
the maximum concentrations to which the general public has access. EPA
Region IV needs to address this network design.
AL-4
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1980-1982 ozone and carbon monoxide data collected by the Jefferson County
(Alabama) Bureau of Environmental Health are summarized in Attachments 1 and 2.
They are valid and should be used for decision-making purposes.
Prudence needs to be exercised in the interpretation of carbon monoxide data
in Attachment 2. The Jefferson County Bureau of Environmental Health needs to
conduct a timely review of their carbon monoxide network and re-design it to
monitor areas where the general public has access to maximum concentrations.
EPA Region IV will provide assistance if necessary.
July 1, 1981, 0700-1300 hours, ozone data for site 01-1980-002 need to be deleted
from SAR0AD.
June 16, 1981, 1100 hours, ozone data for site 01-1300-003 need to be deleted
from SAR0AD.
May 10, 1982, 1200-2300 hours, ozone data for site 01-1300-003 need to be
entered into SAROAD.
Ozone data at site 01-1300-003 need to be deleted from SAROAD for:
Start Date Start Hour End Date End Hour
10/25/82
2200
10/26/82
1900
10/28/82
0300
10/28/82
2200
10/30/82
0000
11/3/82
0900
11/4/82
0900
11/5/82
1900
11/6/82
0700
11/7/82
1700
11/8/82
2000
11/9/82
1300
11/19/82
0000
11/19/82
2200
11/21/82
1400
11/22/82
2300
Carbon monoxide data for site 01-0380-025 for 10/10/80 - 1/1/81 need to be
entered into SAROAD.
Specific terminology needs to be used to document all causes for missing data.
Consideration should be given to using a two-liter surge bottle on all carbon
monoxide monitors which have a lot of recorder pen activity.
Consideration needs to be given to the replacement of air monitors on a phased m
basis over the next two or three years. Consideration should be given to replacing
them with monitors which do not require expensive of explosive expendables.
AL-5
-------
INTRODUCTION
On May 24, 1982, the Air and Waste Management Division of EPA Region IV
requested that the Environmental Services Division of EPA Region IV validate
the 1980-1982 ozone and carbon monoxide data in Jefferson County, Alabama.
This report describes the results of that validation. It provides conclusions
and recommendations for the use of those data and resolution of related issues.
AL-6
-------
DATA VALIDATION
The 1980-1982 ozone and carbon monoxide data collected by the Jefferson County
(Alabama) Bureau of Environmental Health were evaluated and their validity
determined. Information collected on March 8, 1983 during the annual system
audit was used. This information was supplemented by an on-site visit on
June 9, 1983. During the on-site visit, all periods of missing data were
accounted for, and all measurements approaching the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards were evaluated. Evaluation consisted of checking appropriate
records and recorder strip charts.
Attachment 1 lists all elevated ozone measurements at each monitoring site
and the corresponding measurements at the other two sites. In summary,
Attachment 1 shows that:
1. A number of violations of the standard have occurred each year.
2. Violations of the standard at one site are, in most cases, accompanied
by elevated measurements at the other sites.
3. The highest concentrations measured each year were:
Year Site Number Concentration (PPM)
1980
01-1300-003
0.161
1981
01-1980-002
0.166
1982
01-1300-003
0.169
The ozone data for sites 01-1300-003, 01-1980-002, and 01-1300-003 for 1980-1982
have been validated and may be used for decision-making purposes.
Attachment 2 lists all elevated carbon monoxide measurements at each monitoring
site and the corresponding measurements at the other sites. In summary,
Attachment 2 shows that:
1. Exceedances of the 8-hour standard have been measured every year.
2. The magnitude of the exceedances has not been very high.
The carbon monoxide data for these sites have been validated and may be used
for decision-making purposes.
AL-7
-------
Attachment 3 lists some important dates which must be considered in interpreting
the data in Attachment 2. Note that site 01-0380-012 operated only eleven days
during which four exceedances of the standard were measured. Note that site
01-0380-024 operated only when exceedances were least likely to be measured. It
remains unknown what the concentrations would have been if all of these sites had
been fully operational for 1980 - 1982.
Attachment 3 also identifies each type of monitoring site. In summary, Attachment 3
shows that:
1. There is no microscale monitoring in a downtown street canyon.
2. There is very limited monitoring where maximum concentrations would be
expected.
Prudence must be exercised in the interpretation of carbon monoxide data collected
by the Jefferson County Bureau of Environmental Health.
RELATED ISSUES
During the on-site visit, several issues became apparent which need to be addressed.
These involve monitoring data and other related issues.
Data
Ozone data are in SAROAD for July 1, 1981 from 0700-1300 hours for site 01-1980-002
A power failure occurred during this time. These data need to be deleted from SAROAD.
Ozone data in SAROAD for June 16, 1981 at 1100 hours for site 01-1300-003. A
precision check was performed during this time. These data need to be deleted from
SAROAD.
Ozone data are available in the Jefferson County Bureau of Environmental Health for
May 10, 1982 from 1200-2300 hours for site 01-1300-003. These data are not in SAROAD.
They need to be entered into SAROAD.
An obvious localized interference caused periods of excessive ozone measurements
at site 01-1300-003. The recorder chart trace and measurements are characteristic
of what would happen if someone did some electric arc welding at the site. These
- 2 -
AL-8
-------
data need to be deleted from SAROAD. They include:
Start Start End End
Date Hour Date Hour
10/25/82
2200
10/26/82
1900
10/28/82
0300
10/28/82
2200
10/30/82
0000
11/3/82
0900
11/4/82
0900
11/5/82
1900
11/6/82
0700
11/7/82
1700
11/8/82
2000
11/9/82
1300
11/19/82
0000
11/19/82
2200
11/21/82
1400
11/22/82
2300
Carbon monoxide data are available in the Jefferson County Bureau of Environmental
Health for 10/10/80 - 1/1/81 for site 01-0380-025. These data are not in SAROAD.
They need to be entered into SAROAD.
A unique situation arose at site 01-0380-028 because of the electrical grounding
of the carbon monoxide monitor to the site shelter and the shelter to the surround-
ing chain link fence. From 0000-1100 hours on a number of different days, the
chain link fence served as an aerial and received radio signals which were plotted
out on the recorder strip charts. These data have been invalidated and the
grounding changed. No further action is required.
Missing data records use general terms to document missing data. General terminology
is of limited value during data validation. More specific terminology is needed.
OTHER ISSUES
Some carbon monoxide recorder strip chart traces show so much pen activity that it
is difficult to read the charts. A two-liter surge bottle could be installed in the
sample inlet line to dampen the sample measurements. The surge bottle must have an
all glass or teflon surface in all areas accessible to the sample air. Care must
be exercised in selecting the point to install the bottle so it will not explode
or implode. Consideration should be given to using a surge bottle on carbon monoxide
monitors which have a lot of recorder pen activity.
- 3 -
AL-9
-------
The normal life expectancy of an ambient air monitor is five years. Jefferson
County has experienced considerable difficulty in keeping the carbon monoxide
monitors operational even though they are less than five years old. This is
more of a reflection on the monitors than on the Jefferson County personnel.
The ozone monitors are approaching the age when they will become more unreliable.
Plans need to be made now for a phased in replacement of these monitors before
they become resource intensive to keep operational. Consideration needs to be
given to replacing these monitors with some type which does not require expensive
or explosive expendables, such as cylinders of ethylene.
A review of the carbon monoxide monitoring network is urgently needed. Monitors
which have been generating relatively low concentrations need to be relocated
into areas where maximum concentrations would be expected. Reportedly this has
been attempted but getting permission to use the desired sites has not been
possible. If permission can not be obtained in existing buildings, Jefferson
County may have to resort to portable buildings located on public right of way
or other public property.
- 4 -
AL-10
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
OZONE DATA
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
1
3=
r~
i
START
YliAR
MONTH
DAY
HOUR
PPM 0 AT
PPM 0 AT
PPM 0~ AT
01-1300-003
01-1980-002
01-3200-002
1980
July
1
1200
0.118
0.124
1300
0.133
0.142
1400
0.138
0.147
1500
0.117
0.132
1600
0.112
0.127
8
1000
0.087
0.123
1100
• 0.098
0.139
1200
0.103
0.146
15
1000
0.122
1100
0.102
0.142
1200
0.107
0.150
1300
0.111
0.138
1400
0.127
0.133
1500
0.157
0.122
1600
0.132
0.105
18
1100
0.143
0.118
1200
0.156
1300
0.129
0.102
1400
0.125
0.101
1500
0.127
0.103
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
OZONE DATA
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
2
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
HOUR
PPM 03 AT
01-130U-003
PPM 0-j AT
01-1980-002
PPM 03 AT
01-3200-002
30
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
0.082
0.080
0.067
0.067
0.078
0.082
0. 132
0.132
0. 118
0.114
0.112
0.125
0.116
0.096
0.083
0.086
0.110
0.111
31
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
0.093
0.092
0.083
0.096
0.091
0.088
0.122
0. 135
0.143
0.142
0.134
0.122
0.102
0.107
0.123
0.127
0.121
0.093
August
8
1000
1100
1200
0.123
0.161
0.123
0.098
0.102
0.115
0.106
0.108
0.112
14
1100
1200
1300
1400
0.080
0.083
0.087
0.073
0.096
0.121
0.143
0. 147
0.123
0.138
0.124
0.111
1981
March
27
1300
1400
1500
0.081
0.077
0.072
0.127
0.124
0.121
0.094
0.091
0.087
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
OZONE DATA
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
3
START
PPM 03 AT
PPM 03 AT
PPM 03 AT
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
HOUR
01-1300-003
01-1300-002
01-1300-002
1981
April
27
1300
0.086
0.096
0.126
1400
0.069
0.132
0.121
1500
0.067
0.145
0.098
May
22
1200
0.094
0.129
0.124
1300
0.099
0.140
0.127
1400
0.103
0.149
0. 142
1500
0.106
0. 159
0.148
1600
0.110
0.161
0.141
1700
0.097
0.121
0.108
23
1100
0.079
0.131
0.084
1200
0.078
0.124
0.084
June
30
1100
0.084
0.097
0.124
July
11
1300
0.085
0.148
0.103
1400
0.093
0.136
0.095
23
1100
0.140 7
0.086
0.103
24
0900
0.094
0.103
0.129
1000
0.094
0.148
0. 128
1100
0.089
0.166
0.112
1200
0.090
0.133
0.114
1300
0.089
0.120
0.109
27
1500
0.050
0.120
0.079
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
OZONE DATA
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
HOUR
PPM 03 AT
01-1300-003
PPM 03 AT
01-1300-002
PPM 03 AT
01-1380-002
1981
August
4
1100
1200
0.080
0.074
0. 125
0.137
0.108
0. Ill
1300
0.072
0.127
0.104
September
21
1300
0.074
0.131
0.101
1400
0.073
0.148
0.092
1500
0.076
0.148
0.080
30
1300
0.104
0.089
0.125
1400
0.098
0.110
0.124
1500
0.089
0.157
0.126
1600
0.080
0.160
0.075
October
5
1600
0.084
0.126
0.088
November
8
2100
0.128
0.003
0.003
1982
May
11
1200
0.129
0.108
0.115
1300
0.138
0.107
0.111
1400
0.118
0.117
0.106
1500
0.101
0.126
0.099
1600
0.099
0.122
0.093
June
8
1200
0.138
0.094
0.108
1300
0.15C
0.099
0.111
1400
0.169
0.104
0.124
1500
0.167
0.098
0.126
1600
0.128
0.069
0.119
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
OZONE DATA
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
5
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
HOUR
PPM 03 AT
01-1300-003
PPM 03 AT
01-1300-002
PPM 03 AT
01-1300-002
1982
June
25
August
17
1100
0.110
1200
0.107
1300
0. 123
1400
0.122
1500
0.147
1600
0.142
1200
0.084
0. 100
0.100
0.095
0.080
0.069
0.082
0.057
0.126
0.138
0.138
0.123
0.107
0.102
0.127
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
(8-Hour Running Average)
YUAR
MONTH
DAY
START
Ug/M3 CO AT
mg/M3 CO AT
mg/M3 CO AT
TIB/M3 CO AT
mg/M3 CO AT
ng/M3 CO AT
HOUR
01-0380-012
01-0380-0 24
01-0380-025
01-0380-027
01-0380-028
01-0380-003
1980
January
2
0700
10.4
4.6
0800
11.0
5.0
0900
10.7
5.4
1000
10.2
5.8
1981
November
13
2300
5.A
3.8
10.8
5.7
0000
5.9
3.9
12.2
6.6
0100
6.1
3.7
12.2
7.2
0200
6.2
4.0
11.5
7.6
0300
5.8
4.1
11.0
7.9
1982
Oc tober
27
0600
5.3
10.4
1.7
0700
5.7
11.1
2.3
0800
5.5
10.8
2.7
November
9
0000
5.6
10.0
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
SITE INFORMATION
DATE SITE DATE SITE
SITE NUMBER PARAMETER STARTED UP SHUT DOWN SITE TYPE
01-0380-012
CO
1/1/80
1/11/80
SLAMS; Middle Scale; Category A;
Emergency episode site
01-0380-024
CO
3/20/80
10/26/80
NAMS: Micro Scale; Category A;
Street Canyon
01-0380-025
CO
10/10/80
SLAMS; Middle Scale; Category B;
Population oriented
01-0380-027
CO
6/8/80
SLAMS; Neighborhood Scale; Category I
Population oriented
01-0380-028
CO
3/17/81
NAMS; Micro Scale; Category A;
Max intersection
01-1300-003
CO
2/1/75
NAMS; Neighborhood Scale;
Category B; Population Oriented
01-1300-003
°3
3/21/80
SLAMS; Neighborhood Scale;
Category B; 12 kilometers upwind
01-1980-002
°3
7/21/80
NAMS; Urban Scale; Category A;
32 kilometers downwind
01-3200-002
°J
6/25/80
NAMS; Neighborhood Scale; Category B
13 kilometers downwind
-------
Florida
FL-1
-------
Validation of the 1980-1982 Miami Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide Data
May 26, 1983
Environmental Services Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Athens, Georgia
FL-2
-------
SUMMARY
At the request of the Air and Waste Management Division, EPA Region IV, the
Environmental Services Division, EPA Region IV, evaluated the 1980-1982 ozone
and carbon monoxide data collected by the Metropolitan Dade County Department
of Environmental Resources. These data are acceptable for EPA decision-making
purposes. Violations of the ozone standard were measured at both monitoring
sites. Violations of the carbon monoxide eight-hour standard were measured at
four of the five monitoring sites. EPA needs to act on these data.
During the data validation, several related issues became apparent. Minor
issues involved the addition to or deletion from SAROAD, as appropriate, of
certain data. Major issues involved the lack of required traceability of
calibration standards, worn out equipment, and the shortage of personnel needed
to collect the quality and quantity of data needed for EPA decision making
purposes. Pending resolution of these issues, the Environmental Services Divi-
sion will conduct quarterly systems audits of the Dade County ambient air
monitoring program jointly with the Florida Department of Environmental Regula-
tion.
FL-3
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The 1980-1982 ozone and carbon monoxide data collected by the Metropolitan
Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management are acceptable
for EPA decision making purposes. Violations of the ozone and carbon monox-
ide standards have been measured. The measurement of a violation at one site
may or may not correspond to the measurement of a violation at other sites.
The measurement of a violation at one site may not indicate a violation at
other sites.
Certain data were identified as being available but not in SAROAD. These need
to be entered. Certain data were identified in SAROAD which should not be.
These need to be deleted.
Inadequate resources are available in the ambient air monitoring program to
ensure data of acceptable quality and quantity are available for decision mak-
ing purposes. EPA will be conducting quarterly system audits of this program
until this situation has been improved.
FL-4
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1980-1982 ozone and carbon monoxide data collected by the Metropolitan
Dade County Department of Environmental Resources are summarized in Attach-
ments 1 and 2. They are valid and should be used by EPA for decision-making
purposes.
January 1980 ozone data for site 10-0860-021 need to be entered into SAROAD.
March 17-23, 1982 ozone data for site 10-0860-023 need to be entered into
SAROAD.
April 22-30, 1980 ozone data for site 10-0860-023 need to be deleted from
SAROAD.
Dade County needs to develop the capability to maintain current the traceabil-
lty of their ozone calibration system.
Dade County needs to use only NBS calibration standards or calibration stand-
ards that are traceable to NBS according to EPA Protocol 2.
Dade County needs to inventory all ambient air monitors needed to operate
their program and replace those over five years old.
Dade County needs to assign at least two additional persons to the ambient
air monitoring program to conduct field type monitoring activities.
The Florida Department of Environmental Management needs to work closely with
EPA and Dade County to improve the Dade County ambient air monitoring program.
FL-5
-------
INTRODUCTION
On April 19, 1983, the Air and Waste Management Division of EPA Region IV
requested that the Environmental Services Division of EPA Region IV validate
the 1980-1982 ozone and carbon monoxide data in Metropolitan Dade County
Florida. This report describes the results of that validation. It provides
conclusions and recommendations for the use of those data and resolution of
related issues.
FL-6
-------
DATA VALIDATION
The 1980-1982 ozone and carbon monoxide data collected by the Metropolitan
Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management were evaluated
and their validity determined. Information collected on April 22, 1983
during the annual system audit was used. This information was supplemented
by an on-site visit on April 28, 1983. During the on-site visit, all
periods of missing data were accounted for, and all measurements approaching
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards were evaluated. Evaluation con-
sisted of checking appropriate records and recorder strip charts.
Attachment 1 lists all elevated ozone measurements at either of the two monitor-
ing sites and the corresponding measurements at the other site. Site 10-086-021
is a NAMS site located at Krome Avenue and Thompson Park, U. S. Highway 27,
approximately thirty miles downwind of Miami. Site 10-0860-023 is a NAMS site
located on Virginia Key, the eastern most part of Miami. In summary, Attachment
1 shows that:
1. Elevated measurements at site 10-0860-021 may be accompanied by
relatively low measurements at site 10-0860-023, such as on
August 27, 1980 and May 13, 1981.
2. Elevated measurements at site 10-0860-023 may be accompanied by
relatively low measurements at site 10-0860-021, such as on
October 20, 1980; August 2, 1982; and December 23-24, 1982.
3. Elevated measurements may be measured at both sites at approxi-
mately the same time, such as on September 29, 1980; April 30, 1981;
May 16, 1981; and May 29, 1981.
4. A violation of the standard occurred at site 10-0860-021 m 1981.
Violations at site 10-0860-023 occured in 1980, 1981, and 1982.
5. Violations at one time or site are not significantly different
from violations at another time or site.
Thus, elevated measurements at one site may not be used to confirm the presence
or absence of elevated measurements at the other site.
A review of raw data shows that elevated measurements at site 10-0860-023 on
December 23, 1982 last until December 27, 1982 with peak concentrations measured
at midnight on December 23, 1982. Monitor operational records and recorder
strip chart traces indicate the instrument has not received all of the routine
service necessary to operate at its best. However, these records indicate the
instrument was operating properly so there is no reason to question the data
generated.
The ozone data for sites 10-0860-021 and 10-0860-023 for 1980-1982 nave been
validated ana may be used for decision-making purposes.
FL-7
-------
Attachment 2 lists all elevated carbon monoxide measurements at each of the
monitoring sites and the corresponding measurements at the other sites.
Attachment 3 identifies the location of these sites. In summary, Attachment
2 shows that:
1. Site 10-2700-018 is where the standard is most frequently violated.
Site 10-2700-021 is the only site where no violations were measured.
2. The highest violations measured were:
3. In 1980, two sites were operated but only one measured violations of
the standard. In 1981, five sites were operated at least a portion of
the year with four measuring violations. In 1982, five sites were operated
at least a portion of the year with two measuring violations.
4. Elevated measurements at one site may be accompanied by elevated
measurements at other sites, such as on November 20, 1981.
5. Elevated measurements at one site may be accompanied by relatively
low measurements at other sites, such as on January 19, 1982; and
January 28, 1982.
Thus, elevated measurements at one site may not be used to confirm the presence
or absence of elevated measurements at the other sites.
Carbon monoxide data for sites 10-2700-002, 10-2700-018, 10-2700-019, 10-2700-
021, and 10-2700-022 have been validated and may be used for decision-making
purposes.
RELATED ISSUES
During the on-site visit, several issues became apparent which need to be
addressed. These involve monitoring data and resources.
Dade County has January 1980 ozone data for site 10-0860-021. However, these
data are not in SAR0AD; they need to be entered.
Dade County has March 17-23, 1982 ozone data for site 10-0860-023. However,
these data are not in SAROAD; they need to be entered.
Dade Countv did not operate the ozone monitor at site 10-0860-023 for
April 22-30, 1980. However, data are in SAROAD for this period; thev need
to be deleted.
YEAR
1980
1981
1982
SITE
10-2700-018
10-2700-019
10-2700-019
8-HOUR AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION(Mg/M )
17.3
21.7
14.6
Data
FL-8
-------
Resources
Dade County does not have the capability to maintain current the traceability
of their ozone calibration system. The Florida Department of Environmental
Resources-does not have adequate resources to provide this service as often
as required. Dade County needs to purchase a primary ozone standard.
Dade County does not have sulfur dioxide or nitrogen dioxide permeation tubes
which are traceable to NBS according to EPA Protocol 2. At the time of the on-
site visit, Dade County did not have any type of nitrogen dioxide permeation
tube on-hand. All calibration and audit standards must be either purchased
from NBS or be traceable to NBS according to EPA Protocol 2. This recommenda-
tion was made during the 1982 system audit and has still not been adequately
addressed.
Monitoring equipment are rapidly becoming outdated. The normal life expectancy
of ambient air monitors is five years beyond which they become resource inten-
sive to keep operational and have excessive down-time. One Bendix carbon monoxide
monitor is six years old and is not operational. One Thermoelectron sulfur
dioxide monitor is eight years old and is requiring excessive repairs. Dade
County needs to inventory all ambient air monitors needed to operate their
program and replace those over five years old.
The Dade County ambient air monitoring program is understaffed. The shortage
of personnel does not allow available personnel to perform adequate preventive
maintenance. Instrument failure results in remedial maintenance with a corres-
ponding reduction in data quality and quantity. There simply aren't enough
monitoring personnel to visit the sites as often as necessary or to spend the
time actually needed once at the sites. At least two additional persons are
needed to perform field type monitoring activities.
EPA expects Dade County to commit sufficient resources to the ambient air
monitoring program so that data of acceptable quality and quantity are available
for planning ana decision making purposes. Pending evidence of this commitment,
EPA will conduct quarterly system audits of the Dade County ambient air monitor-
program. The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation will be encouraged
to jointly conduct these system audits.
n-a
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
SELECT OZONE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
1
START
PPM 03
PPM O3
K
MONTH
DAY
HOUR
At 10-08o0-021
At 10-0860-023
)
August
22
1200
0.120
1300
0.155
1^.00
0.130
27
1300
0.120
0.020
1400
0.105
0.020
September
29
1300
0.015
0.130
1400
0.015
0.120
1800
0.075
0.105
October
20
1200
0.015
0.130
1300
0.025
0.150
1400
0.035
0.140
April
30
1200
0.050
0.125
1300
0.050
0.150
1400
0.050
0.120
1500
0.055
0.090
1600
0.100
0.070
1700
0.110
0.050
May
13
1500
0. 130
0.025
16
1300
0.060
0.090
1400
0.070
0.080
1500
0. 105
0.070
1600
0. 130
0.055
1700
0. 115
0.050
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
SELECT OZONE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
2
START
PPM 03
PPM 03
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
HOUR
At 10-0860-021
At 10-0860-023
1981
May
29
1200
0.035
0.130
1100
0.040
0.140
1400
0.085
0.080
1982
August
2
1200
0.015
0.140
1300
0.015
0.120
December
23
2200
0.005
(0A25^k
2300
0.005
\01140_y
24
0000
0.005
0.125
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
M1AML, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
3
Mu/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YI-AU
MOM III
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2 700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
j yao
.ScpLi.'iiilnu"
2
1600
10.5
1.8
1700
il.4
2.2
1800
11.2
2.3
1900
10.6
2.2
2000
10.3
2.2
4
1400
10.4
0.3
1500
10.8
0.3
1600
11.4
0.3
1700
11.1
0.3
] 800
10.3
0.3
5
1600
10.4
0.6
1700
10.5
0.6
1800
10.4
0.6
8
1100
10.3
1.9
1200
13.2
2.0
1300
14.7
2.0
1400
15.7
1.4
1500
16.1
0,8
1600
17.0
0.7
1700
If). 1
0.7
1800
15.2
0.6
1900
13.2
0.5
2000
10.4
0.4
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARHON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
19 HO
Sep Lumber
9
1300
11.1
2.0
1400
12.1
1.7
1500
11.8
1.5
1600
12.6
1.7
1700
12.6
1.8
1800
11.6
1.6
10
J A 00
11.4
2.2
1500
12.0
1.8
1600
13.1
1.7
1700
12.7
1.7
1800
11.9
1.6
1900
10.9
1.5
19
1600
11.2
0.9
1700
11.0
0.9
1800
10.4
0.9
19 HO
OcLober
6
1100
10.0
2.4
1200
11.7
2.5
1300
13.2
2.5
1400
14.2
2.4
1500
13.7
2.0
1600
12.7
1.6
1700
12.2
1.3
1800
10.5
1.2
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
SLLIiCT CAMION MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLOK1DA
(8-HOUR AVEKAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAK
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT ] 0-
AT 10-
HOUR
2 700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
L980
October
7
1300
10.4
1.0
1400
11.4
1.0
1500
11.6
1.0
1600
11.9
1.1
1700
11.4
1.1
1800
10.4
1.1
8
1500
10.0
1.6
1600
10.2
1.8
1700
11.6
1800
11.6
1900
10.1
9
1200
10.4
1300
11.9
1400
12.9
1500
13.2
1600
14.0
1700
14.7
1800
13.4
1900
11.1
10
1200
10.3
1300
11.4
1400
12.2
1 500
12.9
1600
12.5
1700
12.3
1800
11.4
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARIJON MONOXTDE DATA
MLAMI, FLORIDA
(8-1I0UR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YI.AR
HON III
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2 700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1980
October
13
1600
10.2
1700
10.7
1800
10.3
14
1300
10.5
1400
11.5
1500
10.9
1600
10.1
15
1800
11.7
1900
10.2
16
1300
10.5
1400
11.6
1500
1L.6
2.5
1600
12.0
2.8
1700
12.9
2.9
] 800
12.4
2.9
1900
10.1
2.9
17
1200
10.0
3.1
1300
11 .7
3.1
1400
12.8
3.2
1500
13.6
1600
LA - 7
1700
15.3
1800
14.5
1900
12.9
2000
11.2
-------
5
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CAR110N MONOXTDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
~n
r~
i
t—•
en
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
HON 111
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1980
Oc tubt'r
24
1100
10.4
1200
10.9
1300
11.7
1400
11.9
1500
11.0
2.2
27
1700
10.4
1.3
31
1300
10.0
2.4
1400
11.1
2.4
1500
12.5
2.3
1600
12.4
2.4
1700
11.6
2.4
J 800
10.1
3.0
1980
November
3
1500
10.8
1.2
1600
11.0
1.2
7
1600
10.0
1.3
1700
11.2
1.4
1800
11 .2
1.7
1900
11.4
1.9
2000
10.5
1.9
11
1400
11.7
0.7
1500
13.2
0.8
1600
13.9
1.1
1700
14.6
1.4
18 00
14.0
1.5
1900
13. J
1.5
-------
6
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARHON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
HOUR
Mg/M CO
AT 10-
2700-002
Mg/M CO
AT 10-
2700-018
Mg/M CO
AT 10-
2700-019
Mg/M CO
AT 10-
2700-021
Mg/M CO
AT 10-
2700-022
1980
November
11
2000
12.0
1.4
12
1400
10.2
0.3
1500
11.4
0.3
1600
11.6
0.4
1700
11.9
0.5
1800
11.9
0.5
1900
10.4
0.5
19
1400
10.0
0.3
1500
11.3
0.3
1600
12.2
0.3
1700
1J.1
0.4
1800
12.8
0.5
1900
] 2.1
0.5
2000
11.0
0.5
20
1500
10.1
0.4
1600
10.9
0.4
1700
li .6
0.6
1800
13.1
0.8
1900
12.8
1.0
2000
LI .9
1.2
2100
10.6
1.4
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
SliLliCT C.AKIION MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8—HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YI'.AU
MON'I 11
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1980
November
21
1300
10.2
1.6
1400
31.8
1.7
1500
13.9
1.8
1600
15.0
1.8
1700
15.9
1.9
1800
16.5
2.1
1900
16.2
2.2
2000
14.9
2.2
2100
13.6
2.2
2200
12.2
2.1
2300
10.1
1.9
25
1200
10.2
2.4
1300
12.1
2.5
1400
14.3
2.7
1500
16.1
2.4
1600
17.0
2.0
1700
16.6
1.8
1800
16.7
1.7
1900
15.9
1.8
2000
14.2
1.6
2] 00
12.3
1.4
2200
10.3
1.4
28
] 700
10.1
0.5
1800
10.8
0.5
1900
11.0
0.5
2000
10.4
0.5
29
1800
10.1
0.6
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
Slil.liCT CAKMON MONDX I Uli DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-IIOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MON111
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2 700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
19 80
December
1
1200
10.9
5.2
1300
11.9
5.2
1400
12.7
5.1
1500
12.9
4.5
1600
11.9
3.2
1700
11.3
1.4
1800
11.5
1.2
1900
11.1
1.3
2
1200
10.4
3.8
1300
10.9
3.7
1400
11.4
3.5
1500
11.5
3.0
1600
10.6
2.5
3
1400
10.9
1.7
1500
12.4
1.6
1600
12.9
1.5
1700
13.1
1.5
1800
12.8
1.6
1900
] 2. 3
1.6
2000
11.1
1.5
4
1300
10.1
1.5
1400
11.5
1.3
1500
12.3
1.1
1600
12.4
1.2
1700
12.4
1.3
1800
12.0
1.2
1900
11 .2
1.1
-------
9
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARHON MONOXTDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
i
ro
o
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mr/M CO
Mg/M CO
YLAK
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1980
December
5
1400
10.1
1.3
1500
11.6
1.4
1600
11.7
1.4
1700
12.0
1.4
1800
11.9
1.4
1900
11.6
1.3
2000
10.5
1.2
6
1700
10.0
1.2
1800
10.6
1.3
1900
10.1
1.3
8
1600
10.1
1.2
1700
10.3
1.3
1800
]0. 6
1.5
1900
10.1
1.5
11
1200
10.A
3.8
1300
12.1
3.6
1400
12.9
3.1
1500
13.4
1.8
1600
13.9
1.3
1700
14.7
1.6
1800
15.1
1.9
1900
] 1.7
1.9
2000
12.]
1.9
2100
10.6
1.8
-------
10
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CAKIJON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
HOUR
Mg/M CO
AT 10-
2700-002
Mg/M CO
AT 10-
2700-018
Mg/M CO
AT 10-
2700-019
Mg/M CO
AT 10-
2700-021
Mg/M CO
AT 10-
2700-022
] 980
December
12
1400
11.1
1.7
1500
13.6
1.7
1600
14.8
1.6
1700
15.4
1.6
1800
15.8
1.6
1900
15.5
1.6
2000
14.2
1.4
2100
12.7
1.2
2200
11.5
1.0
13
1400
10.7
1.9
1500
12.1
1.8
1600
13.7
1.6
1700
13.9
1.4
1800
14.4
1.3
1900
13.7
1.5
2000
12.6
2.1
2100
U .4
2.9
2200
10.4
3.5
17
1500
10.1
0.4
1600
11.0
0.4
1700
11.7
0.5
1800
11.8
0.6
1900
10.8
0.7
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARItON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-1IOUR AVERAGE)
i
ro
ro
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
Mi IN I 11
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1980
December
18
1400
10.4
1.6
1500
11.2
1.5
1600
12.4
1.5
1700
13.5
1.8
1800
13.7
1.9
1900
13.1
1.9
2000
12.0
1.9
2100
11.1
1.9
19
1100
11.1
3.8
1200
13.1
3.7
1300
14.5
3.7
1400
14.8
3.2
1500
14.7
2.2
1600
13.9
1.5
1700
14.6
1.2
1800
14.2
1.2
1900
12.4
1.4
2000
10.5
1.9
22
1200
11 .9
1.5
1300
12.9
1.6
1400
1 3.9
1.8
1500
14.3
1.7
1600
14.3
1.7
1700
14.9
1.5
1800
1 3.9
1.4
1900
12.1
1.3
2000
10.4
1.4
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARHON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-UOUR AVERAGE)
Hg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAH
Mum 11
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2 700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
19M0
Dt'i ember
24
1200
11.1
1.0
1300
13.1
1.2
1400
14.6
1.3
1500
16.0
1.3
1600
17.3
1.3
1700
18.5
1.5
1800
17.3
1.8
1900
15.5
1.8
2000
13.3
1.8
2100
11.6
2.0
2200
10.1
2.0
26
1400
11.5
0.6
1500
12.7
0.7
1600
13.2
0.8
1700
13.1
1.0
1800
12.4
1.1
1900
10.9
1.2
29
1700
10.1
1.2
1800
10.1
1.5
31
1500
10.5
1.2
1600
11.1
1.2
1700
11.2
1.2
1800
11.0
1.5
1900
10.4
1.9
-------
13
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CAHIJON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1981
January
2
1400
10.8
2.4
1500
11.8
1.9
1600
12.9
1.4
1700
14.4
1.4
1800
14.7
1.5
1900
13.9
1.6
2000
11.8
1.6
2100
10.7
1.7
5
1300
10.7
1.9
1400
11.6
1.9
1500
12.1
1.6
1600
11.9
1.4
1700
12.4
1.4
1800
12.2
1.5
1900
10.9
1.5
6
1700
10.0
1.4
8
1500
10.0
1.2
1600
9.8
1.2
1700
10.4
1.2
1800
10.4
1.4
9
1700
10.6
1.2
13
1700
11.4
1.7
1800
11.7
2.0
1900
11.3
2.4
2000
10.5
2.4
-------
14
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOX IDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8—HOUR AVERAGE)
YLAK
MONTH
DAY
START
HOUR
Mg/M CO
AT 10-
2700-002
Mg/M CO
AT 10-
2700-018
Mg/M CO
AT 10-
2700-019
Mg/M CO
AT 10-
2700-021
Mg/M CO
AT 10-
2700-022
1981
January
15
0800
6.6
13.4
11.4
0900
8.8
14.7
13.7
1000
9.9
15.0
13.4
1100
10.1
15.2
13.1
1200
10.0
15.0
12.8
1300
9.8
14.6
12.4
1400
10.4
13.6
11.6
1500
9.8
10.6
8.6
23
1300
1.4
10.0
1.8
1400
1.4
11.2
1.7
1500
1.4
11.1
1.4
1600
1.2
11.3
1.4
1700
1.0
11.9
1.7
1800
0.9
11.6
1.7
1900
0.9
10.4
1.8
26
1300
0.9
10.2
1.2
1400
0.9
11.5
1.0
1500
0.8
12.0
0.6
1600
0.6
12.4
0.5
1700
0.4
12.7
0.6
1800
0.3
12.7
1.2
1900
0.4
12.0
1.9
2000
0.5
11.1
2.3
2100
0.6
10.5
2.5
-------
15
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
i
IS3
-------
16
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CAR1I0N MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8—HOUR AVERAGE)
Hfc/n co
Mg/M CO
Mg/M3 CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
198L
February
23
1300
0.3
11.9
1.7
1400
0.3
13.2
1.9
1500
0. 3
13.4
1.8
1600
0.3
12.7
1.5
1700
0.3
12.7
1.2
1800
0.3
11.8
1.3
1900
0.3
10.1
1.3
25
1800
1.4
10.0
1.5
26
1400
2.3
10.1
3.1
-
1500
1.9
10.4
2.4
1600
1.7
9.7
1.7
1700
1.4
10.3
1.6
1800
1.3
10.6
1.6
1900
1.2
10.0
1.6
27
1300
0.4
10.2
2.2
1400
0.5
11.4
2.2
1500
0.7
12.0
1.9
1600
0.8
] 2.4
1.4
1700
0.8
12.6
1.4
1800
0.8
13.2
1.4
1900
0.9
12.7
1.4
2000
0.9
11.4
1.5
2100
1.1
10.3
1.8
-------
17
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARHON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YLAK
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1981
Mtircli
3
1400
10.6
1.2
1500
11.3
1.2
1600
11.8
1.2
1700
12.1
1.3
1800
11.6
1.3
1900
10.6
1.3
A|i r il
6
1J00
1.7
10.8
1400
1.6
11.6
1500
1.4
11.6
1600
1.4
11.4
1700
1.3
10.6
1800
1.2
10.0
7
1500
1.1
10.0
1600
1.2
10.6
1.8
1700
1.2
10.4
1.8
May
22
1400
1.3
10.4
2.5
1500
1.2
10.8
2.6
1600
1.0
11.4
2.6
1700
0.9
10.4
2.5
August.
14
1500
10.2
1600
11.1
1700
11.1
1800
10.1
2.2
-------
18
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/N CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START'
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1981
August
25
1500
13.3
2.5
4.0
1600
12.7
2.4
3.8
1700
11.9
2.2
3.7
1800
10.2
2.2
3.1
31
1400
1.1
10.4
1.9
4.4
1500
0.8
10.4
2.1
4.2
1600
0.9
10.8
2.2
4.4
1700
0.8
10.1
2.2
3.7
September
1
1200
2.1
10.5
2.3
4.2
1300
2.4
11.8
2.5
4.7
1400
2.6
12.5
2.5
5.2
1500
2.4
12.7
2.8
5.3
1600
2.3
14.4
2.9
5.5
1700
2.2
14.8
3.0
5.2
1800
2.1
13.2
3.1
5.1
1900
2.2
11.4
3.3
4.8
2000
2.3
10.1
3.2
4.6
2
1100
10.2
2.8
4.9
1200
12.4
3.0
5.1
1300
14.2
3.3
5.1
1400
14.8
2.9
4.7
1500
13.8
2.5
3.8
1600
13.1
2.5
3.5
1700
12.7
2.6
3.2
1800
11.4
2.5
2.9
1900
10.1
2.4
2.6
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CAKUON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
198 L
September
3
1500
0.3
10.3
2.8
3.4
1600
0.4
9.9
2.9
3.2
1700
0.4
10.4
3.0
2.9
4
1300
2.4
10.4
4.0
4.5
1400
1.8
11.5
3.4
4.0
1500
1.0
11.2
2.8
3.2
1600
0.7
10.4
2.6
2.7
17U0
0.8
10.5
2.5
2.6
1800
0.7
10.7
2.6
2.4
23
1400
10.6
2.0
4.2
1500
11.6
1.9
3.7
1600
11.6
1.9
3.5
1700
0.3
12.0
1.8
3.2
1800
0.3
11.6
1.8
2.5
24
1500
1.2
10.9
1.7
2.4
1600
1.2
10.9
1.7
2.5
17 00
1.2
11.2
1.7
2.4
1800
1.2
10.9
1.8
2.1
25
1400
2.0
10.0
2.9
3.2
1500
2.2
10.5
3.5
4.2
1600
2.7
10.3
4.3
4.5
28
1300
2.8
10.6
4.7
3.2
1400
1.7
11.0
3.7
3.1
1500
1.0
11.5
2.7
2.9
1600
1.0
12.1
2.6
2.7
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
SEI.ECT CAMION MONOX TDli DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Hg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1981
SepLember
28
1700
0.9
11.7
2.7
2.4
I9ai
Oi.iober
2
1200
2.4
11.6
2.4
4.8
1300
2.2
12.1
2.6
4.7
1400
1.8
11.9
2.3
4.3
1500
1.4
11.4
2.1
3.8
1600
1.4
10.4
2.0
3.7
5
1200
0.8
10.1
2.2
0.3
1.5
1300
0.8
11.4
2.4
0.3
1.5
1400
0.7
12.0
2.5
0.3
1.7
1500
0.5
12.0
2.7
0.3
1.6
1600
0.4
11.9
2.7
0.3
1.7
1700
0.3
11.4
2.7
0.3
1.4
13
1300
1.1
10.7
2.4
2.6
1400
1.0
11.1
2.2
2.4
1500
0.9
10.9
2.3
2.2
1600
0.7
10.9
2.4
2.0
14
1500
0.3
10.4
1.7
1.4
1600
0.3
10.5
1.7
1.4
16
1300
1.3
10.0
2.2
1.8
2.9
1400
l.l
10.6
2.2
1.7
2.9
1500
0.9
10.9
2.3
1.6
3.1
1600
0.9
11.9
2.4
1.6
3.2
1700
0.9
12.1
2.4
1.3
3.0
1800
1.1
11.1
2.6
1.2
2.9
-------
21
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YLAK
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 3 0-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
J 981
October
19
1200
2.7
10.0
2.8
1.7
4.0
1300
2.5
11.4
2.8
1.6
4.1
1400
2.0
11.7
2.7
1.4
3.8
1500
1.4
11.8
2.4
1.0
2.9
1600
1.0
11.9
2.2
0.7
2.6
1700
0.9
11.1
2.2
0.4
2.3
20
1300
0.7
10.4
1.4
1.6
1400
0.7
11.1
1.4
0.3
1.6
1500
0.7
11.4
1.5
0.3
1.6
1600
0.7
11.6
1.6
0.3
1.5
1700
0.7
10.9
1.6
0.3
1.3
21
1300
1.1
10.5
1.5
0.3
2.4
1400
1.1
11.6
1.6
0.3
2.5
1500
1.1
11.9
1.9
0.3
2.4
1600
1.1
11.6
2.1
0.3
2.4
1700
1.2
11.2
2.2
0.3
2.0
22
1600
0.9
10.6
1.8
0.3
1.8
1700
0.9
11.2
1.9
0.3
1.5
1800
0.9
10.8
1.9
0.3
1.3
28
1400
10.4
3.0
2.6
3.7
1500
11.0
2.7
2.0
3.1
1600
11.0
2.3
1.3
2.7
1700
12.4
2.3
0.9
2.5
1800
12.5
2.4
0.7
2.5
1900
11.4
2.4
0.6
2.4
2000
10.4
2.4
0.5
2.2
-------
22
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARI10N MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MONTH
DA*
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1981
OcLober
29
1300
10.0
4.4
1.7
4.0
1400
11.0
4.0
1.7
3.9
1500
11.7
2.9
1.8
3.6
1600
12.4
1.8
1.7
3.6
1700
12.0
1.9
1.6
3.5
1800
11.6
1.9
1.7
3.2
1900
10.9
1.9
1.5
2.9
2000
10.3
1.8
1.3
2.7
30
1200
11.2
2.4
3.3
4.7
1300
13.1
2.5
3.4
4.8
1400
14.0
2.4
3.4
4.6
1500
14.4
2.0
3.0
3.9
1600
14.7
1.7
2.4
3.4
1700
14.9
1.7
2.0
3.2
1800
13.9
1.8
1.9
2.9
1900
12.2
1.8
1.7
2.7
2000
10.2
1.7
1.4
2.4
1981
November
2
1500
10.1
1.4
2.2
1.9
1600
10.2
1.5
2.2
1.9
1700
10.8
1.7
2.2
2.0
1800
10.5
1.7
2.1
1.9
3
1600
2.4
10.1
1.8
1.8
2.5
1700
2.2
10.1
2.0
1.7
2.7
1800
2.1
10.1
2.0
1.5
2.6
6
1700
0.9
10.4
1.6
3.7
1800
1.2
10. 7
1.8
4.0
-------
23
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1981
November
6
1900
1.8
10.4
2.0
4.2
12
1400
0.4
10.9
1.9
1.3
3.3
1500
0.3
11.6
2.0
1.4
3.3
1600
0.3
11.8
2.2
1.6
3.1
1700
0.4
11.9
2.4
1.8
3.4
1800
0.5
11.9
2.7
1.8
3.5
1900
0.5
10.7
2.8
1.5
3.4
13
1300
1.1
10.0
2.3
2.1
3.5
1400
1.0
11.2
2.4
1.9
3.5
1500
0.6
12.3
2.3
1.5
3.3
1600
0.4
12.1
2.2
1.1
2.8
1700
0.4
12.4
2.2
0.8
2.4
1800
0.5
12.8
2.4
0.6
2.3
1900
0.5
11.9
2.5
0.5
2.0
2000
0.6
10.6
2.6
0.4
1.8
14
1500
0.4
10.0
1.9
1.9
2.4
1600
0.4
10.6
1.8
1.9
2.2
1700
0.5
10.6
1.8
1.9
2.2
1800
0.8
10.5
2.0
2.0
2.4
1900
1.1
10.4
2.2
2.1
2.5
16
1300
1.7
10.4
3.0
4.7
1400
1.3
10.6
3.2
4.6
1500
0.7
10.2
3.0
3.4
4.2
17
1700
0.5
10.6
1.7
2.6
2.7
1800
1.0
11.2
2.1
3.4
3.0
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MON1II
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2 700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1981
November
17
1900
1.5
11.1
3.0
3.7
3.2
2000
1.9
10.7
3.6
3.8
3.3
2100
1.9
10.1
3.7
4.0
3.2
18
1400
1.0
10.3
2.2
2.1
2.7
1500
0.8
11.1
1.9
1.8
2.4
1600
0.6
11.3
1.7
1.3
2.2
1700
0.7
11.6
1.7
1.4
2.4
1800
1.1
11.5
2.0
1.5
2.5
1900
1.6
11.1
2.5
1.6
2.6
2000
2.3
10.4
3.0
1.7
2.7
19
1200
2.3
10.2
4.0
2.3
3.8
1300
2.3
11.6
4.2
2.3
4.0
1400
2.0
12.1
4.3
2.2
3.9
1500
1.4
12.0
3.6
1.9
3.2
1600
1.2
11.5
2.8
1.5
2.5
1700
1.2
11.3
2.5
1.0
2.4
1800
1.3
10.1
2.9
0.9
2.6
19
2300
8.4
10.8
11.6
3.2
7.8
20
0000
10.6
11.6
15.1
4.4
9.4
0100
12.8
11.8
18.1
5.5
10.6
0200
14.3
12.5
20.5
6.6
10.9
0300
14.5
12.6
21.7
7.1
10.9
0400
13.9
12.0
21.2
7.3
10.1
0500
12.7
10.9
20.1
7.1
8.8
0600
] 1.5
9.5
18.2
6.8
7.6
0700
10.6
8.5
16.7
6.5
7.0
0800
9.1
8.6
15.0
6.0
6.5
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAH
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1981
November
20
0900
7.2
9.2
12.7
5.7
5.8
1000
5.7
9.3
10.1
5.0
5.4
1981
November
23
1200
2.8
10.7
2.7
2.5
4.5
1300
2.9
12.4
3.1
2.7
4.7
1400
2.7
13.0
3.5
2.7
4.7
1500
2.3
13.1
3.3
2.6
4.1
1600
1.8
12.1
2.8
2.2
3.3
1700
1.6
11.9
2.7
2.2
3.0
1800
1.8
11.8
3.0
2.1
2.9
1900
2.0
10.9
3.5
1.9
2.9
25
1300
1.3
11.7
2.2
2.7
3.5
1400
1.3
12.7
2.3
2.7
3.7
1500
1.2
13.6
2.3
2.3
3.5
1600
1.0
14.4
2.2
1.8
3.5
1700
1.1
15.2
2.3
1.4
3.5
1800
1.3
15.3
2.4
1.4
3.3
1900
1.4
14.2
2.4
1.1
3.0
2000
1.4
13.0
2.4
0.9
2.9
2100
1.4
11.4
2.2
0.8
2.3
2200
1.4
10.4
2.2
0.6
2.0
1981
December
3
1400
1.2
10.6
1.7
0.5
2.6
1500
1.2
11.9
1.7
0.5
2.7
1600
1.2
12.4
1.8
0.5
2.6
1700
1.2
13.2
1.9
0.5
2.8
1800
1.3
13.9
2.1
0.5
2.6
1900
1.4
13.5
2.4
0.5
2.3
2000
1.3
12.4
2.5
0.4
2.1
-------
26
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CAKUON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1981
December
3
2100
1.2
11.4
2.4
0.3
2.0
2200
1.8
10.4
3.0
0.3
1.8
1981
December
4
1200
2.1
10.0
2.7
3.5
3.7
1300
2.1
11.0
2.7
3.7
3.8
1400
1.8
11.7
2.6
3.9
3.9
1500
1.2
12.2
1.9
3.5
3.3
1600
1.0
11.9
1.4
2.9
3.2
1700
1.3
12.7
1.6
2.8
3.7
1800
2.1
13.7
2.2
2.9
4.0
1900
3.0
13.5
3.1
3.1
4.2
2000
4.0
12.9
4.0
3.4
4.4
2100
4.5
12.4
4.5
3.5
4.3
2200
4.5
11.8
4.5
3.2
3.9
2300
4.3
10.8
4.3
2.9
3.6
7
1100
1.7
10.1
2.0
4.5
3.6
1200
1.8
11.1
2.3
5.1
3.7
1300
2.0
11.8
2.5
5.6
3.9
1400
1.9
12.4
2.7
6.1
3.9
1500
1.6
12.8
2.6
5.8
3.4
1600
1.6
12.5
2.7
4.9
3.2
1700
1.5
11.4
2.9
4.0
2.9
1800
1.5
10.8
3.5
3.6
2.7
1900
1.9
10.0
4.5
3.1
2.7
7
2300
8.1
8.6
11.2
1.9
3.7
8
0000
9.8
8.5
13.0
2.5
4.5
0100
11.6
8.6
14.7
3.0
5.0
0200
1J.L
b. 3
16.0
3.2
-------
27
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARUON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1981
December
8
0300
13.9
8.1
16.6
3.6
5.0
0400
13.7
8.1
16.7
3.8
5.0
0500
12.6
8.1
15.5
4.0
5.3
0600
10.9
7.8
13.9
4.1
5.5
0700
9.3
7.8
12.4
4.2
5.2
0800
7.8
8.4
10.9
4.0
5.1
0900
6.0
9.1
9.1
3.7
5.0
1000
4.4
10.1
7.0
3.5
5.2
1100
3.2
11.1
5.4
3.3
5.5
1200
2.6
11.9
4.2
3.2
5.5
1300
2.4
12.9
3.7
3.2
5.6
1400
2.0
13.9
3.3
3.4
5.5
1500
1.4
14.8
2.5
3.2
5.2
1600
1.0
14.4
1.9
3.0
4.7
1700
1.2
14.5
2.0
2.8
4.7
1800
1.7
14.6
2.8
2.8
4.5
1900
2.3
13.9
3.3
2.7
4.5
2000
2.9
13.2
3.8
2.5
4.8
2100
3.8
12.5
4.5
2.6
5.0
2200
4.6
11.9
5.5
2.6
5.2
2300
5.1
10.8
6.1
2.6
5.2
9
1400
1.0
10.4
1.5
3.1
1500
0.8
11.4
1.4
2.9
1600
0.9
11.8
1.3
2.6
1700
1.0
12.1
1.4
2.6
1800
1.2
12.7
1.5
2.7
1900
1.4
12.3
1.7
2.6
2000
1.7
11.6
1.8
2.4
2100
1.9
10.9
1.9
2.4
2200
2.0
10.1
1.9
2.2
-------
28
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAH
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
198L
December
10
1300
0.8
10.1
1.4
1.9
1400
0.8
11.0
1.3
1.9
1500
0.6
11.5
1.0
1.8
1600
0.4
11.5
0.9
1.7
1700
0.3
12.7
1.1
1.8
1800
0.4
13.4
1.2
1.7
1900
0.4
12.4
1.1
1.5
2000
0.4
11.5
1.0
1.4
2100
0.4
10.6
0.9
1.3
11
1300
0.5
10.9
1.4
2.0
1400
0.5
12.0
1.4
2.2
1500
0.5
12.5
1.2
2.2
1600
0.4
12.7
1.2
1.7
2.3
1700
0.3
13.7
1.4
2.0
2.7
1800
0.3
14.4
2.1
2.2
3.1
1900
0.3
14.2
3.2
2.3
3.3
2000
0.4
13.9
4.3
2.4
3.7
2100
0.7
13.2
5.6
2.7
3.9
2200
1.4
12.5
7.2
2.9
4.0
2300
2.4
12.2
8.6
3.2
4.2
12
0000
2.8
11.5
9.3
3.2
4.0
12
1700
1.4
10.6
2.4
2.9
1800
1.7
11.6
2.9
3.2
1900
2.0
11.6
3.6
3.5
2000
2.5
11.6
3.8
3.5
2100
2.8
11.5
3.8
3.5
2200
2.9
10.8
3.7
3.6
2300
3.0
10.1
3.8
3.7
-------
29
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1981
December
13
0000
3.2
10.0
3.9
3.7
16
1300
1.2
10.1
1.7
1.3
2.9
1400
1.2
10.9
1.8
1.4
3.1
1500
1.1
11.3
1.7
1.4
3.1
1600
1.0
11.A
1.8
1.4
3.3
1700
1.1
12.2
2.0
1.4
3.5
1800
1.1
13.1
2.5
1.0
3.5
1900
1.0
12.7
2.6
0.6
3.2
2000
0.9
11.4
2.5
0.4
2.9
2100
0.9
10.8
2.4
0.4
2.7
2200
0.9
10.4
2.4
0.3
2.6
21
1100
0.3
10.4
3.3
4.0
1200
0.3
11.8
3.5
4.7
1300
0.3
12.9
3.7
5.2
1400
0.3
13.4
3.5
5.2
1500
0.3
13.2
2.8
4.3
1600
0.3
12.4
1.8
4.2
1700
0.3
12.8
2.1
1.9
4.2
1800
0.3
12.4
2.1
1.8
4.0
1900
0.3
11.6
2.0
1.6
3.7
2000
0.3
10.6
1.9
1.4
3.1
23
1700
1.2
10.2
2.4
4.3
3.4
1800
1.5
10.7
2.7
4.4
3.5
1900
1.7
10.6
3.0
4.2
3.5
2000
1.9
10.1
3.2
3.9
3.2
-------
30
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1981
December
28
1100
3.7
10.0
4.9
2.6
4.5
1200
3.5
11.6
5.1
3.0
5.1
1300
3.7
12.7
5.2
3.7
5.8
1400
3.5
13.4
4.7
3.9
5.9
1500
12.9
3.8
3.4
4.7
1600
12.1
3.2
2.9
3.7
1700
12.7
3.0
3.0
3.6
1800
12.3
2.9
2.8
3.6
1900
11.7
2.9
2.6
3.5
2000
10.4
2.7
2.2
2.9
29
1400
0.4
10.4
2.5
3.1
2.7
1500
0.4
10.7
2.1
3.0
2.7
1600
0.4
10.7
3.0
2.9
1700
0.4
11.1
2.8
3.2
1800
0.4
11.1
2.2
3.2
1900
0.4
10.4
1.7
3.1
2000
0.5
10.0
1.5
2.9
30
1300
10.4
1.8
2.9
1400
0.7
11.7
1.9
2.9
1500
0.8
13.2
2.1
2.9
1600
0.9
14.3
2.2
3.2
1700
0.9
15.9
2.0
3.2
1800
0.8
17.0
1.6
3.2
1900
0.8
16.2
1.4
2.9
2000
0.-8
15.0
1.1
2.7
2100
0.8
13.9
0.9
2.2
2200
0.7
12.6
0.8
1.9
2300
0.6
10.9
0.6
1.6
-------
31
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-llOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YLAR
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1982
January
15
1700
10.4
1.8
2.7
3.3
1800
10.2
2.2
2.7
3.4
17
0100
4.6
10.1
5.3
5.0
0200
4.2
10.1
5.7
4.8
19
0000
4.7
11.5
2.7
2.3
0100
3.2
12.9
2.4
1.8
0200
2.2
13.9
2.1
1.4
0300
1.6
14.6
1.9
1.0
OA 00
1.2
14.6
1.7
0.8
0500
0.9
13.9
1.9
0.8
0600
1.3
13.0
2.7
1.5
0700
2.8
13.2
4.2
2.8
0800
4.7
13.4
5.3
5.0
0900
5.8
12.1
5.8
5.6
1000
6.4
10.7
6.2
5.9
27
1700
0.7
10.4
1.6
5.1
2.3
1800
0.5
10.3
1.6
4.8
1.9
28
1500
1.5
10.5
3.5
4.4
2.2
1600
0.8
10.4
2.5
4.4
2.2
1700
0.4
11.3
1.9
4.5
2.3
1800
0.5
11.1
2.1
4.6
2.2
1900
0.6
10.1
2.3
4.7
2.0
29
1700
0.3
10.8
1.7
4.3
2.4
1800
0.3
10.2
1.7
4.2
2.2
-------
32
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARI10N MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1982
February
18
1600
0.7
10.4
1.6
2.4
3.4
1700
0.7
10.7
1.7
2.2
3.2
1800
0.8
10.6
1.7
1.8
3.0
19
1400
1.8
10.2
2.8
3.4
4.2
1500
1.4
10.3
2.4
2.9
3.7
1600
0.9
10.3
2.2
2.4
3.2
1700
0.7
10.5
2.2
2.4
2.9
1800
0.7
10.5
2.2
2.3
2.9
24
1300
2.8
10.1
4.0
3.7
3.8
1400
2.6
10.4
3.3
3.7
3.5
1500
1.9
10.1
2.7
3.2
3.1
1982
March
2
1700
1.3
10.1
1.3
3.3
3.5
1800
1.3
10.4
1.5
3.0
3.5
-------
33
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXTDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-tlOUR AVERAGE)
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
HOUR
Mg/M CO
AT 10-
2700-002
Mg/M CO
AT 10-
2700-018
Mg/M CO
AT 10-
2700-019
Mg/M CO
AT 10-
2700-021
Mg/M CO
AT 10-
2700-022
1982
March
10
1600
10.1
1.4
2.0
1700
10.4
1.6
1.9
1800
10.5
1.7
1.9
19U2
April
7
1600
1.2
10.1
1.6
12
1500
1.3
10.2
2.0
1600
1.0
10.4
1.7
1700
0.9
10.7
1.7
1800
0.9
10.4
1.7
30
1300
2.2
10.9
3.2
1400
1.8
11.4
2.8
1500
1.4
11.1
2.4
1600
1.2
11.6
2.4
1700
1.2
11.6
2.4
1800
1.2
10.5
2.4
1982
May
3
1200
1.5
10.1
2.2
1300
1.3
11.4
2.2
1400
1.0
11.8
1.9
1500
0.8
11.2
1.8
1600
0.8
10.7
1.7
1700
0.9
10.1
1.7
4
1300
1.7
10.4
2.1
1400
1.6
11.1
2.0
1500
1.7
11.3
1.9
1600
1.5
11.8
1.8
1700
1.4
11.8
1.8
1800
1 A
10.8
1 .7
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARDON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1982
May
5
1400
1.2
10.2
1.5
1500
1.2
10.4
1.7
1600
1.2
10.6
1.7
1700
1.2
10.1
1.7
10
1700
1.3
11.7
2.1
1800
1.3
10.5
1.9
11
1400
1.4
10.4
1500
1.3
10.5
1600
1.2
10.5
1700
1.2
10.2
17
1300
1.3
10.5
2.2
1400
1.2
11.1
2.1
1500
1.2
11.6
2.0
1600
1.2
11.7
2.1
1700
1.2
11.6
2.1
1800
1.2
10.4
2.1
18
1400
1.2
10.4
1.8
1500
1.2
10.7
1.9
1600
1.2
11.1
1.9
1700
1.2
10.6
2.0
20
1300
2.1
10.7
2.4
1400
1.8
10.5
2.4
1500
]. 5
9.8
2.2
1600
1 .4
10.0
2.3
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1982
May
21
1200
2.8
10.0
3.4
1300
2.7
10.2
3.4
1400
2.2
10.1
2.9
1982
June
8
1600
10.6
2.4
1700
10.1
2.4
9
1400
10.1
2.1
1500
10.3
2.2
1600
10.6
2.4
1700
10.3
2.4
1982
Augus C
6
1400
10.4
4.3
1500
11.4
4.2
1600
11.6
4.4
1700
11.9
4.5
1800
10.4
4.0
30
1300
11.1
1.8
1400
12.1
1.7
1500
12.2
1.7
1600
12.1
1.9
1700
11.6
1.9
1800
10.4
1.9
-------
36
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M3 CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2 700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1982
September
13
1300
10.2
2.6
1400
10.9
2.8
1500
11.2
3.0
1600
11.6
3.2
1700
10.5
3.4
17
1200
10.4
3.4
1300
11.6
3.5
1400
11.8
3.2
1500
11.4
2.8
1600
11.0
2.9
1700
10.4
2.9
23
1300
10.6
4.5
1400
10.9
4.0
1500
10.8
3.4
1600
11.0
2.9
1700
11.1
2.9
1800
10.3
3.1
24
1200
11.1
3.3
1300
12.2
3.5
1400
13.2
3.5
1500
12.5
3.2
1600
12.1
2.9
1700
11.4
2.9
1800
10.1
3.0
-------
37
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1982
October
6
1200
10.3
3.8
1300
11.0
3.7
1400
11.3
3.0
1500
11.0
2.4
1600
11.1
2.1
1700
10.3
1.9
7
1400
10.3
1.4
1500
10.6
1.6
1600
0.4
10.7
1.9
1700
0.5
10.5
2.0
15
1200
1.9
10.4'
3.3
1300
1.9
11.9
3.5
1400
1.4
11.9
3.2
1500
1.3
11.6
3.2
1600
1.4
11.9
3.1
1700
1.5
11.9
3.1
1800
1.7
10.7
3.2
22
1200
2.4
10.7
4.5
1300
2.1
11.4
4.9
1400
1.4
11.8
5.0
1500
0.7
11.4
4.5
1600
0.3
11.7
3.5
1700
0.3
11.7
2.9
1800
0.3
10.4
2.8
-------
JO
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEA K
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1982
November
8
1500
1.3
10.8
3.2
1600
1.0
10.9
3.2
1700
0.9
10.4
3.1
1800
0.8
10.0
3.0
1*5
1300
2.9
10.7
4.2
1400
2.5
11.8
4.2
1500
1.9
12.1
3.7
1600
1.9
12.0
3.2
1700
1.7
12.1
3.0
1800
1.7
11.1
3.1
22
1500
1.4
10.3
2.9
1600
0.9
10.6
2.5
1700
0.6
10.9
2.2
1800
0.6
10.6
2.2
23
1400
1.3
10.4
3.3
1500
1.1
10.2
2.9
1600
0.9
10.2
2.7
1700
0.9
10.7
2.5
1800
0.8
10.2
2.5
-------
39
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 1G-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1982
November
24
1300
3.5
11.1
4.8
1400
3.2
11.7
4.7
1500
2.4
11.2
4.0
1600
1.4
11.0
2.9
1700
1.2
11.7
2.4
1800
1.3
11.9
2.4
1900
1.4
11.0
2.4
1982
December
9
1300
2.2
10.5
3.3
1400
2.0
11.1
3.2
1500
1.5
11.4
2.7
1600
1.1
11.4
2.2
1700
1.0
11.1
1.9
1800
1.0-
10.4
1.9
20
1600
0.9
10.2
2.0
1700
1.1
11.1
2.2
1800
1.5
11.6
2.8
1900
2.2
11.5
3.3
2000
2.9
10.7
4.0
2100
3.9
10.1
4.6
21
1400
2.4
12.0
4.2
1500
1.9
13.0
3.4
1600
1.5
13.2
2.9
1700
1.4
14.1
2.9
1800
1.8
14.6
3.5
1900
2.9
14.2
4.7
2000
4.0
13.2
6.0
-------
AO
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(8-HOUR AVERAGE)
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
Mg/M CO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
AT 10-
HOUR
2700-002
2700-018
2700-019
2700-021
2700-022
1982
December
21
2100
5.2
12.2
7.0
2200
6.5
11.3
8.2
2300
7.7
10.5
9.3
22
0000
8.6
9.8
10.2
0100
9.1
8.1
10.8
0200
9.2
6.7
10.4
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
CARBON MONOXIDE MONITORING SITES
MIAMI, FLORIDA
10-2700-002
10-2700-018
10-2700-019
10-2700-021
10-2700-022
SLAMS Center-city-commercial
NAMS Center-city-commercial
NAMS Suburban-residential
SPM Center-city-industrial
SPM Center-city-commercial
864 Northwest 23rd Street
1101 East Flagler Street
2201 Southwest 4th Street
54 Northeast 2nd Street
64 Southwest 1st Street
FL-52
-------
Validation of the 1980-1982 Palm Beach County
Ozone, Carbon Monoxide And Nitrogen
Dioxide Data
July 25, 1983
Environmental Services Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Athens, Georgia
FL-53
-------
SUMMARY
At the request of the Air and Waste Management Division, EPA Region IV,
the Environmental Services Division, EPA Region IV, evaluated the 1980-1982
ozone, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide data collected by the Broward
County (Florida) Environmental Quality Control Board. Ozone and carbon
monoxide data are valid for decision making purposes. Only 1982 ozone data
are sufficiently complete for decision making purposes. Nitrogen dioxide
data are neither valid nor complete. No violations of the ozone standard were
measured in 1980-1982. Violations of the carbon monoxide standard were
measured in 1980 and 1981.
