ML17296A265

Forwards Rept, Particulate Characteristics of Dust Storms at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

ML17296A265
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	12/21/1978
From:	Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
To:	Boyd R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17296A266	List: ML17296A265
References
ANPP-12322-JMA, NUDOCS 7901040075
Download: ML17296A265 (173)

Text

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,LIATION BOYD,R.S.

• DIV. OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT DOCKET e 05000528 05000529 05000530 ~

SUBJECT<.For>vards report, "Particulate Characteristics of Dust Storms at 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.

0 4

0 ACTION:

NOTES: ~W~>8Zei< ZkM42:

RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL 05 PM SrRrca r I

I BC LNg ¹~

I 0

BECI PI ENT ID CODE/NAME AD o'Assgec.c LA COP I ES LTTR ENCL I

0 I

0 INTERNAL! 01 06 E

09 GEOSCIFN BR I I MECH ENG BR 13 MATL ENG BR I 6 ANALYSIS B R

18. AUX SYS BR 20 I 8 CSYS BB 22 AD SITE TECH 27 EFFL TRT SYS 29 KIRKI'IOOD AD PLANT SYS AD SITE ANLYSIS MPA EXTE RNAL-- 03 LP DR 30 ACRS I

.I 2

I I

I I

2 2

I,I I

I

.I I

4

.I I

.I I

I 0,

I 0

I 0

I I

16 16 02 NBC PDR 08 OPERA LIC BB 10 QAB 12 STRUC ENG BR 15 BEAC SYS BR 17 CORI.: PEBF BB 19 CONTAIN SYS 21 POWER SYS BB 26 ACCDNT ANLYS 28 RAD ASMT BR AD FOR ENG AD REAC SAFETY.

,DI RECTOR NRR OELD 04 NS IC I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

0 I

0 I

0 I

0 I

I L+

Boo(

Cp EAICL

. F/6 ES nf~e. Fsg LPZ)Q Pg R.STA'IPH7 Hl/Dif0-NET'E'op/ gg(g)

Lfi

/UoddfE E/8 &w8'Q lf +leEg7

ZEBRA, 4A')9 gpQ 5 ftl4l TOTAL NUMBER OF COPI ES BEQUI BED-'TTR 55 ENCL 45

I 1

tt 1

tt I

'tt r

0 l h r

rt 1

~,

I PP

,f I

I I

I

%tr t.,t K

'\\ I I

I l

tt

~

K Kal' I

K' 1

,j ~),

a'le 1

r I t)'<<I K

~ -,

~ u Itr

""I I

1 I

+IIII'aaK I

O tt'tt u ~ 4 u

,tt lt 'I' 0

\\ IK I

~

4 0

1 C,ya Ky It, I'

I

~i'al I

li 1

I I

'IKK K

P a

r tt I

'a ll la 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'jlt'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'F P. O. BOX 21666

'HOENIXr ARIZONA 85036 December 21, 1978 ANPP-12322-JMA/DBK Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Attn:

Roger Boyd, Director Division of Project Management Re Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 5 3 Docket Nos:

STN-50-528/529/530

Dear Mr. Boyd:

Attached are six (6) copies of a report entitled Particulate Characteristics of Dust Storms at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.

This report is submitted for your review in response to Section 2.3.3 of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2

& 3 Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG 75/098).

Respectfully submitted ARIZONA 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 all other joint applicants.

County of Maricopa STATE OF ARIZONA

) st nw A~; "r r

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2l day of December",;1978.

pTpn'rr PgrrrrI T 111 I" &00 i(

My Commission Expires:

Notary Public

<w C

~ogdz y90y0400 l5'

l4T-l h

<

> n fr <<'NITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 01VVNK FOR: TERA Corp. FROiif: US ttRC/TTDC/Distribution Services Branch

SUBJECT:

Special Document Handling Requirements r( t+~

I.

Please use the following special distribution list for the attached document.

N~t ~+

LPG~

+~ g~pzhH7 4vorco-&ereog 8a Cz) 2.

The attached document requires the following special considerations:

Q Do not send oversize enclosure to the MRC PDR.

Q Only one oversize enclosure vas received please return for Regulatory File storage.

Q proprietary inrornation sand a

iidiavit only to the VRC PDR ther: (speci fy) 40 cc:

DSB Files TiDC/DSB Authorized Signa e

0 r

I I

I,

,1

HEGULATORX I N FORJ

)AT1ON t.'cOCNEF NBR=

RECXPXENT=

TZ\\

l/2/3 ORIGINATOR:

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" FI NRC PDR LPDR R STRIGHT LTR W/ENCL W/ENCL W/ENCL FOR ACTXON

~

g

~

NOTES:.STANDARDIZED.PLAN'Z 1

,I t

il, l

'1

HARACYKRISTICS RYICUI.ATE OF DUST STOR UCLEARGB4ERAYING Y THE PAI.O TATION FINALREPORT October 1STS ARIXONANUCLEAR POWER PROJECT NONCE THE ATTACHED FILES ARE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE DIVISION OF DOCUMENT CONTROL.'HEY HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO YOU FOR A LIMITEDTIME PERIOD AND MUST BE RETURNED TO THE RECORDS FACILITY BRANCH 016.

PLEASE DO NOT SEND DOCUMENTS CHARGED OUT THROUGH THE MAIL. REMOVALOF ANY PAGE(SI FROM DOCUMENT FOR REPRODUCTION MUST BE REFERRED TO FILE PERSONNEL.

cSd I2;ZI-%Q IIBNIII70 IIM'Mlm t:II%

%$0 loQOO'0 RECORDS FACILITYBRANCH pEApLINE RETppg pgTp $

5~$

53Q 790104007$

produced bV ENT DEPARTMENT ARIZONAPUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ENVIRONMENTAI MANAGEMEN

I 11 1

I I

I I

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 particulate monitoring activities during dust storms at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.

