forwards rept, 'particulate ... - nrc: home page · d cw o ix cooeqkmh'f p. o. box 21666...
TRANSCRIPT
0 REGUL ORY -INFORMATION DISTBIBUTI'YSTEM (BIDS)
~ <ACCESSION NBB~ 790.1040075 DOC ~ DATE- 78/12/21 NOTARIZED: J4)tf+$FACIL-STN-50-528 PALO VERDE PI, ARIZONA. PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
STN-50-529 PALO VERDF 4/2, ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO ~
~ 'TN-50-530 PALOVERDE P3. ARI ZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO ~
AUTH.,NAME AUTH()B AFFILIATION,VANBRUNT,E.E. AZ PUB SVC
BECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFI,LIATIONBOYD,R.S. *DIV. OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT
DOCKET e050005280500052905000530 ~
SUBJECT< .For>vards report, "Particulate Characteristics of Dust Stormsat Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.-"
7>ADRS. BPf cX 99 tRc'lo"too~DISTRIBUTION CODE- BOO) S COPIES BECEIVFD:LTB 4 ENCL 4 SIZE: ~+'7B
TITLE- PSAR/FSAR AMDTS AND RELATED CORRESP()NDFNCE.
04
0
ACTION:
NOTES: ~W~>8Zei< Zk''M42:RECIPIENT COPIES
ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL05 PM SrRrca r I I
BC LNg ¹~ I 0
BECI PI ENTID CODE/NAME
AD o'Assgec.cLA
COP I ESLTTR ENCL
I 0I 0
INTERNAL! 0106 E09 GEOSCIFN BR
I I MECH ENG BR13 MATL ENG BRI 6 ANALYSIS B R
18. AUX SYS BR20 I 8 CSYS BB22 AD SITE TECH27 EFFL TRT SYS29 KIRKI'IOODAD PLANT SYSAD SITE ANLYSISMPA
EXTE RNAL-- 03 LP DR30 ACRS
I .I
2I I
I I
2 2I,I. I I
.I I
4.I I
.I I
„I 0,I 0I 0
I I
16 16
02 NBC PDR08 OPERA LIC BB10 QAB12 STRUC ENG BR15 BEAC SYS BR17 CORI.: PEBF BB19 CONTAIN SYS21 POWER SYS BB26 ACCDNT ANLYS28 RAD ASMT BRAD FOR ENGAD REAC SAFETY.,DI RECTOR NRROELD
04 NS IC
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 0I 0I 0I 0
I I
L+Boo(
Cp EAICL
. F/6 ESnf~e. FsgLPZ)Q
Pg R.STA'IPH7Hl/Dif0-NET'E'op/ gg(g)
Lfi/Uoddf EE/8 &w8'Qlf +leEg7ZEBRA,
4A')9
gpQ 5 ftl4l
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPI ES BEQUI BED-'TTR 55 ENCL 45
I
1 tt
1
tt I
'tt
r
0l h
r rt „
1
~,
I PP
'',f
'
I
II I
%tr
t.,t K'\ I I
Il tt
~ K
Ka l'
I K' 1
, j ~),a'le
1
r
I t)'«IK
~ -, ~ u Itr ""II 1
I+IIII'aaK
I
O
tt'ttu ~ 4u,tt
lt 'I'
0
\ IK I~ 4 0
1
C,ya Ky It, I'
I ~ i'alI
li
1
I
I
'IKK
K
P a
r
tt
I 'a llla
rt tli
I
t ftt tI
',
",,t 1 K 1 Ã
(
l'I
ll
5 [
1
I
I
I
I
I'
v I ~'tI ~1
'J au'l; I Pk ",
1
lt K 'I I
II,I'j
lt'l"f')t
(tr *
'll '
a
ti
K
I
trrIQ
~ IK, + ~,O;I a
*$ aK
~',')
0,LIK ~ ~ I, Kut K
gX ra ttt,
'l
d cw o IX COoEQKMH'FP. O. BOX 21666 'HOENIXr ARIZONA 85036
December 21, 1978ANPP-12322-JMA/DBK
Director of Nuclear Reactor RegulationU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555
Attn: Roger Boyd, DirectorDivision of Project Management
Re : Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 5 3Docket Nos: STN-50-528/529/530
Dear Mr. Boyd:
Attached are six (6) copies of a report entitled Particulate Characteristicsof Dust Storms at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. This reportis submitted for your review in response to Section 2.3.3 of the Palo VerdeNuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 & 3 Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG
75/098).
Respectfully submittedARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
EEVBJr/DBK/dlc
By
Edwin E. Van Brunt, Jr .APS Vice President,Nuclear Project Management
On its own behalf and as agent for allother joint applicants.
County of Maricopa
STATE OF ARIZONA ) st nw
A~; "rr
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2l day of December",;1978.
pTpn'rr PgrrrrIT 1„11
I" &00 i(
My Commission Expires:Notary Public
<wC
~ogdz
y90y0400 l5'
l4T-
l
h
«p~ C
~ (N/
"c r0 r. r
a r~ C')
-+- t'z
/pV
mulmt IICl ~m oelBlmiu2f'PP. O. BOX 2I666 'HOENIX, ARIZONA BSO36
December 21, 1978ANPP-12322-JMA/DBK
Director of Nuclear Reactor RegulationU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555
Attn: Roger Boyd, DirectorDivision of Project Management
Re : Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 & 3Docket Nos: STN-50-528/529/530
Dear Mr. Boyd:
Attached are six (6) copies of a report entitled Particulate Characteristicsof Dust Storms at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. This reportis submitted for your review in response to Section 2.3.3 of the Palo VerdeNuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 8 3 Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG
75/098).
Respectfully submittedARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
EEVBJr/DBK/dlc
By
Edwin E. Van Brunt, Jr.APS Vice President,Nuclear Project Management
On its own behalf and as agent for allother joint applicants.
STATE OF ARIZONA )) ss.
County of Maricopa
Subscribed and sworn to before me this cM 7 day of becember, 1978.
/go~ 040o7g
My Commission Expires:
J
Notary Public
1
'l
j
j
I
PER RECC/
+ 0
l+ use Qx
JI » n fr «
'NITEDSTATESNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
01VVNK FOR: TERA Corp.
FROiif: US ttRC/TTDC/Distribution Services Branch
SUBJECT: Special Document Handling Requirementsr( t+~
I. Please use the following special distribution list for theattached document.
N~t ~+LPG~+~ g~pzhH74vorco-&ereog 8a Cz)
2. The attached document requires the following specialconsiderations:
Q Do not send oversize enclosure to the MRC PDR.
Q Only one oversize enclosure vas received — pleasereturn for Regulatory File storage.
Q proprietary inrornation — sand a iidiavit only tothe VRC PDR
ther: (speci fy)
40
cc: DSB Files TiDC/DSB Authorized Signa e
0r
I
!
I
I,
,1
HEGULATORX IN FORJ )AT1 ON
t.'cOCNEF NBR=
RECXPXENT= TZ\ l/2/3ORIGINATOR:
DlSTRXBUTXON SXSTEH
DOC DATE.ACCESSXON NBR:
COPXES RECEIVED:CONPANY:
SUBJECT=
LTR 3
SIZE= 39
ENCL 3
As-graded stratigraphic a pwr block excavation analyses.
irQ
REG" FINRC PDR
LPDR
R STRIGHT LTR
W/ENCL
W/ENCL
W/ENCL
FOR ACTXON
~ g ~
NOTES: .STANDARDIZED.PLAN'Z
1
,I
t
il,
l
'1
HARACYKRISTICSRYICUI.ATE
OF DUST STOR
UCLEARGB4ERAYINGY THE PAI.O
TATION
FINAL REPORTOctober 1STS
ARIXONANUCLEARPOWER PROJECT
—NONCETHE ATTACHED FILES ARE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THEDIVISION OF DOCUMENT CONTROL.'HEY HAVE BEENCHARGED TO YOU FOR A LIMITEDTIME PERIOD ANDMUST BE RETURNED TO THE RECORDS FACILITYBRANCH 016. PLEASE DO NOT SEND DOCUMENTSCHARGED OUT THROUGH THE MAIL. REMOVALOF ANYPAGE(SI FROM DOCUMENT FOR REPRODUCTION MUSTBE REFERRED TO FILE PERSONNEL.
cSd I2;ZI-%Q
IIBNIII70 IIM'Mlmt:II%
%$0 loQOO'0RECORDS FACILITYBRANCH
pEApLINE RETppg pgTp $ 5~$ 53Q
790104007$
produced bVENT DEPARTMENT ARIZONAPUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
ENVIRONMENTAI MANAGEMEN
I
11
1
II
II
V I
PARTICULATE CHARACTERISTICS
OF
DUST STORMS
AT THE
PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
FINAL'EPORT
Prepared by
Environmental Management Department
Arizona Public Service Company
October 1978
I'
FOREWORD
This represents the final report on the particulatemonitoring activities during dust storms at the Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station. All work presented in thisreport was performed by the Environmental Management
Department. Individuals involved in the operation of. the
monitoring program and preparation of this report are
Michael Ikustedde, Judy Xmhoff, Michael Morgan, Keith Scoular,
Louis Thanukos and Cindy Young.
I
1
l
l,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES.
Pacae
LIST OF TABLES
SUMMARY~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Io INTRODUCTION.
1V
Vl
Instrumentation.
Data Collection.!
II. PRESENTATION OF'ATA.
Non-Dust Storm Conditions.
Dust Storm Conditions.
Meteorological Summary of Dust Conditions.
IIX. HISTORICAL DUST STORM CHARACTERISTICS '.
Frequency of Occurrence.
Duration o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4
IV. COMPARISON OF SUMMER OF STUDY WITH HISTORICAL
CONDITIONS.
Total Suspended Particulate Concentration.
Dust Storm Events.
~ Meteorological Conditions.
V. GENERAL METEOROLOGY OF DUST STORMS.
Introduction ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
16
19
27
27
28
32
32
34
41
41
I
l
1,
jI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
General Climatology
Dust Storm Mechanics.
Pacae
41
42
Seasonal Dust Storm Occurrences 46
LITERATURE REFERENCES
INSTRUMENT REFERENCES
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
47
49
APPENDIX A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
APPENDI X 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
50
54
I
l1
'1
lj~
~
li
I1'
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. Schematic Diagram of Cyclone Preseparator and
Cascade Impactor . . . . . ". . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Schematic Diagram of Andersen Head Segregator.