During the data validation, several related issues became apparent.
These involve the addition to SAROAD of certain data, nitrogen dioxide monitor-
ing problems, and the absence of a very strong corrective action program to
minimize the loss of data.
FL-63
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The 1980-1982 ozone and carbon monoxide data collected by the Broward
County (Florida) Environmental Quality Control Board)are valid for decision
making purposes. Only 1982 ozone data are sufficiently complete for decision
making purposes - that is one year of data. No violations of the ozone
standard were measured during 1980-1982. Carbon monoxide data are sufficiently
complete for 1980-1982 for sites 10-0420-002 and 10-3700-004 and all sites in
1982 for decision making purposes. Violations of the carbon monoxide standard
were measured in 1980 and 1981; one exceedance of the standard was measured
in 1982.
Nitrogen dioxide data for 1980 through 1982 are neither valid nor
sufficiently complete for decision-making purposes. Broward County has had
considerable difficulty in trying to operate a nitrogen dioxide monitor.
Federal funds should not be expended for the purchase of a replacement nitrogen
dioxide monitor for Broward County.
Broward County does not have a very strong corrective action program to
identify and permanently correct the cause of data losses.
FL-64
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1980-1982 ozone and carbon monoxide data collected by the Broward
County (Florida) Environmental Quality Control Board are summarized in
Attachments 1 and 2. They are valid and should be used for decision-making
purposes.
Discretion should be exercised in the interpretation of the ozone data
since they are sufficiently complete for decision making purposes for only
one year (1982).
Consideration needs to be given to relocating the carbon monoxide monitors
which are measuring only low concentrations. They should be moved to areas
where the public would have access to maximum concentrations.
Broward County needs to ensure all key personnel are available to meet with
EPA personnel on occasions such as this recent data validation. This includes
future data validations, system audits and performance audits.
The following data need to be entered into SAROAD:
START
START
END
END
SITE
PARAMETER
DATE
HOUR
DATE
HOUR
10-0420-003
Ozone
1/01/81
0000
2/18/81
1300
4/20/81
1000
4/24/81
1100
3/29/82
1200
3/31/82
2300
7/14/82
2200
7/22/82
1400
10-0420-002
Carbon Monoxide
7/28/82
1000
7/29/82
1600
9/03/82
2300
9/04/82
0400
Broward County needs to implement an agressive corrective action program
to ensure the loss of data is minimized for reasons over which the operator
has reasonable control. Missing data forms should be used to initiate perman-
ent corrective action.
Federal funds should not be expended for the purchase of another nitrogen
dioxide monitor for Broward County at this time.
FL-65
-------
INTRODUCTION
On July 15, 1983, the Air and Waste Management Division of EPA Region IV
requested that the Environmental Services Division of EPA Region IV validate
the 1980-1982 ozone, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide data in Broward County,
Florida. This report describes the results of that validation. It provides
conclusions and recommendations for the use of those data and resolution of
related issues.
FL-66
-------
DATA VALIDATION
The 1980-1982 ozone, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide data collected
by the Broward County (Florida) Environmental Quality Control Board were
evaluated and their validity determined. Information collected on
April 21, 1983 during the annual system audit was used. This information
was supplemented by an on-site visit on July 21, 1983. During the on-site
visit, periods of missing data were accounted for, and measurements approach-
ing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards were evaluated. Evaluation
consisted of checking appropriate records and recorder strip charts.
Attachment 1 lists all elevated ozone measurements at either of the two
monitoring sites and the corresponding measurements at the other site. Site
10-0420-003 is a NAMS site located at 12300 Northwest 41st Street in Coral
Springs. It is twenty kilometers downwind of Fort Lauderdale. Site 10-0420-
004 is a NAMS site located at 941 Southwest 71st Avenue North in Fort
Lauderdale. It is ten kilometers downwind of Fort Lauderdale.
In summary, Attachment 1, shows that:
1. Elevated measurements were made at site 10-0420-003 in 1980 and 1981,
but not in 1982.
2. Data are unavailable at site 10-0420-004 to compare concentrations
there with the elevated measurements made at site 10-0420-003.
3. No violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard were
measured in 1980, 1981, or 1982.
Maximum concentrations measured and percent of valid data obtained were:
Year
PPM 03 AT
10-0420-003 10-0420-004
PERCENT VALID DATA AT
10-0420-003 10-0420-004
1980
0.162
0.104
43.5
56.8
1981
0. 187
0.120
60.7
72. 1
1982
0.092
0.090
87.4
96.4
The ozone data for sites 10-0420-003 and 10-0420-004 for 1980-1982 are
valid. However, only 1982 data are sufficiently complete for decision-making
purposes.
Attachment 2 lists all elevated carbon monoxide measurements at each of
the monitoring sites and the corresponding measurements at the other sites.
Attachment 3 identifies the location of these sites. In summary, Attachment
2 shows that:
1. Violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for carbon
monoxide were measured in 1980 and 1981. One exceedance of the standard was
measured in 1982.
2. Site 10-0420-002 is the only site where the standard was violated.
Site 10-1260-003 is the only other site where an exceedance of the standard
was measured.
FL-67
-------
Carbon monoxide data for sites 10-0420-002, 10-1260-003, 10-2270-001,
10-3700-004 and 10-1840-002 are valid. Attachment 4 shows the maximum
concentrations measured and the percent valid data obtained each year at
each site. All sites have sufficient 1982 data for use in decision-making
purposes. However, only sites 10-0420-002 and 10-2270-001 have sufficient
data in 1980 and 1981 for decision-making purposes.
No nitrogen dioxide data were validated. The instrument operator most
familiar with this instrument was unavailable to discuss the operation of
this instrument. This eliminated any possibility of EPA being able to ident
or resolve any problems.
FL-68
-------
RELATED ISSUES
During the on-site visit, several issues became apparent which need to be
addressed. These involve monitoring data and related issues.
Data
Broward County has certain data which are not in SAROAD. These data
need to be entered:
START
START
END
END
SITE
PARAMETER
DATE
HOUR
DATE
HOUR
0420-003
Ozone
1/01/80
0000
2/18/80
1300
4/20/81
1000
4/24/81
1100
3/29/82
1200
3/31/82
2300
7/14/82
2200
7/22/82
1400
-0420-002
Carbon monoxide*
7/28/82
1000
7/29/82
1600
9/03/32
2300
9/04/82
0400
*8-hour running averages
FL-69
-------
Other Issues
Broward County has lost data for the reasons most common to most agencies.
However, the most frequent cause of lost data has been some type of problem
with the recorders. Problems include: out of ink, pen not inking, pen stuck,
out of chart paper, chart paper stuck, etc.
NUMBER OF INSTANCES OF DATA LOST
YEAR BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS WITH RECORDER
1980 7
1981 9
1982 44
TOTAL 60
April and May 1982 at ozone site 10-0420-003 had fifteen such instances. There
was no evidence on the recorder charts of any attempts to take permanent
corrective action.
Broward County is currently negotiating with Columbia Scientific Industries
for a partial refund on the nitrogen dioxide monitor from a different manufacturer.
Because of the nature and frequency of recorder problems, and because of the
complexity of nitrogen dioxide monitors, it is recommended that Broward County
not purchase another nitrogen dioxide monitor, at this time.
On March 25, 1981, the ozone monitor at site 10-0420-033 had a power fail-
ure. The instrument was not recalibrated until April 10, 1981. All data
between March 25 and April 10, 1981 were lost. This is excessive.
40 CFR 58, Appendix A, Sections 1 and 2 require the development of a quality
control program (quality assurance plan). This program involves the routine
assessment of data and the use of that assessment data to initiate needed
corrective action. The assessment function and the corrective action function
thus form a control loop. However, Broward County is not using the missing
data forms to take needed corrective action as evidence by problems with data
completeness and recorder operation. This needs to be corrected.
FL-70
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
SELECT OZONE DATA
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
i
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
HOUR
PPM O3 At
10-0420-003
PPM 03 At
10-0420-004
1980
July
8
1300
0. 162
1400
0. 136
11
1500
0. 122
0.069
1981
May
29
1300
0.049
0.120
July
15
0000
0.187
0100
0. 171
0200
0.137
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXIDE DATA (8-HOUR RUNNING AVERAGE)
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
1
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
START
HOUR
MgyMJ CO
at
10-0420-002
Mg/M3 CO
at
10-1260-003
Mg/M3 CO
at
10-2270-001
Mg/MJ CO
at
10-3700-004
Mg/M^ CO
at
10-1840-002
1980
January
7
8
11
18
19
22
February
25
26
15
2200
2300
0000
0100
0200
0300
2200
2300
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
0000
1100
1200
1300
1400
2100
2200
2300
0000
1300
1400
10.2
10.7
II .0
10.7
10.6
10.4
10.2
10.4
10.8
11.2
11.5
11.9
12.0
11.0
10.3
10.1
10.5
10.9
10.3
10.1
9.8
10.1
10.0
10.8
10.8
6.4
6.6
6.5
6.3
5.7
5.0
5.8
6.0
4.1
4.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
5.1
5.2
5.4
5.3
4.8
5.0
4.9
4.5
4.5
4.3
-------
2
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXIDE DATA (8-HOUR RUNNING AVERACE)
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
START
Mg/M3 CO
Mg/M3 CO
Mg/M3 CO
Mg/M3 CO
Mg/M3 CO
YliAR
MONTH
DAY
HOUR
at
at
at
at
at
10-0420-002
10-1260-003
10-2270-001
10-3700-004
10-1840-002
1981
January
15
0900
10.1
4.6
1000
10. 1
4.6
1100
10.0
4.5
1200
10. 1
4.3
1300
10.4
4.3
1400
10.1
4.3
31
0000
10.0
6.2
February
28
0000
10.0
5.4
0100
10.6
5.7
0200
10.7
6.0
0300
10.9
6.2
0400
11.2
6.2
0500
11.1
5.9
0600
10.4
5.5
March
1
0200
10.4
5.2
0300
10.4
5.3
November
19
2300
10.6
7.7
4.6
3.6
20
0000
11.4
9.1
5.5
4.5
0100
11.1
10.0
5.8
5.7
0200
9.7
10.1
5.8
6.7
December
7
2100
10.6
5.8
6.8
2.7
2.6
2200
11.0
7.5
7.3
3.6
3.4
2300
10.7
8.8
7.9
4.5
4.3
8
0000
9.8
10.0
8.6
5.1
5.1
0100
8.3
10.8
8.5
5.7
5.8
0200
7.0
10.9
8.1
5.9
6.4
1
0300
5.5
10.4
7.3
5.7
6.7
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
SELECT CARBON MONOXIDE DATA (8-HOUR RUNNING AVERACE)
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
3
i
START
Mg/M3 CO
Mg/M3 CO
Mg/M3 CO
Mg/M3 CO
Mg/M3 CO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
HOUR
at
at
at
at
at
10-0420-002
10-1260-003
10-2270-001
10-3700-004
10-1840-002
1981
December
17
2100
10.4
2.6
5.8
1.7
2. 1
2200
11.1
3.6
5.8
2.3
2.9
2300
10.9
4.8
5.4
2.6
3.4
1982
January
8
0900
9,8
10.1
6.0
7.3
4. 1
1
21
1300
10.5
4.6
1.6
1.5
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
LOCATION OF CARBON MONOXIDE SITES
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
SITE LOCATION
10-0420-002 2687 South State Road
in Hacienda Village
10-1260-003 2101 Northwest 6th Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
10-2270-001 3701 North State Road
//7 Lauderdale Lakes
10-3700-004 851 Southwest 3rd Avenue
Pompano Beach, Florida
10-1840-002 2701 Plunkett Street
Hollywood, Florida
-------
ATTACHMENT 4
MAXIMUM CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED
AND DATA COMPLETENESS OBTAINED
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
YEAR
10-0420-002
Mg/M^ CO AT
10-1260-003 10-2270-001
10-3700-004
10-1840-002
10-0420-002
PERCENT VALID DATA OBTAINED AT
10-1260-003 10-2270-001 10-3700-004
10-1840-002
1980
12.0
7.1
81.0
96.0
1981
11.4
10.9
8.6
5.9
7.0
80.6
18.8
92.6
21.2
27.5
1982
10.5
10. 1
6.5
7.3
7.8
94.2
92.9
85.1
79.9
93.9
i
-------
Region V
-------
Indiana
IN-1
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 03 f Thursday. May 13, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 20583
The errors are corrected to read as
follows:
1. On page 14114, second column, first
paragraph of the Summary of Comments
and Responses, the last sentence is
changed to read. "The old section
numbers are followed by the new
section cumbers in parentheses."
2. On page 14115. first column, sixth
paragraph, second line, the section
number S 657.33(c) is changed to read
{ 657.40(b).
3. On page 14115, first column, last
paragraph, last line, the section number
] 656.10(a)(3) is changed to read
S 656.10(a)(2).
4. On page 14115, third column, the
fourth paragraph is changed to read as
follows: Response. Section 658.39 is
deleted. The duration of a project is
covered by Direct Grant Programs. 34
CFR 75.250.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Number 84,015, International Studies Centers
and Foreign Language and Area Studies
Fellowships: M 016. International Studies
program and 84.017, Foreign Language and
Area Studies Research)
Dated: May 3.1982.
Daniel Oliver,
General Counsel
[FR Doe. U-UOT PIM S-U-B MS tm)
SUXIMQ COOS 4000-01-41
ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
(A-5-fRL>2D72-S]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Indiana
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
actio*: Final rulemaking.
summary: The*£PA today is approving a
revision to the Vtgo County, Indiana
sulfur dioxide (SOi) State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Indiana
submitted this revision in response to
Part D of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA
proposed approval of this revision on
September 1,1981 (46 FR 43855),
received comments from six groups, and
is responding to their comments in
today's notice.
effective date: This final rulemaking
becomes effective on May 13.1982.
aooresses: Copies of this revision to
the Indiana SIP are available for
Inspection at: The Office of the Federal
Register. 1100 L Street. NW-, Room 8401.
Washington. D.C. 20408.
Copies of the SIP revision, public
comments on the notice of proposed
rulemaking and other materials relating
to this rulemaking are available for
inspection at the following addresses: (It
is recommended that you telephone
Robert B. Miller at (312) 866-6031 before
visiting the Region V Office).
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region V, Air Programs Branch. 230
South Dearborn Street Chicago,
Illinois 60004
Environmental Protection Agency,
Public Information Reference Unit 401
M Street SW.. Washington. D.C
20460
Indiana Air Pollution Control Division,
Indiana State Board of Health, 1330
West Michigan Street Indianapolis,
Indiana 46206
Air Pollution Control, Vigo County
Health Department 120 S. Seventh
Street Terre Haute. Indiana 47807
FOB FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT!
Robert B. Miller. Air Programs Branch.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region V, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)
886-6031.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
March 3,1978 (43 FR 8962) and on
October 5,1978 (43 FR 45993), pursuant
to the requirements of Section 107 of the
CAA. EPA designated certain areas in
each Region V State as nonattainment
with respect to the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS] for
total suspended particulates (TSP], SO*,
carbon monoxide, ozone, and nitrogen
dioxide.
Part D of the CAA requires each State
to revise its SIP to meet specific
requirements for areas designated as
.nonattainment These SIP revisions must
demonstrate attainment of the primary
SO* NAAQS by December 31.1982.
These SIP revisions must also
demonstrate attainment of the
secondary NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable. The requirements for an
approveble SIP are desaibed in a
Federal Register notice published April
4,1979 (44 FR 20372). Supplements to the
April 4,1979 notice were published on
July 2,1979 (44 FR 38583), August 28,
1979 (44 FR 50371). September 17.1979
(44 FR 53781), and November 23,1979
{44 FR 67182).
In response to Part D of Qie CAA, on
June 28,1979, the State of Indiana
submitted revised SO« control strategies
and Air Pollution Control Regulation 13
(APC-13) to EPA. This submittal
included a control strategy for Vigo
County that was developed by the
Indiana Air Pollution Control Division
and regulations which were
promulgated by the Slate on June 19,
1979.
While the State developed its SO*
plan for the County, an industrial task
force developed its own control strategy.
The Wabash Valley Environmental
Association (WVEA), an organization of
20 local firms, submitted its county-wide
plan to the Indiana Air Pollution Control
Board (1APCB) in September 1979. After
reviewing the WVEA plan, the Stale
agreed to substitute the WVEA plan for
the State plan in APC-13. Consequently,
on October 4.1979, the LAJPCB officially
withdrew its control strategy for Vigo
County, including the portion of APC-13
pertaining to Vigo County. On January 7,
1980, the State promulgated the WVEA
SO> plan for Vigo County, including a
revised APC-13 which incorporated the
new Vigo County emission limitations.
On February 11.1980, the State
submitted to EPA its newly promulgated
SO. control strategy for Vigo County.
Technical support materials were
submitted in September 1979, on
December 10,1979 and on May 30.1980.
The September 1979 submittal included
the technical rationale for the new
control strategy for SO* in Vigo County.
The later submittals provided additional
analyses to correct technical
deficiencies in the initial submittal. The
State recodified Its SO» regulation APC-
13 as 325 LAC Article 7 and submitted it
to EPA on October 8,198a EPA
proposed to approve the Vigo County
SO. strategy on September l, 1981 (48
FR 43855).
Hie Vigo County strategy consists of a
general, statewide regulation. 325 LAC
Article 7, and an appendix to the
regulation (325IAC 7-1-8) which
establishes specific emission limitations
for certain Vigo County sources, as well
as for sources in other comities. On
March 27,1980, EPA proposed to
approve; in part the general, statewide
SO* regulation. APC-13 (45 FR 20743).
EPA proposed no action at that time on
the .Vigo County portion of APC-^13. EPA-
has recently approved the recodified
regulation, 325 IAC Article 7, with
certain exceptions: it took no action on
either the Vigo County strategy or the
30-day compliance method contained In
the general regulation.
Today, EPA is approving the Vigo
County portion of the SO* strategy. As
with EFA's action on the general
regulation, however, and as discussed
more fully below, EPA will presently
take no action on the 30-day averaging
provision In the Vigo County strategy.
EPA's detailed analysis of the Vigo
County strategy iB contained in an EPA
technical memorandum and in the
September 1,1981 notice of proposed
rulemaking. Both of these are available
for review at the above addresses.
IN-2
-------
20584
Federal Register / Vol. 4!7. No. 93 / Thursday. May 13. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
Public Comment*
En response to its Notice of Proposed
RulemaJang. EPA received comments
from Indiana, three other Slates, Vigo
County, and a local utility. Following is
a summary of the significant comments
and EPA's responses to each:
Comment: One commentor raised the
following questions concerning the 10%
derating of the Public Service Indiana
(PSD Wabash River power plant: a) is
the derating enforceable; b] will the
derating involve any physical changes:
and c) can the load reduction be of&et
by increasing hoars of operation?
Response: The 10% derating of the
Wabash River power plant ts contained
in the State regulation and will become
part of the federally approved SIP for
Vigo County. EPA and the State
maintain that the 10% derating in the
capacity of the plant is properly
enforceable, even though no physical
changes to the plant are required,
because compliance can be determined
by reviewing charts, logs, and records
kept by PSI. Because the plant was
modeled assuming 24-hour continuous
operations to determine its air quality
impacts, any possible increase in the
hours of operation will not affect
attainment of the SO* standards.
Comment PSI notified EPA that the ~
new stack at its Wabash River plant wil]
not be completed until July 1984. 325
LAC 7-1-9 requires compliance with the
new regulations by December 1981, but
allows the State to extend this deadline
up to December 1982 under certain
circumstances. The State has extended
the compliance schedule for this pLant
until December 31,1962. In PSI"s
comments, it requested an EPA
extension of the compliance deadline or
an exemption until July 1984.
Response: 325 LAC 7-1-6 requires that
compliance be achieved by no later than
December 31.1981. except as noted
above. EPA has no authority in the
context of this rulemaking to extend the
compliance date beyond that allowed by
325 LAC 7-1-3 or to exempt the .Wabash
River power plant from the compliance
deadline. Any such request would have
to be initiated by the State and would
have to be the subject of separate
rulemaking. Furthermore. EPA's
Continuity Policy, as discussed in mora
detail below, does not normally allow a
source additional time to come into
compliance with a new, less stringent
emission limitation.
The SIP relaxation to a 4.04 lbs/
MMBTU emission limit for the Wabash
River plant ts based upon a new, taller
stack. If the attainment demonstration
had been based on the existing stacks, a
different probably more stringent
emission limit would be required for this
plant Therefore. EPA cannot approve
the 4.0* lbs/MMBTU emission limit
without ai»a requiring that the new
stack be in place. EPA is today
approving the 4.04 lbs/MMBTU
emission limitation for the Wabash
River power plant to be effective when
the new stack is in place. Until that
time, the existing SEP emission limit of
1.2 lbs/MMBTU remains applicable.
Comment: Several commentora urged
EPA to approve the 30-day averaging
provision in 325 LAC 7—1—1.
Response: EPA recognizes the
problem of sulfur variability.
Consequently, on February 14,1980.
EPA published a Federal Register Notice
notifying the public that EPA had begun
a review of its policies and procedures
for regulating large coal-fired boilers.
Among the issues under review are: a)
compliance test methods: b) sulfur
variability; c) modeling guidelines; and
d) averaging periods for emission
limitations. This review will address 30-
day averaging, appropriate methods far
evaluating 30-day averages, and
protection of the NAAQS. Baaed on its
review. EPA will make any necessary
modifications in its policies. Until this
review is complete, EPA will not
mlemake on 30-day averaging in Vigo
County. EPA has also announced its
intention to proceed under an interim
enforcement policy for Indiana, which
will be used to establish the Agency's
enforcement priorities (December 31,
1981. 46 FR A3270).
Comment: One commentor questioned
the application of the RAM-urban model
to Vigo County. The commentor claimed
that this model is inappropriate because
It does not consider terrain effects and
because there was no analysis of the
urban/rural status of the area. The
commentor also asked if the model was
calibrated.
Response: Prior to the modeling
analysis. EPA classified the area as
urban based on the general
characteristics of the City of Terre
Haute [Le., city size, source density, and
land use), where the majority of the
sources are located. This procedure was
consistent with the EPA urban/rural
policy at the time the modeling began.
Furthermore, since the terrain in the
area is gently rolling (i.e^ no significant
terrain differences), EPA additionally
determined that the reference model for
Vigo County at thai time should be
RAM-urban. No calibration of the short-
term RAM-urban model was attempted.
This Is appropriate because calibration
of short-term models requires much
more data than that which is available
for most areas, including Vigo County.
Uncertainties in Vigo County source and
meteorological data restrict the ability
to estimate the measured concentration
at an exact location during a specific
increment of time. These uncertainties
prevent the calibration of short-tenn
models, such as RAM-urban.
Comment- One commentor claimed
that the modeling analysis was deficient
because it used only one year of
meteorological data, not five years as
required by EPA guidelines.
Response: EPA has reviewed the issue
of meteorological data and has
determined that because EPA's policy
required only one year of meteorological
data for the Part D SEPs which were to
be submitted by January 1.1979, EPA is
not requiring the State to remodel U3ing
5 years of meteorological data.
However. 5 years of appropriate
meteorological data are currently
available, and all future Vigo County
modeling must use 5 years of data.
Comment- One commentor objected to'
the absence of area sources in the
modeled emission Inventory. The
commentor maintained that the
inclusion of area sources should
increase the predicted annual
concentrations enough to cause
violations of the annual standard.
Response: Area sources were not
modeled because an inventory was not
available. Area sources are not
""expected to have a significant Impact on
Vigo County. AH point souiices in the
County were considered, however, the
impact from area sources was still
included indirectly in the analysis
through calculations of the background
concentration. The denved background
accounted for the impacts due to distant
SO* sources, nearby area and small
point sources, and natural sources.
Consequently, inclusion of an area
source inventory would be double-
counting these source impacts and is.
therefore, unnecessary.
Comment One commentor claimed
that the modeled concentrations should
be running averages, not block averages.
Response: EPA modeling guidelines
state that block averaging tunes should
continue to be used for modeling
purposes. Thus, modeled running
averages are not required.
Comment: The States of New York
and Connecticut raised a number of
issues related to the potential interstate
impacts of EPA's approval cf the Vigo
County plan. These States expressed a
general concern that the Vigo County
emissions, in combination with the SO»
emissions from other midwest sources,
will have a serious, detrimental impact
on interstate air pollution levels. They
also made the following additional,
specific comments: 1) Approval of the
IN-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 93 / Thursday, May 13. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
20585
Vigo County strategy will result in
increased SO. and TSP emissions. This
will adversely affect the pollution levels
in other states and thus an EPA
approval would violate sections
110(a)(2)(E) and 126 of the CAA. 2) EPA
and Indiana inappropriately utilized
only short-range air polluUon dispersion
models, which are incapable of
assessing long-range pollutant transport.
3) EPA should have modeled the SOi •
emissions for their effect on the
particulate matter levels in other States.
4) Approval of the Vigo County plan will
result in increased downwind sulfate
concentrations. 5) If EPA does not
disapprove the Vigo County plan, it
must defer its decision until the
completion of certain proceedings now
pending under Section 126 of the CAA.
Response: EPA's review and approval
of the Indiana SO. SIP revuion will not
result in increased SO* and TSP levels,
and thus is consistent with Sections
110(a)(2)(E) and 128 for several reasons.
Because the emission limitations for
Vigo County generally reflect status quo
emissions or restrictions, no significant
increase m SO, or TSP emissions and.
consequently, no increase in net impact
is expected. In addition, the Ji. Case
and Anaconda Aluminum stack height
changes are only minor increases up to
30 meters (m) EPA has determined that
stack heights of up to 65 m may
automatically be credited to most
significant sources of SO* without
violating section 123 of the CAA
(February 8.1982.47 FR 5864). These
two increases are well below EPA's de
minimis stack height of 65 m. Further,
because the PSI stack height change is
accompanied by a derating requirement
and a reduction from rrminmiiTn status
quo emissions, the expected net effect of
today's rulemaking is to reduce PSTs
actual impacts.
With regard to comments on the use
of EPA reference models. EPA has not.
yet established any techniques which
evaluate impacts bcyuml SO kilometers
(km) from a source. Consequently,
contrary to the commentor's daim. there
are no EPA-approved regulatory tools
currently available to assess long-range
impacts.
Pursuant to Section 110(a)(2)(E). EPA
has reviewed this action for potential
interstate unpads to the extent that
EPA's modeling allows. The only State
within 50 Ion of Vigo County is Illinois.
There are no SO. nonattainment areas
in Illinois within 50 km. There is only
one oounty m Illinois within 50 km
where the baseline date has been
triggered. As discussed below, there are
no problems concerning PSD increment
consumption or violations at the
NAAQS in Illinois.
The largest SO, source in Vigo County
is the PSI Wabash River Plant, located
about 13.5 km east of the Illinois State
line. Modeling predicts the highest SO«
concentrations to occur in the vicinity of
the Wabash River Plant. The highest,
second high 24-hour modeled
concentration was 362 jig/m1 and
occurred at a receptor located 3 km east
of the Plant. West of the Plant (towards
Illinois), the high, second high impact
was 323 pg/m*. located 13 km WNW of
the Plant and 12.5 km east of the State
line. The predicted concentrations west
of this receptor decrease to
approximately 200 /xg/m1 within 10 km
of the State line. Furthermore, a
conservative screening analysis
demonstrated that maximum
concentrations in Illinois due to Vigo
County sources are less than 90 jig/m*.
Because the concentrations are
decreasing away from Vigo County in
Illinois and concentrations due to Vigo
County sources in Illinois are well
below the NAAQS. no violations due to
Vigo County sources are expected to
occur in Illinois.
The closest major source in Illinois to
the Indiana Border is outside the
modeling range of 50 km. Consequently,
EPA was unable to consider possible
source interaction in Illinois. However,
beyond 50 km the Illinois sources would
almost certainly contribute far more
than Indiana sources to ambient SO*
concentrations.
EPA has also considered under
section 110(a)(2)(E) whether Teviaian of
the emission limits for the
sources interferes with measures
"required to be included m the
applicable implementation plan for any
other State under Part C to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality
* * *" A conservative screening
analysis demonstrated thai the net
effect of the Vigo County plan-would be:
to reduce PSTs actual impact on the
Illinois PSD area. Therefore. EPA has
concluded that the revised SIP wQl not
Interfere with Illinois' ability to prevent
significant deterioration of its air
quality.
With respect to Connecticut's claim
that Q>A should have modeled the SO«
emissions for their effect on the
particulate matter levels in other States.
EPA's currently approved models are
not capable of such an analysis. EPA
models estimate ground-level SO*
concentrations caused by a plant*SO»
emissions. Similarly. EPA models
estimate ground-level particulate
concentrations caused by a source's
particulate matter °r"'Vo'"~* Although
models capable of estimating the impact
of SO, emissions on ground-level
particulate matter concentrations have
been developed by researchers, EPA is
still evaluating their predictive accuracy
as part of an overall revision to its
Modeling Guidelines. Application of
these models at this time, therefore, is
premature. For the purposes of section
•110(a)(2)(E), EPA notes that the
oommentor has not submitted any
information which demonstrates that the
SO> emissions from the Vigo County
sources contribute or impact particulate
pollution in other States.
The sulfate question raised by the
commentors is a complex one. To date,
EPA has not established a national
ambient air quality standard fur
sulfates. However, the sulfate issue is
being evaluated as part of EPA's current
review, under section 109(d)(1) of the
CAA. 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(1), of the criteria
and national standards for sulfur oxides
and particulate matter (see "Second
External Review Draft Air Quality
Cntena for Particulate Matter and
Sulfur Qxides." and notice announcing
comment period on draft. 46 FR 15569
(March 6,1981)). At present, in the
absence of a national standard for
sulfates, EPA need not consider the
Impact of the Indiana SO, plan on
sulfate levels.
On June 18 and IS. 1981. as a result of
petitions filed by the States of New York
and Pennsylvania under section 126 of
the CAA. EPA held a hearing in
Washington. D.C. to consider the
possible interstate impact of a number
of proposed and final SO. revisions.for.
sources located in Indiana. Tennessee.
Ohio, and West Virginia. (Docket No. A-
81-8) To the extent that New-York and-
Connecticut's comments to the Vigo
County proposal relate to the same
aggregate air quality impact issues as in
the section 128 action, they wQl be
addressed in the Agency's Section 128 -
determination; EPA i8~aot:required-to~
delay a plan revision until it reaches a
decision oo a Section 126 petition.
Connecticut vs EPA. 902 F 2d 656 (2d
Cir. 1981). In light of the congressional
mandate to act expeditiously under Part
D of the Act EPA does not believe that
it would be appropriate to withhold the
Vigo County rulemaking until EPA acts
on the Section 126 petitions. At the time
the Agency makes sudt a determination
and to the extent necessary, EPA can
and will reevaluate the adequacy of the
Vigo County plan.
' Based on its review, EPA approves, in
part, the revised Vigo County SO.
strategy as a revision to the SIP. The
compliance dates contained in the
current federally approved APC-13
IN—4
-------
20586 Federal Reglsta» / VoL 47, No. 93 / Thursday, May 13, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
(May 14.1973) will continue to apply to
those sources for which the revised SO,
strategy contains leu stringent emission
limitations. In those cases where the
revised SO« strategy requires more
stringent emission limitations, the
compliance timetables listed In Section
0 of 3251AC Article 7 are approved in
Vigo County. Section 8 requires final
compliance by December 31.1391.
Sources subject to the plan requirements
and deadlines established under Section
110(a)(2)(A) pnor to the 1977
Amendments remain obligated to
comply with those requirements until
such time as they come Into compliance
with the new Part D plan requirements.
EPA is presently taking no action on
30-day averaging. This will not affect
approvabiLty of the Vigo County
strategy as a whole, because 325 LAC
Article 7 contains an approvable
compliance method, stack testing in
accordance with 40 CFR Part SO.
Appendix A Method ft. Article 7 also
permits the Indiana Air Pollution
Control Board to approve alternate
compliance methods. Any such methods
approved by the Board must be
submitted to EPA for its action.
EPA has determined that good cause
exists for making these revisions
immediately effective and deviating
from the requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)
(the Administrative Procedures Act) that
substantive rules be published thirty
days before their effective date. By
making this final rulemaking
immediately effective, some of the
restrictions en industrial growth
contained in Section llO(a)(2](I) of the
. Clean Air Act will be lifted from the
State of Indiana. These restrictions are
imposed for failure to have a SIP which
meets the requirements of Part D after
the final date for SO* approval specified
in the Act EPA has determined that the
Vigo County SO. SIP on the whole,
meets the requirements of Part D.
Therefore, it would be contrary to the
public interest to continue the
restrictions on industrial growth for
thirty days after the publication of this
notice.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), I hereby certify that the attached
rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This action only approves state
actions. It will impose no new
requirements.
This regulation was exempted from
review by the Office of Management
and Budget under Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291. .
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act judicial review of this action is
available only by the filing of a petition
for review in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit
within 60 days of today. Under section
307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act the
requirements which are the subject of
today's notice may not be challenged
later in civil or criminal proceedings
brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
Nof. Incorporation by reference of the
State Implementation Plan for the State of
Indiana was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on July 1,1981.
(Sees. 110 and 172. Gean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7410 and 7902])
Dated: April 30.1882.
Anne M. Gorfucb,
A dmima trator.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control. Ozone, Sulfur
oxides. Nitrogen dioxide. Lead.
Particulate matter. Carbon monoxide.
Hydrocarbons.
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. Chapter L Part 52. Subpart
p—Indiana is amended as follows:
1. Section 52J70(c) is amended by
adding subparagraph (31) as follows:
S 52.770 MenUflcation.of pUn.
(c) • • *
(31) On February 11,1880, Indiana
submitted a revised sulfur dioxide
strategy for Vigo County. Technical
information was submitted on December
10,1979 and on May 30.1980. On
October 6,198a the State submitted a
recodified version of the Vigo County
Regulations, 32S LAC Article 7, which '
was promulgated by the State on August
27,1080. EPA is not taking action on the
30-day averaging compliance method
contained in 32S LAC 7-1-3 aa it applies
to Vigo County.
2. Section 52.773 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) as follows:
5 52.773 Approval status.
• t • « «
(b) The Administrator finds that the
SOi strategies for Lake, LaPorte, Marian
and Vigo Counties satisfy ail
requirements of Part ~, Title I of the
Clean Air Act as amended in 1977,
except as noted below.
• • • • t
{Fit Due. B-UOU Pltod 5-12-6K M fl»|
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[A-a-FRL-2083-l]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plana; Ohio
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency.
action: Final rulemaking.
summary: EPA is approving the State of
Ohio's sulfur dioxide (SO*) emission
limitations for portions of the .fallowing
counties: Athens County; Columbus and
Southern Ohio Electric (CaSOE)—
Poston. Hamilton County. DuPont—Fort
Hill. Montgomery County: Dayton Power
and Light-Tait and Hulchings, Pike
County: Southern Wood Piedmont
Seneca County: Union Carbide Fostoria
Plant and Wayne County: Orrville
Municipal Power Plant Additionally,
EPA is redefining the SO* attainment
area for Hamilton County into two
distinct attainment areas. These
revisions are based on the request and
the supporting data submitted by the
State of Ohio.
EFFECTIVE DATE This final rulemaking
becomes effective on June 14,1982.
addresses: Copies of the Docket #5A-
80-3 are on file for copying and
inspection during normal business hours
at the following address. (It is
recommended that you telephone the
contact person given below before
visiting the Region V office).
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region V, Air Programs Branch. 230
South Dearborn Street 11th Floor.
Chicago. Illinois 60804
Environmental Protection Agency,
Central Docket Section. West Tower
Lobby. Gallery 1,401 M Street. SW,
Washington. D.C. 20460
Copies of the Ohio Administrative
Code (OAQ Rules for this SIP revision
are available for inspection in the
Docket #BA-80-3 cited above and at:
The Office of the Federal Register, 1100
L Street NW„ Room 8401,
Washington. D.C 20460
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
Office of Air Pollution Control
Division of Authorization and
Compliance. 361 East Broad Street 6th
Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Debra Marcantonio at 886-6088.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
November 13.1981 (40 FR 55994), EPA
proposed to approve the State of Ohio's
sulfur dioxide emission limitations for
the following sources: Athens County:
Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric
(C&SOE)—Poston. Hamilton County:
i
\
t
I
b
/
n
P
ii
in
CO
of
be
Co
Po
W,
I
re\
in i
IN-5
-------
OCT 0 1 1982
Mr. Steve Rothblatt, Chief
Air Programs Branch (5AP-11)
Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Mr. Rothblatt:
' V, AMQ
Re: Comment Period for Proposed
Revision to Indiana SIP
The Indiana Air Pollution Control Board is proposing to amend its
State Implementation Plan CSIP) as listed on the enclosed public notice.
Please submit any comments on the intended SIP revision bv Xovember 1
1982, so the Board will be informed of EPA decision prior to taking^aciion.
Questions on the SIP revision should be directed to me.
Very truly yours,
C
c
r.
,r-
E. F. Stresino, Chief
Enforcement Branch
Air Pollution Control Division
SES/lt
Enclosure
IN-6
-------
Indiana
INDIANAPOLIS, 46206
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
1330 WEST MICHIGAN STREET
P.O. BOX 1964
NOTICE OF PROPOSED DELATED COMPLIANCE ORDER
FOR
Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc.
Isabash River Generating Station
Vigo County, Indiana
Notice is herebv given that the Indiana Air Pollution Control Board
is considering the issuance of a Delayed Compliance Oraer Public Service
Company of Indiana, Inc. ("PSI") Wabash River Generating Station, pursuant
to Section 113(d) of the Federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 7415(d).
8v the terms of 325 IAC 7-1, PSI is required to construct a new 450-foot
smokestack at the l\abasn River Generating Station by December 51, 1982.
Because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency failed to approve that
provision of the Indiana regulations until May 13, 1982, PSI delayed con-
struction and will be unable to complete the stack within the required time.
The proposed Order being considered would require compliance on or before
June 50, 1984.
Notice is nereby given that the proposed Order will be considered
at the November 3, 1982. meeting of the Air Pollution Control Board in the
Indiana State Board of Health Building, 1550 West Michigan Street, Indianapolis,
Indiana, to be held at 1:00 p.m. Any person may appear and submit oral or
written comments on the issuance or content of the proposed Order at that
meeting, or may submit written comment to the above address at any time prior
to that meeting.
A copy of the proposed Order is available for examination at the
office of the Air Pollution Control Division of the Indiana State Board of
Health, 1550 West Michigan Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, or at the office of
the Vigo County Air Pollution Control Division, Terre Haute, Indiana.
Interested parties may call Mr. E.F. Stresmo at 317/653-0617 if
they have questions about this matter.
Harry D. iuliiams
Technical Secretary
IN-7
-------
carbon monoxide (mc/mjj
INDIANA
75-83
HETHUDI
NONDISPFRSlVE
INFRARED (NDIR) CONTINUOUS,
HOURLY
valuesmi« flame ionization
-21
Rfp
max
1-HR OBS>
MAX
8-HR
OBS>
. *ITE ID
LOCATION
COUNTY
.
ADDRESS
yr
ORG
• OBS
1ST
2ND 40
1ST
2ND
10
tsjieooioHoi
LAST CHICAGO
LAKF CO
900 EAST CHICAGO
79
1040
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.2
(9i iflooioiioi
EAST CHICAGO
LAKF CO
900 FAST CHICAGO
76
7146
20.1
18.9
13.6
11.9
7
tsiieooioHoi
EAST CHICAGO
LAK£ CO
900 EAST CHICAGO
77
6613
20,1
20.1
12.9
12.1
2
151IflOOlOHOJ
EAST CHICAGO
LAKE CO
900 EAST CHICAGO
78
8265
20.1
19.6
12.2
9.0
1
151lflOOlOHOJ
EAST CHICAGO
LAKF fO
900 EAST CHICAGO
79
8444
21,3
19.5
10.1
9.2
|5l18001IH01
EAST CHICAGO
LAKF CO
4818 IliDIANAPOLI
80
9073
8,6
4.5
ISt180OJ1H01
EAST CHICAGO
LAKF CO
4818 INDIAMAPOLI
81
006
629*
16.1
(hTq
11.4 <
3
tS«180011H01
EAST CHICAGO
LAKr CO
4818 INDIANAPOL!
82
006
2063
12.1
T7tr
7.4
151JOOOOIHOI
EVANSVILLC
VANDrPBURGII
CO
1063 NEST PENNSY
81
2023
11,0
10.7
7.0
-7.0 1
ISt30000BH01
FVANSVILLF
VANDERBURGH
CO
CIVIC center PEN
73
1923
15.5
14.3
8.6
8.7
151300008H01
evansville
VANDERBURGH
CO
CIVIC CENTER PEN
76
9668
12.9
12.0
9.2
7.0
131300008H01
EVANSVILLE
VANDERBURGH
CO
CIVIC center PEN
78
2672
23.6
20.7
15.0
14.7
4
(St30000SH01
EVANSVILLC
VANDERBURGH
CO
CIVIC CENTER PEN
79
6080
10.4
9.8
6.2
6.0
I5}300008H01
EVANSVILLE
VANDERBURGH
CO
CIVIC CENTER PEN
80
1055
8,1
7.5
4.9
3.9
1S tJ00008H01
EVANSViLLE
VANDERBURGH
CO
CIVIC center pen
81
002
3574
8.6
7.4
3.2
3.5
I5I52000IH01
GARY
LAKF CO
3600 WEST 3RD AV
81
5902
19.3
M.3
10.9
1,1
1
|5|52000lH01
GARY
lake ro
3600 WEST 3RD AV
62
2224
13.5
11.3
6.4
6.1
I9I7BOAOBFA1
HAMMOND
LAKF CO
1100 MIST STREE
79
3433
9.6
8.2
6.3
6.2
t3t 780O08F01
HAMMOND
LAKF ro
1300 MIST STREE
80
687
7.3
6.3
3.0
2.7
13?040030F01
INDIANAPOLIS
MAR ION CO
WOHPN'S PRISON
76
1496
27.7
20.9
20.7
15.5
5
I52040030F01
INDIANAPOLIS
MARION CO
WOMFN'.S PRISON
77
8399
22.3
20.9
18.5
11.0
2
i5}04on3nrni
INDIANAPOLIS
MARION CO
WOMEN'S PRISON
78
6743
33.9
29.1
24.9
15.1
4
|S9040030Foi
INDIANAPOLIS
MARION CO
WOMEN '.S PRISON
79
7767
18.3
16.7
13.2
10.0
1
!3a040030F01
INDIANAPOLIS
MARION CO
WOMEN•S PRISON
80
6200
23.6
19.2
16.3
11.1
2
159040O30FO1
INDIANAPOLIS
MAR ION CO
women's prison
fit
001
6055
16.7
16.0
10.7
9.5
1
133040630FOI
INDIANAPOLIS
MARION CO
WOMEN'S PRISON
82
001
707
5.6
5.5
3.6
1.6
15904on3nFAi
INDIANAPOLIS
MARION CO
WOMEN'S PRISON
73
640
1 3 j. 3
10.0
6.1
5.8
157040030F01
INDIANAPOLIS
MARION CO
WOMEN'S PRISON
77
645
7.8
6.7
6.3
3.9
1590400JIFfll
INDIANAPOLIS
MARION CO
71ST AND TACOMA
75
2583
15.5
15.2
11.6
8.8
1
157040031F01
INDIANAPOLIS
MARION CO
7IST AND TACOMA
76
*440
19.6
19.4
13.2
9.7
1
15)040031F01
INDIANAPOLIS
MARION CO
71ST AND TACOMA
77
5181
14.6
12.2
8.9
8.6
I33040031F01
INDIANAPOLIS
MARION CO
71ST AHU TACOMA
78
6413
28.3
19.7
13.1
12.3
1
15?040031F01
INDIANAPOLIS
MARION CO
7IST AND TACOMA
79
3369
15.7
13.8
5.7
5.4
I93040032FA1
INDIANAPOLIS
MARION CO
9TH AND MERIDIAN
75
2229
29.6
26.6
16.6
17.2
12
1S9640033F01
INDIANAPOLIS
MARION CO
9TH AND MFPIDIAN
76
4283
26.7
20.9
10.1
9.7
1
|5?040034F01
INDIANAPOLIS
llARTON CO
L S AYVES BUILD!
77
4693
32.3
30.4
20.1
14.4
24
I99040034F01
INDIANAPOLIS
MARION CO
L S AYVFS nUILDI
78
5742
31.6
24.1
13.2
12.7
15
I57O40O34FO1
INDIANAPOLIS
MARION CO
L S AYVES buildi
79
8178
24.6
24.5
15.8
13.9
26
I59040034F01
INDIANAPOLIS
MARION CO
L S AYVES BUILDI
80
7626
19.8
19.4
13.6
12.7
17
METH
-------
09/08/62
NATIONAL AEROMETRIC D»TA BANK
QUICK LOOK REPORT
PAGE 6
carbon monoxide (hg/hd Indiana 75-B2
METHODI NONDISPPRSIVE INFRARED CNDIR) CONTINUOUS, HOURLY VALUES-11# TLAHE IONIZATION^
rep max 1-hr obs> hax b-hr obs>
ID .
LOCATION.
rOUNTY
ADDRESS
YR
ORG,
• OB6.
1ST
2ND 40
1ST
2ND
10
HCTH
I59040OJ4FOJ
l5?Of0034Ffll
ISiSBOAdSFOl
INDIANAPOLIS
INDIANAPOLIS
SOUTH BEND
MARION CO
HARTON CO
ST JOSEPH CO
L S £¥VES BUILDI
L S AWES BUILDI
ANGFLA I EDDY 6T
61
82
62
001
001
1912
1112
710
2).9
17.6
8.2
22,3
17.J
6.8
17.6
10.7
3.2
11.6
10.1
1.5
1Q
1
11
11
11
I
KO
-------
O'KoCC*-'
6274 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No 29 / Thtsrsd.iy. February 11. 19fl2 / Rule; find Jtppu'.ilions
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
IA-S-FRL-S016—*1
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Indiana
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency.
action: Final rule.
summary: The United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) announces today final
rulemaking on revisions to the carbon
monoxide (CO) and ozone (QjI portions
of the Indiana Slate Implementation
Plan (SiP) The State submitted these
revisions to USEPA to satisfy ihe
requirements of Part D of the Clean Air
Act (Act) USEPA proposed rulemaking
on these revisions to the Indiana SIP ui
the August 27. 1961 (46 FR 431A8)
Federal Register. One public comment
was received.
This notice announces final
rulemaking today approving revisions to
the Transportation Control Plans (TCP'sJ
for a Lake. Porter, Clark. Floyd. St.
Joseph. Elkhart and Allen Counties:
approving the Oj attainment .
demonstration for Lake. Porter. Clark,
and Floyd Counties, and approving the
CO strategy for Lake County.
effective oate: March IS. 1982.
addresses: Copies of the SIP revision,
public comments on the NPR and
USEPA's comments are available for
inspection at the following addresses:
Air Programs Branch. Region V. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 230
South Oearbom Street. Chicago,
Illinois 60604
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Public information Reference Unit 401
M Street. SW . Washington, D.C.
20460
Air Pollution Control Division. Indiana
Board of Health. 1330 West Micnigan
Street, Indianapolis, Lndiana 45206
Copies of the SIP revision oriy are
available at: The Office of Ihe Federal
Register. 1100 L Street. NW., Room 6401.
Washington. D.C. 20408.
FOR FVIBTVtEB INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cerald Kellman. Air Programs Branch.
U.S Environmental protection Agency.
230 South Dearborn Street. Chicago.
Illinois 60604 (312) 866-6069
SUPPLEMENTARY information: Or. June
26.1979. the State of Indiana submitted,
among other items Oi plans for Lake.
Porter. Clark. Floyd. St. Joseph. Elkhart,
and Allen Counties and a CO plan for
Lake County The State of Indiana
submitted revisions to these plans on
May in. 1980. September 24.1980.
October 9. IDliU and October IS. 1980.
On August 27.1901 (46 FR 4318B)
USEPA proposed approval of these SIP
revisions, and requested comments from
the State and the public. The
requirements for an approvable
transportation plan were referenced in
the August 27.19B1 notice of proposed
rulemaking During the public comment
period the State commented on USEPA's
proposed action There were no other
comments. Bnscd on the previous
submittals and a review of the State's
comments. USEPA is today briefly
summarizing the proposal, addressing
the State's comments and acting cn the
Indiana submittals as revisions to the
federally approved Indiana SIP A
discussion of this rulemaking action is
presented below for each geographic
area:
Clark and Floyd Counties
Based on measured violations of the
Oj National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (N'AAQSJ in the Indiana
portion of the Louisville urban area,
Clark and Floyd Counties were
designated as nonattdinment areas for
Oj. The TCP for Clark and Floyd
Counties was prepared by the
Kentuckiana Regional Planning and
Development Agency. The
transportation control plan contains
measures designed to attain end
maintain the NAAQS for Oj in Clark
and Floyd Counties.
Based on review of the TCP and the
demonstration of attainment. USEPA
approves ell portions of the TCP and the
demonstration of attainment (or Oj in
Clark and Floyd Counties.
SL Joseph and Elkhart Counties
The TCP for St. Joseph and Elkhart
Counties was prepared by the Michiana
Area Council of Governments. It
contains measures designed to reduce
the level of hydrocarbon emissionStn
the area. The strategy projects that the -
percent reduction in hydrocarbon
emissions required to ensure attainment
of the Oj NAAQS in the area will be
achieved
USEPA has reviewed the control
strategy developed for St. Joseph and
Elkhart Counties. The TCP portion of the
control strategy satisfies the TCP
requirements of an approvable
nonattainment area SIP and USEPA
approves it. However, USEPA must
examine further the adequacy or the
Slate's control requirements for volatile
organic compounds for stationary
sources The adequacy of Indiana's
requirements for stationary source
controls and the demonstration of
attainment will be di^russfd in a future
notice of proposed rulemaking.
Xake and Porter Counties
Basud on measured \iolalionsof the
Oj NAAQS. Lake and Porter Counties
were designated as non.iitainment areas
for Oj. The TCP for Lake and Porter
Counties whs prepared hy the
Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning
Commission The transportation control
plan contains measures designed to
attain and mjintain the NAAQS for 0«
in Lake and Porter Counties.
USEPA has reviewed the Os control
strategv developed for Lake and Porter
Counties The TCP satisfies the TCP
requirements for an approvable
nonattainment SIP Bd«ed on this
review. USEPA approves the
transportation control measures for 0>
and the demonstration of attainment for
Oi in Lake and Porter Counties.
USEPA has reviewed the CO control
strategy developed for Lake County.
While Indiana's submittal did not
include all materials for a demonstration
of attainment, USEPA concludes that the
final reouirements can be met through
elements of Indiana's transportation
plan required to be submitted as part of
the 1982 SIP. These requirements were
set forth in detail in the nol:ce of
proposed rulemaking 46 FR 43188.
Therefore. LSEPA approves the CO
transportation control measures and
demonstration of attainment for Lake
County This action removes the Section
no(a}(2)(I) growth restrictions for
carbon monoxide in Lake County.
Allen County
The transportation control plan for
Allen County was prepared by the
Northeastern Indiana Regional
Coordinating Council. It contains
measures designed to reduce the level of
hydrocarbon emissions in the area.
USEPA has reviewed the control
strategy deveiooed for Allen County.
The TCP portion of the control strategy
sansfies all of the TCP requirements for
an approvable nonattainment area SIP
and USEPA approves it. However.
USEPA needs to further examine Ihe
adequacy of the State's control
requirements for volatile organic
compounds for stationer)' sources. The
adequacy of Indiana's stationary source
requirements and the demonstration of
attainment will be discussed in a future
notice of proposed rulemaking.
Public Comments and Response*
In response to the August 27.1981
notice of proposed rulemaking, the Slate
of Indiana submitted the only comments.
EPA has carefully considered Ihe State's
IK-10
-------
Federal Recister / Vol 47. No 29 / Thursday. February 11. 1982 I Rules and Regulations*-. 6275
coi."«r-ent3 in reaching today's
rulemaking action The Stdte's
comments and USEPA's response
follow:
Comment The State commented that
the Indiana SIP submittal includes a
demonstration of attainment (or St
{oseph. Elkhart and Allen Counties. The
State asked EPA to approve the
attainment demonstration for these
counties.
Response. In Ihe August 27 1981
Federal Register. USEPA proposed to
approve the Stale s submittal with the
exception of the demonstration of
attainment for St {oseph. Elkhart and
Allen Counties The Statp has not
required RACT for stationary sources in
these counties EPA policy requires
RACT in all ozone nonattairmcnt areas,
unless dispersion modeling has been
used for the demonstration of
attainment. Because dispersion
modeling was not used for these
counties and because RACT is required
in these counties. EPA will not lake
action on the attainment demonstration
at this time EPA will take action at a
later date after additional air quality
data is collected and the need for RACT
is reassessed.
Comment. The State obiected to the
statement in the proposed rulemaking
which required the State to replace
transportation projects which cannot be
implemented with a project of equal or
greater air quality benefit. The State
cites USEPA policy which requires
conformance of transportation plans
and programs with the SIP. and not with
-individual transportation projects
Response. The State s citation of
USEPA policy is correct and USEPA
agrees with the State's position.
USEPA's statement on replacing
nonimpiemented protects of equal or
greater benefit was intended to refer to
achieving the total necessary emission
reduction goals and not substitution on
a project by project basis.
Comment. The State commented that
the proposed rule approves the
transportation control measures study
for Clark and Floyd Counties, although
the study has not been completed.
Response. The proposed rulemaking
did not propose approval of the study,
but proposes approval of the schedule
for completing the process which will
lead to the adoption of the plan js well
as the commitment to adopt the plan
Comment The State disagrees wiih
the requirement in the proposed rule
that extensive documentation of
attainment for CO in Lake County be
provided as part of the 19B2 SIP
Response. Because Indiana's
transportation submittals for Lake
County did not include all information
necessary to demonstrate attainment of
the CO standards. USEPA is approving
the material submitted as only meeiing
the requirements of the 1979 SIP EPA
still finds that the additional information
specified in the notice of proposed
rulemaking (46 FR 433188) is necessary
in Indiana's transportation plan and
requires that it be submitted as a part of
the 1982 CO SIP
Comment The State objected to the
use of the term 'Transportation Control
Plan'" in reference to the Indiana 0» and
CO SIP. The State asserts that this term
is outdated and has a negative
connotation. Also, the State points out
that the term does not adequately reflect
all of the activities contained in this
portion of the SIP
Response. USEPA generally agrees
with the State's comments related to the
term 'Transportation Control Plan." but
for reasons of consistency with the
proposed notices on this subjeel and
with rulemaking actions for the same
requirements in other States. EPA is
retaining this term for the final notice.