All work presented in this report 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,j I

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 ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

APPENDIX 8 ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

50 54

I l

1

'1 lj

~

~

li I

1'

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)..

15 a

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 Airport 1

(1956 1978).

29

I l

I 1

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Pacae Time Duration of Phoenix Dust Storms.

. '1 XI 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

~

~

l gi

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 with 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

I l

~

~

i l

~

l l

l

~

1' E

l l

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 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />.

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

~l l

I

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

l l

l

~

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 air is forced to pass through a series of plates and make directional changes 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 filters located 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.

l l

I, l

I

~

I

TABLE I SIZE RANGE FRACTIONATION BY SIERRA CASCADE IMPACTOR AND ANDERSEN HEAD SEGREGATOR STAGE SIERRA CASCADE INPACTOR SIZE 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 aerodynamic diameter at 50% collection efficiency of 5.5 microns.

gl l,

I I

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

AIR FLOW I

I I

I I

CYCLONE PRESEPARATOR FILTER STAGE 1 ) 7.RP+

t FILTER STAGE 2, 3.0

'7,R Pg FILTER STAGE 3 1.S 3.0 JJQ P

FILTER STAGE 4 O.BS 1elm Jf nfl CASCADE IMPACTOR ASSE MBLY TOP VIEW OF CASCADE IMPACTOR PLATE F'iqurl 1.

SCIIEh)ATIC DIAl. RAN OF'YCLONE >RESEPARATOR AND CASCADE XNPACTOR

gl I

I I

I I LOW PLATE PLATE FILTER STAGE 2 P 7.0 MICRONS PL TE PLATE PLATE FILTER

~ STAGE 2 32 - 7.0 MICRONS FILTER STAGE 3 2.0 - 3.3 MICRONS FILTER STAGE 4 1.1 -2,0 MICRONS SEGREGATOR HEAD ASSEMBLY

'i PLATE 0

0 0

0 O

O 0

0 0 0 0

P O

0 0

0 0

O 0

P 0

0 p

GASKET ANDPLATE, ARE SYMMETRICABOUT THIS LINE GASKET 0

0o0 o

o O

O p

0 p

O o p 0

oo 0

0 HALF YIEW OF PLATE AND GASKET i

Figure 2.

SC)EMATIC DIAGRAMOF ANDERSON gEQD SEGREGATOR

I I

I I

I

'Dust Storm Instrumentation 75-Foot Level Dust Storm Instrumentation 40.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 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 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 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 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 of l

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.

if I

I I

I r

t I'

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 the 3

entire sampling period.

A geometric mean of 68.0 ug/m was I,

I I

TABLE I I AVERAGE AND EXTREME MONTHLY PARTICULATE

• CONCENTRATIONS AT PVNGS SITE JUNE 9 -

SEPTEMBER 8, 1978 (Particulate Concentrations Are in Micrograms per Cubic Meter)

JUNE JULY ALL NON-DUST AUGUST DATA STORM DATA Arithmetic 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 III VARIATION OF PARTICULATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DURING NON-DUST STORM CONDITIONS JUNE 9 -

SEPTEMBER 8, 1978 SIZE RANGE MI 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 OF TOTAL PARTICULATES 33.3

19. 6 13.1 7.1 26.7 These me'asurements were made with the Andersen Head Segregator and represent 24-hour sampling periods.

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I,

measured for the time period June 9 through September 8; 1978.

All three dust storms were found to occur during August.

This 3

is illustrated by the high arithmetic mean (130.7 ug/m ), stan-3 dard deviation (228.8 ug/m ), and maximum concentration (986.2 ug/m

).

A geometric mean of 61.3ug/m was obtained, for non-dust storm 3

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 cascade 3

impactor (geometric means of 16.1 vs.

19.8 ug/m ).

This I'

Ij I

I I

I

a I-III 0

m30 K

IL 22 20 1B 1B STAGE 1

STAGE 2

STAGE 3

STAGE 4

STAGE 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

'2 0

I-K 2

0200 B

B 4

IMPACTOR STAGE Figure 4.

PARTICULATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AT 10 FOOT LEVEL DURING NON-DUST STORM DAYS GEOMETRIC MEAN CONCENTRATION VS INPACTOR STAGE JUNE 9, 1978 SEPTEMBER 8, 1978 I

I I

I I

I I

I

TABLE IV COMPARISON OF STAGE 5 PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS FOR ALL SAMPLERS (NON-DUST STORM CONDITIONS)

SAMPLER Andersen Head 10-foot Level Cascade Impactor 10-foot Level Cascade Impactor 40-foot Level Cascade Impactor 75-foot Level ARITHMETIC MEAN (u /m3) 17.4 21.5 20.8 18.3 GEOMETRIC MEAN

/m3 16.1 19.8 18.7 16.6 II I

I I

I I,

I I

I I

may be attributable to the time of sampling.

The Andersen Head Segregator sampled for a full 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, 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 I

I I

I I

I I

I 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 48.2 August 3, 1978

'MC 4.5851 TMCI 4.6 Z,l9.6 1.8694 9.5

/64. 2 6.1069 6.0 0.581 2 84

~ 50

'750 August 6, 1978 TSP 130.9 TMC 8.4487 TMCI 7.4 8.6 0.5575 34.8 56.8 3.6677 6.9 0.6163 57

>50 050 August 8, 1978 TSP 12.5 TMC 0.9798 TMCI 6.6 11.4 0.8873 7.6 2.5 0.1948 0.1803 20.6 69 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 place during the entire dust storm.

l l

1 l

I l

I

It should be noted that TSP concentrations are highly variable I'ven within 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 all elevations.

