Air Pollution
around
John F. Kennedy
International Airport
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
-------
A SURVEY OF AIR POLLUTION
IN COMMUNITIES AROUND
THE JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
September - October 1964
Melvin Nolan
Technical Assistance Branch
Division of Air Pollution
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and IVelfare
Public Health Service
Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center
Cincinnati, Ohio
June 1966
-------
Cooperating Agencies
New York City Department of Air Pollution Control
Nassau County Health Department, Air Pollution Unit
New York State Air Pollution Control Board
Port of New York Authority
Queensboro Tuberculosis and Health Association
Queens Action for Clean Air Committee
Federal Aviation Agency
U.S. Weather Bureau
Public Health Service, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Review and Comments
Air Transport Association of America
Aviation Development Council
COVER PHOTOGRAPH: Courtesy of Federal Aviation Agency, New York City
11
-------
Technical Study Staff
New York City Department of Air Pollution Control
M. M. Braverman, Director of Laboratory
Oscar Wuerz, Engineer
Nassau County Health Department
George L. Wasser, Sanitarian
Queensboro Tuberculosis and Health Association
Joseph Bergen, Public Education and Information Assistant
Public Health Service, Division of Air Pollution, Technical Assistance Branch
Melvin Nolan, Project Director
William J. Basbagill, Chemist
Seymour llochheiser, Acting Chief, Technical Studies Section
Mario Storlazzi*
Dean S. Mathews, Region II, Regional Program Director, Air Pollution,
New York, New York
Public Health Service, Division of Air Pollution, II. S. Weather Bureau
Research Stations
Delance 0. Martin, Meteorologist
Abraham Kussman, Meteorologist, Weather Bureau Office, New York, New York
•Present Address: Region I, Regional Program Director, Air Pollution,
Boston, Massachusetts
iii
-------
Contents
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 2
CONDUCT OF STUDY 3
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 6
Particulate Pollutants 6
Soiling Index 6
Total Suspended Particulates 12
Characterization of Engine Exhausts 17
Visible Pollution from Jet Aircraft Takeoffs at
John F. Kennedy International Airport 21
Gaseous Pollutants 21
Total Hydrocarbons 21
Odor Survey 28
Days of High Air Pollution 32
Meteorological Considerations 34
Wind Direction 36
Stability 40
Wind Speed 40
Stagnation 42
Temperature 42
Precipitation 43
Sunshine 44
Visibility 44
Conclusion 44
Aircraft Operations 45
Complaint Records and Opinions from New York City and Other
Communities 47
Pollution Emissions Resulting from
Combustion 47
BIBLIOGRAPHY 53
APPENDIX - TABULATION OF AIR POLLUTION AND METEOROLOGICAL
MEASUREMENTS 55
v
I
-------
Introduction
Prompted by complaints and public concern about the air pollution problem
associated with jet-aircraft operations at John F. Kennedy International Airport,
Commissioner Arthur J. Benline, New York City Department of Air Pollution Control,
requested that the Public Health Service, Division of Air Pollution, initiate a
study to evaluate the community air pollution problem attributable to aircraft
operations. Recognizing the need to delineate the magnitude and extent of the
problems associated with the increasing number of aircraft operations, the Public
Health Service with the assistance and cooperation of several other federal, state,
and local agencies conducted a limited air pollution study in the communities of
Inwood, South Valley Stream, Rosedale, Springfield Gardens, and South Ozone Park,
all surrounding John F. Kennedy International Airport.
A 1-month study was conducted during September and October 1964 that included
an odor survey, measurement of gaseous and particulate contaminants in the
atmosphere, an emission inventory, and analyses of flight operations, meteorological
conditions, and public complaint records.
Because detailed information concerning contaminant emissions from jet
engines was lacking, specific tracers could not be analyzed. Detailed knowledge
concerning dispersion of contaminants from airborne moving sources is not presently
available; therefore, the information in this report concerning the extent of the
problem should be considered as tentative.
1
-------
Summary and Conclusions
The data obtained in this limited 1-month study yielded the following
information:
1. Limited measurements of particulate matter and hydrocarbons, and odor
observations in the vicinity of J. F. Kennedy Airport yielded some
evidence to indicate that aircraft operations contributed a small amount
to particulate and hydrocarbon concentrations and to odor occurrence.
2. Concentrations of particulates, odors, and hydrocarbons at the sampling
stations were substantial and came from many sources in the metropolitan
area. Thus, the small variations that occurred in measured air quality
were not significantly correlated to aircraft emissions on a statistical
basis.
3. The number and percentage of jet aircraft using water injection during
takeoff decreased markedly from 1963 to 1964 at the .1, F. Kennedy
Airport; therefore, smoke emissions caused by water injection have been
reduced. This downward trend is expected to continue.
4. Meteorological conditions during the study were near normal for this
period of the year. Poor conditions for atmospheric dispersion were
experienced for a 5-day period; however, no prolonged severe atmospheric
stagnation occurred. Therefore, we were unable to measure air contami-
nant concentrations that would exist under extremely adverse meteoro-
logical conditions.
5. The limitedj modest studies reported herein did not show any difference
in the characteristics of particulates emitted from jet, diesel, or
gasoline engines.
2
-------
Conduct of Study
A 1-month air-quality study was conducted in the communities adjacent to
John F. Kennedy Airport in Queens and Nassau Counties, New York, from September 24
to October 24, 1964.
The study area was located essentially along the southwest shoreline of
Long Island, New York (Figure 1). Jamaica and St. Albans are located on the
northern boundary; and Valley Stream, Cedarhurst, and Inwood on the eastern
boundary, The land is flat, is only a few feet above sea level, and is used mainly
for residential, recreational, commercial, and small industrial establishments, as
well as for the airport. Several major traffic arteries cross the area.
To evaluate the air pollution problem in these communities, especially
those problems attributable to aircraft operations, eight sampling stations were
located in the area. Atmospheric particulate samples were collected at six
sampling stations, total atmospheric gaseous hydrocarbon samples, at one, and
meteorological measurements were obtained at another station. The locations of
the seven sampling stations are indicated in Figure 1. All sampling and obser-
vations were made within 3 miles of airport property.
An odor survey was conducted for two 1-week periods during October by an
untrained observer corps comprised of about 100 junior high school students.
Meteorological data were obtained from the U. S. Weather Bureau Airport
Station at the John F. Kennedy Airport and were analyzed by automatic data
processing equipment at the Public Health Service Facility in Cincinnati, Ohio.
A questionnaire seeking opinions and experiences relating to air pollution
conditions in the vicinity of airports serving other large cities was sent to air
pollution authorities in 11 major cities in the United States. Their responses
are presented to augment the data obtained in this study.
Trends in air traffic during the past 3 years at John F. Kennedy, as well as
at the 11 other airports circularized, were analyzed. The shift from propeller to
jets using water injection on takeoff to fan jets was related to the change in
quantities and types of emissions.
3
-------
Flight data from John F. Kennedy Airport were analyzed in detail for the
period of the study. Runway use, flight patterns, and diurnal variation in jet
and piston-type air traffic were determined.
Air pollution emission factors for various combustion sources were determined
and particulate emissions from aircraft operations were compared with those from
other sources.
The field investigation staff for the 31-day study consisted of one engineer
from the New York City Department of Air Pollution Control; one sanitarian from the
Nassau County Health Department Unit, Air Pollution; one meteorologist from the
U. S. Weather Bureau Research Station; and two chemists from the Division of Air
Pollution, Public Health Service. The Public Education and Information Office of
the Queens Tuberculosis and Health Association assisted in establishing an agree-
ment with New York City Public School officials in the Borough of Queens permitting
selected junior high school students to participate as untrained observers in an
odor survey. The Noise Abatement Office of the Federal Aviation Agency and the
Port of New York Authority supplied data on aircraft operations and aircraft fuel
use. The New York State Air Pollution Control Board provided air sampling instru-
ments used for measuring atmospheric particulates.
Measurements of atmospheric hydrocarbons were made by the laboratory of the
New York City Department of Air Pollution. The particulate sampling project, odor
survey, and emission inventory were conducted jointly by the Air Pollution Section
of the Nassau County Health Department and the Public Health Service. The data
produced on strip charts by the automatic recording hydrocrabon analyzer were
integrated on an hourly basis and tabulated on data forms by means of a semi-
automatic device. The data obtained with nonrecording samplers were tabulated on
data forms, and these data and those produced from the strip chart records were
then key punched manually onto cards for use in an electronic digital computer
programmed to file and store the data on a master magnetic tape, and produce
tables of raw data and final reports (correlations, means, standard deviations,
percentage frequency distributions, etc.]. Data obtained in the odor survey were
card-punched and analyzed with a card sorter.
4
-------
Station I - Inwood Country Club. Service Building. Inwood. I.1.. Mew York
Station 2 - La-rence High School Stadium. Press Box. Cedarhurst. L.I.. New York
Station 3 - Public School 138. Heller Avenue at 253rd Street. Rosedale, Queens. He* York
Station M - Woodrow Wilson High School. Baisley Blvd. at 16Uth Street. Springfield
Gardens. Queens. New York
Station 1
Station H
Station H
Put»l ic School 124.
Hew York
50th Avenue at 130tlt Street. South Ozone Park. Queens
E. Transnissoaeter Source.
John F. Kennedy International Airoort. S.
Runway U R
(Meteorology) - H*ng«r II. John F. Kennedy interMtionil Airport
(Hydrocarbons)- One block south of Station 5
Figure 1. Air sampling stations in vicinity of John F. Kennedy International Airport.
-------
Discussion of Results
PARTICULATE POLLUTANTS
Two methods were used to estimate atmospheric suspended particulate pol-
lutants: soiling index as measured by light obscuration of filtered samples, and
total suspended particulate loading on a weight basis.
Soiling Index
Soiling index was used for (1) estimating the amount of atmospheric suspended
particulates of small particle size that caused decreased visibility owing to light
scattering and adsorption, and (2) estimating the capability of particulates in the
atmosphere to cause soiling of walls, furniture, drapes, and buildings. The values
were recorded in cohs* per 1000 linear feet of air. Air samples were drawn through
a sequential filter-paper-tape sampler, and the reduction in light transmitted
through the filter paper as a result of particulates collected over a 2-hour
sampling period was recorded.
Soiling index data for three stations are presented in the Appendix (Tables
Ai to A4). Data obtained at each sampling site are summarized in Table 1. The
data were also summarized by use of an adjectival rating system adopted by the
New Jersey Department of Health (Table 2) •
Table 1. SUMMARY OF SOILING INDEX VALUES (cohs/lOOO ft)
Station
No.
Range
Arithmetic
mean
Geometric
mean
Median
Maximum
2k-hr
average
1
0.1-!+.7
1.0
0.7
0.8
1.9
k
0.1-5.0
0.8
0.5
0.6
1.8
5
0.1-5.0
1.1
0.8
0.8
2.1
The greatest average concern-_
of the airport in South Ozone Park- th« occurred " "ation 5 lcic"od northwest
no. differ -rtediy. however. ' '* '-»"¦>« did
index vaiu., of 2.0 and 7™'" " °f "»«1
(ttu. 2). "d " st,,i<,n s' 1""
*One coh unit is the quantity 0f nart-*
density of 0.01 on filter paper. cu*«e matter that produces an optical
6
-------
Table 2. FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF SOILING-INDEX VALUES
Station number
Range, cohs/1000
linear feet of air
Rating6
Frequency of
occurrence, #
1
0 - 0.99
1.0 - 1.9
2.0 - 2.9
3-0 and greater
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Very heavy
70.0
20.0
5.0
5.0
k
0 - 0.99
1.0 - 1.9
2.0 - 2.9
3.0 and greater
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Very heavy
72.5
18.9
k.6
6.0
5
0 - 0.99
1.0 - 1.9
2.0 - 2.9
3.0 and greater
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Very heavy
60.6
26.2
7.2
6.0
a Based on adjectival rating system of the State of New Jersey.
A strict interpretation of this system would classify values
k.0 and greater as "extremely heavy". The data in that
classification were incorporated in the "very heavy" rating..
In Figure 2, the average diurnal variations of soiling index during the 1-
month study period for sampling sites 1, 4, and 5 are compared with the variations
that occurred during a 3-day period when conditions for atmospheric dispersion were
poor. Greatest soiling values at the three stations occurred from 0600 to 1000
hours, which is coincident with peak automobile traffic hours and also a large
number of jet departures (Figure 3). However, during the hours when the greatest
number of overall flights (jet landings and departures (Figures 3 and 4), and prop
landings and departures) occured, namely, between 1500 and 2300 (Figure 5), soiling
index values were average or below average at all three sampling sites. This
indicates that soiling index values cannot be specifically related to pollution
emissions from aircraft operations.
The relationship between soiling index and wind direction at stations 1, 4,
and 5 is shown in Figure 6. Station 1, located southeast of the airport had an
average of 1.0 cohs, and greater-than-average concentrations during calms and when
the wind direction was southwest through west to northwest. Greater-than-average
soiling index values were recorded at station 4, located north of the airport,
during calm wind conditions or when the wind direction was west through northwest
to north. At station 5, located northwest of the airport, greater'than-average
concentrations occurred during calm and when the wind direction was southwest and
west. Figure 7 shows soiling index versus frequency of occurrence.
7
-------
Figure 2. Average diurnal variation of wind speed and
soiling index.
Particulate pollution as meaSured by soiling index was greatest at stations
4 and S, when the wind direction „as upwind of the airport. A possible exception
to this may be station 1, ^ere the greatest concentrations occurred with a wind
direction of west, and the next greatest concentration occurred with a wind
direction of northwest. Stati0n l is downwind Qf the ^ ^ ^
rection is northwest and may b6 considered partially downwind when the wind di_
rection is west.
To determine if pollution originating at the airp
-------
50
20
10
0
50
40
10
o
30
20
10
0
90
20
to
0
30
20
to
0
30
20
10
0
30
20
10
0
i—i—i—T
THURSDAY, 9/24/64
) 0200 0400 0600 0600 1000 1200 1400
HOUR OF DAY
1600 1600 2000 2200 24<
3.
Diurnal variation in number of jet
-------
o
hour or DAY
Figure 4. Diurnal variation in number of jet arrivals.
10
-------
WEDNESDAY, 9/30/S4
-
1*—h-'t 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
0000 0200 0400 (MOO 0(00 1000 1200 1400 1600 1100 2000 2200 2400
HOUR OF DAY
Figure 5. Diurnal variation in number of flights.
11
-------
STATION t
(AVERAGE 1.0 coh)
STATION 4
(AVERAGE 0 8 con)
STATION 5
(AVERAGE I.I coh)
^10.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 I.? 1.4 1.6 1.8
VALUE, cohs/IOOO ft
Figure 6. Variation in soiling index values with wind direction.
(Numbers at end of direction radials refer to number
of Z-hr samples.)
could not be determined since the measurements obtained were not characteristic
of jet-exhaust particulates alone, and the dispersion pattern of pollutants dis-
charged from a moving source above ground was not known.
Total Suspended Parti^ulates
Particulates in the atmoSphore arise from combustion of fuels, industrial
processes, wind erosion, other sources. The daily average atmospheric particu-
late loading was determined °n a weight basis from integrated 24-hour samples
obtained by high-volum® filtration through glass-fiber filters.
12
-------
Figure 7. Cumulative frequency distribution of soiling index values.
Table 3. COMPARISON OP SUSPENDED PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS UPWIND AND
DOWNWIND OF J. F. KENNEDY AIRPORT (Sept. 2U-0ct. 2^, 1964)
a
Wind direction
Arithmetic mean,
cohs/lOOO ft
"t" test for
significant
difference
in means at 95$
confidence level
Station 1 Station 5 N*5
SE
NW
All wind
directions
O.T 0.8 6
1.0 0.9 60
1.0 1.1 351
No difference
No difference
a Station 1 Is downwind, at a wind direction of NW.
Station 5 is downwind at a wind direction of SE.
^ Number of paired samples.
13
-------
Greatest average concentrations were measured at station 5, located northwest
of the airport, and the lowest at stations 6, 1, and 2, located southeast and east
of the airport (Appendix, Table A5). The relationship between 24-hour suspended
particulate concentrations and wind direction is shown in f'igure 8, A prevailing
wind direction was assigned if the specified wind direction prevailed 12 or more
hours out of 24 hours; otherwise, for purposes of anal/sis, the wind direction was
}
8 SAMPLE^
STATION 3
(oV®rQ9® pq/rri3)
SAMPLES
STATION 4
( avenge 10? jjij/r.,-4}
STATION 5
STATION 6
(average 76 pi}/"'3 ;
concentrat ion^^T
Figure 8. Variation of suspended i
direction. (Numbers at end «f 1'° Concentration with wind
number of 24_hr 8amples * of dlrectxon radials refer to
14
-------
considered variable. At every station, greater-than-average concentrations occurred
when the wind direction was west, southwest, or variable. These data suggest that
particulate sources located in the immediate study area, such as the airport, did
not contribute substantially to higher-than-average particulate pollution levels;
however, they do indicate that particulate pollutants emitted from sources located
west and southwest of the study area did contribute significantly to these levels.