Summary of Action
LM* County
CO Tnnseortahon control meanses Aocnywed
Ob Trantoortataon control nvawn - Approved
00 Demonstration or attainment Aee»ov*d
O* Oememtriwn o* aitamonl Aecowa
Pvfr Couiiy
O* Tf«nsoort«non control maasuft* —— Approved
0» Demons nation of aftfcnmeni L. *ni*3
01 TrtAsooruien control mean#ti - Acprwed
0» Ocronscation o* aitaavntnt Aepraroa
St Joseen intf Count**
O* Tramooruoon control measures
Oi Demonstration of atlfcnmanl Agtftwia
AMft Covntf
Oi Tranicoruren control maaswe% - *ooro
-------
6276 Federal Register / Vol 17. No 29 / Thursday. February 11. 1982 / Rules and Rcoulnlions
Pollutant
Ae Ou*kty contra reQO*
PtTOuW* minor
Prvr^ttf Secondary
Sufe* ciOei
Pianaiy Seconder?
Nitrogen
«qu»
Certttn
monoiio*
Eaftl Ce*v* Infra-ta frWttUte
(AOCfl ?6)
a Prmary J nd Secondary .
b fl«ma*oe* ol A OCA
gvtmvrtie |tna»nal—ChPtfH*
bo»C H«4et»n {Kentucky)
fcnetttste (AOCA 77)
a Pw*ary and Secondary
a Atrruurvje* Of aOCA -
tauitv^* tniersiata (AOCA 76)
* Pnrt«f> and Secondary „
0 P**naiftd6f ol AOCR
MrtfQDCl U* OMC490 Interstate
>rnar-
SUIft (A0C8
* P» unary a«d Secondary
0 Remamoet ol aOCS „ „
Uftvopohun fndianpofaa Inter,
state (AOCA 60)
* Primary and Secondary
b Rfr**ainc#r of AQCR
Nertr*isi Indiana tanstaio
(AOCfl fli)
a Primary and Secondary
D Remainder of AQCA __ ..
Soutf* 9«fid-Eikrtan (fndttnai
0e»no*» H*cc (M
a Primary and Secondary
~. Aemartdev of AOCA
ffl
rfl „
*
k.6-
Norc —Oaie* or footnote* »r*crt are itahca-ed are geauioed by the Adnwasvator vm ptarr <*3 not prowoe a
apeoie oaie qi the data prowled was not acceoxatte
nohl — Pv actual nonaTttjnment designation*. ree pnmarr sttfltfaitsa.
• A» oa*bfr i«*«« betow the aeeendanr standards.
( Tfttneefvm&Mh taieni
-------
/£¦>©<«,b
10860 Federal Register / Vol, 47. No. 49 / Friday. March 12. 1962 / Proposed Rries
Preservation Officer, and to local public
officials.
(u) Any such notice must be published
in one or more Local newspapers.
(iii) Any such notice must be posted
on and near any proposed and alternate
sites for an action.
(iv) Any such notice may be mailed to
potentially interested community
organizations, including small business
associations.
(v) Any such notice may be mailed to
owners and occupants of nearby or
affected property.
(4) A copy of every notice of intent to
prepare an environmental impact
statement must be furnished to the
Assistant General Counsel. Legislative
Division. Law Department, who will
have it published in the Federal
Register.
(39 U.S.C. 401)
W. Allen Sanders,
Assoaate General Counsel. Office of General
Law and A dmuiistration.
[YR Doc. n-aaa Fllad MM S4S uni
(njJNQ COM 7T10-1S-U
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFH Part 52
[A-5-FHL 1933-2]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementations Plans; Indiana
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency (E>A).
action: Proposed rulemaking.
summary: EPA announced elsewhere in
today's Federal Register final
rulemaking on parts of the Indians
sulfur dioxide (SO>) State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Indiana
submitted these revisions to partially
satisfy the requirements of Part D of the
Clean Air Act. as amended m 1977. In
the final rulemaking, EPA conditionally
approved certaut revisions to the
Indiana SO-i SIP. This notice solicits
public comment on the deadline by
which the State of Indiana has
committed itself to remedy the
conditionally approved portions of SO«
SIP.
oates: Comments must be received on
or before April 12.1982.
aooresses*. Comments should be sent
to the following address:
Gary Gulezian. Chief. Regulatory
Analysis Section. Air Programs
'Branch. U S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region V, 230 South
Dearborn Street. Chicago. Illinois
60604.
Copies of the materials submitted by
the State and the public during the
comment period announced in this
notice of proposed rulemaking are
available for review during normal
business hours at the following
addresses:
USEPA, Region V, Air Programs Branch.
230 South Dearborn Street. Chicago.'
Illinois 60604.
Air Pollution Control Division. 1330 W.
Michigan Street. Indianapolis. Indiana
46200.
USEPA. Public InformaOon Reference
Unit 401 M Street SW, Washington.
D.C. 20460.
FOR RJRTMEH INFORMATION CONTACT!
Robert B. Miller. Regulatory Analysis
Section. Air Programs Branch. Region V,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
230 South Dearborn Street. Chicago.
Illinois 60£C4. [312) &S6-6031.
supplementary INFORMATION: In final
rulemaking action published in today's
Federal Register, EPA approved,
conditionally approved, and
disapproved portions of Indiana's SO*
control strategies. A discussion of
conditional approval and its practical
effects appears in the July 2. 1979 and
the November 23.1979 Federal Registers
(44 FR 365883 and 67182). A conditional
approval requires the State to remedy
identified deficiencies by specified
deadlines. Although public comment is
solicited on the deadlines, the State
remains bound by its commitments
unless the schedules are disapproved by
EPA in its final rulemaking action. A
conditional approval means that the
restriction on new source construction
in designated nonattaimnent areas will
not apply unless the State fails to submit
the corrections by the specified date, or
unless the corrections are ultimately
determined to be inadequate. -
In today's final rulemaking. EPA also
identified the conditions which must be
satisfied by the State of Indiana to
correct the specified deficiencies in the
SOi revision to the Part D Indiana SIP.
The State o£ Indiana has provided
assurances in letters dated August 27,
1960 and July 18.1981 that it wUl satisfy
these conditions on a specific schedule.
EPA proposes to approve the
following schedule for Indiana to correct
the remaining minor deficiencies in (he
Lake. LaPorte and Marion Counties SO)
SIP.
Schedules
1. The State of Indiana believes that
the twenty-four hour standard is the
limiting standard, and if a
demonstration is made that it has been
attained and will be maintained, the
three hour standard and annual
standards will also be met. The State of
Indiana committed itself to submit
documentation substantiating this belief.
If protection of the three hour and
annual standard cannot be justified. the
State committed itself to investigate
further and make necessary changes,
including changes to affected
regulations, and submit the same to n>A
by November 1982.
2. The State of Indiana committed
itself to submit the justification for the
background concentrations for ail
appropriate averaging periods to EPA. If
tins documentation ts not sufficient, the
State of Indiana committed itself to
investigate and make any necessary
revisions, including changes to affected
regulations, and submit the same to EPA
by November 1982.
3. The State af Indiana committed
itself to submit to EPA the corrected <
emission inventories for Marion and
Lake Counties. If the submission is not
adequate, the State committed itself to <
investigate and make necessary *
corrections, including changes to
regulations, and submit the same to CTA
by November 1982.
4. The State of Indiana committed
itself to submit to EPA the corrected
receptor network coverage and
resolution, including a listing of the high
and second high concentrations on
critical days. If additional
documentation is necessary, the State
committed itself to investigate and make
further revisions, including changes to .
affected requlations. and submit the
same to EPA by-November 1982.
Pursuant to the provisions of S U-S.C.
605(b), the Administrator certified on
January 27,1981 (46 FR 870S) that
regulatory actions approving revisions
to SEP'3 under Sections 110 and 172 of
the Act will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This action. if
promulgated, only approves State
actions. It will impose no new
requirements.
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must judge whether a regulation is1
"major" and. therefore, subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis. This regulation. J promulgated
will not be major as defined by -
Executive Order 12291, because this
action only approves a State action.
This action only proposes for public
comment those dates by which Indiana
has committed itself to submit technical
support and/or revisions to the SO> SIP
which was conditionally approved
elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
This action should oave no economic
costs involved above those necessary to
perform the revised analyses.
IN-13
-------
£o-e/b&/
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Friday. March 12. 1982 / Proposed Rules 10861
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review as required by
Executive Order 12291.
(Sec. 110.172. and 301(a) of the Clean Air
Act as amended)
Dated. March 5 1982.
Valdas V Adamkus.
Regional Administrator
[FR Doc 82-4621 FilM 3-11-42. IIS im|
BILLING CODE 6560 M M-
40 CFR Part 123
[SW-4-FRL-2073-3]
Georgia's Application for Interim
Authorization, Phase II, Components A
and B, Hazardous Waste Program;
Public Hearing and Comment Period
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency. Region IV
action: Notice of public heanng and
public comment period.
summary: Regulations to protect human
health and the environment from the
improper management of hazardous
waste were published in the Federal
Register on May 19.1980. (45 FR 33063).
The hazardous waste management
program regulations include provisions
for authorization of State programs to
operate in Iieu-of the Federal program
and for a transitional stage in which
States can be granted interim program
authorization. This document announces
the availability for public review of the
Georgia application for Phase ~.
Components A and B Interim
Authonzation. invites public comment,
and gives notice of a public heanng held
an the application.
date: VVntten comments on Georgia
Interim Authonzation application must
be received by the close of business on
Aonl 19.1982.
Public hearing: EPA will conduct a
public heanng on the Georgia Intenm
Authonzation application at 7:00 p.m. on
Monday. Apnl 12.1982. The State of
Georgia will participate in the public
heanng held by EPA on this subject.
addresses: Copies of the Georgia
Interim Authonzation application are
available at the following addresses for
inspection and copying by the public:
Land Protection Branch. Environmental
Protection Division. Georgia
Department of Natural Resources. 270
Washington Street. SW . Room 824.
Atlanta. Georgia 30334. Telephone
404/656-2833
Environmental Protection Agency.
Regional Office Library Room 121
345 Courtland Street NE.. Atlanta
Georgia 30365. Telephone. 404/881-
3016.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Headquarters Library. 401 M Street.
SW. Washington. D C. 20460. 202/
755-0308.
Wntten comments should be sent to-
James H Scarbrough. Chief. Residuals
Management Branch. Environmental
Protection Agency. 345 Courtland Street
NE.. Adanta. Georgia 30365. Telepnone.
404/881-3016
The public hearing will be held at-
Environmental Protection Agency, First
Floor Conference Room. 345 Courtland
Street NE.. Atlanta. Georgia 30365.
Telephone: 404/881-3016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
lames H Scarbrough. Chief. Residuals
Management Branch. Environmental
Protection Agency. 345 Courtland Street.
NE.. Adanta. Georgia 30365 Telephone:
404/881-3016
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
May 19.1980. Federal Register (45 FR
33063) the Environmental Protection
Agency promulgated regulations,
pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal
Act as amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
as amended, to protect human health
and the environment from the improper
management of hazardous waste. These
regulations included provisions under
which EPA can authorize qualified State
hazardous waste management programs
to operate in lieu of the Federal
program. The regulations provide for a
transitional stdge m which qualified
State programs can be granted Intenm
Authonzation. The Intenm
Authonzation program is being
implemented in two phases
corresponding to the two stages in
which the underlying Federal program
will take effect The State of Georgia
received Intenm Authoziation for Phase
I on February 3.1981.
In the January 26.1981. Federal
Register (46 FR 7965). the Environmental
Protection Agency announced the
availability of portions or components of
Phase II of Intenm Authonzation.
Component A. published in the Federal
Register January 12.1981. (46 FR 2802)
contains standards for permitting
containers, tanks, surface
impoundments, and waste piles.
Component B published in the Federal
Register January 23.1981. (46 FR 7666)
contains standards for permitting
hazardous waste incinerators
A full descnption of the requirements
and procedures for State Intenm
Authonzation is included in 40 CFR Pan
123 Subpart F (45 FR 33479) As noted in
the May 19.1980. Federal Register
copies of complete State submittals for
Phase II Intenm Authonzation wiil be
made available for public inspection
and comment. In addition, a public
heanng will be held on the submittal.
The purpose of this notice is to
announce the availability of the Georgia
submittal for Phase II Intenm
Authorization. Component A and
Component B to in\ite public comment,
and to give notice of a public heanng to
be hela on Georgia s aoplication
In addition. Georgia has applied for
delegation from EPA of its authonty
under the temporary regulations
promulgated as the Intenm Land
Disposal Permitting Program (40 CFR
Part 207)
Dated: March 5.1982.
Charles R. Jeter.
Regional A amirtisuaior
iFRDoc J2-6S83 Filed J-ll-M «4S«m|
BILLING COOK IMO-M-K
40 CFR Part 123
[ WH-S-FR L-2073-2]
Illinois Department of Mines and
Minerals Underground Injection
Control Primacy Application;
Cancellation of Public Heanng
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency.
action: Notice of cancellation of public
hearing.
summary: The public heanng on the
Illinois Department of Mines and
Minerals Underground Injection Control
Pnmacy Application, scheduled for
March 16.1982. has been cancelled. The
public heanng had been announced in
the Fnday. February 12.1982 Federal
Register (47 FR 6445) No requests for a
public heanng have been received.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Mayka. Ground Water Section
(5WD-26). Environmental Protection
Agency. Region 5. 230 S. Dearborn
Street. Chicago. Illinois 60604. (312) 886-
6194.
Dated. March 5.1982.
BrucaR. Barrett.
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doe. S2-6S14 Flirt 1-U-U. a 45 un|
BIUJNQ COOE (MO-U-U
40 CFR Parts 122,123,124,146
[WH-FRL-2073-1]
Oklahoma State Department of Public
Health Underground Infection Control
Primacy Application; Correction
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency
action: Proposed rule, correction.
summary: The Environmental Protection
Agency on Marcn 2. 1982. in 47 FR 8792
gave notice of intent to noid a public
heanng on tne Oklahoma Underground
IN-14
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Fnday, March 12. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 10813
nd
r
jvefl
ratio
,1
7 10
e
¦y.
fa
averst diree years of such
collated service. He or she may be paid
;r^nary soecial pay at the discretion of
•_-s Administrator upon the
••coaiinendation of the Chief Medical
Director (Pub. L. 96-030. Sec. 202: 38
JSC 4118(h))
; 17 510 failure to comply with terms and
eaneiuons of participation.
(a) if a participant, other than one
ztszroed m paragraph (b) of this
>c en fails to accept payment or
isu~.c:s the school not to accept
;ivr.eat of the scholarship provided by
ae Administrator, the participant must.
: accjt:oa to any service or other
:: ia:ion incurred under the contract.
:iv -a ie United Slates the amount of
s; jOO liquidated damages. Payment of
'jits asount must be made within SO
di>softhe date onjvhich the
participant fails to accept payment of
ie scholarship award or instructs the
vibool not to accept payment. (38 U.S.C.
<144(a))
(b| When a participant fails to
=aintain an acceptable level of
tudeaic standing, is dismissed from
•Je school for disciplinary reasons.
\aluntanly terminates the course of
study or program for which the
scholarship was awarded before
completing the course of study or
program, or fails to become Licensed to
;racsce medicine or osteopathy in a
Siate or fails to become licensed as a
rrnstered nurse m a State within 1 year
irra the date such person becomes
ci^ible to apply for State licensure, the
;irsapaxit must, instead of performing
i-y service obligauort. pay to the United
States an amount equal to all
scholarship funds awarded under the
written contract executed m accordance
vuh 5 17.502. Payment of this amount
Bust be made within 3 years from the
date academic training terminates. (38
U.S.C. 4144 (bj)
(c) Participants who breach, their
contracts by failing to begin or complete
tieir service obligation (for any reason)
aiher than as provided for under
paragraph (b) of this section are liable to
r»?ay the amount of all scholarship
unds paid to them and to the school on
-•eir oenalf. plus interest, as determined
3> the following formula:
*•» -L
*«-»)
-"'•e.cc
' •> the amount the United States is entitled
to recover
"0" is the sum of the amounts paid to or on
behaL' of the applicant and the interest
on such amounts wmca wouJo be
payable if. at the time the amounts were
paid, they were loans bearing interest at
the maximum legal preva.iing rate, as
cetermned by the Treasurer of the
United Slates
't* is the total number of months m the
applicant's period of obligated tervtce-
ana
's' is the number of months of the penoa of
obiigaiea service served by the
paruapanL
The amount which the United States is
entitled to recover shall be paid within 1
year of die date on which the applicant
failed to begin or complete the penod of
obligated service, as determined by the
Administrator. (38 U.S.C. 4144(c)]
§17.611 Bankruptcy.
Any payment obligation incurred may
not be discharged in bankruptcy under
title 11 of the United States Code until 5
years after the date on which the
payment obligation is due. (38 U.S.C.
4144(d)(3))
917.612 Cancellation, waiver, or
suspension of obligation.
(a) Any obligation of a participant for
service or payment will be canceled
upon the death of the participant. (38
U.S.C. 4144(d)(1))
(b)(1) A partiapant may seek a waiver
or suspension of the service or payment
obligation incurred under thi3 program
by written request to the Administrator
setting forth the basis, circumstances,
and causes which support the requested
action. The Administrator may approve
an initial request for a suspension for a
penod of up to 1 year. A renewal of this
suspension may also be granted.
(2) The Administrator may waive or
suspend any service or payment
obligation incurred by a partiapant
whenever compliance by the participant
(i) is impossible, due to circumstances
beyond the control of the participant or
(ii) whenever the Administrator
concludes that a waiver or suspension
of compliance would be in the best
interest of the Veterans Administration.
(38 U.S.C. 4144(d)(2))'
(c) Compliance by a participant with a
service or payment obliganoa will be
considered impossible due to
circumstances beyond the control of the
participant if the Administrator
determines, on the basis of such
information and documentation as may
be required, that the partiapant suffers
from a physical or mental disability
resulting in permanent inability to
perform the service or other activities
which would be necessary to comply
with the obligaoon. (38 U.S.C 4144(d)(2))
(d) Waivers or suspensions of service
or payment obligations, when not
related to paragraph fc) of this section,
and when considered in the best interest
of the Veterans Administration, will be
determined by the Administrator on an
individual basis- (38 U S C. 4144(d)(2))
(FH Doc. FilxJ l«s tm|
aiUJMG CODE I32D-01-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
(A- 5-FRL-1934-7]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Indiana
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
action: Final rulemaking.
summary: On June 23,1979. Indiana
submitted as a revision to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) a revised
sulfur dioxide (SO,) regulation. Air
Pollution Control 13 (APC13). and SO*
control strategies for certain designated
nonattainment counties. EPA proposed
rulemaking to conditionally approve, in
part these control strategies on March
27, 1980 (4S FR 20432). Indiana
recodified its regulations and on
October 8.1380 submitted essentially
identical regulations. EPA is taking final
action today to conditionally approve, m
part the recodified regulations and the
control strategies contained m the
submissions. EPA is taking no action on
an alternate method of'determuung
compliance within the regulation which
permits averaging of SO* emissions over
30 days. It is disapproving the plans for
Wayne, Dearborn, Porter, and Wamck
Counties because those plans do not
assure attainment and maintenance of
the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). On January 27,
1981. EPA disapproved the plan for
Jefferson County (46 FR 8473). EPA is
proposing rulemaking elsewhere in
today's Federal Register on the dates by
which Indiana has committed itself to
meet the conditions on EPA's approval.
dates: This action is effective as of
March 12.1982.
AOOAESSES: Copies of Indiana's
submissions, EPA's technical support
document and the public comments on
this revision to the SIP are available at:
U S. Environmental Protecuon Agency.
Air Programs Branch. Region V. 230
South Dearborn Street. Chicago,
Illinois 80604
IN—15
-------
10814
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 49 / Fnday. March 12. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
U S. Environmental Protecuon Agency,
Public Information Reference Unit. 401
M Street. S.W, Washington. D C.
20460
Inaiana State Board of Health. Air
Pollution Control Division. 1330 West
Michigan Street. Indianapolis. Indiana
46206
Copies of the regulations and
commitments are available for review
at. The Office of Federal Register. 1100 L
Street. S.W. Room 8401. Wasmngton.
D C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Miller. Regulatory Analysis
Section. Air Programs Branch. L* S.
Environmental P*ateci;on Agency. 230
South Dearborn Street. Chicago. Illinois
60604 (312) S86-6031.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
March 3. 1978 [43 FR 8962). and on
October 5.1973 (43 FR 4SS93). pursuant
to the requirements of secuon 107 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in
1977. the EPA designated certain areas
in each Region V state as not attauung
the National Ambient Air Quality
standards (NAAQS) for SO>. Areas in
Lake. LaPorte. Manon. Vigo, and Wayne
Counties. Indiana were designated as
not attaining the primary standard. For
lack of sufficient information. Dearborn.
G.bson, Jefferson. Porter, and Wamck
Counties were designated as
unclassifiabie.
Part D of the CAA. as added by the
1977 amendments, requires each state to
revise its SIP to meet specific
requirements for areas designated as
nonattamraent. These SIP revisions must
demonstrate attainment of the primary
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable,
but for SO» not later than December 31.
1982. The requirements for an
approvable SIP are described in the
Apnl 4. 1S79 Federal Register (44 FR
20372) and supplements dated July 2.
August 28. September 17. and November
23,1979 (44 FR 38583. 50371. 53761.
87182).
EPA's final determinations take one of
three forms: approval, conditional
approval, or disapproval. A discussion
of conditional approval and its practical
effect appears in the July 2.1979 Federal
Register (44 FR 38583) and tn the
November 23,1979 Federal Register (44
FR 671B2). Conditional approval requires
the state to submit additional materials
by specified deadlines negotiated
between the state and the EPA.
Schedules submitted by Indiana are
proposed for public comment elsewhere
in :o'day's Federal Register Aithough
public comment is so!ic:ted on the
deadlines, ana the deadlir.es may be
c.-.anged in iic-.t of he comments, the
State remains bour.s by its commitment
to meet the proposed deadlines, unless
they are changed. EPA will follow the
procedures described below when
determining if requirements of
conditional approval have been met-
1 When a state submits the required
additional documentation. EPA will
publish a notice in the Federal Register
announcing receipt and availability of
the materials for public comment. The
notice will also announce that the
conditional approval is continuing
pending EPA's final action on the
submission.
2. EPA will evaluate the state's
submissions and public comment on the
submission to determine if noted
deficiencies have been fully corrected.
After review is complete, a Federal
Register notice wiil either fully approve
the plan if ail conditions have been met.
or withdraw the conditional approval
and disapprove the plan. If the plan -is
disapproved- then the Section
110(a)(2)(D restrictions on construction
will be in effect
3. If the state fails to submit the
required materials according to the
negonated schedule. EPA will publish a
Federal Register notice shortly after the
expiration of the time limit for
submission. The notice will announce
that the conditional approval la
withdrawn, the SIP is disapproved, and
Section H0^a)(2)(n restrictions on
growth are ui effect.
In response to Part D of the CAA. on
June 26.1979, the State of Indiana
submitted, among other items, revised
SO< control strategies and a revised
regulation. APC 13. to EPA. It submitted
additional data and comments on the
SOi plan on June 25.1980: August 27,
1980: October 15.1981: and July 18,1981.
The June 26.197S submission included
control strategies for Lake. LaPorte.
Manon. and Vigo Counties that were
adopted by the Indiana Air Polluoon
Control Board (IAPC3). The revised
APC 13 was promulgated by the State
on June 19.1979. The Vigo County
strategy was withdrawn by the State on
October 4.1979. and an amended
strategy for Vigo County was submitted
on February 11.1980. Therefore,
rulemaking on Vigo County is being
handled in a separate rulemaking. On
August 27.1980. Indiana recodified its
regulations and submitted them on
October 8.1980. APC 13 (1979) was
recodified as 325 IAC Article 7, Sulfur
Dioxide Regulations: 325 LAC 12-5-1 and
2(a), Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generators:
325 IAC 12—3—1 and 4. Petroleum
Refineries. 325 IAC 12-1&-1 and 2.
Sulfuric Acid Plants: 325 IAC 1.1-
61(a)(2) and 2. Stack Heignt Provisions,
and 325 LAC 7-i-a Appendix A for Lake.
LaPorte. and Manon Counties. Source
Specific Emission Limitations. Because
these provisions are essentially identical
to those in 1979 APC 13. EPA is
rulemaking today on the recodified
regulations.
In response to petitions under secuon
126 of the Act. EPA is reviewing the SOj
strategies in Jefferson and Floyd
Counties. Because of these petitions.
EPA is rulemaking on these two
Counties separately from the rulemaking
for the remainder of the State. On
January 27.1981 (46 FR 8473). EPA
disapproved the strategy for Jefferson
County EPA is taking acnon today on
the SOi plan for all counties m Indiana
except Floyd. Jefferson, and Vigo.
The measures promulgated today will
be in addition to. and not in lieu of.
existing SIP reguiauons. The present
emission control regulations for any
source will remain applicable and
enforceable to prevent a source from
operating without controls, or under less
stringent controls, while it is moving
toward compliance with the new
regulations or if it chooses, challenging
the new regulations. In some instances,
the present emission control regulations
contained in the federally-approved SIP
are different from the regulations
currently being enforced by the State,
because the State is presently enforcing
the regulations which EPA is
conditionally approving today as
opposed to the SIP. In these situations,
the existing federally-approved SIP will
remain applicable and enforceable by
the EPA until there is compliance with
the newly promulgated and federally-
approved regulations. Failure of a
source to meet applicable pre-exisnng
regulations will result in appropnate
enforcement action, including
assessment of noncompliance penalties.
Furthermore, if there is any instance of
delay or lapse in the applicability of the-?
new regulations, because of a court
order or for any other reasoa the pre-
existing regulations will be applicable
and enforceable.
The only exception to this rule is in
cases where there is a conflict between
the requirements of the new,regulations
and the requirements of the existing
regulations, such that it would be
impossible for a source to comply with
the pre-«xisang SIP while moving
toward compliance with the new
regulanons. In these situations, the State
may exempt a source from compliance
with the pre-existing regulanons. Any
exemption granted will be reviewed and
acted on by EPA.
Background
EPA first fullv approved the Indiana
SO, SIP on May 14. 1973 (38 FR 126391.
IN-16
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Friday. March 12. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 10815
rv,3 SIP required most sources in
-j ana to reduce their SO, emissions to
.^i.veen 10.8 and 2.16 grams/
'--iacalor.e (g/Mcal) (0.0 and 1.2
:;..-cs/MiU:on British Thermal Units
"» 13TU) or 2530 and 516 nanograms/
? fpg/|). depending upon the size of
¦-g source On August 24. 1976, EPA
Jr:ro%ed. in part, a revised SOi strategy
•;r rost areas of Indiana, but did not
-;-o\e the revised strategies for
' ,-?rson. LaPorte. Porter. Vigo, and
.\ck Counties. Therefore, the 1973
:-.a::ons are the SIP requirements for
,-css in these 5 counties and the 1976
-««^auons are the SIP requirements for
. ,-ces throughout die remainder of the
State. The 1976 regulations removed SOa
emissions limitations from most existing
sources in the State but left emission
limitations similar to those in the 1973
regulations in effect for new sources
throughout the State and for existing
sources m Lake, Manon. and Dearborn
Counties.
Indiana's June 26. 1979 submission
contains a revised APC 13, which
includes an Appendix A that lists source
specific emission limitations, and area
specific technical support. On October 6.
1980, the recodified SO, strategy was
submitted. The recodified strategy
consists of the following parts:
Pftcoorfleo
SuOtacr
Aeoflctttkty..
•4 A00. A .
' AZ i
-*-i(AX2) V4 12).
.7-2.
r-4 .
• 9-1 **3 2(4).
• and *
1 12-18-1 and 2—
Emaens h—
mttrco to omtrrtwm eompiene* .
Asroent
Comroi
CowiOMncB omaufites
Swtigra
Sourea w«ofte tvmaoons (LaM. LaPort*.
and Manon Co L
SUa hegm p» -*¦
f| """"v
Porw and «rt«a.
j
Feasri ttttm gentrttsr*.
Pitnmjtn fflfmmi
Sutune aad
1979
APC-13
APC-13
APC-13
APC-13
APC-13
APC-13
APC-13
APC-13
S«c 1
S4C. 3
S«c S
S*c &
S«C 9.
S*C 7
S«e. 9
Aea a.
APC 13 S*C 4
APC 13 S«& 11
APC 13 $** ia
apc i3 s«c. 3rn.
APC 13 Sme. 3ear) or 4.5 kilograms of SO, per
t-our (10 lbs. of SOt per hour). The
c—.ission limitations contained in 325
l\C 7 aDply statewide. Most existing
'i_cl burning sources are limited to 10 38
Meal (6.0 pounds/MMBTU or 2580 ng/
|i B:ocess sources, unless included in
::31 7-i-a, Appendix A. are not
¦."Toiled.
V. here computer modeling studies
s.-.owed that specific sources, either
"scess or fuel burning, ui
::nattainment areas required more
inngent controls, site-specific emission
Locations were developed by either
local industrial task forces or by the
hdina Air Pollution Control Division
ftAPCD). la either case, they were then
adopted by the LAPCB. These emission
Laitanons are contained m Appendix A
la Regulation APC 13. Any change in an
emission limitanon or condition
ipecfied a Regulation APC 13 or in
Acpendix A to Regulation APC 13 must
fce submitted to EPA as a revision to the
-'eaerally-approved SIP.
Oi March 27,1980, EPA issued a
•Guce of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to
-"-Lonaily approve, ui part, the
•-i.ar.fl SO, plan (45 FR 20432) This
Federal Register nouce also proposed
varous actions on other portions of the
Indiana SIP. EPA will rulemake on these
other portions in separate final .
rulemaking notices.
At Indiana's request on May 7.1980,
EPA extended the public comment
penod on the NPR until June 27,1980 (45
FR 30089). At the request of two Indiana
sources and with the concurrence of the
State. DA again extended the comment
period until August 1.1980 (45 FR 48168.
July 18. 1980).
In the NPR. EPA proposed to:
(a) Approve Sections 3(b) and 8 of
Regulation APC 13 if the State submitted
cert^ica&on from the Indiana Attorney
General that emission limitaaons
contained in permits will have the forca ~
and effect of regulations ui Indiana.
(b) Disapprove APC 11 Section 5. Test
Methods to Determine Compliance, as it
applies to 30 day averaging and approve
Section 5 of APC 13 as it applies to stack
tests.
(c) Approve Section 7. Compliance
Timetables, if the State restored existing
compliance schedules for sources that
have.the same or relaxed emissions
limits under the new APC 13.
(d) Conditionally approve the control
strategy demonstranons for Manon.
Lake, and LaPorte Counties, provided
the State committed itself to correct
certain minor deficiencies according to a
schedule agreed to by EPA.
(e) Disapprove APC 13 as it applies to
Dearborn. Jefferson. Porter. Warr.cx.
and Wayne Counties, unless the State
submitted adequate attainment
demonstrations during the public
comment period.
On June 25.1980. the State submitted
comments on the notice of proposed
rulemaking including:
(a) An administrative advisory letter
from the Attorney General's Office on
the force and effect of permit conditions.
(b) A commitment to withdraw the 30
day averaging compliance method from
Secnon 5 (325 LAC 7-1-3) if EPA agrees
to a revision of this section that would
allow sources on a case-by-case
basis to utilize fuel averaging penods if
it can be demonstrated that these
averaging periods will still allow for
attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS when considered as part of the
applicable SO, control strategy. Such
fuel averaging periods will have to be
approved by the Board and wiil be
submitted to EPA as SIP revisions."
(c) A statement reiterating the State's
support for the compliance timetables
contained in Section 7 (325 LAC 7-1-6).
(d) Timetables for correcting the
deficiencies in the control strategies for
Lake, LaPorte. and Manon Counties.
(e) A commitment and schedule for
the reanalysis of Wayne County, but no
additional technical support to
demonstrate that APC-13 is adequate to
assure the NAAQS in Dearborn.
Jefferson. Porter, and Wamck Counties.
.The State clarified its comments for
the submission of information on Lake,
LaPorte. and Manon Counties m an
August 27,1980 letter. A timetable for
their submission was given In a July 16.
1981 letter. A discussion of the State's
submittals, public comments, and EPA's -
- final action is available in an August 7,
1981 technical support document. A
summary of these items is presented
below.
(a) Force and Effect of Operating
Permit Emission Limitations. In the
March 27,1980 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (45 FR 20434), EPA
reviewed Indiana's scheme for
establishing SO, and paniculate
emission limitations through State
issued operating permits (APC 19). EPA
proposed to approve the scheme if the
Attorney General of Indiana would
certify that limitations established in the
permits have the force and effect of a
regulation. Secnons 3(b) and 8 of APC 13
(325 LAC 7-l-2(b) and 5) were part of
the scheme, and approval of those
sections depended on approval of the
scheme.
Indiana provtded EPA with an
administrative advisory letter from the
Attorney General's Office. Although this
letter disclaimed any status as an
IN-17
-------
10816
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 49 / Fnday, March 12. 1982 / Rules and Regulation-
official Attorney General Opinion, the
author said that violation of an
operating permit condition could be
used as 'the basis for revoking the
permit or proceeding under IC 13-1-1-9,
13—"-5-1(1), 13-7-12-2. 13-7-13-1. or 13-
7-13-3" of the Indiana Statutes. The
wnter concluded'that violators of
permits were subject to the same legal
consequences as violators of the
statutes or regulations of the APCB and
thus permits had the "force and effect of
a rule or regulation under Indiana law."
Appendix A limitations (which are an
enforceable part of 325 LAC 7) are
superseded as a matter of State law
when limitations are incorporated into
an operating permit for a given source,
and they remain superseded for as long
as the permit exists. The State may
revoke a permit upon violation of the
emission limitations contained therein,
and may bnng an enforcement action for
operating without a valid permit or for
violating the underlying State emission
limitation. Therfore. the State appears to
have an effective enforcement
mechanism. Accordingly, EPA will
approve the State scheme for
establishing emission limitations.
Indiana is required by 322 LAC 7 to
submit operating permits to EPA for
approval. If a given permit reflects only
the emission limitations and conditions
already approved in the SIP. CTA will
take no further action with respect to
the permit and the Federally enforceable
emission limitation remains the one
approved as a part of the SIP.
Because 325 LAC 7-i-2(b) authorizes
the Board to establish emission
limitations in an operating permit for a
given source that may vary from the
Appendix A limitation, submission of
such permits will be treated by EPA as
SIP revisions and will be approved or
disapproved in accordance with Section
110 of the Clean Air Act. These
submissions must comply with EPA
notice and public hearing requirements
and be supported by adequate technical
information to assure that the revision
will not jeopardize attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQ& If the
emission limitations are less stringent
than the approved SIP limitations, a
prevention of significant deterioration
analysis with respect to the increment
consumed may be required.
If EPA approves the operating permit
as a SIP revision, the emission
limitations and conditions therein
become the new SIP requirements. If
these emission limitations and
conditions become unenforceable by
EPA. then the applicable emission
limitanons and conditions for the
affected source will be the ones
originally approved as a part of the SIP.
The State submission did not deal
with the issue of maintenance of the
ambient standards once they have been
attained. Although some allowance for
future growth was included in the
analyses discussed below, this may not
be sufficient to account for all increases
m SO, emissions in the future. To ensure
maintenance of the standards. Indiana
will reiy on its permit program for both
existing and new or modified sources.
First as part of each new source permit
review, a complete ambient air quality
impact analysis is required. Second.
New Source Performance Standards
authority has been delegated to Indiana.
Third. EPA has partially delegated
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
authority to Indiana. Thus, new source
review requirements will be used to
maintain the ambient standards.
(b) Test Methods To Determine
Comphance. The Indiana Air Pollution
Control Board committed itself to act on
30 day averaging upon EPA final action
on the issue. On Feoruary 14.1980 [45
FR 9994], EPA initiated a review of its
policies and procedures for regulating
coal fired power plant. As a part of this
review, EPA is investigating methods
that use longer averaging times and at
the same time ensure the protection of
the NAAQS. Therefore. EPA is not
rulemaking today on the 30-day
averaging provision of 325 1AC 7-1-3.
Section 3 includes three methods for
determining compliance: a stack test
performed on accordance with 40 CFR
Appendix A Method 8. a 30 day average
of the fuel sulfur content, or other
methods approved by the IAPCB. EPA is
approving the stack test portion of
Section 5 but is taking no action on the
30-day averaging provision. All alternate
compliance methods approved by the
IAPCB must be submitted to EPA for
approval as revisions to the SIP
(c) Compliance Tlmetcoies EPA
proposed to approve 325 LAC 7-1-6,
Compliance Timetables, if the State
modified it to include the timetables
included in the present SIP for those
sources whose emission limitations are
either not changing or being relaxed.
The Slate declined to change this
section, however, because it felt that it
would be unfair to require immediate
compliance for those sources out of
compliance with the existing SO7, but m
compliance with State law. EPA's
policy, as stated earlier in this notice, is
that compliance with the existing SIP
must be maintained unul compliance
with the revised SIP is achieved.
Therefore, because of the Slate's
continued support of Section 8. EPA has
no alternate e but to disapprove ir.e
extended compliance date for those
sources with relaxed or equivalent
emission limitations. For these sources,
the existing federally approved
compliance dates remain in effect
(d) Part D SO% Plans for LaPoete.
Lake, and Mar.on Counties. The
proposed control strategy for each
county must be adequate to ensure
attainment and maintenance of the
annual primary, the 24-hour primary,
and the 3-hour secondary ambient,
standards. A review of the control
strategies, attainment analyses, and
State commitments follows.
LaPorte County
The three major SO» sources in
LaPorte County are the Beatty Memorial
Hospital (Westviile). the Indiana State
Pnson (Michigan City), and the NIPSCO
Michigan City Station. The LaPorte
County control strategy requires only
the Indiana State Pnson to meet a more
stringent emission limitation than the
statewide limit. The pnson limitation is
8.01 g/Mcal (4.44 pounds/MMBTU or
1910 ng/]) with its existing 21m stacks
or. if it raises its 3 stacks to 30m. it is
allowed 9.22 g/Mcal (5.12 pounds/
MMBTU or 2203 ng/I). All other sources
in the County are subject to the general
limit of 10.8 g/Mcal.
On January 12.1979 (44 FR 2608], EPA
proposed stack height regulations to
implement Section 123 of the Clean Air
Act. These regulations generally
allowed sources automatic sedit for
stack heights up to a good engineering
practice height, as determined by an
EPA formula. EPA proposed changes to
this policy on October 7,1981 (45 FR
49814). The stack height increase at the
Indiana State Pnson meets the cntena
in the proposed regulations.
To develop its proposed control
strategy for LaPorte County, the Air
Pollution Control Division of the Indiana'
State Board of Health performed a
modeling analysis. EPA has defined
certain computer models as being
"reference models" for development of
SIPs. The State employed the RAM-rural
model in its analysis. RAM-rural was
the appropriate reference mode] for
multi-source rural areas at the time the
State did the modeling. Since then,
however, the reference rural multtaource
model has become MPTER. Thus,
although the State's analysis is
acceptable, any future modeling of this
county must employ MPTER.
The NWS station at which the
meterorological data was collected was
not ciearlv >dentified in the State's
technical support. This minor deficiency
was cited in the NPR. Subsequent
discussion with the State revealed that
the aata were from Midway (surface
data) and Peona (upper air data).
IN-18
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Fnday. March 12. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
10817
Because these NWS stations are
appropriate for LaPorte County
modeling this deficiency has been
adequate!} resolved.
The State used a constant background
level based on LaPorte County
monitoring data to account for all man-
made and natural sources which are not
in the State s inventory The State did
not provide sufficient data, however, to
support its background level, as EPA
noted m the NPR The State
subsequently committed itself to submit
the justification for the background
concentrations for all appropriate
averaging periods to EPA If this
documentation is not sufficient, then the
State committed itself to investigate and
make necessary revisions, including
changes to affected regulations, and
submit these to EPA by November 1982.
The EPA accepts the State's
commitment for resolving this minor
deficiency The November-1982 date is
proposed for approval elsewhere in
today's Federal Register
The State's modeling analysis focused
an the 24-hour ambient standard.
Because the State claimed that this was
the constraining standard, it did not
submit a 3-hour or an annual modeling
analysis. Although the 24-hour standard
has been shown to be constraimng for
some rural counties, this has not been
demonstrated for LaPorte County. This
deficiency-was noted in the NPR- The
State of Indiana committed itself to
investigate the 3-hour and annual
standard further and make necessary
changes, including changes to affected
regulations and submit this information
and any changes to EPA by November
1982. EPA accepts this commitment to
resolve this deficiency EPA proposes to
approve the State's schedule elsewhere
in today's Federal Register.
EPA is today conaitio'nally approving
the LaPorte County SO* strategy.
Lake County
The Lake County control strategy was
based on reducing emissions from those
sources that have the greatest impact on
air quality and that can be controlled
with the least cost and operating effect
on a company In general, reductions are
required for Jones and Laughlin Steel.
U S Steel. Inland Steel. Amoco. Energy
Cooperative, and Commonwealth
Edison sources within the County. Two
ascects of this strategy should be noted.
F-rst several U S Steel sources are
restr cted to operation below design
cacacity. This restriction, identified in
rsauiations. was used in the
modeling with the use of emission
parameters for the reduced load
conations.
Second, the control strategy includes
a stack height increase at the Northern
Indiana Public Service Co Mitchell
Station from 71 9m to 104m. The Mitchell
Station is restricted to the existing
federally recognized emission limit of
2.16 g/Mcal (1.2 pounds/MMBTU or 515
ng/I).
RAM-urban, the appropriate multi-
source reference model for urban areas,
was applied in the analysis. In one
section of its technical support
document, the State charactenzed
dispersion with the NRC Oelta-T
stability classification scheme. Although
this use of a technique which has not
been approved by EPA for the
development of SIPs was cited in the
NPR. this portion of the submission was
not used by the State for the
development of the actual attainment
demonstration but was only used to
determine the applicability of RAM-
urban to Lake County In addition, the
Slate removed this section from its
technical support document Because the
State has withdrawn this portion of the
submittal and because it was not used
in the actual attainment demonstration.
EPA has determined that this issue
should not be part of the conditional
approval.
Ln the NPR. the emissions inventory
was a ted as being incomplete since the
inventory did not appear to include the
American Brick Company in Munster.
During the public comment Indiana
pointed out that American Brick was
included in the area source inventory.
As discussed in the technical support
document recent site-specific monitored
violauons indicate that treatment of this
source as an area source is
inappropriate. Because its SO*
emissions are released from a roof
monitor running the length of the main
shed. American Bnck would more
properly be treated as a bne or volume
source
The State also committed itself to
submit to EPA corrected emissions
inventories for Lake County. If the
submittal is cot adequate, the State
committed itself to investigate and make
necessary corrections, including
revisions to affected regulations, by
November 1982.
EPA accepts this commitment and
conditionally approves the emissions
inventory for Lake County. Because
Indiana removed emission controls from
process sources other than those
specifically included in Apendix A. the
State must utilize emission factors
which esnraaie emissions without
controls for these uncontrolled sources
in all modeling studies. EPA is proposing
to approve the November 1982 date
elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
Midway-Argonne surface/Peona
upper air meterorologicai data were
used in the modeling. Argonne wind
data ivere substituted for those hours of
reported calm winds in the Midway data
set. EPA determined that this
substitution was appropriate.
Background levels were derived from
1975 and 1977 monitoring data collected
in the Lake County area Levels were
developed for various ranges of wind
direction. The State provided
insufficient support for these values, as
noted in the NPR. The State has
committed itself to submit justification
for the background concentrations for
all appropriate averaging periods. If this
documentation is not sufficient, the
State committed itself to investigate and
make any necessary revisions, including
changes to affected regulations, and
submit them to EPA by November 1982.
This commitment is acceptable, and
EPA conditionally approves this portion
of the submittal. EPA is proposing to
approve the November 1982 date
elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
Initially, the theoretical receptor
points, where the computer modeling
predicts ambient concentrations, were
laid out in a 1 km square grid network.
Receptors situated on industry-owned
property were either discarded or
shifted to either public or nomndustnaL
off-property locations. In general,/the
network consisted of 71 receptors in a 4
km wide band parallel to the shoreime
stretching from the Illinois border to the
Porter County line. EPA has cited
several deficiencies with the receptor
grid (i.e.. inadequate resolution and
insufficient support for the dismissal of
on-property receptors). Although these
issues were not raised m the NPR. they
must be resolved in the State's
conditional approval submittal.
The State's modeling analysis focused
on the 24-hour standard. Although
Indiana claimed that this was-the
constraining standard, no annual
analysis and an inadequate 3-hour
analysis were provided. Although this
issue was cited in general in the NPR.
EPA's particular concern with the 3-hour
modeling is the unjustified use of a
plume rise enhancement factor.
Application of a plume rise
enhancement factor is not acceptable
without adequate on-site supporting
data
The State has committed itself to
. suamit documentation substantiating its
belief that the 24-hour standard is the
limiting standard. If protection of the
three-hour and annual standards cannot
be demonstrated, the State committed
itself to investigate further and make
necessary changes, including changes to
IN-19
-------
10818
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 49 / Fnday, March 12. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
affected regulations, and submit them to
EPA by November 1982. EPA accepts
this commitment and conditionally
approves this portion of the plan. EPA is
proposing to approve the November
1982 date elsewhere in today's Federal
Register.
The stack height increase in Lake
County meets EPA's most recent
approvabiiity criteria, which were
discussed earlier. Therefore. EPA is
approving this portion of the plan
Based on the State commitments. EPA
conditionally approves the Lake County
SOi plan.
Mcnon Caun'.y
The Marion County control strategy,
called Scenario V. was submitted by the
State and applies only to the industrial
portions of southwest Manon County
Scenario V is comprised of the following
source specific elements.
(1) Detroit Diesel Allison Plant =8. 2001
S. T'.bbs Avenue; Stack height
increase (from 18.79 to 38.0m) and use
of l ¦>% oil (242 g/Mcal or 1.4 pounds/
MMBTU):
(2) Detroit Diesel Allison Plant -S. 2353
S. Tibbs Avenue. Use of 1.6S sulfur
coal (4.41 g/Mca1 or 2.45 pounds/
MMBTU}:
(3) Indianapolis Power & Light (1PALCO)
Stout Plant. 3700 S. Harding Streen
Stack height increases (from 2@ 78.0m
to 2@ 178.0m) and use of 9-34 g/Mcai
(5.3 pounds/MMBTU or 2280 ng/f)
coal and 0.63 g/Mcal (0-35 pounds/
MMBTU or ISO ng/D oil:
(4) Bridgeport Brass. 1800 S. Holt Road:
Use of 4.97g/Mcal (2.75 pounds/
MMBTU or 12S0 ng/J) coal:
(5) Reilly Tar 4 Chemical 1800 S. Tibbs
Avenue: Use of 1.69-2.25 g/Mcal
(0 94-1 25 pounds/MMBTU or 404-538
ng/I) oil.
(6) National Starch. 1513 Drover Stack
height maeases (from 4 short stacks
serving Boilers 1. 2. 3. and 5 to one
52.1m stack for Boilers 1* 2. and 3 and
one 52.1m stack for Boiler 5), use of
7.18 g/Mcal (3.99 pounds/MMBTU or
1718 ng/J) coal and specification of
standby boiler capacity.
To support the Manon County control
strategy, the State submitted RAM-
uroan modeling. The modeling
contained numerous technical
ceiiciencies that were cited in the NFR.
The deficienc.es include:
(1) The background levels used were
not technically supported.
(2) The emissions inventory was
incomplete.
(3) The meteorological data base was
neither identified nor justified.
(4) No justification was provided for
the claim that the 24-hour standard .s
constraining. (Based on this claim, no
annual nor 3-hour analyses were
submitted).
(5) The receptor network was neither
identified nor justified.
(6) The high and second high 24-hour
concentraaons were not identified.
During the public comment period,
there were three developments related
to these deficiencies.
First several commentora pointed out
that EPA had received a copy of Jie
modeling output on microfiche. EPA s
review oi the microfiche clarified some
of the documentation issues (i e..
concentration and meteorological data].
Second, commentors stated that EPA
hac received the receptor network data
in a December 28. 1979 supplemental
submittal. EPA nas reviewed these data
and has determined that improvement in
the spatial resolution of the receptor
network is necessary to assure that the
network is adequate to determine SOi
hotspots.
Third, ia its comments, the State
noted that a City of Indianapolis*
Industry task force has been working
directly with EPA to develop an
acceptable SIP for the ennre County.
This recent task force effort is designed
to produce an alternative control
strategy that the State indicated it will
adopt after a public hearing and submit
to supersede the submission discussed
-here. In this reanalyais. the task force is
attempting to correct any deficiencies
noted in the NPR. EPA will propose
rulemaking on this alternative control
strategy upon its receipt from the State.
Fourth, the State committed itself to
the following:
1. To submit the justification for the
background concentraaons for all
appropriate averaging periods to-EPA. If
this documentation is not sufficient the
State will investigate and make any.
necessary revisions, including changes
to affected regulations, and submit them
to the EPA by November 1982.
2. To submit to EPA corrected
emissions inventories for Manon
County. If the submittal is not adequate,
the State committed itself to investigate
and make necessary corrections,
including revisions to affected
regulations, and submit them to ^A by
November 1982.
3. To submit to EPA the corrected
receptor network coverage and
resolution, including a listing of the high -
and second high concentrations on
cntical days. If additional
documentation is necessary, it
committed itself to investigate and make
furtner revisions, including changes to
affected regulations, and submit them to
EPA by Novemoer 1982.
4 To submit ad documentation
substantiating the State's belief that (1)
the 24 hour standard is the limiting
standard and (2) if the 24 hour standard
has been attained and will be
maintained, then the three hour
standard ana annual standards are also
being met. If protection of the three hour
standard and annual standards cannot
be |usafied by protection of the 24 hour
standard, then the State committed itself
to investigate further and make
necessary changes, including changes to
affected regulacons. and submit them to
EPA by Novemoer 1982.
EPA finds these four commitments
acceptable. Additionally, the stack
heignt increases meet EPA's most recent
guicennes wmcn were discussed earlier.
Therefore. EPA is conditionally
approving the Manon County SOi plan
based on the four commitments. The
November 1982 schedule date for
submittal of the conditionally approved
items is being proposed for approval
elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
(e) SOt Plait for Other Indiana
Counties.
Floyd and Jefferson Counties
Recent analyses have shown that 323
LAC 7, as it applies to the ma)or SOt
sources in Floyd and lefferson Counties,
may not be adequate to protect the
NAAQS. Sources in these counties,
however, are being currently reviewed
under Section 128 petitions. These
petitions allege that facilities in Floyd
and Jefferson Counoes may cause
violations of the NAAQS in the
ad)oimng Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Floyd and Jefferson Counties are not
included in today's rulemaking action on
323 LAC 7. The strategy for Jefferson
County was disapproved on January 27,
1981. (48 FR 3473).
Wayne County
No Part D revision was received for - -
Wayne County. The State ongmally
claimed that the County should be
redesignated as attaining the SO<
NAAQS. Therefore, the State believed
that no Part D SIP was necessary. No
technical support however, was
provided for either the recommended
redesignation or the contention that the
emission limitations in 323 LAC 7 will
assure attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS in the vicinity of the
munic:pally owned elecmc generating
station in Richmond. Furthermore,
recent monitored violations reinforce
the need for more stnngent SO»
regulations in Wayne County. During
the public comment period, the State
agreed to revise its designation of
Wayne County to nonattainment for
SO> !t aiso committed itself to develoo a
contrcl strategy wnen its reaesignation
IN-20
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 49 / Fnday, March 12. 1982 / Rules and Regulations- 1J819
ird
-SO
:our
at
}ur
t-self
;s to
-a to
cent
rlier.
'.an
ved
1
er.
ved
)yd
cky.
¦ not
ion os
m
ry 27.
for
'¦y
ived
No
led
at the
will
ce of
ating
Tg
ate
ror
velop >
-.anon
, ",-ai However, without a control
sieT' ana attainment demonstration
Ccunty. EPA must
-prove the SOi SIP as it applies to
\/.-t County
v-.-jn, Porter, and Warrick Counties
t-cer 325 LAC 7 ail sources with the
.-tial to emit 22.3 Mg (25 tons) or
-;:e of SOi per year in Dearborn.
?-"-er and Wamck Counties are
i.:iect to the general emission limit of
• 3 j'Slcai (2530 ng/J). This represents
, tlaxation from the existtng federally
ipprovea emission limits for these
::^ines Inadequate technical support
¦ as prodded to demonstrate that this
¦•'axanon would protect the NAAQS.
Ln us public comments, the State
mat since these counties are
crsisnatea as unciassifiable. no control
itrateay is necessary It admitted that
-j 10 3 g/Mcal limit represents a
•Taxation, but argued that this is
.relevant since the federally recognized
SEP's outdated. The State agreed to
dt\elop a control strategy only if the
designations are changed to
jonaitamment. To this end. the State
coBBitted itself to assess that
famment status of these counties
iccoraing to a fixed schedule. The State
has recendy modeled these counties
Kith computer dispersion models and
In submitted ambient monitoring data.
Tbeae analyses and data are currently
aiaer EPA review. Additionally, on June
17.1961. Indiana submitted as a revision
10 its SIP new emission limitations for
ie Tanner's Creek power plant in
Dearoom County. EPA will rulemake on
suomission in the future. However,
based on the evidence currently
ivatlable to the Agency. EPA must
-sapurove 325 LAC 7 as it applies to
0«aroom. Porter, and Wamck Counties
because the State has not demonstrated
•iai a 10 8 g/Mcal emission limitation is
w/Bcsent to protect the NAAQS in these
'¦arte counties.
Public Comments
In response to the March 27,1980
Moee of proposed rulemaking, EPA
¦waved many public comments. EPA
carefully considered those
comments in reaching today's
"uenaking action. EPA discussed
uriier in this nonce its response to
•oce of these issues and will not repeat
J response here. Summaries of the
Rawing issues raised by the
-r.siems and EPA's responses to these
"-es are as follows*
- ?"3/ Procedural Comments
^ "ije One commentor submitted
M '"Jr.e nanonal comments and
requested the comments be considered
part of the record for each State plan.
Response: Some of the issues raised m
the comments are not relevant to
provisions in Indiana's submittal.
However. EPA notified the public of its
response to all of the issues in the
February 21.1980 Federal Register (45
FR-11472).
Issue: Several industrial commenters
questioned EPA's authority under the
Clean Air Act to review-a State s
submission in terms of "enforceability."
"stringency." "relaxanon or revocation."
or "continuity "
Response: EPA responded to similar -
comments from some of the same
commenters in the February 21,1980
Federal Register (45 FR 11472.11475-
70). EPA incorporates its February 21.
1980 response by reference in today's
rulemaking.
Issue: Numerous industrial
commenters argued that EPA's policy of
conditional approval is not sanctioned
by the Clean Air Act. Some of the
commenters claim that EPA must
promulgate a federal SEP and comply
with procedural requirements for such
promulganon if the Administrator finds
a State plan inadequate. The commenter
further contends that conditional
approval circumvents the procedural
safeguards of Section 307 of the Act and
coerces State modification of the plan
through threat of disapproval.
Response-ln. the Administrator's
view, conditional approval provides
procedural safeguards equivalent to
those available when the Administrator
promulgates a plan. A discussion of
conditional approval and its practical
effect appears m supplements to the
General Preamble published on July 2,
1979 (44 FR 38583) and Novemoer 23.
1979 (44 FR 67182). In the case of
Indiana, for example, the Administrator
has proposed to conditionally approve
certain provisions. The commenter has
had an opportunity to submit extensive
written comments and receive Q>A's
response. Today's final conditional
approval may be challenged m the
appropriate United States Court of
Appeals within 60 days. The-rulemaking
and judicial review procedures thus
provide opportunities for comment and
review similar to those provided for
promulgations under Section 307(d).
Conditional approval is also
consistent with the Administrator's
obligation under Secnon 110(c)(1)(C)
That subsection requires the
Administrator- to promulgate regulanons
for a state if "the state fails, within 60
days after notification by the
Administrator or such later penod as he
may prescribe, to revise an
implementation plan as required
pursuant to a provision of its plan
referred to in subsection (a)(2)(II)."
When the Administrator proposes
conditional approval, he is essentially
notifying the state that further revisions
are required to make the plan or
regulanons fully approvaole. If the state
fails to satisfy the Administrator's
conditions, the Administrator will
disapprove the plan or regulation and
may then promulgate regulations to
correct the deficiency. The state is
simply offered the option of correcting
the inadequacies itself.
Issue: Several industrial commenters
allege that their ability to comment was
impaired by the absence of a complete
record during the comment penod. The
commenters argue that a complete
record is required at the time of the
proposed rulemaking by either or both
the Administrative Procedure Act (5
(J S.C. 551 et seq.) and section 307(d) of
the Clean Air Act The commenters
complain that EPA's files relating to the
proposed rulemaking did not contain all
the materials submitted to it by one of- -
the commenters, documentation to
support EPA's positions in the proposed
rulemaking, and the enure State hearing
record. Consequently, the commenters
requested that EPA accept
supplementary comments on materials
not available during the comment
penod. Finally, the commenters state
that EPA must hold its own public
hearings on the proposal if the entire'
record of the State proceedings was not
incorporated into the Federal record.
Response: EPA disagrees with the
commenter's assertion that either the
Administrative Procedure Act or section
307(d) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA
to compile a complete record at the time
EPA proposes rulemaking. The
procedural requirements of secnon
307(d) apply only to those actions listed
m secnon 307(d)(1). State_-initiated SIP.
revisions are not included in the list
Therefore, state-initiated SIP revisions
are subject to the procedural
requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act which does not require
the compdaoon and availability of a
complete record at the time of proposed
rulemaking.
Gtuig Appalachian Power Company
v. Environmental Protection Agency. 477
?2d 495 (1973). the commenters state
that if EPA does not consider the State
record in its entirety, the Agency must
conduct full public hearings itself. EPA
believes that applicable case law is
contained in Buckeye Power. Inc. v
Environmental Protection Agency. 481
F 2d 162 (1973), in which the Court
determined, among other things, that the
IN-21
-------
10820 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 49 / Friday. March 12. 1982 / Rules and ^Regulations
Agency need not supplement the record
with transcripts of public hearings held
in states in connection with adoption of
state plans. ^A conducted this
rulemaking m accordance with the
holding m that case and with the
requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act and the Clean Air Act.
Further, in accordance with the
regulatory provisions of 40 CFR 51.4. (c)
and (d), the State has prepared and
retains for inspection by the
Administrator upon his request a record
of each hearing. The State also
submitted with the revision a
certification that the required bearings
were held after appropriate notice.
Therefore. EPA believes that it has
satisfied the applicable statutory and
regulatory rulemaking requirements.
Finally, EPA declines the commenters'
request that it accept supplementary
comment on materials not available
dunng the comment penod. During the
comment penod. all State submittals
and technical support were available for
inspecnon. Public comments were added
to the file on this revision as they were
submitted. State hearing recoras were
available from the State Agency. EPA
believes that the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking summarized the bases far
its positions. Therefore. EPA believes
that the commenters had a full and fair
opportunity to comment on this SIP
revision.