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.

R, ll 1

l, I

1 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 make 1

their 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 is generally characterized by a sudden shift in wind direction, a rapid increase in wind speed and rapid cooling.

Presented in Table VIII is 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, I',

)

l r

k I

1 l

1

TABLE VI PARTICULATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DURING OUST STORMS

{CYCLONE PRESEPARATOR SAMPLES ONLY)

Percenta e of Total-Particulates in Size Ran e

Dust Storm Occurrence August 3, 1978 41 August 6, 1978 August 8, 1978 Average of Above Dust Storms Si ze Range Microns 0'106 53-106 20-53 10-20

$ 10 P106 53-106 20-53

'0-20 410

$ 106 53-106 20-53 10- 20

<10 P 106 53-106 20-53 10-20 4,'10 0-Foo t Elevation 1.77 33.01 62.82 1.77 0.65 1.48 21.60 70.03 6.17 0.72 1.91 22.38 68.96 4.73 2.02 1.72 25.66 67.27

4. 22 1.13

-Foot Elevation 3.55 29.61 63.11 2.84 0.89 5.11 20.74 71.88 2.27 1.49 21.89 71.52 3.48 1.62 3.38

24. 08 68,84 2.86 1.26 7 -Foot El evati on 1.25 21.31 68.31 6.59

2. 54 1.74 26.53 66.20 4.54 0.99 2.41 23.49 71.39 2.71 1.80 23.78 68.63 4.61 1.77 I'

l l,

I I

l t

I I

I

TABLE VII PARTICULATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF ALL PARTICULATE MATTER DURING DUST STORMS Dust Storm Si ze Range Microns Percentage of Total Particulates in Size Range 10-Foot 40-Foot 75-Foot Elevation Elevation Elevation August 3, 1978 August 6, 1978 August 8, 1978 Average of Above Dust Storms

> i06 53

-106 20

- 53 10

- 20 7.2 - 10 3.0 -

7.2 1.5 -

3.0 0.95-,

1.5 4, 0.95 P 106 53

-106 20

- 53 10

- 20 7.2 - 10 3.0 -

7.2 1.5 -

3.0 0.95-1.5 q 0.95

) 106 53

-106 20

- 53 10 20 7.2 -10 3.0 -

7.2 1.5 3.0 0.95-

1. 5 4 0.95 g106 53

-106 20

- 53 10

- '20 7.2 - 10 3 '

7.2 1.5 3.0 0.95-1.5 QO.95 1.69 31.52 59.94 1.69 1.52 1

~ 13 0.59 0.26 1.67 1.37 20.02 64.88 5.72

. 0.91 0.48 0.53 0.48 5.61 1.78 20.90 64.40 4.42 2.49 0.87 0.88 0.47 3.80 1.61 24.1 0

63. 07 3.94 1.64 0.83 0.67 0.40 3.69 3.21 26.80 57.07 2.57 4.08 3.33 0.96 0.43 1.55 1.88 13.70 47.50 1.51 2.53 4,44 3.92 3.39 21.09 1.38 20.22 66.06 3.21 2.16 0.92 0.82

0. 51 4.72 2.16 20.24 56.0.0 2.43 2.92 2.90 1.90 1.44 9.12 1.17 20.04

64. 24, 6.19

5. 21 1.65 0.34 0.18 0.97 1.62

24. 70 61.62 4.23

1. 35

, 0.67

0. 65 0.63 4.53 1

~ 91 18.65 56.69 2.15 1.85 3.13 2.46 1.80 11.34 1.57 21.13 60.85 4.19 2.80 1.82 1.15 0.87 5.61 I'

l k

~

~

I I

t~~~

~

gf I

i 1

~

I

) 1068,53-106 I, C 1 g~cQ~~

g

)~f Q~.'3

)

I 5

20-53 8, 10-20 p Figure 5. Particulate Size Segregation of Cyclone Preseparator Particulate Content Via L3P Sonic Sifter (Magnification = 150 x) l l

I I

Stage 1

> 7.2p, Stage 2 3.0-73 p,

I

~E p,x

)

Stage 4 0.95-1.5 /L Stage 5

( 0.95 p Figure 6. Particulate Size Segregation by Different Cascade Impactor Stages During Dust Storms (Magnification = 150 x) gl S

S l

I 8

I I

TABLE VIII GENERAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS OF DUST STORMS AT PVNGS SITE SUMMER 1978 Date Wind Direction Wind Direction Prior to After Oust Time Dust, Oust Storm Storm Started Storm Started 200-Foot Level Avg. Hind Veloci ty Prior to Dust Storm 35-Foot Level MPH)

Hind Velocity at Start of Dust Storm 35-Foot Level MPH)

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.

gi

~

Il t

~

~

gi

~

~

~

li I

gl l~

gi IIll 1,

I'*\\M*

~

I

,L a

~

Ai~

~

I-I-

~ I

!n S eed.

II

~PFoof-'I,'eyel I

v r

,9

!Merrqjnatio'!

o69ijN Storlf sSBt 0

~

~

'L

f~,

I'

. ~

f

~

i- ~

4-....,.-.-...;-..-.-.-... ~inrd Direction

'-"-'-' -'--'- =--'-'

5-'Foot-Leve)-

r I

~

~

~

~

M

~

gite.=

I" ~

I If t-'

.: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 -

~

I mph~at ure

'P

~

I

~-

~ ~.Ilf.W

. ~-

~.

