United States Office of Air Quality EPA 450/2-81-078 

Environmental Protection Planning and Standards December 12, 1980 

Agency Research Triangle Park NC 2771 1 

Air 

A Screening Final 

Procedure for the Report 

Impacts of Air 

Pollution Sources on 

Plants, Soils, and 

Animals 
EPA 450/2-81-078 

A Screening Procedure for the 

Impacts of Air Pollution Sources on 

Plants, Soils, and Animals 

A.E. Smith and J.B. Levenson 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 South Cass Avenue 

Argonne, 11 60439 

Contract No. EPA-IGA-79-D-X0764 

Prepared for 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1 

December 12, 1980 
The guideline series of reports is being issued by the Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to provide information to state and local 

air pollution control agencies; for example, to provide guidance on the 

acquisition and processing of air quality data and on the planning and 

analysis requisite for the maintenance of air quality. Reports published in 

this series will be available - as supplies permit - from the Library Services 

Office (MD-35), U .S . Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a nominal fee, from the National 

Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 

22161. 

Publication No. EPA-450/2-81-078 
CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background ............................ 1 

1.2 Scope .............................. 1 

2 OVERVIEW ............................... 3 

3 AIRQUALITY RELATED IMPACTDATA .................... 7 

3.1 General ............................. 7 

3.2 Natural Vegetation and Crops ................... 8 

3.2.1 General .......................... 8 

3 .2.2 Screening Concentrations for Ambient Exposures ...... 10 

3.2.3 Synergisms ........................ 15 

3.2.4 Screening Concentrations for Soil and Plant 

TissueExposures ..................... 16 

3.3 Soils ....... ; ...................... 17 

3.4 Fauna .............................. 22 

TRACE ELEMENT AIR QUALITY DATA . . 

5 SCREENING PROCEDURE .......................... 25 

5.1 Methodology ........................... 25 

5.1.1 Description ........................ 25 

5.1.2 Estimating Maximum Concentrasions ............. 28 

5.1.3 Screening and Deposition .................. 33 

5.2 Example Screen and Significant Emission Rates .......... 42 

5.2.1 Example Screen ...................... 42 

5.2.2 Significant Emission Rates ................ 44 

APPENDIX A: ESTIMATES OF MAXIMUM GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS ...... 49 

APPENDIX B: POLLUTANT SENSITIVITIES OF PLANT SPECIES .......... 59 

APPENDIX C: TRACE ELEMENTAIRQUALITYDATA ............... 71 

APPENDIX D: EFFECTS OF DEPOSITED PARTICULATE MATTER ........... 107 

REFERENCES ................................ 111 

iii 
TABLES 

2.1 Regulated Pollutants ......................... 4 

2.2 Pollutants Screened ......................... 6 

3.1 Screening Concentrations for Exposure to Ambient 

Air Concentrations .......................... 11 

3.2 Screening Concentrations of Gaseous Pollutants Compared 

to Ambient Criteria ......................... 14 

3.3 Synergisms of Gaseous Pollutants .................. 16 

3.4 Screening Concentrations for Exposure of Vegetation to 

Pollutant Concentrations in Soil and Tissue ............. 17 

Range of Endogenous Soil Concentrations of Selected Elements .... Y1ant:Soil Concentration Ratios ................... Dietary Trace-Element Concentrations Toxic to Animals ........ Steps in Screening Procedure .................... Pollutants and Averaging Times ................... Ambient Screening Concentrations .................. Solubilities of Endogenous Trace Elements .............. Equivalent Exogenous Soil Screening Concentrations ......... Significant Emission Rates for Direct Acting Pollutants ....... Significant Emission Rates for Trace Elements ............ Summary of Bepresentative Stacks .................... Dispersion Coefficient Parameters and Maximum 

Concentration Coefficient ...................... Averaging Time Conversion Factors .................. Sulfur Dioxide Sensitivity of Crop Species ............. Solfur Dioxide Sensitivity of Natural Vegetation .......... Ozcne Sensitivity of Crop Species .................. Ozone Sensitivity of Natural Vegetation ............... Nitrogen Dioxide Sensitivity of Crop Species ............ Nitrogen Dioxide Sensitivity of Natural Vegetation ......... Air Quality Data for Arsenic .................... Air Quality Data for Cadmim .................... Air Quality Data for Chromium .................... 

Air Quality Data for Fluoride Ion .................. 

Air Quality Data for Lead ...................... 

Air Quality Data for Manganese ................... 
TABLES (Cont ' d ) 

Air Quality Data for Selenium ............... Air Quality Data for Vanadium ............... Air Quality Data for Zinc ................. 

FIGURE S 

SO2 ~ose-Injury Curves for Pfant Species ......... NO2 ~ose-Injury Curves for Plant Species ......... Concentrations of Some Trace Elements Toxic to Terrestrial 

Range of Endogenous Concentrations of Trace Elements ... Pollutant Pathways .................... Flowchart of Screening Procedure ............. 

..... 12 

..... 13 

Plants.'. 18 

..... 21 

..... 26 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The authors wish to express their appreciation to K. Robeck and 

S. Zellmer of the Energy and Environmental Systems Division of Argonne 

National Laboratory for their help in assembling the data on which the 

screening concentrat ions were based and for helpful discussions during the 

development of the screening procedure. 
1 INTRODUCTION 

1 .1 BACKGROUND 

Section 165 of the Clean Air ~ctl requires preconstsuction review of 

major emitting facilities to provide for the prevention of significant deterioration (PsD) and charges Federal Land Managers (KMS) with an affirmative 

responsibility to protect-the air quality related values of Class I areae. 

xegulat ions2 implementing these provisions require : 

e An analysis of the impairment to visibility, soils, and 

vegetation (52.21 (0)) and 

A notice from the EPA Administrator to the appropriate FLM 

of any pewit application frm a source whose emissions 

would affect a Class I area (52.21 (p)). 

For sources more than 10 km from any Class I areas, exemptions provide 

that no analysis of impairment need be done if emission increases are below 

specified limits .* The analysis should address the impairment due to general 

'secondary growth associated with the source and need not address the impacts 

on vegetation having no significant commercial or recreational value. For 

impacts in Class I areas, consultation between EPA and the FU4 is required. 

1.2 SCOPE 

The entire subject of air quality related values and impairment to 

these values is currently under investigation. For example, although same 

values related to plants, soils, and visibility are "air quality related 

values," the term itself remains to be defined in a fashion appropriate to the 

review of PSD permit applications and air quality reviews. Much of the data 

required to relate ambient concentrations of pollutants to impairment of these 

values is currently lacking. However, the requirements of 52.21 (0) and (p) 

need to be addressed now while additional investigations are being carried 

out. 

*The "de minimis" values are given in Sec. 52.21 (b) (23)( i) of the PSD 

regulations. 2 
The informat ion and screening procedure presented here provide interim 

guidance : 

To aid in determining whether emissions are significant 

or whether there are significant air quality impacts under 

Sec. 52.21 (0) and 

To aid in flagging sources which should be brought to the 

attention of an FLM under Sec. 52.21 (p). 

Impacts on vegetation and soils are the principal areas addressed 

by the procedure which thus takes a limited view of the possibly broad scope 

of air quality related values. A selected review of impacts on fauna has also 

been included and the odor potential of regulated pollutants is addressed. -- 

This procedure is intended for use by air quality engineers and is not 

a manual for the assessment of impacts on plants, soils, and other air quality 

related values such 'as would be suitable for an ecologist. A handbook providing for such detailed assessments is being prepared for the FLMs. In keeping 

with the screening approach, the procedure provides conservative, not definitive results. However, a source which passes through the screen without being 

flagged for detailed analysis cannot necessarily be considered safe. Species 

more sensitive to particular pollutants than species considered in this study 

probably exist. Further research may indicate that averaging times different 

from those used here are controlling. When available, such information 

could be easily included in the screening procedure by changing the screening 

concentrations presented here. 

Based on estimates of typical stack parameters, significant emission 

levels have been estimated. These estimates are not intended to replace 

source-specific screens, but do indicate what sizes of sources appear most 

likely to cause s,ignificant impacts on plants and soils. 
2 OVERVIEW 

The procedure presented here provides a simple method for assessing 

the potential a source has for adversely affecting some air quality related 

values. In particular, the potential for impacts on plants, soils, and 

animals is assessed. The approach taken is similar to the "de minimis" 

approach used by EPA in the PSD regulations.3 In the procedure presented 

here, the minimum levels at which adverse effects have been reported in the 

1 iterature are used as screening concentrat ions . These screening concentrations can be concentrations of pollutants in the ambient air, in soils, or in 

aerial plant tissues. They have been developed by searching the review . 

literature; few original sources have been consulted. The analyst applying 

this procedure must read the material in Sec. 3 which lists these screening 

concentrations and provides background on them in order to apply and interpret 

them appropriately. 

Section 5 describes a seven step process for screening a source. The 

procedure begins by estimating the maximum ambient concentrations caused' by 

the source for the averaging times specified for the screening concentrations. 

For some pollutants these maxima are compared directly to the screening 

values. For other pollutants (trace elements) esthates of deposition in the 

soil and subsequent uptake by plants are made based on an estimate of the 

maximum annual concentrat ion. The est bated concentrat ions of the pollutant 

in the soil and aerial plant parts are then compared to appropriate screening 

eoncentrat ions . Concentrat ions in excess of an; of the screening concentrations would indicate that the source might have adverse impacts on plants, 

soils, or animals and that the actions required by 40 CFR 52.21 (0) and (p) 

need to be taken. For situations where modeling results are not available for 

the source, significant emission levels corresponding to the various screening - 

concentrations are developed in Sec. 5.2. In these cases, emissions in excess 

of the significance levels would trigger the additional actions. 

The estimation of potential impacts on plants, animals, and soils is 

extremely difficult . The screening concentrations provided here are not 

necessarily safe levels nor are they levels above which concentrations will 

necessarily cause harm in a particular situation. Effects data for plants, 

animals, and soils are under constant revision and reevaluation. There is 
1 !' 

I I good deal of controversy among experts. In addition, this procedure is based 

upon a simplistic view of extremely complex systems in which single value 

estimates are not possible and in which the number of variables is extremely 

large. Many simplifying assumptions have been involved in developing the 

procedure and are discussed in Sec. 3. 

Ideally, the screening procedure should address the impacts of all the 

pollutants currently regulated under the Clean Air Act, but as shown in 

Table 2.1, screening concentrations were found for only half the regulated 

pollutants. Ozone and TSP are discussed in Sec. 3 .l. Of the remaining substances for which screening concentrations were not found, methyl mercaptan, 

dimethyl sulfide, dimethyl disulf ide, carbon disulf ide, and carbonyl sulfide 

are regulated because of their odor potentials. Odor is an air quality 

related value and Sec. 52.21 (b)(23)(i) of the PSD regulations2 gives "de 

minimis" emission levels for reduced sulfur (RS) and total reduced sulfur 

Table 2.1 Regulated Pollutants 

I: Screening Concentrations 

I I Available Not Available 

Mercury 

Beryl 1 ium 

Fluoride 

Hydrogen Sulfide 

Asbestos 

Sulfuric Acid Mist 

Vinyl chloride 

Methyl Mercaptanc 

Dimethyl SulfideC 

Dimethyl Disul fidec 

Carbon Disul fideC 

Carbonyl Sul f idec 

aFraction of TSP present as trace elements treated through deposition and 

uptake by plants. 

b~creenin~ concentration available but 

no simple procedure for estimating the 

ozone impact of a single source is 

currently available. 

CRegulated indirectly as constituents of 

reduced sulfur or- total reduced sulfur. 
- 

(TRS) based on odor. RS and TRS include these sulfur~cmpounds. Sources not 

emitting more than these "de minimis" levels (10 t/yr for both XB and TXS) are 

not expected to have a significant odor impact and hence should not require 

any additional review for impacts on air quality related values. If the 

10 tlyr "de minimis" level is exceeded, the appropriate FM might want to 

evaluate the potential for an odor problem. Whether or not these sulfurcontaining comp&nds might adversely affect plants, soils, or animals could 

not be determined. mere was one questionable indication that methyl mercaptan might be toxic to plants at concentrations near 150,000 pg/m3, far 

above likely ambient concentrat ions .4 Informat ion for asbestos, sulfuric acid 

mist, and vinyl chloride was not available in the review literature consulted 

for this work. 

Pollutants which can be screened by this procedure are listed in 

Table 2.2 according to whether they are screened for potential effects on 

plants or on animals and according to whether the potential effects are caused 

directly by concentrations of the pollutant in the ambient air or whether the 

potential effect is exerted indirectly through the soil or the diet. Absence 

of a pollutant from a particular column in the tabla does not necessarily 

mean that impacts can not result from the pollutant acting through the . i' 

corresponding pathway. Such absence simpqy means tiiat no data to provide a 

suitable screening concentrat ion were found i29' the review 1 iterature consulted . 

- 
Table 2 -2. Pollutants Screened 

Potential Impacts on 

Plants Animals 

Direct Indirect through Direct Indirect through 

Ambient Deposition and Ambient Plants in 

Impact Uptake Impact Diet 

so2 

03 

NO2 

CO 

H2S 

Ethylene 

Fluoride 

Ar s en ic 

Bo ton 

Cadmium 

Chromium 

Cobalt 

Copper 

.Fluoride 

Lead 

Arsenic 

Beryllium 

Cadmium 

Lead 

Cobalt 

Copper 

Fluoride 

Lead 

Manganese Manganese 

Mercury 

Nicke 1 Nickel 

Selenium Se lenium 

Vanad im Vanad iun 

Zinc Zinc 

aThe other five sulfur-containing compounds are screened for 

odor impacts during the "de minimis" determinaion for RS and 

TRS . 
3 AIR QUALITY RELATED IMPACT DATA 

NOTE: In this chapter and throughout this work, a distinction is made 

between parts per million by volume (ppv) and parts per million by weight 

(pp~). The former, ppmv, is the unit more familiar to air quality analysts 

and is used, for example, to express ambient concentrations and standards. 

The latter, ppmw, or an equivalent (mg/kg, ug/g), is frequently used to 

express concentrations of elements in soils, plants, and animals. The air 

quality analyst should be aware of the difference, because the units are not 

equivtilent. The unit ppv is normally used only in expressing concentrations 

of components of gaseous mixtures. 

3.1 GENERAL 

Data to be used in screening impacts on three air quality related 

values (vegetation and crops, soils, and fauna) are discussed in this section. 

vegetation and crops receive the greatest amount of attention, reflecting the 

availability of data. No direct impacts on soils are defined, such impacts 

being screened through the potential impacts on vegetation growing in soils 

which have become contaminated by the deposition of 'air pollutants. Impacts 

on fauna are also addressed indirectly with effectskCbeing related to the I 

ingest ion of plants containing toxic elements taken up from pollutants 

deposited on soils. Thus, the information presented here represents a preliminary definition of air quality related values and impacts. 

Perhaps as important as the areas addressed are several areas not 

addressed in this procedure. These areas are visibility, acid precipitation, 

a screen for TSP, and a screen for ozone. Consideration of visibility as an 

air quality related value is required by regulations (40 CFR 52.21 (0) and 

(p)). Addressing visibility was beyond the scope of this work. However, EPA .- 

has prepared a report to Congress on visibility6 and draft regulations7 have 

been pub lished . 

No simple procedure is currently available to deal with the impact of 

a single source on acid precipitation. Acid precipitation presents a regional 

problem involving long-range transport -which makes the impact of a singlesource difficult to isolate. Various adverse effects on vegetation have 

been noted in areas with low soil buffering capacities and subject to heavy 
I 

annual precipitation. Such areas appear to be most susceptible .8,9,10,11 1 

Observed effects include reduced growth, reduced germinat ion of seeds and I 

I 

pollen, accelerated leaching of nutrients, decrease in soil calcium and other , 

bases, and reduced microbial activity, particularly that of nitrifiers and 

nitrogen-fixers. A major EPA initiative to study acid precipitation is 

currently underway. Policy and guidance will be formulated as part of this 

initiative. 

Total suspended particulates (TSP) are not considered here. No useable 

information other than that used to develop the ambient standards (NAAQS) was 

found in the review literature. Thus, EPA's current procedure for TSP~ should 

suffice for the review of generic TSP. However, the trace metals in TSP may 

have greater impacts on vegetation and soils than the total amount of particulates. This section provides informat ion related to specific trace metals. 

No simple models are currently available to estimate the impacts on 

ozone concentrat ions of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from 

a single source. EPA is currently developing means other than modeling 

to deal with VOC emissions and ozone. It appears likely that an emission 

management approach will be taken. When this approach has been completed it 

could probably be used to review new sources for Empacts on air quality 

related values. Meanwhile, the minimum reported 'concentrations at which 

vegetative damage occurs are presented here but no method for their use 

is given and no significance levels for VOC emissions have been developed. 

3.2 NATURAL VEGETATION AND CROPS 

3.2.1 General 

lbo pathways by which air pollutants can affect vegetation are considered here. The first is the direct exposure of a plant to a gaseous pollutant 

in the ambient air. The second involves indirect exposure to trace elements 

through deposition of the pollutant in the soil and later uptake by the plant. 

For each pathway certain qualifications and cautions should be kept in mind in 

order to avoid interpreting the values presented here either as absolutely 

safe levels for all plants or as levels which could never be exceeded without 

damaging vegetation. The following discussions are not intended to be exhaustive and details required by specialists are not given. The intent is to 
provide the air quality analyst with a feeling for the difficulty of estimating screening concentrations for plants and the complexity of making 

detailed assessments of impacts on vegetation. References 8, 9, 12, and 13 

may be consulted for additional details and guidance to primary source 

material. 