Station 5 and stations 1 and 6 lie in a northwest - southeast axis on either side
of the airport when the wind direction is northwest. Analysis of parallel samples
on the 2 days (October 19 and 22, 1964) when the prevailing wind direction was
northwest showed considerably greater concentrations at station 5 than at stations
1 and 6, which indicates that airport sources of particulates are not appreciable
when compared to sources located northwest of the airport. There were no days with
a wind direction of southeast; particulate pollution concentrations were smallest
at these stations when the wind direction was northeast, east and south (Figure 8).
The cumulative frequencies of occurrence of suspended particulate concen-
trations for the six sampling sites are shown in Figures 9 and 10.
1000
>00
•oo
TOO
«oo
&00
~oo -
i i i—i—i—i 1—i 1—i i i i i—i 1 i i—r
T~r
300
O
U
2
O
O
UI 100
5 90
=! 80
y 70
a.
o
40 -
a
2
Li
0-
W 30
O
«A
STATION I
STATION 3
'II II i
1 ) I I L
J L
J L
I I
0.01 0.05 .1 0.2 0.5 I
10 20 30 4 0 50 6 0 70 80 !
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE,*/.
99.99
Figure 9. Cumulative frequency distribution of suspended particulate
concentration at stations 1, 2, and 3.
IS
-------
1000
too
•00
TOO
600
E 900
?400
soo
<
a
t-
z
o
u
3 too
P 90
X 80
a to
§ 60
Z 50
ui
a
« 40
u)
50
20
~i i—i—i—i—i 1 r
i i I I i I r 1—i 1—|-
;tation 6
i l I 1 I L.
'8x>I 0.0S .1 0.2 0.9 |
J I 1 1 I L
0 80 JO 40 90 60 70 90
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, %
_L
•0 »S M M
»• • M W
Figure 10. Cumulative frequency distribution of suspended particulate
concentration at stations 4, 5, and 6.
Benzene soluble material in atmospheric particulate samples was determined
on several samples collected at each site. Greatest average benzene soluble concen-
trations occurred at station 5, located northwest of the airport, and the lowest at
station 6, located at the southeast corner of airport property (Table 4). The
average percentage composition of organic material in particulates was greatest at
stations 3 and 4 located northeast and north of the airport. The average atmos-
pheric benzene soluble concentration (14.8 vg/m ) is well above the national urban
average (9.9 yg/ra ) and is about the same as the average for New York City (14.4)
(Harlem Court House Building on East 121st Street, Manhattan), which indicates ther*
are appreciable concentrations of atmospheric organic particulates in the area.^
16
-------
Table It. COMPARISON or HBiZEHE SOLUHLI MATERIAL PRESENT AT SIX BAKPLHQ SIXES
Station number
Date
Mraaureaent
1
2
V
4
1
6
10/13
A. Total particulate,
hb/«3
175
230
ML
202
236
153
B. Benxene soluble.
|ig/m3
25.1
25.8
29 .U
25-5
27.7
17.6
B
a, i
H».3
11.2
14.6
12.6
11.7
11.5
10/ll|
A. Total particulate,
mb/®3
158
208
183
193
287
165
B. Benzene soluble,
11.3
lit.2
16.8
19-5
30.6
12.8
B
A, *
7.2
6.8
9.2
10.1
10.7
7.8
10/21
A. Total particulate,
yg/ir3
05
208
84
84
133
67
0. Benzene soluble,
ub/"»3
3.8
14.2
6.1
6.6
8.4
4.0
B
A, *
"~.5
6.8
7-3
7-9
6.3
6.0
10/2?
A. Total particulate,
ng/m3
76
-
68
70
130
82
B. Benzene soluble,
Hg/m3
5.6
-
6.r?
6.2
10.6
8.7
B
A, %
7.1»
-
9.1
8.9
8.?
10.6
Average
A. Total particulate,
124
216
13*»
137
197
117
B. Benzene soluble,
ug/m3
11.5
lR.l
lit .6
1U.5
19.3
10.8
B
A, h
B.l»
m
CO
10.1
9.9
9.3
8.5
Characterization of Engine Exhausts
To characterize particulate emissions from jet engine exhaust, particulate
samples were collected at the end of and beside the runways at Greater Cincinnati
Airport and at John F. Kennedy Airport by means of greased glass slides, gummed
paper, and porcelain dishes. Samples were also collected perpendicular to the
exhaust of jet, diesel, and gasoline engines, by use of gummed paper and greased
glass slides. No unique particles were observed in the jet exhaust sample or in
the samples collected along the runways. Additional samples of jet, diesel and
gasoline engine exhaust were collected on filmed electron microscope grids and were
examined with the electron microscope. Several of these samples were submitted
to McCrone Associates for examination and identification. Photomicrographs of
various samples are shown in Figures 11, 12, and 13. It was concluded that the
source of engine exhaust particulates could not be definitely identified with the
resources available in this study.
17
-------
micr°graphs (18.000X) of particulates emitted from
Figure 11« Electron engine; idling (top); racing (bottom). (By
an automou1'
xAcCrone Associates.)
Walter C. ^ "
18
-------
Figure 12. Electron micrographs (18.000X) of particulates emitted from
a diesel engine; idling (top); racing (bottom). (By Walter C.
McCrone Associates.)
19
-------
Figure 13.
Electron rnicr°ijrapl>8 U8,0OOX) of particulates emitted from
a jet engine. ^ y w^lter <3. McCrone Associates.)
20
-------
VISIBLE POLLUTION FROM JET AIRCRAFT TAKEOFFS AT JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
The 12-picture sequence shown in Figure 14 illustrates typical visible pol-
lution emissions during takeoff from an aircraft powered by turbofan jet engines.
After takeoff and at the beginning of the climbout stage (an altitude of about 500
feet) the smoke trail decreases markedly, but is still perceptible to the naked
eye. In comparison, the 12-picture sequence in Figure 15 illustrates typical
pollution emissions from an aircraft powered by turbojet engines with water in-
jection (used for additional thrust on takeoff from a standing start to an altitude
of approximately 500 feet). The smoke cloud behind the four-engine aircraft is
much more dense and obliterates the horizon behind the aircraft. As the aircraft
traverses the runway, the buildings opposite the runway are lost from sight as one
looks perpendicular to the moving smoke plume. A dense smoke cloud persists near
the ground for about 2 minutes after the starting of takeoff (last picture in this
sequence).
GASEOUS POLLUTANTS
Total Hydrocarbons
Total atmospheric hydrocarbon concentrations were measured continuously with
an automatic monitoring flame-ionization hydrocarbon analyzer and the data were
integrated and reported on an hourly basis. The analyzer was located about three
blocks off the northwest corner of airport property and one block south of station
5 in South Ozone Park (Figure 1). Hourly average hydrocarbon concentrations
ranged from 2 to 20 ppm, (Appendix, Table A6). The minimum amount detectable by
this method was 2 ppm. The arithmetic and geometric means were 3.4 and 2.9 ppm,
respectively. The cumulative percent frequency distribution of hydrocarbon con-
centrations is given in Figure 16. Greatest average concentrations usually
occurred during calms and with prevailing winds from the west and southwest (Figure
17), and during the hours between 0300 and 0600 and between 2000 and 2400 (Figure
18). Hydrocarbon concentrations varied inversely with wind speed and, in general,
varied directly with soiling index values, except that hydrocarbon concentrations
were relatively higher than soiling index values during the evening and lower
than soiling index values during the morning. The time of occurrence of the
evening maximum hydrocarbon concentrations is coincident with periods of the
greatest number of jet aircraft operations (Figures 3 and 4). To determine if the
hydrocarbon concentrations measured from September 24 to October 24, 1964, at
station II during the hours of 2000 to 2300 were influenced mainly by aircraft
21
-------
Figure 14. Takeoff and climbout sequence of a turbofan jet engine.
22
-------
Figure 14 (continued). Takeoff and climbout sequence of a turbofan jet
engine.
23
-------
Figure 15. Takeoff and climbout sequence of a turbojet engine with water
injection.
24
-------
Figure 15 (continued). Takeoff and climbout sequence of a turbojet engine
with water injection. (Final picture shows persis-
tence of smoke cloud along runway.)
-------
operations, as indicated above, the a.erase hydrocarbon concentration ueasured
during these hours »hen the «ind direction »as east to south-south.est (!>0°.200°)
. „ hvtlrocarbon concentration for all wind conditions
was compared to the average hydrocrti
, rp,,. ovoraee and maximum hydrocarbon concentrations
during these same hours. lhe avei^s^
j? 1 Hr-prtions of east to south-southwest were 3.8 ppm
during 16 occurrences of wind direction
i un nverape and maximum hydrocarbon concentrations for
and 6.0 ppm, respectively. The aveia;,
c-ime hours with all wind directions were 4.4 ppir and
124 observations during these same nuu t-t
13 ppm, respectively.
. , ¦ -,,-r-hr.n concentration at station :! when winds were
T.ie average total hydrocarbon on ^ ^
blowint' fro., the airport east to s„uth-soutl»c.,t (SO -200 ) and toward the sampline
site indicated that airport and community pollution sources were equally responsi-
ble for hydrocarbon pollution at this site.
100
90
80 •
70
60 ¦
50 •
i 30 \
Z
O
i—r
~r r
0 01
luflNlMUM
DETECTABLE
concentration-
T-T"
~i—r
-1 I I i i L
,05 .1 0.2 0 9 1 2
J-
J-
-L-J 1 I L
2 0 30 4 0 50 6 0 70 60
J L
I I
98 99
99 8 .»
FREQUENCY of occurrence,*/.
Figure 16. Cumulative frequency distribution of total hydrocarbon
concentrations.
26
-------
75
STATION H
(overoge 3.4 ppm)
12 3 4
CONCENTRATION, ppm
Figure 17. Variation of average hydrocarbon concentration with
wind direction. (Numbers at end of direction radials
refer to number of 1-hr samples.)
0000 0200 0400 0600 0600 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
HOUR OF DAY
Figure 18. Average diurnal variation of total atmospheric
hydrocarbons.
27
-------
ODOR SURVLiY
A survey was conducted for 10 Jays Irom October .> through and October
11) through 23, 1964, to determine the imijor types of odors in t!ie area, particularly
those that can be attributed to jet aircraft exhaust. An untrained odor-observer
corps was used consisting of about 100 junior-high-school seventh and eighth grade
science students that resided in the study area. Sensitivity tests were adminis-
tered to the students by means of the "triangle' test using odorant solutions of
vanillin, methyl salicylate, and butyric acid. All students tested were found
acceptable as observers. Students were instructed in the manner of making odor
observations, and observations were made three times daily at 0700, 1600 and 200G
hours. Observers noted the strength of the odor, if observed, and described the
odor in their own words on a data form provided (Appendix, Figure Al), jfoe data
subsequently were punched onto cards and analyzed by use of a card sorter.
The number, type, and location of odor observations are given in Table 5.
The location and boundaries of each zone are shown in Figure 19. All communities
surveyed are within 3 miles of the airport premises. The greatest percentage of
positive odor responses occurred in the Rosedale area (Zone 3) followed by South
Ozone Park (Zone 4). No odors were described by the students as jet exhaust smoke
or odor. To determine whether odors described as gasoline and diesel engine
exhaust, or oily or fuel odor could have possibly originated at the airport, these
observations were compared with wind direction (Table 6).
Six of these observations were made at a time when odor originating at the
airport could have been carried by wind to the observer, and 20 of these obser-
vations were made when odors from the airport were being carried away from the
observer. These data indicate that gasoline and diesel exhaust, and oily or fuel
odors cannot be specifically related to jet aircraft emissions, and that sources
other than the airport are the main contributors.
For the 10 days of the survey, the prevailing wind direction during the
hours of odor observations had a northerly component (Table 7), which would tend
to disperse pollution originating at the airport away from the mainland.
During one-third the hours of odor observations, however, meteorological
conditions were conducive to transport of odors from the airport to the areas where
odor observations were being made; this is indicated by the southerly component in
wind direction. The relationship of odor response to hour of observation is shown
in Table 8. The number of positive odor responses did not vary significantly with
hour of observation.
28
-------
Able 5. NUMBBi, TYPE, AND LOCATION OF ODOR 0B8HWATI0N8
"total observations by zones
1
2
3
If
Dotal number of observations . .
Total number of positive observations
Percentage of positive observations®
238
62
26.1
260
65
25.0
335
llf6
U3.6
198
61
30.8
1. Chemical odors (including chemical, sulfurous,
soap or detergent, refinery, medicinal, vanilla
or coumarln, bleach or chlorine, aamonla, other)
1
3
1
2
Percentage of positive observations*1
1.6
k.6
0.68
3-3
2. Pood processing odors (including coffee
roasting, bakery, brewery, restaurant, grain,
smoking fish, other, unknown)
1
1
1
1
Percentage of positive observations'1
1.6
1.5
0.68
1.6
3. Canbustlon odors Including the following: . .
10
36
46
22
Gasoline and dlesel engine exhaust
Coke-oven and coal gas odors (steel mills)
Maladjusted heating systems
Coal smoke
Sksokey
Other
Unknown
Jet exhaust smoke or odor
0
2
0
6
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
13
It
15
0
11
0
2
1
23
0
9
0
5
6
0
0
8
3
0
0
Percentage of positive observations*1
16.1
55.4
31.5
36.1
4. General Industrial odors (including asphalt,
plastics, solvents, fertilizer plants, paint
and related Industries, oily, fuel odor, other,
unknown)
11
2
0
e
Percentage of positive observations'5
17.7
3.1
0
13.1
5. Animal odors (including rendering, stock yards,
poultry, fish, organic fertilizer, meat
processing plant, other, unknown)
0
1
3
7
Percentage of positive observations'3
0
1.5
2.1
U.5
6. Odors frcm combustible waste (including open
dump fires, city incinerators burning garbage,
hate incinerators, backyard trash fires and
wood smoke, burning rubber, other, unknown)
14
5
14
6
Percentage of positive observations*1
23.6
7.7
9.6
9.8
7. Decomposition odors (including sewage,
non-burning garbage, other, unknown)
2
1
1
9
Percentage of positive observations'3
3.2
1-5
0.68
lJt.fi
8. Vegetation odors (including general, freshly cut
wood, flowers and/or flowering shrubs, marshland
odor, fresh fruit odors, plowed or excavated soil)
22
11
14
Percentage of positive observations'3
35-5
16.9
9.6
6.6
9. Miscellaneous odors (including general, foul -
not specified, putrid - source not specified,
not pleasant, smog, clean or fresh, ocean smell,
dust, tobacco)
1
5
66
2
Percentage of positive observations'5
1.6
7.7
45.2
3.3 |
* Batal iMBbar of •positive Observations x 100
Total mmber of observations
^ Nanber of odar types observed ^ loc
Total number of positive observations
29
-------
o
PERCENT OP TOTAL POSITIVE ODOR RESPONSES
ZONE 1, 16%
¦¦¦¦¦ ZONE 1, 55%
* # ZONES 3 AND 4, 31-36%
Figure 19. Distribution of combustion odors in the vicinity of John F. Kennedy
Airport, October 5-9 and 19-23, 1964.
-------
liable 6. COMPARISON OF CHTDU3 COHEBSTIOS ABED IHDOBTBIAL imnns aSD WISD DIRaCTIO*
Date,
October 196k
Tine
Zone
Wind direction
tfrad speed,
mpt
^rpe of odor
Upwind (u) or
doamliid (D)
of airport
5
or 00
1
I
10
(HB*
V
5
2000
1
an
K
(SB
V
5
1600
2
*
5
ODB
V
5
2000
2
an
k
OK
V
6
crroo
3
a
7
cam
V
6
1600
1
s
6
Oily
D
7
1600
3
a
if
GDB
V
7
2000
3
a
7
am
U
7
0700
4
an
14
GDB
U
8
crroo
1
ME
XL
Oily
U
8
1600
3
8SB
6
GDB
V
8
2000
3
SB
6
am
V
8
crroo
If
an
11
GDB
u
8
2000
4
SB
6
Fuel
D
19
crroo
V
2
QDB
U
19
crroo
W
2
GDB
D
20
or oo
if
HV
5
QDB
U
21
0700
1
aw
5
Oily
V
21
crroo
If
aw
5
Fuel
V
21
1600
3
ssw
11
QDB
D
22
crroo
l
ssw
9
Oily
U
22
1600
l
aw
10
Oily
U
22
1600
if
aw
10
ODB
0
22
crroo
3
ssw
5
ODE
D
23
crroo
3
aaw
7
ODB
U
a Gasoline and dlesel exhaust.
The results of the odor survey indicate that pollution due to odor from
combustion and other sources is a problem; however, in no instance did the observer
associate the emissions from jet aircraft with any of the odors observed. No jet
exhaust odors were detected by members of the technical study staff while working
and traveling in the communities around the airport during the period that air
quality measurements were being made,
The possibility that emissions from jet aircraft do create an odor problem
should not, however, be discounted. Odors from this source may be apparent during
other seasons of the year or during more adverse meteorological conditions. Further
investigations should be considered.