~.

h vi.

~ II

~ ~I Figure 7. Wind Speed, Wind Direction and Temperature ofAugust 6, 1978 Dust Storm at P VN 6 S Site.

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 0

temperature drop of approximately 23 F.

Strip charts of both I

35 and 200 foot meteorological data depicting the meteorology of each dust storm are contained in Appendix B.

I li

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 the 0

Phoenix historical meteorological averages (temperature 70.3 F, precipitation

= 7.05 inches) compare well with sites near the 0

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.

l l

1 S

I l

l I'

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 these events,'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 i

Li 1'

l

TABLE IX HISTORICAL 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 1956 1957 195

- 19 19 1

19 3

1 3

1 (1) 5(l }

9 3) 6 2) 19 7

2 1

1 2

3 2

1 1

1 1

2

)

5 1 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)

Percent of 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)

~

~

l l

I l

l l

l l

dust storms is generally short.

Typical time durations of one (7i 8) to three hours have been cited in the literature Dust 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 this dust storm had a duration of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 55 minutes.

However, high dust concentration resulted in significantly reduced visibility, less than 5 miles, for approximately 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />.

l 1

~

ll I

1 1

l l

I

TABLE X TIME DURATION OF PHOENIX DUST STORMS (1957-1978)

Duration Minutes

+15 15-29 30- 44 45-59 60- 74 75-89 90-104 105-119

) 120 Number of Dust Storms 14 Arithmetic Mean of Dust Storm Duration = 48.0minutes Longest Dust Storm Duration

= 240 minutes

~

I l,

~

~

~

~

l'

~

~

l 1

IV.

COMPARISON OF SUMMER OF 1978 WITH HISTORICAL CONDITIONS A comparison was made of the total suspended particulate concentrations, dust storm events and meteorological conditions 1

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 I

l

TABLE XI COMPARISON OF TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION 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 SUMMERS 1978 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.

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 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 TSP 3

concentration averaged over 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> during the current sampling was 765 ug/m and corresponded to the August 6 dust storm.

If 3

the 1975-1976 measurements were the result of a dust storm, it is 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 I

I I

I I

I l

I I

I'

TABLE XII AVERAGE TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION FOR VARIOUS SUMMER PERIODS OF RECORD COMPARED NITH 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.

'veraged from only 2 years of data remaining data unavailable.

I gi l

l

)

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 I,

I I

I I

I I.

I I

I' I

li

NNW NNE NNW HW NE NW WHW ENE WNW EHE 0 /i CALM 10 15 E

09 5

10 15 20 CALM 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 EHE WNW ENE 0%

CALM CAL4 0'/

5 20 E

WSW ESE WSW ESE SE SSW SSE U ~ 6.59 JULY SSW SSE Q= 9.11 NW NN NNE NW NNW NNE NE WNW ENE WNW ENE 0%

CALM 5

10 15 20 E

i/

S 0

15 20 GALS WSW SW SE ESE WSW SW SE ESE SSW S

35'

6. 16 AUGUST LEGEND WIND DIRECTIPN FREPUENCY

{PERCENT)

MEAN WIND SPEED

( MPH)

S200'SE Q~ S. 91 Figure 8.

GROSS WIND ROSES AT 35 and 200 FEET FOR JUNE AUGUST, 1974-1977iat PVNc,S I

I I

I I

I

NNW NHE HHW HHE NW NE HW HE WHW ENE WNW EHE 1$

CALM E

O'4 S

CALM 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

CALlA O'I IO E

WSW ESE WSW ESE SW SSW S

NNW SE

$ $E U~ 7.d3 NNE JULY SSW NNW SE SSE Lj ~ 9.97 HNE NW NE NW HE WNW EHE WNW ENE OI CALM 10 15 20 E

0%

CALM 20 E

WSW ESE WSW ESE SW SE SW SE SSW SSE Q = 7.1$

S AUGUST 35'SW S200'$

f U~ 9.33 LEGEND WIND DIRECTION FREOUENCY

( PERCENT)

MEAN WIND SPEED

( MPH )

Figure 9.

GROSS WIND ROSES AT 35 AND 200 FEET FOR JUNE AUGUST, 1978, at PVNGS I

I I

I I

I I

I

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-

I I

I I

I t

i I

I I

I

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 shifts and 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 I

I, I

I I

r 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 of the 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

I I

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 0

as 10-15 F. (greater and lesser temperature drops have been reported).

l I

I, l

I l'

I

Vertical Gross Section WIND SHIFT AREA' BACK CURRENT FRONT)

Pressure Profile Figure 1').

GCKKl4PTIC IPW3'T" TK";. TAN-IJWPJ. AIHP3XN INSIDF. R1D oUTszor; oF an~tnnrimwt vmxa~~

~8>

l I

I 1

1'f

~

l i

I i

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 air pressure 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, if it 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; 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.

l, 1l

~

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.

l 1

l

~l

~

II li I',

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.

l 1

~

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 30336 k

c.

Meteorological Research, Inc.

Box 637 I

464 West Woodbury Road Altadena, California 91001 d.

ATM Corporation 6657 Industrial Loop Greendale, Wisconsin 53129

~

I i

~

1 L

~

~

~

~

~

I;

~

1

'APPENDIX A DATA LISTING OF SAMPLING DAYS ANDERSEN HEAD STAGES TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION STAGE 5 LOADING OF CASCADE IMPACTORS DUST STORM DATA (All Concentrations in Micrograms per Cubic Meter)

I I,

i l

I

DATE ANDERSEN HEAD STAGES 1

2 3

4 TOTAL 5

TSP CASCADE IMPACTORS STAGE FIVE 10-FT 40-FT 75-FT

/tS Oh 09 78 Ot) li'.