Issue: One industrial commenter
expressed its concern that by approving,
disapproving, and conditionally
approving different portions of a
regulation. EPA was rewriting the
State's submittal. The eommentor
believes that EPA has authority only to
approve or disapprove the entire SIP for
a gives area. ^
Response: Section 110(a)(2) of the
Clean Air Act expressly provides that
for each SIP submittal, the
Administrator must "approve or
disapprove such plan or each portion
thereof." The section further provides
that the Administrator must "approve
such plan, or any portion thereof" if he
determines that it was adopted after
reasonable notice and hearing and that
it satisfied specified cxitena.
Consequently, EPA believes it is
authorized by the Clean Air Act to
approve, disapprove, and conditionally
approve different portions of a SIP for a
given area.
Lang Range Transport of SO, and
Sulfates
Issue• New York claims that EPA
failed to comply with Sections
110(a)(2)(E) and 126 of the Clean Air
Act. The eommentor argued that EPA
erred by not considering the long-range
impacts of SO< on sulfate formation,
total suspended particulate levels, and
acid deposition. New York's comments
specifically address the revised limits at
IPALCO's Stout Plant (Stout) and
NLreCO's Michigan City Station
(Michigan City). The eommentor does
~at contend that the Stout or Michigan
City plants, specifically, will interfere
with attainment or maintenance of SOi
standards in New York, or any other
state, or that 0>A erred in its
determination that the plants would
have an insignificant impact on SOi
concentrations in other states. Raiher.
the eommentor argued that Q'A was
required to calculate the impacts of the
SO» revisions on sulfate and particulate
matter concentrations in other states.
Furthermore, the eommentor claimed
that modeling tools are available and
should have been used by EPA to
address the long-range transport
problem.
Response: EPA's review ana approval
of the Indiana SO> SIP revision is
consistent with Secnons 110(a)(2)(E) and
128 for several reasons. First. 325 LAC 7
involves only SOi emission limitations.
Accordingly, the revisions were only
modeled for their impact on SOt
concentrations. Indiana's revisions to its
particulate SIP do not relax the
particulate matter emission limitations
for Stout and Michigan City. Inoiana.
therefore, was not required to model the
effect of its revisions on particulate
matter levels.
Second. EPA reference models are
only valid out to 50 kilometers (km) from
a source. No reference techniques have
yet been established for accurately
evaluating impacts beyond 50 km. The
"state-of-the-art" of long-range transport
models is not sufficiently advanced to
be used for regulatory purposes.
Consequently, contrary to the
commentor's claim, there are no EPA-
approved regulatory tools currently
available to assess long-range impacts.
Third, with respect to interstate
impact within the range of EPA's
reference models, because there are no
SOi nonattainment areas within 50 km
of either Stout or Michigan City, EPA
believes that these sources do not cause
or contribute to a violation m any
interstate area within 50 km of these
sources. Additionally _heca use these
revised emission limits do not differ
greatly from the emissions the plants are
presently emitting, EPA believes that
these facilities will not cause or
contribute to violations ui these areas in
the future. All interaction with other
sources within LaPorte and Manon
Counties will be analyzed by Indiana in
addressing the deficiencies identified by
this nouce
EPA has also considered whether
revision of the emission limits for the
named sources interferes with measure
"required to be included m the
applicable implementation plan for am
other state under Part C to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality
* " There is only one State.
Michigan, within 50 km of the named
sources, and there are ao counties m
Michigan within 50 km of the named
sources for which the PSD baseline haa
been triggered Therefore. EPA has
concluded that no such mterfereace wu
result for those counties which are
within the range of EPA's reference
models.
Fourth, with respect to the claim that
EPA should have modeled the SO«
emissions for their effect on the
particulate matter levels m other states.
EPA's currently adopted models are
simply not capable of such an analysis
EPA models estimate ground-level SO,
concentrations caused by a plant's SOi
emissions. Similar/, EPA models
estimate ground-level particulate matte:
concentrations caused by a plant's
particulate matter emissions. Models
capable of estimating the impact of SO,
emissions on ground-level particulate
matter concentrations have been
developed by researchers, and EPA is
presently evaluating their predictive
accuracy as part of an overall revision
to its Modeling Guideline. Application c
these models at this time, however, is
premature.
Fifth, for the purposes of Section
U0(a)(2](E). it is important to note that
the eommentor has not snown that the
SOi emissions from the two named
Indiana plants actually contribute
materially or at all to particulate
polluaon in other states. The commentc
cites nothing that supports a finding ths>
Stout or Michigan City
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Friday, March 12. 1982 / Rules and R gulabons ~; 10821
IBJ
y
i
\
i
=41
vrtQ
Alt
ite*.
in
sa
so,
atto
Is
SO.
ite
^ ii
e
iioo
joarf
u
that
the
lentar
g that
Die i»
other
aaruj
JUS
thi
> too
19
ill.il
;y of
s on
ecost
-ed b*
To
.e ii
^evaluated as part of EPA's current
^•(w. under Secuon 109(d)(1). 42
s£ r«39(d)(l). of the cntena and
j*:onal standards for sulfur oxides and
,-cjlate matter (see "Second External
Js-ew Draft Air Quality Cntena for
vscuJate Matter and Sulfur Oxides."
^souce announcing comment period
- craft 46 FR 15509 (March 6. 1981)) At
Lntn\- in the absence of a national
^joard for sulfates. EPA is not
j;ed :o consider the the impact of
^ buana SO, plan on sulfate levels
jsje The Province of Ontario.
^jiaaa. claimed that emissions from
?\LC0's Stout and NIPSCO's Michigan
-¦) plants and other sources in the
^¦•at Lakes region adversely affect air
-uutv .n southern Ontario in
-r-7a*ention of Section 115 of the
l;an Air Act. The principles of
; '-rational law and the Memorandum
• L-.ter.t Between the Government of
Ixuda and the Government of the
.atec States of America Concerning
Tnwoounaary Air Pollution (August 5.
"380) Ontario argued that the long-
transport of the sulfate derivatives
4SOi causes acid deposition and
aceased visibility in that province.
response- Ontano's claim that
Srccon 115 prohibits international air
jmluuon is not appropnately raised in
¦acantext of this SIP revision. Secnon
".0(a)(2)(E) addresses only interstate
xiiuuon: not international pollution.
•7A is not required not would it be
irpropnate. to consider claims
secerning intemauonal air pollution as
art of this proceeding. Under Secuon
".Sthe Administrator may notify a State
221 a SIP revision is necessary to
meat transboundary air pollution if
TTons or studies 'submitted by an
r^mational agency lead her to believe
•J' puolic health or welfare in a foreign
-~t> is endangered.1 42 U S.C. 7415.
1 :ient formal notification, however.
*c:on 115 does not require EPA to
raider Tans boundary air pollution in
^ravuig a SIP revision.
Ontano also argues that principles of
iuraanonal law prohibit EPA. as an
tfwey of the federal government from
spitting individuals within the U.S. to
xuuis Canadian territory or property.
"®*«ver. Ontano bases its claim of
-rry from transboundary air pollution
•sea the cumulaove impacts of total
Remissions from the midwestem and
"^eastern U.S.. and not solely upon
"=J«ons from the Indiana plants that
«subject of this rulemaking Ontano
ISO an opportunity to submit its
^*>on the cumulative interstate
of SO. and sulfates at a heanng
^"t'ary of Slate rnav also request we
:o give tuca notification to a Slate
held by EPA on June 13 and 19. See 46
FR 24602 (May 3. 1981) Furthermore,
transboundary SO, emissions are
subject of ongoing negotiations bet-ween
Canada and the U.S. In view of the
limited scope of this proceeding and the
other fora available in which Ontano
may raise issues of aggregate SO,
emissions and international law. EPA
does not believe that it is required to
consider these issues here.
Finally. Ontano claims that the
Memorandum of Intent (MOI) between
the Government of Canada and the
United States of Amenca places
affirmative ooliganons upon EPA. In
that document Canada and the U.S
stated their intent to "promote vigorous
enforcement of existing laws and
regulations " " * in a way that is
responsive to the problems of
transooundary air pollution." pending
the conclusion of a formal agreement on
air pollution between the two countnes
The U S. has honored the intent of the
MOI by controlling its SO, emissions to
the extent allowed by the provisions of
domestic law. In this rulemaking EPA
has concluded that the current emission
limits are adequate to protect and
maintain the NAAQS. Therefore it has
met its obligations under the MOI to
enforce domestic law.
Comments on Measurement Methods
and Enforcement Procedures
Issue: Several comments were
received relating to sulfur vanability.
Specific issues included 30-day
averaging, the Expected Exceedance
(ExEx) Method for determining
emissions limitations, and the
effecnveness of stack tests to determine
compliance.
Response: EPA recognizes the
problem of sulfur vanability
Consequendy. on February 14.1980.
EPA published a Federal Register nonce
notifying the public that EPA had begun
a review of its policies and procedures
for regulating large coal-fired boilers.
Among the issues under review are: (a)
Compliance test methods, (b) sulfur
vanability. (c) modeling guidelines, and
(d) averaging penods for emission
limitations. This review will address 30-
day averaging, appropnate methods for
evaluating 3(Vday averages, and
protection of the NAAQS. Based on its
review, EPA will make any necessary
modifications in its policies. Until this
review is complete. EPA will not
rulemake on 30-day averaging in
Indiana.
Issue: Commentors stated that until
methods are available to adoress sulfur
vanability. EPA should have an intenm
SO. enforcement policy similar to the
one that EPA approved m Ohio These
commentors believe that the daily cap
should be 1 9 times the applicable
emission limit.
Response: EPA has discussed with the
State the possibility of adopting such a
policy However, any such enforcement
policy would not modify the applicable
SO, SIP emission limitations. but would
only be a statement of enforcement
pnonUes EPA is taking no action today
on 30-day averaging.
Issue: A commentor suggested that
power plant units that operate only
under peak load conditions should not
be required to maintain emission
controls based on full, continuous load
operation.
Response. Units reserved for
emergency and stand-by operation were
not considered in the development of
overall county-wide control strategies.
However, sources which operate during
peak load penods must be included in
all strategies, because peak loads for
any one source may occur when other
sources are also expenenang peaks.
Compliance Date Comments
Issue: Commentors argued that EPA's
proposed disapproval of 325 LAC 7-1-8
(comoLiance timetables) is not valid,
'stating that the Clean Air Act (Section
110 and Part O) requires attainment by
the'statutory date and reasonable
further progress in the meantime. Thus,
the December 31.1981 (with possible
extensions-to December 31.1982)
compliance date in 325 LAC 7 should be
acceptable. In addition, the commentora
alleged that there should not be a
requirement for immediate compliance
from sources which are emitting at
emission limitations representing a
relaxation (i.e.. operating out of
compliance) of the federally approved
SIP because the emission limitations in
the federal SIP are outdated and have
never been enforced against these
sources.
Response: 325 LAC 7 revises some
existing emission limitations. As
discussed'earlier. EPA policy is that the
existing emission limits for any source
remain in effect to prevent a source from
operating uncontrolled, or under less
stringent controls, while it is moving
toward compliance with the new
regulations (44 FR 20373. April 4. 1979)
sources lor which the 325 LAC 7
represents a relaxation from the
previous federally aporoved SIP.
therefore, cannot be given additional
time to achieve compliance with 325
LAC 7 The act requires "reasonable
furtner progress" (RFP) in the interim
penod pnor to attaining the NAAQS.
Reasonable further progress does not
mean that time is providea for a source
IN-23
-------
10822 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 49 / Fnday, March 12. 1982 / Rules and "Regulations
to do less. Nor does allowing additional
time comply with the
•• * * * implementation of all
reasonably available control measures
as expeditiously as practicable."
(Section 172(b)(2) of the Act). New
compliance schedules can only be
approved for sources that are subject to
more stringent regulations under 325
LAC 7
Lake County Comments
Issue Several commentors supported
approval of the Lake County SO, control
strategy One commentor also noted that
the minor deficiencies cited in the NPR
have been resolved by the Lake County
Industrial Task Force.
Response. During the public comment
penod, EPA received no formal
submissions from the State that resolved
the deficiencies cited in the NPR. EPA
can consider only official State
submissions in its rulemaking. In view of
the commitments made by the State to
resolve these deficiencies, however.
EPA feels that conditional approval of
the Lake County Plan is justified.
Issue: A commentor claimed that
short-tenn background concentrations
were derived and submitted to EPA in
late 1979, and that no estimate of an ~~
annual background was necessary
because there have been no monitored
violations of the annual standard in
Lake County over the past few yean.
Thus, EPA's comment regarding
background values is alleged to be
inappropriate.
Response: The Agency informed the
State and the Lake County Industrial
Task Force of the problems with the
background levels in a letter dated
January 9.1980 from David Kee.
~uector. Air and Hazardous Materials
Division. Region V, EPA to James
Dickeraon. Chairman. Lake County
Industrial Task Force. As discussed in
that letter, additional technical
justification (e.g. map of monitor
locations, list of concentrations, and
computations used to denve the
background) is required to support the
short-term backgrounds. In addition, a
valid attainment demonstration for the
annual standard must be provided.
Consequently, further support is still
required to resolve the background
concentration issue. Finally, even if
there have been no monitored violations
of the annual standard in Lake Counry.
EPA still requires an analysis of the
annual standard to assure that no
violations of the annual standard take
place, perhaps at a locanon which is not
presently being monitored.
Issue: Commentors maintained that a
valid attainment demonstration for the
3-hour standard was submitted to EPA
in 1979 and that no annual attainment
demonstration is needed since there
have been no measured annual
violauans. Thus. EPA's deficiency
comment concerning the need for a 3-
hour ana an annual attainment
demonstration is alleged to be in error.
Response: The .Agency has previously
informed the State and the Lake County
Industrial Task Force of problems with
the 3-hour and annual attainment
demonsCabon in the January 9.1960
letter from Kee to Dickerson. As noted
in that letter, the 3-hour and annual
analyses which we have received do not
adequately justify attainment and
maintenance of the 3-hour and annual
standards. The annual analysis is
deficient since it relied solely on ¦
monitoring data that is not temporarily
ana spatially adequate, by itself, for an
attainment demonstration.
Consequendy, valid 3-hour and annual
attainment demonstrations must still be
provided.
Issue: A commentor submitted various
technical papers supporting, in general,
the use of a plume nse enhancement
factor due to the merging of several
individual plumes.
Response: The Agency informed the
State and the Lake County Industrial
Task Force of the problems with the
application of a plume nse enhancement
factor in the January 9,1380 letter from
Kee to Dickersoo. As noted in that letter,
use of such a factor baa not been
demonstrated to be appropriate
because: (a) Mo site-specific or
representauve supporong data have
been provided, (b) the validity of this
factor needa to be examined on a
source-by-source basis, and (c) even if
the first two points can be shown, then
the enhancement factor must be applied
uniformly.
Issue: The Lake County Task Force
claimed that it has submitted adequate
justification for the modeled receptor -
network.
^ Response: The Agency informed the
State and the Lake County Industrial
Task Force of problems with the
receptor network in the January 9,1980
letter from Kee to Dtckenon. As noted
in that letter, the receptor resolution is
inadequate and the dismissal of certain
on-land receptors has not been
supported. Thus, the modeled receptor
network still contains several
deficiencies that must be resolved.
Manon County Comments
Issue: Commentors stated that an SO*
background concentration was not
developed for the 3-hour and annual
averaging periods in the Marion County
SO« analysis because the 24-hour
averaging penod proved to be the
i
J
IN-24
limiting factor. The commentors claimed
that this was supported by inspecuon of
the 1-hour concentrations. The
commentors also asserted that a 24-hour
background was applied in the 24-hour
analysis. They claimed that this analysis
demonstrated attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.
Response: The documentation
submitted by the commentors purporting
to demonstrate that the 24-hour
standard is cons training is inadequate.
Conversion of the second hignest 1-hour
concentration to a 3-hour average value
results in a concentration greater than
the 3-hour secondary standard. Thus, it
has not been shown the 24-hour
standard is constraining. Without this
demonstration. 3-hour and annual
attainment demonstrations with
appropriate background levels are
required. Additionally, justification for
the 24-hour background concentration is
necessary to support the 24-hour
attainment demonstration.
Issue: The commentors claimed that a
complete emissions inventory consisting
of 83 point and 54 area sources was
employed. The inventory included: (a)
The SO, control strategy ongmaily
proposed by the State in an October,
1978 study for all sources (except those
located in the southwest quadrant of
Manon County and (b] the control
strategy proposed by an Industrial Task
Force for sources located in the
Southwest quadrant of Manon County.
Response: EPA believes that the
reference SO, emissions inventory is
deficient. Current SO. emissions
inventory data collected by the City of
Indianapolis Division of Air Pollution
Control indicates that 92 pomt sources-
and 64 area sources need to be included
in a detailed modeling analysis for
Manon Counry. The State must certify
that the proposed SO* control strategy
for Manon County includes all of the
sources and their current emissions
parameters in the modeling analysis m
order to properly assess attainment and
maintenance of SO* NAAQS.
Issue: In response to the NPR. the
commentors pointed out that the SO*
modeling analysis for Marion County
used 1974 Indianapolis surface and
Dayton. Ohio upper air observations
provided by the National Weather
Service (NWS).
Response: EPA believes that the
meterological data base cited by the
commentors is an appropriate data bait,
for the Manon County modeling
analysis. However, all future modeling
analyses for Marion County must
employ five years of recent
representative NWS data. or. for source
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Fnday, March 12. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 10823
a 24-hog
24-hc®
' anaJy®
ted that t
:onsisnq
was
led: (a)
ally
tober.
-------
10824 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Fnday. March 12. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
particular area and pollutant before the
restrictions are lifted. One portion of an
approved Part D SIP is that an approved
new source review (NSR) program,
which meets the requirements of Section
173. must be in place EPA has recently
approved Indiana's Part D NSR Plan.
Wayne County's plan is being
disapproved today Therefore, the
110(a)(2)(I) restrictions will continue to
apply in Wayne County The SIP
regulations for Wayne County remain,
those approved by EPA m 1975.
Dearborn. Porter, ana Wamck Counties
are designated unclassifiable. Therefore,
the 110(a)(2)(I] restrictions are not in
effect in these three counties. The SIP
regulations remain those approved by
EPA in 1973 for Porter and Wamck
Counties and those thai were approved
in 1976 for Dearborn County.
The conditional approval granted
through this notice will remain m effect
as long as the State meets its
commitments according to the agreed
upon schedule. This scnedule is being
proposed today elsewhere in the Federal
Register. Failure to submit the necessary
material by the scheduled date or
inadequate submissions will require SIP
disapproval by EPA (44 FR 67102.
November 23.1979). This would result in
the imposition of growth restrictions for
the disapproved counties. Furthermore,
the SIP emission limitations would again
become those contained in the
regulations- approved in 1376 for Lake
and Marion Counties and those
approved in 1973 for LaPorte County.
The 1980 edition of 40 CFR Part 52
lists in the subpart for each State, the
applicable deadlines for attaining
ambient standards (attainment dates)
¦ required by. section 110(a)(2)(A) of the
Act. For each ncnattainment area where
a revised plan provides attainment by
the deadlines required by section 172(a)
of the Act. the new deadlines will be
substituted on the attainment date
charts. The earlier attainment dates
under section 110(a)(2)(A) will continue
to appear m a footnote to charts
published earlier. Sources subject to the
plan requirements and deadlines
established under section 110(a)(2)(A)
prior to the 1977 Amendments remain
obligated to comply with those
requirements, as well as with the new
section 172 plan requirements.
Congress established new deadlines
under section 172(a) to provide
additional time for previously regulated
sources to comply with new. more
stringent requirements and to permit
previously uncontrolled sources to
cojnply with newly applicable emission
lunitanons. If these new deadlines were
permitted to supersede the deadlines
established pnor to the 1977
Amendments, sources that failed to
comply with pre-1977 plan requirements
by the earlier deadlines would
unproDerly receive more time to comply
with those requirements. Congress,
however, intended that the new
deadlines apply only to new, additional
control requirements and not to earlier
requirements. As stated by
Congressman Paul Rogers in discussing
the 1977 Amendments:
Secaon 110(a)(2)'of the Act made clear that
each source has lo meet its emission limits
"as expeditiously ai practicable" but noi
later than three years after the approval of a
plan. This provision was not changed by the
~ 1377 Amendments It would be a perversion
of clear congressiocal intent to construe Pari
~ to authome relaxation or delay of emission
limits for particular sources. The added time
for attainment of the national ambient air
quality standards was provided, if necessary,
because of the need to ugcten emission limtts
or bnn£ previously uncontrolled sources
under control. Delays or relaxauon of
emission luniu were not generally authorized
or intended under Part O.
(123 Cong. Rec.. H 11950. daily ed. November
1. 19771
To comply fully with the intent of
Congress that sources remain subject to
pre-existing plan requirements, sources
cannot be granted variances extending
compliance dates beyond attainment
dates established pnor to the 1977
Amendment Such variances would
impermissibly relax existing
requirements beyond the applicable
section 110(a)(2)(A) attainment date
under the plan^Therefore. for
requirements adapted be/ore the 1977
Amendments. EPA will not approve a
compliance date extension beyond pre*
existing 110(a)(2)(A) attainment dates,
even though a section 172 plan revision
with a later attainment date has been
approved.
However, in certain exceptional
circumstances, extensions beyond a pre-
existing attainment date are permitted.
For example, if a section 172 plan
imposes new. more stringent control
requirements that are incompatible with
controls required to meet the pre-
existing regulations, the pre-existing
requirements and deadlines may be
revised if a state makes a case-by-case
demonstration that a relaxation or
revocation is necessary. Any such
exemption granted by a state will be
reviewed and acted uoon by EPA as a
SIP revision. In addition, as discussed in
the April 4.1979 Federal Register (+4 FR
20373). an extension may be granted if it
will not contribute to a violation of an
ambient stanaard or a PSD increment.
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must )uage whether a regulation is
"major" and. therefore, subject to the
requirement af a regulatory impact
analysis. This regulation will not be
major as denned by Executive Order
12291. because this action either
conditionally approves a State action
and therefore imposes no new
requirements beyond those imposed by
the State, or it disapproves a State
action and leaves in place a previous
State action which also imposes no new
requirements beyond those previously
imposed by the State.
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review as requirbd by
Executive Order 12291.
Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act judicial review of this SIP
action is available only by the filing of a
peution for review m the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit within 60 days of today Under
Secaon 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act.
the requirements which are the subject
of today's notice may not be challenged
later in evil or criminal proceedings
brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
The Administrator finds good cause to
make this rulemaking effective
immediately because such approval
imposes no new constraints above those
already required by State law and
because this rulemaking is a partial step
to remove in some areas of Indiana the
prohibitions on growth under section
110(a)(2]ffl.
Note.—incorporation by reference of the -
State Implementation Plan for the State of
Indiana was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on July 1.1381.
(Sees. 110 and 172 of the Clean Air Act. as
amended)
Dated. March 1.1982.
Anna M. Corsuch.
Admmstntor
PART S2—APPROVACAND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. Chapter I. Part 52. Subpart
P-lndiana is amended as follows:
1. Section 52.770 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(19| as follows:
} 52.770 Identification of plan.
• • • » •
(c)* ' '
(19) On June 28. 1979. the Governor
submitted a revised sulfur dioxide
strategy, including regulation APC 13
with appenoix. which was promulgated
by the State on June 19.1979 for all
areas of the State. This included the Part
0 sulfur dioxiae regulations for Lake.
LaPorte. and Marion Counties. On
IN-26
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 49 / Fnday, March 12. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 10825
er
on
d by
US
) new
:sly
i the
ean
g of a
ates
te
de r
Act.
jject
:nged
is
use to
' those
ll step
a the
oa
f the
e of
of the
*. as
bpart
nor
13
sated
-e Par
.ke.
!«jst 27.1980 and |uiy 16.1981 the
)le committed itself to correct
-iriionally approved items within
strategy. On October 6. 1980. the
8:e suomitted a recodified version of
jC 13 wnich was promulgated by the
jte on August 27.1980. This included
5 LAC 7 325 LAC 1.1-8. 325 LAC 1.1-7-
md 4. 325 LAC 12-5-1 and 2(a). 325
C 12-3-1 and 4. and 325 LAC 12-18-1
|a 2. EPA is not taking action on 325
C : as it applies to Floyd and Vigo
;unces or on the 30-day averaging
•npliance method contained in 325
,C 7-1-3
Z. Secuon 52.773 is amended by
\-sl-j saragraph (a) and adding new
iragraph (b) as follows
51773 Approval status.
(a) With the exceptions set forth m
•a luopart. the Administrator approves
iana 3 plan for attainment ana
air.ienance of the National AmDient
11 Quality Standards under Section 110
: the Clean Air Act.
(b) The Administrator finds that the
3, strategies for Lake. LaPorte. and
lanoa County sausry all requirements -
f Par. D. Title 1 of the Clean Air Act as
ser.eea in 1977. except as noted
etow
• • • •
1 Section 52.795 is amended by
dding paragraphs (c). (d) and (e) as
SllflWS
J1795 Control strategy: Sulfur dloxlda.
• * • •
(c) The requirements of section
1.10(d) are not met by Wayne.
^aioorn. Jefferson. Porter, and Wamck
launues
id] 325 LAC 7 (October 6. 1980
usoission) is disapproved insofar as
-e provisions identified below will
—erfere with the attainment and
sauuenance of the sulfur dioxide
cbient air quality standards.
11) The compliance timetables In
Section 6 for sources with identical or
*Uud emission limitations from those
aatauied in the previously approved
SIP
(«l Part D—Conditional Approval)—
The Inoiana plan for Lake. LaPorte. and "
\Uron Counties is approved provided
^>1 the following condiuons are
Mtufied*
H) Lake County—The plan must
' -«r contain an acceptable
-r=onstration that the 24-hour standard
1'-".e constraining standard or 3-hour
annual attainment analyses must be
The plan must justify
-:~cr.ate SO» background levels for
ne"«?irg periods. These must be
*" a" anaiyses. The plan must
a complete emission inventory.
including process sources. This
inventory must be appropnately used m
all analyses. Adequate receptor
resolution must be used in the
attainment analyses. Lf revisions to the
limitations are necessary, they must be
submitted as revisions to the SIP
(2) LaPorte County—The plan must
either contain an acceptable
aemonstrauon that the 24-hour standard
is the constraining standard or 3-hour
ana annual attainment analyses must be
provided. The plan must justify
appropnate SO» background levels for
all averaging periods. They must be
used, in all analyses. If revisions to the
emission limitation are necessary, they
must be submitted as revisions to the
SEP
(3) Man on County—The plan must
either contain an acceptable
demonstration that the 24-hour standard
is the constraining standard or 3-hour
and annual attainment analyses must be
provided. The plan must justify
appropnate background levels for all
averaging periods. These must be used
in all analyses. The plan must justify the
adequacy of the resolution in a
computer modeling receptor network.
The plan must contain a complete
emission inventory, including process
sources. This inventory must be
appropriately used in all analyses. If
revisions to the emission limitations are
necessary, thfey must be submitted as
revisions to tha SIP-
fFK Doe. SJ-M23 FIM J-U-4£ «™|
BIUJMO COM IMP 1» y
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Public Land Order 6185
(W-71339)
Wyoming; Partial Revocation of Public
Land Order No. 648
agency: Bureau of Land Management.
Interior.
action; Public Land Order.
summary; This order partially revokes a
public land order as to 181.00 acres of
land which were withdrawn for a
Bureau of Land Management
administrative site. A portion of the
lands have been patented under the
recreaaon and public purposes (R&PP)
Act. The remainder are under R&PP
lease. Consequently the lands will
remain closed'to operation of the public
land laws, including the mining laws.
The lands have been and will remain
open to mineral leasing.
effective date: March 12.1982.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
W Scott Gilmer. Wyoming State Office.
307-778-2220. extension 2336.
By virtue of the authority vested m the
Secretary of the Interior by Section 204
of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976. 90 Stat. 2751.
43 U S C. 1714. it is ordered as follows:
1 Public Land Order No. 648 of ]une 5,
1950. which withdrew land for use by
the Bureau of Land Management as
administrative sites, is hereby revoked
in part as to the following described
lands.
Sixth Principal Meridian
T 46 N . R 92 W .
Sec. 7, lots 9-A. 9-8. 10-A. 10-8. 11-A.
11-8. and 12. (formerly lots 1 to 12
inclusive).
The lands described contains 161.00 acres
in Wasnaxie County
2. The surface estate in 102.23 acres of
the above described lands has been
conveyed from United States ownership
pursuant to the Recreauon and Public
Purposes Act of June 14,1926. as
amended (43 U.S.C. 369 et seq.}. the
remaining 58.72 acres are presendy
leased under that act therefore, the
lands will not be open to location under
the United States mining laws. The
lands have been and will continue to be
open to applications and offers under
the mineral leasing laws.
Inquiries concerning the lands should
be addressed to the Chief. Branch of
Lands and Minerals Operations. Bureau
of Land Management. P O. Box 1828.
Cheyenne. Wyoming 82001.
G«mry E. Curuthers.
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
March 2.1SS2
(7R Doc. 52-8T31 Flltd J-11-4E &t3 ao|
B1LUNO C00( *310 «« t
43 CFR Public Land Order 6188
[A-16916]
Arizona; Revocation of Secretarial
Order of July 26, 1928, Air Navigation
Site No. 4
aoency; Bureau of Land Management.
Interior.
action; Public Land Order.
summary: This order revokes a
Secretarial order creating Air
Navigation Site No. 4 This action which
involves 640 acres of land is merely
record cieanng. since both the surface
and mineral estates have been patented.
EFFECTIVE oate; March 1Z 1982.
I-N-27
-------
(\cA
iw-v"-
5AMI)
Harry 0. WHIians, Technical Secretary
Indiana Air Pollution Control Noard
Indiana State Rocird of Health
1330 "''est Michigan Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
Dear Mr. Williams:
We haue received your reauest of April IS, 1932, to redesiqnate Iiarion County
from prinary nonattalnnent to attainment for the SOo National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAOS). The SO2 nbnitorinq data^used to support this
request were sulnitted with your letter dated flay 21, 1982. The technical
justification materials, which were prepared by the City of Indianapolis AJ,r
Pollution Control Oivlsion (CI-\PCD) and then submitted by Indiana, reference
the SO? r.cnltorinq data colloctecs during the years 1979-1981 from 1~ sites
1n llarton County as support for the proposed reriesiqnation 1n much of the
county. The materials also Include air quality modelinq rnalysos as su^ort
for the redesignation in the eastern and northwestern areas of the county.
It is noted that the referenced monitorinq data do not show violations of the
SOp NAAQS. However, our review of the data shows that four of the seven sites
whidi were recoqnized by the C'lAPCH as the most adequate for re^esicnation
purposes in the central and southwest parts of the county do not have the
required eight Quarters of data. Specifically, only three nuarters of ciata
(of which only one ouarter has 75'X date capture) were submitted tor throe of
the sites (54Jfl2, 55J02, art'! 56J02)- and 41,J02 has less than eicmi: quarters of
data available which neet nlnir.um data recovery requirenwnts. therefore,
there arc' nine monitors in the county with at least eight quarters of data
tnat neet mlninun data caDture requirements which can be used to support a
redesior.ati011 of portions of Marion County. These nine monitors are not suffi-
cient, however, to characterize the SO2 air quality throughout all of Itarion
County.
The reference RAM urban air (/jalltv modellnq, which was performed previously
by CIAFCO uslnn the conditionally approved control strateqv as an input,
predicts attalnnent for much of the county, including most of the nine monitor
locations (even hased on rwxlnum allowable rather than actual emissions).
However, It also predicts nonattalnment of the SO2 f'AAQS in some of the areas
where no monitors are located.
Finally, as there are no nonitors located near th" major S09 sources on the
past and far northwest sides cf the county, the Stite submitted new ironelinq
analyses uslnq VPTER to support the mdeslnnation of these areas. A review
of thpse analyses identified the following deficiencies which must be
corrected before we can support redeslynatiori to attainment of these areas
based on modeling:
IN-28
-------
2
1. The sources must be modeled at their federally enforceable SIP emission
limits (I.e., 6.0 lbs/MMBTU for sources not 1n 325 IAC 7-1-8, Appendix A)
rather than their more restrictive Indiana operating permit limits, unless
these permits are submitted to U.S. EPA and approved as revisions to the
SIP.
2. Five years, instead of one year, of National Weather Service meteoroloq1cal
data (or one year if on-site data 1s available) should be used 1r» this new
analysis.
3. An urban/rural analysis should be performed for all sources included 1n a
reference rural nodellnq analysis (as RAM urban is the previously accepted
model for all sources In Marion County).
Consequently, vie cannot approve the redesignation as requested because 1t 1s
neither supported by sufficient nonitor data nor by acceptable modelinq
analyses. The available information does sunport, however, redesianation of
a substantial portion of Marlon County. For example, the data from tha nine
monltorim sites in-Hcate that nuch of the northern half, a portion of the
central area, and the far southwestern part of the county are presently
attaining the SO? standards. Also, the CIAPCD modeling (with RA?-< urban)
Indicates that the conditionally aoproved S0? emission Units will assure
attainment and maintenance of the SOp MAAOS (if the sources are 1n compliance
and the taller stacks are constructed) throuqhout the county with the
exception of: a) the central and southwestern industrial1zed areas and b)
small areas surroundlnq many of the major SO^ sources. If Indiana chooses
to pursue a partial redesiqnatlon, we suqnest that the regional office be
contacted for further guidance to facilitate an approvable submittal.
Vie also take this opportunity to note that Indiana has not yet submitted an
approvable schedule for rewedylno the conditional approved items 1n the Marlon
County SO^ SIP, On March 12, 19S2 (47 FR 10360), EPA proposed Indiana's
November 1"9£2 commitment date for submitting revised attainment strategies
and revised 'regulations, if necessary, to satisfy the Lake, Laoorte, and
Marlon Counties' S07 conditions. On Hay 7, 1982 Indiana responded hy
committing to submit the strategies for Lake and LaPorte Counties by November
1982. The State did not nive a specific date as to wh°n it would submit any
necessary enforceable emission limits required by the strategies. Due to
Its rcdes1c,nat1on request, 1t also did not olvc dates by which either the
Marlon County strategy or any necessary revised enforceable emission
limitations would be submitted for Marlon County. —¦ —
It 1s important to understand that the recently approved emission Units
for the Marion County SQ«> sources (i.e., the conditionally approved control
strategy) must be suunor£ed by an acceptable mo'lelinq analysis which demon-
strates that these linits will assure attainment and maintenance the SO^
NAAQS or an acceptable alternative straetqv must be submitted. This is true
regardless of the Marion County attainment status, because EPA's conditional
approval relaxed certain Marion County SOg emission limits. This position
IN- 29
-------
3
is consistent with guidance previously provided to Indiana on September 3» 1981
(letter from tla1tr>r Sarber to Ralph ,P1 ckard). Therefore, we await a timely
submittal of Indiana's schedule for submitting Its response to the conditions
for Marlon County as well as the schedule for subnlttinq the enforceable emission
limitations for Lake and LaPorte Counties.
In conclusion, monitoring and modeling data 1n this nulti-source area do not
demonstrate that the S0? standards ar*e presently attained throughout the county
or that the exlstlm, conditionally approved enission limits are adequate to
assure attainment and maintenance of the standards throuah.out the county 1n
the future. EPA Is, therefore, denylnq your requested redeslqnatlan of all of
Marlon County to attainment for S!^. Ue v/ould be able, however, to redesignate
specific areas of the county if you so requested.
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact myself (312) 353-2212
or Tin Method at (312) 886-6065.
Sincerely yours,
Oavld Kea, Director
A1r Management A1 vision
cc: Steve Dixon, CIAPCD
bcc: J. Paisie
G. Sulezian
B. Miller
C. Hash
M. Koerber
D. Trout
5AMD:APB:TAS:METH0D:cab:7/1/82
IN-30
-------
Indiana
INDIANAPOLIS, 46206
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
1330 WEST MICHIGAN STREET
P.O. BOX 1964
March 7, 1982
Mr. David Kee, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 6060^
Dear Mr. Kee:
Re: March 12, 1982 Federal Register
On March 12, 1982, U.S. EPA published final rulemaking on
parts of the Indiana SO. SIP. Also, comments were solicited on deadlines
for the remedy of conditionally approved portions of the SIP. The
following comments have been prepared and are submitted on behalf of the
Indiana Air Pollution Control Board:
LaPorte County
Subsequent to the state's submission of the referenced modeling study,
a monitored violation of the SO2 NAAQS was recorded in LaPorte County.
A special study of this violation determined that the violation was the
result of building downwash from a source other than the State Prison.
Therefore, the proposed strategy is insufficient to insure attainment of
the S02 standards.
To resolve this issue, the State of Indiana has conducted a revised
analysis using the ISC reference model. A new control strategy has
been developed and a final report is in preparation. The results of
this new analysis will be submitted to EPA by November 1982, and revised
permits or regulations will be forwarded upon completion.
Because a new modeling study has been performed, no comments will be
submitted on the noted deficiencies of the previous analysis.
Lake County
The Lake County control strategy was developed by the Lake County S0.
Task Force. Attached is a copy of a letter from J.H. Dickerson, Chairman
of the Lake County Task Force. The letter indicates the Task Force
intends to work with the State to prepare the necessary clarification by
November of 1982. Therefore, a revised analysis will be performed—and*
submitted by November 1982. -
1 r,
IN-31 j _ ~
1 •• ' ?7
U. 3 * -v
-------
2-
Another matter that has come to our attention in connection with the Lake
County strategy is the stack height situation at Northern Indiana Public
Service Company's (NIPSCO) Mitchell Station. The State regulations do not
require an increased stack height at this source, even though such increase
was included in the technical support for the strategy. NIPSCO has reported
that the FAA will not allow increased stack height due to proximity to the
Gary airport. Therefore, this matter will be reevaluated in connection with
the reanalysis of the entire Lake County strategy. In the interim we would
request that no action be taken to require a stack height increase at the
Mitchell Station.
Marion County
The Marion County control strategy was developed by the Marion County SO-
Task Force. The APCD has been working with the Task Force and the
Indianapolis local agency to resolve the noted deficiencies.
On April 7» 1982, the Indianapolis local agency petitioned the Indiana Air
Pollution Control Board to request that U.S. EPA redesignate Marion County
as attainment for SO, based on eight quarters of monitoring data with no
recorded violations. The Board accepted the request and directed the
Technical Secretary to forward the petition and supporting monitor data to
U.S. EPA. This action by the Board fulfills all requirements for Marion
County because a separate control strategy will not be necessary. Therefore,
the approvabi1ity issues listed in the Federal Register are no longer
appropriate and no comments are necessary. No further act ions will be taken
on Marion County unless and until EPA rejects the Board's petition, at which
time a new schedule for development of an appropriate control strategy must
be made.
Floyd and Jefferson Counties
A revised modeling analysis for Jefferson County was submitted to U.S. EPA
on March 13, 1981. U.S. EPA subsequently raised three questions on the
study. Two of these issues have been answered to U.S. EPA's satisfaction.
The final question will be answered by the letter of amendment approved by
the Board on March 3, 1982, which revises the operation permit of the Clifty
Creek generating station.
Indiana has no comments on Floyd County at this time.
Wayne County
The state is currently under a judicial restraining order, prohibiting the
redesignation of Wayne County as nonattairment. This order is under appeal
and until lifted, no further actions can be taken.
Dearborn, Porter, and Warrick Counties
The state is preparing to submit monitoring data for Dearborn, Porter, and
Warrick Counties, with petitions requesting redesignation of these counties
IN-32
-------
-3-
as attainment for SO- based on no recorded violations of the SOj NAAOS.
This action will fulfill all requirements for these counties because no
control strategies will be necessary.
If you have any questions on these comments, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (317) 633-0610.
Very truly yours,
Technical Secretary
VEM/sdp
Attachment
IN-33
-------
Indiana
INDIANAPOLIS, 46206
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
1330 WEST MICHIGAN STREET
1330 WEST MICHIGAN STREET
P.O. BOX 1964
May 11, 1982
Mr. Robert Miller
Regulatory Analysis Section
U.S. EPA, Region V
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Miller:
This is to acknowledge a telephone conversation you had with
Harinder Kaur on May 6, 1982, during which you requested the Air Pollution
Control Division to provide you with dates for promulgation of regulations
pertinent to the SO2 and VOC SIP. We are not able to commit ourselves
beyond the reevaluation of the SO2 strategy because we are not sure of the
outcome of this. Upon completion of the reevaluation, it is possible that
we will discover that only a few sources will be effected. If that is the
case, we plan to incorporate the changes as limits in the permits. This
would be a more efficient method of dealing with the necessary changes than
changing the regulation, which could take six to eight months.
In regards to the VOC SIP, staff is willing to request the Board
to preliminarily adopt the appropriate regulations within ninety (90) days
of EPA's publication of the notice of the RACT II proposed rule. The
regulation would incorporate the commitments made by the Board in the May 7,
1982, letter sent to you in response-to EPA's proposed rulemaking.
Since staff was not informed about EPA's concern about.the
absence of committal dates in the staff's response letters on the two rules,
any further changes to the May 7, 1982, letters will have to be presented
to the Board at the next Board meeting on June 2, 1982.
If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me
at the above address or at the following telephone number: (317) 633-0610.
Re: SO2 and VOC Rulemaking
Very truly
Technical Secretary
HK/sd
IN-34
-------
METHOD! GRAVIHCTRIC, 24-HOUR HI-VOLUME FILTER SAMPLE-91
REP
MAX 24-HR OBS> OBS>
SITE ID
LOCATION
COUNTY
ADDRESS
YR
ORG.
IOBS
1ST
2ND
260
190
¦••••
•
•
1
•
«
t
•
mmmmm
• ••••
mmmmm
• ••a*
13IOOOOOIJ02
DEARBORN CO
deapborn
CO
DUTCH HOLLOW
STA
81
303
109
99
191000001J02
DEARBORN CO
DEARBORN
CQ
DUTCH HOLLOW
STA
82
5
94
34
19I000002J02
DEARBORN CO
DEARBORN
CO
HILSON CREEK
STA
79
301
148
113
19I000003J02
DEARBORN CO
DEARBORN
CO
WILSON CPEEK
$ta
80
337
119
110
19I000002J02
DEARBORN CO
DEARBORN
CO
WILSON CREEK
STA
81
309
103
101
19I000002J02
DEARBORN CO
dearborn
CO
WILSON CREEK
STA
82
9
67
47
13U20003F09
DUBOIS CO
DUBOIS CO
hain street
81
37
117
106
l9tl20001F03
DUBOIS CO
DUBOIS CO
HAlN STREET
82
27
123
118
isueoooiroi
east
CHICAOO
LAKE
CO
409 E. COLUMBUS
78
18
161
198
3
ISII8000IH02
EAST
CHICAGO
lake
CO
409 east coluhbu
77
47
191
172
3
19tl80001H02
EAST
CHICAGO
lake
CO
409 EAST COLUMBU
78
33
223
212
6
191180001H02
EAST
CHICAGO
LAKE
CO
409 FAST COLUMBU
79
37
290
229
1
11
I9t10OOO1HO2
EAST
CHICAGO
LAKE
CO
409 EAST COLUMBU
80
46
m_
269
2
12
191I80001H02
EAST
CHICAGO
lake
CO
409 EAST COLUMBU
81
006
97
121
213
10
t9iieoooiHo2
EAST
CHICAGO
lake
CO
409 EAST COLUMBU
82
006
10
139
133
ISl180001P01
EAST
CHICAGO
lake
CO
409 E. COLUMBUS
77
8
137
134
!9ll8000)H01
EAST
CHICAGO
lake
CO
BROAD 4 PINE
BTS
81
006
B
333
231
1
2
19I180003H02
EAST
CHICAGO
lake
CO
BROAD 4 PINE
ST
77
90
206
193
9
13t180003H02
EAST
CHICAGO
LAKE
CO
BROAD 4 PINE
ST
78
61
393
296
2
19
19U60003H02
EAST
CHICAGO
LAKE
CO
BROAD 4 PINE
ST
79
39
313
298
3
9
19|180003H02
EAST
CHICAGO
lake
CO
BROAD 4 PINE
ST
60
46
301
223
1
9
13U80003H02
EAST
CHICAGO
LAKE
CO
broad 4 pine
ST
81
006
98
333
239
1
11
15ll8000 JH02TAsT~CHICACO
LAKE
CO
Broad 4 PINE
ST
82
006
26
219
144
1
19t180003P02
EAST
CHICAGO
LAKE
CO
BROAD 4 PINE
STR
60
39
329
298
9
21
I3II80004H02
EAST
CHICAGO
lake
CO
FIELD SCHOOL
77
48
301
275
2
16
1911B0004H02
EAST
CHICAGO
LAKE
CO
riFLD SCHOOL
78
96
372
286
7
26
191180004H02
EAST
CHICAGO
LAKE
CO
FIELD SCHOOL
79
36
339
287
3
18
I9I180004H02
EAST
Chicago
lake
CO
FIELD SCHOOL
80
39
198
374
6
22
19 f180004H02
EAST
CHICAGO
LAKE
ro
FIELD SCHOOL
81
006
38
3 IF
236
1
13
131180004K02
EAST
CHICAGO
LAKE
CO
FIELD SCHOOL
82
006
30
223
1*»7
¦ 9
iS|ieooo4Po2
EAST
CHICAGO
LAKE
CO
FIELD SCHOOL
80
42
371
34b
9
29
19I1B0006H02
EAST
CHICAGO
LAKE
CO
FRANKLIN SCHOOL
77
49
214
133
2
1511B0006H02
EAST
CHICAGO
LAKE
cd
franklin SCHOOL
78
37
236
213
7
191180006H02
EAST
CHICAGO
LAKE
CO
FRANKLIN SCHOOL
79
33
240
236
9
ISl 180006H02
EAST
CHICAGO
Lake
CO
FRANKLIN SCHOOL
60
44
260
160
9
191180006H02
EAST
CHICAGO
LAKE
CO
FRANKLIN SCHOOL
81
006
49
261
176
1
9
*191180006H02'
EAST
CHICAGO
lake
CO
FRANKLIN SCHOOL
82
006
29
209
139
1
I9I18090IP02
EAST
CHICAGO
lake
cq
WAYNE ADAMS BUIC
80
34
UJL
998
17
29
13I160902P02
EAST
CHICAGO
LAKE
CO
HILLGATE INN
80
23
577
436
6
17
ARIT
GEO
MEAN
MEAN
'•••••«
38
34
32?
30?
48?
44?
41
38
39
36
42?
3"?
73?
69?
62?
97?
98?
92?
100?
93?
122?
119?
129?
112?
117?
100?
IQfL
la*
84?
78?
107?
104?
167?
142?
100?
92?
130
tl5
124?
107?
113?
101?
114
ioi
93?
867
166?
137?
136?
126?
136
139
138?
142?
166?
146?
138?
121T
110?
1 02?
187?
176?
89?
83?
III?
101?
126?
114?
103?
93?
93
86
73?
6 ft?
260?
250?
239?
217?
? INDICATES THAT THE MEAN DOES NOT SATISFY SUMMARY CRITERIA
-------
METHOD I GRAVIMETRIC, 24-hour III-
REP
site ID
LOCATION
COUNTY
ADDRESS
YR
ORG
191300012HO|
evansville
VANDERBURGH CO
423 1
W MILL RD
82
002
13|38Q002P01
tort
WAYNE
ALLEN CO
1 MAIN ST
77
13|380002P01
FORT
WAYNE
ALLEN CO
1 MAIN ST
76
i5ijsooojroi
FORT
WAYNE
ALLEN CO
FORT
WAYNE FOLIC
77
iSl360003F01
TORT
WAYNE
ALLEN CO
FORT
WAYNE POLIC
78
isusoooiroi
TORT
WAYNE
ALLEN CO
FORT
WAYNE POLIC
79
|3|380003F01
FORT
WAYNE
ALLEN CO
FORT
WAYNE POLIC
80
19l380003r0i
FORT
WAYNE
ALLEN CO
FORT
WAYNE POLIC
61
001
131360003F01
FORT
WAYNE
ALLEN CO
FORT
WAYNE POLIC
62
001
I5l380003r09
FORT
WAYNE
ALLEN CO
1717
8, LAFAYETT
78
13|380003P01
fort
WAYNE
ALLEN CO
1717
S LAFAYETTE
77
13I380004F01
FORT
WAYNE
ALLEN CO
2022
NORTH BEACO
79
13I380004F01
FORT
WAYNE
ALLEN CO
2022
NORTH BEACO
80
13l380004r01
FORT
WAYNE
ALLEN CO
2022
NORTH BEACO
81
001
|3|380004r01
FORT
wayne
ALLEN CO
2022
NORTH BEACO
82
001
13I320O0IF01
CARY
LAKE
CO
3600
W( 3RD AVE.
78
ISl320001F01
GARY
LAKE
CO
3600
W. 3RD AVE.
79
13|320001H01
GARY
lake
CO
3600
WEST 3RD AV
77
t3l320001H01
GARY
lake
CO
3600
WEST 3RD AV
76
13|S2000lH01
GARY
lake
CO
3600
WEST 3RD AV
79
13I32000IH01
GARY
lake
CO
3600
WEST 3RD AV
60
J3J 3 20001 Hoi
GARY
lake
CO
3600
WEST 3RD AV
61
004
13I32000IH01
GARY
lake
CO
3600
WEST 3RD AV
82
004
I31S20001H09
GARY
LAKE
CO
3600
W 3RD AVE.
80
I3I32000IP01
GARY
LAKE
CO
3600
W 3RD AVE
77
I3I320002H01
GARY
LAKE
CO
Gary
MUN, AIRPOR
77
1SI320002H01
GARY
LAKfc
CO
GARY
NUN, AIRPOR
76
13I320002H01
GARY
LAKE
CO
GARY
HUN, AIRPOR
79
13I520003H01
GARY
lake
CO
GARY
MUN. AIRPOR
60
13I320002H01
GARY
lake
CO
GARY
MUN, AIRPOR
81
004
13|520002H01
GARY
lake
CO
GARY
MUN, AIRPOR
82
004
13I320002H09
GARY
lake
CO
GARY
AIRPORT
80
_13l320002Ho9
GARY
lake
CO
GARY
AIRPORT
81
004
I3I320002H09
GARY
LAKE
CO
GARY
AIRPORT
82
004
13I320003H01
GARY
LAKE
ro
IVANHOE SCHOOL
77
I3I320003H01
GARY
lake
CO
IVANHOE SCHOOL
76
131320003H01
GARY
LAK?
CO
IVANHOE SCHOOL
79
13I320003H01
GARY
LAKE
CO
IVANHOE SCHOOL
80
191320003H01
GARY
(•AKE
CO
IVANHOE SCHOOL
ej
004
? INDICATES THAT THE MEAN DOES NOT SATISFY SUMMARY CRITERIA
E FILTER SAMPLE-9I
MAX 24-HR
IOBS
1ST
2ND
• ••• i
34
no
98
3
123
43
3
130
148
46
124
109
48
167
163
60
170
147
39
ISO
138
37
132
138
22
103
93
27
167
133
6
73
70
26
119
107
49
122
97
60
112
103
38
119
80
24
304
2t7
19
209
207
44
216
209
48
389
214
27
234
184
21
192
178
34
212
194
33
199
172
3
111
79
26
223
128
40
322
190
37
334
296
28
183
180
33
224
133
34
191
186
32
166
134
9
112
103
33
183
168
27
189
136
41
240
223
47
174
133
41
V*-
227
33
188
137
36
164
OBS> OBS> ARIT CEO
260 ISO MEAN mtan
33?
31?
64?
31?
110?
88?
60
51
87
84
74
82
76
73
71
60?
36?
83?
77?
36?
33?
63?
36?
36
32
37
34
49?
48?
109?
90?
110?
99?
93?
84?
118?
101?
103?
92?
100?
90?
92
<93.
86?
79?
74?
70?
90?
83?
92?
79?
114
<971
97?
8 $?
87?
80?
94
¦ 68
91?
83?
73?
69?
96
•91'
91?
so?
92?
82?
94
'A3
103
91
7 ft?
68?
83
80
-------
bW>? LftUbl) i IL Ubn * C. Ill 1 ten iuwi'i.>
METHOD) GRAVIMETRIC* 34-HOUR HI-VO
REP
jITE ID
LOCATION
COUNTY
ADDRESS
YR
OrG
151520003H0I
GARY
LAKE
CO
IVANHOE school
82
004
15t520005li0l
GARY
LAKE
CO
210 liO GRAND BLV
77
13t320003H01
GARY
lake
CO
210 HO GRANO BLV
76
l5l520005H01
GARY
lake
CO
210 NO GRAND BLV
79
15|320005H01
GARY
LAKE
CO
210 NO GRAND BLV
80
ISt 520003H01
GARY
LAKE
CO
210 NO GRAND BLV
81
004
151520005H01
CARY
lake
CO
210 NO GRAND BLV
82
004
15t320O08H01
GARY
lake,
.CO
KUNY SCHOOL 5050
77
I5J520008H01
GARY
lake
CO
KUNY SCHOOL 3030
76
13tS200u8H01
GARY
LAKE
CO
KUNY SCHOOL 3030
79
13i520008HQl
GARY
LAKE
CO
KUNY SCHOOL 3030
eo
131320008H01
GARY
lake
CO
KUNY SCHOOL 5030
si
004
15(5200081101
GARY
LAKE
CO
KUNY SCHOOL 3030
82
004
I5|S20014H01
GARY
LAKE
CO
Douglass school
80
l3l320014H01
GARY
lake CO
Douglass school
82
004
15l320016ful
GARY
LAKE
CO
federal building
77
I3|320016F01
GARY
LAKE
CO
federal building
80
lliSJoouroi
GARY
LAKE
CO
FEDERAL BUILDING
81
004
15|320016F01
GARY
lake
CO
federal building
83
004
I3|320016H01
GARY
LAKE
CO
federal building
77
13lS20016H01
GAKY
lake
CO
federal building
78
13»320016H01
GARY
lake
CO
federal building
79
13IS30016H01
GARY
lake
CO
federal building
80
£St520016H01
GARY
lake
CO
fedfral building
81
004
_lJl"$20016Hof
GABY"
lake
CO
Federal BUILDIPS
82
OOi
15|330016H09
GARY
LAKE
CO
FEDERAL bldg
80
J5t320Ol6HO9
GARY
lake
CO
federal blug
81
004
J3I320O16H09
GARY
lake
CO
federal bldg
82
OQl
isissooieroi
GARY
LAKe
co
Gary post office
77
15I330018F01
GARY
LAKE
CO
GARY POST OFFICE
78
I3|320901P02
GARY
lake
CO
U.S. STEEL site
79
131320901P02
GARY
lake
CO
U.S. STEEL SITE
80
13|520902P02
GARY
lake
CO
U.S. STEEL 6jte
79
151520902P02
GARY
LAKE
CO
U.S. STEEL SITE
80
13|520903P02
GARY
LAKE
CO
U.S. STEEL SITE
79
I5I520903P02
GARY
LAKE
CO
U.S. STEEL SITE
60
15)560001 JOS
GIBSON CO
GIBSON CO
GIBSON - PLANT R
78
151360001JOS
GIBSON CO
GIBSON CO
GIBSON - PLANT P
79
131560001J02
GitiSON CO
GIBSON CO
GIBSON - PLANT R
80
t indicates that the head
DOES
HOI SATISFY
summary criteria
FILTER SAHPLE-91
HA*
24-HR
oes>
QB3>
ARIT
GEO
IOBS
1ST
2ND
260
130
HEAD
MEAN
33
lie
154
3
BJ)
75)
19
240
201
4
80)
70)
34
196
190
9
78
63
32
192
180
4
89
m
29
196
133
2
891
82)
3}
313
133
2
73
69
31
131
113
1
58)
52)
43
233
218
3
731
63)
39
149
139
63
68
64
147
141
14
68
33
143
141
66f
60)
39
148
146
68
63
33
139
126
1
63}
31)
3
118
86
79)
76)
3
161
153
2
118)
1131
41
137
146
1
89
23
171
139
1
832
79)
39
322
213
J-
i)
107 .93
28
239
191
7
102*
89)
163
363
293
3
26
104)
93)
330
336
323
22
89
128
IIS
878
337
16
96
131
-U
326
_>io.
_3_
11
1361
10*1
42
203
137
2
76
10
4
110
78
66)
38)
77
603
476
10
28
149)
116)
71
437
366
14
36
163)
119)
61
338
274
3
16
117)
99?
73
393
352
6
33
146)
120)
48
159
139
1
70)
64)
29
190
149
1
69)
60)
6
105
48
46)
40)
29
156
133
1
32)
421
41
194
177
3
16)
611
-------
Minnesota
Mn-1
-------
CaPBON MONOXIDE (MC/HJ) MIHNFSOTA 73-63
METHOD! HOIIDXPPFP3IVE INFRARED (NDIR) CONTINUOUS, HOURLY VALUES-11, FLAHE 10NIZAT10N-21
REP MAX 1-HR OBS> MAX 6-HR OB!»>
c id location pouhty address yr org^ iOBs, ist 2nd 40 ist 2nd 10 hetm
ooucni
DULUTH
ST LOUIS
CO
3(4 W SUPERIOR S
73
7397
23.0
23.0
12.7
12.1
11
0016C0I
DULUTH
ST LOCUS
CO
3(4 W SUPERIOR S
76
S456
20.7
19.6
12.3
11.7
5
0018G01
DULUTH
ST LOMIfl
CO
314 W. SUPERIOR
76
1730
19.6
19.6
13.9
U.6
6
oojecoi
DULUTH
ST LOUIS
CO
314 W. SUPERIOR
77
7881
29.3
28.8
18.4
17.3
61
OOtftGnl
DULUTH
ST Louis
Co
314 W. SUPERIOR
78
7682
43.4
42.0
2 19.7
16.2
31
ooiecoi
DULUTH
ST LOUIS
CO
314 Um SUPERIOR
79
6413
29.9
28.6
14.3
14.1
17
ooiacoi
DULUTH
ST LOUIS
CO
314 W. SUPERIOR
80
8634
29.9
23.6
16.3
14.2
11
ooiacni dUluth
ST LOUIS
CO
314 W. SUPERIOR
81
001
8260
31.1
30.3
14.2.
13.2
6
COI8G01
DULUTH
ST LDII1S
CO
314 W. SUPERIOR
92
oni
1734
19.6
19.6
11.6
11.0
2
0O22HOI
MINNEAPOLIS
HENNEPIN
CO
3RD AVE & 4TH ST
73
8098
23.3
20.1
13.2
10.1
3
0022:101
MINNEAPOLIS
HENNEPIN
CO
3RD AVE i 4TH ST
76
7479
21.3
18.4
13.4
12.8
4
002JH01
MINNEAPOLIS
HENNEPIN
CO
3RD AVE t 4TK ST
77
6933
21.3
20.8
17.1
14.1
9
0O22HC!