3. Dust Storm Sampling Instrumentation In-Situ at
PVNGS Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Particulate Size Distribution at 10-Foot
Elevation During Non-Dust Storm Days
Geometric Mean Concentration vs. Impactor Stage
June 9, 1978 — September 8, 1978 . ; .- . . . . . 14
5. Particulate Size Segregation of Cyclone
Preseparator Particulate Content Via L3P
Sonic Sifter (Magnification = 150x). . . . „. . . 22
6. Particulate Size Segregation by Different
Cascade Impactor Stages During Dust Storms
(Magnification = 150x)
7. Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Temperature of
23
August 6, 1978, Dust Storm at PVNGS Site
8. Gross Wind Roses at 35 and 200 Feet for
June — August, 1974 — 1977, at PVNGS . . . . . . 38
9. Gross Wind Roses at 35 and 200 Feet for
June — August, 1978, at PVNGS. . . . . . . . . . =-39
10. Schematic Model of the Low-Level Airflow Inside
and Outside of Thunderstorm Outflows . . . . . . 44
gl
~
1
~
Il~
gl
i'll
~
~
l'
LIST OF TABLES
j
II~ i
Size Range Fractionation by Sierra Cascade
Pa<ac ~
Impactor and Andersen Head 'Segregator. . . . . . 3
II Average and Extreme Monthly Particulate
Concentrations at the PVNGS Site; June 9—
September 8, 1978. 12
IIX Variation of Particulate Size Distribution During
Non-Dust Storm Conditions; June 9—
Septmeber 8, 1978. 12
IV Comparison of Stage 5 Particulate Concentrations
for All Samplers (Non-Dust Storm Conditions) .. 15a
Dust Storm Parameters at PVNGS -17
VI Particulate Size Distribution During Dust Storms
(Cyclone Preseparator Samples Only). . . . . . . 20
VII Particulate Size Distribution of All Particulate
Matter Our ing Dust Storms.
VIII General Meteorological Conditions of Dust Storms
21
at PVNGS Site; Summer 1978 24
Historical Dust Storms and Blowing Dust Events at
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport1
(1956 — 1978) . 29
Il
I1
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Pacae
Time Duration of Phoenix Dust Storms. . . . '1XI Comparison of Total Suspended Particulate Con-
centiation for Summer 1978 with Historical
Data. . . 33
XII Average Temperature and Precipitation for Summer
Periods of Record Compared with the 1978
Summer, of Study at PVNGS and the Phoenix NNS. . .36
l
I~
~
l~
~
lgi
SUMMARY
Presented in this report are the results of a dust storm
monitoring program at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS).
This program was conducted from June 9 thru September 8, 1978, in order
to determine the total suspended particulate concentration and its size
distribution during dust storms at elevations of 10,40 and 75 feet above
ground level. General dust storm characteristics based upon historical
data were determined. A comparison of the summer of study wi th
historical data was made.
The following conclusions have resulted from this monitoring
program:
Dust storms are short duration events characterized by
extremely high particulate concentrations. Short term
particulate concentrations in excess of 100 milligrams
per cubic meter (mg/m3) can occur. No apparent variation of
mass loading with height was observed.
2. The size distribution of dust storm particulates is greatly
biased towards the 20-100 micron range. Approximately
60K of the total particulate concentration was in the 20-53
micron range and approximately 22K in the 53-106 micron range.
3. The mass loading during non-dust storm conditions was very
low in comparison to dust storm events. A geometric mean
of 61.3 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m ) was observed during
the season of study. Because higher particulate concentrations
Il~
~
il~
lll~
1'
E
ll
are normally measured during sumner conditions, a lower
annual geometric mean would be expected. A decrease in
small-sized particulates concentration with height was
also observed for non-dust storm days.
4. Analysis of Phoenix National Weather Service (NWS) dust
storm data for the past 23 years showed an average of 3.83
dust storms per year. The average duration of these dust
storms was 48.0 minutes with the longest duration being
4 hours. Approximately 79$ of all dust storms occurred
during the months of July and August. This corresponds
to the thunderstorm season at the PVNGS site.
S. A compa'rison of the summer of study with historical condi-
tions implied that the number of dust storm events during
this summer were comparable to historical averages. No
direct comparison of the severity of the dust storms with
historical averages could be made because of the lack of
historical data. The meteorology of this sumer was typical
of historical summers.
5
I
'l
~
llI
INTRODUCTION
An investigation of the ambient aerosol size distribution was
conducted at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)
meteorological site from June 9 through September 8, 1978.
i Specific objectives of this investigation were to determine
ambient mass loadings and particulate size distribution during
} local dust storm conditions. Sampling was conducted at the 10, 40
and 75 foot elevations with additional particulate mass loading
and size distribution data collected at the 10-foot elevation
during non-dust storm conditions.
Instr'umentation
Sierra Cyclone Preseparators (Model 230CP) in series with
Sierra Cascade Impactors (Model 234) were employed to collect
dust storm samples at all three elevations. Employment of this
instrumentation allows the capture of large sized particulates by
the preseparator and respirable particulates by the cascade
impactor. The preseparator was fitted with a wind vane which
rotated it in a manner that the sampling intake was always ,
h
directed into the wind. The instrument was designed and operated
in a manner (flow rate of 40 CPM) that an equivalent aerodynamic
diameter (AED) at 50% collection efficiency of 5.5 microns was
obtained; i.e., 50% particulates with diameter 5.5 microns are
I,1
I
l
lll~
l
retained, and 50$ are passed through to the cascade impactor. The
capture efficiency of the preseparator increases rapidly with par-
ticulate sizes greater than 5.5 microns and decreases rapidly for
sizes less than 5.5 microns. Constant flow rates of 40 CFN were
maintained through the use of Sieira Model 310 constant flow
controllers.
A Model GNN 2000 high volume sampler fitted with an Andersen (b)
Head Segregator was used to collect aerosol samples at the 10-foot
elevation during non-dust storm conditions. Unlike the Sierra
instrumentation, these instruments are designed to sample only-
small sized aerosols. Because of the shelter design, large size
particulates are theoretically eliminated from enterino the sampling
chamber and being captured.
The Sierra Cascade impactor and Andersen Head Segregator are
multistage devices which fractionate and collect particulates into
five size ranges. Both instruments operate on the principle of
inertial separation of particulates whereby particulate-laden airis forced to pass through a series of plates and make directionalchanges in motion in proceeding from one plate to the next. Large
particulate , because of their greater momentum cannot make the
directional change of motion and impinge upon collecting filterslocated on each plate. Table I presents the size ranges into
which particulates are fractionated by both the cascade impactor
and Andersen Head Segregator. The extremes of each of these
size ranges represent 50% cutoff diameters.
llI,
l
I
~
I
TABLE I
SIZE RANGE FRACTIONATION BY SIERRA CASCADE
IMPACTOR AND ANDERSEN HEAD SEGREGATOR
STAGE
SIERRA CASCADE INPACTORSIZE RANGE
microns)
Greater than 7.2
3.0 to 7.2
1.5 to 3.0
0.95 to 1.5
Less than 0.95
ANDERSEN HEAD SEGREGATOR
SIZE RANGE
microns
Greater than 7.0
3.3 to 7.0
2.0 to 3.3
1.1 to 2.0
Less than 1.1
Note: The Sierra Cyclone Preseparator has an equival nt aerodynamicdiameter at 50% collection efficiency of 5.5 microns.
gl
l,
II
I,
Schematic diagrams'of the cyclone preseparator with cascade
impactor and Andersen Head Segregators are shown in Figures 1
and 2 respectively. Aerosol matter is collected on glass fiber
filters with the particulate mass determined by weighing the fil-ters prior to and after exposure. Flow rates of 40 CFN and 20 CFH
respectively are required for proper particulate size fractiona-
tion by the Sierra and Andersen instruments.
Sampling at the 40 and 75 foot levels was performed by raising
the sampling instruments to these elevations by an elevator system
mounted on a 200-foot meterological tower. This arrangement is
shown in Figure 3. Instrumentation for sampling at the 10-foot
elevation was located on a platform appr'oximately 75 feet away from
the tower.
Data Collection
Initial program design called for an KIRI Fog Visiometer to(c)
start the dust storm instrumentation at the onset of dust storm
conditions. This proved to be not feasible. As a result; data
sampling procedures were altered such that this instrumentation
started operation at noon and shut off at midnight. Dust storm
data-was collected only if dust storms happened to occur during
this time interval. Analysis of historical dust storm data from
the Phoenix NWS shows that over 90% of dust storms in this area
occur during this time period.
I
I
l
AIRFLOW
I
II
II CYCLONE PRESEPARATOR
FILTER STAGE 1 ) 7.RP+t
FILTER STAGE 2, 3.0 '7,R PgFILTER STAGE 3 1.S 3.0 JJQ
P
FILTER STAGE 4 O.BS 1elm Jf nfl
CASCADE IMPACTORASSE MBLY
TOP VIEW OF CASCADEIMPACTOR PLATE
F'iqur| 1. SCIIEh)ATIC DIA|. RAN OF'YCLONE >RESEPARATORAND CASCADE XNPACTOR
gl
I
II
I
I LOW
PLATE
PLATE
FILTERSTAGE 2
P 7.0 MICRONS
PL TE
PLATE
PLATE
FILTER~ STAGE 2
32 - 7.0 MICRONS
FILTERSTAGE 32.0 - 3.3 MICRONS
FILTERSTAGE 4 .1.1 -2,0 MICRONS
SEGREGATOR HEAD ASSEMBLY'i
PLATE
0 00
0 O O0
0'
0 00 P O 0
0 00 O
0 P 0 0 p
GASKET AND PLATE,ARE SYMMETRIC ABOUTTHIS LINE
GASKET
00o''0o . o O
O p 0p
O o p0oo
00
HALF YIEW OF PLATE AND GASKETi
Figure 2. SC)EMATIC DIAGRAMOF ANDERSON gEQD SEGREGATOR
II
I
II
'Dust StormInstrumentation75-Foot Level
Dust StormInstrumentation40.Foot Level
1
Qg jl
N
I
I
l
Figure 3. Dust Storm Sampling Instrumentation In-Situ at P V N G S Site
A standard operating procedure for collecting particulate
samples was adopted. Sample collection was initiated with the
selection of good quality filters. These were dessicated for a
minimum of 24 hours to remove moisture and were then weighed and
stored for use. Loading and unloading of filters on the cascade
impactors and Andersen Segregator was conducted during mornings
in an air conditioned shelter located on site'. After completion
of the sampling period, the filters were removed, folded, placed
in folders and returned to the laboratory where they were des-
sicated for another 24 hours and re-weighed. Sampling was normally
performed 5 days per week. Twenty-four hour samples were collected
for the Pndersen Head Segregator and 12-hour samples for the cas-
cade impactors.
Upon the occurrence of a dust storm, the particulate mass
retained in each cyclone preseparator was collected and stored for
weighing and sieve analysis. The dust storm loading was set
equal to the total par ticulate mass collected during the 12-hour
period less a correction factor. This correction factor was set
equal to the average particulate mass expected to be collected
during the nori-dust storm sampling period. The correction factor
was found to be negligible in comparison to the dust storm
loading.
A sieve analysis was conducted of all dust storm samples
collected in the cyclone preseparators. The samples were
I
I
I
segregated into the following size ranges:
+106 microns,
53-106 microns
20-53 microns
10-20 microns
Q 10 microns
This analysis was conducted by the Sonic Sifter Division of
ATM Corporation using an L3P Sonic Sifter.(d)
Meteorological parameters monitored at two levels on a 200-foot
meteorological tower were employed to determine the duration ofl
dust storms. The strip chart data was found to be most informative
in selecting the start and termination of each dust storm.