Effects of pollutants can be classified as acute or chronic. Acute 

effects result from short-term (e .g . , 3-hr) exposures to relatively high 

concentrations. Chronic effects result from exposures to lower concentrations 

for times of from months to several years. Most of the effects data for 

plants comes from experiments conducted under acute conditions of exposure 

with some limited information on chronic exposures. Thus, the data may not 

adequately reflect impacts which take years or decades to develop. 

The values presented here represent the ambient levels at which visible 

damage or growth retardation may occur or the observed minimum levels at which 

injury and mortality to plants have been reported. These numbers are generally the lowest values consistently reported in the literature on plant response 

to controlled exposures of single pollutants. Both field and greenhouse 

studies have been used in developing the data. Experiments which demonstrated 

only physiological changes (e .g., a change in respiration rate) without I" 1. 

associated visible damage or effects on growth, weight, or yield were not 

considered in this compilation. 

The majority of the studies were performed on crops and other economically important species; for lack of sufficient data, it is assumed here that 

native plant species are affected at similar concentrations. In addition, 

assessment of the data on crops is difficult because of the number of horticultural varieties available for many of the species tested. In the process 

of selecting desirable attributes in different varieties, the species' 

original sensitivity or resistance to the element being tested may have been 

inadvertently altered, making general conclusions about the sensitivity of the 

species as a whole difficult. 

Effects from simultaneous exposure to two or more pollutants have 

been ignored in the majority of the studies. Exposure to a single pollutant 

at a time is not the usual situation. Particular combinations and concentra- I 

1 t ions of pollutants may act either synergistically or antagonistically under 

certain conditions. Such situations are seldom clearly predictable with 
current information and the screening procedure presented here does not deal 

with them. A limited discussion of synergisms is pesented in Sec. 3.2.3. 

Each species exhibits a specific range of tolerance which may be 

higher, lower, broader, or narrower than another species'. In addition to 

the variation in tolerance between species, every individual of a given 

population has an intrinsic tolerance to environmental stress. Therefore, the 

population exhibits a characteristic range of tolerance so that all members of 

the population would not necessarily respond to pollutant levels that would 

adversely affect some members. 

Species vary in the way they take up, metabolize, eliminate, and 

accumulate elements. Species also vary in the way they respond to different 

elemental forms. For example, h3+ is generally thought to be more toxic to 

plants than AS^+. The values presented here do not make such distinctions nor 

could they be made based on the review literature. 

Finally, the response of species and individuals depends upon a number 

of uncontrolled variables. Changes in these variables might alter the 

sensitivity of the plant. These variables include: age (stage of development), health and vigor, season of year, temperature, light intensity, soil 

type, moisture content of soil, pH of soil, . humidity, . wind speed, and the 

presence of other elements. ,*. 

3.2.2 Screening Concentrations for Ambient Exposures 

Table 3.1 presents the suggested 'screening values for seven gaseous 

pollutants. These values represent the minimum concentrations at which 

adverse growth effects or tissue injury in exposed vegetation were reported in 

the literature. Data for some other gases could not be included because the 

critical specification of averaging time was missing. Where information was , 

available, separate values are given for sensitive, intermediate, and resistant plants. Species belonging to each of these groupings are given in 

Appendix B for Sop, N02, and ozone. Figure 3.1 displays graphically the 

variation in experimental determinations of the minimum SO2 concentration at 

which effects occur. Figure 3.2 presents a similar display for NO2. For both 

pollutants there is reasonable but not perfect agreement between the graphical 

data and the screening concentrations recommended in Table 3.1. The use 

of the data from the table rather than interpolation from the curves is 
Table 3.1 Screening Concentrations for Exposure to 

hb ient Air Concentrat ionsa, 

Minimum Reported Level (pmv)c 

Vegetation Sensitivity 

Averaging 

pollutant Time ens i t ived Intermediate Resistant Reference 

so2 1 hr .35(917) - - 14 

3 hrs .30(786) .80(2096) 5. Q( 131 00) l 6 

1. YP .007(18) 17 

4 hrs 2.0(3760) 5.0(9400) 9.0( 16920) 19 

8 hrs 2.0(3760) 4.0(7520) 8.0(15040) 19 

1 mo .30(564) f 

1 Yf .05-.10(94-188) 20 

4 hrs 20.0-60.0 - 

(28,000-84,000) 

Ethyleneh 3-4 hrs .04(47) 24 

24 hrs .001(1.2) 25 

~luorine 10 days (0.5-10) 26 

~er~l liumi 1 mo ' (0.01) 2 7 , <a 

~eadj 3 mo (1.5) .$. 28 

aA11 values except beryllium and lead refer to effects on vegetation. 

bMinimum reported levels at which visible damage or grbwth effects to vegetation may 

occur. 

( cValues in parentheses are ug/m3 at 20'~ and 1 atm. 

d~hese values should be used in the-screening procedure unless it is known that only 

intermediate or resistant plants will be affected. 

eThe values for 20% injury are reported here, since they correspond closely with other 

values in the literature. 

1 f~ased on generalization of results of a number of studies. 

8Reversible decreases in photoeynthetic rate have been shown to occur at significantly 

lower levels but effects on growth have nat been demonstrated. - - 

h~thylene " . .. is the only hydrocarbon that should have adverse effects on vegetation 

at ambient concentration of 1 ppm or less." (Ref. 23). 

'NEW value to protect ~ublic health. Very toxic to humans and presumably to some 

animals also. 

~NAAQS value to protect public health. 
I \ (a) SENSITIVE SPECIES I 

4t.0t 0' \ DAM*eE LIKELY I 

DAMAGE 

POSSIBLE 

(b) INTERMEDIATE 

SPECIES 

E 

0 

a " 4- 

0' 

Z 

INJURY OR DAMAGE 

. POSSIBLE 

0 1234567.8 

- - 

EXPOSURE (hr) EXPOSURE (hr) 

NO 

INJURY \x 

I I I I I 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

10 X * VALUES 

3 

(01 RESISTANT SPECIES 

- A 

> 9- 

z a- = 7' 

ci 

P 

: 4- 

cu 3- 

1 

RECOMMENDED 

INJURY OR DAMAGE IN THIS 

POSSIBLE PROCEDURE 

6- 

6- 

*- INJURY 

- 

I I I I I I 

0 12345878 

EXPOSURE (hr) 

Fig. 3.1 SO2 Dose-Injury Curves for Plant Species 

(From Ref. 8 as adapted from Ref. 29) 
X-.SCREENING 

CONGENTRATIQNS 

USED IN THIS WORK 

EXPOSURE (hrl 

Fig. 3.2 NO2 Dose-Injury Curves for Plant Species --- _ _ _ --- 

(From Ref. 8) 

recommended, since 

response curves to 

trations are based 

the curves are based on attempts to fit theoretical doseexperimental data whereas tho tabutkted screening concendirectly on experimental r$sults. 

Several points are worth noting about the chosen screening concentrations. First, the significant variation between the values for the various 

sensitivity groupings should be noted. With this large variation it appears 

unlikely that use of any values but those for sensitive vegetation could be 

justified in a screening procedure, given the large number of species for 

which information is. not available. 

Second, the tabulated concentrations should be compared to NAAQS, PSD - 

increments, and likely anbient concentrations. Table 3.2 summarizes these 

comparisons for the cases where they can be made. For pollutant/averaging 

times not tabulated, either no corresponding NUQS or PSD increment exists or 

it appears that the screening concentration could be exceeded under certain 

circumstances. For the criteria pollutants, the NAAQS appear to protect 

against vegetative dmage except possibly for 3-hr and annual SO2 exposures. 

For the 3-hr exposure, the screening concentration exceeds the applicable PSD 
- .. eous Pollutants I Table 3.2 Screening Concentrat ions or Gas1 

Compared to Ambient Criteria 

Vegetation S Averaging 

Pollutant Time Sensitive Interme 

, 

i . --. .-"a 

so2 3 ht < NAAQS~ 

> PSD~ 2 PS~ 

ens itivity 

:diate Resistant 

1 yt < NAI 

> PSL L-- 

b~~2 3-hr PSD increments (eg/m3) a 25(Class I), xrrrrr== 

11) , 700(Class 1111, 325(Class I variance). These values 

do not include background. 

cgcreening conce,ntration unlikely to be reached under ambient 

conditions. ,,, ,-'41 dsoq - annual NAAQS = .03 ppv (au pglm-). - L 

es02 annual PSD increments (ug/m3) = 2(~lass I), 20(Class 

11) , W)(C~~SS 111)) 20(~1ass- I. tfariance) . These values do 

not inc lude backgroupd . , '2, 

increments and for the annual exposure, it exceeds the Class I incremem 

However, the screening concentration should be compared to the total S

concentrat ion including background whereas the PSD increment does not inclu 

background. Thus, a source could cause an SO2 concentration less than t 

increment while the total SO2 concentration (source plus background) cou 

exceed the screening concentrat ion. With the exception of the following - .- appears that possible adverse impacts to vegetation resulting from dire 

exposure to ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants are already cove1 

by existing programs for NAAQS attainment: 

SO2 exposures at 1 hour, 3 hours, and 1 year, 

Ozone exposures at 4 and 8 hours, 
s NO2 exposures of sensitive species at 4 and 

8 hours, and 

e Long-tern NO2 exposures at 1 month and 1 year. 

mis observation does not preclude doing a review for impacts on plants, 

particularly where the minh values at which effects have bee6 reported 

are close to being exceeded. It does, however, indicate that the vegetative 

impact review can be done along with the review for NAAQS or PSD increments. 

Even in cases where review for NAAQS and PSD increments covers exposures 

to plants, there may still be the necessity of dealing with trace metal 

exposures through deposition in the soil or through concentration in plant 

tissues. 

3.2.3 Synergisms 

Only a very limited amount of information was available in the review 

literature consulted regarding synergisms. Three indications of synergism 

were found: 

e SO2 and NOp, 

e SO2 and 03, and 

e S02, 03, and N02. ,. 

c .: - 

Table 3.3 presents values which could be used as screening concentrations 

based on the most restrictive values in the references. Where averaging 

times allow comparison, the screening concentrations for single pollutants 

in Table 3.1 are greater than the screening concentrations for mixed pollutants in Table 3.3. Given the problems with the data discussed in Secs. 3.1 

and 3.2.1, this camparison should not be interpreted as clear evidence of 

synergism. An additional caution is also in order. Mixtures of gases may act 

synergistically on some species and antagonistically on others (see, for 

example, Ref. 18). Thus, the tabulated values should be used to indicate 

situations where the FLMs should be alerted so that the situation may be 

evaluated by them. There may be additional synergisms which are not noted in 

Table 3.3 but which could be added to the table and incorporated in the 

screening procedure at a later date. 
16 

Table 3.3 Synergisms of Gaseous Pollutants 

(plants )a 

~onc entr at ions 

Pollutants ( PPV ) Exposure Re ference 

sop .05 1 hr 30 

No2 .05 

so2" .30 1 hr 3 1 

03 .10 

sotb .05 4 hr 3 2 

O3 .05 

so2 .14 6 hr/day 33 

O3 .05 for 28 

N02 .10 days 

aThe same criteria were wed in selecting these 

vaiue's from Ref. 15 as were used in developing 

Table 3.1. 

b~ntagmism, as well as synergism, has been 

reported for mixutes of SO2 and 03 (Ref. 18). 

3.2.4 Screening Concentrations for Soil and Plant Tissue Exposures 

Table 3.4 presents suggested screeajng.. concentrations for trace ele- , i 

ments found to adversely affect plants. Two types of data are presented. One . 

gives a concentration which when present in the soil has been found harmful to 

plants. The other gives a concentration found to be present in the tissues 

of plants which had been harmed. In considering these values, . it should 

be remembered that most elements and compounds are not deleterious until they 

have been complexed in the soil and become suitable for uptake by plants. In 

addition, many soil characteristics such as pH, composition (sand, clay, 

loam, organic matter, etc.), moisture content, and cation exchange capacity 

affect the amount of trace elements available for uptake. In developing the 

tabulated values, only data takeo with the plants growing in soil were con- - - 

sidered. Data developed in experiments in which plants were grown in aqueous 

nutrient solutions ere ignored. Conditions of nutrient solution culture are 

likely to be sufficiently different from natural conditions as to render the 

results of the experiments misleading for the purposes of this work. 

As with the ambient screening concentrations for gases, a great deal of 

variation is exhibited by the data as shown in Fig. 3.3. For comparison 
Tab le 3.4 Screening Concentrations for 

Exposure of Vegetation to 

Pollutant Concenerae ions in 

Soil and Tissue 

Minimum Reported Level (ppmw) 

Pollutant Source 

Pollutant Soil Tissue Reference 

Arsenic 

Boron 

Cadmium 

Chromium 

C~balb~ 

mpper 

Fluor idea 

Leada 

Manganese 

Mercury 

Nicke f 

Se f eniuma 

Vanadium 

Zinc 

aTiisue concentrations may affect animals 

before affecting plants. Compare to 

toxic levels for animals in Table 3.7,.,?- \ .. 

purposes, this figure includes results based on experiments in nutrient 

solutions and also shows the values chosen for screening concentrations in 

this work. 

No standards or PSD increments currently apply to these trace elements 

so no comparisons with other review criteria can be made. It should be noted, 

however, that the heavy metals fisted in Table 3.4 are emitted as particles 

and become TSP in the atmosphere. To the extent that they contribute to TSP 

.levels, the NAAQS and PSD increments would apply to these trace elements. The 

connection between such ambient levels and the screening concentrations for 

soils and tissues is discussed in Sec. 5. 

3.3 SOILS 

In contrast to the amount of published information on the effects of 

atmospheric pollutants on plants and animals; very little has been reported on 

their effects on soils. Research on trace elements in soils, often the same 

elements as atmospheric pollutants, has been directed to notable deficiencies 

or excesses that limit agricultural crop production. When the amount of an 

atmospheric pollutant entering a so if system is sufficiently small, the 

natural ecosystem can adapt to these small changes in much the same way as the 

ecosystem adapts to the natural weathering processes that occur in all soils. 

cultural practices (e .g.. , liming, fert ilization, use of insecticides and 

herbicides) add elements and modify a soil system more than a small amount of 

depos ited atmospheric pollutant can. The secondary effects of the pollutant 

appear to impact the soil system more adversely than the addition of the 

pollut.ant itself to the soil. For instance, damaging or killing vegetative 

cover could lead to increased solar radiation, increased soil temperatures, 

and moisture stress. Increased runoff and erosion add to the problem. The 

indirect action of the pollutant, through changes to the stability of the 

system, thus may be more significant than the direct effects on soil invertebrates and soil microorganisms. However, the lack of long-term historical 

data on both the type and amount of atmospheric pollutants as well as the lack 

of baseline data on soils has made difficult the task of determining the 

effect of pollutants on soils by monitoring changes associated with exposure 

to pollutants. A limited number of studies have been carried out on trace 

element contaminat ion of soils .39,40 Plant and animal-:&ommunit ies appear to 

be affected before noticeable accumulations &cur. in the soils. Thus, the 

approach used here in which the soil acts as an intermediary in the transfer 

of deposited trace elements to plants appears reasonable as a first attempt at 

identifying the air quality related values associated with soils. 

When viewing soils in this way it is important to know the endogenous 

or background concentrations of elements already in the soil of interest, for 

these endogenous levels may be available for plant uptake. There is, however, 

a wide variation in the normal concentrations of various trace elements as 

shown in Table 3.5.8 If extremes in the concentrations are considered, the 

range of endogenous concentrations becomes even larger (see Fig. 3.4) .41 Bs th 

references show relatively good agreement on the normal ranges. The tabulated 

values also provide "average concentrations" which can be used when specific 

infomation about the concentrations of trace elements in the region of 

interest is not available. One of the difficulties with screening for 

on plants and soils becomes apparent when the endogenous concentraions in Table 3.5 are compared with the screening concentrations for soils in 
Table 3.4: the screening values are 

exceeded for some part of the listed 

range for nine out of the twelve 

elements for which screening concentrat ion are given. Fluorine, lead, 

and mercury are the only elements 

whose screening values lie above the 

corresponding endogenous ranges. 

The default average soil concentration exceeds the screening concentration for boron, manganese, 

vanadium, and chromium and, for the 

first three of these four, the 

entire listed normal sange exceeds 

the screening value. In interpreting this indication, it must be 

remembered that the screening 

concentration value represents 

Table 3.5 Range of Endogenous Soil 

Contentrations of 

Selected Elementsa 

Average Soil 

Range Concentration 

Element Cppmw) ( PPW) 

Arsenic 

Beryllium 

Boron 

Cadmium 

Chromium 

Cobalt 

Copper 

Fluoride 

Le ad 

Manganese 

Mercury 

Nicke 1 

Selenium 

Vanad ium 

Zinc 

aBased on Ref. 8. 

the lowest value found in the 

review literature (see Fig. 3.3) and that -q$ all plant species are as 

sensitive as the one upon which the value is based. As outlined in Sec. 