MINNEAPOLIS
KENNFP1N
CO
3RD AVE fc 4TH ST
78
8238
19.2
19.5
12.1
10.9
3
0O27HOI
MINNEAPOLIS
HENNEPIN
CO
3RD AVE (, 4TH ST
79
4603
19,3
16.7
9.8
9.1
0027T01
MINNEAPOLIS
HENNEPIN
CO
3403 UNIVERSITY
73
8381
14.4
14.0
8.7
8.3
0O27FD)
MINNEAPOLIS
HF.NNEPIN
CO
3405 UNIVERSITY
76
7743
19.0
13.9
14.0
10.2
2
0O27FM
MINNEAPOLIS
HENNEPIN
CO
3403 UNIVERSITY
77
8349
13.6
1 J.3
10.0
9.0
0O27FM
MINNEAPOLIS
HEIJNEPIN
CO
3403 UNIVERSITY
78
7971
20.4
19.8
18.1
17.3
4
0O27FOI
MINNEAPOLIS
HENNEPIN
CO
3403 UNIVERSITY
79
9736
9.9
9.7
«.I
5.4
0047F01
MINNEAPOLIS
HENNEPIN
CO
S 7T1I l HENIJEPIN
76
nil
32.0
30.9
20.2
19.1
51
0047F01
MINNEAPOLIS
HENNEPIN
CO
S 7TJJ « HENNEPIN
77
8391
30.7
26.2
16.3
13.3
93
0O47F0I
MINNEAPOLIS
HENNEPIN
CO
S 7TH & HENNEPIN
78
8504
28.8
25.4
16.7
16.6
71
0047F01
MINNEAPOLIS
HENNgPIN
CO
S 7TH ( HENNEPIN
79
7690
26.6
23.8
18.9
15.7
33
0O47FOI
MINNEAPOLIS
HENNEPIN
CO
S 7TH t HENNEPIN
80
8344
24.2
23.6
15.0
13,8
12
0047F01
minnfapolis
HENNEPIN
CO
S 7TH £ HENNEPIN
e>
001
8327
18.4
IB.3
12.4
12.1
9
0047r0l
MINNEAPOLIS
HENNEPIN
CO
S 7TH t,HENNEPIN
82
oot
3621
13.1
12.4
9.3
7.2
0052FOJ
MINNEAPOLIS
HENNEPIN
CO
3RD AVE, 6 t 4TH
80
1900
26.3
23.2
9.0
6.3
0A52FQ1
MINNEAPOLIS
HENNEPIN
CO
3RD AVE. S & 4TH
81
001
7206
11.0
10.8
7.7
6.7
0052F0I
MINNEAPOLIS
HENNEPIN
CO
3RD AVE. 3 t 4TH
82
001
3806
8.1
7.8
6.3
5.6
oostroi
MINNEAPOLIS
HENNEPIN
CO
NT SANA! HOSPITA
80
1831
10.3
9.7
5.6
5.2
0O54FO1
MINNEAPOLIS
HENNEPIN
CO
HT SAHAI HOSPITA
81
001
212B
13.2
13.4
8.9
7.4
0056FOI
MINNEAPOLIS
IIFNNgPIN
CO
1829 PORTLAND AV
81
3198
9.3
8.6
5.2
5.1
0O56F0I
MINNEAPOLIS
HENNEPIN
CO
1829 PORTLAND AV
82
3778
16.1
17.7
5.5
5.2
0O1BGOI
ROCHESTFR
OLMSTFD CO
BROADWAY AT FIRS
73
6267
34.3
32.2
20.4
16.1
ion
ooiecoi
mocmi.stfr
OLHSTFD CO
BROADWAY AT FIRS
76
7138
37.1
22.8
13.9
13.6
28
ooiacoi
ROCHESTER
OLMPTFD CO
BROADWAY AT TIPS
77
8138
18.4
17.1
13.7
11.7
12
oiijBGoi
rochestfr
OLH*TrD CO
BROADWAY AT FIRS
78
7934
24.4
21.5
15.0
14.2
22
0018C01
pochestfr
OLM.
-------
UK i
CARBON MONOXIDE (MC/HJ) MINMfSOTA 79-82
HFTHODI NONPIflPrPSlVE INFRARED fNDIR) CONTINUOUS, HOURLY VALUfS-11, FLAME IONIZATIONS
Rrp
MAX
1-HR
OBS>
MAX
8-HR
OP
..?"E IP .
LOCATION
COUNTY
address
YR
ORG
• (IBS
1ST
2ND
40
1ST
2ND
-» »
241120018001
ROCHESTER
OLMSTFD CO
BROADWAY AT FTR8
81
001
8921
20.2
17.4
12.8
14.8
341130018G01
ROCHESTrft
OLMSTFD CO
BROADWAY AT FIRS
82
001
1414
16.2
14.9
10.S
9.6
34iieoooiroi
ROSEVILLE
RAMSEY CO
1939 W. COUNTY R
81
3638
9.8
9.3
4.3
4.2
24iieoooiroi
ROSEVILLE
RAMSEY CO
19-39 W. COUNTY R
81
981
8.1
7.7
4.8
4.6
2412J0025H01
ST
cloud
6HERBURNE
CO
911 ST. GERMAIN
76
3944
29.3
29.3
20.2
18.6
3
34122002SH01
ST
CLOUD
SHFRDltRNE
CO
911 ST. GERMAIN
77
7392
37.1
33.7
25.6
20.7
3
241220025H01
ST
CLOUD
SHEAPIIRNE
CO
911 ST. GERMAIN
78
7908
28.8
23.4
15.6
13.J
341230025H01
ST
CLOUD
SHERBURNE
CO
911 ST. GERMAIN
79
8099
31.1
28.8
21.9
16.7
241220025H01
ST
CLOUD
SHERBURNE
CO
9)1 ST. GERMAIN
80
8068
27.6
22.2
11.3
10.7
»AA13003SH01-
_ST_CLOUn
SHERBURNE
CO
911 ST. GERMAIN
81
001
8167
33.9
28.8
l».l
13.1
241220025H01
ST
CLOUD
SHFRBURNE
CO
911 ST. GERMAIN
82
001
2429
21.9
18.4
11.9
11.6
341300001H01
ST
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
100 E 10TH ST
79
129
9.1
7.9
5.0
1.7
341300030HOJ
ST
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
349 JACKSON ST
79
8323
24.2
30.7
10.9
10.2
34J300030H01
ST
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
349 JACKSON ST
76
1839
11.3
9.9
6.J
6.0
243300030H01
ST
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
349 JACKSON ST
77
4923
18.9
17.6
10.9
10.3
34J300030H01
ST
PAUL
RAHSEY CO
349 JACKSON ST
78
6939
27.6
29.4
21.8
31.2
24U00030H01
ST
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
349 JACKSON ST
79
681
14.3
10.7
6.8
6.6
341300031H01
ST
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
TENTH & MlNNESOT
79
8192
17.4
19.9
10.6
9.2
34)300031801
ST
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
TENTH t MlNNESOT
76
8032
21.9
21.3
12.9
11.1
34330003IH01
fit
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
TENTH & HINNESOT
77
8499
23.0
20.7
11.6
11.2
^34130003lH01
ST
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
TENTH & HINNESOT
78
7979
21.4
16.8
11.7
9.6
1 24)J00031H01
ST
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
TENTH i MlNNESOT
79
7747
16.4
15.4
10.3
9.9
to34J300O31H01
ST
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
TENTH & HINNESOT
80
8628
18.2
IS.6
12.3
9.7
21j30093IHnl
ST
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
TENTH ( MlNNESOT
81
001
8939
19.7
14.3
11.5
11.4
34*30003tHnl
ST
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
TENTH & MlNNESOT
82
001
2814
~li:2
10.8
6.1
-976"
34l30003ir01
6T
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
17 W', 4TH STREET
79
6270
16.6
14.8
9.0
8.4
341300A37F0I
ST
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
17 H, 4TH STREET
80
0907
16.1
16.0
11.6
10.0
343300037F01
ST
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
17 W, 4TH STREET
81
001
6729
20.8
17.3
8.1
7.5
243300037F01
ST
PA»L
RAMSEY CO
17 W. 4TH STREET
82
001
2909
17.6
16.0
8.7
8.4
34)300039F01
ST
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
1963 UNIVERSITY
79
3386
19.0
19.0
16.1
14.1
1
34)300"39F01
ST
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
1963 UNIVERSITY
80
7819
19.8
18.4
19.6
13.0
1
3413G0039F01
ST
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
1963 UNIVERSITY
81
001
2998
14.0
13.9
U.l
8.2
3.41300542FO1.
ST
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
1969 UNIVERSITY
81
3123
23.9
23.3
17.0
15.3.
2
241300O42F01
ST
PAUL
RAMSEY CO
1969 UNIVERSITY
82
?719
18.3
11.9 ..
11*0
METH
-------
10/27/62
NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK
QUICK LOOK REPORT
PACK 47
SULrUR DIOXIDE (UG/M3) MINNESOTA 77-82
METHODSl HOUHLY VALUtS WEST-GAEKE COLORIMeTRIC-1I, CONDUCTIMETPIC-13. COULoMETRIC-14, FLAME PHOTOMETRIC-16,
hydrogen Peroxide naoh titration-18, catalyst flame photometric-19, pulsfd fluorescent-20, second derivative spectroscqpy-21#
CONDUCTANCE ASAKCO-22# ULTRA VIOLET STIMULATED FLUORESCENCE-2J,SEQUENTIAL CONDUCTIMETRIC-JJ,
24-IIOUR GAS BUBBLERS PARAROSANILINE-SULFAHIC ACID-91. PARAROSANILINE SULFAMIC ACID TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED-97
Rep max 24-hr nus> max 3-hr obs> max i-hr arit
site id
LOCATION
county
ADDRESS
YR
ORG
•nus
1ST
2ND
365
1ST
2ND 1300 1ST
2ND
HLAN
NTH
240260002F01
BEMIDJI
BELTRAMI CO
BEMIDJI ST COLL
77
1!
13
8
ST
91
240360009F01
BLUOMINCTON
HENNEPIN CO
600 W 95TH STREE
77
6121
304
268
854
798
1072
1040
28f
14
240360009Fol
BLOOMINGTON
HENNEPIN CO
600 W 9STH STREE
78
7050
81
75
169
157
430
377
22
14
240360009F01
bloomington
HENNEPIN CO
600 W 95TH 6TREE
79
6134
120
88
176
159
508
372
197
14
240420001F01
brainerd
CROW WING CO
CITY HALL
77
28
3
3
3?
91
24042000IF01
brainerd
CROW WING CO
CITY HALL
78
57
5
3
3
97
240420001F01
brainerd
CROW WING CO
CITY HALL
79
52
10
3
3
97
24O76001IF01
cloouet
CARLTON CO
water metering s
77
57
8
3
3
91
240760011F01
CLOOUET
CARLTON CO
water hetering s
78
40
3
5
3T
97
240760011F01
CLOOUET
CARLTON CO
hater metering s
79
26
5
5
37
97
24o940020F02
DAKOTA CO
DAKOTA CO
55 ( 52 (PINE BE
77
8219
2096
1390
18
2096
1865 24 2439
2146
I02>
1T77
14
240940020F02
DAKOTA CO
DAKOTA CO
55 & 32 (PINE BE
78
1096
1030
804
2
1289
1258
1551
1546
14
24O940020F02
DAKOTA CO
DAKOTA CO
53 & 52 (PINE BE
82
768
390
187
1
838
725
1218
1069
46?
14
240940020F02
DAKOTA CO
DAKOTA CO
55 i 52 (PINE BE
78
7483
835
646
4
2071
1665
4 2343
2269
64
20
240940020F02
DAKOTA CO
DAKOTA CO
35 & 32 (PINE BE
79
8384
414
390
3
1085
928
1436
1394
49
20
240940020F02
DAKOTA CO
DAKOTA CO
53 & 52 (PINE BE
80
8420
641
450
4
1278
1277
1789
1527
30
20
24o940Q20F02_DAKUTA CO.
DAKOTA CO
55 ( 52 (PINE BE
81
7069
619
418
2
1605
1572
4 2070
I860
39
20
24O940020F02
DAKOTA CO
DAKOTA CO
55 I 52 (PINE BE
82
3558
471
429
3
1139
1027
1417
1378
46?
20
240940020F02'
DAKOTA CO
DAKOTA CO
55 I 52 (PINE BE
77
58
291
246
62
91
24A940020F02
DAKOTA CO
DAKOTA CO
35 t 52 (PINE BE
78
58
645
304
1
40
97
240940020F02
DAKOTA CO
DAKOTA CO
55 t 52 (PINE BE
79
53
176
170
18
97
240940020F05
DAKOTA CO
DAKOTA CO
IIWYS 55 4 52 (PI
81
001
3270
372
296
1
1327
1086
1 1729
1491
22T
14
240940020F05
DAKOTA CO
DAKOTA CO
IIWYS 55 fc 52 (PI
82
001
3368
446
333
1
1134
990
142^
1352
427
14
24I040001P01
DULUTH
ST LOUIS CO
CITY HALL
77
6
75
13
20?
91
241040002G01
DULUTH
ST LOUIS CO
1412 108TH AVE W
77
16
3
3
3?
91
241040002G01
DULUTH
ST LOUIS CO
1412 108TH AVE W
78
42
31
21
4
97
24I040002G01
DULUTH
ST LOUIS CO
1412 108TH AVE W
79
25
3
3
3?
97
24I040005C01
DULUTH
ST LOUIS CO
1628 W SUPERIOR
77
57
13
10
3
91
241040003G01
DULUTH
ST LOUIS CO
1628 W SUPERIOR
78
18
31
31
7?
97
2 41040005G01
DULUTH
ST LOUIS CO
1628 W SUPERIOR
79
25
3
3
3?
97
24I0400I6G01
DULUTH
ST LOUIS CO
314 W SUPERIOR S
77
6271
46
44
124
96
173
lie
11?
14
24t040016G01
041 n4nm am i
DULUTH
nui iitu
ST LOUIS CO
C«P 1 nnvc /*n
314 W SUPERIOR S
4 ii cunpnvnn
78
m a
4064
43
« a
34
109
95
149
144
12?
14
-------
Ohio
OH-1
-------
01/11/83
NATIONAL AFROMETRIC DATA bANK
QUICK LOOK REPORT
PaGL U
OZONE (PARTS PER MILLION) OHIO 79*62
METHODS! HUUKLY VALUES CHEMILllMINfSCE»CE-ll» ULTRA VIOLET DASIBI CORPOHItION-14, CHEMILUMINESCENCE RHODAMINE B DYE-16
REP
DAILY MAX
1-HR
VALS >
.125
*RR VALID
HISS DAYS
81TE ID
LOCATION
COUNTY
ADDRESS
YR
ORG
IOBS
1ST
2ND
3RD
MEAS
EST
daily max
ASS < STD ME
36u0600l5H01
AKRON
SUMMIT CO
207 S BROADWAY
79.
3307
.130
.128
.125
3
7.9
1 39
1 11
36n06o0l8ll01
AKRGJ.
summit CO
259 5. BROADWAY
79
3952
.080
.060
.077
0
0.0
149
2 11
J6n06001fiHAl
AKRON
SUMMIT CO
299 a. PROADIIAY
80
3797
.072
.062
.055
0
0.0
119
0 11
360060020H01
AKHON
5UHHIT CO
600 PATTFRSON AV
80
5969
.133
.115
.110
1
1.6
236
0 11
16o06U020H0i
AKHON
summit CO
800 PATTERSON AV
,e
006
7281
.283
.268
.238
6
7.2
305
1 11
16o060020H01
AKROJJ
SUMMIT CO
BOO PATTERSON' AV
82
006
5404
, 12B
.128
.123
2
3.2
223
3 11
36o08o001F0l
ALLEN CO
ALLEN CO
1787 OLD NORTH D
79
5173
.140
.105
.093
1
1.7
214
0 11
36oO8o0OlFol
ALLEN CO
ALLEN CO
|737 OLD NORTH D
80
761
.036
.036
.034
0
0.0
31
0 11
36o080001F01
ALLEN CO
ALLEN CO
1787 OLD NORTH D
81
003
3465
.113
.095
.089
0
0.0
141
2 11
160080002F01
ALLEN CO
ALLEN CO
2630 BIBLE RD
82
00)
3608
.120
.104
.100
0
0.0
144
2 11
360080003F01
ALLEN CO
ALLEN CO
2690 BIBLE RD
82
003
1376
.055
.050
.049
0
0.0
56
3 14
J60360008H01
BARBEHTON
SUMMIT CO
NOBLE STREET
80
3734
.118
.110
.105
0
0.0
113
0 U
i6«5fl0002H01
BLREA
CUYAHOGA CO
320 FRONT ST
79
7269
.120
.113
.110
0
0.0
286
S 11
J6n5BoO(j2Hol
BErEA
CUYAHOGA CO
320 FRONT ST
80
7309
.095
.093
.088
0
0.0
295
13 11
36ft560003H01
behea
CUYAHOGA CO
320 FRONT ST
81
009
3866
.135
.115
.108
1
2.3
161
1 11
36ft580002H01
berf.a
CUYAHOGA CO
320 FRONT ST
82
009
9469
,140
.125
.133
2
3.2
230
2 11
36I000001H02
CANTON
STAPK CO
CITY HALL 218 CL
79
7487
. 125
.115
.115
1
1.2
309
3 11
1610000011102
CAHTON
STAHK CO
CITY HALL 218 CL
80
6945
.100
.095
.095
0
0.0
382
U 11
361 QQuOO 11102 CAtlTON
STAPK CO
CITY HALL 218 CL
81
007
3324
.109
.109
.065
0
U.O
82
3 11
3610000161)02
canton
fiTAKK CO
MALONE COLLEGE
61
007
5007
.115
.115
.115
0
0.0
184
14 11
16I0OOOUK02
CA1ITGN
STAPK CO
I1AL0NE COLLEGE
82
007
5373
.125
.135
.133
2
3.6
197
12 11
36tu80001G(j9
CCHNA
HERCEP CO
grand lake road
81
1132
.102
.082
.082
0
0.0
46
1 14
361220OI9G01
CINCINNATI
HAMILTON Cu
167s glst street
81
008
86 26
.117
.107
. 106
0
0.0
)t>4
1 14
361220019G01
ClNClhNA'f I
HAMILTON CO
1675 GEST STRFET
82
008
563u
.113
.111
.108
0
0.0
243
0 14
36 I 220019H0J
CINCINNATI
HAMILTON CO
1679 GEST ST
79
8721
.132
.123
.122
I
1.0
365
0 11
36i220O19H01
cii;ciMt.Aii
HAMILTON CO
1679 GEST ST
BO
3620
.120
.095
.095
0
0.0
151
1 11
361220019H01
CINCINNATI
HAMILTON CO
1679 GEST ST
BO
5084
.150
.150
.135
5
8.6
214
0 14
3 61220020G01
CINCINNATI
HAMILTON CO
drake hfmorial h
81
OOB
4 107
.10*
.097
.092
0
0.0
170
3 11
361 2200201101
CINCINNATI
HAMILTON CO
dpake MEMORIAL h
79
8117
.107
.103
.102
0
0.0
336
5 11
361 220U2UH01
CINCINNATI
HAMILTON CO
DRAKE MEMORIAL H
80
8647
.134
.133
.120
2
2.0
361
3 11
3d)220035C01
CINCINNATI
HAMILTON Cu
VII1E AND St. CLA
81
008
8674
.1.00
.098
.098
0
0.0
362
1 14
36i220O35Gni
CINCINNATI
HAMILTON CO
VINE AND ST. CLA
83
008
4836
.115
.108
.098
0
0.0
202
7 14
361220035HO1
CINCINNATI
HAMILTON CO
VINE ~ ST CLAIR
79
8455
.102
.100
.100
0
0.0
355
2 11
-------
01/11/63
NATIONAL PFPOMETRIC DATA BANK
QUICK LOOK REPORT
PACE 14
OZOME (rARTS PER HILLION)
OHIO
79-82
HETHODSi HOURLY VALUES CHEHILUvINE3CEriCE-ll# ULTRA VIOLET DASIbl CORPORATIONS, CHEMILUMINESCENCE RHODAMINE B DYE-15
PEP
DAILY NAX 1-HR VALS > .125 NBR VALIO
SITE ID
location
couht*
ADDRESS
YR
ORG.
«OBS
1ST
2ND
3RD
ME AS
EST
DAILY
364500007G01
MONTGOMERY CO
MONTGOMERY CO
1900 HARSHHAN RO
82
010
5411
170
.127
.122
2
3.2
227
36S320O02GO2
PAINfSVlLLE
Lake CO
71 E HIGH STREET
79
8255
122
.112
.1«2
0
0.0
337
363320002G02
PA IKESV1LLE
LAKE CO
71 E HIGH STREET
80
8305
152
.116
.110
1
1.1
344
363320002G02
PAIHESVILLL
Lake CO
71 E HIGH STREET
81
012
3954
128
.117
.114
t
1.4
252
36^32000?G02
PAINESVILLE
lake ro
71 E HIGH STREET
82
012
5623
125
.112
.112
1
1.5
236
36sseoootHoi
PORTAGE CO
PUPTACE CO
1970 RAVENNA ROA
79
7050
155
.146
.146
8
9.8
294
36S580001H01
PORTAGE CO
POPTACE CO
1570 RAVENNA ROA
80
8033
153
.115
.105
1
1.1
337
163580001H01
PORTAGE CO _
PORTAGE CO
1370 RAVENNA ROA
81
006
7271
180
,158
..no
5
3.2_
1*7
36S5B0001H01
PORTAGE CO
PORTACE CO
1570 RAVENNA ROA
82
006
3171
330
.138
.135
3
5.0
217
36364000IG01
PPEBLE CO
PREBLE CO
NATIONAL TRAILS
79
61?6
145
.140
.120
2
2.9
254
363640001G01
PREBLE CO
PREBLE CO
NATIONAL TRAILS
80
7782
112
.110
.100
0
0.0
324
36S640001G01
PREbLE CO
PHEBLE CO
NATIONAL TRAILS
81
8705
127
.115
.107
1
1.0
363
363640001G01
PREBLE CO
PREBLF CO
NATIONAL TRAILS
62
5291
162
.158
.132
6
9.8
223
3664O0009H0I
STARK CO
STARK CO
6318 HEHINGEK AV
60
3505
HO
.110
.105
0
0.0
146
366400009H01
6TARK CO
stapk CO
6318 HEHINGEF AV
61
007
6652
130
.107
.100
1
1.3
268
366400009H01
STARK CO
stapk CO
6318 HEN1NGER AV
82
0n7
3434
120
.106
.106
0
0.0
140
366420012101
STb'UBENVlLLF
jrrrEpaQN co
814 ADAMS STREET
79
6726
130
.122
.120
1
1.0
3b4
366420012101
STEUBtNVILLC
jcrrEnsoH Co
014 ADAMS S1RFET
60
BJM
160
.160
.156
7
7.3
349
366420012101
STEUBENVILLE
JEFFERSON CO
614 ADAMS STREET
81
014
7565
100
.095
.095
0
0.0
315
366420012101
STEUBETVILLE
JEFFERSON CO
814 ADAMS STREET
62
014
5818
120
.110
.105
0
0.0
242
366O00006H09
TOLEDO
LUCAS CO
26 MAIN STREET
79
8655
130
.130
.110
2
2.0
361
366600006H09
TOLEDO
LUCAS CO
26 MAIN STREET
80
5648
093
.095
.070
0
0.0
233
366600006H09
TOLEDO
LUCAS CO
26 MAIN STREET
81
015
8573
133
.130
.125
i
3.0
156
366600006H09
TOLEDO
LUCAS CO
26 main street
82
015
5646
13ft
.125
.1?5
3
4.6
238
366600006H09
TOLtDO
LUCAS CO
26 MAIN STREET
80
2892
U5
.110
.110
0
0.0
121
36660008IH09
TOLEDO
L"cas ro
FRIENDSHIP PARK
79
8386
160
.150
.140
6
6.1
3b 1
366600081H09
TOLEDO
LUCAS CO
FRIENDSHIP PARK
80
6324
145
.140
.125
4
5.4
269
366600081 Ho9
TOLEDO
LUCAS CO
FRIENDSHIP PARK
8u
2163
080
.060
.050
0
0.0
90
366600081H09
TOLLDO
LUC«S CO
FRIENDSHIP PARK
81
015
8551
130
.120
.115
1
1.0
356
366600081H09
TOLEDO
LUCAS CO
FRIENDSHIP PAPK
82
015
5100
110
.105
.1«5
0
0.0
208
3672600031101
WFSTLAKE
CUYAHOGA CO
810 clagiie poad
79
8143
125
.125
.120
2
2.1
333
367280003H01
WrsTLA(
-------
Region VI
-------
Louisiana
LA-1
-------
LOUISIANA
I. Bibliography of Material Reviewed for Louis-iana
1. EPA National Aerometnc Data Bank Quick Look Reports for 1981 and
1982 (ID No. NA 273.)
2. EPA National Aerometric Data Bank SAROAD Violation Day Count Report
for 1981 and 1982 (ID No. NA 282).
3. Louisiana 1979 State Implementation Plan for Ozone, submitted April
30, 1979, transmitted by letter from Governor Edwin Edwards to Adlene
Harrison, Regional Admimstrator for EPA-Region 6.
4. Louisiana Reasonable Further Progress report for 1982. Submitted
October 21, 1982, letter from Terrie Lotten, Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources, to Ellen Greeney, EPA, Region 6.
5. Rural Ozone Policy as explained in Federal Register, April 4, 1979,
volume 44, on page 20376. Also as explained in a Jan. 3, 1978 memo,
entitled "Attainment/Nonattainment Status Designations," from David
Hawkins, Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, EPA,
to Regional Administrators.
6. EPA National Aerometric Data Bank, Quick Look Reports for 1983.
7. EPA National Aerometnc Data Bank, SAROAD Violation, Day Count Report
for 1983.
II. Documentation of Determinations
A. Determinations Based on Monitoring Data
Ozone
1. Baton Rouge Urban Nonattainment Area (East Baton Rouge Parish and
West Baton Rouge Parish)
a. East Baton Rouge Parish - 4 violations at site 190280003F01
in 1982 (10 violations in 1981), expected exceedances in 1982
for this site are 8.3;
LA-2
-------
1 violation at site #190280004F01 in 1982 (4 violations in
1981), expected exceedances in 1982 for this site are 4.6;
2 violations at site #190840001F02 in 1982 (10 violations
in 1981), expected exceedances in 1982 for this site are
9.5.
2 violations at site #190280003F01 in 1983, expected
exceedances in 1983 for this site are 2.8.
2 violations at site #190280004F01 in 1983, expected
exceedances in 1983 for this site are 2.8.
2 violations at site #190840001F02 in 1983, expected
exceedances in 1983 for this site are 2.0.
See Nov. 10, 1982 SAR0AD printout [NA 282] for La.,
pages attached.
b. West Baton Rouge Parish - part of Baton Rouge urban non-
attainment area, across river from E. Baton Rouge parish.
Mo monitors located in parish during 1982 or 1981.
One violation at site #192300001F01 in 1 983, expected
exceedances in 1983 for this is 1.0.
2. New Orleans Urban Nonattainment Area (Orleans Parish, St. Bernard
Parish and Jefferson Parish)
a. Orleans Parish - No violations of .14 or greater in 1982
or 1981. Part of New Orleans urban area. The expected
exceedances for site #192020012F01 fdr 1982 are 2.2. See
1982 Quick Look Report [NA 282] for La., page attached.
b. St. Bernard Parish - One violation at site #192500002F01 in
1982 (none in 1981). The expected exceedances for this
site for 1982 are 2.1. See Nov. 10, 1982 SAR0AD printout
[NA 282] for La., page attached.
c. Jefferson Parish - 3 violations at site #191460001F01 in
1982 (none in 1981). The expected exceedances for this
site for 1982 are 17.4. See Nov. 10, 1982 SAROAD printout
[NA 282] for La., page attached.
d. No exceedances for Orleans parish, St. Bernard parish, or
Jefferson parish were measured in 1983. EPA proposes to change
the designation of New Orleans urban area to Tier 1. Rede-
signation to attainment will be contingent on 1984 monitoring
data.
LA-3
-------
><*'//}*
M 2 73
n«TI<>mal -diHr i1c L>aU sank
OiJICK l oo-. »UOOH|
PAGE
£/
dh
••/O'lt "IS MILL I O'-ll L<1
.1*3
***
B.3
1 7i
3
11
,'nnoo*Foi
HA TON Billot
"*ASI tlAjO'J •IllWf
¦SfATF CaPIIOL hi)
*0000 1F 01
ca'Mjo pa»»
^CADIJH PM
•< F I- L WAIH3 SIATI
!'2
002
311b
,(|VJ
. Od /
0
0.0
l.li
b
11
i*OOOIFO
t
. Us
.113
2
*.3
lov
J
1*
.60nnjFol
•*¦£• 'NE**
JFFFF"Sr>'i PA*
L P *i L Pii^tHL IN
15?"
.1*1
.1*3
}
17.*
to 1
0
11
."4010U0H
KISaTCHIF national
r.tANi tu"-
•»<;
a*d
. U'jo
.030
.(1*3
0
0.0
10
0
11
•ftoooafni
MONQOF
, MtJALHjlA PA.J
A|HPiiwf STaIION
»«2
Jhl 1
.OH/
.Oh*
.077
0
0.0
1*V
5
1*
iiS
MWLtAMb °AM
id', LOYOLA Atff
¦*d
ool
* Iflh
. 10*
.obu
1
2.1
1 7 J
0
»*
».*uu12fo|
MF»» OMLEAVS
OBLtAMS MA"
CITY r*A"K
t>2
002
irtn'<
.11*
.040
1"
2.2
162
5
11
->itoon«?Fi>\
ST rtt'HNAHU JA-I
ST -H(ino<>r(i|
ST JOHN Tit BAPTIST ST J'Vl'l THK HaP
A/M.KA K SoUTh a
?2
001
*2?tt
. 1 In
.lov
.101
0
0.0
17a
1
1*
'*P00HFOl
Sh-'FVFPIOT
/'IOSSUP »AW
<)nwMin«n mu% i r | *•
•i d
oo2
3«*7d
002
*0 ?l
.U"
.107
e
S2
17 J
*
11
3»
l
-------
1»4/27/«?
national hFromfihIr oat a rank
(III ILK LOOK KtPUKl
PAGE
¦ >70MI IPAUTS f« "1U ION) L0MIS1A.*» Hl-81
METHODS: HrtHPLY VALUES CHEMl|.UMlNF.SC£NCF-l I . Ill.TWA VIOLET OASIril CORPOPATION-I 4. CHtHlLUMlNESCENCE RHODAMlNE b OYE-15
RFP OAILY MA* 1-HR VALS > .125 NHR VALID HISS DAYS
SITF 10
LOCATION
COUNTY
ADDRESS
YR
OMG
#OrS
IbT
?iiU
3RD
meas
EST
DAILY MAX ASS
< STO
ME
)9n?H000.1F01
HAION HOiibE J
EAST OA TON H»ou(i
FAST F HO OF ASTt
Ml
0 0 I
49*»2
• 1 o*
1. lirt
. 148
XV
15.8
205
4
U
|Q02flonn.iFni
HAT0N HOU'it J
Fast haton mohg
EAST OF ASTF
HI
001
2568
• 1 7y
. l u I
.080
3.4
108
0
"14
l"»n?nooo4Fo|
HA 1 ON HOUl.t J
FASl MAT (IN Ml It Mi
STaTF < AIM luL HU
«|
on?
79-»«
• 1 •*»
. I Jd
.136
4
4.1
344
11
11
OosonooiFol
TAPOO PAW
CAOOO PAR
KFM l< AO 10 STAT|
Ml
0(i2
67ol
. 1
M
.094
0
0.0
351 ,
2
14
i9?n?nni2Fni
NEW ORLEANS
ORLEANS PAR
CITY PARK
Ml
002
71 ?8
. llll
,o**v
.0*6
¦ 0
0.0
303 " "
6
11
I92500002FOI
ST hewnaro par
ST HERNaHII PAt'
ST. HtHMARl) SCHO
Ml
6551
. 12ll
.lib
.106
0
0.0
269
9
14
19PSROO02FOI
ST JOHN"THE BAPTIST
ST JOHN THF WAP
AZALEA & SOUTH A
HI
001
7170
.161
.Kb
.118
"2
"2.4
302 " "
3
"14
19?74 0008F 01
SHl'FVF.PORT
HOSSIF.R PAW
DOWNTOWN M'JNICIP
1\
002
7532
.13V
. loo
.106
1
1.1
335
10
11
1931H0003F01
WfSTLAKE ~
CALCASIFU PAR
AiJTHO'IY FERRY
HI
002
720«
.1 J5
.11*
.115
-1
1.1
321
11 *
11
J2
I
-------
(jff vw-
l0| l.llf ANT « •'/
PATc: 11/10/82
II « I I II >M I » t lit N | I I) A T a O /> N *
SM'OAIJ VI.'UhIIO^ IAT C'lUNC PLPOHI
1 - rih UN1ISJ Ha-MS ftH MILLION
YrA'//»/ i-i
SI Ic HTM
M t ||H( S I
V lULAl I rJH
lvltaQllillf u W
I *l^tiOuu«;F ul
I<*o?iiinu if ol"¦
VIJLAliON unV
"UAl DM
VALUt
HULN Of
MAX HUM
VALJt"
uujytiiii*
i,LSraTm
ai
fcltfiLH
I t'im
TnrAl. HUt.im Or W|.'lUllOn .
a©«oauj«i>i»uotieo.*o«« <»¦»••••¦#*
1
. 1JH
o» ~r
1 i
1
. (
0.oi.
-------
page s i
l< A r I II <1 ,t I A h * IJ 1 t I rf I U |l A T A h •> N K
-.ai'iihu vi:jiaI|om irtr co^f atPOni
ifll.l III Ai | r ! .'/"M-
InHiwal= 1
DATE I 1I/10/B2
Un I 15: HAWTS ?E* m III I ON
-pnLLJIA'JT- 'II r Ifi.j | j(K.4
VIOLATION DAY
OO/on/3d
»ju/u//s<;
(10/un/bi;
uu / tm / ad
.Ml
. tab
.130
. 1 *»5
lb
11
IJ
14
i 'J I .-if FiW Silt l-ioc Ul rEArt ;.i
' .. ® j ii oit 0b#(t«<)« o»r a#»o a aoa »o »#u#«• a«®»»»<»«
1 infAi • i" i it-w nr vidla 11 un i>«.rs t
' _ tttal ij'iiim nF imiMLir u 1 .il«r 1 oms ... «~
S 11r-i' ¦ .-h 1* wtLi'i »in*s -iti-ii fo-vto *1
t ... .iaAIi.J I-UK M It .103
3>
I
T
-------
j ¦ * f i ' • 4 I cl rl\ UAlt •
liihU 1 ."IT CJ-'ill *fcHo«l
1 | i .' ¦ ,: I'lit V^L. i - nd fAr i . i c = --'i' HL& V-C^l VALUt... VlULAliJiJ DfcY
i U | I . i... .r •> I ivi I J f i.mr. » laa ll I
• . t r >¦ Site t -ijit:. iUU4r ol ytm¦< =c
l il t -i < - r " I•>„ .11¦•< a > j
f 11"( i ( .ir • i jL-- I l'J'-ia 1
I ,1.1 ¦ ..I i 1 > »J
1 t -> 1 "J t I - i ItiS
00
I
-------
Pa6F
Jul i.ul ji-i( ; .1/ pi-
M A T i <1 ¦<• H I A I: * ¦< ' t I H | L l» A I A rt
S Ai'OAU I Ol_ A I | O'J 1AV COJwl RtHO'd
IN111'V AL • I - flK
H r\
UATtl 11/10/U2
UnIIs: HA-tTS t>t>i MILLION
Pill II v:t (cT-liu I '(t'iv.'.L- - fcflti- kj|f£ ' rtLA
lr!
„ .... a ^ « o 5a a a ft w u w a » a 0 o a ftftu 0 a • ^ w o a a
To Ml 11K v 1 ol-» I1 u->*s t
- Tftful r.inu (IF-rtiuHL t tf IiiL 'iT lOMi c
101.il. ii ' >rH OF VuLliJ nut'* «t)N] TowtlJ it
. . . -ltA*| HI Vl4L*lf l-flrt Silt . 16<»
r~
5»
1
(O
V
-------
PAlif • *
Jlt| | ll r A 11 : ./ I'-.
N A 1 | II 14 4 | A K 4 J <4 t | U | C I) A I A II
SAttllAII V|0LA| Il)t4 JAY rOJNl RtPIM I
iNfti'VAl. ! | - H4
N K
DAltt 11/10/62
UN I r3: HArfTS f'tn MILLION
Pfl| ( ITA'll ii-'I-Iij I iTEriVAL- -YcA* 11 ArttA
•'"''U Ih 1- • - '•*£ - - IVl^c.cUII^Hll - lut-»y row si u. |m|^xouo?Fu1 vEah ad
TnfAL •' 1 1 ir rt OF V |ilu« I I l'i i)aYS ^
.JnfAl l.i.'JtH OF. IiOlHLT y|OLAfIO!jS c
TOTAL 'm.j 1 ir n fiF ValIh i-..»i ••."IMlTOntD
. MAX I. J-. v/.Ltlf FJrt *> 11 l -
V
\
•iw^—
%]i4
-------
Pai.F J
II 4 r I » II | At-4IJ4tlH|L li A r A rl » H K
-»HWIIAlJ V I <>L <4 I 1111 My CllJIIf RtPOHI
afi| | ill anT : 'iH'i:
iNltWM. S 1 - UN
~ Alt.: 11/10/H^
UrtlfSS HAHTS Ptrf MILLION
POLL JI AMI 1 17
Jo/Oh/nti .J no 1 o
:>' i ¦A'tr r'Urt t»llc l -M <> jOUOIF ol vtAH
. -T-0 f Al. * ' uLH Of V 1(JL« I 1Ii.lfs i
TftiAt " ¦•i-i'-u up nou-a r uIuliTIOmS J
-IfllAL fi> IjlH 111- VliLlU D.'Yb -iHlTOMtL) f.l
HaxI »
-------
P/kGF t #1 MATIU<>|_Af«iiAtAr Ct"»Jfll REPOW1
JOLI IIf A'| f ! lNft-4V4| J i - UN I f 5: HAWTS t'L'i MILLION
hOUtt OF „ NUM-lE* OF .
iMlt OF MAAI MUM MAXIMUM VIOLATIONS »£•<
P'lLl J r Art f HtHUj I ifEWVrtL Yt AH blft "HEA VIOLATION VALUE VALUE VIOLATION OA*
6 .15 1
S iiiHy FOrt SI ft lSiUcOuOSFbl yEAH od
.Tnr.iL I U.lr.hrt OF VlOLAliilN liMS 1
ToTrtl. '!<•»* irR UK nniMI i V|i)|.nf|O^S I
-TOTAL III' VALl'.J U/«Ya vJMlIOrtdO Ht>
MAXJ'H)" vALiiF FOk SI II . Ico
V
-------
PAftF l
IM A ( | II t| A (. A t W 0 M £ I K I C I) A f M i) < N K
SAP0A1) V IOL M f I ON i'AT C*liiNl RfcPOrtl
OATtt 1 |/10/d2
••OLLl'I ANf I U/DMc
JNTH'VAL: 1 - rid
UNirs: pa»
-------
PAGE
NaT | 'I fl i | A U M t I H | C HAlA n «. N r
lAMOAlJ VIOLATION iIaY COUNT QteOHf
DATtl ll/IU/Ut
3i
i
-------
lS
fAor 1 i • i1 I I • | L ¦' ' * • •• ' * I •' " ' * n ' * '* Unit I OWcti/o C
an -ii• • i -.»r c^jm ir a V i "L.\f i J1*" "A^ME W AL J£ V|0laT1uN.v)i,Y „
!_* J !j I r j • » I -V" I «*: S I I- • ¦¦• rfiJrasTCtA. .lill U I
C/cC/St .ISO ia 1
i nY rJ' ail«. iVj! ¦<|JU3KU| VLMrf >£
I .1 ••»•" v it-L. 11 » o rs t
1111- i :_:j '<• *' ''¦">•¦ » . j'i
f'll-l t .It V'.LIk t 'I *¦> vPlll^ntU i
i t 1 u" t>)
V
-------
Q1V17/B4
PAOE..34
OZONE (PARTS PER MILLION) LOUISIANA B3-B3
OZONE SEASON" JANUARY TO " DECEMBER
METHODS. HOURLY VALUES CHEHILUHINESCENCE-11. ULTRA VIOLET DASIBI CORPQRATION-14. CHEMILUMINESCENCE RHODAMINE B DVE-13
!T _• .VALID DAILY 1-HR MAXIMUM • _
REP ~ # • VALS > . 123 « MISS DAYS
£ BITE. ID_.. LOCATION COUNTY. ADDBES8 YP ORG * MEAS REQ L@T _ 2ND 3RD. _MEAS_ EST » ASS < 8TD ME
L9Q280003FQ1_BAT0N ROUGE EAST 8ATON_RDUQ_EAaT_ENH. OF. 6STE. 83.00.1 263 365 . 169 . 139 .124 2 2 B 3 1
1902B0004F01 BATON ROUGE EAST BATON ROUG STATE CAPITOL BU B3 002 253 363 . 130 . 130 .112 2 2. B 9 1
190500001F01 CADDO PAR. CADDO PAR KEEL.RADIO STATI B3 002 25 363 ,.069 ,067 038 1 1
190300001F01 CADDO PAR CADDO PAR KEEL RADIO STATI 83 002 108 363 .084 . 0B2 .076 2 1
190520001F01 CALCASIEU PAR CALCASIEU .PAR COLTRIN SIIE_ B3 QOi 232_ 363 103 ^102 101 1 1
190800001F01 DE RIDDER BEAUREGARD PAR BEAUREGARD AIRPO 83 99 363 .078 .071 .070 1
L90B20003F01.DONALDSONVILLE ASCENSION. PAR. FIRE .STATION 83 103363 . 130 . 110 . 093 1 3 3 3 1
190B40001F02 EAST BATON ROUGE PA EAST BATON ROUO LOUISIANA TRAINI 83 002 154 363 . 108 090 . 06B 1
190840001F02 EAST BATON ROUGE PA EAST BATON ROUO LOUISIANA TRAINI 83 002 73 363 .133 .123 111 2 10.0 1 1
191025001F01 GALLIANO LAFOURCHE PAR LAF PAR PORT 83 121 363 114 . 114 103 3 1
1912B0002F01 IBERVILLE PAR IBERVILLE.PAR CARV1LLE _ . 83 001 253 363 . IBB . 134 134 4 3_7 3 1
191460001F01 KENNER _JEF.FERS0N.PAR. L P t, L POUERLIN 83 001 212 363 .J2£ .121 .119 11
191460001F01.KENNER JEFFERSON PA8__.L_P._Ji L_POWERLIN 83.JDQJ 23 363 . 117 . 097 091 1_
191300003F01 LAFAYETTE LAFAYETTE~TAR ACADIAN REGIONAL 83 113 363 "Tl7098 .097 2 1
191870003F01 METAIRIE JEFFERSON PAR SE REGIONAL OFFI 83 116_ 363 ,093 _^094 093 2 1
191900002F01 MONROE OUACHITA PAR AIRPORT STATION 83 001 247 363 09B~ . 097 096 10 1
191940002F01 MORGAN CITY ST..MARY PAR ST MARY PAB._P.OL 83 il3__363_J_101 098 096 1 1
192020012F01 NEW ORLEANS ORLEANS PAR CITY PARK B3 002 42 363 .094 .088 073 4 1
L92020012F01_NEW ORLEANS ORLEANS PAB CIJY J»ARK B3 002 181 363 . 10fe~ . Q97 . 096 3 1
192260002F01 POINTE COUPEE PAR >OINTE COUPEE P ALMA PLANTATION 83 109 363 116 106 .104 2 1
192300001F01 PORT ALLEN _ WEST BATQN_RQUfl_WLU* RADIO STATI 83 001 197 363 . 130 _^_120 ,.119 1 _ 1.8 3 1
192300002F01 ST BERNARD PAR ST BERNARD PAR ST BERNARD SCHO 83 001 227 363 .113 .111 103 4 1
_ 192360001F02 ST JAMES PAR . 8T_JAMES PAR _PAUL KELLER'S RE 83 J 13 363 ^103 .096 ,.092 6 _ _1
192580002F01 ST JOHN THE BAPTIST 8T JOHN THE BAP AZALEA & SOUTH A 83 OOl 240 363 113 113 110 4 1
19274000BF01 .SHREVEPORT BOSSIER PAR DOWNTOWN MUNI£J£_83. 002 229 365 ^124 .115 . 1Q6 6 L
. 1931B0003F01 MESTLAKE CALCASIEU PAR ANTHONY FERRY 83 002 166 365 134 108 105 1 2 2 4 11
1931B0003F01 WESTLAKE CALCAS1EU.EAR ANTHONY. FERRY 83 002 91 365_^142 112 ^88 140 1 14
-------
page; i i
--- -
P"I,I,IITAmT • f >71 E
INTERVALl 1 - HH
DM ITS J PARTS PER MILLION
¦to
-r-
"^OLl'HTANT" V t-THfM, fNTE'ftVAE YKAR
SITE
AREA
DATE OF MAXIMUM
HOUR flF
MAXIMUM
NUMBER OF
VIOLATIONS PER
VIOLATION VAIjIJK
VALUE VIOLATION DAY
"4420J
1 4
83 190280003F01 BATON ROUGE
Oti/06/t) J
09/03/83
.169
j.139
10
11
SUMMARY FOR SITE 1902B0003F01 YKAR 83
***************************************
TOTAL NUMBER OF VIOLATION DAYS 2
TOTAt. NUM'ER OF HOURLY VIOLATIONS ~ 2
TOTAL *l|Mh>CR OF VALID DAYS MONITORED 263
^AXIWrTTAinJITTOR-SITk HW
-------
PAGF t 2
Pill.i.HTft'JT J 117.1»J If
INTERVALS I - MR
iiniTSi parts pfh million
POLLUTANT ~'KThUO ImTEH VAL YEAH
SITE
AREA
HOUR OF NUMBER OP
_ l)ATK OK MAXIMUM MAXIMUM VIOLATIONS PKH
VIOLATION VALUE value violation day
>
I
00
4420 1
14
63 19Q2flOOU4t'01 HATOiJ ROUGE
O-j/26/83
00/06/83
.130
.130
00
11
_SllW»ARY FOR SITE 1902b0(ift4F0l YEAR 01 _
*********************4*4***********~»~~
TOTAL NllhhER OF VIOLATION DAYS 2
TOTAL NlH'RKH OF HOUKLY VIOLATIONS ' 2"" "
TOTAL Ni|M*ER OF VALID DAYS *ONITOHED 2b5
"MAXIMUM" VAL»E"F"0"B SITE " .130
-------
>AGK
P(U.I.I»TAh'T» tlZlINK
NATIONAL AEKOMKTKIC DATA h A N J(
SAROAD^ yjf]LATlllN_pAV CMINT RKPOHT
INTERVAL! 1 - hR
DATE! 01/17/84
UNTTSI PARTS PER MILLION
POLIjUTAIiT "tTtil'O IUTFRVAL YEAH
SITE
AREA
HOUR OF NUMBER OF
hate of haxtmum maximum violations per
VIOLATION VALUE VALUE VIOLATION OA*
VO
44?nt
14
61 14084Q001F02 EAST BATON ROUGE PAR
07/22/83
09/16/B3
.«2S
, 133
11
12
SIIHMAHY for SITE l«40B400nn02 YEAR HI
**********************«********«*******'
total niimmkr ok violation days _ 2
TOTAL NdUHl-R OF HOURLY VIOLATIONS 2~
TOTAL NiJMHKP OK VALID DAYS HIIN11 HHhl) 71
ItAXIHlH VA"LUF._F0R~ SITE " HIT
-------
AGE I
M _A T I ON A I. AEHOMt'TRIC DAT A U A U K_
SAROAD VIOLATION DAY COUNT REPORT
DATEl 01/17/84
P"LLUTAMT J iJZOUE
INTFRVALf
HR
UNITS! PARTS PER MILLION
POLLUTANT ~'EThPo InTtftVAL YEAR
SITE
ARt A
DATE OF MAXIMUM
hfiUR OF NUMBER OF
MAXIMUM VIOLATIONS PER
VIOLATION VALUE
VALUE VIOLATION DAY
"442/01 /8 3
Oh/H/83
.134
134
.120
.IBB
14
15
14"
09
SUMMARY FOR SITE 1912Huni)2F01 YKAR 83
***************************************
TOTAL Nlll.BhR OF VIOLATION DAYS 4
totaC-mTjmhcr of "hourly-violations *
TOTAL NUMHKR of VALID DAYS MONITORED 255
MAXIMUM VALItE FOR SITE ,188
-------
PACK l__ h _ _ _ T__? f> M A I, A E K O H E T R J C ..I) A T A. R A _N_K pATEj _ 01/17/84.
SARQAf) VIOLATION PAY Cf-IIMT REPORT
Pi>1,l (ITAM l'< H/JINV IM'fF.RVALi I - HP UNITS t PARTS PER MILI.IHN
HOUR (IF NUMBER OF
p/m; nF MAXIHIIH MA_X1HHH VInLATIONS PER
POM.HTAI.T MKTHl'i) I^Tf.HVAL YEAR Sj'i'K AULA VIOLATION VALUE "VALUE VIOLATION DAY
[\J 44?0 J 14 1 83 I93180003KOI WESTLAKE 00/23/83 ,142 13
SlIHKARY FOR SITE 1 <»31H0O03F01 YKAP hi
*************************************** _
TOTAL"MIIMKKR OF VIOLATION DAYS ' "" l"
TOTAL IHIMHICR (IK HOURLY V10I.ATI'lhS 1
total niimhkp nF'VAi.ln "days MUurrriREU 91
MAXIMUM VALUK FOR S1TK ,14?
-------
AGE t 7 NATIONAL AENUMtrHIC DATA HA _>l K DATEl 01/17/84
SAPOAD VIOLATION DAY CmlNT Kt-PllHT
POLLUTANTS ll/lt. JK INTERVAL I 1 - MR UN ITS t PARTS PER MILLION
HOUR OF NUMBER OF
3> DATh OF MAXIMUM MAXIMUM VIOLATIONS PER
£ POLLUTANT HETHIM) IHI'EWVAI. YEAR SfTE AHLA VIOLATION VALUE VALUE VIOLATION DA*
44201 II 1 03 19 JlH0nO3K<>l WESTLAK6 05/28/S3 ,134 13 1
SUMMARY FliH STTK 193180003F01 YKAR BJ
*************
"T'otaiThhmbkr of "VIOLATION DAYS ~ 1
TOTAL NllMBKR OF HOUkLY VII1LAT1 rill.S _ 1_
TOTAL *
-------
PAGE t 3
POLLUTANT I OZOil*
INTERVAL! 1
IIR
IIMITSI PARTS PER MILLION
Toi.l.iPrAUT METHf'O In rt'RVAL YEAR SITE AHKft
44201 14 1 "83" 190R20003F01 " nOKALDSUUVIl.I.E
DATE OK MAXIMUM
HOUR OF NUMBER OF
MAXIMUM VIOLATIONS PER
VIOLATION VALUE VALUE VIOLATION DAY
" OR/22/83 . 130 1|~~ 1
SUMMARY FOR SfTE 190820003F01 YEAR 83
***************************************
Tt)TAL"NUM8ER OF VIOLATION DAYS " 1
TOTAL MIiuhKR OK MOIlKl.Y VIOLATIONS 1
TOTAL NUMBER OF VALIU PAYS MOHITORtO "103
MAXIMIN VAI.UF, FOR SITE .130
-------
•AGE
pnuttiTA^ri nzuue
NATIONAL AEHOHETRIC 0 A T A HANK
SAKCIftU VIOLATION DAY COUNT REPORT
INTERVALl 1 - HR
DATFl 01/17/84
UN ITS t PARTS PER MILLION
T3"
"POLLUTANT "mKThT1i> iVfKHVAL YTAR
SITE
AREA
RATE OK
MAXIMUM
VIOLATION VALUE
HOUR OF
.MAXIM"!.
VALUE
NUMBER OF
VIOLATIONS PER
VIOLATION DAY
44?'>l
I 1
63
19230O001K0J PORT ALLEN
06/18/8 3
.130
14
SUMMARY KOH SITE 192300001E01 YEAR U3
TOTAfT NUMBER OK VIOLATION PAYS 1 ~
TOTAL OK HOURLY VIOLATIONS 1
TOTAL Mi|t»HKR OK VAl.lU DAYS HON ITOREO " "197"
MAXIMUM VALUE KOR SITE .130
-------
l.i'li-kVM.t 1
VKAKI.y MlHiiAXV F"P
SIO. WITH
••A I I* I'F
H 1 f.MhST
viru.ATl
Vldl.ATIDN
AHKA
0?/17/rt3
4S2330029K01
HARRIS Cn
¦J7/23/H3
4b4 / IbOOlFOl
St AHCMIIK
nVDK/Hl
4S/b6>>/H 3
4;>2b6O035HOl
HilH.Sl (1*3
it 4 / 1 h / H 3
4b471b001Foi
AtOtilliK
OS/O.I/33
~4b2Sfo0o39HO1
HIIIISTIIN
ns/ih/rt3
4b2">M>051 M01
»'il|I.SlO,J
0S/?//Hl
4b2S6f>034F01
HHII.s I'llrJ
Ob//3/i>3
452330029KO1
HARRIS cn
0S/24/H3
4b25bOo39i|01
'HlllsTOH
OS/?»»/H 1
4 b2bbon!> 1 t|fi |
llltlls'l'liH
0S/?f)/Hj
"4525t.Oo JSH01
HIHJSTiim
OS/27/M3
4b2bM»o35HOi
Mllll,Si HM
itS/Sh/H *
4b233iii)24K01
MAkPTS cn
os/'/y/w 1
4b2bf>0035H01
tllill.sTli 1
0S/3t,/H )
4S1370003F01
OKKR PARK
(Ifx/V I /H 3
4b23J0024K«1
HARRIS Cll
0*/i>b/n3
4b2bbOO 39Hol
hllllSTlliJ
0»./''»/Hj
4b2b6"0 37H02
HOUSTON
( h/1 O/H )
4b2 330029FO)
••ARRIS cn
Od/ln/O^
452 1J0074K01
HAKRIS C(l
ns/|h/H3
4b2S6")0SlH01
HrmsiiiN
"H/M/Hl
4b2bh0051H01
tiroi.s'i n ¦>
Oh/'/*) / H 3
4b2bi>003bHo 1
imiis'inu ~~ ~
//h/H3
l t
37 3000 I27F02
Tiir.SA
fl " / > i| / H <
372HOO|37Kot
.SK | A'l'i Mlk
lours
S PAI'TS PKR
"II.IJOK
M 1V# H 3
lA ' 0^
•lUMhKH UK
HOUR OF
SITfcS WITH
MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
VJUI.ATiniJ HAY
VALUE
VAiiUt:
2
.140
15
I
• 1 40
14
3
.140
1 1
4
,150
13
1
.150
14
4
,160
14
.3
.130
12
1
.140
15
1
.160
10
2
. 1H0
lb
11
.290
13
4
,200
14
b
.210
11
9
.ISO
09
11
.180
11
11
.210
10
1 1
.220
14
1 1
,190
15
2
.ISO
11
11
.230
15
9
.210
15
h
,200
10
1
.160
15
2
,140
12
4
. IbO
14
1
.130
13
1
.1 30
10
1
,140
17
2
.170
14
1
,125
13
1
.127
15
1
.133
11
1
. I2S
11
1
, 1 3H
12
2
, 1 f>9
10
1
.« 3"
11
1
.142
13
1
.132
11
1
.131
14
-------
I»M'K "K
V ) II Li t < III!
sm M T TH
HtGHKST
V[MI,ATtni
A UK A
ivv'ii/tH ijpi) | HftTni. Knnr.K
oa/l'./(H i'»iiH4nnn»'Vi7 »ast HAT'»M HilMrct pap
*»**«****«**•****»*******************
tpi M, •tunnrn uv vim.AMiui oms 42
4'l >Hf H i'f IIUMR (IF
S(TK«; W(TH ^ ft V | ~* 11M hAXimi't
-------
Oklahoma
OK-1
-------
OKLAHOMA
I. Bibliography of Material Reviewed for Oklahoma
1. EPA National Aerometnc Data Bank Quick Look Report for 1981 to 1982
(Report No. NA 273).
2. EPA National Aerometnc Data Bank SAROAD Violation Day Count Report
for 1981, dated 8/18/82.
3. Oklahoma Part D State Implementation Plan revision dated April 1979,
Control Strategy demonstration for O3 in Tulsa County (pages 4-82
to 4-100).
II. Documentation of Determinations in Oklahoma
A. Based on monitoring data
Ozone
Tulsa County, Oklahoma - 3 exceedances of primary O3 standard at
site #373000127F02 - 1981 with a maximum value of 0.157 ppm and
expected exceedance of 3.1. See January 14, 1983, NADB Quick Look
Report for State of Oklahoma, page 122 (attached).
III. Exceptions - NONE
OK-2
-------
0<,/25/m
NATIONAL AtrtOMElMJC L)aTa BANK
QUICK LOO* HFPOKT
page 34
UHHK 1PAHTS Pl-M HILL ION I OKI AHOMA 61^12.
MFTHOnS: HOtlWLY VALliFS f HK M I LIIMlNF SCI-NCF - 11 « IJI-TKA VlULft l)A">IHl COKPOBATION-14• CHtHlLUMINESCENCE RHODAHINE B DYE-IS
upP
DAILY
Mo*
1-HH
VALS >
.125
NBR VALID
HISS OAVS
E? SlTF ID
LOO A I I'M
coumlv
aooki-ss
YH
(IPG
nORS
1st
2.11)
3WD
MEAS
EST
DAILY MAX
ASS < STD
HE
0 370940037F11?
Ff) ION )
OKLAHOMA CO
'IMA CHw I ST 1 AN c
-11
102
7190
• lis
.ii«;
• 1 04
0
U.O
299
3
11
370940037F 0?
FOMONH
OKLAHOMA CO
UK| A CHW|ST I AN c
H2
102
4744
.119
.110
.110
0
0.0
194
0
11
371 740073F113
MC CLMN
C 0
MC CLA1N CO
THFK FAKm
r 1
lol
1815
• OH 1
.0/3
.073
0
0.0
75
0
14
371740073F«1
HC CLAlN
CO
Mr clain co
THfK FAHfl
Ma
101
730
.033
.030
.045
0
0.0
31
0
14
37l4Sn044F01
HO'JrtF
CLFWFLAN.l CO
HFaLTH CENTtk
n 1
101
5068
.U7H
.01*
.07a
0
0.0
212
1
11
3719S0044F01
MOOHP
fLFYf-LANO CO
HFALTH CENItX
na
lol
61*0
.OH J
.078
.078
0
0.0
254
5
11
37??onni3F(ii
Oklahoma
( 1 I Y
OKLAHOMA CO
NF 10lH (. SIONFW
HI
101
fl?90
*1UJ
.0^0
.0(17
0
0.0
348
10
11
372?00033F'<»
TULSA
tulsa rn
13?h MOmAKK hLVO
HI
103
8436
.lSf
.l"»
.148
.3
3.1
352
3
11
3730001 ?7F(l/»
Tulsa
TULSA Co
13?^i mOhakK riLVO
na
103
8602
*14H
.12/
. 145 '
4
4.0
361
0
11
373020174F03
TULSA CO
Tulsa co
*U? F. 144 IH PL
Hi
10)
3648
.122
.120
.117
0
0.0
153
0
11
37J0?0|74F03
TULSA CO
TULSA ro
SO? F. 144 IH PL
Ha
103
7^47
.097
.0*4
.088
0
0.0
330
1
11
373020174F03
TULSA CO
Tulsa co
SO? E. 144 IH PL
Hi
1QJ
4292
.09J
.ova
.007
0
0.0
176
2
14
-------
01/17/B4 . NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA .BANK PAGE 36
QUICK LOOK REPORT
OZONE
-------
WaHF I
N fl T 1 II n a I AF^unt'fHlC DATA 8 a N K
DATE: 04/28/83
SAMOAl) VIULaTION '»AY COUNT
REPUHT
HJLllllftMr: u/ONh
INIfNV&L: 1 - HH
UNITS:
PAKTS HE«
MILLION
HOUR OF
NIIMHF0 OF
POllllTANI Ml-T Hi III 1 >4 1 F HV A4
Yh Art s 1 l> uHF A
MATE OF
viul a rI on
MAXIMUM
V Al 1IF
MAXIMUM
VALUF
VIOLATIONS PEW
VIOLATION DAY
o
7S
I
44^(1 1 11 1
rtl l/lftl SK 1 A f 00K
.131
14
1
»«BOo»oo»»oo
lnrat Nu.ntm of violaiion ij<»ts
TnT Al .MUM-If H OF IHIUHLI W I (IL Allocs
d
i
total of val I• > oays MONiTontu
MAXMU* VALUF FOW Mfl-
3^.6
.113
-------
warf
: ?