'/H Oh 13 7ts Oh ]<<

7H Ot) ]b

/H nh lb I H Ot) 19 7H On CO 7(s Uh C]

'/H 0 t) ci'H Oh 25.

/<S Oh c.'6 IH Oh Cf fH Oh iH 78 Ot 7ts Ot; 30

/ts 0 /

03

/H

()7 t)5

'I ts 0 'I o 6 ts (I I

()7 Its 01 1 o 7H 0/

11 7ts 0/

1 c lts of 13

'/H t) 7 1<<

'Its 0/

1/

/ts 0/

]ts 7ts 07 is

/8 0 I c.t)

'Its 0 I 21

,7H 07 C5 7ts 0 I

'Ct) 78 07 Cf I(s Of 2H IH s)7 31 Iq

!st<

0 ]

7H

()H nc

'18 o<t 03 7H Ok I)<<

7H Ots r)5 1H uts Ub 18 Os(

u I

'/8 0)s tlH

'IH 08 r)u

/v uss

]0 1H r) ts 11

'fH OH 13 7ts OH 1<<

'l)S nts 1 O 7 ts O)s 1 b (H

OH 1'I 78 0)s

]H

/iS OH i ]

'f 8 0 ts r.I ~ 9 2 O ~ c) i',3 ~ 7 13 ~ 6

)V.9 2/ ~ 5

~ 3 2].6

]~,6

]V.H 1 (t ~ 6 Z3 ~ 6 3;).9

]t).0 I< ~ 5

]C.3 2c.2 1.'5 ~ 3

")9 3

] '/,9

1) ~ 5 lb.1 2() ~ 7

<<5

.3 t) ~ 8 i.'0 ~

1 it)i 1

]8.2 31 A ]

]b ~ 5 cI <r) 5') ~

1

] I.2

]<< ~ 8 37 ~ 0 33 I i 31

]boO 1 u ~ i?

192 ~ 91

<<(I ~ J

'/o]

Zr.'~0 9 ~ b

/ ~ 3

] c". ~ 7 lu ~ h li ~ 6

'.) ~ 9 1(i ~ 1 3C ~

i.'3.]

3].6

)57 '

issue 3

73 '

1 7 ~i.'? ~,2 1 r" ~ 7 53 ~ 9 29 ~ << '1H ~ ts zn. 0

)4. ts 2".1 (s2.U 23.7 7H.<<

19.9 /3. 0 17.1 t)2.6

]4 P

39 '

]'i,0 h4 F 2 17.1 Hn.ts 9.7 <<8,9 lr ~ 4 h3 ~ 3 1].h <<h.9

]4.5 69,2

] 4 ~ 1

<<H.,<<

2<<.'i]<<4 AH 1<>.5 h4.3 H. 9

<<.") ~ 7 1].l 47 '

18 F 6 78 AC ZH ~ 7]2(s ~ 0 ZP ~ 3105. 'I 14 ~ 9 hP ~ 4

]i. 7

!)3. s lrs. p. ht).Z 10.<< hh.i 13.1 13 ~ (s

]."i ~ 5 9 ~ 9 10 ~ 6 8 ~ 3 5 '

9 '

7 ~ 5

~ 7 ~ (s

,9 ~ 6 1'5 ~ 0 10 ~ 7 10

~ 4 lid]

8 ~ )5 4 ~ 3 9 ~ Q 9 '

8 '

pe 4 7 '

10 ~ 2 A ]

18.9 9 '

.i ~ A 6 ~,0 au

]A~

5 13 ~ 3 H,5 7 '

ci 8 ~ H 7 '

6 '

13 ~ 8 7 ~ 9 7 ~ H rt ~ 2 lg 1,'f

r. ~ 1

/au 3,2

~ ]

h.u 5 '

c<

11

~.5 5 ~ 7

'.i ~ /

3 ~ tt 6 ~ 0

]2 ~ 3

]rs.2

,'i, ]

c) ~ Q 6 ~ P.

F 1

]3 ~ 4 1 5.7

]H ~ 4

]6 7

]F 8 14 F 6

]2 ~ 4 8 F 6

]4+]

16 F 4 11.7 13.H

<) ~ 6

]F 6 9 '

30 '

]2,5 9 ~ ts il,n

]7.0 25 '

c3.1 1 5.H 1 0 ~ r".

14.1 10 7

h.4 10 ~ 8 1 c) ~ 0

,"9 ~ 3 H.n 14 ~ 5 33 i.'

~'3

<~ ~ 3 00 '

19 ~ <<

33 ~ 3 H.5

, ') ~ 8 r) ~ 9 4 '

5 '6.3

~ 0 6.-6 6,7 lS ~ h

'a 4;0 5 '

(s. t) 6 ~ r)

F 2 6.6 ll ~ 4 <<7.2

]$.3 74,9

]9,9))ts.<<

]<

~ 8

]P.] <<rs.3 Cc) ~ >10's

~ O 16.0 21 'in,h 10.

r.'4.1 tse. ] ]

)s ~ 3 r) ~ 3 31.71 Cc< ~ 0 3<<i]ah

]C ~ r) h ~ 9 5 ~

1 ls ~ 0 1 t) ~ 0 I ~ !)

4 ~ 7

!3 ~ H

]4 ~ 6 AH

')3 32 I6 29)Sb C

<< ~ ') ]H ~ P. 5]

3 3,7 ])(.5 <<4.1 39 '3<)0 '7h<<

r),7 9 ~ 9 l< ~ 1 3 '].o 2 '

~ 3 2 '

F 1

? ~ <<

2.0 46.6) 3'I ~ c?