3.2.1, there are many additional reasons why there is no inherent conflict 

between screening concentrations and endogenous concentrations above these 

values. The chief among these are probably the variation in sensitivity 

between individuals, the variation in sensitivity between species, and the 

fraction of the endogenous concentrat ion really available for uptake by 

plants. It should be noted, however, that endogenous concentrations of some 

elements can make soils toxic to some species. Ihus, certain tolerant plants 

can act as indicator species for the element tolerated; they will be among the 

species present in soils where the endogenous concentrations of that element 

exceed leve 1s toxic to more sensitive species . l2 

The problan associated with the amount of an element in the soil which 

is actually taken up into plant tissues can be handled in an approximate 

fashion by using a p1ant:soil concentration ratio. Table 3.6 provides two 

sets of concentration ratios (CR's). One set is recommended for use in this 

work; the other is based on nonstandard methods using solution cultures 

22 

but is given to provide some feeling Table 3.6. Plant: Soil Concentration 

for the large uncertainties asso- Ratios 

ciated with this type of work. The 

comparison set of concentration Recommended Comparative Element Valuea ~a lueb 

ratios could be used in the screening 

procedure presented here to provide Arsenic 

Boron 

very conservative estimates of Cadmium 10.7 

potential impacts. Some elements &romium 0.02 

Cobalt 0.11 

(boron and cadmium) tend to be Copper 0.47 

concentrated by plants (ratios > 11, Fluoride 0.03 

Lead 0.45 

that is, concentrations in plant Manganese 0.066 3000 Y 

tissues exceed those found in the Mercury 

Nicke 1 

soil whereas the concentrations of Selenium 1 .O 4 

most of the listed -elements tend Vanadium 0.01 

Zinc 0.64 

to be less in plant tissue than 

in the surrounding soil. In any 

aBased on Ref . 8. - 

case, .these CR' s represent ratios of b~ased on Ref. 12. Based on nonstandard methods involving solution 

average$ and thus may give results cultures. See discussion in text. 

quite different from the true ratio I 

between plant and soil concentrations in a par,ticular case. However, they 

appear to be the best means availalile for estimating uptakes of various 

elements from the soil. 

3.4 FAUNA 

The screening concentrations presented here are based on data for 

terrestrial vertebrates. Data for aquatic species, including fish, ere not 

examined in the literature reviewed. Also, effects on aquatic and terrestrial 

microorganisms are not considered here. Table 3.7 presents the screening 

concentration values based on data summarized in Refs. 8 and 9. The tabulated 

values represent the lowest dietary concentrations found to be harmful. 

Several factors limited the usefulness of the available data. Some harmful 

levels were given in terms of average concentrations in the affected animals. 

Unfortunately no equivalents of the p1ant:soil CR's were available to go from 

dietary concentrations to concentrations per unit body weight. In addition, 

all the data on ambient exposures failed to give averaging times thus rendering it unuseable in this screening procedure. Even for the data upon which 

4 TRACE ELEMENT AIR QUALITY DATA 

EPA'S Storage and Retrieval of Aerometric Data (SAROAD) system was used 

as a data base to develop air quality information for trace elements. The 

information was intended to serve primarily as an aid in estimating background 

concentrat ions so minimum concentrat ions were ins luded . A secondary purpose 

of the informat ion was to identify locat ions where high concentrat ions already 

exist. For this purpose, maximum concentrations were included. Compil ation 

of available data for all the pollutants discussed here with estimates 

for all relevant- averaging times would not have been feasible so the data 

search was limited to trace elements including lead. It was also felt that 

more complete data for the gaseous criteria pollutants would be available 

locally than could be found in SAROAD. On the other hand, many localities 

probably lack estimates of trace element concentrations. Since only annual 

averages are used in- screening for trace element impacts, the data search 

emphasized annual average data. Maximum and minimum short-term observations 

have been included in the data compilations for ' informational purposes. 

In order to improve coverage, data for 1975-77 inclusive were used. 

Many locations had data for only one of the three yeirs. Bs expected, al l 

the data were based on high volume sampler data with 242hour averaging times. 

It was also frequently the case that insufficient data was available to allow 

the calculation of a valid annual average. The available data is presented in 

Appendix C. No data was found for mercury, boron, cobalt, copper, and nickel. 

The data is presented by state and county for each pollutant. As can be seen 

from the tables, the spatial coverage is poor. For counties with data, only 

the minimum and maximum annual averages from all reporting stations are given. 

With multiple stations, it is unlikely that both values come from the same 

locat ion. 

In order to avoid possible misinterpretation of the data, it should be 

kept in mind that SAROAD routinely stores values below the limit of detectability as one-half the minimum detectable limit. In some cases, this will be 

the value which is listed as the minimum observation. lhese situations are 

usually fairly obvious, since the same minimum value will be recorded at a 

large number of stations. 
5 SCREENING PROCEDURE 

I 5.1 METHODOLOGY 

I 5.1.1 Description 

A simplified view of the pathways between sources and receptors is 

presented in Fig. 5.1. This simple view is used here as the basis for 

screening a source for potential adverse impacts on plants, soils, and 

animals. hissions from the source are assumed to disperse in the atmosphere 

and add to whatever local background concentrations might exist to provide 

an estimate of the maximum ambient concentration for the averaging times 

of interest. These ambient concentrations may act along four different 

pathways. The first two are routes in which the ambient concentrations 

affect animals or plants directly without any intervening mechanisms. 

In the third, animals can ingest substances deposited on plants before the 

substances have been washed off by rain or blown off onto the soil. Such 

ingestion is a critical pathway. Appendix D provides a referenced discussion 

of the literature related to toxicity resulting from this pathway and the 

\ potential for ham to animals exists whenever heavy metals are deposited on 

materials which they ingest. Some start oa' dkaling with this issue was made 

i 

here in terms of estimating the amount of deposited material but a complete 

methodology was not developed. However, reviewers should be aware of this 

potentially critical pathway and the material in Appendix D may be useful 

in flagging critical situations. In the fourth, a certain amount of the 

dispersed material is dhposited on the soil. As noted in Sec. 3, only the 

deposition of trace elements is considered here. The deposited trace elements 

as well as any endogenous concentration of the element are then available for 

uptake by plants in quantities which may be toxic to the plants themselves or 

to animals which feed upon the plants. 

It is important to realize that this simplified picture leaves out 

many potentially important pathways and natcral processes. For example, 

there is no provision for the uptake and concentration of substances by 

plants directly from the air; all such concentration is assumed to be through 

the soil with uptake by plant roots. No account is taken of removal of 

deposited substances from the soil by runoff, leaching, or erosion and the 

2 7 

I 

i 

I I subsequent deposition of such substances in bodies of water. Also, no account 

is taken of deposition directly frcm the air into water. Finally, the effects 

on animals of ingesting contaminated water have not been addressed. 

Screening for a particular source is accomplished in a series of 

steps. Steps 1 and 2 apply to airborne pollutants; steps 1 and 3-7 apply for 

trace metals where deposition must be taken into account. Step 8 provides an 

alternative where modeling results for the source are unavailable. 

1. Estimate the maximum ambient concentration for averaging 

times appropriate to the screening concentrations for 

pollutants emitted by the source and including any 

background concentrations. 

2. For exposures to airborne pollutants, check the maxima 

from Step 1 against the corresponding screening concentrations in Table 3.1 or against the corresponding NAAQS, 

NESHAP or .PSD increments, whichever applicable standard 

is most restrictive. In addition, the possibility of 

synergisms should be considered. 

3. For trace metals, calculate the concentration deposited 

in the soil from the maximum annual average concentration assuming that all deposited material is soluable 

and available for uptake by plants. 

4. Compare the increase in concentration in the soil to 

the existing endogenous concentratfoq using the average 

values in Table 3.5 when local data 1s unavailable. 

(This provides a supportive indicator, not a primary 

decision parameter. ) 

5. Calculate the amount of trace element potentially taken 

up by plants using the CR's in Table 3.6. 

6. Compare the' concentrations from Steps 3 and 5 with the 

corresponding screening concentrations in Tables 3.4 

and 3.7. 

7. Reevaluate the results of the comparisons in Steps 4 and 

6 using estimated solubilities of elements in the soil to 

provide supportive indications, recognizing that actual 

solubilities may vary significantly from the estimated 

values. 

8. If modeling results are unavailable, the significance 

levels for emissions developed in Sec . 5.2 may be used 

to screen the source. 

The discussion in Sec. 5.2 also provides an example of the application of 

the screening procedure. ?his example develops the significant emission 

levels for one of the trace elements from an estimate of a source's maximum 
annual average concentration. Table 5 .l summarizes these steps and indexes 

them to the relevant sections, tables, and equations in the text. Figure 5.2 

a flowchart of the screening procedure showing the more cornreonly 

used tables and equations. 

5.1.2 Esth-ating Maximum Concentrations (Step 1) 

To estimate the maximum concentration, the maximum air quality impact 

of the new source must be estimated and added to an appropriate background 

concentration. 

5.1.2.1 Air Quality Modeling 

The first step in the screening procedure for air quality related 

values is to estimate the maximum ambient concentrations of pollutants 

emitted from the new source for appropriate averaging times. Table 5.2 gives 

the correspondence between pollutants and the averaging times to be considered 

for each. Two cases need to be considered. The first arises when the 

required source-specific concentration estimates are available and the second 

arises when they are not. 

Concentration Estimates Available. pecific estimates 

made by an approved model are available they shouLd be used directly in 

making the calculations and comparisons called for in Steps 2-7 of Table 5 .l. 

Such a situation would be ideal but such estimates may frequently be unavailable, particularly during early discussions of a permit application. 

Concentration Estimates Unavailable. When source-specific estimates 

of concentrations are unavailable or when they are lacking for some critical 

averaging times, there are two courses of action: 

Use of a screening technique for air quality impacts 

if the emission rates and stack parameters are 

available or 

e Use of the significance levels for emissions presented 

in Sec. 5.2. 

If stack parameters are available, some simple techniques of dispersion 

modeling can be used to screen the source for its air quality impact, remembering that only a screen and not a definitive denonstration is required. 

Reference 42 provides such techniques developed by EPA for use in new source 
I 

Table 5.1 Steps in Screening Procedure 

Applicable Text 

Step Description Sect ion Tables Eq ua t ion 

1 Es t hate ambient maxima 

Modeling 

Background 

2 Screen for direct exposure 5.1.3 3.1,3.3,5.3 - 

3 Calculate deposited concentration 

of trace elementsa 

4 Calculate percentage increases 

over endogenous concentrat ionsb 5.1.3 3.5 5.4 

5 Calculate tissue concentrationa ' 

in plants 5.1.3 3.6 5.5 

6 Screen for potential adverse 

impacts of trace elements 5.1.3 3.4,3.7,5.5 - 

7 Consider effects of trace elemeqg, 

solubilityb 5.1.3 3.4,3.7,5.4 5.7,5.8 

8 Apply significance emission levelsc 5.2 5.6,5.7 

- 

aReviewers may want to review the information in Appendix D to assess the potential for 

harm to animals from directly ingesting deposited materials. 

b~upport ive indjcat ion only, not primary dec ision parameter. 

CUsed only when source-specific modeling results are not available. 

Table 5.2 Pollutants and Averaging Times 

Required Averaging Times 

Pollutant 1 hr 3 hr 4 hr 8 hr 24 hr 1 wk 10 days 1 mo 3 mo 1 yr 

H2S 

Ethylene 

Fluoride 

Be 

Pb xb XC 

Trace Elementsd Xe 

aFor comparison with criteria not necessarily related to impacts on plants, animals, 

or soils (NAAQS, NESHAP 's , PSD increment91 . b~pplies to both impacts on plants, animal's, soils and other criteria. 

CAlso included in trace element analysis. 

d~race elements: As, B, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, F (as fluoride), Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni, Se, V, Zn. 

eRequired for use in estimating amount of deposition. 
review. These methods were used to develop EPA's significance levels for 

published as part of the proposed PSD regulations .43,44 

As an alternative, the procedure used in Ref. 45 to estimate air 

quality impacts can be used as presented in Appendix A. Some expansion 

of the original procedure was required to cover the range of averaging 

times needed for this screening procedure. The equations presented in 

Appendix A are suitable for hand calculation or the development of a simple 

computer code. The significance levels presented in Sec. 5.2 are based on 

this procedure. 

5.1.2.2 Background Concentrations 

The estimation of background concentrations is one of the perennially 

difficult problems of air quality analysis. Development of new approaches 

was beyond the scope of this work. Be analyst should consult Ref. 46 for 

guidance on this subject. No attempt was made here to develop information for 

the gaseous criteria pollutants. POP these gases, it was felt that local 

records would be likely to provide more timely and complete information. In 

addition, the sheer volume of data available precluded its inclusion in this 

procedure. No attempt was made to develop background e%tC@ates-for other than 

annual averaging times.. 

For the 14 trace elements (including lead), !PA'S SAROAD files were 

searched as described in Sec. 4. No information was found for mercury, boron, 

cobalt, copper, and nickel. The tables in Appendix C summarize the information found by state and county. To estimate a background value, the concentrations in the county of interest or nearby counties should be used and 

the minimum geometric mean picked. This minimum can then be added to the 

estimated maximum annual concentration from the source being screened. Values 

of the minimum geometric mean from other areas should be compared with the - 

value chosen. It is possible that some of the tabulated minima may be too 

high to represent background levels because the monitor providing the data is 

impacted by a large source and thus is not representative of general background conditions. 

It will not be. possible to estimate background levels by this method 

for many locations. In such a situation, the minimum geometric mean may 
33 

be selected from among those tabulated in Appendix C and used in a sensitivity 

! analysis to determine if the addition of a background level is likely to 

raise the predicted concentration above the screening concentration. If 

it does, then a determination of background will be necessary to allow a 

clear determination of the source's potential to cause adverse impacts due 

to trace element deposition. I 

5.1.3 Screening and Deposition (Steps 2-7) 

Screening for Direct Impacts (Step 2). This screen applies to the 

pollutants listed in Table 3.1 for which data was available on direct impacts . of airborne concentrations on plants and animals: S02, NO2, CO, H2S, ethylene, flourides, Be, and Pb. After the maximum concentrations both with and 

without background have been calculated, screening is simple. Zhe appropriate 

maxima are compared to the values given in Table 5.3. Values in excess of 

the screening concentrations indicate that additional detailed review is 

required and that the appropriate FLM should be notified. The possibility of 

synergisms should also be checked at this point. Consideration should b'e 

given to the synergisms listed in Table 3.3 but no screen on the values listed 

there is recommended here. Rather, the inform$t*on could be used to alert the 

' 3, appropriate FLM to the possibility of a ptobiem arising from synergisms. 

Also included in Table 5.3 are the values used in reviewing new sources I 

under other criteria. The value expected to be controlling for each pollutant 

has been circled in the table under the following assumptions: 

No background, 

Long averaging times result in lower concentrations 

/ 

I than short averaging times, and 

For short averaging times, the concentration is 

pro$rtional to averaging time raised to the power 

-0.17. 

This observation is made only to give some feeling for what might be expected. 

It is possible, for example, for a new SO2 source in a Class 111 area to 

be controlled by the 700 vg/m3 PSI) increment and still need to do a review 

for plant, soil, and animal impacts if 3-hour background levels are high 

enough to make the predicted ambient concentrat ion likely to exceed 786 ug/m3. 

Completion of Step 2 would complete the screening for direct impacts from 

airborne pollutants. 
Table 5.3 Ambient Screening Concentrat ions 

Ambient Concentration (vg/m3) 

Po 1 lu t an t and Aver ag ing Timea I 

Screening S02 ' NO2 • CO H2S Ethylene Fluoride Beryllium - Lead 

Criterion 1 324A 4 8 MA P 8 U 4 3 24 240 M 3EB 

AQRV 

Screening 

~oncentrationb 917 786 - 18 3,760~ 3760~ 564 @ - - 1,800,000b 28,000b 47a a a a 

PSD Increment 

1e D f - 25a2 - 

11e8f - 512 91 20 - 111~8~ - 700 182 40 - 

Variancee,g - 325 91 20 - 

Note: Circled values expected to be controlling; see text. 

aNumerals: hours 

W: 1 week 

M: lmonth 

'A: Annual 

b~mbient concentratione this high are unlikely. 

C40 CFR 50. 

d~aeed on maximum impact of source & background. 

eRef. 1. 

f~ased on maximum impact of source alone. iq 

gIncludes the source together with all other sources. 

h40 CFR 61. 
35 

I I Calculating Deposited Soil Concentrations (Step 3). Deposition of trace 

1, elements is a long-term process extending over the lifetime of the source. 

The simple procedure used here depends upon an estimate of the maximum annual 

I average concentration from the source as corrected by the addition of a 

background concentration if known. Reviewers may also want to review Appendix 

D at this point to assess the potential for harm to animals from direct 

ingestion of deposited heavy metals (see Sec 5.1.1). The following equation . 

can be used to estimate the maximum concentration in the soil: 

~~(ppmw) = 21.5 (N/~)x (5 .l> 

where : 

DC = deposited concentration (ppmw), 

N = expected lifetime of source (yr), 

d = depth of 'soil through which deposited material 

is distributed (cm), and 

X = maximum annual average ambient concentration from 

the source (ug/m3). 

The value generally recommended for d is 3 ~m.~19,12 Some work13 has assumed 

20 cm for d, but the more conservative value of 3 should be adopted for use 

in this screening procedure unless site-spwific data indicate that greater 3- 

penetrations of deposited substances are more representative of local conditions. It should also be noted that an estimate of the source's lifetime must 

be made in order to use Eq. 5.1. In the absence of contrary indications, a 

value of N = 40 years should provide a reasonable and generally conservative 

estimate of source lifetimes based on lifetimes equal to twice the time 

allowed by the Internal Revenue Service for equipment depreciation .45 347 

If the source is tied to a resource, the estimated resource lifetime might be 

used instead of 40 years. For example, a mine-mouth power plant might have a 

lifetime of N = 100 years based on the life expectancy of the mine or a gas 

plant might have a lifetime N 15 years, the expected useful life of the gas 

field. 

Equation 5.1 is simply derived. consider a volume of soil 1 m2 in 

area and d cm deep at the location of the source's annual maximum. The weight 

of material deposited on this area of 1 m2 can be calculated as : 
x (1 m2) x (Time). 