31
-------
Bable 7- METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS AT STATION M DURING ODOR SURVEY
Ebte,
Oct 196^
Hour of observation
0700
1600
iooo
Wind direction
and speed,
Wind direction
and speed
Wind direction
and speed .nmh
5
N,10
N,5
NNE,U
6
N, 7
S ,6
C
7
NNE,l4
N,U
N,7
8
NNEjll
SSE,6
SB,6
9
C
S,12
S,9
19
V,2
NW,12
NW,9
20
NW,5
NNE,8
nne, 7
21
NW,5
SSW,11
SW,20
22
SSW,5
NW,9
NW,lo
23
NNW,7
NW,15
NNW,H
Table 8 . POSITIVE ODOR RESPONSES BY HOUR OP OBSERVATION
Observations
Hour
0700 f 1600
2000 ™
Total observations
k26
U22
hso
Positive observations
109
111
95
Percentage positive
observations
25.6
26.3
22.6
DAYS OF HIGH AIR POLLUTION
Diurnal variations of soiling index values, wind speed, and total atmos-
pheric hydrocarbons from October I4 through 26 are compared to the average diurnal
variations for the study period (Figures 2 and 18). From October 14 through 16,
the highest 2-hour soiling index values were about twice as great as the highest
2-hour values for the study as a whole (Figure 2); the highest hourly hydrocarbon
concentrations were also about twice as great (Figure 18). Average concentrations
were not significantly greater than the study average, which indicates there were
32
-------
only a few hours of accumulation of pollution. Wind speeds were generally lower;
the average wind speed was 6.8 mph compared to a study average of 9.8. The average
suspended particulate concentration of all samples collected during the study peri-
od was 96 ug/m'; the October 14 through 16 average concentration was 173. The
prevailing wind direction during the latter period was southwest compared to a
prevailing wind direction of north for the study period. Pollution roses for
soiling index and hydrocarbon concentration (Figures 20 and 21) were similar to
STATION I
(overage 1.6 cohs)
samples
~~ 4
STATION 4
(average I.I cohs)
STATION 5
(overage 2.0 cohs ;
0.5 I 0 15 2.0 2.5
VALUE, cohs/IOOO ft
ft
Figure 20. Variation in soiling index values with wind direction for October
14-16, inclusive. (Numbers at end of direction radials refer to
number of 2-hr samples.)
33
-------
those obtained for the entire study (Figures 6 and 17) except that for October 14
through 16 a higher soiling index -as measured at each wind direction, and greater-
than-average hydrocarbon concentrations »ere measured at all »ind direction, except
north The relatively high suspended particulate concentrations measured during
adverse meteorological conditions indicate that particulate emissions are ex-
cessive in the areas of the sampling sites.
METEOROLOGICAL considerations
The nearby ocean has considerable and varying effects on the New York
metropolitan area, which are manifested in heating requirements (degree-days), wind
speed, and prevailing wind direction. A degree-day is a measure of the departure
of the mean daily temperature from 65°F. For example, if the average daily
temperature for a given day is 50°F, the number of degree-days for this day is 65°F-
50°F or 15. In Table 9, meteorological data for John F, Kennedy International
Airport are compared with data for Newark Airport in New Jersey, La Guardia Field,
and Central Park in New York City. Heating requirements are greatest at J. F.
Kennedy International Airport and least at La Guardia Field. Wind speed is con-
sistently highest at La Guardia Field, while Central Park, surrounded by buildings
STATION H
(average 5.0 ppm)
.5 3.5 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 10.5
CONCENTRATION, ppm
Figure 21. Variation of average hydrocarbon concentration
with wind direction, October 14-16, inclusive.
(Numbers at end of direction radials refer to
number of 1-hr samples.)
34
-------
Table 9. COMPARATIVE MONTHLY AVERAGE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
Meteorological
parameter
Location
Length of
record, yr
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Degree days
(1)
30
1029
935
815
480
167
12
0
0
36
248
564
933
(2)
30
973
879
750
4l4
124
6
0
0
27
223
526
887
(3)
30
986
885
760
408
118
9
0
0
30
233
540
902
00
30
1014
904
760
411
127
9
0
0
39
276
588
939
Precipitation,
(1)
30
3.23
2.93
4.15
3.48
3.67
3.35
4.04
4.97
4.16
3.21
3.51
3-23
inches 1
(2)
30
3.31
3.09
4.23
3.57
3-58
3.38
3.71
5.08
3.92
3-37
3-59
3.59
(3)
30
3.31
2.84
4.01
3.43
3.67
3-31
3.70
1.44
3.87
3.14
3-39
3.26
00
30
3-33
2.80
4.09
3-51
3.65
3.44
3.67
4.43
3.76
3-11
3.37
3.22
Snowfall,
(1)
6
7-3
8.8
5.6
T
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
7.6
inches
(2)
19
6.6
8.5
5-9
1.0
T
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.6
8.0
(3)
95
7.6
8.5
5-4
1.0
T
0
0
0
0
T
1.0
6.2
00
22
6.8
7.4
5-6
0.7
T
0
0
0
0
T
0.5
8.7
Wind speed
(1)
6
13.4
14.1
13.9
13.3
11.6
11.0
10.9
10.3
11.1
11.1
12.2
12.4
mph
(2)
15
14.7
14.6
15.3
13.7
11.9
11.0
10.5
10.4
11.3
12.3
13.3
14.3
(3)
44
11.1
11.1
11.3
10.8
9.0
8.3
7.8
7.8
8.3
9.2
10.2
10.5
00
20
11.1
11.4
12.1
11.3
9.9
9.2
8.7
8.4
8.8
9.3
10.1
10.6
Prevailing wind
(1)
Record too short at
present
site
direction
(2)
14
WNW
WNW
NW
NW
NE
S
S
S
S
SW
WNW
WNW
(3)
44
NW
NW
NW
NW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
NW
NW
00
22
NE
NW
NW
WNW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
Sky cover, day-
(1)
6
6.1
6.5
5.9
6.3
6.0
6.1
6.1
6.0
5.2
5.1
6.0
5-9
light hours,
(2)
15
6.6
6.5
6.2
6.4
6.4
5.9
5-9
5.9
5.6
5.3
6.2
6.3
tenths
(3)
39
6.1
5-8
5.8
5.9
5.8
5-7
5-5
5.5
5.2
5.6
5.8
5.9
0*)
18
6.5
6.4
6.1
6.5
6.5
6.0
6.1
6.0
5.5
5.3
6.1
6.1
Heavy fog, No.
(1)
6
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
3
of days
(2)
15
3
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
< 1
1
1
1
(3)
Not recorded
00
22
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
(1) John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York, N.Y,
(2) LaGuardia Field, Mev York, N.Y.
(3) Central Park, New York, N.Y.
(4) Newark Airport, Newark, N.J.
-------
of many sizes and shapes, shows the lowest. The record at J, F. Kennedy Inter-
national Airport for the present exposure of instruments was too short to establish
a prevailing wind direction. At the three other locations, prevailing wind di-
rections changed with the seasons and only in March and October did they agree;
disagreement ranged from 45° to as high as 180 •
Wind Direction
When an attempt is made to relate ambient pollution levels to specific
sources, wind direction data are of the utmost importance; however, because of the
channeling effects of streets and tall buildings in metropolitan areas, wind di-
rection at street level is perhaps the most diffic"1* factor to evaluate. Pre-
vailing directions obtained by measurement in a nearby well-exposed location give
an indication of general air movement over the area, but even within a few miles
marked differences occur (Table 9). Wind roses (Figures 22 and 23) representing
average seasonal data at John F. Kennedy Airport over a 5-year period, 1954-1958,
for 0300 EST and 1500 EST illustrate the seasonal and diurnal variation in wind
direction. The wind roses for the fall season (September, October, November) show
a definite sea-breeze effect, though less pronounced than during summer. Winds
from the east-southeast, southeast, and south-southeast are about five times as
frequent in the afternoon as during the early morning, while winds from the north,
north-northeast, and northeast are two to three times as frequent in the early
morning as during the afternoon. Other directions show less diurnal variation in
frequency and are more likely the result of movement of large scale meteorological
systems through the area. The hours of 0300 and 1500 were selected to show the
maximum diurnal change in wind direction. Wind roses for two 3-hour periods during
the study period (Figures 24 and 25) were compared with the average wind rose for
the fall season (Figure 26).
The method of reporting wind direction was changed January 1, 1964, from 16
compass directions to tens of degrees in azimuth. In adjusting the study data to
a 16-point rose some bias is introduced favoring the cardinal directions (north ,
east, south, west). In addition, each wind rose for the study period (Figures 24
and 25) includes data for a 3-hour period instead of the single hour used in the
average wind roses. With these points in mind, it is apparent that northerly winds
were much in excess of average frequency for both times of day, and the total
absence of winds from the east-southeast through south in the early morning is
quite noticeable. In the afternoon, south winds were in excess of average frequen-
cy, although if the southerly directions (south-southeast, south, and south-south-
west) are considered as a group a deficiency in frequency is again noted. Northwest
36
-------
FALL WINTER
Figure 22. Seasonal wind direction frequency distribution for 5 years,
1954-1958, at 0300 hours at John F. Kennedy Airport.
37
-------
Figure 23. Seasonal wind direction frequency distribution for 5 years,
1954-1958, at 1500 hours at John F. Kennedy Airport.
38
-------
winds in the afternoon were much in excess of average frequency, and without benefit
of any bias in adjusting data.
At the sampling sites to the northwest and north of the John F. Kennedy
International Airport (stations 4, 5, and H) it is evident that fewer than normal
samples were obtained of air moving across the airport (none at all during early
morning hours), and that a greater-than-normal number of samples were obtained of
air moving across the city. At the site southeast of the airport (stations 1, 2,
and 6), a near normal number of samples were obtained of air moving across the
airport at all hours, and an excessive number of samples of air moving from the
north near the eastern boundary of the airport. For all sites, the dearth of
southeasterly winds creates a gap in the sampling data.
Figure 24. Wind direction frequency distribution, September 24 to
October 24, inclusive, from 0100 to 0400 hours at John
F. Kennedy Airport.
39
-------
Figure 25. Wind direction frequency distribution,
September 24 to October 24, inclusive,
from 1300 to 1600 hours at John F.
Kennedy Airport.
Stability
Hosier10 showed a low-level inversion frequency of 24 percent at 1900 EST
and 30 percent at 0700 EST during the fall season, with such low-level inversions
present 26 percent of the time during that season. Radiosonde observations during
this study showed such inversion present 16 percent of the time at 1900 EST and 28
percent of the time at 0700 EST, This indicates a significant variation from normal
conditions for the evening hours, with fewer inversions and consequently better
dispersion conditions than normal, when this factor is considered alone.
Wind Speed
In urban areas where there are many sources of pollution, generally the lower
the wind speed the gTeater the concentration of pollution. In most cities this
effect is most pronounced at low wind speed (7 mph or less). High winds are not
40
-------
always beneficial, however, since local incidence of high pollution can occur from
aerodynamic downwash of stack effluents with high winds. High winds can also pick
up particulates from streets and bare ground, such as wide expanses of airports or
areas cleared for new construction or in the process of urban renewal, as well as
from cultivated fields in rural areas.
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 1213 14
PERCENT
Figure 26. Average wind rose for fall season
at John F. Kennedy Airport.
Average wind speed for the sampling period September 24 through October 24,
1964, at John F, Kennedy Airport was 9.8 mph. The 6-year average for this Airport
for both September and October is 11.1 mph. The average speed observed was thus
slightly less than normal. Calm occurred 22 hours, or 3 percent of the tine. There
were 4 days with 12 or more hours of wind less than 7 mph, 1 of them with 17 hours
(October 14), and on October 13-14 there were 14 consecutive hours of wind less
than 7 mph (Table 10).
41
-------
Table 10. WIND SPEED DATA FOR J. F. KENNEDY AIRPORT, SEPT. 24 - OCT. 24, 1964
Sept.
Oct.
Date
26
30
2
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
16
20
Avg. speed,
mph
9.0
6.9
6.0
4.4
10.1
6.8
6.4
7.1
6.3
5.8
7.0
7.0
Hours less
than 7 mph
11
10
12
16
6
8
11
8
13
17
11
10
Hours of calm
1
1
1
3
1
0
5
4
3
2
1
0
Stagnation
Extended periods of low wind speeds, usually associated with high stability,
14
have been studied by Korshover. He found that in a 21-year period, 1936-1956, the
New York City area experienced about 12 periods of stagnation lasting 4 or more
days during the months of September and October, which would give an expected
frequency of three in 10 years for the 31-day period of the study. Such stagnant
periods are favorable for the accumulation of air pollution, and forecasts are made
by the Weather Bureau Research Station at the Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering
Center of the U. S. Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio, when poor dispersion
conditions are expected to persist over a fairly large area for at least 36 hours.
These forecasts are referred to as "high air pollution potential advisories" and
are transmitted to local U. S. Weather Bureau offices by teletype. There were no
such advisories issued for the New York City area during the study period. Since
such advisories are issued only when a large area is affected, their lack does not
discount the local occurrence of conditions favorable to accumulation of air pol-
lution. Examination of surface and radiosonde observation data from the John F.
Kennedy International Airport indicated that a poor dispersion condition did occur
during the study period, on October 12th through the 16th. On October 12th, 0700
EST, radiosonde observation showed a surface-based inversion to be present. This
surface-based inversion appeared in every radiosonde observation through 0700 EST
on the 17th except at 1900 EST on the 13th and 0700 EST on the 14th when it was
replaced by a stable layer at the surface in one case and an inversion based at
around 3000 feet in the other. Low wind speeds and persistent smoke characterized
this period.
Temperature
The principal effect of temperature on air pollution is in regard to space
heating. Heating requirements are measured in degree-days by heating engineers.
Normal monthly degree-days are shown in Table 9. The daily variation in heating
42
-------
requirements at John F. Kennedy Airport during this study is presented in Figure
27. The study period was one of rapidly changing heating requirements; an excess
of 103 degree-days occurred, about 72 percent above normal for this period.
DATE
Figure 27. Comparison of normal daily heating requirements and those
during the study period at John F. Kennedy Airport.
Precipitation
Precipitation is of interest because it partially washes out or, in the case
of snow, partially scours out pollution. It also reduces dust when the ground
becomes wet or snow covered.
A total of 3.63 inches of precipitation was measured at John F. Kennedy
International Airport during the sampling period. This was slightly above normal
for the period. In Central Park, precipitation was 2.90 inches or about 0.65 inches
less than normal.
Table 11. DATES AND AMOUNTS OF PRECIPITATION OF 0.01 INCH OR MORE AT J. F.
KENNEDY AIRPORT, SEPT. 24 - OCT. 24, 1964
September
October
Date
28 29
30
2 3
17
IS
20
21
Amount, in.
0.1S 1.37
0.08
0.59 0.29
0.52
0.12
0.40
0.11
There were 9 days with measurable rainfall (0.01 inch or more) at both
Central Park and John F. Kennedy International Airport (Table 11) during the 31-day
period of the study. This agrees with the normal expectancy of 9 days each in
September and October.
Little or no snowfall was expected during the study period, and none was
recorded.
43
-------
Sunshine
Sunshine is a factor in photochemical-smog production; atmospheric mixing
may be increased when the ground is sufficiently heated by solar radiation to cause
convective currents.
The solar radiation measurements nearest to John F. Kennedy International
Airport are made at Central Park, New York. Normally the Central Park station
measures 63 percent of possible sunshine in September and 61 percent in October.
Daytime cloudiness provides a means of comparing sunshine duration, and such data
are available for both Central Park and John F. Kennedy International Airport. In
Central Park daytime cloudiness averages 52 percent of sky coverage in September,
and 51 percent in October. At John F. Kennedy International Airport the corre-
sponding figures are the same, indicating a similar lower percent of possible
sunshine. The daytime cloud cover recorded at the airport during the study period
averaged 54 percent, indicating that conditions were nearly normal and that
sunshine duration was about normal or slightly below.
Visibility
On October 15, 15, and 16, visibility at the John F. Kennedy Airport was
reduced to 4 miles or less, A relative humidity of 56 percent or less indicated
that fog was not a factor. Fog was not recorded for any hours included in Table 12,
although in some cases high relative humidity may have contributed to the visibility
reduction due to condensation on smoke or haze particles. In the Long Island area,
as in most urban areas, restrictions to visibility with relative humidities of less
than 70 percent would be attributed to air pollution.
Table 12. OCCURRENCE OF REDUCTION IN VISIBILITY BY SMOKE, OR SMOKE AND HAZE FOR
MORE THAN 3 HOURS AT J. F. KENNEDY AIRPORT, SEPT. 24 - OCT. 24, 1964
Date
September
30
October
12 13
14
15
16
19
Duration,
No. of hr.
4
5 14
6
12
11
11
An examination of the particular hours when visibility was reduced by smoke
showed that the wind speed was almost invariably less than 10 miles per hour.