N f| T 1 U N t | A f rt U M E T H J C DAfA
HANK
DATE
: 04/2A/83
->AM'
-------
HAfiF : 1
N A f I O N /» | AfcHOMtTwiC DATA hank
DATE! 04/78/83
'jAROAD violation
DAT
COUNT REPOrtT
POIIUU-IT; 070NE
|Nlt"HVALt 1 -
' HH
UNITS
: PAKTS
PEH HILLION
YPAKLr bUrtMAHV
FOH
YE Art 1981
o
l||IM
NilrtHI-'rt l)F
holiw of
A
i
l>MF llr
t/l fll Aflnri
HlliHFSI
m in a r i UN
AHF A
MTtb WITH
VIOLAlION UAY
HaAIMUM
VALUF
MAXIMUM
VALUE
nT/nl/h1
I7imini p/m?
Till SA
1
.148
14
d7/lS/*l
im/ni^/H I
37 HOUIl I ? /F0/
17in1VII?
1UL:.A
Till SA
I
?
.157
. 14A
13
1.1
aauoaoffououa-uoaauooaotaaouBaaoaattuaoa
f<)T\L mimwi-W
OF VIOLATION
HAYS 1
-------
t,
N a T 1 i> N A t />eKOrtfcr«|C D A T A
BANK
oate
J 04/28/83
<—1
SAhtuAn VIOLAT ION mAV COUNT RtPUKI
1
m
~'OtLlMANI:
INfKyVALJ 1 - Hh
unir s:
PAHTS PEN
MILLION
HOUR OF
NMHHFtf OF
Pf1( 1 UTaNI MFTHIiii iMlri/UAl
VI-/w S I IF AKFA
HATE OF
V10LA1ION
MAXIMUM
VAL l)F
MAXIMUM
VALUE
violations peh
VIOLATION DAY
Lt.SiU 11 1
US 17^^,1.. I 1/Fnl bKlfllUUK
.130
10
1
SuiHaHv FilH Sllh 17,MI.(IM7Mj1 YF AW HP
ttuuuuaauaeuaaiiaaeoooitueaaaaatoca'ooaooo
rntftl i»F VIHLAlKiN OA*b
1
IdfAL MtiM.ir W nF hiiIJkLY V T
"IAMiUI VALHF fi)K SI 1 »-
.130
-------
Hftr,F •: S
l» A T 1 ll H A 1. AFKUMflHIC DATA
HAN*
date
: 04/28/63
SA&OAl) VIOLATION "AY COUNT Ht^OKl
poi.liiianT: u/u«ie
iNltKVflL: 1 - HM
unirs:
PAHTS HER
MILLION
HI11IH OF
NI1MRFO fiF
WIMIJTlM MhT-IiIh luTFkUAl
Yf-AH Sllh trlh'A
HATE OF
Villi ATI ON
MAXIMUM
MM LIF
MAXIMUM
VAl UF
VIOLATIONS PE«
VIOLATION DAY
7*
1
H? HMiiOi i/rt 1 III S A
U 1/23/82
. I4H
12
1
lO
0tt/
-------
*ahF : *¦
national AfurtMflrfiC DaTa hank
DATES 04/2H/8J
SAPi)Al") viulai ion
'•AY
COUNT Pf-HlMI
1
HfllLUUMf! O/IIMC
JIJlM'VAL: ) -
¦ HH
UNI lb
J PAHTS
HEH million I
1
o
VKflrtLV bll'irtAKV
FOK
rEAW toaa
1
»-•
^ | T f J 1 1 H
MJ.IMK'H liF
HflUH OF
f»<\U Of
(/I'll MI UK
H|i>MKSI
\MI)HTH>N AHFA
birn-3 *ith
VIUl AflUN IIAT
maximum
VALUF
MAXIMUM
VALUF
^7 chilli 1 1/Flll SM ,, Hum
1
. 1 in
la
Itrt/ •* 1/f>r»
t\A/?T/rS
T7.10UI)l??Fllr» TULSA
17 oi>i»iioooflttOooo«»uoooeuo>«Boa#oB
T'Mal of viola I [it.M oars i
«Bi>t>oo«oaftat»o»oi}a«oi»»««aao«a«au0tiooao
-------
NATIONAL AEROMETR1C DATA BANK
DATE! 01/17/94
SAROflD VIOLATION DAY COUNT REPORT
POLLUTANT! OZflHE INTERVALl 1 - HR UNITSl PARTS PER MILLION
O HOUR OP NUMBER OP
? DATE OF MAXIMUM MAXIMUM VIOLATIONS PER
POLLUTANT METHOD INTERVAL YEAR Sl?E AREA VIOLATION VALUE VALUE VIOLATION DAY
44201 IT I ff3 VTSTfoOJ^fOl OITLAHoHA CITY 05/31/91 7154 19"
SUMMARY FOR SITE 372300033F01 YESr ffl
•***•****•••*•**•*•••******************
TOTAL NuMBE(ronrrOLATrON~"DAYS I
TOTAL NUHBFR OF HOURLY VIOLATIONS 1
"TOTAinru^neft or^vALxmrAYs monitored is?
MAXIMUM VALUE FOR SITE .134
-------
•ACE I 1".
NATIONAL AEROHETRIC D A T ft 6 A H K
PfrTPl 01/11/94
8AROAP VIOLATION DftV COUNT REPORT
POLLHTAWT t OZONE
INTERVALi 1 - hR
UNITSl
PARTS PER
MILLION
r->
date OF
MAXIMUH
HOUR OF
MAXIMUM
NUMBER Or
VIOLATIONS PER
7s
1
pollutant method interval
YEAR SITE AREA
violation
VALUE
VALUE
VIOLATION DAY
ro
44201 11 1
S3 372000137F01 SKlATOOK
07/00/03
07/11/03
.125
.127
13
15
1
1
07/26/03
00/29/03
.130
.131
12
14
1
1
SUMMARY FOR SITE 3720OO137KO1 YEAR 03
»»****•*•**••**«*****•****•*«**•«***«•*
total number or violation oaks
4
total number or hourly violations
TOTAL NUMBER OF VALID DAYS MONITORED
4
221
MAXIMUM niM fOft^SItC ,130
-------
MTIDKUt AERQMETH1C DATA BAUK
SAftnAD violation day count report
DATEt 01/17/94
PULLUTAHTI 0Zl)N£
INTERVAL! 1
HR
UNlTBt PARTS PER MILLION
O
POLLUTANT METimb INTERVAL YEAR
DATE Of MAXIMUM
HOUR or
MAXIMUM
NUMBER Or
VIPLATIOH8 PER
SITE
AREA
VIOLATION VALUE
VALUE VIOLATION DAY
44201
il
83 37J00012TF02 TULSA
07/12/83
08/27/83
.133
.132
11
11
SUMMARY FOR SITE 371000127F02 YEAR 83
TOTAL NUMBER OF VIOLATION OAKS 2
TOTAL-NTjMHER~OF~HOIIRLY_VIOLATION"S 3—
TOTAL NUMBER OF VALID DAYS MONITORED 227
MAXIMUM VALUE KUR SITE 7T5T
-------
Texas
TX-1
-------
TEXAS
I. Bibliography of Material Reviewed for Texas
1. EPA National Aerometric Data Bank Quick Look'Reports for 1977
through 1982 and 1983 (Report No. NA273).
2. EPA National Aerometric Data Bank SAROAD Violation Day Count Report
for 1981 and 1982, dated 1/14/83.
3. Texas Air Control Board 1981 SLAMS Annual Report for Texas, dated
June 1982.
4. Texas Part D State Implementation Plan revision dated April 13, 1979.
5. Federal Register, 45 FR 19231 - 19244 dated March 25, 1980.
6. TACB O3 Summary Report, 1980 - 1983.
II. Documentation of Determinations for Texas
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
El Paso, Texas - 8 exceedances of the 8-hr primary CO standard at site
#451700027F01 with a second high of 16.8 mg/m^ in 1981. 10 exceedances
of the 8 hr primary CO standard at site ^451700002G01 with a second high
of 14.8 ug/m^ in 1982. See NADB Quick Look Report for Texas dated
January 14, 1982, page 66 (copy attached), and Quicklook Report dated
September 15, 1983, page 11. (copy attached).
Ozone
Dallas County, Texas - 6 exceedances at site #451310044H01, 4 exceedances
at site #451310045F01, and 2 exceedances at site #451310052H01 (all 1981);
7 exceedances (maximum daily value of .170 ppm) at site #451310044H01 and 11
exceedances (maximum daily value of .200 ppm) at site #451310045F01 (all
1982); 4 exceedances (maximum daily value of .150 ppm) at site #451310045F01
in 1983 (2 quarters only). See NADB Quick Look Reports for Texas dated
January 14, 1983, page 125; September 15, 1983, page 15; and January 17,
1984 page 37 (copies attached).
Tarrant County, Texas - 4 exceedances at site #451880002F01 in 1981;
5 exceedances (maximum daily value of .200 ppm) at site #451880002F01 in
1982. See NADB Quick Look Reports of Texas dated January 15, 1983, page
126 and September 15, 1983, page 15. 7 exceedances (maximum daily value
of .15 ppm) at site #451880002F01 in 1983 (3 quarters of data). See
TACB O3 summary report (copy attached).
TX-2
-------
El Paso County, Texas - 1 exceedance with an estimated expected exceedance
of 1.1, at site //451700027F01, 1 exceedance with an estimated expected
exceedance of 4.1 at site #451700036F01 (all 1981); 2 exceedances at
site #451700037F01 (maximum daily value of .14 ppm; less than 75% data
for O3 season at this site) in 1982; 3 exceedances at site 451700037F01
(maximum daily value of .15 ppm) in 1983 (3 quarters of data). See TACB
O3 summary report (copy attached).
Total Suspended Particulate Matter (TSP)
Harris Couny, Texas - no approved SIP in place due to lack of adequate
justification from State that RACT has been applied to certain industrial
categories. See Federal Register March 25, 1980, p. 19235; letter from
Regional Administrator to Executive Director of Texas Air Control Board,
February 12, 1980 (all attached). The following air quality data was
also considered: annual geometric mean (AGM) of 92 ug/m3 m 1981 at site
04526OO17HO2; AGM of 125 ug/m3 in 1981 at site #452560019H01; AGM of
151 ug/m3 and second high 24-hour value of 339 ug/m3 in 1981 at site
#452560035H01. AGM of 133 ug/m and second high 24 hr of 343 ug/m3 in
1982 at site #452560035H01. See NADB Quick Look Report for Texas aated
January 14, 1983, pages 50-51 and September 15, 1983 (copies attached).
. Exceptions
All Nonattainment Areas for all Pollutants
The Texas SIP was approved on the condition that the State submit a
revised definition of "major source" and "major modification," under
their new source review (NSR) program. This condition has been met and
EPA has proposed approval of the revision (48 FR 55483, December 13,
1983).
TX-3
-------
Q?/13/83 NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK EASE LA
QUICK LOOK REPORT
OZONE (PARTS PER MILLION) TEXAS 02-83
OZONE SEASON. JANUARY TO DECEMBER
METHODS HOURLY VALUES CHEMILUHINE8CENCE-11. ULTRA VIOLET DASIBI CORPORATION-14. CHEMILUMINESCENCE RHODAMINE B DYE-15
•
VALID
DAILY
1-HR
MAXIMUM
»
X
REP
•
•
*
VALS >
129
*
MISS DAYS
L SITE ID
LOCATION
COUNTY
ADDRESS
YR
ORG
•
MEAS
REQ
1ST
2ND
3RD
MEAS
EST
»
ASS < STD ME
492960034F01
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
HARRIS ELEM SCHO
82
302
369
230
210
. 210
20
23
7
7 11
492960034F01
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
HARRIS ELEM SCHO
83
86
363
140
. 130
130
3
12
7
2 11
492960033H01
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
9323 CLINTON DRI
82
006
262
369
190
190
. 190
20
26
9
13 11
432360035H01
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
9529 CLINTON DRI
83
006
69
363
140
. no
100
1
5
2
6 11
452560037H02
HOUSTON
HARRI8 CO
SITE T 19
82
006
292
363
200
190
190
12
14
5
13 11
452560037H02
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
SITE T 19
83
006
71
363
140
130
. 120
2
10
2
2 11
45236003BH01
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
8314 PARKHURST
82
006
123
365
220
130
130
3
8
8
6 11
452560039H01
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
7834 FUQUA
82
006
306
363
180
. 170
160
11
12
5
17 11
452560039H01
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
7834 FUQUA
83
006
83
365
160
100
090
1
4
4
4 11
432960047H01
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
4401 1/2 LANG RD
82
006
283
363
260
190
190
10
12
4
14 11
452560047H01
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
4401 1/2 LANG RD
83
006
79
363
130
no
100
1
4
6
1 11
492360091HOI
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
13826 CROQUET
82
006
313
365
280
190
190
25
27
6
19 11
452560051H01
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
13826 CROQUET
83
006
82
363
130
120
110
1
4
4
4 11
4 93910002F01
ODESSA
ECTOR CO
PARKER PARK
82
264
365
130
090
090
1
1
3
10 11
453910002F01
ODESSA
ECTOR CO
PARKER PARK
83
83
365
070
070
060
6 11
454190010F01
PORT ARTHUR
JEFFERSON CO
PORT ARTHUR NORT
82
256
365
220
210
180
7
9
6
13 11
494190010F01
PORT ARTHUR
JEFFERSON CO
PORT ARTHUR NORT
83
99
365
120
. 090
090
4 11
494970032F01
SAN ANTONIO
BEXAR CO
LEON VALLEY GRAN
82
001
291
365
ISO
140
120
2
2
8
9 11
494970032F01
SAN ANTONIO
BEXAR CO
LEON VALLEY GRAN
83
001
78
365
080
080
070
4 11
454970036F01
SAN ANTONIO
BEXAR CO
DELLVIEW PARK
82
001
319
365
120
120
120
7 11
494970036F01
SAN ANTONIO
BEXAR CO
DELLVIEM PARK
83
001
87
365
090
070
070
1 11
494650002F01
SAN PATRICIO CO
SAN PATRICIO
CO
MATER STORAGE FA
82
001
270
365
140
100
100
1
1
3
17 11
454650002F01
SAN PATRICIO CO
SAN PATRICIO
CO
WATER STORAGE FA
83
001
80
365
090
080
070
4 11
494719001F01
SEABROOK
HARRIS CO
SEABROOK INTERME
82
228
365
270
210
. 200
16
25
1
8 11
494719001F01
SEABROOK
HARRIS CO
SEABROOK INTERME
83
84
365
140
130
120
2
8
6
2 11
4 99070002F01
TARRANT CO
TARRANT CO
BLUE MOUND RD «<
82
001
91
363
110
. 110
100
4 11
459070003F01
TARRANT CO
TARRANT CO
TARRANT COUNTY <
82
001
85
365
100
100
100
5 11
43S070003F01
TARRANT CO
TARRANT CO
TARRANT COUNTY (
83
001
44
365
070
070
060
6 11
rrv ar~ r ttv/
r*ai urcTfiM rn
i itu A»»r- fctn
no
nn 1
nnd
n / c
1 nr\
4 -J A
( < A
4 n
-.-I
n
-------
09/13/B3
NATIONAL AEROHETRIC DATA BANK
QUICK LOOK REPORT
PAGE
OZONE (PARTS PER MILLION) TEXAS 82-63
OZONE SEASON. JANUARY TO DECEMBER
METHODS- HOURLY VALUES CHEHILUMINESCENCE-11. ULTRA VIOLET DASIBI CORPORATION-14. CHEHILUMINESCENCE RHODAMINE B DYE-15
• VALID DAILY 1-HR MAXIMUM »
REP •
ft
#
VALS >
125
• MISS DAYS
SITE ID
LOCATION
COUNTY
ADDRESS
YR
ORG *
MEAS
REQ
1ST
2ND
3RD
MEAS
EST
• AS8 < 8TD 1
450220014F01
AUSTIN
TRAVIS CO
NORTH HILLS OR A
82
001
277
363
120
110
no
16
430220014F01
AUSTIN
TRAVIS CO
NORTH HILLS DR A
63
001
37
365
080
070
070
4
430220014F01
AUSTIN
TRAVIS CO
NORTH HILLS DR A
S3
001
13
363
070
. 060
060
430330009F01
BEAUMONT
JEFFERSON CO
GEORGIA AT CUNNI
82
001
238
363
170
. 160
160
3
7
0
6
450330009F01
BEAUMONT
JEFFERSON CO
GEORGIA AT CUNNI
83
001
13
363
080
. 070
070
1
4S0930003F01
CLUTE
BRAZORIA CO
COBB FIELD NR CO
82
238
363
160
140
130
4
3
6
3
4S0950003F01
CLUTE
BRAZORIA CO
COBB FIELD NR CO
83
81
363
080
080
080
3
451130023F01
CORPUS CHRISTI
NUECES CO
MHMR
82
001
308
36S
130
120
110
1
1
1
13
451150025F01 CORPUS CHRIBTI
NUECES CO
MHMR
B3
001
84
365
090
. 080
070
2
451310044H01
DALLAS
DALLAS CO
CITY 44
82
002
308
365
170
-160
ISO
JL
7
6
30
451310044H01 DALLAS
DALLAS CO
CITY 44
83
002
88
365
060
080
070
2
431310045F01
DALLAS
DALLAS CO
12332 NUESTRA DR
B2
001
311
365
200
. 170
170
11
12
3
17
45131004SF01
DALLAS
DALLAS CO
12532 NUESTRA DR
83
001
B2
365
080
. 070
070
3
451310052H01
DALLAS
DALLAS CO
4230 U ILLINOIS
82
002
218
365
150
. 120
110
l
1
7
2
4513100S2H01
DALLAS
DALLAS CO
4230 W ILLINOIS
83
002
89
365
080
070
070
1
4S1370003F01
DEER PARK
HARRIS CO
BONNETTE JR HIG
82
276
365
220
210
190
10
12
7
14
451370003F01
DEER PARK
HARRIS CO
BONNETTE JR HIG
83
82
365
120
100
100
4
451420054H01
DENTON CO
DENTON CO
DENTON COUNTY
82
002
158
365
120
100
100
4
451700027F01
EL PASO
EL PASO CO
300 NORTH CAMPBE
82
274
365
110
110
100
8
451700027F01
EL PASO
EL PASO CO
300 NORTH CAMPBE
83
81
365
. 090
090
090
5
431700036F01
EL PASO
EL PASO CO
LINCOLN SCHOOL
B2
001
205
365
120
110
100
13
451700036F01
EL PASO
EL PASO CO
LINCOLN SCHOOL
83
001
BB
363
080
O80
070
2
451700037F01
EL PASO
EL PASO CO
UNIVERSITY OF TE
B2
001
226
365
140
13Q_
120
2
3
1
11
451700037F01
EL PASO
EL PASO CO
UNIVERSITY OF TE
83
001
82
363
090
080
080
2
431BB0002F01
FORT WORTH
TARRANT CO
MEACHAM FIELD
B2
001
321
369
200
14a
140
3
9
3
10
431Q80002F01
FORT WORTH
TARRANT CO
MEACHAM FIELD
83
001
83
363
070
. 070
060
3
4521S0001F03
GREGG CO
GREGG CO
AIRPORT NEAR LON
82
309
363
ISO
. 130
120
2
2
2
19
452180001F03
GREGG CO
GREGG CO
AIRPORT NEAR LON
83
78
365
090
. 080
080
3
432330024F01
HARRIS CO
HARRIS CO
4310 ALDINE RD <
82
001
314
365
180
140
140
8
9
0
13
452330024F01
A c-monrvn / r-r\ <
HARRIS CO
iiArnTr r n
HARRIS CO
11» n n f c r n
4310 ALDINE RD <
1 A f\ « a r-t in nni• or*
83
001
81
^
365
130
. 100
090
1
4
3
2
-------
09/13/93 NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK PAGE 11
QUICK LOOK REPORT
CARBON MONOXIDE TEXAS 02-B3
METHOD. NONDISPERSIVE INFRARED (NDIR) CONTINUOUS. HOURLY VALUES-11. FLAME I0NIZATI0N-21
REP
MAX
1-HR
OBS>
MAX
8-HR
OBS>
8ITE ID
LOCATION
COUNTY
ADDRESS
YR
ORG
MOBS
1ST
2ND
40
1ST
2ND
10
METH
490330009F01
BEAUMONT
JEFFERSON CO
GEORGIA AT CUNNI
82
6803
B
3
6
1
3
3
3 0
11
4 30330009F01
BEAUMONT
JEFFERSON CO
GEORGIA AT CUNNI
83
1312
4
O
2
8
1
6
1 1
11
4S1310044H01
DALLAS
DALLAS CO
CITY 44
82
002
7226
10
8
9
9
6
0
5 3
11
491310044H01
DALLAS
DALLAS CO
CITY 44
83
002
1662
12
9
7
0
3
0
4 4
11
431310053H01
DALLAS
DALLAS CO
400 NORTH ERVAY
82
002
7435
16
8
15
5
9
3
7 8
11
431310053H01
DALLAS
DALLAS CO
400 NORTH ERVAY
83
002
2119
11
4
10
6
6
6
6 1
11
431700002601
EL PASO
EL PASO CO
220 SO CAMPBELL
82
003
7052
25
3
24
7
16
4
14.a
JP-
11
451700027F01
EL PASO
EL PASO CO
300 NORTH CAMPBE
82
6645
21
5
21
2
14
7
12 9
11
431700027F01
EL PASO
EL PASO CO
300 NORTH CAMPBE
83
1824
17
1
16
4
12
7
1
11
451700037F01
EL PASO
EL PASO CO
UNIVERSITY OF TE
82
001
3868
13
5
14
3
10
2
9 6
11
431700037F01
EL PASO
EL PASO CO
UNIVERSITY OF TE
83
001
1842
12
5
10
8
7
3
3 8
11
431BB0002F01
FORT WORTH
TARRANT CO
MEACHAM FIELD
82
001
6672
10
2
9
1
4
3
3 9
11
431B80002F01
FORT WORTH
TARRANT CO
MEACHAM FIELD
83
001
1968
6
8
5
8
3
0
2 8
11
4518B0003F01
FORT WORTH
TARRANT CO
100 N PECAN
82
001
6076
13
3
13
1
8
4
7 I
11
4S1880003F01
FORT WORTH
TARRANT CO
100 N. PECAN
83
001
1874
11
2
10
2
5
4
5 3
11
452330024F01
HARRIS CO
HARRIS CO
4310 ALDINE RD (
82
001
6071
13
7
12
8
8
9
7 3
11
452330024F01
HARRIS CO
HARRIS CO
4310 ALDINE RD (
83
001
1934
14
4
13
7
7
1
5 4
11
432330026F01
HARRIS CO
HARRIS CO
1401A SHELDON RO
B2
6387
8
1
6
6
3
7
3 2
11
452330026F 01
HARRIS CO
HARRIS CO
1401A SHELDON RO
83
1867
7
9
6
4
3
6
3 4
11
452560034F01
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
HARRIS ELEM SCHO
82
7106
18
5
14
4
7
8
7 3
11
432S60034F01
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
HARRIS ELEM SCHO
83
1990
17
3
14
7
8
8
6 7
11
452560035H01
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
9323 CLINTON DRI
82
006
1789
11
3
11
3
7
3
7 1
21
452560035H01
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
9323 CLINTON DRI
83
006
1207
13
8
12
7
8
8
3 3
21
452360037H02
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
SITE T 19
82
006
6781
19
6
17
3
11
9
11 3
3
11
432360037H02
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
SITE T 19
83
006
1942
13
0
11
3
8
1
6 3
11
432560037H02
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
BITE T 19
82
006
4991
18
4
13
0
10
2
9 3
21
452360037H02
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
SITE T 19
83
006
1901
13
0
9
2
7
3
3 6
21
453910002F01
ODESSA
ECTOR CO
PARKER PARK
82
6789
13
5
14
1
6
4
3 5
11
453910002F01
ODESSA
ECTOR CO
PARKER PARK
83
1722
10
6
9
4
4
0
4 0
11
434370036F01
SAN ANTONIO
BEXAR CO
DELLVIEW PARK
82
001
6970
14
4
13
7
7
3
6 9
11
454370036F01
BAN ANTONIO
BEXAR CO
DELLVIEW PARK
83
001
1888
12
7
11
4
3
7
5 2
11
' ** * *" 1
~ * i"*" ~ T ^
nrwun rn
ni r\ prnrnAi oiin
Ol
rvni
"7JI J /I
i
<
n
1 4
o |
t
1 i
-------
01/17/84 _NATIDNAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK . PAGE_
QUICK LOOK REPORT
OZONE (PARTS PER MILLION) TEXAS 83-83
OZONE SEASON JANUARY TO DECEMBER
HETHODS. -HOURLY-VALUES CHEMILUMlNESCENCE-11. ULTRA VIOLET DAS1BI CORPORATION-14, CHEMILUMINESCENCE RHODAMINE B DYE-IS
•
VALID
DAILY
1-HR
MAXIMUM
*
REP
*
tt
ft
VALS >
123
•
MI6S DAYS
BITE ID_
LOCATION
COUNTY
ADDRESS
YR_
ORG
•
ME AS.
_REQ_
1ST
2ND
3RD
MEA8
EST
•
ASS < STD
4S0220014F01 AUSTIN
TRAVIS CO
NORTH HILLS DR A
83
001
57
P65
080
. 070
070
4
430220014F01
AUSTIN
TRAVIS CO
NORTH HILLS DR A
83
001
92
365
120
110
100
._ 490330009F01
BEAUMONT
JEFFERSON CP
GEORGIA AT CUNNI
83
001
75
365
. 170
. 160
150
4
19
3
3
4509S0003F01
CLUTE
BRAZORIA CO
COBB FIELD NR CO
83
163
365
. ISO
140
. 120
2
4
4
4
451150025F01
CORPUS CHRI8TI
NUECES CO
MHMR
83
001
125
365
110
090
090
4
451150025F01
CORPUS CHRI8TI
NUECES CO
MHMR
83
001
35
365
. 100
. 090
080
451310044H01
DALLAS
DALLAS CO
CITY 44
83 002
178 365
. 170
. 120
110
1
2
0
3
451310045F01
DALLAS
DALLAS CO
12532 NUESTRA DR
83
001
109
365
. 090
080
080
3
491310045F01
DALLAS . _
DALLAS CO
1253? NUESTRA DR
83
001
60
369
130
djia
140
4
24
3
1
451310052H01
DALLAS
DALLAS CO
4230 U ILLINOIS
83
002
180
365 '
i26
120
. 110
1
491310095H01
DALLAS
_ . DALLAS CO
10501 BONNIE_VIE
83
002
82
365
. 130
. 120
090
1
4
4
1
451370003F01
DEER PARK
HARRIS CO
BONNETTE JR HIO
83
161
369
280
180
180
9
19
9
9
431420054H01
DENTON CO
DENTON CO
DENTON COUNTY
83
QOg
86
365
j_150
. 130
130
4
16
?
2
451700027F01
EL PASO
EL PASO CO
500 NORTH CAMPBE
83
1 SB
365
100
090
090
8
__ 431700036F01
EL PASO .
_ EL PASO CO
LINCOLN SCHOOL
83
001
176
363
100
. 100
090
3
431700037F01
EL PASD
EL PASO CO
UNIVERSITY OF TE
83
001
153
363
no
MO
110
2
__ 431B80002F01
FORT WORTH _ . .
TARRANT CO _
MEACHAM FIELD
83
001
110
365
,.070
. 070
j_070
6
451880002F01
FORT WORTH
TARRANT CO
MEACHAM FIELD
83
001
58
365
120
120
. 120
2
452180001F03
GREGG CO
GREGG CO
AIRPORT NEAR. LON 83_
J50 365
^JIO
. 100
. 100
12
492330024F01
HARRIS CO
HARRIS CO
4310 ALDINE RD (
83
001
163
365
240
230
220
8
17
8
3
492330026F01
HARRIS CO .
HARRIS CO
1401A SHELDON. BQ. 83
166
363
110
110
no
2
432330029F 01
HARRIS CO
HARRIS CO
DYESS PARK
83
001
172
365
210
200
190
13
27
4
2
. _ . 432360034F01
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
_HARRIS ELEM SCHQ
83
.176 .
365
..290
. 190 . 190
12
24
7
3
452560039H01
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
9525 CLINTON DRI
83
006
148
365
280
210
210
12
28
9
9
492560037H02
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
SITE T 19
83
.006.
J_36
365 . 260 . 210 . 200
10
23
0
6
452560039H01
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
7834 FUOUA
83
006
171
365
. 210
. 210
200
12
25
1
7
452S60046H01
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
.7330 N WAYSIDE
83
44
365
260
220
160
4
33
0
2
492560047H01
HOUSTON
HARRIS CO
4401 1/2 LANG RD
83
006
164
363
270
200
200
11
24
2
4
.. _ 492560031H01
HOUSTON
_HARRI8 CO _
13826 CROQUET
83 00^
167
36S
. 190
. 190
180
14
30
0
7
433910002F01
ODESSA
ECTOR CO
PARKER PARK
83
154
365
100
090
090
13
434190010F01
PORT ARTHUR
... JEFFERSON CO
PORT_ARTHUR_NQRT 83.
88 365 ^120 .110
. 110
3
' 494970032F01
SAN ANTONIO
BEXAR CO
LEON VALLEY GRAN
83
001
82
363
. 080
. 080
070
4
494570032F01
SAN ANTONIO
BEXAR CO
__LEON.VALLEY ORAN
83.
001
74
365
.110
. 100
. 090
-------
OZONL -
KEG.
03
03
22
*5
OS
05
05
oT
Ml
07
07
07
_QZ_
XLZ_
SO-
07
07
08
08
08
M.
108
a-hi
09
09
09
09m
"
-------
l.nrAI. PROGRAM - m (Units are ppm) Hieh/2nd lliph 1-hr Avemnes/Niimher of Days Over 03 Standard
REG.
LOCAT FON/l.nnAI. PROGRAM
1980
1981
19fi2
1983*
07
HOUSTON/CROQUET
.26/.24/28
.25/.20/28*
.28/19/25
.20/.20/29*
07
HOUSTON/LANG
.29/.22/16
.17/.16/12*
.26/.19/10*
.27/.20/14*
07
HOUSTON/FUQUA
.26/.22/26
.23/.21/26
.18/.17/11
.23/.21/21
07
110UST0N/PARKHURST
.22/.20/24*
.24/.18/12*
.22/.13/3**
)iscont'd 5/82
07
HOUSTON/CRAWFORD AT POLK
.27/.26/12
.22/.22/16*
.20/.19/12*
.26/.21/19
07
HOUSTON/CLINTON DRIVE
.35/.30/20
.24/.23/20
.19/.19/20
.34/.28/15
07
HOUSTON/MAC
MONITOR DISCON1
INUED @ THIS SITl
, IN 1978
07
HOUSTON/WAYSIDE
ND
ND
ND
.26/.23/10*
08
DENTON COUNTY
ND
.15/.14/8
.12/.10/0**
.16/.16/16
08
DALLAS/SUNNYVALE
.11/.10/0
.13/.12/1**
Dicontinued 1
3/80
08
DALLAS/ILLINOIS
.12/.11/0*
.13/.12/2
.15/.12/1
.17/.16/4
08
DALLAS/MOCKINGBIRD LANE
.14/.13/2
.18/.16/6
.17/. 16/7
.17/.15/7
08
DALLAS/B0NNIEVIEW
ND
ND
ND
.15/.13/3
KEY
* Primary Standard is
.12 ppm/hr, not to
be exceeded more
than once during a
3 yr. avging. period
* Indicates less than
75% data for the
"03 Season"
** Indicates less than
50% data for the
"O3 Season"
+ Data collected from
Jan. - Sept. 30, 198;
ND Indicates "no data"
(CAMS or 03 Monitor
was not in operation
at that location)
"Ozone Season"--April -
October of each
year.
2nd High--If both the
High 5 2nd High
occurred the same
day they resulted in
only one recorded
violation, so the
next highest amount
from a different date
was then used as the
2nd High for this
chart.
-------
c—
• " iiiiiri; l.nrs; ri phut "
" "~p*.»rnw ^dUiixifir (" ti/M) Tr*A7! n-n? "" "
MTI'IIIM HMWK ll.HIAI.m fnlUi') Olll I I ¦Ulllli;,, 11) ltIM I, V VAI.IIK'i-11 , FI.AMh H«*l I / « II lh-> I
•ill' IIA X 1 - Mil H|I.S> MAX II-HI, (ins*
TCirXTnii; mil.ir* AMipr.r..r"' " \u m <," unns—i/?r 7mi—tnt ¦ u ~~ —hftii —
3Vfl|Tiin()5F'U~Sff|,TUn,nr,
TAUIiAH'f r,l
hiikIi'ti'Ai, atrpop
77
-¦ mi
—
1.1
?;i
1
1
71
. 4 SO ( 7000SKO1 AUI,IM«t'l)t
TAI'I'AI'r (-11
WIlHCIl'M. AlHI'MH
7 it
1. il>t
i.J
1.0
¦Jt.t
1
'1
?l
fsnntfoi^roi Am;r»ii",inii—
iah«mt i:ti "
i:u:irrii|*L"Aii)pnii
70
r,5fi r
—7;«i
4.S
7.1
?
0 "
?l
4'toi 7ooosi-'ni aim.iii^tiIi.
1AI(IIA"r C"
MHMril'AI. AI HI'lll'
Ml
•14 Ih
?.j
2.2
«.<
1
4
?1
> i' a v i :• ru
Yftl.*'! I'h AI'fiUAIiTI U
JI
SJ7'
o. 1
B.l
i.i.
1
?
""" 5 1
4i0>;00 | ?K0l AUSTIN
tuavi:* ru
TACIt III A<<<
IH
MSI
l.t
*>.*
?.n
?
-1
?l
,~<«rn77noi9roi~MtsrfH
ri»Avir. ni
TACI» H^AiinilAnTfR
71
' 400-i
7.5"
b.f,
-?.r~
7
•t "
71
. 4b0^?oni irni amstiii
iiiaui.s ru
17TH A. I.AVArA
7 /
4144
ii.n
11.ft
h.0 FA.It
NO
Ifllft
H»1
-an ¦
4
n " * _
1)
hojioooumm bfa
.ll-HH'.SOM ril
C'AMfi i
HO
• 4 10
^..4
1.B
?.1
f
l
• 1
" Vjnjia«o«>Ffll "UKftnnm.T
¦ .irmw.sitH r«
nmpciA at rum
HO
mm)
—fi.n-
s.y
T.n-
1
7
' 1 1
>SOftf»lFftl CMIT*
*U» A'/'IU ¦ A ru
rii'iii i ii:i,d mt ru
n
hO } 7
7.fl
«.i
1
>
M
Jbll'IMHK) IKlll CMITK
"¦ " wt»A/uni a cn ~
11 nWI< Kill,11 liH ru
III
lfiRS
" T.l
¦ »;¦» ¦ ¦
•1-7 ~
1
•>
¦ ?l -
4 bft'llOftO 1K01 cr.UTK
i.iM/imiA rn
rnnii KIM.II IIM Ml
Tl
VII 4
i>.2
f
1
^1
—rn non ii)FOT_cnnpirs"Ciii'iSTT
I'lrrp.'; ra
¦?l> 1 PKIM'III.I,-
•Tl
-
¦<7? 1
— in;o
10.H —
r.M
1
>t
«sitrift«»|OKOj rnnpus cimi.stt
'Hit n (11
'if< I i.i'ipruj.L
n
1.7
l'».4
in.7
'..4
.1
I
¦M
—151 t*voviiFOr*cnHPU!rriimr»TT
¦¦ - i.iii-tkr rn ¦ -
- 7M i»ui:4n>i,i,- --
7<)
4f|h>-
— n.4
».7
1.''-
1
"»
?l
4ii 11 'ion i 'ifo i rnitiMis cum at i
mil vk:> rii
?«.l W'lfMiM.
1 (1
•llh
H.S
l.»
1
\ .
/ ¦'I
~ 45imioriimi 1)41.1,1.';- -
PAM.-AS-rn
CTTT ¦ 41 -
1' 1
It'll
">707—ii, r
lJ.O"
—r.«r—
~1
o
4MA1IKM4H01 UM.I.HK
ii.i.Afi -*
• — iiai.i.as rn - - -
-riTK-it
»•»
i n1.1
-7;6
—1.1 -
-1
«) - -
4^11100441101 |)A|il«AS
Mt.l.A.I ru
CI TV -11
I'll
M ft ^
•l.M
«.5
s.7
S
\
^1
I r J 1 / «U' Ol H* |m
" 1 IV
»» ! 0
•l • ?
•".1
_ .j-
t\ -
' - — II"
4t>1 Milfl'lSt'H UM.UiS
IIAI.I, V'< I'll
l?r»l> illll.r.TMA fllf
•¦II
7 14 1
»>. 1
*>.¦>
4.1
1
h
1 1
¦ 1M 31 OOlSKOl'-Ilftl.Trf
nti.i Ar>-rn
1 >'l'l7_»"tir"lTI>A"0»
-S'l
-
-f/Mt
it; 1 ¦
7.r, - -
¦ 1,11 -
- 1
*»
1 1 ¦
4Smnft4M'0| |I*I,I,A.S
ham,A* rn
iy>l^ HM«..';TltA l>"
11
'»7H7
i>. u
4.<»
1
>»
?l
—hi jinonroi-DAf,i.a.i
iiAi.i,A;i-rn
r>S (» hiii-sriM nu
'/•I
1HM >
r>.?
»
1
n
j i
m linn47Foi—n«LCA-t
i>m.i a:i rn
—¦I'M ri|MfcHr-l.lVI IIA
' 1
»*T?<»
-11,?
l?,*l
II. o
7
I •
- - m
4ii nn
on?
VM
ii., 4
» ^ . t
ht?
«•
1
-M
iiAi.i a., rn
"400 "illl'tl II I I'V'V
" 1
lll'I'l
-17.1-
1 i.yi
—H.-4"-
r
1
- - - ,,
4'tl IIO'UlllOl l»A|,t.*'i
iinl.i ,i:. I'm
•MX I rill* III H'VAV
•• >
¦ Ill >
nri'i
14. Ii
1 i.^
1. 1
1
>i
1 1
ni7iin
1 t. I'A «l ( M
V'."l M» rAKI'I fll.
V »
•1 Vi
11. »
M.I — -
ll.li
1
1 1 -
*•> i /«f>n ,'n oi Mi ch.Mi
1 1. I-/.' 1 II
•iflll .mi: I'll r'AIII'lll
.1 •»
11 >'i
Ml, 11
IP .'1
1«i
I'-
>
1 1
I'll 7"'i"V IV1 1 II, I'AMI
1 1. I'A' >1 ( II
Mill ¦ III' I II ft. < I' II
>' 1
VI. 1
?H.1 " -
1
-------
"T> »n;«
17-117
HK1 HIUIM ll(li|N|.V VAMIt-r.
»"!(~ ••n,ii' ii . -.ri ri-
-M , iii.ii'A vim.fi- kakiiii rnmMiKA i niH-M, (in-mmcini-.sri .iri- i
'IIIIA • 1 |. •> |• v 1 -
1 '•
Ri 1-
OAJI.Y <«A X 1-IIH
VAI.J.
> .17'.
¦ l'l< UAI.III 1 1
1 >«
.Mil in i.urc ruin
ri'M.iTV
Alllii i Sii
iim:
fllri.*» ICi'l' /Mil IHn
HI- h!<
1 :-T
r'. ri.v^f *• at.
* < r.Ti -¦
•.'jno7onin.ini amaitiwi
vnTTFTF rn - -
7I7H H I VI.II iJIIAI) llll
>60? .Ullli ,"l|'l
II
0.0
~iin —
- - 7
I'lOnOOO'.M)! API, IM.I'll.
1 Ai'i /.i11 rn
:H|J 1 < 11'Ali A1 IH'IIP 77
1170 .0S9 .OSH ,0SH
0
O.n
1
.snnnnnsnrnnnrrrrTm.
Tlii'iwi rn
lUirrrTTAl,—ATRPnir-|H"
—
Rimn ;iso .1111 .17"
i
7.1
" - "ITi -
- 11
snnnfio'.rni aiii,inc.'ion
r*in.ft'i r"
imh jrii'Ai. aikpiiii 79
MH .190 .110 .140
II
1 »
•I'l
1,
¦ v»i YnOn'if hi fti'lillKT'in
T«r> v t rn
MlTrIPrtI. tllll'IIH Mil
7'iiifi . 1 hfl . 1 in 11 in
1
- m - -
• 7
iinwoonst ni ai»i,nif.r«n.
tai .'A* i < n
llltliril'AI, A1 MI'llll HI
ISI1 ,110 .110 .100
0
0.0
1 • t
1 1
iso;ponr;i.iu Aiir.Ti"
* • ¦ Tijr.wir. rn - -
TATII lirAnilllARTEI.—77"
•nr,r,r, jrim-rio-} ;in*r
()
n.n
- vrs - —
r
iso^/noivtoi AiiRir1
thawi: ri«
T Aril III.AIlOIIAKIt h 7rt
i.H7 .110 .no .110
0
u.o
/Ml
jsrTrrnnt7For-Aiir.TTT —
• ¦ rn - -
TAcn-iinAnriiAim;p-7tj
1074—.170—.170 .-rvrr
0"
n.n
"1 1f.
. -
it»o??oni irni aii.sii'i
thavi;. rn
1 ITU A IjAVATA 77
f»H M / .110 ,10'i .101
0
0.0
1
¦ sn'jvoni it- ni ah;;i'j• i
TI'AVI'i I'll
1 1 fIi ft IiAVAi A 1 w
M.iI .nyi .ii'in ,ii«iii
11
11.11
in
- .j
• s«»2?oo| »koI AH;; i j ii
tpai'I.s »'ii
lirii i. iiA v at a 7vi.-i rn
muni- nii.i.:; »«-»• 79
—
7?f>7 .110 ;i;u . 11 n
1
" -1.9
- "id
1
!>0j?nO14l-01 AIIATI't
ri'Avis rn
UIIIITII 11(1.1..'. llll A HO
7 117 .1)0 .1 III .170
7
7.'.
0
11O770"HF01—AH.VUH —
tpa«jr. rn
- - uniiTii iiii.i.:;- n» a—hi
-1101
¦ Ti7T ; 110—;I70 .rirr-
r
"1.7
inf.
1
l')0270O|1FOI AllSTlH
TUAVI.S CO
141IHTil llll.l,.S flH A B7
00)
<211 .090 ,090 .080
0.0
I 'H
.1
» S'l if i'l'M SI* 0 1 Atl.M I'l
"~TPat*, rn
lll'T 710 KA.'i r 110
i|H9 .100 .100 .0<+0
0
11.11
1 I 1
isojioo.moi mkaiimO'iT
JMh i rn
ra»«, 7. 79
11 on .190 .mo .uo
7
10.7
I'M
iiotioooiifoi n^Aiinorit -
"•IFKI KH.'i'in rn
— cams ') ho
—
¦ 111 111—AO—^170-
—n-
—Vl.s
. von
1
'>0J100l)'l> ot HMHMIIIJT
.IH-IKKSIItl rn
KHIIlGlA AT riN'M HO
7S1 .lf.0 .110 .100
t
?f>. 0
/11
7
•>mioon"rot-HKAiirnf:T •* —
—,ir»KfPsii" rn
—- chnitciA-ai-hinmi -m-
- -
- 7147--; 1 40-; I40-;1?0-
2-
7. 1
- liif
II
•o jioiiu'ifoi iiKAUMn-.-T
.ifh-ipmii; rn
r.HHK.IA AT run Ml H 7
1SIIV .170 .IhO .lf.0
4
10.0
I4i.
1
¦>nn7nnnifo j iirxnii rn
¦ iif.x ak rn
rAI.AVI'IfA.I liAKI- 17
1 /OH .OtftJ .OA|
0"
0.(1
-70
f
¦)04?()onii>nj hkxak c.u
ni-: X A ii rn
cai,aviiia.-> i.am- vh
».11J .100 .000 .000
0
o.n
vs»
1
.¦>047ooiiifoj ukxaii rn
iikxai> rn ¦
¦¦ -rAI.AVKMAS-LAKI 79"
- A7T» .110-; 100-; 100-
0-
n.o
ysi
19
MMVOnniFOJ ntX Al' f'»
HHMl l II
CM.AVHIAf. I.AKI. HI)
7II IIH .110 .100 .100
0
l).(i
17 s
1
'»oi7ntniF0J"i«fxnr_ rn --
nrxAii ('•
cAi.Avn»A.n-i,AKi.— ni
-- -
— 77ir>-. 1170—070—;010-
ft-
0.0
- -11s
" 7
.sotmmoi.ioi rAMHimi «n
CA"I MMI I'M
HATMI PHUIFICATI 70
MiO .100 .100 .090
0
o.n
l».v
¦I
SO IKI l(l|. Mil CnilFIIIIII I'll
¦¦ _ rAi'i mm rn
\ATFR~ PIIUTFTCAT1 HO"
Hih -;i)hO .ono .030-
r»-
u.n-
ir. — - --
— n
iO'isoohuoi cum
),lihV.II|> | A CM
rnitii Fli-1,n iih (.11 11
7l>8 .IBS .17b .157
4
4.x
7«i;
7
^•iiioonirnt-rt.iitr
mi*Ayiiii i a rn-
«:cl|ll»-FlKbl»-HI|--CII lb-
--
--h40S-.-1 HO-; 160";"1 5ft-
1*~
1 7,'l
- - vtin ¦¦¦ —
7
b0M'i»0lil|.'0| ClillTI.
hl'A/IHMA (II
rnitit 11H.0 iim cn 74
Wll .220 ,210 . 190
71
1J.I
7)0
7
*)0«i«\notnroi ci.iitk—
Itl'A'/IIIMA ('II
nmn mhihi »o—1-20—120-
1-
v.o
1H7
- 1
»o<»snn»n^oi ci.int.
nkA/iif i a rn
cnim Fin.n n< cn hi
IllhS ,700 .160 .ISO
4
I..0
V l'»
7
•iomoooiri|-n.iiTi —
-nPA'/imiA rn
— rn»n Mr.1,11 •<«- cii-h?
-
" VMS —1 AO—1 10—170-
r~
1
IIS
)
¦»i is'ini'iFdi nii.i»ii"i '•mi i s r r
'iiiiri:. fii
><»l niMKCHM, 77
fc7'l4 . 1 4'l .111 . 1 2*>
1
1.7
/Ii 4
1 1
si isooi *»K'i i r'M'i'ir. '"mii i:: 11
•iiim-*\ rn
Vh 1 l»' 1 '.('lllili 7H
/ilhit ,100 . |MI , IbO
— s
•<.S
l>S
II'
SI I'.ooj'i^ni ( iixi'ii:. rimiMi
•mi ri •, rn
71.1 niiir.cni.i, 70
,140 ,170 , 120
1
1
74 1
1
i** 1 m«i«»ioi rni'i'iir. rni>i:;ri
¦ im ri.:, rn
Ml Dl'l.SCI 11,1. ' HO
^/^»» ,110 ,|S0 .till
1"
• .II
Jli'J
H
-------
Ti-Tr?'
fH-TllllOSl lll)ll't|,Y UAI.IU'.* CMKHIMII l«» ScrMr»-H , M.II'A Villi.*.! HA.MHI rilHI'UIIAT IMIi- | 4 ( ClIEM | lillll | lit SCI |.r I ¦•"fH'Ai* ll't- l> l-fl-l'i
StTKin
"TTTVTjmTiV-
rnn.jTT-
•Aiuinr.?:.'!
"Yt.
¦It I'
line;
UAfl.V MAX I •l|lt VAI.3
¦ Fnnn—i rt—2nu—inn—nr*s"
. i >'•
i >» i
•'III' VAI.II)
I.Ml.Y "a*
M:;'. n/.y;,
< r.Tn
"NET
x
t
—4vrr~>on piFTvi~cniivn.vr nit ir>n ¦
4i»i isiucjjKflI cnmnis cimisir
T5T»"™"3?F'nr~cn"rt«,iir.TiiPir.Ti
4:>l ISOOm'Ol CnilPII.S CHIM.MT
ncnilTD T-nm I RT f
4j»i ison2?|.-f>l rniii'iis riiiii.sTT
—^Sri'jOOS'iFOl—^CORrilS-rilRISTT-
1*1115007">t'0i cnni'U.'t chimm'i
~«i aionnirni-naiXAS
isi iioo4St'A| DAMjA.S
-151 JIflMMrOl-nALirA:;
4Mll(t14St'fll ()A|,|.A.S
HHIHHIfl t" BAIT. A?
4Smn04SFfll 0A|,I.AS
—im jin«M7KH-nfct,ufl3-
nnionoroi i)Ahi.as
—!t3ni0«>S7l|01—DATitif.V
IMII 0'l"i?l|0 I OAl.l.A.S
—nm o"ri7iim—nnrrr®
I'll 17(111471101 OAl.l.A.'t rn
—nil i?no4liini-nflM.-A.*»-rir-
4bll?0O47Hn| UM.I.0.S Hi
—itrmo'imroi—ttTtr-pititic
lil 170 J ft A I Fl. I'A.'I"
111 7K|ii'/nrO I tl, ff-.ii
1M fdd"?l'l ') I II. I'A'ill
4*»l 7ft'l»'/«r«l tl. I'f.il
'•JiiFrEs rn
iimi e i:r rn
"iJiiFrrr.'ro
mim'i.s rn
-iiiirrrr.Tn
nin.rF.';
rjiirrr.s
nitri:.-;
-nAl,r.Am,i.a:.
I)AI.I, AM
I) A I,I A.".
-|ifU.«5*rn
DAIjI.A.S CD
" DAIiti A.I
DA I.I a:.
-IIAI.I. VI
iui.i.h.'i
-nii.i.t:i'
ItAI.I.AN
"11/ I.I.AR
llM,l,4.i
"IIA»tllf
MAXIM
rn
rn
rn
rn
ro
rrr
ni
rn
ro
ro
n»
~?m nni5rnr,i, —
MK.H1 r.m II t'A It A
""WFRT "nilTII PARK""
^i-.sr (.iitii fAi'1-
~TfFST "lltTH" PARt"~
wi ri r.iirii I'ahk
T'llilP- "
MIIHIf
TTTV 14
»:irv 44
TTTV—44
CITY 14
-ivsn I'lir.nriiA
17:»A7 I'lii.r.ti.A
"U'lU" '•III.SI I'A
I2'i»> Mtlhi'i I If A
ui-iTir—rn
I'A.'.I)
I'll .<1
I'A'.ir rii"
• •AMI
nw
n»
iji
mi
lJ/i r/-nn* r.Tir/r-|>i»
mi; 1 im,:.vi:a i»ii
tin -f'llKit*1 't I. IVtliA
nw rni'' i " iii wi OA
4? in i-, i i.ij t p*iiif»
IV III It, I I.I.I 411*1 ^
Hi tn-r; -ii.i.i-ihi:.-
I,line Ci 111. A'lti i,
I.HtiC- CVI-fK-AHIr I.
I.ll.ir; ri'H'l. Al II I.
wim Tif-.Mf;-MHi
iin irii tti .m, mi,
ij|rnT'»f—t" ""nft
ni-M'ri'.i rmi'ii v
- 3IIII-nflld ii
sno iiiit'iii
illO-Tilll'l rt
Min iiiii rit
¦JDO-THIUI l|
SIIO IIOtlTII
AI.AHMIA
h'l'il M.A.'I I,A
rA'M'Ul
CAhl'l-l-
rUMI'M
rf-.ri-t:
i:a 'ti.|>r
AVI
AVI
»t'»VI AI.A1HIA A¥f
ni no| "inn -7ino~T»''irT,,<»,>"
17 il'l . Oft 4 ,osi> ,os>
in ¦ ~717P Tifi0_:i«n-7n'r
71 AOS? .140 .120 .170
no ffoirrnn—T7«rrrnr"
hi Jiu<» .mo .(ii47~";»«jn «-
tin 7 is t .I4n .no ,»?n •;
ni inn .ihh .no .ixn r-
H '> .110 , 1 | A 7
7 / hl'iV-rtll-ilMft-;!!!! 11
U 7fi .140 .1 til .12(1 7
-7-» —7'im—;nn—ri »n-; i-hi it-
II<1 hH>> ,iin) t|ho . IMI la
—til doi—ftnin , i-^ir~ri'm .ii« 1-
>M nil | I |>)(| ,701) '.I 1(1 .1 in 4
¦77 4MHV---1 I'l-.171-—lift 1-
/» M'»; .no ,1'mi ,\o« o
,i(i - - -|7«—, M"in ir-
»l U)A| , 1 |ft , Mil . I7li v
¦nviil»-»— if.li. . 1 ^ i)—^17i)—pi
7'l 1440 .110 .170 .170
-i n 171«»—i t-I rt |no-,-»nitt-
lil \'\f* , 1 H» .170 ,1 it\
-HI- VII /1l(-7l J(t-
11/ I lli'J .141 .MO .0<>')~i 1)0 1
»l)47 ,101) ,100 .010 n
HI- -• I4« "J I Vt>—J1 1-
«7 7'l 11 . I III . I lid .100 ()
> I >' «i'i'MI .llt'l . I I*1 , I *iO— 1
It
7 1
111
711
"?77
«)7
sn
I ti,
V.f,
mi
-- 117"
I'iI
•tit
1M
• > t
- tl't ¦
IV/
/II I
•t.'t
I /')
1 I I
1 *<1
|i
"1
I I
II-
IS
10
•I
-t ¦
I
H'
>
II
I ¦
n
— - i-
0
•1
- - — -1 --
1
- I*. -
l
H
I
I "
I
»»»
t'
II
n
ii
11
ii
rt-
11
-rr
ii
n
ii
it
ii
-it-
it
ii
-it
it
-n-
ii
-Ii
11
-ti-
ll
-H-
II
II
II
I)
II
tl
II
It
11
11
-------
, hat i < in a i. akiuiiiki h ir i>ai» i . IVj
(lull VAI.TI) Ml:.
S HAYS
stir iii i.ornTinu
¦ ¦ CUIIHTY ¦
AiuinKsa
YH
nur,"" mm:, ist
i in—
"lim * ;;rar,
" "F.r«T
—n a T1.T-V ft *—j, s s
<-.vrn~
1S1/00nvf.K«"H H, I'AT.li
Hi. I'Asn cn
Al'in Al,A«riiA AVF
no
- - "7030-; ififl-
UiO'
no i
«.s
— -70s"
• f> ~
4!>l7000?llt'Af'.ll
Kb HASII Cll
6'lbO ALA'lt OA AVI-
lil
1 j'l't ,II<|0
O'd)
ii'io o
0.0
141
7
isnMomoi vi I*ami
h; paso cn
i.inciu.h sriiimi.
HI
7010 .(JO
"170 '
1 10 1
1.1
IIH
4
ib17000 lutoi ki. pa:;ii
f:i> hash rn
miicol.ii sciiihii,
Hi
1 44h .li'lO
OHO
>1)1 it 0
•1.0
sn
h
•isIvnmij/i-'oi KL I'A.ui
KL pasu cn
Ill)IVUHfiiTY UK Tr. HI
l'/'l-l .no
T 70
l|0 ¦ ' "1
7. ft
1 IB '
1
4al7O0O17KOI KI. I'A'.ll
KI. PASO ci>
IINIVKHSITY IV Tl'
Hi
.I4(i
1VO
17.1 1
l.b
1114
7
•ismnooim-ni FniiT worth
TAHRANT CO"
—Mr.AniAH'KiKi.n"-
'71
¦ 7473' ;17«1-
ir.r
Hi4 1
10.S
- 10S
— q
. 4Slririiill07Ki)| FHllT WOIITII
TAHIIANT CO
ItFACIIAH Kl KM)
7h
U04H .ISO
1411
1 10 1
1.2
311
IS
' IS 1 UHOOO'4KO 1 HIIIT UIIHTII " '
" TAHHAHT CH '
III- ACflAH mi.l)
"79
(»9ii2";ifin-
-ISO'
140 " f,
7.4
- -7119
—r—
4SliiHi)r)(MK(U fiiirr uninii
TAIIHANT CO
MFACIIAH Kiri.ll
110
ll Oil i , 1 (>0
i;»o
140 4
1.2
J l!>
1)
~ isiHHl»*IOl>O?K0t HlH'l
not ib«i'i .no
170
110 1
1.7
Hi?
b
l!illllli)OII JKH1 Kdr7 ,17U
r>o
100 fl
0.0
2«M
i'<
4Stnii(jO(f rn
iiHUlib cn
nu-
-7llf>7". 1 40
t iii-
170 7
v;s-
211 *1 ' "
-10—
4bVtiionoiK»i ci'm:<; rn
GIIKCG cn
ll l
71VI ,1 III
170
120 1
1.2
2'lh
~4!»2| HOnulKO J liKUliti CH
liHf.lib Cll
H /
" III 112 .110
"1 70"
1 |0 -1
¦»."7"
lay
~"l
4S7 11li0241'01 llAlllll.'i OlJ
IIAHIIKi CI)
4t»10 AljlllIlK Nil (
11
M'M .770
7'iH
2SI -11
II.1
V6ti
S
4V>IU>024t0t llAlllll.'i I'll --
iiARirrfrcir-
4510 AKIIlWf "IMV't"
tll-
fiVi -,/in
210
1 0 ' vi
i i;i
101
17 —
4b?llUlW4>ill IIA ill' | *i Cll
hahiii:. rn
4*»|0 Al.ll|I.K HI' (
7'j
7(ill7 . V40
I III
f 1.1 II'
4'i.tt
Ii')
Ii
4a i j Iij0211 fl 1 lihKKi.'i (ti
nAhltiii (.u
~ -1910 Ai.utNi: hi>"(
ii «¦
'ij*>» .//tr
"V111 ¦
1 rin 10
' 1lj-.ll-
71 V
)
4!>21 llloy-iHH IIAiHMS ('••
iiAHiufi rn
4SI0 Al.ll 1 »J lll't/IFO| IIAHI'IS I'll
MAHIII.S Cll
*4Mii Ai.nini- Ki) r
l» /
loio-.i nr,~
inn
ion 1
" 7" J
- --no-
n
4S t Miminfrtl 1 :< fu
tlAKHlS cn
i40| A Kit
tin
.H«l ,10(1
o'lfl
OlIO 11
0.(.
iu
i
i'j7i iuo7hKor iiannI» rn -
hahhis rn -
1401 A Mil. 1.Illl« HH
hi
Ml/h ,V(,I|
/ III
¦M" I"
40. 1
- - 2»> 1
11 —
4S7 1 lllll?AMI | ||A||If | s Cl)
HAHHI.S Cll
1 401 A Min.lJUN Hi
h V
>i|'is ,l'l'.