The weight of the soil in the volume of interest is I 

j 

i 1 

I 

= (1 m2) x (dl x 

Then the ratio of the weight deposited to the weight of the soil can be 

used to find the concentration of the deposited material by wight in the 

soil. Soil densities range fran 1-2 gm/cm3 and a value of 1.47 g/cm3 is 

assumed here as a good average value.l2 If an average value of 1 cm/sec is 

assumed for the deposition velocity, Eqs. 5.2 and 5.3 can be combined to 

DC = (weight deposited)/(weight of soil) 

where conversion factors have been used as appropriate to give consistent 

units. This result is simply Eq. 5.1. The principal assumptions in this 

derivation are : 

Deposition velocity of 1 cm/sec, 

e Average bdlk density of soil = 1.47 gm/cm3, 

Uniform distribution of deposited material throughout 

the soil volume, and 

e All deposited material is retained by the soil, that 

is, no leaching, surface runoff, or erosion. 

Calculate Increase over Endogenous Soil Concentration (Step 4). The 

Purpose of this simple calculation is to - provide a supportive indication 
3 7 

for the primary screen for deposition to be carried out in Step 6. As suggested in Ref. 13, an increase over the endogenous concentration of more than 

10% over the lifetime of the source could be taken as a possible cause for 

concern. The percentage increase is simply calculated from 

(X ~ncrease) [DC( ppmw) x 100) 1 /[Endogenous 

Conc entrat ion ( ~prnw) ] 

where the deposited concentration (DC) was calculated in Step 3. The average 

endogenous concentrations from Table 3.5 can be used but data for the area 

of interest is preferable given the wide range in natural concentrations. 

It is not recommended at this time that a source be flagged for 

further actions based solely on the results of this calculation. The results 

of the screens in Step 6 are appropriate for that purpose. However, an 

indicated increase of more than 10% in this step would increase the assurance 

with which a finding that additional action was necessary could be made. 

.-. Calculate Potential Concentrations in Plant Tissue (step 5). Once 

the deposited concentration in the soil has been calculated using Eq. 5.1, 

straightforward application of the plant: soil concentration. ratios in Table 

3.6 can be used to estimate the concentratiop ,in aerial plant parts (tissue 

+Y 

concentrat ion) 

 i issue concentration (pprnw) 1 = 

[Deposited concentration ( ppnw) 1 x [Concentration ratio] 

I using TC for tissue concentration and other symbols introduced earlier. 

1 Equation 5.5 requires an additional conservative assumption: 

All the deposited material is soluable and 

available for uptake by plants. 

This assumption is almost always violated in practice. Table 5.4 gives 

the solubilities of some trace elements based on extraction of these elements 

from endogenous concentrations in the soil .I3 Of course, the solubilities of 

exogenous deposited elements could differ markedly from these values as could 

the solubilities of endogenous concentrations in different soils. The solubility of a trace element in the soil depends upon many factors. Among these 
Table 5 -4 Solubilities of Endogenous 

Trace ~lements~,~ 

Solubility %iss ion Rate 

Element (% Ic Increase ast tor^ 

Arsenic 9 % 1 

Boron 

Cadmium 

Chromium 

Cobalt 

Copper 

Ff uoride 

Le ad 

Mang anes e 

Mercury 

Nicke 1 

Selenium 

Vanad ium - - 

Zinc 8 12 

. % ' & 

agased on Ref. 13. "& 

\ 

in Step 7. 

=Only soluable fraction would be available 

for uptake by plants. 

d~sed when Step 8 is required. 

are chemical form, temperature, presence of other elements, selective uptake 

by plants, soil pH, and soil moisture content. The composition of the soil is 

also an important determinant of solubility, especially the presence of 

organic matter and clays which can bind trace elements. The point is that a 

significant portion of the exogenous concentration may be unavailable for 

uptake by plants, making Eq. 5.5 a conservative estimator. 

Screen for Potential Adverse Impacts from Trace Elements (step 6). 

At this point the screen for adverse impacts from the deposition of trace 

elements is straightforward. The process is similar to that used in Step 2, 

that is, the comparison of calculated concentrat ions to tabulated screening 

concentrations. In this step, however, three comparisons need to be made: 
1. The deposited concentration (DC) is compared to 

the soil screening concentration in Table 3.4, 

2. The tissue concentration (TC) is compared to the 

tissue screening concentration in Table 3.4, and 

9. The tissue concentration (TC) is compared to the 

dietary screening concentration for animals in 

Table 3.7. 

A calculated concentration in excess of any one of the three screening concentrations is an indication that a more detailed evaluation may be required for 

the new source and/or that the FLM should be notified, since there are indications of potential adverse impacts to plant, soils, or animals. In making 

these three comparisons, the fof lowing additional assumptions have been 

made : 

e All deposited forms of an element have the same toxicity, 

a The feeding 'or grazing range of animals is limited to the 

area exposed to the estimated maximum annual concentration, 

and 

.e Most importantly, it is the exogenous incremental burden 

which should be compared with the screening concentration 

values, not the burden which would result from both the 

exogenous and endogenous concentrations. 

This last assumption is critical and follows E$e procedure used in Refs. 12 

and 13. The assumption is implicit in Eq. 5.5 where only the deposited 

concentration (DC) is used to calculate the tissue concentration (Tc) and in I 

the three screens as defined above. 

The three screens can be compared to see which is the most restrictive. 

The screening value for concentrations in aerial plant tissues and for concentrat ions toxic to animals can be converted into equivalent soil concentrat ion 

values by use of the p1ant:soil concentration ratios. The dietary concentration potentially toxic to animals can be thought of as the concentration in 

aerial plant parts that may be toxic to animals. Ihus, Eq. 5.5 can be re- 

- - arranged to give the equival'ent deposited concentration (EDC) corresponding 

to a particular screening tissue concentration (STC): 

EDC (ppmw) = STC (ppnw)/~~ (5.6) 

where the STC is either the plant tissue screening concentration from Table 

3.4 or the animal screening concentration from Table 3.7. In fact, Eq. 5.6 

provides an alternative approach to -the screening procedure that is equivalent 

i 

I 

I 

: 

! 
7" 

to the one presented here. Table 5.5 gives the equivalent deposited concentrations (EDCS) for the trace elements, &sea on the CR" and assumptions 

used here, animals appear to be the critical receptor for cobalt, lead, and 

* 

while tissue concentrations in plants appear to be critical for 

arsenic, cadmium, copper, and zinc. For the remaining seven elements, the 

concentration appears to be critical. As long as the screening concentrations and concentration ratios given here are used, Table 5.5 can be used 

to reduce the nmber of comparisons required for a screen. For example, 

=admilrm sources need only be screened against the single screening value for 

plant tissue concentrations, since this screening concentration is shown to be 

controlling in the table. 

Table 5.5 Equivalent Exogenous Soil 

.Screening Concentrations 

Equivalent Deposited Concentration (ppmw) 

Trace Plant 

Element Soila is sueb AnimalsC 

Arsenic 3 1 .ad 21 

Boron 0.5d 2.1 - 

Cadmium 2.5 0.28~ 1.4 

Chromium 8.4d 50 - 

Cobalt - 170 geld 

Copper 40 % .6d 43 

Fluoride 400d 10,300 3,300 

Le ad 10 80 280 180d 

Manganese 2. 5d 6,100 7,600 

Mercury 45 5d - - 

Nickel 500d 1,300 22,000 

Se 1 enium 13 100 5d 

Zinc - 47 0d 780 

aSame as soil value in Table 3.4. 

~EDC = (STC for plants from Table 3.4)/CR. 

CEDC (STC for animals from Table 3.7)ICR. 
!I 1 

41 

I! / 1' I Since acute fluoride poisoning in various species of cattle has been 

I I well doc~mated,~~ it is surprising that animals do not appear to be critica 

for fluorides. This may be due to the omission of the critical pollutan 

pathway involving ingestion by animals of materials deposited on plants 

prior to these materials being washed off or blown off the plants and carried 

into the soil. he same indication could be given of course, if the screening 

concentration value for the effects of soil fluorides on plants were based 

upon a very sensitive species. Further detailed investigation and more data 

would be required to determine whether the latter explanation is true or 

whether there is a deficiency in the procedure outlined here. In either case, 

the fluoride example serves to illustrate the potential problems involved 

in screening for impacts on air quality related values. 

Consider effect.^ of Solubilities (Step 7). The assumption that all 

deposited material is soluable and available for uptake by plants is unlikely 

ever to be met in practice. If a screen indicates that a further action 

is needed on a source because its emissions will cause a trace element screening concentration to be exceeded, an attempt may be made to look at the 

possible effect of reduced solubility on that indication by considering the 

solubility of the deposited material. This ad$itional consideration should 

4 

only be used as a supportive indicator; it can only increase confidence in 

the decision to take further action; it can never reverse such a decision I 

based on the screens in Step 6. That is, the conservative assumption of 

100% solubility should be used in making the decision for further action on 

the source. 

If the solubility of a particular trace element is S%, the amount 

actually available for uptake (AA) by plants is 

This value for AA should be compared with the soil screening concentrations 

in Table 3.4. An equation similar to Eq. 5.5 can now be written reflecting 
the assumption that olnly the fraction AA of the deposited concentration is 

TCcorre = AA x CR DC x (~/100) x CR = TC x (~/100) (5.8) 

&ere TCCorr* stands for the tissue concentration corrected for the solubility 

of the deposited material. The new values of TCcorre could be compared with 

the screening concentrations for plant tissues and animals given in Tables 3.4 

and 3.7, respectively. 

/ 5.2 EXAMPLE SCREEN AND SIGNIFICANT EMISSION RATES 

Section 5.2.1 illustrates the use of Steps 1-7 of the screening 

procedure through application to a source of nitrogen dioxide and arsenic. 

menever source-specific estimates of maximum concentrations are available 

or can be generated, Steps 1-7 'should be used. Step 8 provides an alternative 

screening procedure based on the concept of significant emission rates 

(SER). Section 5.2.5 illustrates the derivation of the SER for arsenic from 

the results for the example source and describes the use of the SER's for 

screening. Use of the SER's precludes any consideration of the emission 

characteristics cf the source other than emission rate. Local conditions 

including background also cannot be taken into account& ~p~lication of Steps 

1-7 is the preferred procedure. 

5.2.1 Example Screen 

The example source is assumed to have a plume release height of 30 m 

(physical stack plus plume rise). It is assumed that the source is subject 

to PSD review and that it is desired to screen the source for arsenic and 

nitrogen dioxide among other pollutants. An emission rate of 1 T/yr of 

arsenic is assumed for this example and estimates of maximum concentrations 

of NO2 are available for 4-hour and 8-hour averaging times. Following Table 

5.1 or Fig. 5.2, the first step in the procedure is to estimate maximum 

concentrations for the times listed in Table 5.2. For arsenic, these estimates need to be made. Using the simple modeling procedure outlined in 

Appendix A, the maximuh annual average ground leve 1 concentration is found to 

be X = 0.1051 ug/m3. Other appropriate models or techniques could also be 

used. If an insignificant background is assumed for the example, this 

result completes Step 1 of the screening procedure for arsenic. For N02, the 
available results show maximum ground level concentrations (including background) of Xq = 51 ug/s13 and X8 = 45 ug/m3 for averaging times of 4 and 8 

hours, respectively. (A little foresight will show that estimates need not be 

made for 1 mo and 1 yr.) These results complete Step 1. 

Then in Step 2 of the screening procedure, these maximum concentrations 

for NO2 would be compared to the appropriate screening concentrations in 

Table 3.1 or Table 5.3. For N02, the screening concentration at both 4 and 8 

hours is 3760 bg/m3. The estimated maxima are for below this value. No 

calculation need be done for the one month and annual averaging times, since 

the modeled 4- and 8-hour maxima are already below the corresponding screening 

concentrations. There would thus be no indication that a more detailed review 

would be required for NO2 impacts on plants, soils, and animals. 

Since the screen also involves a trace element, the next step is 

Step 3. If a 10-year lifetime (N=~O) is assumed and the recommended value of 

3 cm is used for the depth of soil throughout which the deposited arsenic is 

mixed, Eq. 5.1 gives 

DC = 21.5 (Nld)~ 

= 21.5 (10/3) x (.I0511 = 7.53 ppnw as the concentration 

of arsenic in the soil. 

Following with Step 4 and Eq. 5.4, 

[X Increase] = 7.53 x 10016 126X 

where 6.0 ppmw has been used as the average endogenous soil concentration 

of arsenic from Table 3.5. Thus, there is a supportive indication that the 

source should receive further review if Step 6 shows the potential for adverse 

impacts because the source may increase concentrations of arsenic in the soil 

by more than 10%. In Step 5, the plant tissue concentration would be calculated from Eq. 5.5: 

TC = DC x CR 7.53 x 0.14 = 1.05 ppnw. 

Next the screening comparisons are made in Step 6. The DC (=7.53 ppmw) 

exceeds the soil screening concentration of 3 ppmw for arsenic given in 

Table 3.4. Similarly, the TC (1.05 ppmw) exceeds the tissue screening concentration of 0.25 ppnw given in Table 3.4. The TC does not exceed the animalrelated screening concentration of 3 ppmw given in Table 3.7. There are thus 
indications that this source might adversely affect plants and that 

further act ions need to be taken. 

To look at the possible effect of arsenic solubility on these indications, the calculations in Step 7 can be done. For arsenic, Table 5.4 gives a 

I of 9% to account for the limited solubility of arsenic compounds. I 

Equations 5.7 and 5.8 give AA 7.53 x .Q9 = 0.68 ppmw and 'GCcorr = l,05 x .09 

0.0945 ppmw. AA does not exceed the soil screening concentration of 3 ppmw 

and TCcorr does not exceed the tissue screening concentrations for plants and 

animals, 0.25 ppmw and 3 ppmw, respectively. Thus, no supportive indication 

has been found but the original indication that additional detailed work is 

required on the source is not altered and it is known that solubility effects 

might be important. 

5.2.2 Significant Emission Rates 

Basic Levels. This subsection discusses the developent of a significant emission rate (SER) for arsenic based on the generic source discussed'in 

Sec. 5.2.1 with a release height of 30 m and an expected lifetime of 10 years. 

An SER is defined as the minimum emission rate which wonld cause the source's 

-i. . . 

impact to just equal the screening concentration. That is, 

Significant ( ion ) = H "reenin, concentrat ion)/(~oncentrat ion from source) 1 

x (~ource' semission rate). 

1 For arsenic in soils and the example source, 

Arsenic emissions from this source in excess of 0.40 T/yr might be expected 

to cause a soil concentration in excess of the screening concentration. 

Similarly, significant emission rates based on plant tissues (TC = 1.05 ppmw) 

and animal ingestion (TC = 3 ppw) can also be calculated: 