A general discour e of the meteorological characteristics of
dust storms is presented in Section V. In summary, summer dust
storms encountered at the PVNGS site are usually the result of .
pronounced downdrafts Crom decaying stages of large thunderstorm
cells. Because of such pronounced downdrafts, the start of these
dust storms is characterized by a sudden shift in wind direction, a
rapid increase of wind speed and rapid cooling.
The termination of dust storms is more difficult to evaluate.
This can be easily determined if the dust storm is followed by
precipitation 'which is very common. If there is no precipitation,
I'
I
termination can be signified by a marked reduction in wind speed'. ~
Xf neither of these conditions is satisfied, a wind velocity of
less than 25 mph was assuioed to signify the termination "of the dust
storm event.
-10-
ifIII
IrtI'
I
I.
II. PRESENTATION OF DATA
Presented in this section are summaries of the particulate
measurements made at the PVNGS site from June 9 through
September 8, 1978. It includes total suspended particulates and
their size distribution during both non-dust storm and dust storm
conditions. Also included is a summary of the meteorology of the
dust storms encountered. Only three dust storms were encountered
during the above time period. A complete listing of sampling
days and particulate concentrations measured by the Andersen Head
Segregator and Stage 5 cascade filter are given in Appendix A.
Non-Dust Storm Conditions
The total 24-hour suspended particulate (TSP) concentration
at the 10-foot level of the PVNGS site was set equal to the
sum of the TSP concentrations of each Andersen Head Segregator
stage. Previous measurements 'ave shown good agreement(lr 2)
between this method and the EPA reference method, the High Volume
Sampler. During high wind conditions, the High Volume method is
actually subject to wind interference which is absent from the(2r 3)Andersen Head Segregator
Presented in Table II are measured TSP concentrations and
other pertinent statistics for each month sampled as well as the3entire sampling period. A geometric mean of 68.0 ug/m was
-11-
I,I
I
TABLE I I
AVERAGE AND EXTREME MONTHLY PARTICULATE*
CONCENTRATIONS AT PVNGS SITEJUNE 9 - SEPTEMBER 8, 1978
(Particulate Concentrations Are in Micrograms per Cubic Meter)
JUNE JULYALL NON-DUST
AUGUST DATA STORM DATA
Ari thmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Standard Deviation
Maximum Conc.
I Minimum Conc.
Sampling Days
70.3
68.6
14. 6
94.8
39.4
15
'73. 8
68.9
29.8
144.8
45.7
18
1 30.'7
72. 7
228.8
986. 2
28.4
26
94.0
68.0
147.8
986.2
28.4
66.2
61. 3
27.0
144.8
28 '
61
TABLE IIIVARIATION OF PARTICULATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
DURING NON-DUST STORM CONDITIONSJUNE 9 - SEPTEMBER 8, 1978
SIZE RANGEMI CRONS)
0 7.0
3.3 - 7.0
2.0 - 3.3
1.1 - 2.0
1.1
GE M TRIC ME N
CONCENTRATION(u /m3
20.1
11.8
7.9
4.3
16.1
PERCENTAGE OFTOTAL PARTICULATES
33.3
19. 6
13.1
7.1
26.7
* These me'asurements were made with the Andersen Head Segregator and represent24-hour sampling periods.
-12-
I
I
II
II
IIII,
measured for the time period June 9 through September 8; 1978.
All three dust storms were found to occur during August. This3is illustrated by the high arithmetic mean (130.7 ug/m ), stan-
3dard deviation (228.8 ug/m ), and maximum concentration (986.2
ug/m ) . A geometric mean of 61.3ug/m was obtained, for non-dust storm3 3
days. This value is expected to decrease if sampling was continued
for the remaining seasons which are normally characterized by lower
TSP concentrations.
The particulate size. distribution during non-dust storm
conditions is given in Table III and illustrated in graphical
form in Figure 4. Particulates greater than 7.0 microns comprised
the largest percentage of the TSP concentration. The next largest
percentage was found to occur in the size range of O-l.l microns.
The size distribution displayed in Table III and Figure 4 is(2)similar to previous measurements at this site and shows a
slightly greater preponderance of large-sized particulates than
other rural locations (4)
Although the dust storm instrumentation was not intended to
sample non-dust storm conditions, it is informative to compare
the Stage 5 filter loading (particulate size less than 0.95
microns) for all three elevations (Table IV). A decrease in
loading with height was found to occur for the cascade impactor.
In addition, Table IV shows a lower loading for the Stage 5
Andersen Head Segregator than the comparable Stage 5 cascade3impactor (geometric means of 16.1 vs. 19.8 ug/m ). This
-13-
I'
Ij
I
I
II
aI-III
0m30K
IL
22
20
1B
1B
STAGE 1
STAGE 2STAGE 3STAGE 4STAGE B
P 7.0 MICRONS
3.3 TO 7.0 MICRONS
2.0 TD 3o3 MICRDNS
1.1 TO 2 0 IVIICRDNS
( 1.1 MICRDNS
10
'20I-
K
20200
B
B
4
IMPACTOR STAGE
Figure 4. PARTICULATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AT 10 FOOTLEVEL DURING NON-DUST STORM DAYSGEOMETRIC MEAN CONCENTRATION VS INPACTORSTAGE
JUNE 9, 1978 — SEPTEMBER 8, 1978
-14-
II
I
I
II
II
TABLE IV
COMPARISON OF STAGE 5 PARTICULATECONCENTRATIONS FOR ALL SAMPLERS
(NON-DUST STORM CONDITIONS)
SAMPLER
Andersen Head10-foot Level
Cascade Impactor10-foot Level
Cascade Impactor40-foot Level
Cascade Impactor75-foot Level
ARITHMETICMEAN
(u /m3)
17.4
21.5
20.8
18.3
GEOMETRICMEAN
/m3
16.1
19.8
18.7
16.6
-15-
II
III
II,
I
I
II
may be attributable to the time of sampling. The Andersen Head Segregator
sampled for a full 24 hours, whereas the cascade impactors sampled from
noon to midnight.
Dust Storm Conditions
Three dust storms were encountered during the sampling period. All
three were of short duration; however, the particulate concentration
was high enough to result in significant particulate capture by the
dust storm sampling instrumentati on. The specific meteorology of each
of these storms and the general meteorology of dust storms are presented
later in the text. Pertinent loading, duration, and meteorological
parameters for each storm are given in Table V. It should be noted that
particulate sampling during the August 3, 1978, dust storm was inter-
rupted by a power failure. As a result, the duration of dust storm
sampling is not known for this event.
The total measured particulate concentrations weve found to be
highly variable with dust storm occurrence and with height. A maximum
TSP concentration of 130.9 mg/m was measured at the 10-foot level for
the August 6, 1978, dust storm. This dust storm had a duration of 57
minutes with frequent peak wind gusts in excess of 50 miles per hour.
The TSP loadings observed in all three dust storms are within a
previously published theoretical limit of airborne soil concentrations,
232.6 mg/m
-16-
II
II
II
II
I
TABLE U
DUST STORM PARAMETERS AT PUNGS
MASS LOADINGS
;ASS* CYCLONE PRESEPARATOR + CASCADE IMPACTOR ANDERSEN PEAK MIND GUSTS
DUST STORM LOADING 0-Foot -Foot 5 Foot HEAD DURATION . (MPH)OCCURRENCE PARAMETERs ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION SEGREGATOR MINUTES 35 Foot 200 FT
TSP P 48.2August 3, 1978 'MC . 4.5851
TMCI 4.6
Z,l 9.61.86949.5
/64. 26.10696.0
0.581 2 84 ~ 50 '750
August 6, 1978TSP 130.9TMC 8.4487TMCI 7.4
8.60.5575
34.8
56.83.66776.9
0.6163 57 >50 050
August 8, 1978TSP 12.5TMC 0.9798TMCI 6.6
11 .40.88737.6
2.50.1948 0.1803
20.669 48 >50
* TSP = Total Suspended Particulate Concentration (mg/m )TMC = Total Mass Collected in Cyclone Precipitator and Cascade Impactor (g)
TMCI = Percent of Total Mass in Cascade Impactor
+A power failure occurred during this dust storm. The TSP was calculated on the assumption that sampling was taking placeduring the entire dust storm.
-17-
l
l1
l I
lI
It should be noted that TSP concentrations are highly variableI'venwithin one dust storm. The greatest concentrations are
expected to occur during the initial impact of the storm. As the
main thunderstorm cell passes, the TSP concentration will remain
abnormally high unless quenched by rain. The TSP values given in
Table V are averaged over the entire dust storm duration.
No trend was observed with respect to particulate loading with
height except during the August 8, 1978, dust storm. This event
displayed a decrease in TSP concentration with height. This event
was also the most moderate of the three storms, had the lowest TSP
concentrations and the lowest wind velocity.
Comparing the concurrent mass loadings of the Andersen Head
Segregator and cyclone preseparator — cascade impactor instrumenta-
tion, it is noted that the Andersen Head Segregator captured
significantly less particulates. This is because of the EPA recom-
mended shelter which houses the Andersen Head Segregator. The
shelter is designed to eliminate the capture of large sized partic-ulates.
The results of the sieve analysis of the particulate matter
collected in the cyclone preseparator are given in Table UI. The
size distribution was very similar for all dust storms and allelevations. Approximately 68% of the particulate matter collected
in the cyclone preseparator was in the 20-53 micron range and
approximately 24% in the 53-106 micron range. Optical micrographs
of the sonic sifter segregated particulates are shown in Figure 5.
-18-
R,l
l
1
l,I1
L
l',
The size distribution of the total particulate matter captured
by both the cyclone preseparator and cascade impactor is presented
in Table VII. Optical inspection of the cascade fi'lters indicated
proper fractionation except for the stage 5 filter (captures par-
ticulates less than 0.95 microns). Optical micrographs of the
Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 4, and Stage 5 filters are shown in Figure
6. The Stage 5 filters exhibited numerous particulates in the
10-20 micron range. It appears, that if these size particulates are
not retained by the cyclone preseparator, they apparently will make1their way to the Stage 5 filter. Improper fractionation of large
sized particulates by inertial impactors has been previously
reported ' The actual percentage of particulates with size
less than 0.95 microns should be much less than indicated in Table
VII.