11'l
1 in 1
1 >ii
V
isu 10077 joj-iiarut.v rn --
iiAHHrs cn
Tiuinni.i,
-ho
- - -- 11> 17 1 1-
10 1
17/ — 'i
'11.1
-¦ - /1
-- n —
4 VJ I lOO^HjOJ IIA,(II | '» I'll
ii ah ii t fi ru
HIISI' l>l I.I.
Sill
ll.MI ,•>})
'III.
1 h / 1
10. 1
IV
1
)'j>j inoi'uni HAniil :> ru
IIAHHlh Ul
11*1 SS I'AHR
«1-
—¦ 1 2'1'i11 . Vf.O"
V"»0
»m 1'
in .11
-.-in,
¦11
4b7Jl(|ll201,ai ||«HH|-. (II
IIAHHIS CO
DYKS.'i I'An*
:i?
t > ii h .inn
1 11«
I'jO •.
1 /..<
14 4
«
4i»?bi.""07irrn iiniir.r
''III !»•>
t 1
II /
1 1
-------
y^/3
"n7f r~(pnnTR"?rB~innT7imn—tftrs mnn
t-*. i
Ml- rmilihJ HODIM.V VAI.IH >
rin."n.M'ii< i rf.-l i, 111.ri<* vhh.kt imr oiki'iikai iun-14, riit'HiiiimiNt:«i'i iti
i«f i>
-rn«iiiTv
"AnnnFr.s-
TIT
I1AII.V •'** l-llf
Tinr— ;nm;—r?n—?rm—inir
VAI..S
"KFBrr
.1 "•
-r.-.T"
•u'>v i i
¦ It "Mill
ri.l ¦ jit
I
t i
•>* s
.-.TO"
X
-I
\ n «ji n n o?n» l~nn ft,*. a
,smonon4 tiooim 01 phot AKriiiii.
547TmnfnTrnrj-mrm rn
i*»4i7l)OJ?K)l SA|| A" TON III
i"»fl57nni?rot-RAH~A'iTniiTn" ""
is«:>7no w.koi r.Aii Ai'inum
;-ii57ooi»1Fni-nftN_Ai:TnNTn —
iMS7<>njr>t-ni ,sa,i mmhuih
mymnifr»r"s»inmTni:Tn
lU4b7no3hK1) 5A r| AHI'Mrim
131,57l»nlr,Fnl-SAI|-AMTriH7n
IU ti7«04 IFO I hA;J M-'I (IN In
;H57ot)4iro>—sav-A'JiMNrrt
"i«b70041F01 .SAM AOdulft
nUTooiirm—smni^nrninn
f»4!>70<>4H-01 5AH A'llUIHu
i MS"infn7FAN fA1M|i;|H fl)
'5171'jnniFOi T.KAnpnnK
• ^47l'iminnt
iS47T"»nmF0JT.rAnRnnr
[ l'»471S0r.U'0l SF.ABKMI'K
' ;riinr>noiroi -srAnpnp*
'•l>S0700li7» 01 TAM'A"! t:o
i">,»070on7v-f»|-t/meA'iT-cn -
l*>S|70"07F0l ril*
nTT7nnoTFm~TnrAr; citt
t*»*» | 7«»rt0V»--n I Tl XAJ. MTV
l'\n|70007rO|-TI'*AS-riTV - -
l'»S|70'»09Fn| rt XA.S CITY
n*»j7onn7ri>l-Tf'^a.t rirv
ibrijli>nuiK o | wAHl
iiMTnui'iroi uAr't
rn
n>
T.n'i rn
r.in t c»i
r ro ~
rtt
ru
CM
rn
i it
rn
en
rn ¦ -
i;ACKHI l«A"K li?
" port abthiir unpT_nt—
I'llBI AKTiiIIM HllliT II2
~P ATfTTXnil FAT!" -—Rfl
1.1.(1*1 V A I.I.I- V (.MAM M|
i.r.nn vam.ii r.KAu-n?—
IUI.I.UILW I'A.IIK 77
nn.i.vfLu- park 7«-
DH.I.VII H I'liHfc J'J
~nrr.irvrrir- pafp im—
l»Kl,l,« 11 II i'AI'K
-nH.I.VIKW I'AUR
cahkiik; i.iit
i»Airr t'ic-|.i»r
I'AkK I'll! I,III'
TARITTPTr-Mir
til (101
-ir?-o«M"
17
I'ADKlili; 1,1 if 1 77h*> ,0M> .06(1 .(>60
-rn-wATP-it - stih'arc- ka-m i 4r>7i-?i-jn—17'A1K|{ NTlll'ACK IA H a I0f»7 ,100 .10(1 .0011
St aiih'iiik intki'ii» -7h 4i6~;n90-;ono-^07(»~
,M A»Killir. l-TH-Hf Tl ft|«l ,710 . i?0 ,2|0
r.rAr.RPfir ifiTrir^F-no T»n»> .730-7710-.770-
Pfiii ,mo ""
ui; ,»30 ,o«»n .i»70 1
~ 77TB~7Tno-72n(r-ri "in r
ISM .7/0 .|IM> .ISO 4
IfTTI1 .IIH7 .Il7li ,07S P~
1770 .100 .100 .100 A
" 71 1 T~71T1I-TOOff-VTnjO 0-
7|0« . 146 . 141 . I 111 S
7 4^r—.nn-7170-ri-TTi 1-
M'U . I^0 ,mn .ion 0
"^nri'.nn ,t~7(i .rin n*
I
—rr-
0
—0
0
—rr
0
— 1-
0
— 0
47
~l(r
HI 1 t .ISO .170 .170
" *117 ~i oo-;i no-ronr-
•I'lil .124 .12 i .110
7H—- - -71n2 *Tl |0~; tO0^Tn<,,r"
7't 7770 . 1 10 .1 10 .100
hti iin'ii . 1 in .1111 .no
.'.KAltl'llllK IdfKl'IU Dt 70*»0 .710 .110 .170 VO
.-n AlinnilK IHTKI'MK-Iia 7f>4(| -T270— 17(T"; 1 «0 V
M.lll. .MiIIhII I'D ». hi *i717 .no .no .170 2
i.i.ill »nnri» i n t. — H2— 17*»r jl 1)-
71(11 I UK AWf. uu 77 SS'Mi .lib .*71 ,m>» n
-77 m ~i itii—AvrrTur-Tii—
7701 I ITU avi: mi 7114 . I 7f> .117 .1|7 I
»«(.»! .170 .170 .ll« " 0
" n.n
>. >
— 17 ,r.
— 0.0
<>.(>
o.n
I.. 4
1.7
ii. (i
— n; n
1.('
«.r
o.n
—n.n
(i.e
o.n
0.n
— I.i:
li.d
- n.n
ST. I
—7'i;t
74.'I
1 (l . ¦»
».o
— 0. (i
17.li
—7S.1
l«».o
7. II
n.n
¦? n. 7
->.'1
- n.n
I li. i.
7».4
1. )
li. I-
7/1
I I I
I I 'I
r> i
¦ 67
I •• I
•'I
/ H I
- VI11
Vh I
«11
111
>\4
111
HI I
111
II
1 •> /
I >\
I'I
VI|7
"7/r
/li /
1"7
n>
r/
V/'»
1/7
II')
" 711
47
" /1
I t\
I Ml
I'l
4(1
y»'i
> 11
10
II
1 o
14
1"
I
-------
C nt/H/M UATllllUI. flKHIIHKTll IC »» fA IIAWK C»l.» i M
, - . - - . oniric i,nnK nrnnnT ~ ""
I nzrmr-fPKnTjrpnriiTGrin.n-" tfxks -77-1?? - - —
MTHtlK'il Wllll'l.t V HI.Ill ;> CllhMMIMINt'HCt.riCOl 1 , 1II.THA Vltl|,(-T l>f>..IHl rflHI'UKftT MH-14 , CUt-.n I l.lln I !-.>¦ M'l I f I MI i) II > A :-t 1 UK II
H»H Urtll.Y «** l-ll" VAl.:, > . I^b Mil' VAl>tII IU6.*. DAYS
KM'irii) I,iir«f«ir. rnirtfr? jmi»ti (.:> i vr HAD. Viia* Sin If
~~*55j7ft0oi.^ni_wActi" ~ rfrTEW*r~cn r~4nrsT~HAf.11 pk't)-" ?to4 ian~"7ono~ ;««in — .» o.n " ~ i
4bS4Mi)li(iuOI wvyr r—7oo~no ;nn—¦ h ¦ — jon is
«b*>4H(i«iUIK0l Hl.sr nut.,(11 IIHAIIflK CO 4700 AU.Yl'Ifl AVfh T) 1H(I .200 .ISO . I *>(i 10 lib i
—TSMBnoou-or-wFsT-npMrt* mnrenr"cn 2-nrirniiKTTtrAVF:—nn r,n>«—rntrrnn'.no — ?n~ - if..4 250 1
4as < iiomi 1 ko i uk'.t ui<»*r.t iiiiano cn 27«n Adfirii AVf h| SHKi . iv> .iso ,l->» 7.*> VJ7 tu
~*^55* 5-
-------
J
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY r (/
^Ea 12 7380
Hr. BUT Stewart, P.E.
Executive Director
Texas Air Control Board
6330 Hwy. 290 East
Austin, Texas 78723
Dear Mr. Stewart:
In a telephone conversation on February 1, 1980, Dr. Allyn Davis of my staff
discussed with you requirements for the Texas State Ircplejnentatlon Plan (SIP)
for tne control of particulate matter at the Araco facility 1n the Houston 1
nonattalnment area. On February 5, 1980, Mr. Jack Dlvlta met with you and
discussed this subject with you 1n more detail.
In reviewing the Texas particulate regulations subsequent to your certification
of reasonably available control technology (RACT), it Is EPA's opinion that these
regulations do not fully constitute RACT for the Armco facility. I have enclosed
a document which sets forth suggested levels of control for the varlouscaaisslon
points at the Armco facility. I would appreciate your review of this document
as soon as possible. I would also like to arrange for a meeting between our
staffs, within the next two weeks, to reach an agreenent on the level of control
required for the Aroco facility.
My staff 1s ready to assist you 1n developing corrections to this portion of the
SIP as soon as you have completed your review. If my staff or I can be of any
assistance to you regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
- J- J TS,.
Adlene Harrison
Regional Administrator
cc: Hr. John 3la1r
Chairman, TACB
bcc: Ed Reich (DSSE) (/WEncls)
Diana Button (6AE) "
6Aj"i!IAiu£Divy^Tmku; *73713:2 12 GO
CONCURRENCES
SvMOOl
SUHNAMI
OATZ
6AAH
Davis
CPA fotm 1350-1 03-70)
TX-16
OPFtClAC Pll_£ COPY
-------
ederal Register / Vol. 45v No- 5& f Tuesday, March 2&. 1980 / Kulea and: Regulations iaz4o
ecula be renegotiates. The
:"ier.c9 also included"a
" -cc of tie nonattainment areas
icvid be covered in thus
;ii and EPA has determined that
¦as are cominensura Is. with. the
±it the Agency considers to be.
at,
stated in. the August X. 1979
. ±at conditional approval could
a'.ed provided thai the draft SEP-
ja contained:
Aji analysis o£ the impact of
nary sources on. each o£ the
fammant areas ia question and »
liable schedule to adopt controls i£
¦aljsis indicated the need Cor anr.h.
An analysia.a£ the- impact o£ non-
Tooai sourcsa on. the aor.attainmpnl
> in question and a reasonable
d'Je to conduct studies to control
^-traditional sources,
i Cecemher IX 19"9. the State
ott'.ed a wor&pfan foe the.
dojseat of the control strategies foe
e areas wEfcfi would indicate
iaaent of the primary standards by
ember 19SZ and the secondary- \
idards Ey December 1987; and' I
unT.ted to a schedule foe tha **-
pletfon oftfie major steps, in their
/elopmenL
r^»ne fiatg- ETA. is conditio naiTy
-JiTng the TSP'pransr for San Eedifo;
Cbryus Christ? T.* Corpus-
ristTX Dallas-1. Dallas-7. antf El Paso-
I based upon the Stat? meeting the-
(lowing scheduler
March 3.1980—Draft SIP revision-
.ppfement submitted to-EPA.
May % 1989—Public hearing
jmpfeted,
August 1.1380—Adopt revision;
ivised Regulation t as if pertains to
ontrol of contra ditfonat source*, if'
ecessary, and submit to EPA.
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
-PA is soliciting public comment an the-
acceptability of this schedule* While the
iiate a developing these revision*
emulation 1 as being acted: on. todayv
wiu appfy (o these areas.
«*« remaining si* areas for which?
?• s^,^eveloped control strategies
*r«rih i, a P^sqo. and Q Past* 21. ther
"rccJpr^*T9r? notica «fc«UiEeif several
dlH Qated State hadr
3sS5=aa?=aE-r
* "* guideline for air quality
mo10 a"T"" SIP la." —
&i .«t. | ^ Carvuw-
estimates. and that the State moat
submit a demonstration indicating that
their method would result ia at least as
stringent reductions as the linear
rollback method, and that the.
nonattainment areas Sac which this
method, was used showed na significant
industrial influence, la response ta this
condition, the State submitted
in forma Eon showing the derivation of
their method which, verified, that it
resulted in reductions atleast as. -
stringent as the linear rollback method.
Therefore EPA accepts, the State's-
methodfbt determining the required
percentages oI redaction as being
equivalent to EPA's accepted method.
Secondly. EPA Bated that an error had
been made in the calculattan-of
emissions from unpavedparfcin& lots
which affected the demonstrations- of
attainment for all but one of these six
nonattainment areas. The State has
revised their calculation of this factor in.
accordance, with the method discussed
is EPA'a. detailed report on. thf. Texas
SIP. - ...
Thirdly* EBAidentiSeda onmEerof_ __ .
all reasonable controls are presently- .
required. Thererore. co the Stata'r
judgment the requirement &r modeillny-
appears to be unreasonable, since tha
nonattainmeccprobiemr ur these area* i»
of a localized nature and predomiiaantly
due to fcgitlYB- dust iourca^
EPA acJcnowlecfges thadLScultles
asaoaatedwitk tha oseofdispenioa
modelling ia areas pximanly influence d-
by fugitiue dnstsonrcesk.Therefor«.
sinca tha state has; certified that
Regulation I Ur equivalent taRACT. and
ha* committed ta control fiigi trve dust
sources to the extent needed to
demonstrate RFP and attainment
through Regulation L as it is being
approved today, EPA ia eliminating the
requirement for dispersion modelling in
those TSP nonattainment areas
identified as requiring auca in. the
August 1.1979 notice.
EPA concurs with, the State's findings
and actions on these nonattainment
areas and the corrective action taiea ia
regard to Regulation L EPA is. hereby,
approving the Texas, plan for the TSP
nonattainment areas of Aldine. Dallas Z.
Fort Worth >.El PasoL. and ElPasa 2.
| For the Houston 1 TSB nonattainment
area. EPA reqnirea further assurance
thatRACTis.is place for certain
industrial categories.Therefore. EPA is
taking no action on the control strategy
far the Houston, t area until tfie Agency-
is assured thatRACTisin place for
these categories^
New Source Review
In the proposed rulemaking. EPA
reviewed the. provisions of Regulation
VI. "Control of Air Pollution by Permit
for New Construction or Modification^*
- which was revised by the State so as to
incorporate the requirements' of Section
173 of the Act into ita permit system. In
that: notice (seo 4ftfR.4S2Q3 Column 2
through.4421tt Column. EPA sated
three issues aawhidr the State's,
regulation deviated Scan ih a pro virion*
of Sectfan t7i of. the: Act fat rtrnfr
corresposdeiice of August 30t 1379^ and.
through negotiatloa. the State has
committed to the. following corrective
actions, to be talen by August 1.1980
except as noted:
1. Regarding Sahcfiaptes
131X&OOOQ3(a](13t the State has
committed taterrisa the mie ta provide
farapp&catioaaf aflsets in. all
nonattainmentareas; designated as such
nftprMaTrhyilWIt .
The offsets provision can remain nr
effect far na longer than nine
from the date of the area's
ttgnaffai'nTTH'nf designation. whiTe the
state devalops-and submits a.
nosatta£a&teaf plam.ilthe state submits
a plamwithnaHEe sine month penod the
offset policy can con tin oe far u
addlffianaf sOc months from the plan due
date or'until CPA takes action to
approve or disapprove the plait,
whichever comes- Erst. However, if the
statefai& to «u&ime e plan before the
aiBsmontfr'B.exio<£expires, die offset
pqlfcy^wilTeDcpnawhen EPA acts-tc*
impose.tfcaeonjtraction moratorium'
specified Si Sect!an U0(a}(Z](I}of tha
Cleaiz -
2Regarding Subchapters ITt.OT Om.
(29J and (30) of tha general rales, the-
State has agreed to revise the defliutlans
oi^tsaiov soareaf* and **ma|or
}
-------
Region VII
-------
Nebraska
NE-1
-------
mnrrffRmt t n«Himrr
MAX
8-IIR
OBS>
SITE ID LOCATION
COUNTY
ADDRESS
YR
ORG
1OBS
1ST
2ND
10
1ST
2ND
10 METH
.. 18 064000 1 JO 3 CUSTER CO
CUSTER CO
COMSTOCK HUY 106
79
6380
18.2
2. 1
2.8
.5
1 1
ZB06M0D0tJ03 CUSTER CO
COSTEB CO
COHSTOCK HUY 105
BO
1670
5.8
".3
i:2
.3
11
280660001J05 DAKOTA CO
DAKOTA CO
NEBRASKA SITE
80
5132
3.0
2 . 8
2.2
2. I
1 1
. ~ T80660T10TJ05 SlKoTl CO
DlKOtl CO
NEBHASKA SITE
8 1
2701
1.0
1.0
.9
.8
1 1
261560007001 LINCOLH
LANCASTER CO
2215 0 ST
79
7675
16.6
16 . 1
12.0
10.8
3 1 I
28 I560007G01 IIHCOIW
UHdmiinro-
2215 0 ST
80
8160
22.0
20. 1
12.1
11 .14'
3 1 1
2 B 1 56Q007G0t LINCOLN
LANCASTER CO
2215 0 ST
81
8223
60 . 3
50.1
2
29.2
20.8*'
9 1 1
. ^blbbOQd/GOl LIHCOLff
LANCASTER CO
2215 0 ST
82
2151"
25 . 5
17T*i"
'8.2
7.0
11
26 15600 I0G0 1 LINCOLN
LANCASTER CO
5 1ST. AND COLBY
79
7182
17.9
17 . 1
11.1
12.6^
3 1 1
. 28 15600I0C01 LIHCOIH
MNCISTEB Cti
5 1 ST. AND COLBY
80
653>i
11.8
11.8
8.5
6.i« "
1 1
28 15600 10GO1 LINCOLN
LANCASTER CO
51ST. AND COLBY
81
00 2
8509
29 2
28 .4
21.9
22 . 2^
9 11
28 15600 1 0G01 LIHCOLH
LANCASTER CO
51ST. AHb iJolBY
82
002
"2076
~rr5~
I77T
917
7.5
11
g 2a isaooz'iGO I omaiia
DOUGLAS CO
11TII £ DODGE
79
8002
2 1 3
17.3
11. 3
10.9
2 1 1
(J"1 ?Bl8B002fG01 OH A III
DOUGLAS CO
11TH C DODGE
80
5290
11 2
10.4
8.2
'7.0 ""
11
CO 28I88003IG01 OMAHA
DOUGLAS CO
30Til £ roULER
79
8031
23.8
23.6
17. 3
16.9^
10 1 1
„ 28I880035G01 OHAHA
DOUGLAS CO
METfcO-tECll C AMPU
80
7188"
23.2
23.0
7.7
6.8
11
28 I88003 5G0I OMAHA
DOUGLAS CO
METRO-TECH CAttPU
8 1
003
839 1
13.5
10.9
7.6
6.1
1 1
2 8 Ifl80037G01 OMAHA
DOUGLAS CO
7125 WEST DODGE
81
5556
20.1
19.6
12.9
10. »
5 1 1
28 I86O037G0t OMAHA
DOUGLAS CO
7125 UEST DODGE
82
19*13
12.3
11.7
10.5
10.2
1 1 1
-------
01701701"
NATIONAL ALHflMtl'HlC DATA BANK
QUICK LUOK HtPORT
PAGE il
"T!CTfiOinfOHexi OE"
NEBRASKA
#0-82
rfU'HOt>| NUhDlSPLRSiVL 1NFHANLD (NOIR) CONTINUOUS^ HUURLK VALUtS-11, FLAME IUNl£A [ IUN-21
TOOT
"LTJCKTxOn
"COUHll
REP
" ADDRESS YTToRC ~~»05#
MAX 1-HR OBS> HAX 8»HR OBS>
T^S ?ND 40~ 1ST" 2ND 10
METH
280640001J03 CU0TKH CO
~3BO66'0OOi J05 DffffDTJt'Cu
2806600U1JOS OAHOTA CU
aai56ooo7Coi h«coln
p^n siDomffTT rsmTr
, 26ld6Q0()7GOl LINCOLN
ailibOOlOCOl LINCOLN
2BTST5Wr0"C0l TlNCOTrT
281&60010L01 LINCOLN
2UlStt00^4l»0I OMAHA
' - JBTSttOOiiCiOl OMAHA,
CUSTKRCO
uAkOtK CO "
DAKOTA CU
LANCASTER CO
LAhCASTEftTB
TT*
rfi
281080045001 OMAHA
I a81fl<00l5tf
-------
Federal Register , Vol 45. No 215 / Tuesday. November 19G0 / Proposed Rules 73105
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
IA-7-FRC 1649-8]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans: Nebraska
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency
action: Notice of Availability and
Advance Notice of Rulemaking
summary: The State of Nebraska
submitted State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revisions for the Omaha carbon
monoxide {CO), and Douglas. Cass and
Sarpy County loldl suspended
paniculate |TSP) nonattainment areas,
as required by the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977, on September 25,
1980 Interested persons are invited to
examine the Nebraska SIP revisions and
submit comments. Comments arc also
saliLited on whdl EPA's final action
should be
EPA's proposed action on the
submitted SIP revisions will appear in a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, to be
published at abater date.
OATES:The period for receiving
comments on the stale's submittal and
v%hat EPAs final action should be will
extend from this date of publication
ur.ul 30 days after publication of the
|>rup<>s>ed rulemaking.
ADDRESSES: Communis .*>huulil be
addressed tu kluise Reed. Air Support
Bunch Environmental Protection
A«enty. 324 East 11th Street. Kansas
City. Missouri ^4106.
The Nebraska submittals may be
i-xamined during normal business hours
at ihe abo\.e address and also at the
following locations.
r.iHiujnmental Protection Agency,
l'jbiic Information and Reference
Unit Room 2922. 401 M Street. S W .
Washington. D C. 204C0.
Nebraska Department of Environmental
Controj. J01 Centennial Mall. Lincoln.
Nebraska 68509
l.incoln-Lancasicr County Air Pollution
Conirol Agency. 2200 St Mary's
Avenue. Lincoln. Nebraska G&5U2
l'urnms and Inspection Diusion.
Housing and Community Development
Department 1819 Farnam. Room 402
Omaha Nultwiska 68102
I incoln-Lancaster County Planning
Commission, 55 Suuth Tenth Street.
Lihculn Nebraska 6B508
Om.ih.i-Council Dluffs Metropolitan
Area Planning Agency. 7000 West
Center Road Omaha. Nebraska C810G
FOB FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eluise Reed. (81b| 374-3791 If-TS 758-
3741)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION". The SIP
revisions were submmitted. as required
by Section 172 of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977, to provide for the
attainment of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) in areas
which are currently nonattainment
This notice supersedes the Notice of
Availability on the original final SIP
submission for Omaha CO whicn was
published on August 15. 1979. (44 FR
47777). No comments were received. A
withdrawal notice appears separately in
the Federal Register. The Omaha CO
plan was originally submitted on May 8.
1979. and supplemented with a schedule
for further plan develoment and air
quality dispersion modeling on July 9.
1979. On_September 20, 1979, Governor
Charles Thone informed EPA thai the
plan was being revised further and
requested that EPA take no formal
action on the original plan The purpose
of this notice is to announce that the
revisions have been formally submitted
and are available for public inspection.
The public is encouraged to make
written comments. A description of the
revisions and the proposed EPA action
on the revisions will appear in the
Federal Register as a notice of proposed
rulemaking at a later date.
Oaled. October 22. I960.
Kathleen Cam in,
Regional Administrator.
{FR Doc 6004S3Z tiled H-J-flft 6 4* am(
BiLUNO COOS
INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION
49 CFR Ch. X
[Ex Parte No. 3SB (Sub-No. 1)J
Change of Policy, Railroad Contract
Rates; Standards and Procedures
agency: Interstate Commerce
Commission.
action: Withdrawal of proposed
standards and termination of
proceeding.
summary: On April 29. 1980 the
Commission published for public
comment (see 49 FR 28361) proposed
standards and procedures for rail
contract rates. Qerausc recent
legislation has rendered such standards
unnecessary, they arc being withdrawn
and this proceeding is being terminated.
EFFECTIVE DATE; November 4. 1980
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard Folder or Jane Mackall. (202)
275-7656
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION; In Ex
Parte No. 358F. Change of Policy,
Railroad Contract Rales (not prtnted),
served November 9.1978. and in a
decision on reconsideration printed at
361 I C C. 205 (1979). the Commission
adopted a policy of encouraging contract
rates by rail carriers and shippers in
appropriate circumstances. These
decisions made clear that rail contract
rales were not considered illegal per se.
contrary to dicta in earlier proceedings.
By notice published in the Federal
Register on April 29, 1980 the
Commission invited comments on major
contract_rate issues. However, the
Staggers Rail Acl of 1980 provides for"
the filing of contract rates and provides
appropriate guidelines. The legislation
obviates the need for resolution of many
of the issues raised in the notice.
Accordingly, it is terminated and the
request for comments published at 49 FR
28301 is withdrawn. The contract rales
portion of the Acl. Section 208. resolves
many of the questions which have
arisen concerning the filing of contracts.
The Commission's rules at 49 C.F R.
55 1039.1-1039.4 concerning contract
rates will be modified by separate
notice.
This is not a significant action
adversely affecting the quality of the
human environment or the conservation
of energy resources.
(49 U.S.C. 10321 and 10713. 5 U.S C. SS3)
Decided: October 23.191(0.
B/ Ihe Commission. Chairman Gaakins.
Vice-Chairman Crcsham. Commissioners
Clapp. Trantum. Alexis, and Gilliam.
Agatha L. Mergenovich,
Secretary.
|FR Doc 0O-MU1 FiUd ll-l-aoc S.4l*m|
SILUKO CODE 7035-01-M
49 CFR Part 1109
[Ex Parte No. 324 (Sub-1)1
Standards and Expeditious
Procedures for Establishing Railroad
Rates Based on Seasonal, Regional, or
Peak-Period Demand for Rail Service
agency: Interstate Commerce
Commission
action: Withdrawal of proposed rules.
summary: The Commission withdraws
its earlier notice uf proposed rulemaking
at 45 Fed. Ruy 11142 (1UU0), which
proposed changes in the Commission's
rules at 49 C.F R. 1109.10.' which
established standards and expenditious
procedures designed to promote
demand-sensitive railroad rales. The
NE-4
-------
11312
Federal Register f Vol. 4G, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 1931 / Proposed Rule3
monitors will be reference or equivalent
sited according to Appendix E to -10 CFR
P.irt 50 and follow the quality assurance
procedures of Appendix A to 40 CFR
P.irt 5fl
1 ho SIP states that at lenst one SLAM
silc ivill be designated oa an episode
station for eoch pollutant in areas
rcqiiin.il by 40 CFR 51.\6.
All SLAMS in the Indiana monitoring
svslem will be operated in accoidanco
twth tlie criteria in Subpart D of 40 CIT?
I'.irt 511 F.nch SI.AM monitor will meet
the siting criteria given in 40 CFR Part
fiH Appendix C. Methods used in the
SLAWS will be reference or equivalent
us defined in 40 CFR Part 58. Appendix
C The quality ussurnncc procedures
Kiven in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix A will
Ik- followed ivhen operating SLAMS
stations .inci processing uirqu.ihij datd.
ibc .nr monitoring system will be
a viewed annually .ind any necessary
irrjjific.itions iit!l be reported to USF.PA
l>v July 1 of each \L-ar These annual
reviews arc necessary lo elimtn.ile any
unnecessary stations and to correct
inadequacies in the network.
I'he SIP revision includes a
(li sfii|Mnin of thp propsed NAMS
network This description covers the
pmpo'.cd monitoring locations, sampling
¦mil analysis methods, monitoring
tr.es, and implementation dates.
UbEI'A has renewed the submittal
,iml h.ib determined that it meets the
ri-qtnii-rcrnts of sections 110 and 319 of
tin- Clean Air Act. as amended, and
USI'PA regulations in 40 CFR Part SB.
USFPA is therefore proposing approval
of the revised Indiana Air Quality
Morutiiring Plan.
Interested persons are invited to
comment on the revised Indiana Sir and
(in USFPA's proposed actions.
Comments should be submitted in the
address listed at the beginning of this
\ottn-. Public comments received on or
bi-foiu M.'irch 9, 19/11 will bo considered
in L'bKt'.Ys final lulcmaking All
(.oinments received will be available for
i:ii pc< fjcia at L'SFPA Region V. Air
I'ro^r.ims Branch. 230 South Dearborn
Stifft. Chicago. Illinois. 60G04.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
iiO'i(b) I hereby certify that this proposed
rule will not if promulgated, have a
siymf.c.int economic impact on j
substantial number of srwll entities Tba
n.tioti relates only lo hit quality
surveillance to be carried out bj one
state and will not cause any significant
crononnc impacts
Tins Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
isqnrd under the authority of section's
] W and 319 of the Clean Air Act. as
amended"
DuK'd. January 27,1381.
John MiCuirc,
ftcgioiia! Administrator
(IKIJoc fl1-4431 filed 3-Xil JJ-rinml
BILLING CODE 6SS0-3&-JJ
40 CFR Part 52
(A-7-FRL 1747-31
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans: Nebraska
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency.
action: Proposed rule.
summary: On September 25.19110 and
[uly 31, 1979. Governor Charles Thone
submitted proposed revisions to the
Nebraska Slate Implementation Ptnn
(bIP) for the attainment and
maintenance of National Ambient Air
Quulity Stjndards (N'AAQS] for total
Hutpunded particulates (TSP) and
carbon monoxide [CO] in areas of the
state which presently exceed the
standard. These revisions were
submitted to Che Environmental
I'rntcction Agency (EPA) to meet the
requirements of Part D of Title I of the
Clean Air Act. as umendod in 1977. The
notice provides a description of the
proposed StP revisions, summarizes the
Part U requirements, compares the
rcMsions to these requirements,
identifies major issues in the proposed
rcMsions and suggests corrective
actions, where appropriate. Regulations
addressing requirements published by
EPA on August 7, 1980. affecting new
source review in nonattninment areas
(ire also discussed.
F.PA invites public comment on these
revisions, the identified issues, the
suggested corrections, and the question
of whether the revision should be
approved aa submitted by the state,
approved after making the suggested
corrections, or disapproved.
hates: An Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking published on November 4,
1300 officially opened the comment
punod on this action. Comments
received on or before March 9.1801, will
be considered in EPA's final decision on
upproval or disapproval of the SIP.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed StP
revision and the accompanying support
documents are available for inspection
during normal business hours at the
following offices:
Environmental Protection Agency.
Public Information and Reference
Uait. Room 2922. 401 M Street. SW.
Washington. D C. 20460:
Nebraska Department of Environmental
Control, 301 Centennial Mall,
Lincoln. Nebraska D8509.
Lincoln-Lancaster County Air Pollution
Control Agency, 2200 St. Mary's
Avenue. Lincoln. Nebraska 63502:
Permits and Inspection Division,
Housing and Community
Dcvnlopment Department. 1819
Famam. Room 402. Omaha.
Nebraska GC102:
Lincoln-LarxjstcrCounty Planning
Commission. 555 South Tenth
Street. Lincoln. Nebraska 6BS08:
Omnhn-Council Bluffs Metropolitan
Area Planning Agencv 7000 West
Center Road. Omaha. Nrhrn«lcii
W1016.
All comments should be directed to
FJoiso Rood. Environmental Protection
Agenry. Region VJL Air. Noise and
Radiation Branch. 324 F,. 11th Street.
Kansas City. Missouri 64106
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Eloisu Reed at (MG| 374-J79I (frTS: 730-
3701).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Amendments to the Clean Air Acl.
enacted in August 1977. Pub. L. No 95-
95. required States to revise their SIPs
for all areas where NAAQS had not
been uttained. The Administrator
promulgated lists of these areas on
March 3 1978 (43 FR 89G2I and on
September 12, 1973 (43 FR 40502).
Several areas in Nebraska were
designated as nonattamment for total
suspended particulates (Douglas. Cass
and Se.rpy Counties), carbon monoxide
(Lincoln and Omaha) and ozone
(Omaha). Consequenily, the State of
Nebraska was required to develop and
adopt SIP revtsions to bring these areas
into compliance with the applicabla
standards.
Qnsed on the Final attainment
designations. Nebraska is now
submitting plans to attain the primary
particulate standard in Douglas. Cass
and Sdrpy Counties and the carbon
monoxide standard in Omaha. Requests
from the state of redesignation arc
discussed in descriptions of the
submittals for the appropriate pollutant.
EPA is proposing action on these
redesignation requests under 40 CFR
Pfirt 81 in a separate Federal Register
notiro. The proposed rulemaking for the
Lincoln CO plan appeared at 44 FR
G34Q8 Final action on the Lincoln CO
plan will he published at a later dale.
Due to a change in the federal oronc
standard. F.PA intends to propose action
on the Omaha designation for ozone in
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 4fi. No. 25 / Friday. February 6. Iflfil / Proposed Rules
11313
Oi September 25. 1080 iind July 31.
'¦i~i suite also submitted regulatory
¦s«m to the SIP lo .iddrcss
1 inmcnt and maintenance of NAAQS
- -"edcsifin.ttcd nonattainment .irons.
* vit.mittod regulations arc Rule 4.
•" v md Complex Sources. Standards
•'cr'ttrnianr.e. Application for Permit
_ "'-'n Rcijuired." Ruin 5 A. "Controls for
"is.(»':nn^ CoiiM-yins. R.nlrnr and
» I ii.idinj; R*>' k Processing
¦--liens in Cass County." Rule 3.
' parting and Operating Permits Tor
1 iir^ Sources When Required." and
" -1" I Definitions " The statu was
¦sul of deficiencies to Rul'.- 4. as
:sictJ m ihis notice jnd was
t-uduig lu make the necessnry
1 >n,jrs Meanwhile. on Aiicust 7.19150,
lr'\ published regulatory changes
ctirs; now source review in
ilt.iinmer.t areas (45 FR 5iG70).
¦ii.-inp iji.it states submit SIPb by Mjy
_ I'Ktf) *rj address these charges.
qucntlj. Nebraska's new source,
urw regulation. and Rules 1 anil 3
't.-.<"it revisions designed to mmply
".II I'a-i U requirements and vvitli
v • '\uqust ~. 1U/IO regulations for new
-rri renew in nonattainment areas.
' [.visions are scheduled to go to
' lir hearing on Man h fi, 10H1, along
4¦'*! .in air qualily modeling report for
1 .nh.i arid j rev isinn to Rule 0 to
'7rt sent reasonably available control
'.i.nullify IRACTI ] r.PA's discussion of
'• sL-rorret tions to deficiencies is
npear
1P78 a number of times with Me second
highest measured level being 11 0 A 2.1 7
percent reduction of CO needs to lie.
achieved by December 31.1982 in order
to attain the national sl.mdnrd.
A rollback method was used to
determine whether the Omaha area
would be able to meet the national
standard. This method was used
becau.se the revised EPA mobile sourre
emission factors computpr program
MOBMP. 1 was delayed in beinn
integrated into the Kansas Air Pollution
Package (KAPP) air quality diffusion
model, which has been used in Omaha
in the past. Through use of rollbark the
SIP indicates Ihnt benefits gained from
the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission
Control Program (FMVCP) alone
between 1978 and 1982 will allow the
Omaha area to achieve a 24 3 percent
reduction in CO levels by December
1982.
Detailed air qualily diffusion modeling
wdi conducted by the state to verify
these results using the KAPP model with
the Mobile 1 program incorporated into
it. The final report submitted to EPA on
October 6. I960 and supplemented -.vith
a cover letter dated Nov ember 17 I'JiiO.
verifies the finding of attainment
determined by the rollback method.
Ocrr.artstcauoa of .'U(ainmer:f Section
172(h)(1) requires the plan to provide for
attainment of NAAQS as expeditiously
as practicable. Primary standards are to
be met no later than December 31. 1002.
A satisfactory preliminary
demonstration of attainment by the end
of 19fl2 using the rollback method was
provided by the Metropolitan Area
Planning Afjrncy fMAPA), which
prepared the CO SIP and coordinated
completion of the air quality diffusion
modeling report by the Nebraska
Department of Roads. The report hns not
been adopted by the stale yet.
The calibrated KAPP model was used
to forecast 1982 CO levels based on the
forecasted 1982 traffic volumes, the
emission rates in the MOBILE I pro;jran
and the meteorological conditions used
in the calibration process.
The results of applying the KAPP air
pollution diffusion model shows (hat tht»
Omaha area will attain compliance with
the national eight-hour average
concentration standard for carbon
monoxide of nine parts per million. The
forecasted increase in vehicle miles
traveled is counteracted by lower
emissions resulting in an overall
improvement in the level of CO
Expeditious attainment is addressed
below under "Reasonably Available
Control Measures "
Proposed Action EPA proposes to
conditionally approve the Omaha CO
SIP revision as meeting the requirements
of Section 172(a](1). allowing the state
until May IS. 1961 lo adopt and submit
NE-6
-------
mu
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 25 / Friday, Februjry 0. 1981 / Proposed Rules .
I lie Omaha air quality modeling report
substantially as described above
Attainment Date Extensions. Section
172(atf2) authorizes an extension of tlie
attainment datu to not later thjn 1987
fur CO and o2one if the Mate
demonstrates the standards cannot bo
diet by 1982 desmtc implementation of
reasonably available control measures.
Nebraska has demonstrated through
the rollback technique that the CO
standard will be attained by 1982 and
h is not requested an extension Air
r| j.iiiiy modeling verifies this
preliminary demonstialion The
p-ovisions of Section 172(a)(2) are not
applicable.
Reasonably Available Control
Mrasurcs Section 172(b)(2) requires
SIPs, to provide for the implementation
of ail reasonably available control
measures as expeditiously as
prar.tir ,.ble.
1 lie state maintains and EPA has
ilutr rmined that existing state
i emulations require measures which
•pprcbcnt RACT. In addition, the
Nov ember 17, 1900. supplement to the
Omaha CO modeling report discusses
on gmng transportation control
nii'.isurrs in the Omaha area which the
stair estimates will help maintain the
CO standard, but would have only
minimal nir quality benefit. Many of the
i-MMsures will not be fully implemented
bi fure the er.d of 1982. The measures
inr iude a ride sharing program, an
cvp.mded public transit program
utilizing park-and-nde lots, and
i urrputeriiMtion of traffic signals for
Omaha. Other transportation measures
i\ hn h are being considered are high
ur ( upancy vehicle lanes, variable work
bour1?. jnd bike lanes.
An inspection and maintenance
pio'iram was not considered because it
rnuld not be implentented before the
end of 1002 and would not be cost
rffoc'ive considering the small
"l.i^nitudo of CO reductions needed to
met the standard.
CPA believes that the state has
demonstrated expeditious attainment of
the CO standard in the Omaha area
before the end of 1982 through benefits
derived from the FMVCP alone.
Additional on-going transportation
measures may result In additional
emission reductions, however, the
additional emission reductions before
v.ir,2 would be so small that the
standard would not be attained
appreciably faster
M\PA will be conducting future
evaluations using the KAPP diffusion
model to jnalyzc CO attainment and
maintenance beyond 1902 and through
1107 This analysis will look at not only
changes in'the emission rates, but also
the effect of additional controls and
transportation measures which should
be fully implemented by then.
Proposed Action. EPA proposes to
approve the Omaha CO SIP as meeting
the requirements of Section 172(b)(2).
Reasonable Further Progress Section
172(b)(3) requires reasonable further
progiess toward attainment, inciudinq
regular, consistent reductions sufficient
to assure attainment by the required
date
The state has submitted au RFP
demonstration for the Omuha area m
the draft Omaha CO modeling report
based on the -application of the KAPP
model The curve shows the CO level for
the end of 1982 to be 7 7 parts per
million (1 3 parts per million below the
standard for eight hour concentration).
EPA lias reviewed the RFP cur\ e and
has'found it lo be adequate.
Pioposcd Action. EPA proposes to
approve the Omaha CO SIP as meeting
the requirements of Section 172(li|(3|.
allowing the state until May 15. 19411. to
adopt and submit the RFP
demonstration based on application of
the KAPP model substantially as
described above.
Emission Inventory Section 172(b)(4)
requires the plan to include a
comprehensive, accurate, and current
inventory of all sources of each
pollutant for which an area is
designated nonattuinment.
The plan includes a reasonably
accurate and current categorical
emission inventory for CO. identifying
(•mission source categories and present
emissions. The state also commits to
update the inventory.
Proposed Action. EPA proposes to
approve the Omuha CO SIP revision as
meeting the requirements of Section
172(b)(4).
Emissions Growth. Section 172(b)(5)
requires the plan to expressly identify
and quantify the emissions, if any.
which will be allowed to result from the
construction and operation of ma|or new
or modified stationary sources in a
nonntlainment area.
Emission offsets and compliance with
the lowest achievable emissions rate arc
required in Rule 4 before obtaining a
construction permit for a new major
source or major modification. The
emission offsets are required in the rule
to be submitted as SIP revisions to
ensure federal enforceability. The state
intends to comply with Section 173(1)
which deals with conditions for issuance
of permits by use of emission offsets and
dues not include margins for growth in
the plan. Therefore, the state is not
required to identify a margin for growth
for Douglas County.
Proposed Action EPA proposes to
approve the Omaha CO SIP as meeting
the requirements of Section 172(b)(5)
Permit Requirements. Section
172(b)(6) requires plans to have a permit
program for the construction and
operation of new or modified maior
stationary sources in accordance with
Section 173 (relating to permit
requirements).
Kule 4 contains the provisions
required in Section 173 It provides for
offsets in the nonaltainmenl areas,
requires the lowest achievable emission
rate for new sources, and requires a
certification by owners of new sources
that all c\istmg sources arc in
compliance
Rule 4. however, is applicable to
sources which are required lo report in
Rule 3 of the Nebraska SIP," Rrporting
and Operating Permits for Existing
Sources. When Required". However. CO
sources arc not expressly required to
report unless notified to dn mi b\ the
Nebraska Department of Environmental
Control. The state has revised Rule 3 to
make it applicable lo all processing
machines, equipment, devices or other
orticles or combinations thereof having
a potential to emit 100 tons/vear or
more of carbon monoxide.
EPA will not take final action as
proposed below until Rule 3 is adopted
substantially as described in this notice
and submitted to EPA.
Proposed Action ETA proposes to
approve the Omaha CO SIP as meeting
the requirements of Section 172(b)(0). if
the changes described tn this not.co are
incorporated in the final rule submitted
by the state.
Resources. Section 172(b)(7) requires
the state to identify and commit the
rinanri.il and manpower rrsourres
necessary to carry out the pi.in
prov isions.
Becau.se thr> CO standard will be
attained by December 1982 through
benefits derived from controls on motor
vehicles alone. no additional financial or
manpower commitments are necessary.
Proposed Action. EPA proposes to
approve the Omaha CO SIP as meeting
the requirements of Section 172(b)(7).
Schedules. Section 172(b)(0) requires
that a SIP contain emission limitations,
schedules of compliance and such other
measures as may be necessary to meet
the national standard in the
nonattainmenl area before the end of
1P02.
The state has certified and F.PA hfis
determined that attainment of-the CO
standard in the Omuha area through
benefits derived from the FMVCP and
CMslmg RACT requirements on
stationary CO sources represent
expeditious attainment The SIP slates
NE-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. resolution and the air quality benefits
'¦'reach is presented, along with a
srhcdulc for implementing the control
Measures in the resolutions.
Demonstration of Attainment. Section
172(d)(1) requires the plun lo provide for
attainment of N'AAQS as expeditiously
ns practicable. Primary standards are to
be met no later tban December 31. 1082.
Nebraska includes an approach to
demonstrating attainment of the primary
particulate NAAQS by Lhe end of 1081
in the Iwo areas which the stdte
believes should be the only primary
nonattainment areas in Omaha. 11th and
Nicholas jnd 24lh and "O" Streets,
through commitment to an emissions
reduction schedule from April 1900 to
December 31, 1981. The schedule for
these measures follows:
Element I Request for redesiyn.iliun of
Om.iha's non-attainment urr.ia forwarded lo
Envifon.-nenl.il IVolectiun Agency
Done October 17.1979.
Element 2 Additional monitor already
insl.illud at 22nd and Charles Street wlm h
will mrre.ne monilonng by 5OTA. (Formerly
only niunitnrs. 11th Hnd Nirhol.is .ind 11th
jn»! Dodge wore within 1 mile <>( .irr.i) One
more mumlor will be installed norili of 11th
niul Nu holas a run. al approximately 11 ill and
Loeuit ind Quarterly Evaluations by Slate
anil CiU lo be started
D.iIt A|iril l'ino|h.is nut been init.illi il
jel|
K'rmrnt 3 Street rlcaninft Program ill
start
Started April 1960
Completion. December 31. l'JOl
Eirmcnl 4 1 Inrdturfai ing .mil Sliiliilu.ilion
of exposed industrrai arras is already
underway. One man assigned full time an tins
strategy until all signifii ant area* past
problems have been corrected. Olhrr
inspectors will continue to include
enfurremenl of this element in their work
program.
Sljiicd: April 1900
Completion: December 31. l'JOl.
Element J'City usph.ilt plant al lllh and
Nicholas surveyed to determine dust.
Started. Mjy 19B0.
Reduction Systems as determined vw ill be
installed or implemented.
Start Date August-September l!HJO.
Completion March 19U1.
Element 6. Hard surfacing of dust acr.ess
road .it 11th A Locust and carry out.
Control to Start. Apnl 1980 (1 Ins not
started).
Completion: August 1900.
Element 7 Stringent enforcement of dust
control at construction and demolition sites.
Started: Apnl 1S80.
Ongoing.
Element & Street puvtng program In areas
will be assigned high priority
Date Mny 1900.
Ongoing
A comprehensive assessment .ind
evaluation of strategics will be earned out by
state and local authorities
Start Date- December 1UA0.
If attainment is not indicated, additional
strategies indicated in resolution will be
carried out
Start Dale- April 1301.
Proposed Action EPA proposes lo
approve the Douglds County TSP plan
ds meeting the requirements of Section
172(a)(1).
Reasonably Available Conhv/
Mnasurcs. Section 172(b)(2) requires
SIPs to provide for the implement.ilion
of all reasonably available control
measures as expeditiously as
practicable.
Nebraska sidles lhat all its existing
major and minor sources are equipped
with RACT for particulates as required
by Rules 5. 8. 7, 13 and 14 of lhe
Nebraska Air Pollution Control
Regulations and corresponding sections
of the Omaha Ordinance In addition
Rule 11 prohibits open burning
EPA. in evaluating these regulations,
has determined that ontv Rule 6. "Fuel
Burning Equipmeni: Particulate Fi:msion
Limitations for Existing Sources ' dues
nut represent RACT The state is .tw.ire
of ihib deficiency and has proposed In
revise Rule 6 to make it more strin^cni
bv increasing the muximum lol.il lie it
input from 3 /5D0 (10*) BTU lo 111 '>"<> or
mure (10*) Qritish rhermal I'mts III I U|
The allo.vable emission rale fur
equipment having immediate Ileal nipt,I
between certain limits is deieie'ined liv
the equation
a - 1.026
[.233*
where A = the allowable emission r.iie
in pounds per hour per million ii I U. ami
I = the total heat input in million l)'i Us
per hour. The new regulation would
allow use of the equation to fin (her limit
emissions from units up to lo.ixjt) (ltJ'l
BTU (instead of the previous 3./KI0 (1
BTU). and resull in a more stringent
lower emission rate limit of 12 pntnuls
per million BTU. rather than ili»> 15
pounds per million BTU allowed under
the current regulation.
EPA believes that this regulation
would represent RACT. If the state funis
that Ihere are sources out of compli.im e
with revised Rule 6. appropriate
compliance schedules must be
submitted for those sources.
The plan commits lo control programs
for nontradilional sources in and aruund
the primary nonattainment areas, .is
listed under "Demonstration of
Attainment"
The City of Omuha also commits in its
resolution to conduct studies and
evaluations of the on-going control
measures during implementation to
determine whether additional measures
are needed for expeditious attainment,
and to submit SIP revisions for
NE-8
-------
11316
Fcdornl RegUtur / Vol -4f>. No 25 / Friday. February G. 1961 / Proposed Rules- ,
—————i ¦ ¦ i———i——————¦—mmrnm—————¦ . -
additional mpasures if they are found to
fi«- necessary
/'¦•riposfd \cticn EPA proposes (o
i n'ulninn.il'y approve the Douglas
County ISP plan ns meeting the
rr i;uircm< nts of Section 172(b)(2)
allowing the state untii August 15. 198"l
to .idopt r.nd submit Rule 6 revised ns
c'is< isbej .l'love.
Ht nsartfh't; Further Progress. Section
I r_Mj}(i) requires reasonable further
p.-n;jn-«,4 in the period before attainment
regular, consistent reductions
.ml to assure attainment by the
i' '|inr"il tl.i'e
:c State of "sobrnska has submitted
i '.r.ijjl .i .iI presentation of RFP for e;i< h
;>n ti.iiv rwinattainment area. The RJ P
. ¦. u's (or each .ireu is linear and
| res. :its the state's commitments tu
..i n..it mr .-(.'mental reductions in TSP
i issmr.s EPA has reviewed the RFP
i ini". :fij has found them to be
/' I .hy.t 11 ' i 'ion EPA proposes to
i, jruM- ''..a Ooufjl.is County TSP pi.in
.-.nil (i. 4 tht: requirements of S« i.lien
i-
lit, hi'; In'. r"t tor) Section 172|1>)1 I)
¦ i >,u.rrb plan to include a
i unipn 'if.'sup. accurate. and rurrenl
i i iili>r\ of .ill sources of e.irli
,n iIiii.i111 fi.r winch .in area is
tli s ,;n i!i <1 nonaltainmcnt.
i In' pl.ri presents a microinventory of
•'.i* t'.o prusi.iry ISP nonattammcnt
ire.is .inii .i 1')77 point and area source
mi.', im in.enlory for Douglas County
I I i- '.•.iti; also commits to update the
u i v 1'iitor j
t'ntnv-i'd Action F.PA proposes to
.ipjirovi' ihe Douglas County TSP plan
.is .necting Ihe requirements of Section
17J(I.1(41
r-n:^it>:is Growth 172(b)(5) requires
:u- tr> e\pressl> identify and
i;u.ir.tify ihe emissions, if any. which
i-. .ii br allowed to result from the
(orstruction and operation of mnior new
or modified stationary sources in j
minntt.iinment area
F.mission offsets and compliance with
t!.r- lowest achievable emission rate are
required in Rule 4 of the Nebraska Air
Pollution Control Rules rind Regulation*
before obtaining a construction permit
for ii new rr.a|or source or major
modification The emission offsets ,iro
"¦¦quired in the rule to be submitted as
MP revisions to ensure federal
enforceability The stale intends to
dimply with Section 173(1) which de.il
iwth conditions for issuance of permits
b> msc of emission offsets and docs not
include margins for growth in the plan.
Therefore the state is not required to
identify a margin for growth for Douglas
County TSP
Propound Action ETA proposes to
approve the Douglas County TSP plan
hs meeting the requirements of Section
1-2(1)1(5)
I'rrmit firquinernent. Section 172(b)(6)
require* plans to have a permit program
for ihe construction and operation of
new or modified major stationary
snurri s in accordance with Section 173
(rul.ittng to permit requirements)
Kule 4 contains the provisions
required in Section 173. It provides for
offsets in the nonattainment areas,
requites the lowest achievable emission
rale for new and modified sources und
reqiuii'S a certification by owners of
new sources that all existing sources in
the state arc in compliance, or on a
schedule of compliance with applicable
emission standards.
/'mfunrti lr turn. EPA proposes to
approve I lie Douglas County TSP plan
as meeting the requirements of Section
172(bl|!»)
/trs-uurrcs Section 172(b)(7) requires
the state to identify and commit the
firanciul and manpower rcsourcri
neiessary to carry out the plan
provisions.
Ihe SiP specifies that no additional
resourr.es are required by the City of
Omaha to implement the control
measures or to monitor progress, but
dries not provide verification that the
pro|t>rts> have been entered into the
biuluet for Omaha for the
implement.ition period. Because the
attainment and RFP demonstrations
take credit for incremental reductions in
emissions from six control measures
adopted by the Omaha Cily Council, the
state must provide verification that the
city has or will have finances available
and committed to those measures. The
control measures include street
cleaning, hard surfacing lots, chemical
stabilization of exposed industrial areas,
controlling major mud and dirt carryout
suurc.es. hard surfacing of access roads
and paving unpaved streets.
Proposed Action. EPA proposes to
approve the Douglas County TSP plan
as meeting the requirements of Section
172(b)(7), on condition that the state
submit, by August 15.1981. evidence
that the necessary funding has been
committed and is available for
implementation of the plan.
Schi'citifcs. Section 172(b)(8) requires
that a SIP contain emission limitations,
schedules of compliance and such other
measures as may be necessary to met
the national standard in the
nonattjinment area before the end of
]f»t2
1 he SIP does not contain schedules of
compliance for particulate sources
because Ihe state maintains that till such
sources are in compliance with existing
state Pules 5. 6. 7,13 and 14 which
require measures that represe.-.t RACT
FPA has re we wed these regulations
and ha? determined thai Rule 0. "Fuel
Doming Equipment Particular Emission
(.imitations for Existing Sourres '. does
not represent RACT The slate is aware
of this deficiency and has proposed lo
reuse Rule 6 to make It more str.ngenl
bj increasing Ihe maximum total heat
input from 3 800 (10") BTU to 10 000 or
more (10r'} UTU
The allowable emission r.itcr for
equipment having immediate heal input
between certain limits is determined by
tfip equation
A - 1.026
[.233*
•.vheie A .= the allouable emission rate
in pound* per hour per million Fil U. and
t = the total heat input in million BTUs
per hour. The new regulation would
allow use of the equation to further limit
emissions from units up to 10 000 (10*)
nrU (instead of the previous .1 rtfX) (I0'"]
irrU). und result in * more stnnqent
lower emission rote limit of 12 pounds
per million BTU. rather than the 15
pounds per million BTU allowed under
the current regulation.
FI'A believes thai this regulation
would represent RACT. If the state finds
that there are sources out of compliance
with revised Rule 6. appropriate
compliance schedules mut be submitted
for those .sources.
In addition, (he plan must contain
other measures as necessary The state
has submitted commitments for future
studies and activities and the planned
schedule for their implementation. The
schedules contain key milestones to be
used for evaluating progress, with a
description of what must be
accomplished at each milestone. The
milestones are used in the state's RFP
demonstration showing what reductions
in emissions of TSP are predicted at
each, and what total reductions are
expected from implementation of the
measures
The City of Omuha commits to
conduct an assessment of the impact of
implementing those strategies described
undrr "Demonstration of Attainment"
concurrently with their implementation
and to conduct an evaluation of their
effectiveness In the event the findings
indicate additional controls are needed
in the nonattainment orea to meet Ihe
NE-9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 4G. No. 25 / Friday. February 0. 1981 / Proposed Rules
11317
standard by the end of 1902 beyond the
strategics ficnenbed. the city commits to
additional < onirol measures which may
'io found to be necessary These would
•ndude additional controls on
ennstrue tiun activities, scheduling
addition.il unpaved roads for hard
"irf.ici.ig. curbing streets, and
(Vvnloping a schedule to either close or
relocate the city aspnalt plan if it is
^puufi'.'tlly found to bo detrimental to
expeditious attainment of the particulate
standard Should these additional
measures be found to be necessary
fallowing the assessment, they must be
suhmuled to EPA as a SIP revision,
along with proof of commitment of the
rrsouru s .ind adoption by the Nebraska
Environmental Control Council.
Pruoosed Action. EPA proposes to
.ipprove the Douglas County TSP plan
os meeting the requirements of Section
i7z;b)(8].
Commitments. Section 172(b)(10)
"•quires written evidence that ail
''ccrsi.iry measures have been adopted
•ib lrg.il requirements and that '.hp
J^'-nr.iPs responsible a:e commitled to
•'".pi.* implementation and enforcement.
The SIP contains a resolution adopted
'jv ihe City uf Omaha which commits
the nty to on-going and future activities
far control of nontradilional sources as
iliicussud above under "Schedules."
Should additional control measures be
necessary for attainment prior to 1983.
as discussed above, commitments must
also be submitted for them.
lJropcitjtl Action. EPA proposes to
•'fpro^p the Douglas County TSP plan
¦is meeting the requirements of Section
nzibjnoi
Total Suspended Particulates—Sarpy
County
S.irpy County is presently classified
•is primary nonattdinment. but Nebraska
*i.is n>(jup!>tcd that it be reclassified as
attainment for the primary TSP
standard In suppurt of this request,
N'cbr.i&ka has submitted 24 months of
Ti'initorir.q data indicating primary and
secondary standard attainment except
¦or the City of Dellevuc. The state has
•"•* Until final approval of the
'fdesijjnaiion. the state remains
obligated to submit a Part 0 plan.
Total Suspended Particulates—Cass
County
Description of Submittal. Based on
1977 air quulity data Cass County was
designated as nonattainment for
particulates The state requests
^designation of Cass County to
attainment with the exception of the
cities of Weeping Water and Louisville.
The state has developed a control
strategy and approach toward
demonstrating attainment based on
these proposed boundary and
designation changes which were
proposed in a separate Federal Register
notice (46 FR 7009). Air quality data for
1977 and 1978 is provided in support of
the request. There were no 24-hour
primary standard violations at either
site. The design value at Louisxille is the
annual geometric mean of 103 4 jig/m',
based on 1077 data. The design value at
Weeping Water is the annual geometric
mean of 99 fig/m3, based on 1970 data.
Data for 1978 was used for the Weeping
Water design values, because in 1977
the monitor for the site was influenced
by its location near a crushed gravel
road.
Demonstration of Attainment. Section
172(d)(1) requires the plan to provide for
attainment of the NAAQS as
expeditiously as possible, but no later
than the end of 1982 for primary
standards.
The Cjss County TSP SIP provides for
attainment of the TSP primary standard
before the end of 1982 in the two areas
which the state believes should be the
only primary nonattainment areas.
Louisville and Weeping Water.
The Ash Grove Cement Plunt. the
major source of particulate emissions in
Louisville, has submitted a letter which
is a part of the SIP stating its intent to
replace three older kilns with a single
larger kiln. Using the rollback method,
the estimated reductions from n dust
suppression system on crushing and
storing operations placed on the plant
quarry in 1970 alone are shown to be
sufficient to meet the primary
particulate standard.
The state has submitted a letter dated'
November 28. 1980. from Ash Crave
Cement committing to go forward with
the construction of Ihe new 1(100 ton-per-
day kiln. The engineering design phase
has been in process since May 1980. and
groundbreaking is scheduled for March
1981. Construction is scheduled to be
completed on or before November 1.
1982. The state anticipate that the
existing kilns will be retired by the end
of 19U2.
Controls required by Rule SA.
"Controls for Transferring. Conveying.