 issue) = [0.25/1.05] x (1 ~/yr) = 0.24 T/yr and 

~~~(~nimals) = [3/1.05] x (1 ~/yr) = 2.8 ~/yr. 

I 

Such significant emission rates were calculated assuming a 30 m release height 

as in Ref. 43, a 10-year source lifetime, and the air quality model presented 
4 5 

in Appendix A. For pollutants acting along the direct pathways, Table 5. 

presents the significant emission rates. Table 5.7 presents such rates fo 

trace elements. When no modeling results or stack parameters such as are 

required by simple air quality screening procedures are available, the 

source's emission rates can be compared directly with those given in th 

two tables. As already noted in the discussion of Table 5.3, other criteri 

may be controlling particularly when background is considered. Still, the 

significant emission rates presented in Table 5.6 can be used to screen f 

potential adverse impacts to plants, animals, and soils. Other criteria may 

apply to different stages of the new source review process. When applying the 

significant emission rates in Table 5.7, only the smallest value need b 

considered for each pollutant. The values based on exceeding ten percent of 

the average endogenous soil concentration should again only be used as supportive indicators; the primary decision is based upon exceeding the values based 

on the criteria for soils, plant tissues, and animals. 

The values tabulated in Table 5.7 assume a source lifetime of 10 

years. Significant emission rates for other lifetimes for trace elements * 

acting through the deposition pathway are easily calculated: 

Significant A 

.ti. k~2~ ) = ~':'~'znt emission rate ) x (lo/.;: 

lifetime 

Thus, for example, if the lifetime of the arsenic source in the above example 

had been 40 years instead of 10 years, the associated significant emission 

rate bas.ed on the plant tissue screening concentration would have been 

changed from 0.24 T/yr to 

Solubility. As in Step 7, additional supportive indications can be -. - 

sought by considering the effects of solubility. A corrected significant' 

emission rate can be found from 

Significant 

(emission ) = (significant ) ( Emission rate 

rate corrected emission rate increase (5.10) 

for solubility from Table 5.7 from Table 5.4 
Table 5.6 Significant Emission Rates for Direct Acting ~ollutanto~ 

Significant hission Rate (~/yr) 

Pollutant and Averaging ~irne~ 

S02 N02 CO H2S Ethylene Fluoride Beryllium Lead Screening - 

Criterion 1324A 4 8 MA L 8 W 4 3 24 240 M 3M 

AQRV 

Screening 

Concentration 160 170 - 171 840 950 3,200 950 - - 760,000 6,400 10.0 0.36 0.23 0.057 11 

NAAQS - 290 110 760 - - - 950 7,000 2,500 - - - - - - 11 

PSD Increment I - 5.3 1.5 19 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

I1 - 110 28 190 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

I11 - 150 55 380 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Variance - 69 28 190 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

aBased on 30 m release height and no background. 

b~umerals : hours 

W: 1 week 

H: 1 month 

A: Annual 
Table 5.7 Significant Emission Rates for Trace Elementsa 

Significant Emission Bate (T/yr) 

Criterion 

10% of 

Trace Plant Ecdogenous Soil 

Element Soils Tissue Animals concentrationb 

Arsenic .40 .24 2.8 .08 

Boron .067 .28 - .13 

Cadmium .33 .037 .19 .00080 

Chromium 1.1 6.7 - 1.3 

Cobalt - 23C 1.2 .11 

Copper 5.3 .21 5.7 .27 

Fluoride 53'= 14OOC 44Oc 2.7 

Lead 130d 3 7d 24d .13 

Manganese .33 8 1OC 1000C 1lc 

Mercury 6 lc - - - 

Nicke 1 67C 17 Oc 30OOC .53 

Selenium 1.7 13C .67 .0067 

Vanadium .33 - 13qc s 1.3 

Zinc - 63C looc~ .67 

aBased on a 30 m release height, no background, and a 

source lifetime of 10 years. For a lifetime of N years, 

divide the tabulated values by (N/10). 

b~or use as a supportive indicator only; based on a 10% 

increase over the average values. in Table 3.5. 

CExceeds the significant emission level for TSP of 10 

T/yr established for PSD (Ref. 3). 

d~xceeds the significant emission level for lead of 1 

T/yr established for PSD (Ref. 3). 1 

- - These emission rate increase factors are simply (IOO/S), the reciprocals of 

the solubilities in percent. 

Other Stacks. Even though the stack parameters may not be known 

I, exactly, it may be known that the stack is hot or cold. Table 5.8 gives 

I stack parameters for four stacks which might be useful if they are closer 

, to the source's expected stack parameters than the 30 m release height assumed I1 

/ 8 

j! 
Table 5 .8. Summary of Representative Stacks 

Stack Parameters 

Height Temperature Fl ow Emission Rate 

Stack (re3/sec) Increase Factor 

.30 m release 

10 m hot 

30 re cold 

30 m hot 

in Tables 5.6 and 5.7. The volume flow rate of 4 m3/sec is felt to be 

conservative for major sources un.less a large number of stacks are used. Also 

given in the table are emission rate increase factors for each model stack. A 

particular factor would be used to adjust the tabulated significant emission 

rates in Tables 5.6 and 5,7 to correspond more closely to concentrations /I 1 

expected from the proposed source: 111; 1 

Significant Significant (zgem:Erat) = (en~n~~,,::~) rissionncrease rate factor 

for stack 5.6 or 5.7 from Table 5.8 

APPENDIX A 

Estimates of blaxhtne 

Ground Level Concentrations 

APPENDIX A 

ESTIMATES OF MAXIMUM GROUND-LEVEL CONCENWTIQNS 

This appendix develops the procedure used to estimate maximum groundlevel concentrations (mglcss) from a single source for averaging times ranging 

kom one hour to one year. The developments presented here follow the presentation in Ref. 45 which can be consulted for additional details. The procedure 

is useful for screening because the calculations can be done by hand or 

implemented in a simple computer program. The procedure accounts for stack 

parameters, plume rise, and meteorological conditions. 

A.1 SHORT-TERM ESTIMATES 11 I l1/'1 

The familiar Gaussian plume model is the basis for estimating shortterm ground level coneentrati~ns.~~ According to this model the plume centerline concentration is given by 

Q x lo6 (A, 1) X(x) = nu. (r)o (x) Y = 

where : 

x = Downwind distance from source (m), 

~(x) = Ground-level centerline concentration at x (ug/m3), 

Q = Source emission rate (g/sec), 

u = Wind speed (m/sec), 

uy(x) = Horizostal dispersion coefficient (m) 

a,(x) r Vertical dispersion coefficient (m), and 

H = Effective stack height (m) hs 9 Ah a 

(Physical stack height) + (Plume rise). 

To derive an analytic expression for the mglc, the following commonly 

used represent at ives of the two dispersion coefficients are used : 

uy(x) = ,b 

and 

(A. 2) 
52 

The parameters a, b, c, and d depend upon atmospheric stability class 

and, for a,, the downwind distance x. 'Ihe following expressions for the estimated mglc (xm) and the corresponding downwind distance x, may be derived. 50 

AQ x lo6 1 

'm Xnu 1120 (A. 4) 

and 

~2 1 1/2d * - [(T) s] (A.5) 

where : 

and 

2a-1 - 

C A =- a (2ala exp (-a) 

(A. 6,) ' 

Values for a, b, c, d, and A are presented in Table A.1. 

Both Xm and x, depend on stability class and wind speed. To estimate 

these quantities, the plume rise must be estimated because both depend upon ' 

the effective stack height H. Plume rise caq .be estiplated using the formulas '. :+ 

of &iggs .52~ 53 

Setting 

I? = g(~)V (A.8) 

where : 

g = Acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/sec2), 

T = Exit gas temperature (OK), 

Ta = Ambient temperature ( OK), and 

V = Exist gas flow rate at temperature T (m3/sec), 

it can be shown that 

Ah(n/u) = C/U for neutral/unstable conditions (A. 9) 

and 

Ah(s) = ~/u1/3 for stable conditions. 

/ 

(A. 10) 
s 

01 ?9 

01 

3 as u 4a 

aJ 

P 00 la b 

m 4 t- \D m ma3 

" 4d 

0\ " "u ommlam b maONa)u\ 19 -4 Carlae .\em 

0.. 

C 

ad 

\em- B) C 

mma u 4.4 OIam a 

omm 4 a 

e"&d b E 

ear 

b M 

e a 

8 a * am CQ al 

0 d P 

0 h me* m$z & 4 mmooerf? CS C) u 

s 

C al 000 ns al 

8 M 888148 w 

8 8 4 (Is 

00 b OICI A hOB 

b P1 mlam am Oal 

a a mem v.r 0 

a s C 00 ?ST ,"u; E(B 

OO0 .d .* a bed d w m .PI OB L) 4 Eu j gas 

al 

d 'B P em 

b 00 .n o fa 

MIw 0 

E P I: 

3 W E P 

e w rl 0 .d .4 U 

a u 

a 

bh GI h* * 2 & 2". a~u odu -4 a 6 5'2 . a n " " a 00 .d ar l -4 % % u Y 0100 

0 p I.1 

era hoar MU omu 

" 2 fig-z 

4w o&iw PC+ * 
54 

~ssuming an ambient temperature of 293% (20"~) and an ambient potentia 

temperature lapse rate (ae/az) of 0.5'K/l00 m, representative of moderately 

stable condit ions, 

T 293 F = 9.8 (*) V, 

C 21.4~~-75 m2/sec for F<55 m4/sec3, 

C a 38. 7flo6 m2/sec for F>55 m4/sec3, and 

D 47.2~1/3 m4/3 sec-1/3. 

A wind speed corresponding to the mglc can now be found. For neutral 

and unstab le conditions, 

with a corresponding mglc 

For stable conditions 

Equation A.17 has no maximum unless b/d is greater than 2. Operationally, 

this difficulty is solved by setting u = 2 m/sec for the stable case in which 

case Eqs. A.10 and A.17 become 

Ah(s) = 0.794 D 

and 

Equations A.15, A.16, and A.19 are the basic equations used to calculate the short-term mglc. ?he calculations need to be done separately for 

unstable, neutral, and stable conditions and the maximum value selected for I 

the mglc. In addition, for each stability class, the calculations need to be 

done for three ranges of downwind distance because of the dependence of c, d, 

and A on x (see Table A.1). The value chosen for each stability class is the 

I 

I 
maimm self-consistent value, that is, the maximum of the values for wfaich 

the calculated x, falls within the range of downwind distances over which the 

c, d, and A values apply. 

In impi ement i,ng this procedure, high worst-case wind speeds are 

occasionally found which are unlikely to persist for periods of the on the 

order of hours to one day. On the other hand, low worst-case wind speeds are 

I found which are small enough to render the Gaussian plume formulation inapplicable. To avoid both extremes and still retain a conservative estimate of 

I the mgle, limits are placed on the worst-ease wind speed for neutral/unstable 

conditions such that 0.8 u, - < 30 m/sec. 

I Estimates made in this way are appropriate for averaging times of one 

I hour. For averaging times out to about 24 hours, the one-hour estimates can 

( be multiplied by an appropriate conversion factor from Table A.2. These 

( factors represent a power law dependence of concentration on averaging time 

with an exponent of -0.17: 

~(t> = ~(l)t-0~17~ (~~20) 

For averaging times between 24 hours and about one month, a recognized 

simple procedure for estimating the concentration from a single source at one 

averaging time given the concentration at another averqging t,he appears to 

be lacking. Larsen54 has developed a method which can be used in multi-source 

applications. For averaging times less than one month, he finds that for a 

year's data 

~-(t) = xmaX(1 hr)tq (A.21) 

where q depends upon the geometric standard deviation of the concentration 

values. The form of Eq. &2P with q = -0.17 is exactly the sane as that of 

I Eq. A.20. On the basis of this equivalence of mathematical form, the use of 

I Eq. A.20 was extended beyond 24 hours to estimate conversion factors for 4 and 

10 days as shown in Table A.2. 

A. 2 LONG-TERM ESTIMATES 

Expected monthly and annual mglc's. from a single source are based 

upon the "sector-averaged" form of Eq. ~.1:~~,~~ 
Table A. 2 Averaging Time Conversion Factors 

Averaging Conver s ion 

Time (hrs) Factor 

aBased on Ref . 49 . b~ee discussion in text. 

where : 

> r 

n = the'number of sectors into which the en&re 360" 

range of wind direct ions is divided and 

f the ftaction of the time during which the wind 

direction lies in the sector of interest. 

Using the same parameterization as above (Eq. ~.3), 

where : 

(A. 23) 

6 = (l+d)/2d (~.24) 

and 

To estimate the expected long-term mglc, values of c and d for neutral atmospheric stability and distances between 500 and 5000 m are used and the plume 

rise is calculated using Eq. A.9. With these assumptions, 
B = 0.256 and 

13 = 1.23. 

~xamination of annual wind roses in Ref, 56 indicated that the maximum expected wind direction in a single 22.5" sector (nel6) is about 27% (+0.27). 

 or monthly wind roses, this maximum persistence is about 45% (f10.45). 

The wind speed u used for both the annual and monthly calculations is u 4.4 

m/sec, corresponding to the nationwide annual mean wind speed based upon the 

speeds listed with the annual wind roses. For these conditions Eq. A.23 

gives 

x~(F) 000157 lo6 for annual mglcfs a2. 46 

and 

APPENDIX B 

Pollutant Sensitivities of Plant Species 

Table B .l. Sulfur Dioxide Sensitivity of Crop Speciesa 

Sensitivity 

Sensitive Intermediate Resistant 

Alfalfa Ee ek Cotton corn 

APP~ e Lettuce Sorghum 

Bar 1 ey Oats Cantaloupe Bean, field Okr a Citrus spp. 

, %ha On ion 

Beet, sugar Parsley 

, table Parsnip 

Blackberry Pe a 

Blueberry Pe ach 

Broccol i Pear 

Brussels Sprouts Pepper 

Cabbage Plum, prune 

Carrot Potato, Irish 

Celery Potato, sweet 

Chard, Swiss Pumpkin 

Cherry, sour Radish 

, sweet Raspberry 

Clover 

Clover, sweet Rye 

Safflower 

Cucumber Soybean 

Currant, red Sp inaeh 

agplant Squash 

End ive Tobacco 4ik , , 

Gooseberry Turnip 

Grapes Wheat 

Kale 

aCompiEed from data in Ref. 16. 
62 

Table B.2. Sulfur Dioxide Sensitivity of 

Natural Vegetationa 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Sensitive 

Alder, mountain 

Aspen, large-toothed 

, trembling 

Ash, red (green) 

, white ' 

Birch, gray 

, western paper 

, white(paper1 

, yellow 

Blueberry, lowbush 

Cherry, bitter 

Fir, subalpine 

Grasses-bentgrass 

-bluegrass 

-desert grass 

-Ky . b luegrass 

-orchard gras s 

-red fescue 

Hazel, beaked 

, California 

Hem lock, mount a in 

Larch, western 

Maple, Manitoba 

, Rocky Mt. 

Mulberry, Texas 

Pine, eastern white 

, .jack 

, red 

, Virginia 

Rockspirea, creambush 

Serviceberry, low 

, Saskatoon 

, Utah 

Sumac, st aghorn 

Tulip tree 

Willow, black 

Atnus tenuifotia 

Poputus grandidentatcr 

EbpuZus tremutoides 

Mnus penmy 2 vanica 

Frcdnus americana 

Bstuta poputifo tia 

Betda pczpyrifera conautata 

BetuZa papyrifetvl 

Bs tuta at tegheniensis 

Vmcinium angustifotim 

L)plmus emarginata 

Abies Zaswcarpa 