Conclusion
No outstanding or unexpected meteorological conditions apparently occurred
during the sampling period (Appendix, Tables A-7 through A-10). The factors that
would have significantly affected air pollution concentrations were sufficiently
near normal to indicate approximately average conditions. The two most important
44
GPO 826-792—7
-------
factors in dispersion, stability and wind speed, appear to have offset each other
with fewer-than-normal inversions and less-than-normal wind speed.
Atmospheric stagnation leading to buildup of higher pollution concentrations
are expected in the fall months, The period October 12 through 16, when visibility
was frequently reduced by smoke, is an example of such buildup. With this possible
exception, results for the sampling period cannot be used to infer concentrations
of air pollution that might occur under more adverse meteorological conditions.
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
A summary of aircraft operations at major airports in the United States in
1962 and 1963 relative to total operations, percentage of jet aircraft operations,
and use of water injection during takeoff is shown in Table 13. In 1964, the
percentage of jet aircraft operations of the total operations at John F. Kennedy
Airport increased to about 64 percent (184,000 jet operations out of 289,000 total
commercial operations) and the percentage of water-assisted jet departures of the
total jet departures decreased to about 8 percent. This downward trend in the
percentage q£ water-injection jet aircraft operations to total jet traffic is
expected to continue because of the addition of fanjet-powered aircraft to com-
mercial jet fleets. In 1964, the total number of jet departures was about 93,000,
4
of which about 7,400 were water assisted. In 1963, Chicago's O'Hare Airport was
the busiest and John F. Kennedy Airport had the greatest amount of jet traffic.
The most frequently used runways at J. F. Kennedy Airport are the east - west
runways (31L and 31R) (Table 14 and Figure 1). These runways are used unless the
wind speed is greater than 17 miles per hour with a wind direction of north or
south. North - south runways are used in this case (runways 4R and 4L). Generally,
takeoffs are performed on runway 31L from east to west and upon reaching 500 feet
altitude the aircraft executes a 90-degree turn to the south and proceeds over
Jamaica Bay. Takeoffs are therefore carried out mainly over the least populated
areas, primarily because of the noise levels associated with jet aircraft operations.
Hourly variation in the total number of flights is shown in Figure 5. These
data were obtained on 7 consecutive days from September 24 to September 30, 1964.
Greatest number of flights occurred from 1400 to 2300. Hourly diurnal variation
in jet departures and arrivals for 7 consecutive days between September 24 to
October 30, 1964, inclusive, are shown in Figures 3 and 4. The greatest numbers of
jet departures occur from 0800 to 1100 and from 1500 to 2300. The greatest numbers
of arrivals occur from 1400 to 2300.
45
-------
Ikble 13. TMRHt AllKBAFT 07SMTK3M AX MAJOR AIRPORTS SI "¦¦"¦'¦¦'T- UMiTB) 8TATB3 IX 1962 and 1963*
Total 01
(departures
•rations
ind arrivals)
Total Jet operations
(departures and arrivals)
Total Jet
Jet departures
(vmter Injection)
Total prop
Percent vater injec-^
Percent Jet air-
craft 0 Deration#
1963
1365
1*5
1962
1*3
196S "
MM
1962
L 1962
19b!
19M
1962
1963
Atlanta
1*3,586
160,730
18,586
31,655
9.376
is3»
2,407
#61
8.W
B.<#
13.1
».t
Baltlaore
78,106
52,322
83,960
13,3*0
11,960
6,670
3,866
1,886
48,148
38,98!
32.27
28.27
33-2
25-5
Boston
106,056
85,926
16,398
21,382
8,196
10,691
1,129
2,275
91,664
64,5W
13.77
17.64
15.2
24.9
Chicago
291,952
330,080
118,960
120,048
56,480
60,024
18,803
18,477
178,998
209,97!
33-89
30.78
38.7
36.4
Detroit
91,50k
103,362
18,642
22,180
9,321
11,090
4,066
3,152
72,868
81,18:
"•3.83
26.42
30.4
21.5
Houston
53,956
60,386
19,002
33,980
9,501
16,990
576
24
32,564
26,406
6.0
0.1
35.0
56.0
Los Angeles
133,969
155,726
85,612
94,994
42,806
47,497
17,581
19,014
48,084
60,73S
41.07
40.03
64.0
61.0
Hev York, JK
297,065
31M89
106,766
163,39^
53,383
81,697
6,621
9,504
190,319
151,095
12.0
11.6
36.0
52.0
Philadelphia
99,600
109,704
15.U22
20,960
7,711
10,480
2,326
2,718
84,378
88,744
30.16
85-93
15.5
19.1
Pittsburgh
88,524
93,252
11,488
16,972
5,744
8,486
1,810
2A55
77,036
76,28c
31.51
88.93
13.0
18.2
3t. Louis
cc
R
CO
73,586
14,268
18,616
7,13*
9,306
*,352
6,503
67,690
53,97(
61.00
69.86
17.4
25.6
San Francisco
106,058
114,292
U9,9>»0
58,576
24,970
89,288
9,482
8,626
56,118
55,71S
37.97
29.*5
47.1
51.3
a Airport activity statistics of certificated route air carriers, Federal Aviation Agency and Civil Aeronautics Board.
b Jet (vater injection) departures „ 1(__
Total Jet departures
C Total Jet operations _ ,-y.
Total aircraft operations
-------
Table ik. ANALYSIS OF RUNWAY UTILIZATION AT JOHN F. KEHNEDY AIRPORT
Year
Operations
Total operations
all runways
Most frequently
used runways
Percentage
utilization
1961
T&keoffs
Landings
135 Aoo
135,768
31 L
1* R
1*9.2
26.0
1962
Takeoffs
Landings
11*8,101
11*8,300
31 L
1+ R
1*6.6
28.1
1963
Tfekeoffs
Landings
157,3^0
157,1^9
31 L
1* R
1*7.2
23.6
196U
(Jan-July)
Takeoffs
Landings
97, lM*
97,536
31 L
31 R
1*8.7
25.8
COMPLAINT RECORDS AND OPINIONS FROM NEW YORK CITY AND OTHER COMMUNITIES
A request for information about the magnitude of the air pollution problem
that could be attributed to jet aircraft operations was directed to air pollution
control officers in 11 major cities in the continental United States. A summary of
complaint records from those that reported and a description of land use in the
vicinity ofthe airports are summarized in Table 15. These records indicate that
the pollution problem due to aircraft operations is nominal. All air pollution
authorities that reported agreed that the smoke trails produced by jet aircraft
were aesthetically objectionable.
Since April 1962, all public complaints attributed to aircraft operations
received by the New York City Department of Air Pollution Control have been referred
to the Air Pollution Program Director, Region II, Public Health Service. Local
authorities in New York believe that regulation of emissions from aircraft is a
responsibility of the Federal Government and that they have no jurisdiction in the
matter. A relatively small number of complaints are on record (Table 16).
POLLUTION EMISSIONS RESULTING FROM COMBUSTION
Emission factors for aircraft, automobiles, domestic fuel combustion, power
plants, and incinerators for several pollutants are given in Tables 17 and 18. The
only available data on pollution emissions from jet aircraft that are based on source
sampling were obtained by the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District.7
The tests were performed on jet engines designed for water-assisted takeoffs. The
emission factors given for jet aircraft without water injection engines were derived
47
-------
Table 15. SUM4AKX OF COMPLUHT RECORDS AHD.IAHD USE HEAR AIRPORTS IH
SOME MAJOR CITIES (1962-1964)
City and airport
Distance from
airport, miles
Land use
Number and type
of complaint
San Francisco
(International)
0-1
1-2
Light industrial, commercial
Light industrial, commercial,
sparse residential
1 in 1964. Smoke.
None.
2-3
Sparse residential
1 in 196U. Settled
material.
Boston, (Logan
International)
0-1
Dense residential, commercial,
light and heavy industrial
2 in I96U. Odors
and smoke.
1-2
Dense residential, commercial,
light and heavy Industrial
None
2-3
Dense residential, comnercial,
light and heavy industrial
None
Los Angeles
(International)
0-1
Dense residential, commercial,
light and heavy Industrial
Hone
1-2
Dense residential, commercial,
light industrial
¦one
2-3
Hone
Detroit
(Metropolitan)
0-1
1-2
Sparse residential
Sparse residential, light
industrial
None
None
2-3
Sparse residential, com-
mercial
None
Detroit
(Municipal)
0-1
750 residential, dense
10ke
Pittsburgh
(AUagbany Cty)
0-1
1-8
2-3
Seal-rural
Sparse residential
Hone
Hon*
Hone
48
-------
Tkblsl6 . RECORD OF HJBUC COMPIAINT6 ATTRIBUTED TO AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT J. F. KENNEDY AIRPORT, H. Y.
1962-1964
Distance tram
alroort. miles
Number sad type of complaints
land UH
1962
1963
196*
within 1
Spars* residential,
cansrclal and
light residential
1 oil
2 soot
1 kerosene odor
and discoloration
of hone
Total - 4
1 oil vapor and flows
froa fuel depot
1 saoke
1 kerosene fuses snd
odor
Total - 3
1 kerosene odors
1 saoke
It fuses from Jets
1 Jet exhaust
Total - 7
1-2
Dense residential
and coaawrclal
Horn
Jet exhaust fuses and
heavy black saoke
Total - 1
Saoke
Total - 1
2 - 3
Dense residential
and coneerclal
Hone
1 kerosene odor
1 saoke
1 particulate or soot
1 Jet exhaust
Total - U
Saoke
Total - 1
from the same Los Angeles data in a manner described by the San Francisco Bay Area
Air Pollution Control District. This was done by applying the emission factors
obtained during the climbout stage, when there is no water injection, to the
takeoff stage. The emission factors obtained in this manner for jet aircraft with
no water added during takeoffs is about the same as with wateT injection for alde-
hydes and hydrocarbons; it is lower for carbon monoxide and particulates and higher
for oxides of nitrogen.
The average daily jet-aircraft operations (landings or takeoffs) at the J. F.
Kennedy Airport during the study period was 468, and the average daily 4-engine
piston-aircraft operations was 231. A jet-aircraft operation consumes approximately
7
500 gallons of jet fuel and a 4-engine piston aircraft uses about 90 gallons of
12
aviation fuel. The Los Angeles report indicated that the time required by 4-
engine jet aircraft to reach an altitude of 3500 feet is 3.2 minutes. This is in
reasonable agreement with data provided by FAA on jet-aircraft operations at John
30
F. Kennedy International Airport.
Based on estimated emission factors and estimated fuel consumption, the total
daily particulate emission from aircraft operations below 3500 feet at the J. F.
Kennedy Airport, including both landing and takeoff, is 12,100 pounds. This is
approximately equivalent to particulate emissions produced by 17,200 housing units
burning coal and 190,000 housing units burning oil during an average winter-heating
degree-day (30°-day), or to the amount of particulates emitted per day by 600,000
automobiles, one 250 megawatt power plant (10% ash, 96% control), and 2 municipal
incinerators, each burning 500 tons of refuse per day. Hie daily fuel consumption
49
-------
Table XT. ESTDMXSD BGSSION MOTORS FOR AIBCRWT (BELOW 3500 RET), AUKMQBIUS, AMD DOMESTIC FUEL COMBUBTIQH
Pollutant
Jat aircraft with
wttr injection,*
lba/1000 gal
Jet aircraft without
water Injection,^
lbs/1000 gal
Piston aircraft
V engines h
lbs/1000 gal°
Automobiles,*
lbs/1000 gal
Donestlc us*
Coal,®
lbs/ton
Oas,e
Iba/allllcn coble ft
Oil,0 lk*/
1000 gal
Aldebylea
6.0
6.0
5-3
k
0.005
lag.
Carbon
64.0
56.0
2,^50
2910
50
OA
2.0
¦oooxlde
Hydrocarbon®
1^.5
15.0
-------
Table 18. ESTIMATED EMISSION FACTORS FOR POWER PLANTS AMD INCINERATORS
Power
plant8a
Incinerators*1
Pollutant
Coal-fired,
lb/ton of
coal burned
Oil-fired,
lb/1000 gal
oil burned
Gas-fired,
lb/10 ft of
gas burned
Municipal multiple
chamber,lb/torn
Flue-fed,
lb/ton
Aldehydes
0.005
0.56
1
1.1
.6
Carbon monoxide
0.5
O.OU
Negligible
0.7
na
Hydrocarbons
0.2
3.2
Negligible
l.»*
1*0
Oxides of nitrogen
20
10U
390
2.1
0.1
Particulate
l6A°
8
15
12
26
a. Reference 17.
b. Reference 18.
c. A is percent ash (assuming no emission control equipment used),
e. Mot available.
for domestic heating units is estimated by applying the following factors: for
coal-fired units, 0.0012 ton of coal per housing unit per degree-day; and for oil-
fired units, 0.18 gallon of oil per housing unit per degree-day.
During the summertime, total particulate emissions from all sources in New
18
York City are estimated to be 140 tons per day, and aircraft operations at John
F. Kennedy Airport contributed approximately 4.4 percent of this. On an average
winter-heating degree-day during the space heating season (30°-day), the estimated
quantity of particulate emissions is 335 tons per day, of which aircraft operations
at John F. Kennedy Airport contribute 1,9 percent.
Another method of comparing pollution emissions from aircraft operations
with total particulate emissions in New York City from all sources is to consider
the emissions per square mile of land area. The average particulate emission
density for the 320-square-mile area of New York City is approximately 880 pounds
per square mile during the nonheating season and approximately 2000 pounds per
o 18
square mile during the space heating season (30 -day). The particulate emission
density due to aircraft operations for the 8-square-mile area of Kennedy Inter-
national Airport is approximately 1560 pounds per square mile. On a unit area
basis, therefore, particulate emissions due to aircraft operations are approximately
1,8 times greater than the city-wide average during the summer and approximately
eight-tenths of the city-wide average during the winter. During the spring and
fall the emission density attributed to airport land use would be about the same
as the average emission density for the city.
These relationships indicate that airport land use results in about the same
pollution source strength as exists in the average land area in New York City.
GPO 826-792—6
51
-------
Bibliography
1. Appleman, H. A Note on the Effect of Aircraft Exhaust on Airport Visibility.
Bulletin American Meteorological Society, Vol. 37, No. 1, January 19S6,
pp. 19-21,
2. American Petroleum Institute. Petroleum Facts and Figures, 1963 Edition.
3. Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce Domestic Heating Fuel Used in
Certain Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas Tabulated by Census Tract -
U.S. Census of Housing-1960 issued as part of the report U.S. Census of
Population and Housing; 1960. Census Tracts Final Report iHiC ;i)«10T7 Part
1--New York City I
4. Civil Aeronautics Board and the Federal Aviation Agency. Airport Activity
Statistics of Certificated Route Air Carriers. December 1962, December 1963
and December 1964.
5. Clark, Edwin F., Director. 1963 Annual Traffic Report Metropolitan New York
Area Highway Transportation Studies Group.
6. Clodman, J. Visibility Deterioration Associated with Operations of Jet
Aircraft. Bulletin American Meteorological Society, Vol. 37, No. 7, September
1956, pp. 338-341.
7. George, Ralph E., Burlin, Ralph M. Air Pollution from Commercial Jet Aircraft
in Los Angeles County. April 1960,
8. Heller, A.N., et. al. The Odor Survey - A Tool for Air Pollution Control.
Presented at 1959 Air and Water Pollution Abatement Conference of the Manu-
facturing Chemists' Association, Inc., Washington, D.C.
9. Horstman, S.W., Wromble, R.F., Heller, A.N. Identification of Community Odor
Problems by Use of an Observer Corps. Presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of
the Air Pollution Control Association in Detroit, Michigan, June 9-13, 1963.
10. Hosier, C.R. "Low-Level Inversion Frequency in the Contiguous United States."
Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 89, No. 9, September 1961, pp. 319-339.
11. Huey, N.A., BroeTing, L.C., Gruber, C.W. Odor Measurement Techniques 11. B.A.
P,C. and H.I., Dept. of Safety, Cincinnati, Ohio, December 1959.
12. Ingram, William T., McCabe, Louis C. The Effects of Air Pollution on Airport
Visibility. Paper 1543, Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, Pro-
ceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. February 1958.
13. Johnson, H.C., Flynn, N.E. Report on Automobile, Diesel, Railraod, Aircraft,
and Ship Emissions in the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District. January
1964.
14. Korshover, J. Synoptic Climatology of Stagnating Anticyclones. Cincinnati,
Ohio, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, 1960.
53
-------
15. Manufacturing Chemists' Association, Inc. Manual P-14, Chapter 13. Odor
Measurements and Control.
16. Macaulay, R.N., Shayoson, M.IV. Effects of Fuel Properties on Liner Tempera-
tures and Carbon Deposition in the CJ 805 Combustor for Long-Life Applications
ASME Paper number 61-WA-304. Published October 1, 1962.
17. Mayer, Martin. A Compilation of Pollutant Emission Factors for Combustion
Processes, Gasoline Evaporation, and Selected Industrial Processes.
18. Mayer, Martin. New York City Emission Inventory. Public Health Service
Report (in preparation).