Railcnr and Truck Loading at Rock
Processing Operations in Cass County"
would require an 85% reduction in
potential uncontrolled emissions.
Proposed Action EPA proposes to
approve the Cass County TSP plan as
meeting the requirements of Section
172(a)(1).
Reasonably Available Control
Measures. Section 172(b)(2) requires*
implementation of all reasonably
available control measures as '
expeditiously as practicable.
Nebraska states that all its existing
major and minor sources in C.»County
are equipped with RACT for particulates
as required by Rule 5,13. and 14 of ihe
Nebraska Air Pollution Control
Regulations. Rule SA provides further
controls for handling and transferring of
process materials and products in Cass
County. EPA has evaluated these rules
and determined that all meet RACT
requirements.
Proposed Action EPA proposes to
approve the Cass County TSP plan .is
meeting the requirements of Section
172(b)(2).
Reasonable Further Progress IRFP/
Section 172(b)(3) requires reasonable
further progress toward attainmeni of
the NAAQS. including regular,
consistent reductions sufficient io
assure attainment by the required date.
The state's RFP graphs for Weeping
Water and Louisville show sufficient
annual reductions in TSP emission EPA
has rewewed the RFP curves ami has
found them to be adequate.
Proposed Action. EPA proposes to
approve the Cass County TSP plan .11
meeting the requirements of Sei.tmn
172(b)(3).
Emission Inventory. Section I72|b)|4|
requires that plan to include a
comprehensive, accurate, and current
inventory of all sources of each
pollutant for which an area is
designated nonattainment.
The SIP presents a microinvenmrv nl
the two proposed primary
nonattainment areas, a 1977 point
source emission inventory for both
areas, and an emission inventor} for the
country. The state also commits to
update the inventory for the
nonattainment areas.
Proposed Action EPA proposes to
approve the Cass County TSP plan .is
meeting the requirements of Sei.tuin
172(b)(4).
Emission Growth. Section 172(b||5)
require the plan to expressly identify
and quantify the emissions, if any
which will be allowed to result from the
construction and operation of m.iiur new
or modified stationary sources in a
nonattainment area.
Emission offsets and compliance with
the lowest achievable emissions r.rle firi;
required in Rule 4 before obtaining a
construction permit for a new major
source or major modification. The
emission offsets are required in the rule
to be submitted as SIP revisions lo
ensure federal enforceability. The state
intends to provide for new particulate
NE-10
-------
11318
Federal Register / Vol. 4G, No. 25 / Friday, February G. 1981 / Proposed Rules
emissions by requiring emissions offsets
and docs not include margins for growth
»i she plan. Therefore, the state is not
required to identify a margin for growth
for Cass County TSP
Pntp-iicc/Action EPA proposes to
¦ ipproiu the Cass County TSP plan as
Hireling the requirements of Section
I72(b)[5|
Pz-rniit Requirements Section
I7^b|(f>l requires plans lo have a permit
program for the construction and
liberation of new or modified ma|or
summary sources in accordance with
Sri lion 173 (relating lo permit
ri qmrcinentsj
Rule A contains the provisions
rr quired in Section 173 It provides for
offsets in the nonattainment areas.
rt c,uires that lowest achievable
( nission rale for new sources, and
•r-quired a certification by owners or
operations of new sources thai all
i Mitiny sources are in complinnrc. or on
<¦ t tinvli.incc schedule, with all
.¦jiplicablo emission standards.
/'ir>{)o^rri Action EPA proposes to
approve the Cass Country TSP plan as
meeting the requirements of Section
172( b)(H}
ItfSii-i t s Section 172(b)(7) requires
ilie staif to identify and commit the
firtani i.i! and manpower resources
uiTcsstiry to carry out the plan
prnv isums
The slate indicates that no additional
rcsoun es are required lo carry out
provisions in the SIP beyond their
present program funds EPA has
rli-irrnmii-d that Ihe stale's present
program funds are adequate to carry out
thu pruvisiuns of the plan.
Proprwd Action. EiPA proposes to
approve the Cass County TSP plan as
meeting (hp requirements of Section
I72(b|(7)
hr-d itt-s. Section 172(bl(8| requires
thai a Sit* rnntain emission limitations,
s< nt dules of rompliancp and 3uch other
measures as may be necessary lo meet
the naiiur.il standard in the
piifi.iti.itnncnt area before the end of
I'lIU
Ihe si.ilc; certifies, as discussed under
Reasonably Available Control
Measures". that all its existing major
iind minor sources are in compliance
with regulations which represent RACT
An Kl'A evaluation confirms this
ProposedAction EPA proposes to
approve tnc Cass County TSP plan as
niuptms the requirements of Section
i7:(b)(ai
Commitments. Section I72(b)(10)
rcquiri s written evidence that all
iccessarv measures have been adopted
is legal requirements and thai the
.njencies rj>sponsible are committed to
iliL-ir implementation and enforcemenl.
Rule 5A which is used in the state's
attainment demonstration has been
adopted us a state regulation. The slate
has submitted legally enforceable
evidence in the form of the construction
prmiit for the new kiln which shows
that Ihe credits taken for reductions a<
Ash Grove are assured. The requirement
ih.it the three existing kilns at Ash
drove be retired is included as a
provision of the permit.
Rules 1. 3. 4 and a have been
submitted in draft form, but are
si hcdulrd for public hearing on March G.
1981 F.PA's proposed actions ara
f.onhngcnt upon receiving these
regulations substantially as EPA has
rev icwcd them in draft form No final
artiun will be taken until rules 1, 3 and 4
arc submitted as adopted by the state.
Proposed Action. EPA proposes to
approve (he Cass County TSP plan as
meeting ihe requirements of Section
172(b)(l0|
Cenoral Comments
Ihtbhc Notice. Section 172(b)(1)
requires the plan to be adopted after
reasonable notice and public hearing.
Nebraska's Environmental Control
Council adopted the proposed SIP
revisions after public hearings on
Dec ember 7. 197S and June 27, 1980
Adequate notice and proof of
publication were provided.
Proposed Action. EPA proposes to
approve Ihe Nebraska SIP revisions as
meeting the requirements of Section
l"-(b|(l ]
Public. Local Government and State
Lfinlattve Involvement. Section
172(b)(9) requires evidence of
involvement and consultation of the
public, local government and state
legislature in the planning process: an
identification and analysis of the air
quality, health, welfare, economic,
energy and social effects of the revision:
..ntl a summary of public comments on
the anal) SIS.
Die WlirHnk.i SIP revisions contdin
.Kfcqu.ilc evidence to satisfy Section
172(h)(9)
t'n'ptrtrd Action. EPA proposes to
approve ihe Nebraska SIP revision as
meeting the requirements of Section
i7:(b)(s)
/Wui i-d Attainment Dates and 1WJ
Si./i/'.vswoii Section 172(b|(ll) and
Set lion 172(c) contain requirements for
plan*, with attainment dates after 1932.
None of ihe SIP revisions discussed
today have attainment dates after 1082.
therefore, these provisions are not
applicable.
Secondary Standards
On September 2S. 1980 the Stale of
Nebraska submitted a number of
redcsignation requests as part of the SIP
revision required by the 1977 Clean Air
Art Amendments. Certain requests also
si'ek eighteen month extensions until
July 1 19H0 to submit a SIP which
addresses attainment of the secondary
standard for TSP. Such extensions can
be Granted under 40 CFR 51 31(c) if the
state shows that emissions reductions
bejond those achievable through the
application of RACT are required to
attain the secondary standard.
Fl'A has grunted extensions to July 1.
19flO in the past even though that date
had passed, because the action allowed
thp provisions of the Emisston Offset
interpretative Ruling (44 FR 3274) to go
into effect in the secondary
nonatlainmcnt area until January 1.
VJB1. the deadline for EPA s approval or
disapproval of spcondary plans vshich
were due on July 1. 1900. Construction of
new major sourrcs or m
-------
Federal Register / Vol 46, No 25 / Friday, February 6. lf)81 / Proposed Rules
11319
_ Definitions for "potential to emit."
secondary emissions", and
''Smficant" (in relation to increases in
^ ssions) arc now included in Rule 1 to
-'consistent with definitions proposed
J 'He August 7.1980 Federal Register,
fte existing "major source" and "minor
wurce definitions are revised and
"-fftned by their potential 10 emit rather
^ in their potential emissions The
^fimtion af "potential emissions" has
deleted
Rule 3—This rule requires sources
*r.ich exceed the limits in the regulation
"cport their operations, and has been
'fMsnd h\ the addition of Part 5 which
""uu-rs thai an operating permit be
isued tu the sources that arc in
'Appliance with the regulations.
The regulation is revised to specify
^recessing machines equipment.
iflMces or other article or combinations
:*Te of sunirct to reporting and
operating requirements in terms of their
FCIlntini to emit" rather than their
pi<'ntin! emissions The regulation is
ilio made specifically applicable to CO
lend by adding emission limitations
ICO tons/jear or more for CO and 5
'<,ni/'jC.ir or more for lead
Kjle -i—The industrial categories
'tiered by the rule were expanded jnd
sections were added in an effort to bring
11 into compliance with Sections 173 find
i"-!b)(fi) of the Clean Air Act
''riendnients of 1977 Fjnission offsets
runphnnre with the lowest
achievable emission rate arc required .is
renditions for obtaining a construction
Permit fur a new ma|<>r source or major
""iilifir.Hion.
Proposed Rule 4(5)(b) hns been
revised to delete reference to permit
"cerements on certain sources in
non,iit„inment areas which "adversely
¦ii'oi t' the nnn-atlninracnt nreas. Rule
"'I^Khl is also revispd to specify that
¦^-¦''ifications subjert to the section
^¦'ist he "significant" [as defined now in
Rule 1) and io eliminate the phrase
iMih potential increased emissions of
tons/year or more ' in relation to
"iuriifii..nitms.
Rule 4 is revised to define the
applicability of the permit requirement
'or 'construction, reconstruction or
roodificaticin of any processing machine.
t^.prm*ni or device or other article or
'-^•vhination thereof' in terms of
T'jti-iilial In emit" ralher lhan potential
i."->ons
^¦.ie -Hilf b) has alto been reviscd to
'• t!e ihp reference that requirements of
:h" s-^rtinn will not apply if it can be
tii Tor.stratrd thwt the proposed source
jr Tiudiricjtion will not have an adverse
-pact on the nonattainment area
A'oposnd Artwn F.PA proposes to
'pprovu the rhangos to Rules 1. 3 and 4
as meeting the requirements specified in
the August 7.1980. Federal Register for
new source review m nonattainment
areas.
Summary and Conclusions
EPA proposes actions in this notice on
1) Part D requirements Of the Nebraska
SIPs for Omaha CO and Douglas. Sarpy
and Cass County TSP: 2) regulatory
changes affecting new source review in
nonattainment areas (as required in the
August 7. 1980. Federal Register], .ind 3]
10-month extensions. No final action
will be taken as outlined below until
Rules 1. 3 and 4 are adopted and
submitted to EPA as described in this
notice to satisfy Section 172;bl(b) and
Section 173 requirements.
Part D Actions. EPA proposes full
approval for all requirements of Section
172 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
197" with the following exceptions-
(a) Conditional approval is proposed
for Section 172(a)(1) and Section
172(b)(3) relating to the Douglas County
CO plan with a deadline of May 15.
1901. set to have the CO air quality
modeling report for the Omaha area
adopted and submitted substantially as
described in this notice.
(b) Conditional approval is proposed
for Section 172(b)(2) relating to the
Douglas County TPS plan with a
deadline of August 15.1981 set to have
Rule 6 adopted and submitted to EPA as
described tn this notice.
(c) Conditional approval is proposed
for Section 172(b)(7) rplatmg to the
Douglas County TSP plan with a
deadline of August 15.1981 set for
submittal of evidence of full funding for
the TSP control measures for which the
state takes credit in its attamment and
RFP demonstrations.
New Source Review in Nnnoilammrnt
Areas EPA proposes to approve Rules T.
3 and 4 once they are adopted and
submitted substantially as described in
this notice.
19-Month Extensions. EPA proposes
to deny the requests for 18-month
extensions for submittal of plans to
demonstrate attainment of the
secondary standard.
The measures proposed tod.iy would
be in addition to, and not in lieu of.
existing SIP regulations. The present
emission control regulations for any
source wall rpmain applirablo and
enforceable to prevent a source from
operating without control or under less
stringent controls while it is moving
toward compliance with the new
regulations (or. if it chooses, challenging
the -lew regulations). Failure of a source
to meet applicable pre-existing
regulations would result in appropriate
enforcement action, including
assessment of non-compliance penalties.
Furthermore, if there is any instance of
delay nr lapse in the applicability or
enforceability of the new regulations
because of a court order or for any other
reason, the pre-existing regulations
would be applicable and enforceable
The only exceptions to this rule arc
cases where there are conflicts between
the requirements of the new regulations
and the requirements of the existing
regulations such that it would be
impossible for sources tn comply with
the new regulations In these situations
the Stale may exempt a source from
compliance with the existing
regulations. Any exemption granted
wuuld be reviewed and acted on by KIW
either as part of these proposed
regulations or as future SIP revisions
The public is invited to submit
comments on whether the proposed
amendments to the Nebraska air
pollution regulations should be
approved as a revision of the Nebraska
St.ite implementation Plan.
The Administrator's decision to
approve or disapprove the proposed
revisions will be based on the comments
received and on a determination of
whether the amendments meet the
requirements of Part D and Section
110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act and of 40
Cl-R Part 51. Requirements for
Preparation. Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans
Under Executive Ordpr 120-4-1. KPA is
required to judgp whether a regulation ii
"significant." and therefore sub|rrt to
the procedural requirements of the
Order, or whether it may follow other
specialized development procedures.
F.PA labels these othpr regulations
"specialized" EPA has determined thai
this is a specialized rpyulation not
subject to the procedural requirements
of Executive Order 12044.
This proposed rulemaking is issued
under the authority of Section 110 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 11 S C.
605(b) I hereby certify that the
Moreover, due to the nature of the
federal-state relationship, federit
inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of the slate action
v ould serve no practical purpose and
could weil be improper
NE-12
-------
11320 Federal Register / Vol -50, No. 25 / Friday. February 0, 1901 / Proposed Rule*
Dated January 9. 1981
Kathleen Gamin
fli-niana! \inoi
Department of Ecology. 4224—Sixth
¦\ir S E . Rnwesix. Building =4.
l-it.ey IVA 98503
COMMENTS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO:
Lanrw M Krat. Air Programs branch, M/
S (i2ri Kn\ ironmentnl Protection Agency.
1200 Sixth Avenue. Seattle. Washington
(iir.tn.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Willi.im B Schmidt. Air Programs
fJr.ini.h, M/S 345. Environmental
I'roiei lion Agency. 1200 Sixth Avenue.
Seattle Washington 98101. Telephone:
|J0fi) 142-mu. FTS. 399-1100
supplementary INFORMATION: Section
3Vt of the Clean Air Act as amended,
requires the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to establish monitoring
rnteri.i to be followed uniformly 9 part Surh review
must identify needed modifications to
the network such as termination or
relocation of unnecessary stations or
establishment of new stations which are
necess.-iry.
(ej Provide for having a SLAMS
network descnption available for public
inspection and submission to the
Administrator upon request. The
network descnption must be available
at the time of plan revision submittal
and must contain the following
information for each SLAMS.
(1) The Storage and Retrieval of
Aerornrtnc Data [SAROAD) site
identification form for existing stations.
(2] The proposed location Tor
scheduled stations.
(3|The sampling and analysis method.
(4) The operating schedule.
(5) The monitoring objective and
spatial scale of representativeness as
defined in Appendix O to this part.
(G) A schedule for:
(i) Locating, placing into operation,
and muking available the SAROAD site
identification form for each SLAMS
which is not located and operating at
the lime of plan revision submittal:
(u) Implementing quality assurance
procedures of Appendix A to this part
for each SLAMS for which such
procedures arc not implemented at the
timo. of plnn revision submittal, and
(in) Resiting each SLAMS v\hich dors
nnt meet the requirement of Appendix
E to this part at the time of plan revision
submittal.
Washington's Air Quality Monitoring
,\'ctv\ ork
On March 5.1900. tho Slate o[
Washington's Department of F.coloqy
(DOE) submitted lo EPA a revision to its
SIP which provides for the
establishment of an air quality
monitoring network. The submittal
includes a description of the proposed
network which will cover the criteria
pollutants: Total suspended particulates
(TSP), sulfur dioxide (SO») and carbon
monoxide (CO) and ozone (O.)
The Washington monitoring SIP
commits the State to the implementation
of statewide SLAMS and National Air
Monitonng Stations (MAMS) monitoring
system to meet the requirements of 40
CFR Part 5B. The system will be derived
from the existing Washington Air
Monitoring Network with adiusiments
and additions made where necessar>
Besides establishing the SLAMS and
NAMS (a subset of SLAMS), the SIP
revision provides for the establishment
of Special Purpose Monitoring Stations
(SPMS). These monitors may bo pitied
and used to fill special monitoring study
needs. If data are to be used for support
of control strategies, determination of
attdinment/non-attainment, or air
dispersion modeling validation, the
monitors will be reference or equivalci.t.
sited according to Appendix E to 40 CHI
Part 50 and follow the quality assurance
procedures of Appendix A to 40 CFR
Part 58.
The SIP slates that specific SLAM
sites will be designated as Episode
Monitonng Sites (EMS) These statinnn
will be visited daily during the work
week to ascertain proper operation and
to detect elevated values In the event
an episode is declared, the pollutantfs)
of concern will be follow-cd continuouslv
until episode termination.
All SLAMS in the Washington
monitonng system will be operated in
accordance with the criteria given in
Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 56. Each
SLAMS monitor will meet the siting
cnttna given in 40 CFR Part 5B.
Appendix E. Methods used in the
SLAMS will be reference or equivalent
as defined in 40 CFR Part 58. Appendix
C. The quality assurance procedures of
Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 58 will be
followed when operating SLAMS unci
processing air quality data The air
monitoring network will be reviewed,
annually to eliminate any unnecessary
SLAMS, add necessary SLAMS and lo
correct inadequacies. All proposed
changes to the network will be reported
NE-13
-------
—(T9V0 ff A8T
TfATIOHAL AXHOTtrTHTC-!)ATA BAHK
CUICK LOOK BEPOBT
Tin TS
CARBON MONOXIDE (MG/H3)
KANSAS
79-82
-method*; nohpisfi:hsive xhi-hahud ihdihi cuhtxhuous. houhly values-it, tlahe iOHmriOH-zi
SITE ID
LOCATIOH
COUNTY
ADDRESS
HEP
YB ORG IOBS
"MAX 1-HR ODS>
1ST 2ND >10
"HirFHT
1ST 2ND
"ffBSV
10
METH
17 1800001F0 1
—m aoooo iror
17 180000 iro I
17 180000 1110 I
1T1800I
1718 00 0I6F0 5
—mr«oooiro3-
KANSAS
IfAHblS
CITY
rrrr
UY ANDOTTK CO
619 ANN ST
79
6275 23.0 17.0
9.4
9.3
~8~T
A. 0
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
UVLHLANU
PA VK
I72760002r05 OVEBLAND PARK
TT2780007rtT5~0VtULANU PAHS
173740003r0 1 MICIIIT A
—t7T7qoooTror-HrcirrTA
17 374 000 3F0 1 UICIIITA
UIANUUTTE CU
UYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
nsry-
619
ANN
ANN
ST"
ST
"W
61
001
B7U7
8667
TBTTT
21.0
17.0
13.0
9TT
10.1
619 ANN
ST
AVE
B 2
79
DOT
2 1 b 3
2132
9 . 0
17.0
7.0
12.0
1. 5
6 . 1
"77T
1.5
CO
UYANDOTTE CO
7TH L STATE
7TH C STATE
~"BO~
81
/bUb
335
"ZZ .0
15.0
T6TIT
12.0
9 . 1
8.3
TT5~
7.6
17 37M00U3r0 I WT^HITl
17 37100 I OF0 1 UICIIITA
—rm^aon o ro rwicHiTr
17 37 4 00 I 0F0 1 UICHITA
—n 374 0010 r OTTJTCHTT A~
JUHHbUH UU
JOHHSOIl CO
roHiisOh ca
SEDCUICK CO
~5> E0GWTCK CO'
SEDCUICK CO
riKE STAZ 9T0TJ n OT 14.U 12.D 6T5"
FIRE STA2 9500 60 5622 15.0 15.0 10.1
f IKE STAZ 9Y0T) 8T
FIRE STA TOPEKA 79
T3T0 Z 1 . 0"
1944 29.0
"TTTO"
29 . 0
1.6
25.0
ETT
8.8
TT6-
15.5
"KIHE STA TOPEKA
FIBE STA TOPEKA
"W
81
' -8bbZ 277TT
001 8564 22.0
"2TTXT
21.0
TITT
16.8
13.1-
12.4-
T8 .0
22.0
SEUUUICK CU riBL STA l'UPEKA rz
SEDGUICK CO 1900 E NINTH ST 79
"STDtiUICK CO l"900 E NINTH ST 80
SEDGUICK CO 1900 E NINTH ST 81
SKDGU1CK~C0 T9innrHTKTH_ST—T2"HOT 2T5TJ 2070 20.0
Tnn 2T5? Tl. U
8731 23.0
818"1—40T0~
001 8664 19.0
11 .1
18.0
"V.J
11.6
Z5TO
18.0
lb.b
15.0
TZ7T"
12:8-
12.9-
TTX
-------
Region IX
-------
Ari zona
AZ-1
-------
' I / ^ '
• - - 1 ^ w - «- , - 1 ' -
. Kv u?."
0Z3fit I->c=l^ 3:- 3 ul :r 3
LZj> •_ Sv-Sv : J-
i 31 ZD* ;
p ^.r: -c-„
oO*6 3
si r<
L
' • £>C
• CE-ll
, t.LTf-'- i l*ur" C.
5 I -
I C->=-
•^-1J i
-Is,
Crl
i lii' n
£5C£.f C
CYC-lb
-
\ -
LU
LV
IL/
l--r
¦• txi1- I"
*
oro m
e
e
^ A L ? >
. 1 25
• ^ ISS 1.-
I < '
•j
tl , r-
i -
'l m ~ *
, -
- 7
1 C"
? r C
3 ^ C
•. £ V
L5T
* ASS <
-
- L ' .
C"
-si; "it -1
a
Hi
jo:
t o.
• ¦'" •» 0
.1»Q
K
z. u r
<• -
m.' - C - " T 'it-\ * V
S J
3 4*
355 .
U C -
• 0o5
. Tbb
1 <
1,
.
r
i;.--*-si i rw-v ~5
C /
2?
; ; l
t.u^
. f,-c
. n ^ :•
i -
C'
2 b »I •» • r ST-f;
r\
\ »i
jf- =
v7T
.r 1-
4
jr
J i I
f
?3 H ' A rr sT^r.
l? '
!
1 «5U
¦J 7 V
. C79
.070
-#C
I <.
C"
?3J1 *-r- STr-s.
5 ?
10'»
1 £"
v V5
.'¦«#/
.:92
I
c
1 L__
c
. vf-
; ,r
S 1
t r J
. -¦ * }
.Or- 1
if J»
c. •
*s ^
e
t •> A
J9* ,
1 V "
. ¦.:
. i 3 -
j
* .7
J
*-
it J» -
cr
^ l» >' ' jl1«i ^V:
c 3
^C'i"
32 •
i6 5 ~
1^ i
,
. 109
c
L
1 ^
C '
J-H: i- Jz
¦5 2
t
jU
3c5 ,
153
.n«
.116
1
1 . 1
£
¦ "
x C -' " A
r -
z\Jrr J» 1 V t t \ ¦
5 "i
?'»>
1 1 •
J()3 ,
1 /•
. lu>
. 'CM
« '
I - - -
C 7
7j» s t; - - j-c
4TV
iV .
1U«
.Ce9
, 0 e 7
i.
- -
. :l^-
c
st .CIkj fc • - -c tf ¦•
!* J
2 Of,
JO'J ,
12 *
. 1;
• 1 16
i. C- J i
-^^iccs s-:a*:v
S*5
7 0 v
its
icl •
10-
.t'^3
, D*r-
i
" ' 1 «< ..
C1
£ ?
3t
: i
¦ Ofcc _.^7t
„ •
1' --»¦
c.
C JSC V f-w I
e v
j - ^
i»: .
lb-
.151
.126
3
3.1
-•
: r,u t
c
lr<-t t K-CStV'LLl
- 1
?c-o
jdC
J6b .
lb •»
. 104
• 136
6
6.3
iC«
c\.
i-ib r -"C'SfiVt'.T
200
ioi ,
1 jS
.11?
.117
1
1.1
7
c u
^ L t *•
fr •
£l ">
\ tl
36b
13b
. J/
.1/0
?
»••- ?
- *
I; ^ "
"j'l' n-*t 5*
C '
a ^ r
JO** .
1 h7
. 1 Je
1 D
12. b
- 1
1 "*
cn
- b 3 1 *'r 1 ^ oTu S
H 1
^ A ^
Job •
i be
. 3<:
.14°
4
*. 5
7
-
c.
« ^ i1 D'- f - o * ¦ L
t /
?*• «*
jK
1..^
. i
< ^
^o4- .
1
. lfc
.112
2
- *
1 c ^
C"
• 73/ b Tr AL -
u A
2^^
32?
35* .
166
.111
.05?
1
1.1
*
« =
i " .i i .
r •
-73^ 5 C"" *• Tr tL »
5 2
20^
j2c
365 .
1 ^
. ICf
.097
} *
ICO-6^
c
A 7 3 2 £~ C-:t-;l fi
p J
/»'jc
127
36 b .
103
.09®
»oge
*> V- - -*-
c
r. rp
5 W
I'-i
^t>c ,
l"U
.141
.134
T
16. C
i
i r^-«.
C'
« J
200
i = 5
365 »
150
.13b
.122
i
2.7
2
-*
I C ' •' *
c*
e.Pt"4 h>{|'ir
P?
?on
22f
3t* .
! i
. « K
.10"
«*
c
't.s: I r I £. SCru
c 1
7 i
Job ,
U5<-
• 0 o 5
• v6b
xr j-
t«r i: sc-o
c2
17*
ibh
117
. lo
.110
6
''3vCSjj)C'-/
• 0 30r ar - * -
«jr i ,. - - -
%'J 3y 2 ¦ < o<" ir 1
,•«-» 302e«. i-Ow- .. i
' *
w302e«* *-••
-Twrnrrr- r
- • i
\ . rt
* , I ^
- J 303/
>303
-------
¦ T'-- vj^LrT c jc ; j't 11 *ji -1 ,125 •
MISS L
517- I-
l:c-
¦ I •
C'""
' TY
4 ,:lf,K
> -
-ir1; *
2 ST
2.a>
3r*D
v*:as csi »
A65 <
1 "T '
= r -t 1 •
IC.-
- Cr
' l'jT 1 1*.^ ^-C 1
D 1
6S
J&b
,105
. 1 0-i
,999
i
v, j ("f " i r *
" ' /
- :
r.»
A CO
rtlL^ L •_» £ i. ,3-
e 3
*55
, Oc 3
,C7«
.0 7fi
£
" 0 3 0 6 I' i j a
-1 •< r
- L
j
-T ' I u
e ?
^Oo
365
. 1 UO
.C«l
.055
'i
>2i>LV
. i „ — •
- 1
c
jtt 1 «. • L
c 2
1 oC
3 t
** '-
£ ? e
jo6
.0V2
iOee
• 0 o 7
1
OJooa'v1*' j
- ; " '
l» _
T-P- 'ir-bi C
U l
3nr
J 2o
Job
.US 3
.090
, 090
1
•CK1^' . * - .
» J m *
- :
C1
T-n»' > »L 1
e ?
30r-
36b
.117
. 1 U 4
.job
3
- ' - *"
-:
~ "
Tp?5' Y D*c/ Si* . C
t 5
3 0r
In I
36b
. 0 b fcl
• G c !
1
v7"! Co / «. 1 "* * '
•1 k z
L
-5^1 '. J L .
e
c * 1
Joo
.lUP
. 10-
. 1 C 2
*
¦»03u* t-
- "
- *.
r .
'5yi . »0 ° 0 ' A p.
tr 1
^ 2 b
j65
,oy b
,095
,095
t
<¦ j 3 o L « "> • ' ^
• 1 f
U *
i.
»S«1 A i
fa 2
>21
36b
. l j'j
. 1
.10b
i i.i
i
1 w .
- r "
i r
. =C-'J i *
e ^
1 3C
Job
.09 3
< <"• 7
. Or S
V. . *, * •
• • - > ' " ¦
fiv
* - I
C'-
r 2r . -IOCL;. sx.
e ]
1 uC
131
J O 3
, u 7 S
.H7b
. C 7 5
•
i
V ; \ f & *. /¦» c ' '
.. - - t * __ !
\ - V
j. :
C '
J ^ r tr^c-U: ,
r i
lot'
114
3 bb
.09S
,077
.07;
' /**!
* t ^ r
f-
¦>» t
r>.
_ -- ° ' fir10 L- SI ,
f 3
l *^r
5 1
jf»b
.06 J
,<* 70
1
' Jj
6 1
2t".Ci
30b
Job
.113
, 1 09
,104
j
%i> 31 7«,'^ ' J '
*C" >
- L"
r -"
^ c<"
?e57 - MLLc.- t L
o 2
JOb
365
.117
• 11?
,109
b
7Tfi 'ji-t
_s <.-. I *.
- L c.
i ?
C.'»A
2a^7 ' '' I L Lt: *-f
c 1
2 0-J
1 o 1
.1 Jl
,1^2
. C«
I 2.2
4
• x * 1 ¦1
"~>C 11 r i .
«Lt'
- -
C"1
I 3'jc^ . 5»C?TTS^«
« i
2 0^
19c
i 6 b
. i 2o
,0^9
,093
1 1.8
b
• r i- • -' j*. '.'
"-c. ^rr;
_-_L~
T j-
- c-
Lj^c^ • SC3TTSrt.
p ?
1 r)r,
11 g
365
.Ohc
.065
• 06 4
3
*. 3 " r. 1 J $ • v *
" j • - -
~ 1 :» 1 -
- J w
f J*
Cw
i". ?w •» b L v"
01
^ 0
loo
, U 9 3
,0b 9
,i}o9
1
• L' 3(.-7e>Cojjc^
"1T---
•. ! S1 h
C2C
-lo-.
Cj
u • \ «¦ j ^ f ^ \ t
c I
10<>
14 S
i63
.07 4
.074
,07 a
2
• j 3o 7 e r"r jrr j
n 1 - - - *.
»rsu
c c
1 I <>z
CI
J*V 9'. e. p-Y fcj,\
il
1 0 0
112
36b
.U67
• f 64
.064
v/« J ? "7 e \ r, \ c \
5J"r- i
15> r ^
C* "
- T ^:
Co
^ « r«- f
p j
100
3 7
j65
.071
• 06 7
.06b
• A
" jT. - r""' r J 3'
*' '"i"
- 1'
^ c
'bl . O
o0
J5o
36o
. 12i
,068
.067
6
* -• 3 C c t <"i t"r 2 "
T. -3-.
*
:ti ' rj z-tss
o 1
3 0C
J5o
J6b
, o fc 6
,00b
.066
4
vCJO^tf Jm '
?L-S"
• i
- C"
it.: z'j- c^ess
b 2
300
342
Jft5
» 1 2 3
,107
.099
9
. . .
:*.cb?
Hi
^ c
lot «. ZU C- tSb
b 3
3 <30
177
36b
,097
« 090
.090
2
v" 3 u f e i.; i "
1^ j
-!
- -
7'i s* i :¦: fCrrr
3 0
32o
3oe>
• 110
.102
.101
1
3 * • * * . ' ,
" j ~
- i *
- c
2/ S" «. Cr^^C = Cf
c J
30^
J 3 e
3bb
. 12-
.oe 9
.007
' 3 . J
' C.v
; I
- v.
71 i* ^ r^*.lCJJr
JU*
JOo
36b
.3 21
.1 Is
.112
3
" ; 1
-
-
-
/ < ^ ^ Cn- K CH'if 91
3Cf
1
J65
. w&b
.f'94
* OS 2
%
J r.'
It-: r- Jt
! 1 7
J6?
.11-
,I1C
. 1 fi
"£i
5cc*i
" ~ 7 . A
L? - V-
. tAr.
* .
4.1 -i c. "'^
Q.O
1 J.
: l."
AZ-3
-------
California
CA-1
-------
CALIFORNIA
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
CALIFORNIA
AIR QUALITY
DATA
SUMMARY OF 1982 AIR QUALITY DATA
GASEOUS AND PARTICULATE POLLUTANTS
TECHNICAL SERVICES DIVISION
VOL. XIV ANNUAL SUMMARY
CA-2
-------
TABLE 11 cont'd
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
06/23/83 AEROMETRIC DATA SYSTEM
1982 ANNUAL STATISTICS AND NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES OF HOURLY CONCENTRATIONS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 25 PPM
NITROGEN DIOXIDE
M - - ANNUAL STATISTICS - OCCURRENCES OF HOURLY CONCENTRATIONS ) OR - 25 PPM
BASIN NAME E HOURLY CONC ANNUAL MEANS
COUNTY AND STATION T PPM JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV OEC ANNUAL NUM
NAME AND ID CODES H 1ST 2ND ALL DLY MAX OY DY OY DY DY DY DY DY DY DY OY DY DY OF
0 HIGH HIGH HOURS HOUR HR HR HR HR HR HR HR HR KR HR HR HR HR OBS
D
SOUTH COAST (CONT )
LOS ANGELES COUNTY - 70 (CONT )
WT LEE 00581-A22 DC 32* 28" 039" 077* 10 0 0 0 0 1 3895
2 0 0 0 0 0 2
NORTH LONG BEACH 00072-1 1 1 DC 30 27 051 094 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 8005
012000000201 6
L
PASADENA-#ALNUT 00083-111 DC 21" 21" ¦ 059* 091* 0 0 0 0 1978
0 0 0 0
i^PASADENA-WILSON 00088-IU DC 34* 30" ? 054" * 090" 0000000001 I 5689
00000000022
PICO RIVERA 00085-111 DC 29 28 058 093 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 8274
000000000004 4
4 1
POMONA 00075-1 11 OC 12 27 \ 055 091 \ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 8226
100000000200 3
RESEDA 00074-[11 OC 24 23 045 080 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8134
000000000000 0
#EST LA-R08ERTS0N 0008b- i 11 OC ( 39) 39 \ 052 * 094* 200000002001 5 7806
—' 300000006001 10
*HI TTIER 00080-111 DC 30 30 053 088 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 8193
400000000006 10
'county SUWKARY 41 39 051 OBB 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 I 4 3 0 5 18
14 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 10 8 0 20 56
ORANGE COUNTY - 30
tNAHEIM 00176-1 11 DC 20 20 046 078 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8292
OOOOOOOOOOOO 0
COSTA MESA-PLACENTI 00192-111 OC 23 21 031 060 OOOOOOOOOOOO 0 8145
OOOOOOOOOOOO 0
IA HABRA 00177-111 DC 28 28 048 079 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 8270
000000000002 2
COUNTY SUNWARY T" 28 28 0*2 072 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 i
000000000^02 2
RIVERS 1OE COUNTY - 33
'WERS IDE-MAGNOLIA 00146-A11 DC 08* 06* OJO- 051* 0 0 167
0 0
IIVESSIDE-RU3ID0UX 00144-1 1 1 OC 16 14 034 063 OOOOOOOOOOOO 0 7609
OOOOOOOOOOOO 0
81VEH SIOE-UC R WTHR 00147-AU OC "l3' 13* 031* 055* 00000000 0 5055
00000000 0
COUNTY SUMMARY 16 14 0J2 060 OOOOOOOOOOOO 0
OOOOOOOOOOOO 0
San BERNARDINO COUNH - 36
1 V. > r
V0NTAN4-ARROW KWY 00197-1 1 1 OC 18* 18- 040* 073* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4597
0000000 0
E0NT4NA-F0DTHILL TR 00176-1 1 1 DC 17" 17* 029* 054' 0 0 0 0 0 g 2480
^ 0 0 0 0 0 0
97
7—77375
CA-3
-------
Table 10 cont'd
¦ji
Of
3S
19)
>72
533^
420
066
'240
1452
nil
4603
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
03/28/82 AER0METR1C OATA SYSTEM
1981 ANNUAL STATISTICS ANO NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES OF HOURLY CONCENTRATIONS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO
25 PPM
NITROGEN DIOXIOE
BASIN MAKE.
COUNTY ANO STATION
NAME ANO 10 COOES
OCCURRENCES OF HOURLY CONCENTRATIONS > OR • 23 PPM -
M - - ANNUAL STATISTICS - -
E HOURLY CONC ANNUAL MEANS
T PPM JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT
H 1ST 2N0 ALL OLY MAX DY OY OY OY OY OY DY DY OY DY
0 HIGH HIGH HOURS HOUR HR MR HR HR HR HR HR HR HR HR
0
SOUTH COAST CCONT )
h LOS ANGELES COUNTY - 70 (COKT )
AZUSA
,'bursank
BURBANK
GLENOORA-LAUREL
LENNOX
00060-tll CU 26' 26* 019* 077"
00069-111 CH 37* J7"T 070* ' 112*
! en
j
00069-111 CU 28* 26* ' 078* 127*
00591-A22 CH
0007 6-111 CH
29* 26' 040* 074*
i
42 42 ' 059 < 099
, LOS ANGELES-NO MAIN 00087-111 CH 45
\ LYNWOOO 00084-111 CH 32
LYNWOOO
X' *
42 ^ 067 114
0 1
Obi*1 103*
) i
MT LEE
00084-111 CU 29* 25* t 053* 1 083*
00581-A22 CH 27* 26' 053* 118"
<1
NORTH LONG BEACH 00072-111 CH 37'
35*^ 063* 1 116*
f 5 .cV* 1
(north LONG BEACH 00072-111 CU 25' 25* 1 044' 080'
V - - 1
PASAOENAHNALNUT
.PICO RIVERA
00083-111 CH 40
00085*111 CH )6*
38 058 094
33* 059*" 095*
1 Obi ,
^PICO RIVERA
POMONA
00083-111 CU 34' 30' ^ OU' " 116*
00073-111 CH
^POMONA
II' 28' r 064' 105'
tS"?
00075-111 CU 20* 10* 026* 030'
NOV OEC ANNUAL NUM
OY OY OY OF
HR HS HR OBS
2 1946
2 3 8
4 18 24
0 8 12
0 19 24
1 7 IT
3 32 31
1 7 11
2 14 21
0 4 6
0 10 14
6816
SIW
1323
7631
8239
8114
3947"
3919
985
3932
37B8
8306
6924"'
?
2 1239'.
4
5 5231
9
0 2034
2319
,RESEDA
•s
, RESEOA
00074-111 CM 24* 24* • 047' 082*
• .04€
00074-1VI CU 11* 28* ^ 039* 096'
WEST LA-R08ERTSON OOOB6-IU CH 40' 37" 048' 093'
.oZZ.
v^WST LA-ROBERTSON 00086-111 CU 29* 27' 063' ^ 118*
WITTIER
5749
^ L-°.>
1 )
V (WITTIER
OOOSO-U1 CH 38* 36
5 051' I 086'
| -01*1
00080-111 CU 30* 27* , ^ 048' ? 119'
\ " .-3
1 0 12 13
7003
877
5900
"» I. (
3
I 6 9
117 24
2 2096 )
6350
1292
7—75963
97
CA-4
-------
CALIFORNIA
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
CALIFORNIA
AIR QUALITY
DATA
SUMMARY OF 1981 AIR QUALITY DATA
GASEOUS AND PARTICULATE POLLUTANTS
VOL. XIII
TECHNICAL SERVICES DIVISION
ANNUAL SUMMARY
CA-5
-------
51 ' 6 1
0 5 0 2 ,J' v
J 5 \) 2 3' •
0502 J
CS02 3
05027*.
05027";'
05u27*-
C5C?7b'
OSUst'
yStiis' -
0 5 f> m"
0 5 0 51
c;cs( .
w05uSi •
*0505^ \.
u50S*'
_OS0^r-v
C'Stfb*. .
y 5 0 5 r
05ok-
J5: 5-
0 5 u -
?5v 1 t "
J5r r: ' ,
^.:r
C 5 t 2 : ' „
7 - ' .
ub j7s'«
G 5 G '• i' ,
Obyc. -v
oie^;\
L ~-M
>rIru.
^1-L'
?"1-Lr
' s 1 -
1 - i "
-: -
T_ • •
• -
__ 3 w
"
cz
J £ ( - -' .
11
. I j
1
L
huIFC?
< li
6
Cm
63
1 11
) - S- «-5" .
J «
• i
1 -
LtCt-
5l ¦
lu 1 r - c- - 1
1, JL1 r >¦ 1 t:*;
J "¦
5 -
I CJ
- V
C r - £ 1 0
« - u»
CU--.
11
¦J M < r-
bC=. C
r jun[-^
m
- 1Z
J-ILi
1
¦ >4b
*
XI*- U'
C'l.' T f
j r
9
r
;
VAU5
> .125
-C ,kt>S
Y J
j * *"
n
— »**»
V, ^
1ST
2
3RD
¦» r •
i EST
- - -
- - -
- - - -
- -
------
- - - - -
- -•-
m
• ••••
........
- - ' w I
«~1C ^ '.,r 1.;"
J5s
Jet
2 - u
2 j u
• 2 2C
39
3*.9
>. 1
\< I * 2 -, - - -1 =
* —
r 1
0-i 1
J o ^
I n c
2 40
.22?
32
33.3
*•--* ri c.
1 J 11 a - • «\ 5
5 ?
c *5!
isC
Jo5
2 0v
1 o J
.150
7
1 ¦«. i
1 "31 0 5 n.-?C=
_
83
061
e V
3fcs
I «• 0
110
. 100
L
4 .1
5t 1 «. CKCZ O
r «^ * i
CL
ou
J^<^
Jb3
1 10
1 X u
.100
s- <*- *2 c:
C^-rUL 1 C n L L i
~,Z
cl
«¦»(¦> j
3o2
Jbb
C 9«i
'>90
. P90
ri* .:•*¦ cr
C^fllL. C\ut
'it
8?
001
Jos
3ob
090
.O&O
*- z*:l c
Z^'-llu^Z C'u-:.
o r.
- 3
oO 1
50
J o 5
Oort
050
.050
T"
* »<¦ •; • n
V:
5 J
I - I
JoS
1 bu
uc
. 130
4
b.O
J . , w V
~ U> "5 sJ 1 4 < ' 2 ' «»
. l
0 i
J-3
i C"
1 1 '
5 *
or i
J3T
3o^
1 c^L
150
. 140 _
_ 7
^7.3
« • - L
Cnt,bTi- - ¦ 1
e j
uC'l
s 2
3 r. b "
i7;
mo
• C s 0
• ;< t«j)Tc- cl
¦ LU&Sx L'^'1
0
Ht
3 o s
2 o j
2 50
.253
75
7S.J
-i c:
t ¦>/
e i
On 1
J5o
Job
£30
230
.220
SO
50. fr
•t --bill C-
• ulL^h Or j
o P
Jb 1
i. 3 I
365
£H0
1 9 C1
. 19C
2 5
be, 5
-: ^siOi co
IL'-lS-
f. ^
05 i
90
itb
1 1
1 10
. 080
¥
?- i- ^
i> ' r - • - .i
" *T
- !
it 7
i 90
1»C*
. 140
9
12.3
¦> - r "" I j
? r« *i 1 - r *.1
e ~
c N
To
Joa
. JVC
„» -» > — ' » * i
? j * - ^ ~ a
T i
" i J
33^
I o 7
i 50
. 14 2
i 2
13.0
" i Vi
?¦-. i . . r
s:
r 2
J 0 1
2-1
J o s
1 3 <
120
.120
1
1.5
7 C t
57
= 3
0 3 1
5a
36^
: 5)
•' 3 0
. 040
i J c *
• Sj'-l- 51
e 0
175
3ao
10 3
0^0
.080
* J w"
1 J " V
a I
001
19-
J o 5
U s ^
^ ¦ 0
. 0 G
T c
s 0
151
1 21
12C
. 110
: "" t .0£L£S Z")
1 C
>53
3 oo
J 50
UC
. 290
99
101.b
„ * - Ctui5? Cj
2^-
^ 1
0S1
J 5 9
36b
270
240
. 240
91
91.5
. ^ - it Lz.s> cc.
?2- i,:
d2
0b 1
iSl
J65
4? 30
220
.210
27
5*. 4
F
c
e DYF-i^
» *15S
• A^£> <
I ,
+ V3
'f.z. t»»v
./'l£A>U
CA-6
-------
. ' <- T *
I .
-:j c s
I- ) Cm tn; i.
l-t T- I'iCc. - =
' C • ' Is
C J5" i - ^ l I j -!¦», Cri IL 1 'C- i^"3ua lr«E p CYE-lb
bit'
III
'It J ' J*-
•-US > .12$
• --ts LSI
*1S& L
ti>S <
¦>i - z
. 5 j i •*
1.5 310'
.'» 5 3 1 'J t«
v. 5 j ) - *
Mb3 1 <•'
j 5 3 1 c .
0 3 3 2 c i
V35^5«v-.
•j532^
.¦537tft"
«. 5 J 3 -1
; 3 - '
or j,t«
0 5 j - *
_0S 3 & ,
5 31 v
( j Jl'
^3-<
„ 5 J - e
I' 5 j *¦ *
CSj-o5 -
C5**9?«>
ub ir-s*'/'
O 5 3 o 5 K
'J 5 J1 * " )
OtyiirJ »
i537«.< 7
. jTv
'* * cri
S-
-
-
' - •>
» V •"
. i
-j
0 '
Jn;
¦ ^ o rj
,:5-
. -
¦*
' 1
: c
i < 2 J
1 w - C: ) r \
: c
35^
in?
. 1 3
.uc
,iiO
1 .C
c
^ ¦
/ T f
> c
-
i *.
s 2
i
3p 5
¦ ll-'
. 1 'I -
• 1 u9
~ -
~ L "
* i
c
^ 4 c
u - . S - r> -
t 0
iji
J 0 5
,110
. i br
. UO
4
*.1
- f '
** b '
' "
c
•
t
Li "hi. " =
c I
H1-*
j 0 «*
job
.110
.110
.100
— J
¦ ¦
^ -
-
3^r*
c /
'.G-
2<; i
isfr
.100
. 1 Oo
. 09 J
-
i * * * ¦
« i
-
IT
- cr
Lm
iT
cr
i a?
Jo?
. 12o
. 1 'J 1
. jfer
- _
-*
Su
- =.
i t
- CL
r ulr
i'-
e
i-i
3 b ->
. 1 O
. l?l
. 1 2C
^.2
u
L 'l "> * ~
s -
c
7 —
V C
P*-Ir
stl- ¦
b !
3*o
i ft 3
. 1 no
. 1 J'
.in
2
2.0
f
J *>' z. -
r- -
- -
: c
s -! *¦
l-
c 2
J-3 3
JSa
.10.'
. f »}
. *"50
-
l_ 1 * r -
s-
IT
- Z"
r -1 -
4 .
t ?
"C 1
S 5
J:5
.o.v
.05C
'
*
*' -• _
•
c
-¦.ST
/ - i " i • - i r
r <¦¦
: ¦>*
J O 0
„ 1 ^0
. 1 2v
• liD
2.1
v
• i
'Si
*-
4 3 - *
^ i*C
e C
"51
J?;
, Uu
. f 9C
.
]
I
rlKZ.
- c "
'
- r • *
•»*> $ T
e '
n \
3 btt
3 »5 3
,lc^
. 1 CO
. IcO
30
3t. 3
1
! "
1 I r-
-aT
i t
»r
J1 - - c-! 5- S *
e 2
c =:
1 = 1
Jo 5
. J 7d
< jr,
• ! S C
*
lr .1
I -
" i * '
~ T
S -
£ ?- 1
r "= j-o:^ st
c 3
n 12
- so.
3t»-»
I 1C
^.110
. 0
* "- *
r i * r«A's• l.
? 1
3 2 «i
Jab
.ISC
• 1 aO
.17:
50
bo. 2^
' * -1
c»
-
J " -'
si*>.
0 £
J
355
,i5'J
. 160
. loO
x9
il?,^
r "
-'
«. j u
" i ¦ fc. • i-L
c 3
0 0 1
n 2
j © b
,*. = c
.&T>
. -J 3 C.
'
-
'
- " -
' -
C
* 2 *
. i , .. :*
?
J o «>
. J 1 0
.2^0
. 2fc0
*11
**+ . i
-
"
"
-
• /
to - - - ~
5 i
jt:
3aS
.*7C
. 2br
. 2 3 C
50
fcl.S
*
-
-
_ . •"-*
P i
-4c 1
1-7
job
. 1 •>
. 170
1 0
^:.s
"
"
c~
/
1 - - - - T
: 1
uel
- h
3ob
« J b C
.13:
. 1CD
7
r.2
j*-
- " " '
_ - L
L »' L
- • - j - l ^ r.
. c.
111
3 o &
. L90
. 0 e ¦
. Oe 0
' *¦ ~
'-' > J
i-
c.
urn' I
«• ¦ - r L v r.
ei
J52
3cb
. i'sO
,T70
. 07 0
1 » «
L«- i
Cl.
ift'r
P'jai rsL«/C .
e 2
33fc
36b
,OdU
.060
~ ObO
j
"
J* * .
l - " -
c
' «<•
d L V - .
e 3
84
36b
,CoO
, ObO
.:so
- *
C - N*
- . ^
c
*- ¦»
- ^£.C - ST
bf.
3 2«
sbb
.790
• 2 bC
.220
51
69.1
~
- '
-S. C"
oe-
t **f-. Cu CT
t i
C6i
31b
3 6 S
.iiO
.21'
.200
32
o 3.6
• "
* - i I -
L
V
-s c:
- b?-*
"7 ' r:rC- 57
82
051
\zt
Job
.160
, 1
.ISC
3
16.&
« - -» ~
-------
urni 6L At?:-t* -ic "-r, -a. *
j"Cv wO?,'
^zz* c (3^->rs -=.= iili^ )
nZC 1 £ S^^'j : j- -u-? Y
tf - " I X
°ACt
> IL
3H-;
' i X I i. -
> . 1 2 5
"as lst
ISi DAf"
i^5 < >f
jK,
¦3 b i >t ¦;« l :
r d 1 < v. o <* 1 T <
35 I << uwl ' i,
- 3 1 3 r L * i j ¦
r 3:. 1 r*
5;'3 " L ' ^
-"5 ' 3 "* ).• 1 t
':I "* J• -:
- r = •-Jl .
- "5 t s/ J f
• 3 *
: i
¦ -JA.
¦ i.
-.33-2;
- r 3 j J I J i5
:*ji u' i t ,
. ¦ 2 '.
5 " 3 • * «¦ I .
'}*r"jy-i -
l.ld
J5o
3-5^
. su 1
. )•> D
J
; j, ^
?5Si j-.rr=:->v „
•"'0-
- 7
365
. - -o
« i J
.0- 3
i
- ¦ -.= i.
J3l
• 3 o >*
. 3 3L1
» 3 4 0
¦J3
7 ^ . ~
2
I "j5 - V.ltS C?
? *~ S 1 1 3- •'t- -
0
:-a i
JoO
3o3
. ^ J.I
• C 9 0
.230
123
124.0
i
i_'S ^••i'wt'5 C J
?»'ll i- ' J l
j*» i
1 7 7
J 0 3
• 2 3 J
,
. 2b0
-»4
iO. 2
2
*¦ i ' w .b ^ '
1 » » -Uc.-' ST
•3
J37
3 o 3
. 1 0*
. i3J
. 13 '
3
- ; 3 J - I 3 r *
1 11 L L 3 • ¦- r
•)
1
j 5 3
JO")
. * >0
• / ¦» A
. 3-5'i
3
- ib :- is5 i
1 ^ * I i. C 1 C5~
3
-:i
32 j
363
,1C0
. -0
. J 3 0
6
. la - -13?"
i-5 ilj>: st
r i
- H
35 3
, > ?0
• ! O J
. 3bC
J £ ¦ ou- "u
wf- 'A
3S j
Jni
. J*.C
.3^0
.3or
¦#3
^ 9 . b
1
-i\:o
cf^ >f
'-"7 1
i: 7
J •? 3
.^20
. 2 70
. 177
I J
3a. ^
J
J L ' : ^ 7 £ -' •" 'J
. '-C-, »
j
jo:
.370
. 3
. 3 1*
101
10 1.3
<*
* i' • * j i r 3
• j<-C^ 'I- '
HO
<63
. ^ 3u
• i 0
.2 30
23
i6 . D
1
C2
>. A < t i ? - C I i
' -1
5 ^
J*3b
. A° *»
1 '}
.123
2
3 . 9
1
u. - ' : ci
5L *C3^
3
.r;. zj
' j i .£r ., :
. 3 3
J31
.^3T
. ?0 )
. 1 i J
i ,
1 A. *
1
"i* . i j ? r j
i v* s. r» • ,-.Lm j
* 3i
: \ 3
3 1 3
. 1.0
.If)
1 5
17.1
3
j- w i-uJ C-
'J *" 3. CL£/LL« '
3 n
2 i 1
J *5 3
.21"
. 1 : u
7
b
' E" ' ¦ r
si^irw* -3
- J22
i o-i
.±l'y
. 1 3'J
' •r'
i 2
13."
2
' a *«• 3 r
1^3
'o-j
. 1 3*'
. 1 31'
• I ¦* 0
^15
,r3-.;
0
-? «- *
'0W >T
u 1
3-i
. 12"
• 1 2
. ' IL'
i
19
• J v. J
«* uj c r
' '1
2 } i
_ ~ 3
. 1 J'4
. 1 3'"- _
. 120
2
- u.2-1
22
1 - (. "
-• i o - 3i
0
J 1
"• 1
J -« 3
,' 7
• ' 3 v
. )o.)
7
/ £ • T 1 r - ^ j
Jul ^ l~„ -1, ' [tl
C " l
J 3*3
• 1 * ¦ -
.lh)
.17 1
?3
3 * . w
2
' * T J « C "*
M01 i-'C'e'A --
J'U
:i5
• 2 *
. . :•*
.1 oG
3? . -
. - - •*;
1—U --IC^-- J
3 23
)OJ
• 1 1
. . 3 >
.
2 7. =
4
• . - • : j
: 1'icv * -
, t
- 3
3 O 3
« 1
* u 1
. j -3 '
1
p »U*i-YNV.
t A'
~ A ?
' , c i v r
CA-8
-------
Nevada
NV-1
-------
01/25/-" ,(,71 >' -L Airn-ElrlC JATf nlN« p„
\!C I.Cjf.'r- p-D;M7
!
oza-lc. (Pi = lS =t? "ILL13i ) (.EVADt 80-63
OZO SJ-Sl'": Ji, Jj-l Ij Oe.Ci^bEF'
''ET pr,u
> i
~ < »-{.'• K jtrj
Of I LI i .?5 Ct. Cr-1 1
, "J L T J
« V1CL£T L
'51-
I CO3 ^Ori t II Ui -14,
C r
I L J* 1 i»E5 Zl'*C
=: -tHODAsiNE e oye-15
«
V
ALI^
LAILi
1-iH
SAXlKUh •
- n C - ~* I 1
f\lc= •
1
s
VAL5 >
.125 • MISS
L
SIT: i
C'J*. 1 -
6'JCPESS
^ 0
3»C *
• - £ s
" i.
1 bT
2...1
3 °G
-SAS
-ST • ASS
<
» 29uOct >«
"--i ¦ l:t\
At ,lC.3£. O- " C"l 1
- r= -.
11 f I' ^ ? C 1
e 1
- c
J n ?
.US'}
. f 15 ?
. ^5 ¦
v2 V u 0 «* •» " .»
• '
1 • ^Z.r> L. C • • 1 CT (
3J0C -
. t>I- .
« 1
l or
^3 J
io3
• 1 e 3
.130
.130
. 16 "
25.0
•^9.U04'»'J.
- w 1
*i:6n' CITf
j. rc.»t -c£' : CTY
UOO i
. 51r ST.
e 2
100
64
3o 5
. Jit-
.0o"7
V2 •*u04<" """
*
- 1 - V- fTT,
7 : --=>c. Ti •» CJ i
3.^»0 c.
. 5T- .
f 1
1 0f»
5 1
3 o i
, u ^ 5
. n 2 5
.023
^2 *0 01C 3
,vl
1ul ¦<« CL
CL,Jnl-0j^i OS
3f
J^o
,09b
.0V3
.092
w2 90OeCa3
~i:
c l - - * r j
CLiftf
5««6 CwLio^juS* ^
n 2
300
^ Oo
>6b C
,^7-r^
.114
.104
1 .a
u-2 3 u (»fi * :>
~ o i
C k •* * C j
Clj--"* C L
Cuur-0t'f»^ \>r
= 3
30'*
147
Job
. ICu
• 0 9 1
.093
^ 900r t. "? 1
"l"r ,
Z L i r * ^ J
o n
i b ^
ibt
.110
.0»5
.3^5
w2<90f»c: = *
< j.
Ci *• r ¦ C'-
Cu-f. CO
-L
Sf r-
e J
Jf'C
i 60
36 !>
.113
.^9c
.098
4
v 2 -»0 U C f* 3 »
* - *
11 - ** * ¦
rr
b-" Cbt>c"-'cSr »-
a ?
iC'-
1 4o
jo S>
.089
.on
»25o^r ij
• *
" - *»• r
r . - - * C j
ClJ"-L j!jl ~ *
e 3
jOw
3o
Jb:
. fir3
. Joi
. is 1
s.i90H' '
* 1
W U ' - " ** J
.* C f
. - r Z t •-'
C i
^ 3 ^
jc:
#/7T
. 1 7»
. i7l
5
^ .5
• * J 'J V. ' v .
-' i
Cj
u'U'Uox? rc
fe 5
."?1
• Oo 1
.053
. -
•' •
-s c •
* ^ . C
S-----
; . r - : - - ;
= i
P 3
ie6.
.021
. r! c
. 31 -
" « -v *;t
*• .
* j *• n • C
-u '•t'
Ui 5"
o -
7 o
J05
. 1 S 3
.13:
. ii 3
2?
» <1 t»
• -c 1 - >
Cu^' cc
an* e 3
Lii •:
e •
1 03
Jos
. 1 0*
.1*3
.121
2J
7. Of -B
1
y i c '
~ •
- : i»r - 3 1
CLir" CL'
30 t-
LI
i 1
3C0
3c5
. 2 bu
.14a
. 14e
14
17.0 .
v£ 9u 2 e ">
-< j
- • D t-50
C!,Af CC
LI
b 2
3C0
J1 0
J6b
.*n
.274
.274
-»-3
'I '• .-» "S.S \
^
f
-
- f L \ - f j
r l •» -' r f
M t
c *
jot
162
Job
.lis
. 09 r
. J*5 5
<»2 5o j /( '
¦ i
1 >*6 i'-S
CLi/". Co
33'. .
C.&M • CK
5 C
i 2 3
Jbo
. OHO
• Oc L
. 0 7 b
'r
2 9 j 3 £ '
" • i
¦ 6 *<¦ « it-;
C ^ i *• f Cu
30')
CfcSI.^ Ci
a 1
300
^60
36b
. 0^2
• 092
\
UCt V '
t«
C u - - • c ,
K'» .
c - s i ¦¦: -
b 2
3or
ye D
Jc 5
. lU *5
C-- - • C '
C
- N I 7 . -
? 1
j o 5
. 4U0
. 1 J4-
¦ lie
2
1" .2
(
V '
- *
- trPe. CO
• vfi'« -
L L ¦* Z»
-------