Agrostis paZustris 

Eba annu 

Oryaopsis hymenoides 

Poa pratensis 

mtyZis gtomeratu 

Pestuca mcbm 

COY~~US COP~U&CZ 

CoryZus cornuta catifomica 

Tsuga mertensia 

Lark @@dentat is 

Acer negunao interius 

Ace? gtabna 

&PUS micmphytta 

Pinus strobus 

Pinus banks* 

Pinus msinosa 

Pins virginirma 

Eio todiscus disco tor 

Ametanchder stotondfera 

AmeZanchier aZnifoZia 

Ametanchder utahensis 

Haus typhina 

Lirwdendm tutipiferu 

Sa2i.x nigra 
Table B.2. (Cont'd) 

Common Name Sc ient if ic Name 

Intermediate 

Basswood 

Birch, water 

Boxelder 

Chokecherry 

Cot tonwood, black 

, eastern 

, narrowleaf 

Dogwood, red osier 

Elm, American 

Fir, bfasam 

, Douglas 

, grand 

Grape, wild 

Hemlock, western ' 

Mahogany, mountain 

Maple, Douglas 

, red 

Mountain-ash, -stern 

Oak, white 

Pine, lodgepole 

, ponderosa 

, shortleaf 

, western white 

Poplar, balsam 

Sagebrush, big 

Snowberry, mountain 

, Columbia 

Spruce, Engelmann 

, white 

Witch hazel 

fitia americmug 

Be tutu occidental is 

Acer negundo 

Prtaws virginiana 

Pogutus trichocarpu 

PopuEus dettoides 

Boputus UngustifoZia 

Corns sto Eonifera 

Ytmus amepicrma 

Abies bcrEsmsa 

Pseudoteugu menziesii 

Abies gdis vitzs rigs* 

Tsugu heterophy t Zu 

Cercocarpus montunus 

Ace? gZabreun dougtasii 

Acsrs mcbrum 

S~rbus eeopul inu 

@ereus alba 

Enus eontorta 

Erne ponde~o~a 

%ims echinaty 

Pinus montic~~a 

Populus baEmnriferu 

A~%enaisia bddentatu 

Symphoricurpos oreophizus 

S~mpho Picarpo s PivutaPis 

Hceu engetmumii 

Hca, gkuca 

Bizmanelis vif.ginimur 

Resistant 

Black gum 

Buck-brush 

Buff alo-berry 

Ceanothus , reds tem 

Cedar, western red 

, white(arborvitae) 

Dogwood, flocjering 

Fir, silver 

, white 

Hawthorn, b lack 

flyssa sytvatica 

Gemthus ve Zutinus 

Shepherdicr cdensio 

Cem thus sanguineus 

fiuja plicatu 

fiuja occidentatia 

Coms ftorida 

Abies amubitis 

Abies concotor 

Crataegus dougZasii 
Table B.2. (Cont'd) 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Resistant (cont 'dl . 

Grape, Oregon Odostemon aquifo Zium 

Grasses-blue grama BouteZoua g~aciZis 

-needle grass Stipa comata 

-western wheatgrass Agropyron smithii 

Juniper, common Juniperus communis , Rocky Mt. Juniperus scopuZorum , Utah Juniperus osteospem , Western Juniperus occ-tatis 

Kinnikinnick Arctostaphyzos urn-UP& 

Locust, black Robinia pseudoacacia 

Mahogany, curl-leaf mt. Ce~cocarps Zedifo Zius 

Maple, mountain ace^ spicatum , silver Acer saccharinurn , sugar Acer saccham 

Oak, gambel Que rcus gambe 2 ii , live Quercus virginh , northern red Quercus rubra 

9 pin &uercus patustris 

Pine, limber Pinus ft&Zis , pinyon Pinus edutis 

Poplar, Carolina PopuZus canudensis 

Sourwood Oceydendron tzrborewn 

Spruce , b lue Pica gwrgena 

Squawbush Rhus &biZobata I 

Sumac, smooth Rhus gZabra 

Sycamore, American Ptatanus occidentaZi8 

Willow, shrubby .%Ziz tristis 

Yew, Pacific ltzxus brevif o Zia - .- 

aCompiled from lists in Refs. 9 and 16. 

I 

111 - - 

I 

P 

I 

! 

1 

I 

1 

1 

I % 

o i 

, 
Table B.3. Ozone Sensitivity of Crop Speciesa 

Sensitivity 

Seasit ive Intermediate Resistant 

AI fa I fab 

bean, pinto 

white 

Broccoli 

C% ove rb 

Corn, sweet 

oat sb 

RradishC 

Safflowers 

Soybeanb 

spinachb 

Tobacco 

~emato~ 

Bean, bush Cotton 

, lha Lettuce 

Beet, table On ion 

Cabbage 

.Chard, swissd 

Clover, white sweet 

Corn, field 

~~c~rmb erd 

Potato, Irish 

Sorghum 

Squash, summer 

%ompiled from data in Ref. 18. 

b~ome cultivars intermediate or resistant. 

CSome cuPtivars intermediate. 

d~ome cultivars resistant. 
Table B .4. Ozone Sensitivity of Natural Vegetat iona 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Sensitive 

Aspen, trembling 

Ash, red(green) 

, white 

Cottonwood, black 

Grasses-bent grass 

-blue grass 

-brome grass 

Oak, gambel 

, white 

Pine, Coulter 

, eastern white 

, jack 

, jeffrey 

, loblolly . , Monterey 

, ponderosa 

, Virginia 

Serviceberry, Saskatoon 

Sycamore, American 

Tulip tree 

Poputus tremutoides 

&&nus pennaytvanica 

&axinus americana 

PopuZus trichocarpa 

Agrostis patustri8 

Poa a;nnucr 

Bromus tectonun 

Quercus gambelii 

Quercus atba 

Pinus coutteri 

Pinus strobus 

Pinus banksicrna 

Pinus jeffreyi 

Pinus ta& 

Pinus radicrta 

Pinus ponderosa 

Pinus virgidzm 

Ametmrchier atnifolicr 

PZatams occidentatis 

Lirwdendron tutipifera 

Intermediate 

Boxelder 

Cedar , incense 

Grasses-Ky . bluegrass 

-perennial rye 

-red fescue 

Oak, b lack 

, pin , scarlet 

Pine, lodgepo le 

, pitch 

, shortleaf 

, slash 

, sugar 

, Torrey 

Redbud 

Sweetgum 

Acer neg& 

Li bocedms decurrens 

Poa pratensis 

Lotim perenne 

Festuca mcbss 

Wercus vetutina 

&uercus patustris 

@emus coccinea 

Pinus contorta 

Pinus rig& 

Pinus echimtu 

Pinus ettibttii 

Pinus ZambertiaM 

Pinus torreyam 

Cercis cunadensis 

Liquidambar etydftua 
Table B.4. (~ont'd) 

Csutmon Name Scientific Name 

Basswood 

Birch, white (paper) 

Black germ 

Cedar, white (arborvitae) 

Dogwood, f Powering 

Fir, balsalm 

Douglas 

, white 

Grasses-orchard grass 

Hem1 oek 

Juniper, western 

Locust, black 

Maple, red 

, sugar 

Oak, mossy-cup 

, northern red 

shingle 

Pine, digger, 

red 

Redwood 

!Sequoia 

Spruce, black 

, blue 

, white 

Walnut, black 

a Canpiled from lists in Refs. 18 and 57. 
Table B.5. Nitrogen Dioxide Sensitivity of 

Crop Speciesa 

Sensitivity 

Seas it ive Intermediate Resistant 

Alfalfa Bean, bush Asparagus 

Barley Ce 1 ery Cabbage, red 

Bean, pinto Citrus spp. , white 

Broccoli Corn, sweet Corn, field 

Carrot Cotton Cucumber 

Clover, cr imson Endive Kale 

, red Potato, Irish Kohlrabi 

Leek Rye Onion 

Lettuce St rawberry, pine Sorghrnn 

Lucerne Tomato 

Mustard, white Wheat 

Oats 

Parsley 

Peas 

Radish 

Rhubarb 

~obaccob - - 

aCompiled from lists in Refs. 19, 20, and 58. 

b~ome cultivars intermediate or resistant. 
Table B -6. Nitrogen Dioxide Sensitivity of 

Natural ~ege t at iona 

Common Name Sc ieat if ic Name 

Sensitive 

~rasses-Viper ' s grass Scorzonemr hispareha 

Intermediate 

Fir, common silver 

, white 

Gr asses-b luegrass 

Spruce, blue 

white 

Abies peetimta 

Abies aZba 

Poa annuok 

Picea pungsns 

Picea gtceecea 

Resistant 

Grasses-Ky . b luegrass Poa pratensis 

acornpiled from tables in Refs. 20 and 58. 

APPENDIX C 

%ace Element Air Quality Data 

--- 

--- 

--- 

QOOEOmO 

OOEO'O 

-- - 

--- 

--- 

V0050'0 

V00~0'0 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

Ooco'o --- 

VOOEO '0 

OOEO'O 

--- 

OOEO '0 

--- 

--- 

--- 

QOOEO'O 

0040'0 --- 

VOOEO'O 

--- 

OOEO'O 

--- 

OOEO'O 

--- 

--- 

VOOEO'O 

OOEO'O 

Q00E0'0 

VOOE0'0 --- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

Qo0z0'0 

OOEO'O 

--- 

--- 

--- 

YOOZO ' 0 

V0020'0 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

00Z0'0 

--- 

v0020-0 

OOEO'O 

--- 

OOEO'O 

--- 

--- 

--- 

vooio -0 

OOLO'O 

--- 

voozo'0 

--- 

0020'0 --- 

00~0'0 

--- 

--- 

VOOEO'O 

OOEO'O 

VOOEO'O 

v0020'0 --- 

0020'0 

0020'0 

00z0'0 

0020'0 

000z'0 

OOZ9'0 

00Z0'0 

OOZO'O 

0060'0 

00Z0'0 

00Z0'0 

00Z0'0 

00t0'0 

OOLO'O 

0040'0 

0029'0 

OOi?O'O 

0001'0 

OOLO'O 

OOE1'0 

0020'0 

0090'0 

00Z0'0 

000b'O 

0079'0 

0001 '0 

0090'0 

OO(;O'O 

0090'0 

COZO '0 

000E'O 

WZO'O 

0090'0 

OOLO' 0 

0050'0 

0011'0 

. 00z0'0 

00Z0'0 

--- 

--- 

--- 

VOOEO'O 

OOEO'O 

--- 

--- 

--- 

VOOEO'O 

VOOEO'O 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--a 

Ooco'o 

--- 

VOO~O '0

0OEO'O --- 

OOEO'O --- 

--- 

--- 

VOOEO'O 

00zo'o --- 

VOOEO'O 

--- 

OOEO'O 

--- 

OOEO'O 

--- 

--- 

VOOEO'O 

OOEO'O 

VOOEO '0 

VOOEO'O --- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

v0020-0 

0020 ' 0 

--- 

--- 

--- 

triozo-o 

v00Z0'0 --- 

--a 

&; --- 

--- 

0020 ' 0 

--- 

v0020-0 

00Z0'0 

--- 

OOZO'O --- 

--- 

--- 

v0oz0'0 

UOZO ' 0 

--- 

VUOZO '0 

--- 

Oozo'o 

--- 

0020' 0 --- 

-..- 

voOE0'0 

OOZ0'0 

VOOEO'O 

v0oZ0-0 --- 

0020'0 

0020'0 

00Z0'0 

00Z0'0 

00t0'0 

00~0'0 

0020'0 

00z0'0 

00z0'0 

OOZO'O 

0020 '0 

00Z0'0 

OOZO'O 

00z0~0 

OOZO'O 

00z0'0 

0020'0 

OOZO'0 

0020 '0 

00Z0'0 

OOi!O'O 

00Z0'0 

OOzo'o 

00Z0'0 

00Z0'0 

0020'0 

OOZO ' 0 

00Z0'0 

00Z0'0 

wazooo 

00z0'0 

OOZU'O 

0020'0 

00Z0'0 

ooz0'o 

QOZO ' 0 

00Z0'0 

0020'0 

AUUflI(13S 

013181Vd tIVS 

13110d 

39t4VtiO 

s333m4 

S~II~OOSO~VII 

360014 

A83110911~0l5 

atlVlOBS 

N3II3AVU 

VO809VlW 

11311nc.131~ 

NWW813GI 

X300Xll 

NOSH3343r 1 

sIlrva jj3r 

aawoH 

09lV01H 

SAVH 

SI18TH 

31VR 

NOSAV19 

AVH9 

NOlS3AlV9 

OSVd 13 

SI173 

........................................................................................................ 3IN351V Mod V1V0 ABI[IVflb MIV '%-3 316VP 
TABLE C-1. AIR QUALITY OATA FOR ARSENIC ........................................................................................................ 

STATE 

------ 

COUNTY .------------- snIm 

TARRANT 

TAYLOR 

TITUS 

TbM GREEN 

TRAVIS 

VAL VERDE 

VICTORIA 

HALKER 

NEBB 

llICHITA 

HISE 

ARITH 

ME AH .---------- 

0.0300A 

--- 

0.0300A 

0.0200A 

--- 

0.0200 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

-aGEO 

NEAN 

----..----- 

0.0300A 

--- 

0.0300A 

0.0300A 

--- 

0.0300 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--.. 

oas 

------------- 

0.0700 

0.1200 

0.0600 

0.0500 

0.0500 

0.0700 

0.0200 

o.0500 

0.0200 

0.0200 

0.0200 

0.0600 

GEO 

MEAN .---- ------- 

0.0300A 

--- 

0.0300A 

0.0300A 

--- 

0.0300 

--- 
v1000'0 v1000'0 1000'0 v1000'0 v1000'0 1000'0 

V1000'0 v2000'0 0010'0 v1000*0 vLo00'0 1000'0 
TABLE C-2. AIR QUALITY DATA FCR CADtIIUtt ........................................................................................................ 

ARITH GEO ARITH GEO 

STATE CWMY 00s HEAII HEAlS OBS MEAN IIEAN ........................................................................................................ ITASCA 0.0010 --- --- 0.0010 --- --- 

KAtMIVMII 0.8010 --- --- 0.0020 --- --- 

KOOCIIICHING 0.0010 --- --- 0.0110 --- - -- 

LYON 0.0010 --- --- 0.0040 --- --- 

HCLEOD D.0010 --- --- 0.0010 --- --- 

HILLE LACS 0.0010 --- --- 0.00t0 --- --- 

HMIER 0.0010 --- --- 0.0020 --- --- 

NOBLES 0.0010 --- --- 0.0020 --- --- 

OLElSTED 0.0016 - -.. --- 0.0450 --- --- 

OTTERTAIL 0.0010 --- --- 0.0020 --- --- 

POLK 0.0010 --- --- 0.0050 --- --- 

ST. LOUIS 0.0010 --- --- 0.0030 --- --- 

SCOTT 0.0010 --- --- O.OG20 --- --- 

STEXRIS 0.0010 --- --- 0.0160 --- --- 

HASllItffiTON 0.0010 --- --- 0.0040 --- --- 

HIHONA 0.0010 --- --- 0.0020 --- --- 

HO ADAIR 

AUURAIN 

BOOtlE 

BUCHANAN 

BUTLER 

CALLAtlAY 

CAMDEN 

CAPE GIRARDEAU 

CLAY 

NEH HADRID 

NODA\lAY 

PETTIS 

FHELPS 

PLATTE 

ST. CHARLES 

STE. GENEVIEVE 

SCOTT 

VERtiON 

HT DEER LODGE 0.0100 -..- --- 0.0500 --- --- 

NH RIO ARRIBA 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0100 0.0002 0.0001 

A INDICATES ONLY ONE STATION REPORTING 
OOOOOOOOOoOOdOoOOOOOOOOooo 0000 motm~-ame-ummmomm-m&n--~~-~-- 0000 0000000000000~0~0000000000 WMmm oOOOeoOOOOOOOOOOOQOOaOOOOO O~qoo dddodddododdooododooodddod oeoo 
2: , AS ooSoS o oS 3 00 a ua u I 0S 0 00 0 

0 I i IEZ:Z~~SIZIZI~Z~I ~yr~o~~o~q~q~qq~~~q~oq~

IZIE~~Z~IIIS%~~~%Z~~~S

* I I .I I .I i I 

I-I -1 I0 00000 Ill I I.llII .Ill 0 00 0 00 00 I I .I .I I I 

WI mt 0 00 0 gi F1 I 

a1 31 I 

I -1 a a I ~3:: c.0000 o oS 3 oo oo ad 0404 o er l a; M4 1 3; -YI~II'SI~ISIRZI q=~q~~q~q~q:qq~~~q:qq;q;;;;qq::qqq;;;q;qq

I I%I~ZIAIII~ZAIII~~SII tStZZlZ~t~ I I1 I I I 10 00000 Ill 0 00 0 00 00 I .I I I 

.I Zl 0 00 0 

Yt ni 1 

I I 1 

I YI ~oooooooo~~o~ooro~o~~~o~~~~~~~ao~

-I 1 I ~100000000000000000000000000000000Q0000000~00 

m a I 1 I-- I I ~dddddd4ddd4ddddddddddddddo'ddddddddddddddo'dd 1 1 2 I I FI I 

I I 0: I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I 8 I I + I I i= I I V) 


HINIMUH t UGIM3 ) HAXItUII tU6/H3 1 ............................ ............................ 

ARITlt GEO ARITH GEO 

STATE COtRlTY 005 MEAN MEAN ODs HE AN ElEAN ........................................................................................................ 

TM ANDERSON 

BEDFORD 

BRADLEY 

CAHFDELL 

CARTER 

COFFEE 

CUiBERLAND 

DYER 

GIBSON 

GREEIIE 

HAEBLEN 

MEIiRY 

IiUElPtlREYS 

LItlCOLt4 

ElCIlINN 

MADISON 

ElARIOtl 

EWRY 

610EITG3MERY 

ORIOH 

POLK 

PUTtIAH 

ROANE 

ROaERTSON 

6 RUTtlERFORD 

SULLIVAN 

SUWlER 

UARRSEI 

HASllItlGTOH 

UILLIAliSON 

MILSON 

TX BEE 

BEXAR 

BOI.IXE 

BRAZGRIA 

0RAZOS 

0ROI!N 

CALHOUN 

A IflDICATES ONLY MtE STATION REPORTING 

4 0000 wm-N t aooo 

1 0.0 o*-z! 

we00 
I 

I I aaae a u.a a a I 0 000000000O000000000000 05: 0 0000000000000000000000 I I YWI u mmmmmnmmmnm~mmmmmmmmmm I w= 1 o. o,~o~~oo~~o~o,~ooo~oo,o~~~o~o~ I I -1 I mI I 0 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

! F! ! i cji aaaa a aa a I 2; =-i 0 oo00oooooOoOooOso00000 

I =I E~I S Z8ZSSZSZZZZSZZSZZZZZZE 

! 1! 5=! 9 9999999999999993999399 isin'- I o ooooooooooooooooodoodd 
TABLE C-5. AIR QUALITY DATA FOR LEAD ........................................................................................................ 

MINIEUM ( UG/M3 1 HAXIflUM (UG/H3 1 ............................ ............................ 

ARITH GEO ARITH GEO 

STATE CWItTY OBS ElE AN blEAN OBS HEAIi EIEAN -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------,--------------- 

AL ETOHAH 

JEFFERSON 

EtADISON 

MOBILE 

blONTGOMERY 

A2 APACllE 

COCHISE 

COCONIla 

GILA 

GRAHAM 

GREEHLEE 

EWRICOPA 

EKlll AVE 

NAVAJO 

PIflA 

PINAL 

YAVAPAI 

WIA 

AR CRITTENDEN 

HILLER 

HOI.iTGOEIERY 

WLASKI 

C A ALAMEDA 

FRESH0 

I KERN 

LOS ANGELES 

HADERA 

tIERCE0 

HODOC 

EtI%TEREY 

NAPA 

ORAiIGE 

RIVERSIDE 

SACRAllENTO 

SAM BERIIARDINO 

SAN DIE60 

SAN FRAIICISCO 

SAN JOACUIN 

SAN EIATEO 

A IlttlICATES ONLY ONE STATION REPORTING 
TABLE C-5. AIR QUALITY DATA FOR LEAD ........................................................................................................ 

ARITH GEO ARITII CEO 

STATE COUHTY OBS MEAN tiE AN OBS tlEAN ElEAN ........................................................................................................ SIUITA BARBARA 0.0870 1.1050A 0.7940A 5.2470 1.1050A 0.7940A 

SAtITA CLARA . 0.3100 1.6200 0.8460 8.5000 1.4280 1.1180 

SISKIYW 0.0620 0.26OOA 0.2050A 