Meteorolo ical Summar of Dust Storms
As was indicated earlier, the start of summer dust storms isgenerally characterized by a sudden shift in wind direction, a rapid
increase in wind speed and rapid cooling. Presented in Table VIIIis a summary of these parameters for all three dust storms encoun-
tered at the PVNGS site. Figure 7 is a copy of the 35-foot
level strip chart data for the August 6, 1978, dust storm. The
dramatic changes signifying the start of the dust storm and enumer-
ated in Table VIII are clearly visible in this figure. The wind,
-19-
I',
)
lrk
I
1
l
1
TABLE VI
PARTICULATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DURING OUST STORMS
{CYCLONE PRESEPARATOR SAMPLES ONLY)
Percenta e of Total-Particulates in Size Ran eDust StormOccurrence
August 3, 1978
41
August 6, 1978
August 8, 1978
Average ofAbove DustStorms
Si ze RangeMicrons
0'10653-10620- 5310- 20
$ 10
P10653-10620- 53
'0-
20410
$ 10653-10620- 5310- 20
<10
P 10653-10620- 5310- 20
4,'10
0-Foo tElevation
1.7733.0162.82
1.770.65
1.4821.6070.036.170.72
1.9122.3868.964.732.02
1.7225.6667.274. 221.13
-FootElevation
3.5529.6163.11
2.840.89
5.1120.7471.882.27
1.4921 .8971.523.481.62
3.3824. 0868,84
2.861.26
7 -FootEl evati on
1.2521.3168.316.592. 54
1.7426.5366.204.540.99
2.4123.4971 .39
2.71
1.8023.7868.634.611.77
-20-
I'
ll,I
I
lt
III
TABLE VII
PARTICULATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF ALL PARTICULATEMATTER DURING DUST STORMS
Dust StormSi ze RangeMicrons
Percentage of Total Particulates in Size Range10-Foot 40-Foot 75-Foot
Elevation Elevation Elevation
August 3, 1978
August 6, 1978
August 8, 1978
Average ofAbove DustStorms
> i0653 -10620 - 5310 - 207.2 - 103.0 - 7.21.5 - 3.00.95-, 1.5
4, 0.95
P 10653 -10620 - 5310 - 207.2 - 103.0 - 7.21.5 - 3.00.95- 1.5
q 0.95
) 10653 -10620 - 5310 — 207.2 -103.0 - 7.21.5 — 3.00.95- 1. 5
4 0.95
g10653 -10620 - 5310 - '207.2 - 103 ' - 7.21.5 — 3.00.95- 1.5
QO.95
1 .6931 .5259.941.691.521 ~ 130.590.261 .67
1.3720.0264.885.72
. 0.910.480.530.485.61
1 .7820.9064.404.422.490.870.880.473.80
1.6124.1 063. 07
3.941 .640.830.670.403.69
3.2126.8057.07
2.574.083.330.960.431.55
1.8813.7047.50
1 .512.534,443.923.39
21.09
1.3820.2266.06
3.212.160.920.820. 51
4.72
2.1620.2456.0.0
2.432.922.901.901.449.12
1.1720.0464. 24,6.195. 21
1.650.340.180.97
1.6224. 7061.624.231. 35
, 0.670. 650.634.53
1 ~ 91
18.6556.692.151.853.132.461.80
11.34
1.5721.1360.854.192.801.821.150.875.61
-21-
I'
lk
~
~
I
It~~~
~
gf
Ii1
~
I
) 1068, 53-106 I,
C 1
g~cQ~~
g )~f Q~.'3
)
I5
20-53 8, 10-20 p
Figure 5. Particulate Size Segregation of Cyclone Preseparator Particulate ContentVia L3P Sonic Sifter (Magnification = 150 x)
-22-
l
l
I
I
Stage 1
> 7.2p,Stage 2
3.0-73 p,
I~E
p,x )
Stage 40.95-1.5 /L
Stage 5( 0.95 p
Figure 6. Particulate Size Segregation by Different Cascade Impactor Stages DuringDust Storms (Magnification = 150 x)
-23-
gl
S
S
lI8
I
I
TABLE VIII
GENERAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS OF DUST STORMS AT PVNGS SITESUMMER 1978
Date
Wind Direction Wind DirectionPrior to After Oust
Time Dust, Oust Storm Storm StartedStorm Started 200-Foot Level
Avg. HindVel oci tyPrior to
Dust Storm35-Foot Level
MPH)
Hind Velocityat Start ofDust Storm
35-Foot LevelMPH)
Max. Wind Max.Speed Temp.
35-Foot Level Drop Duration*
(MPH F. Minutes
Aug. 6, 1978
Aug. 8, 1978
9:27 PM
8:50 PM
Aug. 3, 1978 ll:47 PM S-SSW
SW-SSW NNE
5-6
8-9
%50
>50
>48
5 50 20 84
0 50 23 57
48 16 69
* All durations based on meteorological data obtained from 200'oot tower.
-24-
gi
~
Il
t~
~
gi
~
~
~
liIgl
l~
giII
ll1,
I'*\M*~ I,L a ~Ai~ ~ I- I- ~ I
!n S eed.II ~PFoof-'I,'eyel
Iv r,9!Merrqjnatio'!
o69ijN Storlf sSBt 0
~ ~
'L
—f—~,
I'
. ~ f ~
i- ~4-....,.-.-.—.—.;-..-.-.-—... ——~inrd Direction'-" -'-' ——-'--'- =--—'-' 5-'Foot-Leve)-r I ~
~ « ~ « ~
M~
gite.=
I" ~
I
I
ft-'
.:DIISISIOtllTi- rv-~—...,—-,'.I
I~ I 'I
I'
IIIIBhrt I h v rlrr~ "ov rr O
~ ~
.'..: -; i=;-:-36;Foots:eyel-;I ~ r
I~ *
~ -'»I-~ = ~ I" *" ~"~ v
~ '+
f - ~ Imph~at ure
'P ~ I~-
~ ~ .Ilf.W . ~- ~ . ~. h vi.'
~ II~ ~I
Figure 7. Wind Speed, Wind Direction and Temperature of August 6, 1978 Dust Stormat P VN 6 S Site.
-25-
5
5
I
velocity changed from a steady 5-8 miles per hour to continuous
gusts in excess of 50 miles per hour. This was accompanied by a
0temperature drop of approximately 23 F. Strip charts of bothI
35 and 200 foot meteorological data depicting the meteorology of
each dust storm are contained in Appendix B.
Ili
I I I . HISTORICAI DUST STORb1 CHARACTERISTICS
Historical dust storm data at the PVNGS site is minimal.
It consists of one year (1975-1976) of TSP monitoring with(2)
no emphasis on dust storms. As a result, National Weather Service
(NWS) data collected at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport was
employed to determine long term historical averages of dust storms.
It was assumed that Phoenix dust storms, on the average, are
representative of dust storms at the PVNGS site. Because of
the similarity of the surrounding terrain and dust storm meteor-
ology, such an assumption is considered valid. Note that the0Phoenix historical meteorological averages (temperature 70.3 F,
precipitation = 7.05 inches) compare well with sites near the0
PVNGS site (Buckeye: T = 69.5 F, precipitation = 7.08 in.;Tonopah: 69 .5 F, precipitation = 7 .83 in.) .
0
Fre uenc of Occurrence
According to the National Weather Service, a dust storm is
defined as a poor visibility condition, usually less than one-half
mile, arising from a high concentration of airborne dust. A less
restrictive term also used to describe a very high particulate
concentration is that of "blowing dust" or "dust". This is de-
fined as a less severe reduction in visibility as a result of
airborne dust.
-27-
l
l
1
S
IllI'
Presented in Table IX is a chronological documentation of dust
storm and blowing dust events at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport from 1956 to.1978. An annual average of 3.83 dust storm~ ~
and 3.35 blowing dust events were found to occur during this time
period. 'he majority of dust storm events (79%) were found to
occur during the months of July and August. This corresponds'o
thunderstorm activity typical of these months.
The blowing dust events showed a simil'ar', though not as pro-
nounced, dependence on the months of July and August. Fifty-three
percent of all blowing dust events occurred during these two months.
The frequency distribution for these events was more spread out such
that even characteristically low -TSP months had significant occurr'ence
probabilities.It should be noted, that because of the very low visibility
value utilized to define a dust storm, some high TSP concentration
days are not recorded as dust storms. Some of theseevents,'ecause
of their longer duration, may res'ult in 24-hour TSP
concentrations greater than those days when the dust storm definition'as
been satisfied. Thus, the absence of a dust storm does not
guarantee a low TSP concentration. In general, dust storm conditions
will lead to the highest TSP measurements. This is especially
true for short time intervals.
Duration
Because of the transient nature of the meteorological con-
ditions leading to most dust storms, the time duration of such
-28-
iLi
1'
l
TABLE IXHISTORICAL DUST STORMS & BLOWING DUST EVENTS AT PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INT'L AIRPORT
1956-1978(THE NUMBERS WITHOUT PARENTHESIS REPRESENT DUST STORMS, THE NUMBERS WITH
PARENTHESIS REPRESENT BLOWING DUST EVENTS)
YEAR JAN- FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL
19561957195- 19
19 1
19 3
1 3 1 (1) 5(l }
9 3)
6 2)
19 72 11 2
3 2
1 11 1
2 )51 4)5 2)
3 1
1 2
2 6 1 6 (10)
0(5)3 (5)3(7)
4)S(6)
1978 1 (3) 2 (1) 3 4)
TOTAL 0 (1) 0 (4) 0 (2) 0 (6) 2 (6) 8- (7) 33 (28) 36 (13) 8 (4) 1 (3) 0 (2) 0 (1) 88 (77)
Percentof 0 (1) 0 (5) 0 (3) 0 (8) 2 (8} 9 (9) 38(36} 41(17) 9 (5) 1 (4) 0 (3) 0 (1) 100
total (100)
AVERAGE PER YEAR 3.83 (3. 35)
-29-
~
~
l
l
Illlll
dust storms is generally short. Typical time durations of one
(7i 8)to three hours have been cited in the literatureDust storm duration data at the PVNGS site is non-
I
existent. Examination of the weather records at the Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport show that the low visibility condi-
tion (less than one-half mile visual range) characterizing a
dust storm usually persisted for less than one hour duration.
Presented in Table X are the number of dust storms recorded at
Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport from 1957 to 1978 for different time
durations. An average time duration of 48.0 minutes was calculated
for dust storms. The longest dust storm on record during this time
period was four hours.
It should be noted, that because of the stringency of the
dust storm definitions employed by the National Weather Service,
i.e., less than one-half mile visual range, dust storm durations
will be short. However, high dust concentrations resulting in
reduced visibility which is greater than one-half mile can persist ~
for significantly longer durations. One long duration dust storm
event exhibiting such a condition occurred May 12, 1961. This
event had consecutive hourly average visibility values for the
time period prior, during, and after the dust storm of 20, 5, 1,
1, 3, 5, and 10 miles. The weather records indicated that thisdust storm had a duration of 2 hours and 55 minutes. However,
high dust concentration resulted in significantly reduced visibility,less than 5 miles, for approximately 5 hours.