/3 ~ 8 r2c. H ~ 9 2<)..3 72.>

2].3

/3.<)

]3.1 3hor) in ~ 9 c9 ~ ~

1].t) 37+ i

]4 ~ 4

<<H ~ 5

]2.S 3H F 6

u. ]

Z>5 ~:)

c) ~ 7'43. /

]'i, 0 I C ~ <<

1?.7 3h./ 4n.'I r.'

zi e 1 zn.n 13 ~ 2 1'3e r) 3 i.5 2'i ~ 0 28,]

Zi'

'7 ls.rs 15 b

i?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 ~ 8 l,

) ~ 4 i r.'.5

]n.r>

1 9 ~ <s

<<i' 5

]6 ~

1 1'I ~ 6 15.c 95 ~.')

C3.]

ahrt ~ 5 e P.

<<4 26.7 26 ~ t)

] r< ~ ]

1?.b C f) ~ <)

Zn.n 11

~ ')

14.6 31.')

]<,]

13.H zn.o

'1 '5 ~ 5

]4.b lb.1 1 3, i!

3'i ~ 0 C7 F 3 21 F 6

19. t

17. c' s.

1 Ch ~ 7

]h~e lh. 8 14 ~ 5 Ch ~ 4 CH ~ ct lb.2 Zts. O

14. 3 C3,]

33 A ]

c!i?. 1 26 ~ 9 Zrs.

1 2<<.l Zi! ~ 7 CP ~ H 1 <s.',)

ln,n 24 ~ H

<<2.2 26,1 c? P.4 13 ~ 1 34 '

<< ~ <<

?.4

~ <<

13t) ~ 3

<<l ~ 2 i!7 ~ h ZP. ~ 1 H. 'f

]P ~ 1 le]

]P.. 6

'i ~ 3 9 ~ 3 3.]

]R.O

]P. ~ 1

]<i,2 9~3 16 ~ 6

]c).2

]3.3 2H ~ 7 27 '

19 1

lh ~ 0

]6.5

]R ~ 4 20 '

]1.5 1 P. ~ '5

., ]r2 ~ 1 i!1 o3

]ts,2 13 ~ 7 23.1

,17 ~ 7 1H ~ 3 26.2 17 1

28 '

Zi 1

2]o]

19 ~ 6 32 '

i.'6 ~ 2 17.7 23.H 4P.

~ 1

]~.]

20,+

ln.]

69 '

1 9 ~

.)'P..

~ 1 195

~ r) 39.6 2'i ~ 9 20,0 17 '

, 9 ~ ts 6 ~ H

]P ~ 6 24.v

") ~ 0 F 6 6 ~ 3

]'i, ]

1?

~ 1

I

~

~

li 1

g l

~

~

i

~

~

DATE ANDERSEN llHAD STA'lHS T

2 3

TOTAl' 5

TSP

] O-l""

~FT 7" rT

('A'g')( '),'.t]l.'AC'J'< "

)AGE FIVE It(

()!3 P3 I )3 0)3 r"s

/ )3 0 !s

/ t!

() !3 r.'3

/ (3 0 )3 r ]

'I ss 0t(

'/ ((

(1 )(

7'.( 0't

()C Is 0(t CG I ts

3) 9 0()

'/!3 0(t t) '/

/(3 0()

0(3 3>.'!

) t! ~ ()

)'!.1

. ?.I r'3.

'C.'sr',

ts

't'b. ()

C':

~ (.i

).3.,3 1 '! ~ ()

C, (.> ~

i? t) ~ ()

(t, t) f) ~ ss l 0.!)

I 6 ~ t) 1'9>3

(. (1

~

3 1 r. ~

1 H,ts I.n J 2 ~ !!

.3 ~ 7 4, (3 4 ~

)

~g 10 '

13.1

16. 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 c3.1 31,1 1'i ~ 7 1().2 7 ~ 4 1() ~ )

41,h

'!4. I 41,h 1.3. I

/1. 0

~ ()

1C4

( i 4

~ ()

34

~ g

.s t) ~ 1 7l.l i'. () ~ 0 I".1 I

3.) ~ t) ll 3'.) ~ 7 1)3 ~ ?

7, 'I P t)

It t! ~ )3 p4, t)

P

~3,

)

1 ts ~ 3 at! ~ 8 4n,z 4 () ~ (I 14.u 1 3.1 1 t3,2

() 4

!3,

~!

? i'

)3 I /,r?

)l Jl, 1

.3!> ~

) 3',t!

)1.

t J:). I C,

l' gl

~

~

~

gl

~

t I

I,l I

I, 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 CASCADE 10-foot 8/3/78 CASCADE 40-foot 8/3/78 CASCADE 75-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 CASCADE 10-foot 8/6/78 CASCADE 40-foot 8/6/78 CASCADE 75-foot 8/8/78 ANDERSEN 8/8/78 CASCADE 10-foot 8/8/78 CASCADE 40-foot 8/8/78 CASCADE 75-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 I

1 gi I

i l

t t

~

~

~

~

L t

APPENDIX B STRIP CHART METEOROLOGICAL DATA OF DUST STORM DAYS Ili I

l l

~

1

~

I,

~

r

~

gi gl:

I

I.

%isa CtCR)42AQIMNh4JS ossseees s<<>>cseele<<<<e ee ssrJ~

?