--- --- 

0.8430 0.2600A 0.2050A 

SOLAIta 0.0300 1.3000 --- --- 

SOllOllA 0.0800 0.4840 0.3480 

--- --- 

2.0300 0.4840 0.3480 

TEHAtIA 0.0670 0.3460 --- --- 

VENTURA 0.1980 --- --- 1.9870 --- --- 

CO DENVER 

LA PLATA 

HOI4TEZWA 

CT FAIRFIELD 

HARTFORD 

HEH HAVEN 

DE KENT 

HEN CASTLE 

FL DADE 0.1000 

OUVAL 0.3000 

HARDEE 0.0400 

HIGIILANDS 0.0 

HILLSBOROUGH 0.1500 

PIHELLAS 0.1100 

I CHATHAH 

FULTON 

tIUSCOGEE 

ADA 

BAt MOCK 

BUTTE 

tIEZ PERCE 

SH6SliOIIE 

COOK 

LAKE 

PEORIA . ROCK ISLAND 

ST. CLAIR 

A IIIDICATES ONLY OIiE STATIOIi REPORTING 
TABLE C-5. AIR QUALITY DATA FOR LEAD ........................................................................................................ 

STATE COUNTY ....................... SANGAMON 

HILL 

HINIBBAG0 

IN ALLEN 

BARTHOLOHEH 

CLARK 

DELACIARE 

DUBOIS 

ELKHART 

FLOYD 

GRAtlT 

IlMlARD 

JASPER 

JEFFERSON 

KNQX 

LAKE 

LA PORTE 

HARION 

tlOtlROE 

PARKE 

Sf. JOSEPM 

STEUOEN 

TIPPECANOE 

VAt{DERBURGH 

VIGO 

HAYNE 

IA 1 BLACKHAIU< 

DELAIIARE 

OUBUQUE 

LEE 

LItW 

POLK 

POTTANATAMIE 

SCOTT 

KY BOYD 

FAYETTE 

GEO 

HE AN 

.----------- 

OBS .--------------- 0.8300 

1.2100 

2.0500 

GEO 

MEAN .---------- --- 9 

A INDICATES OtlLY 01% STATION REPORTING 
TABLE C-5. AIR QUALITY DATA FOR LEAD ........................................................................................................ 

STATE COUjTY 

ARITIl GEO ARITH GEO 

00s HEAtl EIEAN O[)S HEAIl MEAN ........................................................................................................ JEFFERSON 0.2700 0.9760A 0.9400A 3.3800 1.1800A 0.8910A 

KENTON 0.3200 0.7100A 0.6300A 1.2200 O.7100A 0.6800A 

HARREN 0.1900 0.4800A 0.4100A 1.1500 0.4800A 0.4100A 

LA CADDO PARRISH 0.2000 0.6720A 0.6100A 1.4400 0.6720A 0.6100A 

EAST BATON ROUGE PARRISH 0.2500 1.1500A 0.9000A 4.2600 1.1500A 0.9000A 

IBERVILLE PARRISH 0.0300 0.1300A 0.llOOA 0.3800 0.1300A 0.1100A 

ORLEANS PARRISH 0.3900 0.8000 0.7700 1.6400 1.0300 0.9830 

HE CWIBERLAE(D 

HANCOCK 

MO BALTItIORE (CITY 

CALVERT 

Hh CENTRAL - -. - . - HA. - - APCO - . - - 

HETROWLlTAtl BOSTOtl APCO 

PIONEER VALLEY APCO 

SOUTHEASTERN MA. APCO 

HI GEllESEE 0.3800 

ItlWiAti 0.2100 

KEtlC 0.2700 

SAG1 NAN - 0.1400 

HAYIIE 0.1800 

Mtl BELTRAHI 0.0860 

816 STONE 0.0060 

* BLUE EARTH 0.2690 

CARLTON 0.0530 

CLAY 0.0530 

CROH HING 0.0130 

DAKOTA 0.0550 

GOODHUE 0.3130 

HEIPIEPIN 0.1800 

ITASCA 0.0220 

KAt:DIYOHI 0.1120 

KOOCtlICIlING 0.0320 

LYON 0.1730 

HCLEOD 0.1180 

ElILLE LACS 0.3330 

EIOIIER 0.2190 

NOBLES 0.0520 

A IMICATES OtlLY ONE STATIOII REPORTING 
TADLE C-5. AIR QUALITY DATA FQR LEAD ........................................................................................................ 

HINIHUn I UGIM3 ) ............................ MAXIMUM I UGM3 1 ............................ 

STATE CWNY .................... OLtlSTED 

OTTERTAIL 

POLK 

RANSEY 

ST. LOUIS 

SCOTT 

STEARHS 

HASHItu3TON 

MINOla 

M% HINDS 

JACKSON 

ODS 

--------------------------. 

0.2150 

0.0840 

0.0530 

0.0720 

0.0010 

0 .a320 

0.0100 

0.2180 

Q.IllO 

OBS 

2.3930 

0.3140 

0.1320 

3.8600 

2.3100 

0.3430 

1.1350 

0.5610 

0.5770 

ARITH GEO 

HEAN blEAI4 

.------------------ 

--- --- 

--- --- 

--- --- 

--- --- 

--- --- 

--- --- 

--- --- 

--- --- 

--- --- 

HO ST. LOUIS (CITY1 

ADAIR 

AUORAIN 

BOOllE 

BUCHANAN 

BUTLER 

CALLAllAY 

CAEIOEH 

CAPE GIRARDEAU 

CLAY 

COLE 

JACKSON 

JASPER 

JEFFERSON 

LIVINGSTOM 

I ttARION 

flE13 IIADRID 

tf0DNIAY 

PETTIS 

PllELPS 

PLATTE 

ST. -CHARLES 

STE GENEVIEVE 

SCOTT 

SIIAIUION 

VERNON 

MT GLACIER 0.0 -..- --- 0.0600 --- --- 

JEFFERSON 0.0600 --- --- 10.9700 --- --- 

LENS AND CLCRK 0.3300 --- --- 24.6200 --- --- 

A IIIDICATES MLY OIiE STATIOM REPORTING 
1 I YI I 0-0 00 00 04000000 000 000000000 ~0000 0 

41 j 3; = NO 00000000 Ow- 000006000 Oobqo 

(8 1 a I 0109 yy? 113.8q S2Z8s3%$ 38Z 7S'??TTS~S ??T?q ? *M-*hManr 

Cl I ;OO 000 ooo oo ddoooooo dog ooo~~ooeo ooooo o m 

I 1 

I 
TABLE &-5. AIR QUALITY DATA FOR LEAD ........................................................................................................ 

ARITH GEO ARITIi GEQ 

STATE COUNTY OBS ElEAN ElEAH 03s HE AN HE AM ........................................................................................................ 

CUYAHOBA 

FRAt XLIN 

HCEIILTON 

SEFFERSOH 

LUCAS 

HAIIOHINO 

tIOHFGQIERY 

SClOTQ 

SUIPIIT 

CHEROKEE 

OKLAHOMA 

T~LsA 

CURRY 

HULTNOt!AH 

ALLEGHENY 

BEAVER 

BERKS 

BLAIR 

BUCKS 

CAllBRTA 

CllESTER 

CLARION 

OAUPHItI 

ERIE 

8 INDIAHA 

LACKAI1At#lA 

LAICASTER 

0.0020 

0.1600 

0.0300 

0.2400 

a. 0200 

0.1600 

a). 6500 

0.2170 

LEHIGIl 

LMZERIIE 

LYCONIfP 

MERCER 

kIO1 AGOtlERY 

NORTHAIIPTON 

t~~RTIIUllFiERLAND 

PHILADELPHIA 

HESTtlDRELAFKI 

YORK 

RI PROVIDENCE 0.3500 

A INDICATES ONLY ONE STATION REPORTIHG 
I i io ooo 

I I a10 m I o a=* urn- 8s nw 8Z88Z8888888888~8Z8=Z~ZSZZZ8Z80"8S8 -uo~-~oJQ~~~~u--oQ~~~F~~FJ~N~~o~~cJ~oIo

0 I 

I O;? W.5' qy ~~~UO~~~UhJ~h~N~N~MNU~~Uh~UUv

a I I 

I 10 ornu or Sd~ddd~d&ddd&dd&dd&d&dd4d4dd~cj&d&~ -I WI I 

a; I 

0 4 

0 0 

I * I I I I Illltll~lllllllllllIlIIIlIlIlIIIII 

CI -1 1 0 llI1III .llI1IllII1IIIlIIIIIIIIIIlI 

HI MI 0 

"I f: 3! %I I 

I 

0. 

4 

rrl -' PSI 0 2; 3; nu11 IZI 11 111t1t*811111111111LtlltttltlltIli 

I ,I -1 %=I! I?: I: ~;IIIIIOI:I;I!!I;;IFI:lI!I~I~:IIII C 

I 0 &I 5: I I I1 U I 

I 

I I I 

WI 0 000000000000000Q000000D00000000000 

d I 

rn I I rntn uma 8 ZZS~~Z8=SZSZZZS~SZZ~Z5:=?ZEZSY9~8=;3ZZ 1 a:? 99 ~N~N~~~O~~~~~O~~N~~~UNNM~r3N

i5 I I lo ooo oo oo~~dodoodoood~dd~dodoododdddodddd m 

I I 

I I E l 

II I 8 I 

a. 

I 

W 

I I m 

I I 

Z 

I 

I I E I I 

! 

s 

V) 
TABLE C-5. AIR QUALITY DATA FOR LEAD ........................................................................................................ 

STATE COUNTY ...................... HILSON 

TX BEE 

BEXAR 

80HIE 

BRAZORIA 

BRAZOS 

BROI8I 

CALHOUN 

CAMERON 

CHAtleERS 

DALLAS 

DENTON 

ECTOR 

ELLIS 

€1 PAS0 

GALVESTON 

CRAY 

GRAYSOH 

HALE 

HARRIS 

HAYS 

HIDALGO 

HMIARD 

JEFF DAVIS 

JEFFERSOII 

LUDDOCK 

EICLEWllAtl I HCtI~1LLE)I 

HATAGORDA 

MAVERICK 

MIDLPJjO 

tlOliTG6ttERY 

HOORE 

NACOGU~CHES 

NUCCES 

ORANGE 

POTTER 

SAN PATRSCSO 

SCURRY 

SElITtl 

TARRANT 

TAYLOR 

OBS .-------------------------- 

0.2500 

GEO 

HEM ,----------- 

--- 

--- 

0.0900 

--- 

0.0300 

0.0500 

--- 

0 .OGOO 

isOBS 

--------------- 

0.2900 

ARITH 

KEAM 

---------- 

--.. 

--- 

0.4400A 

0.4200A 

0.1900 

0.3700A 

--- 

--- 

0.1700 

--- 

2.9280 --- 

0.4400A 

--- 

1.1100 

0.4500A 

--- 

--- 

--- 

0.8500 

--- 

0.2800 

0.0700 

--- 

0.5200 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

O.4SOOA 

0.1200A 

--- 

--- 

--- 

0.6100 

0.1100A 

--- 

--- 

--- 

0.5000A 

0.8650A 

0.1700A 

GEO 

tIEAN 

--..-------- 

--- 

A INOICATES OtlLY Ot1E STATIOfI REPORTING 


TABLE C-6. AIR QUALITY DATA FOR tlAtIGAtIESE ........................................................................................................ 

ARITH 6E0 ARITH 

08s HEAN HEAN 00s I1EAM GEO STATE COUNTY MEAN ........................................................................................................ 

AZ APACHE 

COCONINO 

ElARICOPA 

HDllAVE 

NAVAJO 

CO LA PLATA 

HONTENIlA - 

IN ALLEN 

BARTHOLOMEH 

CLARK 

OUBOIS 

ELKllART 

GRANT 

HOHARD 

JASPER 

JEFFERSON 

KNOX 

LAKE 

LA PORTE 

MION 

HOHROE 

ST. JOSEPH 

STEUBEN 

TIPPECAtlOE 

VANOERDURGH I VIGO 

HAYHE 

HO ADAIR 0.0260 --- --- 0.1020 --- --- AUDRAItl 0.0290 --- --- 

eOOitE 0. OBOO --- --- 

0.0210 --- --- 

BUCHAtIAtI 0.1120 --- --- 

0.0040 --- --- 

BUTLER 0. t220 --- --- 

0.0190 --- --- 

CALLAllAY 0.1150 --- --- 

0.0 190 --- --- 0.0700 --- --- 

CAllDEll 0.0130 --- --- 0.6620 --- --- 

CAPE 6IRARDEAU 0.0160 --- --- 0.0540 --- 

CLAY 0.0300 --- 0.1250 --- 

--- 

--.. 

COLE 0.0210 --- 0.0510 --- 

--- 

--- 

JASPER 0.0330 

--- --- --- 

JEFFERSON 0.1410 --- --- 

--- 

0.0140 --- 0.9730 --- --- 

A INDICATES ONLY ONE STATION REPORTIHG 
TABLE C-6. AIR QUALITY DATA FOR MASGAIIESE ........................................................................................................ 

STATE COUNTY ......................... LXVItlGSTON 

HARIOll 

tlEH EIADRIB 

NODAUAY 

PETTIS 

Pi1ELPS 

PLATTE 

ST. CHARLES 

STE. GENEVIEVE 

SCOTT 

VERNON 

ARITH CEO 

llEAN HE Ml OBS 

.------------------------------------ 

--- --- 0.8280 --- --- 0.0690 --- --- 0.2720 --- --- 

--- 0.0710 --- 

--- 0.0610 

--- 

--- 0.0730 --- 

--- 

0.0960 --- 0.1120 

--- --- 

--- --- 0.0610 

--- 0.3640 

--- 0.0820 

ARITH 

NEAN 

--------- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

tin 

SC 

RIO ARRIBA 0.0 0.0040A O.OOBOA 0.0400 0.0040A 0.0010A 

CHARLESTON o.0170 --- --- o.oa;rb --- --- 

ANDERSON 

BEDFORO 

BLOUNT 

BRADLEY 

CAMPBELL 

CARTER 

COFFEE 

GWBERLAEU) 

DYER 

GIBSOIS 

6REEIIE 

HMDLEN 8 BIEINY 

MUkIPREYS 

LZtlCOLN 

DfCtlIflll 

MADISON 

OIARIOH 

HAURY 

HOllTGOElEWY 

OBIOM 

POLK 

BUTNAM 

ROAtlE 

RORERTSON 

RUTHERFORD 

SULLIVAN 

A INDICATES OIiLY ONE STATIOtd REPWTIIJG 
I 

100000 000000000600000000 OOOOUOOOOOOOOOOOOO 01Q*lnh0 000~00000000000000 000O00000000000000 m 1 *OVYVYr NCJNNNWNCJNCJNNNNCJNNN NNN~JNC.lNNNCJ*JNNNNNNN O1????O 9????39949?93??0039000??000090~343343 100000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000w0 



TABLE C-8. AIR WALITY DATA FOR VAHAOIWi ............................................................................ ............................ 

STATE COUNTY 

------------------. 

TN AE(DERS0tI 

BEOFORO 

BLOUNT 

BRAOLEY 

CAllPDELL 

CARTER 

COFFEE 

CUflBERLAND 

OVER 

GIBSON 

GREEtlE 

HAllflLEN 

HEtRY 

IlUtlPREYS 

LIWOLN 

HCHINN 

NAOISON 

HnRION 

tlAURY 

MONTGOMERY 

OBIOU 

POLK 

P UTNAH 

ROANE 

ROBERTSON 

RUTHERFORD 

SULLIVAN 

* SUI%:ER 

HAHREN 

llASllItIGTOtl 

HILLIAIISOH 

HI LAON 

TX BEE 

BEXAR 

BOIIIE 

BRAZORIA 

BRAZOS 

BROllN 

CALItWtl 

CIVIEROI~ 

CHAEIDERS 

ARITH 

OBS HE AN .-------------------------------------- 

STATION REPORTIttG 

6E0 

MEAN 

-------------_ 

ARITH GEO 

ElEAti HEAN .................... 
0200'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

OIOO'O 

0100'0 

OTOO'O 

0100'0 

OLOO'O 

0100'0 

0010'0 

OEOO'O 

0100'0 

Oeoo'o 

0100'0 

Oz00'0 

OlC0'0 

0900'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0Z00'0 

ozo0'0 

OFZO'O 

0100-0 

OZ00'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

oc00'0 

0100'0 

0200'0 

0100'0 

OLOO'O 

ozoo - 0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

01 00-0 

01 00'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0LOO'O 

0100'0 

OtOO'O 

0100'0 

0100'0 

O[OO'O 

0100'0 

OlOO'O 

01 00'6 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

0100'0 

OLOO'O I---------- 

SsB 

sn111 

21D1,tVl 

INVISVP 

HlItlS 

A811113S 

Of3IllVd NVS 

213210d 

3911VE'D 

S333flN 

63H3011903W 

310014 

AMIIO9lEIDH 

ONVlOIW 

)I3Il3AVH 

VO109VlVH 

N311M33W 

............................ ............................ I ~won) II~IIXVN (sw/9n) DMHI~IIW . 
0090000000000 0 00-uolnO~er0.-0o~mm00r 0 000 OOOOO-OOO=OOO o ~um-~cauw~m~n~~~nm~u~ o 000 mm-mm~--uo~-ao o m-mfi-~~rnm~mmmmo~wfiam tU"4?4"1?7'7 c ~C~NO~JU~OOM~UOUWO~~M E$qq oooooeooooooo d dddddd;ddddddddddddd o ooo 

3 E 

W.z 2 6 w if "" E i 

9 urn gd* wow"^ %z% '" W 5 ~ga~gyp3,~z~, 3 WCq0114LLXYf3~7~YY ,n=es*es% ccY s .W22$$ -- ~8d~l~~srnBIs QU~~WAY-DLL~** i9dSfS~PY85r~~ce-r-* IPS 3 **U~Yw=~~X4d&rm'"C>>3 5 mom C 

U4 
STATE COUNTY ................................ BRAZORIA 

BHAZOS 

BROIW 

CALHOUN 

CAI IERON 

CllAllBERS 

DALLAS 

DEI1TOH 

ECTOR 

ELLIS 

EL PAS0 

GALVESTON 

GRAY 

GRAYSOH 

HALE 

HARRIS 

HAYS 

HIDALGO 

HWARO 

JEFF DAVIS 

JEFFERSON 

LUDBOCK 

HCLEE3lktI 

NCIIULLEH 

HATAGCRbA 

MAVERICK 

EIIDLAHD 

HONTGO'IERY 

ElOURE 

tIACOtDOCtIES 

WECES 

ORMIGE 

POTTER 

, SAN PATRICIO 

SCURRY 

StlITH 

TARRANT 

TAYLOR 

TITUS 

TOM GREEN 

TRAVIS 

VAL VERDE 

VICTORIA 

ODs .---------- 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

A ItDICATES 0:ILY ONE STATION REPORTING 

ARITH 

HE At4 

------------ 

0.0300 

0.0400A 

--- 

--- 

0.0100 

--- 

0.0200 

--- 

0.0600A 

--.. 

0.0500 

0.0a00A 

--- "-- 

--- 

0.0400 --- 

0.0100 

O.02OOA 

--- 

0.0400A 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

0.0500A 

0.04001b 

--- - --- 

--- 

8.0300 

0.0400A 

--- 

--- 

--- 

0.0400A 

--- 

0.0300 

0.0400A 

--- 

0.0100 

--- 

--- 

GEQ 

IIEAN .------------ 0.0200 

0.0300A 

--- 

--- 

0.0100 

--- 

0.0108 

--- 

0.0400A 

--- 

0.0208 

0.0700A 

--- 

--- 

--- 

0.0200 --- 

0.0100 

0.0d00A 

--- 

0.0200A 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

0.0300A 

0.0200A 

--- 

--- 

--- 

0.0200 

0.0300A 

--- 

--- 

--- 

ll.03OOA 

--- 

0.0200 

0.0200A 

--- 

0.0100 

--- 

--- 

ODs 

0.5500 

0.0900 

0.4500 

0.0600 

0.4200 

0.7400 

0.2400 

ARITH 

IlEAtl 

------------ 

0.0400 

0.0400A 

--- 

--- 

0.0400 

--- 

0.0200 

APPENDIX D 

Effects of Deposited Particulate Matter 

APPENDIX D 

EFFECTS OF DEPOSITED PARTICULATE MATTER 

Most evidence for particulate toxicity is derived from studies of 

domestic animals. It is often not clear if the synptoms of toxicity are the 

result of ingestion, inhalation, or both, Only those studies which clearly 

indicated ingestion of dust-covered vegetation are summarized here. mere 

appears to be a definite relationship between deposition of fine particles of 

arsenic, fluoride, lead, and copper on vegetation; their ingestion by animals; 

and chronic or acute injury to animal^.^^,^^ Other metals which may also be 

implicated are zinc and cadmium. The surfaces of vegetation, especially those 

covered with fine hairs (stems, leaf petioles, and blades), provide a major 

filtration and reaction surface for metal-laden particles of 1-5 um and 

less .6l 

Fluorides are reported to cause more damage to domestic animals than 

any other air pollutant.62 Dietary Efuoride is generally accepted as the 

major source of fluorosis in animals.9 Fluorosis has been noted in mbst 

domestic livestock, presumably resulting from particulate fluoride deposited 

on vegetation and ingested by animal~.~39~4 For cattle, the most susceptible 

domestic animal ,26965 ,66 diets containing concentrations exceeding 40 ppmw 