-30-
l1
~
llI1
1
l
lI
TABLE X
TIME DURATION OF PHOENIX DUST STORMS(1957-1978)
DurationMinutes
+15
15- 29
30- 44
45- 59
60- 74
75- 89
90-104
105-119
) 120
Number ofDust Storms
14
Arithmetic Mean of Dust Storm Duration = 48.0minutes
Longest Dust Storm Duration = 240 minutes
-31-
~
I
l,~
~
~
~
l'
~
~
l1
IV. COMPARISON OF SUMMER OF 1978 WITH
HISTORICAL CONDITIONS
A comparison was made of the total suspended particulate
concentrations, dust storm events and meteorological conditions1 t
for the summer of study,'une, July and August 1978, with histori-
cal data typical of these months. A major difficulty in making
such comparisons was the lack of long-term data at the PVNGS site.
This diffic'ulty was alleviated in certain cases with the substitu-
tion of Phoenix NWS data.
Total Sus ended Particulate Concentration
Historical TSP concentration data at the PVNGS site was
collected during a prior study from August 27, 1975 to July 31,I
1976 . Presented in Table XI is a comparison between the
TSP concentrations measured during the summer of 1978 and histori-cal data collected at both the PVNGS site and at two Phoenix area
locations. The West Phoenix site represents the Maricopa County
sampling site closest to the PVNGS site while the North Scottsdale
site is more representative of a rural location. The summer of
1978 generally showed a significant decrease in measured TSP
concentrations for both the PVNGS site and the Phoenix sites. A
geometric mean of 68.0 ug/m was obtained at the PVNGS site vs.3
a geometric mean of 83.3 ug/m for the corresponding time. period
during 1975 and 1976. It should be noted that the 1975-1976
-32-
I
l
TABLE XI
COMPARISON OF TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATECONCENTRATION FOR SUMMER 1978 WITH HISTORICAL DATA(Concentrations Are in Micrograms Per Cubic Meter)
PARAMETER- PVNG'5 ~ 5 ITE .: WEST PHOENIX NORTH SCOTTSDALE
SUMMER SUMMER SUMMER SUMMERS SUMMER SUMMERS1978 1976 1978 1974 — 1978 1974
1977 1977
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Standard Dev.
Ma'ximum Conc.
Minimum Conc.
Sampling Days
94.0 122.0 112.7
68.0 83.3 106.4
147.8 225.8 34.7
28.4 28.6 51.0
64 50 "7
986. 2 1242. 0 157'. 0
129.0 184.1 221.6
59. 6
342.0
57 -0
44
53.1 163.6
260.0 1083.0
112.0
10
33.0
119.0 176.7 188.9
Note: Concentrations represent 24-hour averages.
-33-
l
I
l~
~
~
l
i~
monitoring period did encompass start-up of construction of the
PVNGS. This may have contributed to the higher TSP concentration.
Dust Storm Events
As was stated earlier in this report, an average of 3.8
dust storms and 3.4 blowing dust events are expected to occur at
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. If only summer months
are considered, this is reduced to 3.3 dust storms and 2.1 blowing
dust events per summer. Considering the summer of 1978 a total of
3 dust storms and 4 blowing dust events were documented at Phoenix
Sky Harbor International Airport, while 3 dust storms were detected
at the PVNGS site. No means were devised for the detection of
blowing dust conditions at the PVNGS site.The dust storms measured at the PVNGS site had an average
duration of 70 minutes. This was based on meteorological rather
than visibility data and compares reasonably well with the his-
torical average duration of 48.0 minutes as obtained from Phoenix
dust storms.
A direct comparison of particulate concentrations during
dust storms with historical averages cannot be made. Because of
the shelter design generally employed with high volume samplers,
large-sized particulates which are characteristic of dust storms
are theoretically eliminated from being captured. As a result,
high volume sampler TSP concentration data will be much less than
-34-
I
l
l
I
I,
concurrent data collected from a cyclone preseparator — cascade
impactor.
An indirect comparison may be made by comparing the total
Andersen Head Segregator loadings during dust storms with histori-
cal measurements. The two highest 24-hour TSP concentratio'ns(2)obtained at the PVNGS site during the 1975-1976'tudy were
1694 and 1242 ug/m . The highest Andersen Head Segregator TSP3
concentration averaged over 24 hours during the current sampling
was 765 ug/m and corresponded to the August 6 dust storm. If3
the 1975-1976 measurements were the result of a dust storm, itis conceivable that it was either of longer duration or more
severe.
Meteorolo ical Conditions
The following sections deal with a comparison of the period
of record for meteorological data at the PVNGS site with data from
the summer of 1978. The parameters of temperature, precipitation
and wind speed and direction were used for the comparison based on
the assumption that these values would be most representative in
comparing Arizona summer periods.
A. Temperature and Precipitation
Table XII shows a comparison of temperature and precipitation
for the summer period of record at the PVNGS meteorological site
with the present summer of study. Data based on a 1941-,1970
-35-
II
I
I
IIl
III'
TABLE XIIAVERAGE TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION
FOR VARIOUS SUMMER PERIODS OF RECORD COMPAREDNITH THE 1978 SUMMER OF STUDY AT
PVNGS AND THE PHOENIX NWS
PVNGS
1974 — 1977 1978
PHOENIX
1941 — 1970 1978 A
TEMP .( F) 90.5. 91.3 +.8 88.3 92.3 +4.0
PRECIP .( II) .42b 70a l.08a
aTrace amounts not included in averages.
'veragedfrom only 2 years of data — remaining data unavailable.
-36-
I
gi
ll)I~
I
record norm as well as summer of 1978 data from the National Weather
Service (NWS) at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport is
included for additional comparison.
Analysis of this table. suggests that the data for the present
summer of study (June-August, 1978) is not unusual for this time
of year in Arizona. Any variations in this data should not be
considered abnormal, but should be recognized as normal vari.ations
which exist from year'o year.
B. Wind Speed and Direction
Figures 8 and 9 show a comparison of 35 ft. and 200 ft. AGL
(Above Ground Level) wind roses for the summer period of record
at the PVNGS meteorological site (June-August, 1974-1977), with
the present summer of study (June-August, 1978).
Analysis of these figures suggests that the data for the
present summer of study is not considered unusual. General trends
in wind directions are the same for both periods. The 1978 summer
months show a slight increase in the average wind speed, but, as
previously stated, any variations in this data should not be con-
sidered abnormal.
C. Conclusions
Comparison of 500-llillibar charts for the summer of study
with long-range trends show no dramatic changes in the general
synoptic pattern over the state. Any variations in the data
-37-
I,III
II
I.
III'
Ili
NNW NNE NNW
HW NE NW
WHWENE WNW EHE
0 /iCALM
10 15E
09 5 10 15 20CALM E
WSW ESE WSW ESE
SW
NW
SSW
NNW
SE
SSE U
JUNE
HE NW
SSW
NNW
SE
SSE 0=7.55
HNE
HE
WHW EHEWNW ENE
0%CALM
CAL40'/ 5 20
E
WSW ESE WSW ESE
SE
SSW SSE U ~ 6.59
JULYSSW SSE Q= 9.11
NW
NN NNE
NW
NNW NNE
NE
WNW ENE WNW ENE
0%CALM
5 10 15 20E
i/ S 0 15 20
GALS
WSW
SW SE
ESE WSW
SW SE
ESE
SSWS
35'
6. 16
AUGUST
LEGENDWIND DIRECTIPN FREPUENCY {PERCENT)MEAN WIND SPEED ( MPH)
S200'SEQ~ S. 91
Figure 8. GROSS WIND ROSES AT 35 and 200 FEET FOR
JUNE — AUGUST, 1974-1977iat PVNc,S
-38-
I
I
I
I
II
NNW NHE HHW HHE
NW NE HW HE
WHWENE WNW EHE
1$CALM E
O'4 SCALM E
WSW ESE WSW ESE
SW SE SW SE
NW
SSW
NHW HNE
U = 7.d$
NE
JUNE
NW
SSW
NNW
SSE U= 10 20
NHE
NE
WNW ENE WHW EHE
Ori $ LO 1$ 20
CALM E CAL|AO'I IO
E
WSW ESE WSW ESE
SW
SSWS
NNW
SE
$ $E U~ 7.d3
NNE
JULY
SSW
NNW
SE
SSE Lj ~ 9.97
HNE
NW NE NW HE
WNW EHE WNW ENE
OICALM
10 15 20E
0%CALM
20E
WSW ESE WSW ESE
SW SE SW SE
SSW SSE Q = 7.1$S AUGUST35'SW S200'$
f U~ 9.33
LEGENDWIND DIRECTION FREOUENCY ( PERCENT)MEAN WIND SPEED ( MPH )
Figure 9. GROSS WIND ROSES AT 35 AND 200 FEET FORJUNE — AUGUST, 1978, at PVNGS
-39-
I
I
III
I
II
presented in the above sections dealing with meteorology should
not be considered abnormal, but as a normal variations which
occur over an area on a year-to-year basis.
-4 0-
III
I
It
iIIII
V. GENERAL METEOROLOGY OF DUST STORMS
Introduction
Major dust storms, defined by Ingram as periods of blowing(7)
dust with visibility reduced to a 1/2-mile or less, occur in
Phoenix and the surrounding environs 3 to 4 times during the
summer months (see table IX). These dust storms, generally associ-
ated with the decaying stages of a thunderstorm, are characterized
by high winds, reduced visibility and increased particulate
loading. The blowing dust is caused primarily by both wind shiftsand high wind speeds generated by cold air downdrafts from decaying
thunderstorm cells which originate over several different parts of
the state.
General Climatolo
Summer thunderstorms in Arizona usually develop over the
mountain and plateau regions of the state and surrounding areas.
Although these thunderstorms enter the Phoenix environs from a
variety of directions, two major source areas have been defined
for those thunderstorms which most often produce blowing dust
in the study area.
The Sonoran-type thunderstorms , generally originate out(7)
of a large cloud buildup over the Sierra Madre Occidental of
northern Sonora, Mexico. These thunderstorms usually develop as
-41-
II,
II
Ir
t
I
I''
I(
an organized squall line south and east of Tucson and move to the
northwest of the Santa Cruz Valley towards the Phoenix area". 69%
of the documented dust storms in the Phoenix area between 1952 and
(7)1971 have moved into the area from the east through the south
The Nogollon-Rim type thunderstorms usually develop as
convection cells brought about by the spontaneous rise of moist,
unstable air present over most of the state during the summer
months.
These summer thunderstorms usually reach their maximum
buildup in the afternoon, and, as the convection processes end,
the thunderstorms drift with the steering currents away from the
source regions in the evening hours. It has been suggested that
downslope wind currents may be a factor in)'the directional movement
of Mogollon-Rim .type storms . However",the large majority of(8)
storm tracks can be accounted for solely on the basis of the
predominant steering winds. Ingram states that, if the mean(7)
steering winds over the Mogollon-Rim and the southeastern part. of
the state are greater than 11.5 mph., the likelihood exists that
some of these thunderstorms will reach the inhabited portions ofthe Salt River and Santa Cruz Valleys.
Dust Storm Mechanics
As previously mentioned, summer dust storms are genenerally
caused by both wind shifts and high wind speeds generated
I
I
7I
I
II
by downdrafts.from decaying thunderstorm cells which are caused by
an outflow of air cooled by rain and evaporation (See Figure 10).
