Forwards rept, 'Particulate ... - NRC: Home Page · d cw o IX COoEQKMH'F P. O. BOX 21666 'HOENIXrARIZONA 85036 December 21, 1978 ANPP-12322-JMA/DBK Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

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'