19. McDonald, James E. Visibility Reduction Due to Jet-Exhaust Carbon Particles.
Journal of Applied Meteorology, Vol. 1, No. 3, September 1962, pp. 391-398.
20. National Coal Association, Washington, D.C. Steam-Electric Plant Factors-1962,
An Annual Study By the Department of Economics and Transportation.
21. New York City Department of Air Pollution Control. Annual Report 1964.
22. Poppoff, I.G., Robbins, R.C., and Goettelrnan. Nuclei in the Exhaust of a Jet
Engine. Bulletin American Meteorological Society, Vol. 39, No. 3, March 1958
pp. 144-148. " '
23. Public Health Service Publication No. 978, Air Pollution Measurements of the
National Air Sampling Network, Analyses of Suspended Particulates 1957-1961.
24. Slade, D. H. Climatology of Selected Harbors, Washington, D.C. U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, Weather Bureau, 1961.
25. Smith, Walter S. Atmospheric Emissions from Fuel Oil Combustion - An Inventory
Guide. PUS Publ. No. 999-AP-2. 1963.
26. Stalker, William W. Defining the Odor Problem in a Community. AIHA Journal
Vol. 24, November-December, 1963, pp. 600-605.
27. Turk, Amos, Ph.D. Odorant Concentrations and Perceived Odor Intensities.
Consultation Report.
28. U.S. Government Printing Office Hearings Before a Special Subcommittee on Air
and Water Pollution of The Committee on Public Works United States Senate,
Eighty-Eighth Congress Second Session, Part 2, Washington, D.C., June 24, 25
30; July 1 and 2, 1964.
29. U.S. Department of Commerce Weather Bureau, 1964, Asheville, North Carolina.
Local Climatological Data with Comparative Data, 1963, New York Central Park
New York Idlewild International Airport and Newark, New Jersey.
30. Williams, Charles A., Staff Assistant to the Director, Air Traffic Service
FAA, Washington, D.C., July 21, 1965.
31. Yocoin, John E. Air Pollution from Auto Exhaust - A Comparison Between
California and Some Eastern States. Proceedings of the Fifth Technical meeting
of the New England Section of APCA held at Bloomfield, Conn., May 10, 1961.
54
-------
Appendix
TABULATION OF AIR POLLUTION
AND METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS
55
-------
TABLE A-l
JET AIRCRAFT EXWAU5T 5TUDY SEPT-0CT64 JOHN F. .600
20
• 600
.500
.400
1. 100
2.000
1.700
21
.200
.300
.700
1.300
1.200
1.800
22
.000
.600
.700
1.B00
2.100
1.000
23
1.300
1.300
1.000
2.600
1.400
1.000
24
.900
1.600
1 .500
2.200
2.600
1.600
25
1.300
.400
.900
2.000
2.800
1.600
26
l.
-------
TABLE A-l (Continued)
JET AIRCRAFT FXHftUST ST'JDy SEPT-0CT64 JO'W F. KENNEDY INTErNAT IOMAL AIRPORT
STATION 1
SOILING H'DEX, Cohs/1000 ft
LOCAL TIME
in
-J
DAY
12
14
16
1'
20
22
AVG
N(l)
MAX(2)
25
.400
.600
1 .100
• *.00
.400
1.000
.683
6
1.100
26
.500
.600
.200
.300
.300
.400
.808
12
1.400
27
.000
.100
.200
.000
.400
.000
.192
12
.500
28
.500
.300
.oOO
.700
.400
.700
.475
12
.900
29
.600
.500
.400
.900
.800
1.100
.583
12
1.100
30
.100
.700
.900
.900
1.600
2.600
.917
12
2,600
1
.300
.100
.500
.300
.300
.500
.708
12
2.400
2
.300
.500
.700
. 600
.700
.900
.508
12
,900
3
.200
.600
.100
.600
.100
.300
.*17
12
.700
4
,400
.000
.300
.900
.300
1.000
.458
12
1.000
5
.300
.200
.300
.500
.600
1.700
.458
12
1.700
6
.200
.200
.600
1.600
2.100
3.600
1.183
12
3.600
7
.600
.000
.100
.900
1.300
.900
.792
12
3.300
8
.400
.300
.100
.200
.700
.000
.575
12
1.100
9
.400
.500
.000
.700
.400
.200
1.075
12
3.300
10
.800
1.300
.600
.BOO
.600
.800
.833
12
1.300
11
.400
.300
.600
.900
2.100
2.400
.758
12
2.400
12
1.000
.800
.100
.400
.400
.500
1.567
12
4.200
13
1.500
1.100
.800
1.200
2.000
2.800
1.567
12
2.800
14
.700
1.200
1.100
1.300
1.000
.900
1.675
12
3.300
19
1.900
.900
.800
.800
.700
.500
1.675
12
4.700
16
.900
.300
.500
.700
.800
.400
1.350
12
3.400
17
.700
.200
.500
.400
.500
.400
.442
12
.700
IB
.700
.900
1.000
1.500
3.100
1.100
.925
12
3.100
19
.600
1.000
I. 000
1.100
1.600
1.700
9
4,600
20
.900
.800
1.100
.800
1.000
.200
.925
12
2.000
21
.800
1.000
.900
.500
.300
.500
.792
12
1.800
22
1.000
.900
.700
1.000
1.200
1.000
1,000
12
2.100
23
1.100
.800
.900
.500
1.200
.500
1.133
12
2.600
2*
.700
.800
.800
.900
.500
2.000
1.342
12
2.600
25
1.300
1.200
1.100
.900
1.100
1.000
1.300
12
2.800
26
1.900
6
2.200
AVG
.653
.590
.610
.752
.903
1.016
N3
30
31
31
31
31
31
M4
1.900
1.300
1.100
1.600
3.100
3.600
N(i» ¦ NO. OF VALID 2 HOUR SAMPLES
MAX<2) ¦ PEAK 2 HOUR CONCENTRATION
N3 ¦ DAYS WITH VALIO 2 HOUR AVERAGES
M4 ¦ PEAK 2 HOUR AVERAGES
Arithmetic mean, all samples - 0.94
Geometric mean, all samples - 0.72
-------
TABLE A-2
JET AIRCRAFT EXHAUST STUDY SEPT-0CT64 JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
STATION 4
SOILING INDEX, Cohs/lOOO ft
LOCAL TIME
DAY
0
2
4
6
8
10
22
23
.100
.000
.200
.400
.300
.000
24
1.000
.300
.000
1.200
1.400
.600
25
.200
.400
.600
.600
1.000
.200
26
.400
.800
1 .000
2.600
1.700
1.500
27
.200
.300
.200
.300
.100
.200
28
.500
. 100
.100
.400
.300
.000
29
.500
.100
.100
.100
.800
.400
30
.400
.700
.300
1.100
. 600
.300
1
2.600
1.000
.400
.600
• 400
.400
2
.100
1.000
.400
.600
.400
1.100
3
.400
. 100
.loo
.400
.300
.300
4
1.000
.600
.400
. 100
.600
.200
5
.500
.600
.400
1.100
1.300
.200
6
2.800
.200
.200
.200
.100
.200
7
.600
.300
.400
I.000
.700
.700
8
.600
1.300
1.600
1.900
1.400
.600
9
.400
.300
.600
1.000
.600
.100
10
.500
.000
.100
.300
.500
.300
u
2.600
3.700
4.100
5.000
3.400
.700
12
.600
1.200
1.200
1.900
3.300
3.100
13
3.400
3.200
1.600
2.600
1.500
.800
14
1.300
.900
?.noo
3. 100
4.<,00
2.100
15
.800
1.100
1.200
2.600
3.600
2.600
16
.100
. 100
.300
. 100
.500
.100
17
.100
.200
.000
.200
.400
.500
16
1.500
1.700
2.000
3.200
3.300
1.900
19
.200
.200
.200
.900
1.400
.800
20
.100
. 100
.0 00
1.300
1.800
1.300
21
.000
.600
.400
1.800
1.100
.300
22
.600
.400
.700
1.300
.800
.700
23
.500
1.200
.900
1 .300
1.400
.700
24
1.300
.600
I .300
2.100
1.90°
1.500
25
.700
1 .300
1.100
2.000
2.600
2.000
AVG
.806
.745
.730
1.312
1.330
.800
N3
33
33
33
33
33
33
*4
3.400
*.700
4.100
¦S.000
4.<,00
3.100
N<1> = NO. OF VALID 2 HdOR SAMPLE'S
«AX(2) a 0£AK 2 HOU? CONCtNTpATIflM
N3 = PAYS UlTH VAII5 2 -IOJS A\zEDA^E S
M4 S PEAK 2 hCLR AVERAGES
-------
TABLE A-2 (Continued)
JET AIRCRAFT EXHAUST STUDY SEPT-OCT64 JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
STATION 4
50IL I NG INDEX, Cohs/1000 ft
DAY
12
14
22
.500
23
300
.300
24
200
.700
25
100
.100
26
400
.200
27
100
.300
28
200
.100
29
400
.300
30
300
.500
1
100
.600
2
500
.900
3
100
.100
4
400
.100
5
400
.900
6
200
.300
7
300
.300
8
300
.100
9
300
.100
10
300
.100
11
600
.200
12
1
500
.900
13
600
.600
14
2
200
1,000
15
900
.500
16
200
.300
17
200
.300
IS
200
.600
19
600
.500
20
600
.400
21
100
.100
22
300
.400
23
900
.600
2*
1
100
.500
25
1
500
.900
AyG
497
.421
N3
33
34
M4
2
200
1.000
LOCAL time
16 lfl 20
,300 .^00 .200
.200 .600 .600
,200 .200 .600
.^00 .400 .TOO
,400 .000 .500
.000 .100 .100
.700 .400 .200
.900 .600 1.000
.400 .900 1.900
.000 1.000 .500
.700 1.100 1.000
.200 .200 .600
.500 .400 1.200
.000 .900 1.000
,000 .BOO .600
.300 .400 .600
.200 .100 .500
.100 .400 .100
,700 1.000 1.000
.100 .500 .300
.700 I.100 1.700
,200 1.000 1.300
.500 .800 .700
.500 1.200 .700
,400 .300 .500
,500 1.000 1.400
.100 .700 .700
,800 .900 .700
.400 .300 .100
.500 .500 .600
.800 .000 .300
.300 .400 .700
.BOO .300 1.300
.385 .570 .748
33 33 33
.900 1.200 1.900
22
AVG
Nil)
MAX(2)
.000
" ".260
5
.500
1.000
.333
12
1.000
.200
.550
12
1.400
.700
.442
12
1.000
.500
.833
12
2.600
.100
.167
12
.300
.700
.308
12
.700
.500
.475
12
1.000
3.000
.867
12
3.000
.200
.650
12
2.600
.500
,692
12
1*100
.300
,258
12
.600
1.200
.558
12
1.200
2.800
,842
12
2.800
.400
,500
12
2.800
1.000
.550
12
1.000
.100
.725
12
1.900
.100
.342
12
1.000
3.100
.725
12
3.100
.200
1.783
12
5.000
2.700
1.658
12
3.300
.500
1,442
12
3.400
.800
1,650
12
4.400
.400
1,342
12
3.600
.200
,258
12
.500
1.200
,500
12
1.400
1.000
1,408
12
3.300
.400
,633
12
1.400
.000
.533
12
1.800
.700
,558
12
1.800
.700
,583
12
1.300
1.300
,850
12
1.400
.900
1,133
12
2.100
1,513
8
2.600
.830
33
3.100
N(1) ¦ NO. OF VALID 2 HOUR SAMPLES
mAx(2) ¦ PEAK 2 HOUR CONCENTRATION
N3 ¦ DAYS WITH VALID 2 HOUR AVERAGES
M4 » PEAK 2 HOUR AVERAGES
Arithmetic mean, all samples - 0.76
Geometric mean, all samples - 0.52
-------
TABLE A-3
jet aircraft Exhaust study sEpt-oct64 john f. Kennedy international airport
STATION 5
SOILING INDEX, Cohs/1000 ft
LOCAL time
o
DAY
0
2
4
6
8
10
23
2*
1.200
.500
.700
1.500
1.200
.200
25
.400
.800
.700
1.300
1.100
.400
26
.900
.800
1.700
2.200
2.200
1.900
27
.100
.500
.000
.600
.400
.300
28
.400
.300
.300
.600
1.000
.900
29
.700
.400
.300
1.000
.900
.900
30
.700
.900
.700
1.400
1.300
.600
1
2.700
1.000
.500
1.300
.700
.900
2
.700
1 .000
.800
.500
.400
.700
3
.700
.300
.400
.600
.800
.700
4
1.000
1.200
.300
.400
.100
.100
5
.300
.000
.600
.300
.600
.100
6
.400
.400
1.000
1.100
1.100
.800
7
2.600
.800
.500
.700
.500
.800
e
.600
.500
.800
2.000
1. 100
.600
9
.600
1.400
2,800
2.700
1.900
1.200
10
.700
.300
.500
1.000
.900
.700
11
.300
.100
.100
.200
.700
.300
12
2.200
3.100
3.300
4.700
3.200
1.100
13
1.200
.700
1.500
2.500
4.400
3.200
14
2.800
2.000
1.500
3.000
2.400
1.200
15
1.300
2.600
3. 100
4.600
5.000
3.000
16
1.300
1.600
1.800
3.000
4.600
3.100
17
.600
.100
.700
.600
.600
.300
18
.800
.400
.100
.500
.700
.800
19
3.600
2.100
2.000
4.700
4.200
3.300
20
.600
.600
.800
1.800
1 .900
1.700
21
.500
.300
.200
1.800
2.100
2.200
22
.100
.600
.600
2.500
2.200
.900
23
.800
1.200
1. 1 00
2.700
2.200
1.400
AVS
1.033
.883
.980
1.727
1.680
1.143
N3
30
30
30
30
30
30
3.600
3.100
3.300
4,700
5.000
3.300
Nil) • NO. OF VALID 2 HOUR 5AMPLE5
MAX (2) * PEAK 2 HOUR CONCENTRATION
N3 ¦ DAYS WITH VALID 2 HOUR AVERAGES
M4 . PEAK 2 HOUR AVERAGES
-------
TABLE A-3 (Continued)
JET AIRCRAFT EXHAUST STUDY SEPT-0CT64 F.
-------
TABLE A-4
JET 41 QfRAFT PliWAiJST STUDy 5EPT-CCT64 jqhM P. KE^'ESy I NtErNAt I nN'L AIRPORT
STATION H
SOIL 1 Mo INDEX, Cohs/1000 ft
local time
DAY
0
2
4
6
8
10
15
16
.200
.200
.200
.200
.500
.200
.200
.500
.500
.200
.200
23
.200
.500
.500
24
.200
.500
.200
1.1 oo
1.300
1.600
1.300
.200
.500
.200
.500
25
.500
.500
.500
• 800
.500
.800
t.100
.800
.«00
.500
.500
.200
26
.800
1.100
1.100
1.900
2.500
2.900
2.800
2.500
1.900
1.100
.500
1.400
27
.200
.200
.?00
.200
,?0P
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
28
.200
.200
.200
.200
.500
1.600
1 .100
1.300
.800
.200
.500
.500
29
.200
.200
.200
.500
.500
.800
.800
.800
.800
.200
.200
.500
30
.500
.500
.800
.500
.500
1.100
1.100
.500
.500
.500
.200
.800
1
1.300
.800
1 . 1 0O
1.100
.500
.500
.500
.200
,200
.200
2
1.300
.500
.500
.500
• son
.500
.son
.500
.800
.500
.500
.«i00
3
.500
.500
.200
.200
.20"
.800
.800
.500
.500
.500
.200
.200
4
1.400
.800
.500
.200
.500
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
5
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
.800
.BOO
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
6
.500
.800
1 . 100
1.100
1 .300
1. 100
1.100
1.100
1.100
.500
.500
.500
?