The wind shift is created primarily when the cold air from downdraft
underruns and displaces the warmer ambient air and creates a
discontinuity in the wind and temperature fields (a pseudo-cold
front) . This discontinuity, aided by the cold air downdraftg
spreads laterally from the cell and creates a 'strong horizontal,
divergence. As a result of this action, airborne dust is strongest
on the front side of the cell, weaker on the lateral portions of
the cell, and almost non-existent on the back side of the cell.
As the thunderstorm approaches an area, the following
phenomena are usually noted in the immediate path of the" storm:
A. During the approach, winds have
B.
a tendency to blow in a direction
towards the storm.
Prior to the„ shift, winds have been
reported as low as 9 mph., and, in(7)
some cases, the winds become calm
C. The cold air from the downdraft may
reduce the air temperature as much
0as 10-15 F. (greater and lesser
temperature drops have been reported).
-43-
l
II,lI
l'
I
Vertical Gross Section
WIND SHIFTAREA'
BACK CURRENTFRONT)
Pressure Profile
Figure 1'). GCKKl4PTIC IPW3'T" TK";. TAN-IJWPJ. AIHP3XN INSIDF. R1DoUTszor; oF an~tnnrimwt vmxa~~ ~8>
lI
I1
1'f
~
liIi
D. As the previously mentioned pseudo-cold
front passes," the wind shift will occur
and winds will blow directly from the
storm at high speeds.
E. Both the relative humidity and the airpressure will rise abruptly as the storm
nears the area. (9)
F. Visibility in the dust has been reported
as an average minimum of 1/4-mile, with
anywhere between 12 min. and 3 .hours,,
before the visibility returns to 6 miles. (I)
G. After the leading edge of the storm has
passed over an area, precipitation, ifit reaches the ground, will moisten the
surrounding surface and greatly reduce
the amount of blowing dust.
The major mechanisms of these storms which produce the above
phenomena and contribute to large masses of blowing dust are:
/
(1) The documented wind shifts;(2) Strong, gusting winds created by the
cold air downdrafts from the decaying
thunderstorm cell;
-45-
I
1
1,
1
I
(3) Turbulence created by air temperature
differences between the warmer ambient
air and the cold air from the downdraft;
and
(4) - Variations in turbulence and eddy motion
due to local topographic effects.
Seasonal Dust Storm Occurrences
In order to produce the type of thunderstorms that have been
discussed in the above sections, a mechanism must be present to
cause the air to become convectively unstable. The rising of
warmer air by a cold front or the convective rise of moist,
unstable air due to ground heating are the primary mechanisms
associated with the Sonoran and Mogollon-Rim type storms discussed
earlier. During the Arizona winter, the surrounding atmosphere
is usually not convectively unstable enough to produce thunderstorms
by either of these methods . Due primar'ily to thzs reason, dust(8)
storms generated by decaying thunderstorm cells occur most often
in Arizona during the summer months. Winter dust storms do,
however, occur but are caused primarily by the passage of cold
fronts over the state. This type of dust storm usually, generates
less blowing dust and affects a much wider area than do the summer
dust storms generated by thunderstorms.
-46-
l,
1
l~
i~
I
5
LITERATURE REFERENCES
t
1. .New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Evaluation of Particle Sizin Attachment for Hi h-Volume
~sam lers, December, 1972.
2. Environmental Management Department of Arizona Public Service
Company, Visibilit 6 Particle Anal sis for the Palo Verde
Nuclear Generatin Station Final Re ort, December, 1976.
3. Thanukos, Taylor, and Kary, "High Volume Sampling: Particulate
Removal from Filter Surface by High Winds," APCA Journal,
Vol. 27, No. 10, October, 1977.
4. Dames a Moore, "Air Quality Monitoring — 1973 Cholla Gener-
ating Station," Annual Report, (unpublished) 1974.
5. Sehmel, G. A., "The Influence of Soil Insertion on Atmospheric
Particle Size Distributions," Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratory Annual Report for 1975 to the USERDA Division of
Biomedical and Environmental Research: Part 3 Atmospheric
Sciences, BNWL-2000 PT3, March, 1976.
6. Sehmel, G. A., "An Evaluation of High-Volume Cascade Particle
Inspector System," Presented at the Second Joint Conference
on Sensing of Environmental Pollutants, Washington, D.C.,
December 10 — 12, 1973.
7. Ingram,- R. S., "Summer Dust Storms in the Phoenix Area,
Arizona," NWS Technical Memorandum, Az 1., March, 1972.
-47-
l1
l~
l~
II
liI',
8. Cen'ter for Environmental 'Studies, Evaluation of Hi hwa
Dust, Hazards Alon Interstate Route 10 in the Casa Grande-
Elo Re ion, October 28, 1976.
9. Idso, S. B., Ingram, R. S., and Pritchard, J. M., "An American
Haboob," Bull. Am. Met. Soc., Vol. 53, No. 10, October, 1972.
-48-
l1
~
Il
l
INSTRUMENT REFERENCES
a. Sierra Instruments, Inc.
P.O. Box 909
Carmel Valley, California 93924
b. Andersen Samplers, Inc.
4215-C Wendell Drive
Atlanta, Georgia 30336k
c. Meteorological Research, Inc.
Box 637I
464 West Woodbury Road
Altadena, California 91001
d. ATM Corporation
6657 Industrial Loop
Greendale, Wisconsin 53129
-49-
~
Ii
~
1
L
~
~
~
~
~
I;
~
1
'APPENDIX A
DATA LISTING
OF
SAMPLING DAYSANDERSEN HEAD STAGES
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONSTAGE 5 LOADING OF CASCADE IMPACTORS
DUST STORM DATA
(All Concentrations in Micrograms per Cubic Meter)
-50-
II,
ilI
DATE ANDERSEN HEAD STAGES1 2 3 4
TOTAL5 TSP
CASCADE IMPACTORSSTAGE FIVE
10-FT 40-FT 75-FT
/tS Oh 0978 Ot) li'.'/H Oh 137ts Oh ]«7H Ot) ]b/H nh lbI H Ot) 197H On CO
7(s Uh C]'/H 0 t)
ci'H
Oh 25./<S Oh c.'6
IH Oh CffH Oh iH78 Ot7ts Ot; 30/ts 0 / 03/H ()7 t)5'I ts 0 'I o 6 '
ts (I I ()7Its 01 1 o
7H 0/ 117ts 0/ 1 clts of 13'/H t) 7 1«'Its 0/ 1//ts 0/ ]ts7ts 07 is/8 0 I c.t)'Its 0 I 21
,7H 07 C57ts 0 I 'Ct)
78 07 CfI(s Of 2HIH s)7 31Iq !st< 0 ]7H ()H nc'18 o<t 037H Ok I)«7H Ots r)51H uts Ub18 Os( u I'/8 0)s tlH'IH 08 r)u/v uss ]01H r) ts 11'fH OH 137ts OH 1«'l)S nts 1 O
7 ts O)s 1 b(H OH 1'I78 0)s ]H/iS OH i ]'f 8 0 ts
r.''I ~ 92 O ~ c)
i',3 ~ 7
13 ~ 6)V.92/ ~ 5
~ 32].6]~,6]V.H1 (t ~ 6Z3 ~ 63;).9]t).0
I< ~ 5]C.32c.21 .'5 ~ 3")9 3] '/,91) ~ 5lb.12() ~ 7
«5.3 t) ~ 8i.'0 ~ 1
it)i 1
]8.231 A ]
]b ~ 5c''I <r)5') ~ 1
] I.2]« ~ 837 ~ 0
33 I i 31]boO1 u ~ i?
192 ~ 91«(I ~ J'/o]Zr.'~0
9 ~ b/ ~ 3
] c". ~ 7
lu ~ hli ~ 6'.) ~ 9
1(i ~ 1
3C ~i.'3.]
3].6 )57 'issue
3 73 '1 7 ~ i.'? ~,2
1 r" ~ 7 53 ~ 929 ~ « '1H ~ ts
zn. 0 )4. ts
2".1 (s2.U23.7 7H.«19.9 /3. 017.1 t)2.6]4 P 39 ']'i,0 h4 F 217.1 Hn.ts .
9.7 «8,9lr ~ 4 h3 ~ 31].h «h.9]4.5 69,2] 4 ~ 1 «H.,«2«.'i]«4 AH
1<>.5 h4.3H. 9 «.") ~ 7
1].l 47 '18 F 6 78 AC
ZH ~ 7]2(s ~ 0
ZP ~ 3105. 'I14 ~ 9 hP ~ 4
] i. 7 !) 3. slrs. p. ht).Z10.« hh.i
13.113 ~ (s
] ."i ~ 5
9 ~ 910 ~ 6
8 ~ 3
5 '9 '7 ~ 5
~ 7 ~ (s
,9 ~ 61'5 ~ 010 ~ 710 ~ 4
lid]8 ~ )5
4 ~ 39 ~ Q
9 '8 'pe 47 '
10 ~ 2A ]
18.99 '.i ~ A
6 ~,0
au]A~ 5
13 ~ 3H,57 '
ci
8 ~ H
7 '6 '
13 ~ 87 ~ 97 ~ H
rt ~ 2lg
1,'fr. ~ 1
/au3,2
~ ]h.u5 'c<
11 ~ .5
5 ~ 7
'.i ~ /3 ~ tt6 ~ 0
]2 ~ 3]rs.2,'i, ]c) ~ Q
6 ~ P.
F 1
]3 ~ 4
1 5.7]H ~ 4]6 7]F 814 F 6]2 ~ 4
8 F 6]4+]16 F 4
11.713.H
<) ~ 6]F 6
9 '30 ']2,5
9 ~ ts
il,n]7.025 'c3.11 5.H1 0 ~ r".
14.110 7
h.410 ~ 81 c) ~ 0,"9 ~ 3H.n
14 ~ 533 i.'
~'3
<~ ~ 300 '19 ~ «33 ~ 3
H.5,') ~ 8r) ~ 94 '5 '6.3
~ 06.-66,7lS ~ h
'a
4;05 '(s. t)
6 ~ r)
F 26.6
ll ~ 4 «7.2]$ .3 74,9]9,9]]ts.«]< ~ 8]P.] «rs.3Cc) ~ >10's ~ O
16.021 'in,h10.
r.'4.1
tse. ] ])s ~ 3r) ~ 3
31.71Cc< ~ 03«i]ah]C ~ r)
h ~ 95 ~ 1
ls ~ 01 t) ~ 0
I ~ !)4 ~ 7!3 ~ H
]4 ~ 6AH
')3 32 I6 29)Sb C
« ~ '„) ]H ~ P. 5] 33,7 ])(.5 «4.1
39 '3<)0 '7h«r),79 ~ 9l< ~ 1
3 '].o2 '
~ 3
2 'F 1? ~ «2.0
46.6) 3'I ~ c?