CS 0

e J" I

-sr I

~ st I ece 0

~

~

s

,. j

~i

~ I s

0rs0D rs

~

9 0re0 C) 0 IS A~p'.

s

~

~

~ g<

IeS r

~.erc

~ ~ v es0 rl~

rs "

l a~

gpss-s r

i.

c ~

~

~

~

4+/ "

Z 4;.s-0e j,

4 e

e

~s f

'f>>

- sW VP

>>+s

~

<>IN44 V.6 A, C'r August 3, 1978 NS

~4 M

%K?MK

!NOIANAeerllc I.4el.

5 Il l

l l'

5555@~

LJjr IJt II I

~

I

~

7 l

5

~ ~

~"I Cb IK QI 5

1

~

-)

i I

=

~

~"

" 4

'I

~ I I

~

1 Ji 0 ~

i

~

~-- Ov2 I

v - ~-

L ~

(P JR tv

~'

1

-I

--Ol =

j"---I-

~ h 5:5 It L ~

~

~ J.,Q h

~

.I 5

Qjlg.

L 0

~

~

~ L I

--" 23 ln

~

h Iil-~

0 1

t

'Q I r

~

't

~

lhj Iji I

'0

-"uoTgoaxxa pwca paadS pays 8g6y 'g gsnSny I

~"

A 0

I

" ~

h v

~r

,I I

i I I

I[

L~

I xn'I

.O 1 I

~ I

'I

- ~ I I

CIIAIIItj57 5205 5"

~

~

I

~

'0'.t,.t'c I I ID, ER1'LN.IÃ Itjajj575Ae'577 jg 55 JA 0

5 07 I I..

=.'~l~

I I

~

I I

l

r k

I k

I

~

j SAN

~

~

w+

5.

0 90 I

I I

~ ~ -

~

~,

I S

~

~

I:

S i

185 270

" 0

~

90

~

1i0 I

I

~

k

~

C I

Caikc I

I I

0 o

ep

. eo I

I I

I

.I

~

~

! CAa, I

~

I

~

I IV E

S 0

"0 1805

'AR' i

'I "I

I 90 I

I

.1 I

I I

~

jjt5'

."k' 270

~

i 360 II I

1gn k

I I

I

~ I C

OCI C55 I

rr I

CJJ kI r

"r

~

~

~

I i L 20,.

40 k

6 GP i00 11ACI

~

!I I

I I

I I

~

2 A!I" C

I r ~ ~

k

~

1 c

51k 180 270 260 90 160

~

~,

.J.

I

~

k I

0 I

5 T

I I

~pe L

4 I

II I

I C)

I IJC 5 rlC "40

~-'.

IIO

~~ k~

20 k

I k

I

~ r1 A gj

~ I I, kk I

I I

~~

I L%\\

5 C

20 40 60 QQ L ~,,

~

9AM I'I 0

,0 tD 90 i

IT II ljk

'IQ0

~ rP'IQ

'5'I I'r S

090 90 T)0 I

r

~

I

~

~

I J

~

0 20,~AO 60 85 Iq0 re 5 71

'I

I I

t Il l

I I

I

'kP0

~

Il

~ - ~

~

~ I O

e

~ Il, III0 Or-Q

~

~

. ~ -

0

~

4.

~

~

~

- cPo-a I

Ate'~

~

~I

~.

-- 0

~el

~

~

~

-0 ee C ~

0 Ill '

~

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

~ ~ 'I e

e P

'Iei Iy-.. e'

~

.t t

I CD Ilail I

, ~

~

~

0 0

P" "-4 CIC' NO

'W 2

August 6, 1978

f

'tllll mt H

10 JYN<'.

I'1HZ l

0 IC 'I Ott

.T iO

~

II e

~

~

~

-.;!l~ig-

~

~ J

~

~ ~

-I L

Augu'st 6

1978 Wind Speed And Direction 35 I. F

--7

~

I

~

e O

CO

~ e ~

.p

~ I

<<r

~

~

I I

~

im lr C'T.

C'4

~

- ~

0--

~

. I

...T.- '}

-I

-* -l I~

I

,~I ~

--CV'I----

I1--

I I

I

<<<<Cgr

~ e

~ Time

l I

I L

t i

l

~

r

~

)i 5,

t

I I

I e

ee t

I r

=- -IO" I Ce>

I l

I Q

I>

~

~ ee'e%

111 I e

e ItW

~

~

I I

I

~

l

~

I l

II i[

I I

I

~

I

O I

I I

I I

f

~ >'

ee' ItI I

Ct e

~

t

~

I I

T' 1

~

I

~ 'I e

e

~ ~

~ I

~

~

I; ~

.'I; I

~

~

~ ~

el l'

.'I "

I I

li

~ I

,0 e

M ~

II CiO O

e Iei l

I I

Ct V

I

~

I j

= I

.IO, I'IC>

I I

I I

e I

~

~ I I

le I

I August 6, 1978 Mind Speed And Direction200'W.S.

= 0-50 MPH)

I

=

I tee

~'I tef iC>

I IO It I I

I III I *'

I---g'CC g I

I' j~

I

~

I-I II I

j

~

e Clt I

~ O

~ CV I

. >I'i

~

~

ej

~

Iie e

~.f I O

~nnj 1 ~

~

II O

I I

,p ett O

er>th I

I CV I

I I

1

)

i'

~

Q I

I'I)

I II I

e >1 I, Lm'.

I I

~

I I

I

ie>

I I

I I

~l

~

~

I e -:..e I>>

~

e

.I

~ ~ II I

I e

~

I

= rt

<e'I 1 0-

' I ~ \\ ~ I~'me m:

I I

~ Time

I I

I I

t I

I' l

I

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

'(La f>>

4

~-f

<< ~ <<

4

~':

II~

se45 I IP

'1 h

?