.500
.500
.500
.500
8
.500
.500
.500
9
.500
.200
10
.500
.500
.500
.800
.500
.500
.500
.200
.200
.200
.200
11
.200
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
12
2.500
3.400
.500
.500
.500
13
.800
.800
.800
1 .900
2.500
2.200
3.400
3.400
1.300
1 .100
14
1,900
2.200
3.700
3.100
1.600
1.600
.500
.500
.500
.500
15
.800
.800
.ROO
2.800
3.100
5.500
3.400
.600
16
1.100
1.100
1.100
1,600
2.500
2.000
4.900
4.000
3.100
3.100
2.200
.800
IT
.300
.300
.600
.800
.300
.600
18
.400
.600
.700
.600
.800
.700
19
1.400
2.300
3.300
3.000
3.500
2.600
20
.700
.800
.300
2.000
2.000
1. BOO
21
.600
.200
.000
.400
2.000
2.600
22
.300
.200
.300
.700
1.700
2.600
23
1.400
1 .400
1.400
.800
.800
2.000
24
1.000
1.600
1.400
1 .400
I.100
1.600
25
.400
.700
.400
.600
1.000
1.700
AVG
.724
.557
.707
.971
1.0 70
1.195
1.214
1.100
.975
.820
.965
.491
N3
29
30
30
28
28
31
M4
2.500
1.100
2.300
3.400
3.700
3.100
4.900
4.000
3.500
5.500
3.400
1.400
N<1> = NO. OF VALID 2 HOUR SAMPLES
MAX (2) s PEAK 2 HOUP CONCENTRATION
N3 s DAYS WITH VALID 2 HOUR AVERAGES
M4 r PEAK 2 HOUR AVERAGES
-------
1
TABLE A-4 (Continued)
JET AIRCRAFT EXHAUST STUDY SEPT-OCT64 JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIrPORt
STATION H
SOILING INDEX, Cohs/1000 ft
local Time
o»
u
DAY
12
14
16
I®
20
22
AVG
Nil)
MAX(2)
15
1.900
1.600
1.600
1.300
1.300
1.600
2.«00
2.800
2.800
2.200
1.600
.500
1.833
12
2.800
16
.200
.500
.500
.ROO
I.100
.BOO
.500
.500
.421
19
1.100
23
.500
.500
.500
.500
1 .900
1.100
1.100
.500
1.100
.500
1.600
.800
.829
14
1.900
24
.200
.200
.500
.200
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
.200
.525
24
1.600
25
.500
.200
.500
.500
.500
.BOO
.500
.800
.500
.500
1.100
.800
.613
24
1.100
26
1.400
.200
.ZOO
.200
.200
.500
1.100
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
1.050
24
2.800
2?
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.500
.200
.200
.200
.500
.225
24
.500
28
.500
.200
.500
.200
.200
.500
.800
.500
.800
.800
.559
22
1.600
29
.500
.500
.200
.500
.500
.200
.800
I.100
1.600
1.100
.800
.800
.596
24
1.600
30
.500
.800
.500
.800
1.100
1.900
2.200
1.900
2.800
5.200
2.800
1.217
23
5.200
1
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.500
.500
.500
.500
.200
.200
.455
22
1.300
2
.500
.BOO
.800
.500
.500
1.300
1.600
1.300
1.600
.500
.500
.200
.717
24
1.600
3
.200
.200
.200
.200
.500
.500
.500
.500
.800
.800
.800
1.400
.488
24
1.400
4
.200
.200
.200
.800
.500
.500
.800
.500
.500
.200
.200
.200
.400
24
1.400
5
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
.200
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
.513
23
.800
6
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
.800
1.600
.790
21
1.600
T
.500
.500
5
.500
8
.500
3
.500
9
.200
.200
.200
.500
.500
.500
.500
.200
.200
.200
.200
• ^00
.315
13
.500
10
.200
.200
.200
.200
.200
.500
.200
.200
.500
.200
.200
.200
.338
24
.800
11
.200
.200
.500
.500
.500
1.100
1.100
1.900
2.200
1.900
2.200
2.500
.854
24
2,500
12
.500
.200
.200
.200
.500
.200
.200
.200
.500
.500
.800
.713
16
3.400
13
1.600
1.100
.800
1.100
1.600
1.600
2.200
2.200
4.300
6.500
4.900
6.900
2.409
22
6.900
14
.800
.500
.800
.600
.600
.800
1.100
.500
.800
1.100
.800
.800
1.150
22
3.700
15
1.300
1.100
1.100
1.100
1.100
.500
.500
.500
.800
.800
.800
1.100
1.425
20
5.500
16
1.10O
.600
.800
.400
.600
.600
1.811
18
4,900
IT
.300
.300
.600
.300
.300
.700
.450
12
.800
18
.300
.600
.600
.400
.600
.800
.592
12
,800
19
.800
1.400
1.100
1.400
1.100
1.100
1.917
12
3.500
20
1.400
.800
1.400
.800
.800
.800
1.133
12
2,000
21
2.300
.700
.300
.300
.300
.400
.842
12
2.600
22
1.700
.600
1.300
1.400
1.800
2.200
1.233
12
2.600
23
3.000
1.400
.800
.300
.700
1.000
1.250
12
3.000
24
2.200
1.800
1.400
.800
.700
.800
1.317
12
2.200
25
2.500
3.000
Z.600
1.433
9
3.000
AVG
.888
.483
.691
.514
.773
.755
.848
.830
1.013
1.171
.931
1.081
N3
32
33
33
31
32
29
M4
3.000
1.600
3.000
1.300
2.600
1.900
2.800
2.800
4.300
6.500
4.900
6.900
N(1) » NO. OF VALID 2 HOUR SAMPLES
MAX(2) « PEAK 2 HOUR CONCENTRATION
N3 a DAYS KITH VALID 2 HOUR AVERAGES
M4 > PEAK 2 HOUR AVERAGES
Arithmetic mean, all samples - 0.86
Geometric mean, all samples - 0.61
-------
Table A5. TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION, ng/m3
Station Number
Date, 1964
1
2
3
4
6
September
24
107
n.d.
117
n.d.
207
192
25
121
n.d.
129
n.d.
207
110
28
^5
n.d.
42
39
59
28
29
35
88
28
41
60
31
30
67
80
42
86
122
79
October
1
^3
40
57
55
74
51
2
78
35
37
49
63
35
3
^9
56
n.d.
59
85
•*3
if*
^9
56
n.d.
59
85
*3
5
59
48
^7
56
88
53
6
103
98
60
89
128
67
7
48
47
•*9
5^
77
48
8
66
66
72
79
106
50
9
52
n.d.
n.d.
56
79
45
10
109
n.d.
n.d.
225
158
83
11*
109
n.d.
n.d.
225
158
03
12
102
148
n.d.
147
158
117
13
175
230
201
202
236
153
l4
158
200
184
193
287
165
15
136
226
144
163
214
108
16*
136
n.d.
1 44
163
214
108
17
70
n.d.
76
101
136
79
18*
70
n.d.
76
101
136
79
19
75
n.d.
62
72
117
64
20
52
n.d.
57
70
110
5^
21
85
106
84
84
133
67
22
76
71
68
70
130
82
23
82
1?
72
n.d.
n.d.
84
Arithmetic mean 84
98
84
102
133
76
Geometric mean
77
83
73
88
122
68
Maximum
175
230
201
225
287
192
Minimum
35
35
28
39
59
28
* Second day of 48-hour sample. The 48-hour average concen-
tration measured is divided equally between both days for
the purpose of stating ^4-hour concentrations.
64
-------
DAY
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
TABLE A-6
JET AIRCRAFT EXHAUST STUDY SEPT-0CT64 JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERMATIONAL AIRPORT
STATION 5
TOTAL HYDROCARBON^ ppm
0
1
2.000
9.000
8.000
8.000
9.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
2.000
4.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
2.000
5.000
5.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
2.000
3.000
3.000
5.000
4.000
9.000
9.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
2.000
4.000
5.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
6.000
7.000
4.000
4,000
10.000
8.000
11.000
9.000
5.000
5.000
*.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
15.000
13.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
2 3
2.000 2.000
o.OOO 7.000
5.000 4.000
2.000 2.000
1.000 2.000
3.000 3.000
2.000 2.000
1.000 2.000
2.000 2,000
2.000 2.000
5.000 10.000
1.000 1.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
6.000 *.000
2.000 2.000
3.000 3.000
2.000 2.000
2,000 2.000
5.000 6.000
2,000 2.000
2.000 2.000
9.000 11.000
4.000 5.000
5.000 5.000
9.000 13.000
5.000 6.000
3.000 3.000
2.000 2.000
11.000 12.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
5.000 4,000
3.000 3.000
4 5
2.000 2.000
6.000 4.000
4.000 5.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
1.000 3.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
3.000 8.000
2.000 2.000
7.000 10.000
3.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
3.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
3.000 3.000
2.000 2.000
3.000 3.000
5.000 5.000
2.000 2,000
2.000 2.000
11.000 13.000
5.000 4.000
16.000 14.000
8.000 9.000
3.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
17.000 20.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
5.000 7.000
3.000 3.000
LOCAL TIME
6 7
2.000 2.000
3.000 3.000
5,000 4.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
3,000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
5,000 3.000
2.000 2.000
7.000 4.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
3.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
4.000 3.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
13.000 4.000
c.000 2.000
12.000 8.000
8.000 7.000
2.000 3.000
2.000 3.000
14.000 9.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
3.000 3.000
3.000 3.000
8 9
2.000 3.000
3.000 3.000
4.000 3.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000
2.000 2.000
4.000 3.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2,000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
4.000 3.000
2.000 2.000
3.000 3,000
5.000
3.000 3.000
2.000 2.000
5.000 5.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
2.000 2.000
10
11
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
4.000
4.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
2,000
2.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
-------
TABLE A-6 (Continued)
JET AIRCRAFT PXMAUST STUDY SEPT-0CT64 JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AJRPORt
STATION 5
TOTAL hydrocarbons, ppm
DAY
0
1
2
3
4
5
24
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
25
6.000
5.000
7.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
26
5.000
5.000
e.ooo
8.000
14.000
11.000
AVG
4.282
3.902
3.756
3.902
4.200
4.350
N3
39
41
41
41
40
40
M4
15,000
13.000
11.000
13.000
17.000
20.000
N(l) » HOURS OF VALID DATA
MAX<2> « PEAK 30 MIN, CONCENTRATION
N3 ¦ days WITH VALID HOURLY AVERAGES
M4 a PEAK HOURLY AVERAGES
LOCAL TIME
6
7
8
9
10
11
3.000
7.000
10.000
3.000
6.000
7.000
3.000
4.000
6.000
2.000
3.000
5.000
2.000
3.000
5.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
3.825
40
14.000
3.025
40
9.000
2.550
40
6.000
2.368
38
5.000
2.316
38
5.000
2.263
38
4.000
-------
TABLE A-6 (Continued)
JET AIRCRAFT EXHAUST 5TUDY SEPT-0CT64 JOHN F, KENNEDY JNTERNATIOMAL AIRPORT
STATION 5
TOTAL HYDROCARBONS, PPm
LOCAL TIME
-J
DAY
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
LO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
LB
19
20
21
22
23
12
2.000
3.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
3,000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
13
2.000
2.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
14
2.000
2.000
•>.000
7.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
2.000
7.000
2.000
7.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
3.000
2.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
6.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
15
16
17
I"
19
20
21
22
23
AVG
Nil)
MAX 1 2)
2.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
3.000
3.000
3,000
2,000
2.000
2.500
12
4,000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.ooo
10.000
10.000
10,000
9.000
5.045
22
10.000
3.000
1.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
5.000
7.000
17,000
10.000
5.250
24
17,000
2.000
7.000
2,000
3.000
2.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3,542
24
9,000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
3,000
3.000
2,083
24
3,000
2.000
2.000
2,000
2.000
2.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
2,292
24
3,000
2.000
2,000
2.000
2.000
6.000
5,000
4.000
4.000
3.000
3.000
19
6,000
2.000
7.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2,000
2,000
4.000
2,125
24
4,000
3.000
^.000
3.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
5,000
6,000
4.000
2,917
24
6,000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3,000
3,000
3.000
3,174
23
8,000
2.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
4,000
4.000
2.458
24
4,000
2.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3,000
2.000
3.958
24
10,000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2.000
2.125
24
3,000
2.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
3.000
3,000
3,000
3.000
2.250
24
3,000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2,000
2,000
2.000
2.000
24
2,000
2.000
2.000
3,000
5.000
7.000
9.000
10,000
8.000
6.000
3.417
24
10,000
2,000
2.000
2.000
2,000
2.000
3.000
3,000
3,000
3.000
2,458
24
4,000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
4.000
4.OOO
5,000
6.000
5.000
2,875
24
6,000
3.000
4.000
4.000
7.000
8.000
7.000
6.000
7,000
7.000
3,667
24
8,000
3.000
3.000
3,000
3.000
3.000
2.000
2.000
2,000
2,000
3,250
24
9,000
2,000
2.000
3,000
5.000
5.000
5.000
3,000
3,000
3,000
2,542
24
5,000
2,000
2.000
2.000
3.000
3.000
4.000
6,000
8,000
4.000
2,958
24
8,000
2.000
2.000
2.000
5.000
5.000
4.000
3,000
3,000
3.000
2,458
24
5,000
2.000
2.000
4.000
2.000
3,000
5.000
4,000
3,000
5.000
2.625
24
5,000
2,000
2,000
2.000
2.000
4,000
4.000
4.000
5.000
4.000
3.333
24
6.000
2,000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2,000
2.000
2.000
2.125
24
3,000
2,000
3.000
3.000
4.000
6.000
6.000
5,000
5,000
5.000
2,875
24
6,000
2,000
3.000
3.000
5.000
6.000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,417
24
13,000
2,000
2.000
2,000
4.000
4.000
6.000
6,000
10,000
13.000
4,800
15
13,000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
7.000
8.000
6,000
7.000
4,000
24
10,000
2,000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
6,000
6,000
5,OOO
6.333
24
16,000
3,000
3.000
6,000
3.000
3.000
3.000
6,000
6,000
5.000
5.143
21
9.000
2,000
7.000
2,000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3,000
3,000
3.000
2.625
24
4,000
3,000
4.000
4.000
5.000
7.000
9.000
11,000
13,000
11.000
4,083
24
13,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2.000
3.000
4,000
4,000
3,000
3.000
6.542
24
20,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2.000
2.000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2.000
2.000
24
2,000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.OOO
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
24
2,000
2.000
2.000
2,000
2.000
3.000
4.000
4,000
3.000
3.000
2.958
24
7,000
2.000
2.000
2,000
2.000
2.000
4.000
4,000
3.000
3.000
2.583
24
4,000
-------
TABLE A-6 (Continued)
JET AlRCRaFT EXHAUST STUDy SEPT-0CT64 JOHN F, KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
STATION 5
TOTAL HvDROCArBONS, ppm
&•
OS
LOCAL TIME
DAY
12
13
14
15
16
17
lfi
19
20
21
22
23
AVG
N (1)
MAX(2)
2*
2.000
2,000
?.000
2.000
2.000
3.000
^.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
8.000
3.125
24
8.000
25
3.000
3.000
3.noo
3.000
3.000
4. 000
4.noo
5.000
5.000
7.000
6,000
7.000
*.667
24
7.000
26
7.333
12
14,000
AVG
2.205
2.175
7.300
2.225
2.561
2.829
3.293
3.780
<~.195
4,463
4,780
4.429
N3
39
40
40
40
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
42
M4
3.000
3.000
k .000
3.000
10.000
10.000
10.O00
10.000
10.000
11.000
17.000
13.000
Nil) ¦ HOURS OF VALID 0«TA
MAX(2) « PEAK 30 MIN. CONCENTRATION Arithmetic mean, all samples - 3.35
N3 » DAYS KITH VALID HOURLY AVERAGES
M4 ¦ PEAK HOURLY AVERAGES Geometric mean, all samples - 2.88
-------
TABLE A-7. JET AIRCRAFT EXHAUST STUDY SEPT-0CT64 JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
HAiJGER 11
WIND SPEED
WBA N
OMIT5a ^PH
LOC^L TIME
day n i 2 2 4 5 6 1 8 ? 10 LI
24 7.000 10.000 14m OOP 16.000 15.000 6.000 3^000 7.OOP 8.000 10.000 12.000 13.000
25 14.000 13.000 9.000 10^000 13.000 14.000 13.^00 16.000 15.000 18,000 15.000 18.000
2f 5.OOP 6 .000 5 .000 3. OOP 3.000 5.000 5, ">00 6.0 0 0 ,0 00 5.000 3.000 9.000
27 9.0CO 9.000 8,000 7.000 <5.000 9.000 16.^00 17.000 20.000 21.000 22,000 22.000
2ft 17.0C0 17.QOQ 18.000 14.000 14.000 16.000 10.000 5.000 8.000 5.000 1.000 5.000
29 7.000 7."00 9,000 10.000 6.000 9.000 6.O00 7.000 8.000 7.000 7.000 5.000
3C 7,000 9.000 9,000 9.000 6.000 5.000 2.^00 5.000 7.000 12.000 9.000 9.OOP
IS.000 6.000 9.000 R.000 R.000 6.000 6.O0O 10."00 9.000 12.000 9.000 12.000
2 B.poo 7LnoO 6,000 5.000 7.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 10*000 8,000 7.000
3 10.0C0 ".COO 13.000 20.000 16.000 12,000 1Z.000 7,000 9,000 9,000 7,000 12.000
4 9.OC0 10.000 7.000 7.000 9.OOP 6.000 13.POO 9.000 12.000 13.000 12.000 12.000
5 I4.0C0 13.000 16.000 12.000 9.000 10.000 10.000 12,000 9,000 13,000 14,000 9,000
6 0 .OCQ 5.Quo 6»000 5.000 5,00_0 6.OQ0 g.npO 7.000 8.000 7.000 2.000 3.000
7 .000 10,000 '13.000 13.000 1>.000 k.000 12.">00 14.000 16.000 16.000 15.000 15.000
e p .ooo 7, 000 8,000 7.000 q.OQO 8.^00 9.000 12.000 9.000 7,000 12.000
9 .000 3.000 .000 .000 .000 3.000 5.000 .000 5,000 2.000 3.000 7.000
10 B.000 13.000 12.000 7.000 o.OOO 9.000 14.000 14.000 14.000 12,000 14.000 13.000
11 17.0CD 14.000 16.000 21,000 16.000 16.000 17.^00 17,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10.000
1? ?.PCO .C0/\ f000 .000 .000 2.000 2. n00 2.000 7.000 9,000 9.000 14.000
13 13.000 !3.C'->6 12.000 9.000 12.000 <3,000 6,^00 5.000 6.000 5,000 6,000 6.000
1A ,000 _ 3 . r 0 0 5,oao 3,0yo 5.000 6..00Q 6.ripp .qqq 6.000 12.000 9.000 9.000
15 6.000 9.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 5.000 R.npo 6.000 6.000 6,000 8,000 6.000
1^ 6. Of.n 7.000 7.000 6.000 3.000 .000 5. "00 5.000 2.000 5.000 1.000 2.000
17 13.000 16.000 13,000 14.000 14.000 17.000 18.000 12.000 10.000 20.000 21.000 21.000
IP 13.0CO 16^000 12.000 16.000 10.000 17.000 lO.OQQ 8.000 8.000 9.000 14.000 12.000
1« 6.000 K.C00 5.000 5.000 6.000 8.000 5,000 2,000 6.000 7,000 10,000 14.000
20 _ 9*0CQ 7.00_0 -»,000 6.000 9.000 5.000 7.000 5.000 2.000 5,000 5.000 3.000
2 1 13.000 " 15.0f">0 13.000 10,000 6.^00 7.000 7,000 5,000 6.000 9,000 9,000 7.000
2? 14.000 14.000 13.000 9.030 3.000 7.000 8.000 6.000 8.000 13.000 14.000 9.000
23 6.000 10.000 7.000 7.000 9.000 6.000 7,^00 7,000 12.000 12,000 13,000 9.000
24 10.000 12.QQQ 10.000 B.QOO 7.000 7.OOP 8.000 7.OOP 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000
AyC 8.645 9.419 9.161 8.742 8.355 7.871 8.581 7.710 8.710 10.161 9.677 10.161
N3 31 """ 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31
M4 17.000 17.000 18.000 21.000 16.000 17.OQ0 I?.QUO 17.000 20.000 21.000 22,000 22.000
'Villi = HOURS OF VALID DATA
MAx(2) = PEAK 1 HOUR CONCENTRATION
m3 r rAYS WITH VALID HOJRLY AVERAGES
M4 = PEAK HOURLY AVERAGES
-------
TABUS A-7 JET AIRCRAFT EXHAUST STUDY SEPT-0CT6* JOHN Ft KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
(cont'd) HANGER 11
WIMP SPEED
WBAN
UNITS* MPH
o
pAY
25
26
27
21
29
30
11
12
21
22
23
N3
_L2_
_L2L
-lit.