/3 ~ 8 r2c. H ~ 92<) ..3 72.>2].3 /3.<)]3.1 3hor)in ~ 9 c9 ~ ~1].t) 37+ i]4 ~ 4 «H ~ 5]2.S 3H F 6u. ] Z>5 ~:)c) ~ 7'43. /
]'i, 0 I C ~ «
1?.7 3h./
-51-
4n.'Ir.'
zi e 1
zn.n13 ~ 21'3e r)
3 i.52'i ~ 028,]Z i' '7
ls.rs15 bi?P. 1
31 ~ h]s.~1 1 o,/1 F) ~ r)
i.',9 ~'I
] 6.)5] ).]17 'c.'1 ~ 3«3 ~ «zi 9]HE +1 I ~ 9.52 ~ 8l, ) ~ 4
i r.'.5]n.r>1 9 ~ <s
«i' 5
]6 ~ 1
1'I ~ 615.c95 ~ .')
C3.]ahrt ~ 5
e P.
«426.726 ~ t)
] r< ~ ]1?.bC f) ~ <)
Zn.n11 ~ ')14.631.')]<,]
13.Hzn.o'1 '5 ~ 5]4.blb.11 3, i!3'i ~ 0C7 F 3
21 F 619. t
17. c'
s. 1
Ch ~ 7
]h~elh. 814 ~ 5Ch ~ 4CH ~ ct
lb.2Zts. O
14. 3C3,]33 A ]c!i?. 1
26 ~ 9Zrs. 1
2«.lZi! ~ 7
CP ~ H
1 <s.',)ln,n24 ~ H
«2.226,1c? P.413 ~ 1
34 '« ~ «
?.4 ~ «13t) ~ 3
«l ~ 2i!7 ~ hZP. ~ 1
H. 'f
]P ~ 1le]]P.. 6'i ~ 39 ~ 33.]
]R.O
]P. ~ 1
]<i,29~3
16 ~ 6]c).2]3.32H ~ 727 '
19 1
lh ~ 0
]6.5]R ~ 420 ']1.51 P. ~
'5
., ]r2 ~ 1
i!1 o3]ts,213 ~ 7
23.1,17 ~ 71H ~ 326.217 1
28 'Zi 1
2]o]19 ~ 632 'i.'6 ~ 217.723.H4P. ~ 1
]~.]20,+ln.]69 '1 9 ~
.)'P..
~ 1
195 ~ r)
39.62'i ~ 920,017 '
,9 ~ ts
6 ~ H
]P ~ 624.v
") ~ 0
F 66 ~ 3
]'i, ]1? ~ 1
I
~
~
li1
g
l~
~
i
�~
~
DATE ANDERSEN llHAD STA'lHST 2 3
TOTAl'5 TSP ] O-l"" ~FT 7" rT
('A'g')( '),'.t]l.'AC'J'< "'')AGEFIVE
It( ()!3 P3I )3 0)3 r"s/ )3 0 !s
/ t! () !3 r.'3/ (3 0 )3 r ]'I ss 0t('/ (( (1 )(
7'.( 0't ()CIs 0(t CG
I ts 3) 9 0()'/!3 0(t t) '/
/(3 0() 0(3
3> .'!) t! ~ ()
)'!.1. ?.Ir'3.
'C.'sr',
ts
't'b. ()
C': ~ (.i
) .3 .,31 '! ~ ()
C, (.> ~
i? t) ~ ()
(t, t)
f) ~ ss
l 0.!)I 6 ~ t)
1'9>3(. (1 ~ 3
1 r. ~ 1
H,tsI.n
J 2 ~ !!.3 ~ 7
4, (3
4 ~ )
~g
10 '13.116. r?
6+3()
F 6(y ~ Q
1 ~ 3
3) ~ !!
r.'. 1
II ~ j'
~ ~ (q
(.3)9 ~ cs
g. (s
l r tP
J. t)
1 cy ~ (I
14. i') 4
r,'Q ~ 4
c'1, 0
c3.131,11'i ~ 7
1().27 ~ 4
1() ~ )
41,h'!4. I41,h1.3. I/1. 0
~ ()
1C4( i 4 ~ ()
;34 ~ g.s t) ~ 1
7l.li'. () ~ 0
I".1I
3.) ~ t)ll3'.) ~ 7
1)3 ~ ?7, 'I
P t) Itt! ~ )3
p4, t)
P ~ 3, )
1 ts ~ 3at! ~ 84n,z4 () ~ (I
14.u1 3.11 t3,2
() „4
!3, ~ !
? i' )3
I /,r?' )l
Jl, 1
.3!> ~'<
) 3',t!)1. t
J:). IC,
l'
gl
~
~
~
gl
~
tII,
lII,
L
I~
DUST STORM SAMPLING DATA
COLLECTED PARTICULATE MASS (g)
DATE INSTRUMENT PRESEPARATOR STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4 STAGE 5 SAMPLING TIME (Min)
8/3/78 ANDERSEN
8/3/78 CASCADE10-foot
8/3/78 CASCADE40-foot
8/3/78 CASCADE75-foot
8/6/78 ANDERSEN
4.3762
1.6909
5. 7425
0.1988
0.0415
0.0612
0.1720
0.1554
0.1097
0.0518 0.0270 0.0120 0.0766 708.3
0.0622 0.0180 0.0081 0.0290 747.6
0.1012
0.1061
0.0208 0.0112
0.0810 0.0317
0. 0592
0.2421
747.6
1422.6
0.0785 0.0314 0.1628 1040.6
8/6/78 CASCADE10-foot
8/6/78 CASCADE40-foot
8/6/78 CASCADE75-foot
8/8/78 ANDERSEN
8/8/78 CASCADE10- foot
8/8/78 CASCADE40-foot
8/8/78 CASCADE75-foot
7.8274
0.3633
3.4145
0.9150
0.8195
0.1547
0.0214
0.0139
0.0157
0.0607
0.0059
0.0059
0.0036
0.0406 0.0445 0.0407 0.4741
0.0244 0.0215 0.0186 0.1158
0.0244
0.0275
0.0240 0.0231
0.0262 0.0078
0.1660
0.0581
0.0085 0.0086 0.0046 0.0372
0.0082 0.0073 0.0045 0.0419
0.0061 0.0048 0.0035 0.0221
736. 2
750.0
750.0
1390.8
731.3
752. 4
752.4
-53-
I1
gi
Ii!
ltt~
~
~
~
L
t
APPENDIX B
STRIP CHART METEOROLOGICAL DATAOF
DUST STORM DAYS
-54-
I
liIll~
1
~
I,
~
r~
gi
gl:
I
I . %isa CtCR)42AQIMNh4JS ossseees s«»cseele««e ee
ssrJ~?CS0
e J"
I'
——-srI
~ st I ece
0~
~
s
,. j ~ i~ I
s
'
0rs0Drs ~ 9
0re0
C)0
IS
A~p'.
s~
~ ~ g<IeS
r ~ .erc ~ ~ v
es0rl~rs " l ''a~
gpss- s ri.—'
c ~
~ ~
~ 4+/ "
Z 4;—.s-
0e
j,4
e
* e
'
~sf 'f»- sW VP»+s ~
«s e
~ ~ re
YV
~ . ~. rAC~ ~~ ~
~ ~ - ~
I ~
O
044
INDIANAI'OLIr»IN44 V.6 A,
C'r
August 3, 1978
NS
~ 4
M
%K?MK!NOIANAeerllc I.4el .
5
I
ll
l
l'
5555@~LJjr I''Jt
II I
—~
' .
I~ 7
l5
~ ~
~ "ICb I KQI
5
1 ~
-)
i I = ~
~" " 4'I
~ I
I~ 1 Ji0 ~ i ~
~-- Ov 2 —I—v - ~ —-!
L ~
(P JR tv~'
1
-I
--Ol =j"---I-
~ h 5:5 It L ~~ . ~ J.,Q . h ~
.I 5
Qj lg. L0
~ ~ ~ LI
:--" 23
ln ~
h
Iil-~01
'
t'Q I
r ~
't ~ *
lhj Iji„ I'0-"uoTgoaxxa pwca paadS pays — 8g6y 'g gsnSny
I ~"A
—0
I" ~
h
v
~ r
,I
Ii I
I
I[L~
I- xn'I: .O 1
I~ I
'I
- ~ I
ICIIAIII tj57 5205
5"
~ ~ I ~
'0'.t,.t'cI I ID,
ER1'LN.IÃItjajj575Ae'577 jg 55 JA
05
07 I
I ..=.'~l
~
II
~
I
Il
rk
Ik
I ~ j
SAN~ ~ w+
5.
0 90
I
I
I
~ ~ - ~ ~, 'I
S ' ' ~ ~ I: Si
185 270 " 0 ~ 90 ~ 1i0
I
I ~ k ~
C
I
Caikc
II I
0o ep ,. eo
I
I
II .I ~ ~
! CAa,I ~
I~ „ I
IV E S
0 " "0„,
1805'AR'
i
'I
"I I
90I
I ' " .1
I
II
~ jjt5' " ."k'
270 ~ i 360II
I
1gnk
I
I
I
~ I
COCI
C55
I rrI
CJJkI
r———"r
~
~
~
I i L20,. 40k
6 GP i0011ACI
~ !I
I I
'. I
II - ~
2 A!I"
CI
r ~ ~
k ~
1
c 51k
180 270 260 90 160
~ ~, .J.
I
~ '
k
I0I 5 T
II ~pe L4 I
II
II
C)I
IJC
5 rlC"40 . ~-'. IIO
~~ k~
20k
Ik
I ~ r1A gj
~ II, kk
I
I I~~
IL%\
5
C 20 40 60 QQ
L ~,, ~
9AM
I'I
0
,0tD
90
i
IT II ljk
'IQ0 ~ rP'IQ'5'II'r
S090 90 T)0
I
r ~ I~ ~
I J ~
0 20,~AO 60 85 Iq0
re 5 71 'I
I
I
tIl
lI
I
I
'kP
0
~ Il
~ - ~ ~ ~ IO
e
~ Il,
III0Or—-
Q - ~ ~ . ~ - — 0
. ~
4.
~ ~ ~
- cPo-a
I
Ate'~ ~
~I~.
-- 0—~el
~ ~ ~
-0
eeC ~
0Ill '
~De
Jo~ ~
e
~ ~e
0
~ ' I
e et'jte
~ -e ~ e- .
A! A 4"::4
e le
I.;. ~
'l b
- ~
4
C
I
~ e .' ~ .-" -t'II- ~
~ e
~ -Jr---»
.0
CNAA 0, I 311 ~
~ eO
f'
~ ~'Ie
'
e P
'Ie i
Iy- .. e'~
.t
tI
CD
Ilail
I, ~
~ ~
0
0
P" "-4—CIC'
NO 'W
2August 6, 1978
f
'tllll mt
H10 JYN<'.
I'1HZ
l
0 IC 'I Ott:.TiO
~ II
e ~
~ ~
-.;!l~ig-
~—
~ J
~~ ~
—-IL
Augu'st 6 1978 — Wind Speed And Direction — 35
I. F --7 ~ I
~ e
O
CO
~ e ~
.p ~ I
«r
~ ~
I
I
~ im lrC'T.