4

>>14 4

I A>>

4>>

msf 4

~

t 1

~<<m e

~

?

?

L~

1 4>>

~V.I

'r(

kly 4'I 4

4 s

4 t I<<

~

44 ~

ts

%?5

~

I 144 <<re m'W'o'Lk?

~

4 rh 'm~

~

's(>>f 5 sk~

r 4 2

- "l

~ <<D v~4Q~

ml

~~

'IO 4?

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 44 1

N

>>Lh <<

4k

'm Ss.:I, vrk4k 4

L>>tr>>

~

~4'~~~

kl<<ghr~ 4

?

>>5 vqa f

Jh4 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+

<rest Sls's~>>mk<<

?r'v-sak r 4L'

'44 j

4 4

4 re 4 5

A L>><<i'4 4

4+

'v.l vk~~

~

1

( L IL>>k~

~

'(

~

~ ~

~ ~

4 ~

ts

'k

~

~,

~~

~L sl

~

I

~

~ v a~jh kw I~Jr 4

':<<(r 'atk5

~:

~

r

~,'

"T<<-I im'

~ 4>>>>

~

vs 4

~

A<<

<<,>>I 4>>

a 4

~

I>>-

4

~

4 4

~I

~ 4

~

"I

~.-'-.,

~

4

~

~

~ re 45

I I

C

- A~~~

KXSR I

4 4 IL VSSE"aul<<CndivffriaNI. =-I P,.

~

I

~O I'

4 C

<<C I

I

~I I

UK..O'El.

J I

- ~--.vi

]C) r OQIWlf V'%1 'IJI'Sl L

4 4

J ~

4 I

~ al a4~

4 4

L 4

S I

~

• I I

S 4

7 4

4 Et

~

1 ~

~

I

~

o

~

J S'

4v V

E

'-',, --.'!.'-",':.i -':.:Au uit..'8, 3.9)8:::.'kind.8 ee4'ga',

Dfre t'ion:-- 35',- 9:8

~"0.-'.50 MPH)J W

4 L

E 4

via 4 4 v

L741

~

~ I 4

~ E 4% jl, 'A'.41

'7 rr'E44 I

IIOE 7

~

~

~

WEI 4

W.

O IL

<<7 Jt 7 SJ ~ '.A 4I l<<

p mal La jo<<LV 4J E4L* 'L II 11

~ 4 444

~ 'I

~

v 44'7

~

L CJ

~

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 J

a 7

41

'I

=.kj C/I'

~

r L:.:

Ii b~ci

'I

~

t

~

~ ~S J

~oo I Vapo 4

SII 1

0 QIJ I

~

~

S<<

I~ SI IL 00.

4

~Time

I I

I I

C

~

<<r

~"

~ 7 0

vsn tt}$

IONI ONI 'S 1C IN'I gal V'.

C

. ~

IL

~

L 5

L v

~ 4 r

<<tIk C

- ~

~H I t

~ I,~,

~

t A

v A

I 00.

~

L

~

~

"I L

0-Y'O'IItl

- ~>>

ONI IS 7"

<<t p

~

I L

~+L I>>

'}7<<'

r C

~

C

~

<<I r

~

r

'W I

~

~ I I

I C

v I

v I

~

i<<vIl>>

I

~ ~

~ <<

~

r tvr

• ,.'.."ir -AuguS<<tt'8, 1978 I

I

~

~

k<<1+&

CP

~

L 5

7 4a<<

ILPw~

I

~.b LV<<l

>> r A<<

~

f C

+'

r

~~>> C<<

Cv

~

LU r<<4 LF

~

L I

d

,Mfn4 8jj ed'i Aijd-.pgrh Ctl'Roti;-',2dQ.>. 4g '3;,".~I. 0-":5p',MPfI);

'L<<

5

~

I

..0 I

~I ~

I 0

I Cl..l I

VL I

~

~

. -I

~I '.<>

v I

I

~ lCl 14 II IIt Iii

~ 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?"

I I

I I

I I

NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY SURVEY FOR THE PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 1979 THROUGH AUGUST 1980 Prepared By:

Dan Avant George Cozens Joe 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 affect the 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 hours0.00219 days <br />0.0525 hours <br />3.125e-4 weeks <br />7.19145e-5 months <br /> per sample.

A 72-hour decay period was permitted on each sample prior to counting to eliminate natural Radon-Thoron activities.

I I

I I

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 in Figure 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 in Table I.

The combined monthly averages for drinking water and pond water are shown in Figure 5.

The water samples indicated only a very slight variation in radioactivity.

I I

I i

i)

I I

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'gnificant changes 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 in the air during periods of temperature inversions tends to increase the natural background 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 radioactivity background.

I i

i i

Ij L

I l

l

~

.5 1979 1980

FIG, 1

Monthly Averages of Continuous Air Samples From Sites S-11 and S-12.

I I'

I~

I

4 E

~ g CF'i I

I 2

S-

<D I

cr 1979 UJ CD CD 1980 FIG.

2 Monthly Averages of Rain Mater Samples From Sites S-11 and S-12.

I I

I I

I I

I'

1.5 0 ~

1979 LLI 1980 FIG.

3 Monthly Averaqes of Soil Samples

'rom Sites 2-1 Thru S-8 and S-10.

I I

I I

I

1.5 1.0 1979 1980 FIG.

4 monthly Averaqes of Veqetation Samples from Sites S-1 thru S-8, and S-10.

I I

I, I

I I

I I

E IO 2

O I

CD

)

CD 1979 1980 FIG.

5 Monthly Averaaes of Mater Samples from Sites S-1 thru S-10.

I I

I I'