AS-
_1A_
17
A3.
A3-
_2iL
21
22
23
AVS Nil) *4AX12l
24 15.000—LZ^QM—ZD,000—20,090 28.000 21.000 14.000 14.000 14.000 14.000 12.000 1?.000 ~13.208 "287000
lO Ani"i 1 n Aftrt i a rtArt i -» ~ - A - . « -T"_ : _ . _ ¦ - w ¦ 1 "ww
18.000
).000
18.000
10.000
23.000
1.000
18*000
12.000
7.000
23.000
3.000
1 15.000
_2 8.000
6.000
9.000
28.000
3.000
17.000
14.000
18.000
17.000
3.000
9.000
29.000
5.000
9.000
16.000
12.000
15.000
12.000
8.000
14.000
6.000
12.000
8-000
12.000
9.000
9.000
7.000
26.000
7.000
9,000
9.000
10.000
6.000
9.000
12.000
21.000
5.000
9.000
18.000
10.000
15.000
12.000
9.000
9.000
7.000
10.000
7 .OOP
23.000
6.000
7,000
12.000
12.000
3.000
6.000
5.000
20.000
9.Q00
16.000
12.000
9.000
14.000
9.000
5.000
13.000
5.000
9.000
9.000
14.000
5.000
12.000
5.000
13.792
9.042
24
24
9.000
2.000
9.000
1.000
5.000
2.000
13.000
8.000
9.000
.000
8.000
3.000
17.250
8.000
24
24
18.000
18.000
5.000
1.000
9.000
9.000
5.000
13.000
7.000
9.000
8.000
9.000
8,000
>000
6.000
6.000
7.292
6.917
24
24
29.000
18.000
8.000
6.000
13.000
7.000
8.000
14.000
6.000
6.000
12.000
16.000
9. 167
5.958
24
24
10.000
12.000
5 13.000 7.000 8.000 6.000 6.000 6.000 5.000 5.000 3.000 5.000 5.000 7.000
f, ft-ncn T.noo 3.000 B.OOO 7.000 3.0np 5.000 2.000 .000 .000 3.000 ,oon
7 12.000 12.000 12.000 9.000 3.000 5.000 7.000 5.000 7.000 9.000 6,000 12.000
B 7.000 1.000 8.000 9.000 6.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 7.000 3.000 10.000 5.00 0
9 9.000 8.000 9.000 13.000 13.000 12.000 12.000 7.000 9.000 8.000 10.000 7.000
10 14.000 14.000 16.000 15.000 15.000 16.000 21.^00 21.000 16.000 22.000 16.000 16.000
10.375
10.167
24
24
15.000
10.000
20.000
16.000
10.125
7.167
14.000
9.000
13 8.000
15
8.000
8.000
17
18
8.000
9.oon
O.OOO
6.000
7.000
12.000
18.000
0.000
14.000
9.000
7.000
6.000
14.000
10.000
14.000
19
14.000
3.000
18.000
m.noo
12.000
9.000
10.000
5.000
10.000
10.000
13.000
9.000
15.000
3.000
20.000
15.000
7.000
5.000
9.000
8.000
.000
-8.000
14.000
8.000
18.000
14.000
7.000
10.000
6.000
3.000 3.000 3.000
9.000 10.000 12.000
6.000
8.000
3.000
8.000
18.000
8.000
13.000
12.000
14.000
17.000
15,000
5.OOP
7.000
10.000
9.OOP
17.000
7.POO
18.000
9.000
6.000
13.000
8.000
12.000
12.000
10.OOQ
12.000
9.000
12.000
7.000
16.000
10.000
7.000
10.000
3.000
6.000
17.000
5.000
15.000
13.000
15.000
18.000
16.000
16.000
13.000
9.000
20.000
9.000
15.000
10.000
14.000
7.000
10.000
16.000
6_,JJ00_
3.000
3.000
.000
6.000
5.000
8.000
16.000
5.OOP
9.000
10.000
14.000
7.000
2.000
9.000
.000
6.000
7.000
13.000
6.042
14.208
11.000
7.125
24
24
16.000
B.OOO
16,000
12.000
6.875
5.667
24
24
13.000
22.000
12.000
6.000
7.625
6.667
24
24
21.000
14.000
21.000
12.000
16.000
9.000 7.000 6.000 10.000
7.000 12,OOq 10.000 12.00 0
21,000 22.000 16,000 24.000
— 0*000 12.00Q 7.00Q lO.nOQ
16.250
9.583
24
24
13.000
12.000
24
24
15.000
14.000
13.000 17.000 21."OP 14.000
12.000
12.000
23.000
10.000
17.000
10.000
AVfi 10.710 10.129 10.968 11.484 11.516 10.548 10.516 9.903 8.419 9.226
31
23.000
31
23.0P0
31
28.000
31
29.000
31
28.000
31
21.000
31
23.000
31
21.000
31
21.000
31
23.000
8,774
31
17.000
14.000
9.000
__9. 16 1
31
24.000
9,167 24
6.958 24
12.917 24
10.333 24
21.000
16.000
11.667
10.675
24
24
17,000
14.000
24,000
16.000
23,000
21.000
Nil) r HOURS OF VALID DATA
MAx<2> ¦ PEAK 1 HOUR CONCENTRATION
N3 » DAYS WITH VALID HOURLY AVERAGES
M4 « PEAK HOURLY AVERAGES
-------
TABM A-8. JET AIRCRAFT EXHAUST STUDY SEPT-0CT64 JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
HANfiER II
WIND DIRECTION
rffiAN
UNITS* ANGULAR PES.
LOCAL TIME
RAY f) I 2 3 t 5 a 1 8 ? 10 11
24 240.000 280.000 300.000 320.000 310.000 320.000 270.000 260.000 260.000 260.000 230.000 230.000
25 270.000 300.000 260.000 260,000 270.000 260.000 290.000 290.000 260.000 260.000 270.000 250.000
26 310.000 260.f,JO 260.000 280.000 290.000 280.000 2B0.000 270.000 .000 220.000 220.000 180.000
27 230.000 210.000 210.000 210.000 200.000 200.000 190.000 190.000 190.000 190.000 190.000 190.000
2B Z&0.000 330.OOP 350.000 330.000 360.000 350.000 350.000 350.000 40.000 50.000 40.000 40.000
29 50.000 60.000 60.000 70.000 10.000 50.000 40.000 40.000 50.000 40.000 50.000 60.000
30 10.OOP 10.000 30.000 10.000 40.000 10.000 10.000 20.000 20.000 360.000 40.000 40.000
1 10.OOP 10.000 10.000 10.000 30.000 40.000 40.000 60.000 70.000 60.000 90.000 110.000
2 llO.OOO 90.000 40.000 40.000 50.000 70.000 80.000 90.000 90.000 80.000 80.000 90.000
3 200.000 210.000 240.000 340.000 320.000 330.000 330.000 310.000 320.000 320.000 300.000 280.000
4 240.000 250.000 240.000 230.000 230.000 220.000 220.000 220.OOP 230.000 230.000 230.000 230.000
5 350.000 330.000 340.000 350.000 340.000 330.000 360.000 350.000 30.000 10.000 30.000 360.000
6 10.000 20.O00 360.000 30.000 10.000 10.000 350.000 360.000 10.000 20.000 60.000 70.000
7 .000 320.000 350.000 360.000 10.000 40.000 40.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 40.000 30.000
8 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 lO.OOO 20.000 20.000 30.000 50.000 40.000
9 .000 70.000 .000 .000 .000 20.000 40.000 .000 80.000 230.000 190.000 170.000
10 260.000 300.000 300.000 300.000 290.000 300.000 300.000 300.000 310.000 310,000 320.000 310.000
11 320.000 320.000 310.000 340.000 340.000 340.000 320.000 350.000 340.000 320.000 340,000 330.000
12 340.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 300.000 290.QQO 250.000 250.000 230.000 230.000 240.000
13 250.OOO 250.000 270.000 260.000 260.000 250.000 240.000 240.000 240.000 240.000 230.000 230.000
14 .000 300.000 290.000 280.000 320.000 320.000 270.000 .000 320.000 320.000 330.000 10.000
15 210.000 240.000 260.000 230,000 220.000 220.000 250.000 220.000 250.000 280.000 260,000 230,000
16 230.000 230.QOQ 230.000 210.000 220.000 .000 200.000 320.000 50.000 150.000 210.000 70.000
17 50.000 50.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 40.000 60.H00 40.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000
IS 70.000 20.OOP 360.000 10.000 10.000 360.000 360.000 10.000 IQ.QPO 360.POP 350.000 350.OPO
19 240.000 230.000 230,000 220.006 220.000 250.000 240.000 270.000 350.000 250.000 270.000 340,000
20 340.000 330.000 350.000 330.000 350.000 280.000 300.000 310.000 350.000 30.000 60.000 360.000
21 360.000 10.000 360,000 360.000 330.000 330.000 320.000 310.000 270.000 250.000 260.000 240,000
22 210.OOP 230.POO 240.000 250.000 240.000 270.000 270.000 280.000 260.000 310.000 310.000 320.000
23 360.000 350.000 360,000 330.000 330.000 320.000 330.000 340.000 350.000 10.000 350.000 IP,000
24 330.000 320.000 340.000 360.000 330.000 330,000 300.000 290.000 290.000 300.000 310.000 290.000
N3 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31
N 11) * HOURS OF VALID data
N3 « HAYS WTTH VALID HOURLY AVERAGES
-------
TABLE A-8 JET AIRCRAFT EXHAUST S>T' IQY SEPT-0CT64 JOHN F. CENSEOY INTERNATIONAL AI3P0OT
(cont'd) HA'-jfiFP 11
/JT,-jn 0 T BFCT T DM
WBAW
U"JJTS= ANGULAR DEG.
DAY 12 13 14 15 14 LI L3 IS ZD 21 22 2i _Hi >
24 230.0C0 230.0QO 230.000 ?4Q,QQ.D__250,J)OQ_ 260.0iaa 22(1.0130 JJO^OO _280.0M_2?^00£__29P,000_28Q.OQO _ _ 24
25 260.000 2 7 0.000 ?70.000 290.OOO 310.000 300,000 29".OOO 280.000 250.000 290.000 300.000 290.000 "" 24
26 190.OOO 19". QC'O _190,000 170,000 190.000 180.000 160."QO 190j_000 200.000 210.000 210.000 230.000 24
27 190.000 180.non 190.000 195.000 190.000 190."00 190.000 200.000 200.000 200.000 220.000 230.000 " 24
2g.__ 5 0.000 50.OOP 10.OOP 20.000 60.000 120.QQO 130."00 100.000 60,000 50.000 60.000 50.000 ?4
29 60.000 6 ". " 0 0 70.000 90.000 90.000 90.000 90,"00 80.000 260,000 350.000 360.000 50."00 24
30 3f)°.OC0 360,"00 10,000 10.000 10.000 10.000 360.000 340.000 360.000 .000 10.000 360.000 24
1 UO.OCO UO.OCO 110.000 120.000 120.000 110.OOO 10n.000 90.000 100.000 100.000 110.000 110,000 24
2 9°.000 90,000 80,000 60.001 30.000 40,000 60,"00 60.000 30.000 .000 210.000 200.000 _ 24
3 32".OGO 320.->00 310.000 320."00 ?70/o00 270."00 23","00 230.000 240,000 240.000 230.000 240.000 24
4 240.OCO ? 3 " . 0 190,000 220,000 ?2",000 210."00 24","0" 260,"00 260,000 280.000 340.000 340.000 24
5 20.000 360.""0 10.000 360.000 10.OOO 20.0f>0 40, ">00 *0,000 30.000 360.000 20.000 20. COO 24
6 50.000 320.000 320.000 180,000 190,000 150,000 15n.n00 130,000 ,000 ,000 70,000 .noO zu
7 360.OCO 360.noO 340.000 360.000 350.000 360.OQO 10,"00 10.000 360,000 20.000 30,000 30.000 2U
S 30.000 160.000 180.000 180,000 160.OOO 140,000 13","00 120,000 140,000 140.000 160.000 lbO.OOO 24
9 180.OOO 210."00 170.000 180.000 180.OOO 190.000 170."00 170.000 180,000 190,000 190.000 220.000 24
10 300.OOQ 31" . Qf'O 310.000 320.000 320. 00j0_320_, "00 310."00 310.000 3 10.000_ 300.000 310.000 310. "00 _ _ 2.4
11 3*0.000 32".000 340.000 310,000 310.000 330.000 320,"00 320.000 330,000 330.000 330.000 320.000 " 24
12 2^0•OCO 230."00 220,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 210,^00 230.000 230.OOO 240,000 230,000 240."00 24
13 190.000 190.000 190.000 170.000 20.000 .000 40."00 50.000 80.000 80,000 .000 .000 24
14 20.000 290.Cr'0 330,000 340,000 190,000.180,00.0 180, "00 200,000 220,000 210.000 220.000 250.000 24
15 230.000 23".OC'0 190.000 200.OQ0 200.000 190.000 200."00 210,000 220.000 230.000 230.000 220.000 24
16 190^000 . 180.0.cg__110,000 100,000. .100.000 80.000 60l"00 60,000 __60_.000 90.000 70.000 70.000 24
17 50.000 60."00 50.000 50.000 50.000 40.000 60,"00 50.000 50,000 40.000 50.000 30.000 " 24
1« 3^0.000 350.0"0 340.000 300.OOO 18".000 180,OOO 190t000 260,000 270.000 280.000 290,000 240.000 24
19 330.000 310,"00 350.000 340.OUO 33O.OOO 360.OOO 33"."00 330.000 330.000 330.000 310,000 320.000 24
20 50.OCO 40,000 320.000 10.000 30,000 _30.OOO 10J"00 350,000 30,000 10,000 360.000 360.000 24
21 220.000 240.000 ?2".00Q 220.000 200.000 190.000 20"."00 210.000 210.000 210.000'210.000 210,000 24
22 320.000 340.QQO 310,000 270.000 320.000 350.000 330."00 330.000 320.000 330.000 330.000 350.000 24
23 320.000 3 3",0"0 310,000 330,Oi>6 33".000 340.000 36"."00 340.000 330,000 340,000 340.000 330.000" " 24
24 32O.00Q. 28.0,000. 2.80,000 270.000 300.000 300.000 310."00 320.000 320.000 310.000 290.000 250.000 24
N3 31 3 L 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31
N<1) = HOURS OF VALID DATA
N3 = DAYS WITH._ i/ALI2 MOJRLY AVE&A&E5
-------
¦EABIi A-9. JET AIRCRAFT EXHAUST STUDY SEPT-0CT64 JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
HANGER 11
TEMPERATURE
WBAN
UNTTS» DEGREES P.