C'4
~ - ~
0--~ . I...T.- '} -I-* -l
I~
I,~I ~
--CV'I----I1--
!
II
I
««Cgr
~ e
~ Time
lI
IL
til~
r~
)i
5,
t
II
I
e
ee
t
I
r =- -IO"I Ce>
I
l
I Q
' I> ~ ~ ee'e% 111 I
e
e
ItW ~
~ III
~ l ~
I
l II
i[I I
I
~ I
;„O
I:I II I f
~ >'ee'
ItI I
Cte ~
t ~I
I
T'
1 ~
I~
'I
e
e
~ ~
~ I~ ~
I; ~
.'I;I~
~
~ ~ el
l' .'I"
II
li~ I
,0e
M ~
IICiO
Oe Iei
l
II
CtV
I ~I
j = I
.IO, „I'IC>II
I
I e
I
~ ~ I I
le
I
I
August 6, 1978 — Mind Speed And Direction—200'W.S. = 0-50 MPH)
I = I
tee
~'I tefiC>
I
IOIt II
I
II II *'
I---g'CC gI I' j~I '> ~
I-III
I
j> ~
e CltI
~O
~ CV
I. >I'i
~ ~
ej
~ Iie
e
~ .f I
O~ nnj
1 ~
~ II
O
II
,pett'
Oer>
thI
I
CV
II
I
1
)i'
~ Q
II'I)
III
I' e >1 I, ' Lm'.
I I~ I
I I
: ie>
I . II
I~l~ ~
Ie -:..e I»~
e
.I~ ~ II
II
e
~ I = rt<e'I 1
0- ' I ~ \ ~ I~ 'me m: I I~ Time
III
ItII'
lI
J ~,'sa 4 sf"SS& a +I Sl ~ ~ q r, l .(4
rk.?Cl 4 '4 !l'rlI 1 lttJ ma
4.H-hL':m I tk
~'
««4
4
'(Laf» 4
~-f« ~ «
4
~': . II~se45 I
IP
'1
h !? 4
»14 4I A»
4»msf 4
~ ', t1
~ «m e ~
? ? L~1
4»
—~V.I 'r(kly 4'I 4
4s 4 t I«
~ 44 ~ts
' %?5 ~ I 144 «re
m'W'o'Lk?~ 4rh 'm~ ~ 's(»f
5 sk~r
4 2
- "l~ «D
v~4 Q~ ml~ ~
'IO4?
4-0
» m
Q
~ « ~ I ~ ~
ri I ~
I ''4
44
tk 4 ~f 4
~+f. L«f
'4'~ 4LS 4'S «Ir( ml» 'J
rj» ~k ~44 «
441
N »Lh « 4k
'm
Ss.:I,vrk4k
4 L»tr» ~
~4'~~~
kl«ghr~ 4?»5 vqa
fJh4
t, ?544 W ~ 4 ~ 1 (
~ ls 4
(Iak v 4
~ sv~~ IVI»
m 4"4+ a
«kt '
') ~
'
. ~ ! Wr'
~ m~ 4
4 ~ ~ ~ Isa
~ it ..
444«s(stt Asr '( 54
p+<restSls's~»mk«?r'v-sak r
4L'
'44
j 444
re 4 5
A L»«i'4 4
4+: 'v.l
vk~~
~ 1
( LIL»k~
~ '( ~
~ ~ ~ ~
4 ~ ts
'k
~ ~, ~ ~~ L
sl
~ I ~
~ v a~jhkw I~Jr 4':«(r 'atk5
~:~ r
~,' "T«-I i—m'~ 4»»
~ vs4
~ A« «,»I
4»
a4
~ I»-4 ~
4
4
~I
~ 4 ~ "I~ .-'- ., ~!
4 ~ ~ ~ re45
I
I
C - A~~~ KXSR
I
4
4 ILVSSE"aul«CndivffriaNI. =-I
P,.
~ I~O
I'
4
C
«C II
~ I«
I
UK ..O'El.J
I- ~ - -.vi
]C)r
OQIWlf
V'%1 'IJI'Sl
'
L 44
J ~
4 I~ al a4 ~
4
4L
4S
I ~
*II
S
4
7 —— 4 4 «
Et ~ 1 ~
~ I ~o ~
J
S'
4vVE
'-',, --.'!.'-",':.i -':„.:Au uit..'8, 3.9)8:::—.'kind.8 ee4'ga', Dfre t'ion:-- 35',- 9:8 ~"0.-'.50 MPH)J
W4
L
E 4 via 4 4 vL741
~ ~ I. 4 ~ E 4% jl, 'A„'.41 « '7
rr'E44
IIIOE
7 ~
~ ~
WEI' 4 W. OIL
«7 Jt 7SJ ~ '.A 4I l«
p malLa '
jo«LV4JE4L* 'L
II
«'
«
11~ 4
444
~ 'I ~
v4 4'7
~
LCJ
* ~w-4IJ
CK
I v" ~
~ I. ~.. Jl
Co
= ~ 4 - Jv~ «1 v lt
4 4 J ~
4 ~ rt 4
I
t
—I~'.
o 'E
«4~ EI 'I
~ 4
~f=
«r
Ja
',
7 41 'I
=.kj
C/I'~ " r
L:.:
Ii b~ci'I ~
t
~ ~ ~S J
~oo I Vapo
4
SII
1
0QIJ
I'«
~ ~
S«
I~ SI
IL00.
4
~Time
I
I
I
I
C ~
«
«r
~"
~ 7
0vsn
tt}$
«
IONIONI 'S 1C IN'Igal V'.
C
. ~
IL~ L 5 L
v
~ 4
r «t Ik
C- ~
~ H
I t~ I,~, ~
t
A
v
A
I
00.
~ L
~ ~
"I L
0-Y'O'II
tl
- ~ »
ONI IS
7"
»
«t»
p ~
IL
~+LI»
'}7«'
r
C ~C
~ «I
r
~ r'W
I ~
~ II
«
«IC
v
I
v I ~
i«vIl» '
»I
~ ~
~ « ~
rtvr
«
*, „.'.."i r -AuguS«tt'8, 1978I
I~ ~
k«1+&
CP ~
L5
7 4a«ILPw~
I~ .b
LV«l
» rA« ~
f C+'r
~ ~» C«
Cv
«'
~ LUr«4 LF~ L
I
d
—,Mfn4 8jj ed'i Aijd-.pgrh C tl'Roti; -',2dQ.>. 4g '3;,".~I. 0-":5p',MPfI);'L«
5
~ I
..0I
~ I ~I
0I
Cl..l
I VL
I
~ ~
. -I
~I '.«I 0
~ '«
0-.»
v
I
I ~ lCl 14
III
ItI
ii~ 1LI
]I
I
~ \I
CL
«
A ~
—7'0
C
- O.i
,~
C$
t«I:—t
-! '
TI III Cl 'lC ~ «I I
a I-'-
~ Time
. C?"
II
I
III
NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY
SURVEY
FOR THE PERIOD OF
SEPTEMBER 1979 THROUGH AUGUST 1980
Prepared By:
Dan AvantGeorge CozensJoe lloods
NORTHROP RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER
One Research Park
Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274
Telephone (213) 377-4811
NORTHROP RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER
INTRODUCTION
The health physics environmental sampling program includes a continuous
evaluation of the levels of naturally occurring radioactivity in the immediate
environs, and out to a radius of five miles from the Northrop Reactor site.
Fluctuations in the radioactivity content of the environmental samples
occur from time to time due to seasonal and climatic conditions which may affectthe deposition of the atmospheric fallout or other airborne radioactive materials.
These minor variations must be noted since they do add to the natural environ-
mental background; therefore, it is quite important to compile the sample data
and periodically compare it with the data from the previous sampling periods in
order to establish the trend in the natural background.
The report is a compilation of the data derived from the environmental
samples collected and processed during the period, of September 1979 through
August 1980 which comprises the nineteenth annual report.
In order to maintain continuity in the overall sampling program, the sampl-
ing sites have not been changed from those shown in Table I. All sample process-
ing and handling techniques have remained the same as those stated in the preview
reports.
AIR ANALYSES
A total of 89 continuous air samples were collected durinq the period from
sites S-11 and S-12. The sampling time averaged 189 hours per sample. A 72-hour
decay period was permitted on each sample prior to counting to eliminate natural
Radon-Thoron activities.
I
I
II
L
I
I
NORTHROP RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER
Figure 1 graphically displays the monthly averages from the two sampling
stations.
RAINWATER ANALYSES
A total of 30 samples were collected from sites S-11 and S-12. The radio-/
activity content of the rainwater, as shown in Figure 2, does not indi'cate any
significant changes from the previous periods.
SOIL ANALYSES
A total of 108 soil samples were collected from the sampling sites indi-cated in Table I. The radioactivity content of the soil samples, as shown inFigure 3, indicates a relatively stable trend.
VEGETATION ANALYSES
A total of 108 vegetation samples were collected and processed from the
same areas as the soil samples. The samples indicated no,increase in radio-activity content. The overall trend was quite typital. The monthly averages
are shown in Figure 4.
WATER ANALYSES
A total of 120 water~samples were collected from the sites indicated inTable I. The combined monthly averages for drinking water and pond water are
shown in Figure 5. The water samples indicated only a very slight variationin radioactivity.
I
IIi
�i)
II
NORTHROP RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER
DISCUSSION
Analysis of the data for the overall environmental samples indicates a
reasonably stable trend in their radioactivity content, with no si'gnificantchanges from previous sampling periods.
At times the radioactivity content of the environmental samples changed
due to climatic conditions, the prevai'iina winds (with the ch nge in seasons),
and the temperature inversions in the Los Angeles basin. The smog content inthe air during periods of temperature inversions tends to increase the naturalbackground radioactivity of the air.
Since the overall radioactivity content of the environmental samples was
reasonably stable, it is apparent that the Northrop Reactor and associated
facilities have not contributed significantly to the natural radioactivitybackground.
IiiiIjL
Il
l~
.5
1979 1980
FIG, 1 Monthly Averages of Continuous Air SamplesFrom Sites S-11 and S-12.
I
I'
I~
I
4
E~ g
CF'i
I
I
2S-<D
I
cr
1979
UJCD
CD
1980
FIG. 2 Monthly Averages of Rain Mater SamplesFrom Sites S-11 and S-12.
I
I
IIIII'
1.5
0 ~
1979
LLI
1980
FIG. 3 Monthly Averaqes of Soil Samples'rom Sites 2-1 Thru S-8 and S-10.
III
II
1.5
1.0
1979 1980
FIG. 4 monthly Averaqes of Veqetation Samples from SitesS-1 thru S-8, and S-10.
I
I
I,
II
II
I
EI
O
2
O
$-
I—CD
)CD
1979 1980
FIG. 5 Monthly Averaaes of Mater Samples from Sites S-1 thru S-10.
I
I
II'