LOCAL TIME
ray o 1 2 2 * § 5 7 3 3 L? LI
24 71.000 75.000 76.000 74.000 73.000 70.000 65.000 68.000 73.000 77.000 77.000 78.000
25 65.000 63.000 62.000 60.000 60.000 60.000 58.000 61.000 63.000 63.000 67.000 69.000
26 60.000 5B.000 57.000 56.000 53.000 54.000 54.000 57.000 63.000 66.000 69,000 69.000
27 62.000 62.000 61.000 61.000 63.000 62.000 64.000 65.000 66.000 69.000 72.000 71.000
28 70.000 66.000 63.000 62.000 60.000 57.000 55.000 54.000 53.000 54.000 55.000 57.000
29 53.000 52.000 52.000 53.000 54.000 53.000 54.000 54.000 55.000 57.000 58.000 59.000
30 58.000 57.000 57.000 57.000 57.000 57.000 57.000 57.000 58.000 62.000 62.000 61.000
1 56.000 55.000 55.000 53.000 51.000 50.000 50.000 53.000 59.000 61.000 65.000 66.000
2 58.000 57.000 53.000 53.000 54.000 56.000 57.Q0Q 58.000 58.000 59.000 59.000 60.000
3 65.000 65.000 66.000 58.000 59.000 59.000 58.000 58.000 62.000 65.000 67.000 70.000
4 61.000 60.000 59.000 59.000 58.000 58.000 59.000 60.000 62.000 63.000 64.000 69.000
5 62.000 59.000 56.000 55.000 54.000 54.000 52.000 51.000 53.000 52.000 53.000 53.000
6 47.000 45-000 44.000 43.000 41.000 43.000 43.000 44.000 47.000 55.000 57.000 58.000
7 45.000 49.000 49.000 48.000 46.000 44.000 45.000 45.000 49,000 51.000 53.000 55.000
P 45.000 44.000 42.000 43.000 42.000 42.00Q 41.000 44.000 48.000 52.000 55.000 59.000
9 52.OC0 52.000 53.000 50.000 50.000 48.000 49.000 49.000 59.000 61,000 60.000 62.000
10 58.000 58.000 53.000 55.000 54.000 50.000 48.000 48.000 50.000 53.000 55.000 55.000
11 41.000 40.000 40.000 39.000 38.000 38.000 37.000 38.000 40.000 45.000 46.000 49.000
12 45.000 40.POO 40.000 42.000 38.000 40.000 40.000 44.000 48.000 53.000 57.000 58.000
13 52.000 51.000 51.000 51.000 50.000 49.000 49.000 51.000 54.000 56.000 61.000 60.000
14 51-000 53.000 52.000 51.000 52.000 49.000 48.000 52.000 58.000 62.000 63.000 66.000
15 52.000 52.000 50.000 49.000 48.000 49.000 49.000 49.000 58.000 63.000 68.000 70.000
16 57.000 57.000 56.000 55.000 54.000 53.000 53.000 52.000 57.000 64.000 66.000 74.000
17 63.000 63.000 63.000 63.000 62.000 62.000 62.000 61.000 62,000 63.000 64.000 64.000
18 60.00n 59.000 59.000 59.000 58.000 5a.OOP 58.000 59.000 59.000 63.000 64.000 66.000
19 59.000 57.000 57.000 55.000 54.000 55.000 54.000 55.000 61,000 63.000 66.000 63.000
20 49.000 48.000 49.000 49.000 49.000 49.000 49.000 49.000 50.000 50.000 51.000 52.000
21 44.000 43.000 43.000 43.000 43.000 43.000 44.000 44.000 47.000 49.000 52.000 53.000
22 56.000 54.000 53.000 51.000 49.000 48.000 47.000 48.000 52.000 57.000 58.000 61.000
23 45.000 45.000 44.000 44.000 43.000 41.000 41.000 43.000 44.000 47.000 52.000 53.000
24 41.000 40.000 39.000 38.000 37.000 37.000 36.000 36.000 41.000 44.000 47.000 49.000
AVG 54.935 54.161 53.355 52.548 51.742 51.226 50.839 51.839 55.129 58.032 60.097 61.581
N3 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31
M4 71.000 75.000 76.000 74.000 73.000 70.000 65.000 68.000 73.000 77.000 77.000 78.000
N(1> « HOURS OF VALID DATA
mAx(2) » PEAK 1 HOUR CONCENTRATION
S13 . PAYS WITH VALID HOURLY AVERAGES
M4 = PEAK HOURLY AVERAGES
-------
TABIB A-9- JET AIRCRAFT EXHAUST STUDY 5EPT-0CT64 JOHN F, KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
(cont'd) HAN6FR 11
TEmPFRATURE
WBAN
UNITS* DEGREES F.
PAY
_1_2_
_L3_
14
_L5_
_I4_
_I2_
_1_S_
_LSL
21
22
_2i_
AVG N (1) 1AX 121
-24 80.00(1 61.QOQ 81.000 81.000 79.000 78.000 7*.OOP 73.000 71.000 70.000 66.000 67.000 74.167 24 81.000
25
26
27
23
70.000
70.000
72.000
70.QOQ
72.000
72.OOP
72.000
71.000
69.000
69.000
68.000
67.000
66.000
65.000
65.000
65.000
58.000
64.OOP
64.000
64.000
62.000
64. OOP
62.000
64.000
64.625 24
63.375 24
67.375 24
72.000
72.000
73.000
70.000
62.000
73.000
58.000
72.000
60.000
72.000
60.000
71.000
60.000
70.000
60.000
69.000
57.000
68.000
56.0QQ
68.000
52.000
68.000
53.000
69.000
52.000
69.000
53.000
70.000
53.000
57.500
57.083
24
24
29
30
1
2
3
6
7
P
-------
TAPTJg A-10. JET AIRCRAFT EXHAUST STUDY SEPT«0CT6* JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
HANGER 11
-QAi
RELATIVE HUMIDITv
WBAN
UNITS. PERCENT
LOCAL TIME
10
11_
81.000
71.000
43.000
34.000
34.000
38.000
59.000
53.000
41.000
33.000
36.000
31.000
25
26
40.000
50.000
43.000
62.000
48.000
67.000
56.000
67.000
58.000
69.000
56.000
69.000
62.000
72.000
58.000
72.000
54.000
58.000
56,000
47.000
47,000
44.000
42.000
46.000
27
28
78.000
79.000
75.000
59.000
81.000
54.000
84.000
50.000
81.000
54.000
84.000
57.000
75.000
64.000
73.000
77.000
73.000
83.000
66.000
83.000
62.000
80.000
66.000
69.000
29
30
93.000
93.000
96.000
96.000
100.000
96.000
96.000
96.000
96.000
96.000
96.000
96.000
96.000
96.000
96.000
96.000
96.000
93.000
93.000
81.000
93.000
75.000
93.000
75.000
1
80.000
80.000
75.000
80.000
86.000
89.000
86.000
80.000
65.000
60.000
54.000
59.000
2
78.000
87.000
93.000
93.000
93.000
87.000
87.000
87.000
90.000
93.000
93.000
9?.000
3
4
100.000
70.000
100.000
72.000
97.000
75.000
81.000
75.000
67.000
78.000
65.000
78.000
67.000
72.000
67.000
78.000
56.000
75.000
47.000
75.000
44.000
75.000
39.000
71.000
5 58.000
6 56.000
42.000
60.000
59.000
58.000
7*.000
44.000
65.000
52.000
63.000
45.000
68.000
47.000
73.000
43.000
73.000
49.000
63.000
52.000
60.000
53,000
56.000
*6.000
52.000
67.000
47.000
*0.000
47.000
52.000
49.000
44.000
45.000
42.000
31.000
35.000
7 80.000
B 54.000
59.000
60.000
63.000
63.000
68.000
65.000
60.000
68.000
63.000
58.000
35.000
43.000
69.000
72.000 83.000 86.000 89.000 89.000 86.000
60.000 60.000
_j.y.
11
12
.. 9
47.000
44.000
Y'V
49.000
62.000
49.000
65.000
45.000
58.000
46.000
70.000
46.000
73.000
48.000
73.000
46.000
65.000
45.000
50.000
35,000
41,000
34,000
37,000
30.000
32.000
13
14
66.000
69.000
66.000
74.000
66.000
74.000
69.000
69.000
74.000
59.000
77.000
66.000
80.000
74.000
77.000
72.000
67,000
55,000
64,000
48,000
56,000
46,000
58.000
40.000
15
16
90.000
75.000
90.000
72.000
93.000
78.000
89.000
80.000
96.000
83.000
89.000
90.000
93.000
90.000
93.000
90.000
67,000
81,000
52.000
61.000
36.000
61.000
36.000
3B.000
17
18
84.000
90.000
84.000
90.000
87.000
90.000
84.000
87.000
87.000
90.000
90.000
90.000
93.000
90.000
97.000
87.000
93,000
90.000
97.000
81.000
93.000
78.000
90.000
70.000
19
20
72.000
69.000
78.000
68.000
83.000
66.000
90.000
66.000
86.000
66.000
86.000
66.000
86.000
66.000
86.000
66.000
67.000
64.000
65.000
64.000
59.000
61,000
56.000
59.000
21
22
83.000
55.000
86.000
62.000
86.000
64.000
86.000
71.000
86.000
80.000
86.000
80.000
86.000
80.000
83,000
66.000
77.000
57,000
66.000
44.000
53,000
42,000
51.000
39.000
23
24
60.000
55.000
60.000
55.000
63.000
55.000
63,000
55.000
63.000
57.000
68.000
57.000
68.000
62.000
63.000
64.000
60,000
53,000
54.000
47,000
45,000
44.000
41.000
41.000
AVCi
71.129
70.806
71.387
70.710
72.065
73.258
74.613
73.129
65,677
59.258
55.516
52.258
N3
M4
31
100.000
31
100.000
31
100,000
31
96.000
31
96.000
31
96.000
31
96.000
31
97.000
31
96,000
31
97,000
31
93.000
31
93.000
N(1) « HOURS OF VALID DATA
MAx<2) a PEAK 1 HOUR CONCENTRATION
N3 » DAYS WITH VALID HOURLY AVERAGES
M4 « PEAK HOURLY averages
-------
TABUS A-10. JET AIRCRAFT EXHAUST ST4AXm
<¦* 31.0C0 32.000 32.000 33.QQQ 3Q.Q0Q 25,000 29.000 2B.000 31.000 29.000 35.000 35.000 38.500 "2" "alTooO
25 36.000 30.000 28.000 28.000 34.000 35.000 36.000 39.000 60.000 41.000 46.000 46.000 44.95ft 24 62 000
-M 41.000 42_^000 43.000 46.000 51.000 57.000 63.000 65,000 68.000 68.000 65.000 70.000 58.417 24 72.000
27 66.000 71.000 73.000 76.000 79.000 84.000 87.000 87.000 87.000 81.000 81.000 79.000 77.125 24 877660
-20 70.000 56.000 52,000 48.000 48.000 62.000 67.000 74.000 80.000 86,000 90,000 90.000 68.000 24 90.000
29 93.000 93.000 93.00693.000 100.00097.000 97.000 97.000 97,000 97.000 93,000 93.000 95.292 24 lOO.OOO"
-30—73.000 67,000 65.000 60.000 54,000 60.000 62.000 67.000 70.000 77.000 77.000 80.000 79,208_24 96,000
1 61.000 57.000 59.000 65.000 67.000 67.000 72.000 78.000 78.000 83.000 81.000 81.000 72,625 2* 89,000
_2 9?.OOQ 97.QQ0 97,000 97.000 97.000 97.000 97.000 97.000 97.000 100.000 97.000 93.375 24 100.000
3 28.000 27.000 27.000 25.000 26.000 25.000 51.000 61.000 63.000 60.000 63.000 65.000 56.292 24 100.000
73.000 _71.^30 78.000 78.OOQ 76.000 76.OOP 73.000 73.000 73.000 75.000 52.000 35.000 72.042 24 78.000
5 40.000 42.000 42.000 39.000 42.000 43.000 47,000 54,000 54,000 59,000 59,000 61,000 "48,250 24 ~6f.000^
6 39.QC0 34.000 32.000 38.000 42.000 47.OOP 51.000 59.000 61.QQQ 69.000 80.000 77.000 55.667 24 80,000
7 29.000 28.000 31.000 30.000 24.000 26.000 32.000 32,000 36,000 39.000 48.000 54.000 44.375 24 80.000
—8 35 «_00Q 3Q._Q00 41 §000 48.000 53.000 62.000 74.000 80.000 74.000 72,000 66.000 64.000 56,875 24 80,000
9 63.000 58.000 60.000 63.000 65.000 75.000 81.000 84.000 87.000 87,000' 87.000 90.000 74.458 24 90.000
40.000 41.000 39,000 34.000 33.000 41.000 39.000 39.000 42.000 40.000 41,000 45.000 48.000 24 87.000
11 25.000 23.000 21.000 21.000 22.000 22.000 27.000 29.000 33.000 34.000 37.000 40.000 35.583 24 49,000
L? J5..0QO 31.OOP 32.000 46.000 50.OOP 60.000 64.000 51.000 55.000 57,000 66.000 72.000 53.708 24 73*000
13 52„000 58.000 61.000 68.000 7?.000 72,000 43.000 41.000 49.000 55.000 59.000 57.^00 63.042 24 80.000
_.I4_—40,0^00 .37*000 35.000 40.000 54.000 63.000 75.QQ0 78.000 75,000 83.000 83.000 86.000 62.292 24 16.000
15 38.000 38.000 51,000 51.000 54.000 63.000 67,"00 72,000 72,000 75,000 72,000 70.000 68.958 24 96 000
48.000 59.000 51.000 44.000 43.000 58.000 63,000 67,000 70.000 78,000 81.000 84.000 68.542 24 90I0OO
17 93.000 90.000 93.000 93.000 97.000 97.000 93.000 90.000 93.000 90,000 90.000 93.000 917292 24 977000"
1 8 54^.000 52.000 48.000 64.OOP 76.000 75.000 78.000 65.000 58.000 60.000 78.000 75.208 ?4 90*000
19 60.000 62.000 65.000 75.000 75.000 74.000 77,000 77.000 71,000 71,000 69.000 69.000 73.292 24 90^000
2 0 55j_OOQ 59^,000 55.000 55.000 55.000 59.000 59.000 71.000 80.000 83.000 83.000 83.000 65.750 24 83,000
21 47.000 42.C0O 42.000 42.000 42.000 53.000 57,000 49.000 45.000 53,000 55.000 57.000 63.042 24 867000
2 2 38.OOQ 35.OOP 36.000 34.000 35.000 42.000 45.000 50.000 54.000 54,000 56,000 58.000 53.208 24 80.000
23 39.000 41.000 41.000 43.000 46.000 46.000 54.000 48.000 47.000 49.000 51.000 53.000 52.750 24 68.000~
-2^ 36.000 4Q.OOQ 37.QQ0 35.000 34.000 39.000 44.000 44.000 46.000 48.000 52.000 58.000 48.333 Z4 64.poo
AVJL-51.I94 49.9Q3 £0*452 £1,494 54.032 58.161 61.323 63.194 64.935 66,065 67.032 68.645
N3 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 " 31
MA 97.0GQ 97.OOQ 97.300 97.000 100.000 97.000 97.000 97.000 97,000 97.QQ0 100.QQQ 97.000
itLLL3 MnuR^ nF VAI TP piata
MAX(2) = PEAK 1 HOUR CONCENTRATION
N3 = DAVS WITH V/Atia HOURI Y AUFRAPiFS
M4 s peak hourly AVERAGES
-------
SEC 920
(9-64)
Figure Al. ODOR SURVEY OBSERVATION
Location:
Grid coordinates
X Y
n
cc
.1-6
Pollutant
code
03
cc.7-8
Date
year month day
—eii
cc.9-1^
-j
Time
7 A.M.
Strength of
Odor
h
¦s
fee!
no
J3 JO -P £
a e ra K
h
15-16
P.M. I 1 K1 [
0 12 3
17
8 PM. 1 ,2 | 0 1 | | |
10 P.M. 1 2 1 2 1 [_
Description Odor
of Odor
Code0
18-19
m
m
n
Observer'b Observer
Name Number13
20-22
Observer's
Do you
Reaction
4>
have a
3 Q
mfk jb#
cold?
Q CD
a, g «>
g 3
a
o »
SMS
65 X
0 12
0 1
23
n
~mem ~
n
a H
0 1
pq
cm ma mm
12 P.M. [33 I I I
m
~mem mm
& Check only 1 box
"b Do not use these boxes
------- |