fluoride may have severe toxic effects.67 %e safe range for soluble and 

insoluble fluorides has been specified at 30-50 ppmw and 60-100 ppmw, respect ively, for cattle .68 Sheep and swine (70-100 ppw) , chickens (150-300 ppmw) , 

and turkeys ( 300-400 ppmw) are less sensitive to dietary fluoride levels. 68 

Arsenic deposited on vegetation from smelting operat ions has been known 

to kill livestock if enough was inge~ted.~~s~~-~~ Ingestion of arseniccontaminated dust/ssil on forage presents the greatest dangers to grazing 

animals.73 However, a wide range of toxicity for arsenic compounds exists and 

is correlated to animal excretion rates.9 he reported biological half-life 

of arsenic compounds ranges from 30-60 hours. 74, 75 Those compounds excreted 

most rapidly tend to be least toxic. 

Lead poisoning of cattle, horses, and other grazing animals as a result 

of ingestion of contaminated forage has been raported often -76-80 Fodder 

contaminated by lead and zinc by atmospheric deposition from a foundry was 

responsible for the death and slaughter of 140 cows.81 Ingestion of surface 
deposits of airborne lead on forage, especially adjacent to heavily traveled 

highways,82 and inhalation of lead can be significant additions to the total 

body burden of animals.83.84 Zoo animals (cats, primates, and snakes) are , 

1 susceptible to lead aerosol poisoning .85 I I 

1 Several other elements have been implicated in the illness or death I I 

of grazing animals when deposited on forage. For example, soot containing 

vanadium at a concentration of 1 ug/g was dumped near a pasture and subsequently spread by wind. The pasture grass was covered with a film of soot 

and, when ingested by cattle, caused sickness and death .a6387 Iron particles 

fran a magnesium plant in Austria adversely affected the digestive tracts of 

grazing cattle.88 Domestic animals grazing near specialized steel and alloy 

plants have been poisoned by ingesting dust containing molybdenum with 

~e~etation.62 

No specific studies are known which address the intake of trace 

elements by wildlife through ingestion of dust-coated vegetation .9 Fluorosis 

has been identified in wild animals, especially deer and elk.89 Honey bees, 

red deer, and wild hares are known to be especially sensitive to arsenic 

poisoning.62 ~ewman9O presents a state-of-knowledge review of the effects 

of industrial air pollution on wildlife. However, specific information 

dealing with surface-contaminated forage could not be identified. Ingestion 

of plant material which has concentrated heavy metals through uptake and 

inhalation of airborne particulates represents the majority of case histories. 
REFERENCES > 

1. Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.). 

2. 40 CFR 52.21 (01, (p), 45 FR 52675 (Aug. 7, 1980). 

3. 40 CFR 51 and 52, 45 FR 52676 (Aug . 7, 1980). 

4. Bond, R.G. , C,P. Straub, and R, Prober, (eds .) Handbook of Ezperhental 

Cont?oZ, VoZ. f : Air Pozzutwn , The Chemical Rubber Co . , Cleveland, Ohio 

(1972) (as cited in Ref. 5). 

5. Cleland, J.G., and G.E. Kinsbury, Multimedia EnviromentaZ Goals for 

EnzriromentaZ Assessment, Vols, I and 11, U.S. EPA Report No. EPA-600/7- 

77-136a, Research Triangle Park, N.C. (1977). 

6. Protecting VisibiZity, An EPA Report to Congress, U. S . EPA Report No. 

EPA 450/5-79-008, Research Triangle Park, N. C. (0ct. 1979). 

7. 40 CFR 5 1, VisibiZity ~rotectwn for Federal CZass I Areas, 45 FR 34762 

(~ay 22, 1980) . 

8. Lewis, B.G., P.C. Chu, R.M. Goldstein, P.C. Kotnegay, D.L. Mabes, 

L.F. Soholt, and W.S. Vinikour, A BioZogist'e Manual for the Evaluation 

of Impacts of Coal-Pir'ed Power PZants on Fish, Wildlife, and Their HabG 

tats, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication No. FWS/OBS-78/75, Ann 

Arbor, Mich . (~ug, 1978) . 

9. Dvorak, A.J., B.G. ~ewis, et al, Impacts of Coal-Fired Pajer Plants on 

Fish, WiZdZike, ad Their Habitats, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report 

No. FW~/o~S-78/29, Ann Arbor, Mich. (~ar. 1978). 

10. Webster, C.C., fie Effeots of Air PoZZution on P'tanta a& SoiZ, Agricultural Research Council, London (1967). 

11. Katy, M., Sulfur %oxide in the Atmosphre and Its ReZatwn to PZant 

Life, &dust. and Eng . Chem., 431 ~2450-2465 (1949). 

12. Dvorak, A.J. et al., The Enviromental Wfects of Using Coal for Gmemting Ezectricitg , U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report No. 

NUREG-0252, Washington, D.C. (~une 1977). 

13. Vaughan, B.E., K.H. Abei, D.A. Cataldo, J.M. Hales, C.E. Haue, L.A. 

Rancitelli, R.C. Routson, R.E. Wildung, and E.G. Wolf, Revim of 

PotentiaZ Impact on HeaZth and EnviromnentaZ QuaZity from MetaZs Entering 

the Efnviroment as a Result of Coal Utizization, Unnumbered Bate1 le 

Energy Program Report, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Wash. 

(Aug. 1975). 

14. White, K.L., A.C. Hill, and J.H. Bennett, Synergistic Inhibition of 

Apparent Photosynthesis Rate of Alfalfa by -Combinations of Sulfur Dioccide 

and Nitrogen Dio&de, Environ. Sci. and Tech. 8:574-576 (1974) (as cited 

in Ref. 15). 
15. Zaragoza, Larry, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication of tables attached to Environmentat Impact Statement for Montana 

Ambient Air Quatity Standards Study (Aug. 1980). i 

16. Ballou, S.W., P.M. Irving, M.H. Gabriel, and K.E. Robeck, Identifying 1 

the Potentiat for SO2-Induced Vegetation mge in the Evatuation 

of Energy Poticy Scenarios, Changing Energy Futures, Proceedings of I 

I the Second International Conference on Energy Use Management, R.A. Fazzolare and C.B. Smith, eds., Pergamon Press, New York (1979). 

17. Materna, J., Criteriu for Churacterizatwn of PoZZution Dumagee in 

Forests, Proc. Int. Clean Air Congr. 3rd, Dusseldorf, West Germany (1973) 

(as cited in Ref. 15). 

18 . National Research Council, Ozone and Other PhotochemicaZ O&dants, 

National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. (1977). 

19. Heck, W.W., and D.T. Tingey, Nitrogen Dio&e: The-Concentration Mode2 

to Predict Acute FoZiar Injury, U. S. EPA Report No. EPA 600/3-79-057, 

Research Triangle Park, N.C. (1979). c 

20. Taylor, O.C. et aL, &ides of Nitrogen, in J.B. Mudd and T.T. Kozlowski, 

Re8p0728e8 of Ptat~t8 to Air Pottutamte, Academic Press, New York (1975) . 

21. National Research Council, Carbon Momede, National Academy of Sciences, 

Washington, D.C. (1977). 

22. Thompson, C.R., and G. Katz, Effects of Continuous 82.9 Rdgatwn on Crop 

mrd Forest Plants, Envt. Science and Tech. 12:550-553 (~a~ 1978). 

23. National Air ~ollution'Contro1 Admin'istration, Air Quatity Criteriar for 

Hydrocarbow, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Va. PB 190489 

(1970). 

24. Stahl, Q.R., Pretim&uzry Air POZZU~W~ Survey of Ethytene, U.S. EPA 

Report No. APTD 69-35, Research Triangle Park, N.C. (1969) (as sited in 

Ref. 5). 

25. Jacobson, J.S,, and A.C. Hill (eds.), Recognition of Air PoZZutwn Injury 

to Vegetation: A Pictork~t Attas, Air Pollution Control Administrat ion, 

Agricultural Committee Informative Report No. 1, TR-70, Pittsburgh, Pa. 

(1970). 

26. National Research Council, E%uorides: Medicat and BioZogicaZ Effects 

of krViPO?Un872tat Pot~utants, Committee on Biological Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D. C. 
Effects of SuZfur Oxides in the Atmoephe~e on Vegetation: Revised 

Chapter 5 for Air &uQtity CritePia for Sutfw Oridee , U . S EPA Report 

No. EPA-R3-73-030, Research Triangle Park, I.C. (Sept. 1973). 

Bull, J.N., and T.A. Mansfield, Photosynthesis in Leaves Eqosed to SO2 

and NO2, Nature, 250:443-444 (1974) (as cited in Ref. 15). 

Bennett, J.H., and A.C. Hill, Acute Inhibition of Appent Photosyrztbsis 

bg Phytotodc Air PoZZutants, her. Chem. Soc. Sympos., 3:115-127 (1974) 

(as cited in Ref. 15). 

Costonis, A.C., Iniury to Eastern White fine by SuZfw lXo&e and Ozone 

Atom amd in M-urss, Europ. J. Forest Path, 3:50-55 (1973) (as cited 

in Ref. 15). 

Kress, L.W., and J.M. Sbtelly, The Intercrctiun of 03, SO2, and A702 and 

Its Effect on the G~mh of n30 Forest Tree Species, Cottrell Centennial 

Symposium, Air Pollution and Its Impact: on Agriculture, pp. 128-152 

(1977) (as cited in Ref. 15). 

Nae ional Re search Counc il , 'C%romium: Medicat and Biological Effects of 

BzviromentaZ Bot~utants , Committee on Biological Effects of Atmospheric 

Pollutants, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. (1974). 

Desbamas, P. , and D. ~amaciott i, Etude Chhiqw de Z 'actwn sur Za 

Vegetation d Effluent Gazeul: Industria2 Dontenunt du Chrome ~ecuzvaZ&t, 

PoLlut. Atmos. f8:224-226 (1968) (as cited in Ref, 34). 

National Research Council, Manganese: MadicaZ and BioZogicaZ Effects of 

Dzvironmsnta~ Pattutants, Committee on Biological Effects of Atmospheric 

Pollutants, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. (1973). 

Hurd-Karrer , A. M, , SeZenieon Absorption by PZants and Their Resul king 

TozdcCty to Anhts. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report 1934-35 : 289 

(as cited in Ref. 9). 

PreZMrrc~py Inveeigatwn of Effects of Boron, Indium3 Nicket, Selenium, 

!Pin, Vanadium, a?d neir Compounds, Vot . VZ, Vadismo , U. S. EPA Report 

NO. EPA-560/2-75-00 (1975). 

Coeteque, L.M., and T.C. Hutchinson, !&e EcoZogical Conseqwncss of 

%it PoZZutwn by MetaZZic Rust from the Sudbury Smetters, Proc. 

Inst. Environ. Sci., 18th Annual Technical Meeting, New York (1972). 

Logerwer f f , J .V. , geavy-Mebat Contamination of SoiZ8, Agr . Qua1 . Environ . pp. 343-364 (1966). 

Sillmpaa, M., Trace EZements in Soits and Agdcutture, United National 

Food and Agricultural Organization Report, Rome (1976). 

Budney, Lawrence J., Guidetines for Air Quality Mzintenance PZanning 

mrd Analysis Volume 10 (Revised): Bocedues for EvaZuating Air 

Qwztity Impact of New Stationary Sources, U.S. EPA Report No. EPA450/4-77-001, Research Triangle Park, N. C. (Oc t . 1977). 
43. General Guidetines Used in Deterwining "de minimis" Air QuaZity Impact8 

for the Prevention of Significant Deterwratwn ReguZations, Unnumbered 

U.S. EPA document, Research Triangle Park, N.C. (Aug. 27, 1979). 

44. 40 CFR 51 and 52 in 44 FR 51,924 (Sept. 5, 1979). 

45. Monarch, M.R., R.R. Cirillo, B.H. Cho, G.A. Concaildi, A.E. Smith, 

E. P. Levine, and K.L. Brubaker , Priorities for New Source Performance 

Standud under the aean Air Act Amendments of 2977, U. S. EPA Report 

No. EPA-450/3-78-019, Research Triangle Park, N.C. (April 1978). 

46. Guidetine on Air Qwtity ModeZs, U. S. EPA Report No. EPA-450/2-78-027, 

Off ice of Air Quality Planning and Standards Guideline No. 1.2-080, 

Research Triangle Park, N.C. (April 1978). 

47. Depreciation, GuideZinss and mZe8, Revenue Procedure 62-22 , U. S . Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service Publication No. 456, 

Washington, D. C. (Revised Aug . 1964). 

48. Coffin, D.L. and H.E. Stokinger, BioZogicaZ Effects of Air PoZ~utmrt8, 

Air Pollution VII, A.C. .Stern, ed., Academic Press, New York (1977). - 

49. Turner, D.B., Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates, U.S. 

EPA Report No. 99W-26, Research Triangle Park, N.C. (May 1970). 

50. Rag land, K. W. , Worst-Case Ambient ConcentPcrtions from Point Sources 

Using the ~ss~ Ptme Modet, Atmos. Env., 10:371-374 (1976). 

51. Busse, A.D., and J.R. Zimmerman, User's Guide for the CZimatoZogicaZ 

Dispersion Modst, Pub licat ion No. EPA-RA-73-024 ('NTIs PB 227346) , U. S . EPA, Research Triangle Park, N.C. (19731, 

52. Briggs , G.A., Chimney Plums8 in NeutmZ and Stabte Surroundings, Atmos . Env., 6:507-510 (1972). 

53. Briggs, G.A., Plume Rise Predictions, Lectures on Air PoZZution- and 

EStviromentat Impcrct Andyses, D.A. Haugen, Workshop Coordinator, American Meteotological Society, Boston, pp. 59-111 (1975). 

54. Larsen, R. I. , A Mzthematicat Mode2 for Re Zating Air QuaZity Sta?zdarda, 

U.S. EPA Report No. AP-89, Research Triangle Park, N.C. (Nov. 1971). 

55. Slade, D.H. , Meteorozogy a?d Atomic Energy, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Office of Information Services (NTIS TID 241901, Oak Ridge, 

Tenn. (1968). 

56. U.S. Department of Canmerce, CZinmatic AtZas of the United States, U.S. 

Government Printing Off ice, Washington, D. C. (June 1968) . 

57. Davis, D.D. and H.D. Gerhold, Selection of Tress for ToZemmce of Air 

Poztutants, Better Trees for Metropolitan Landscapes: Symposium Preceedings, USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report No. NE-22 (1976). 
National Research Council, Nitrogen O;rrides, National Academy of Sciences, 

Washington, D.C. (1977). 

Daesler, H .G. , ~egetatiomchaeden a28 FaZge der Luftwer schutaing, Wiss . 2.. Tech. Univ . , Dresden, 20: 1171-1173 (1971) . 

Manning, We J . , Bio-enuirornentat Impact of Pine ParticuZate PoZZutunts: 

A Swmnrry Document and Critical Reviev, prepared for U,S, EPA, National 

Environmental Research Center, Corvallis, Ore. an. 1975),. 

Glass, N.R., Enviromentat Effects of Increased CoaZ UtiZ;zatwn: 

EcoZogical Effects of Gcrseous Emissiom from Coat Combustion, u. S. EPA 

Report No. EPA 600/7-78-108, Washington, D.C. (.June 1978). 

Lillie, R. J. , Air PoZZutants Affecting the Perfonname of Domestic 

Animats - A Literature Review, USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 380, 

Washington, D.C. (1970). 

Phillips, P.H., D.A. Greenwood, C.S. Hobbs, and C.F. Huffman, fie 

nuorosis ProbZem in Livestock P~oduction, NAS-NCR Pub1. 381, National 

Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. (1955). 

Shupe, J.L., M.L. Miner, L.E. Harris, and D.A. Greenwood, Relative 

Effects of Feeding Hay AtmospherhaZty Con-nated by Fluoride 

Residue, NomZ Bay PZus CaZcim Fluoride and NomZ EiQy PZus Sodim . fluoride to Dairy Heifers, American Journal of Veterinary Research, 

23: 777-787 (1962). 

Allaway, W.H., Agronomic Controts over the Emrironntentat Cycting of Trace 

nements, Advances in Agronomy, 20:235-274 ( 1968). 

Suttie, J.W., J.R. Carlson, and C.C. Faltin, Effects of AZternuting 

Periods of H%h- and Low-PZuoride Ingestion in Dairy Cattle, J. of 

Dairy Science, 55:790-804 (1972). 

National Academy of Sciences, Effects of &?uorides in A~~ZB, 

Washington, D. C. (1974). 

Phillips, P.H., et al., The Ftuorosis Frobtern in Livestock Production, 

a Report of the Cdttee on Andmat Nutpition, NAS-NRC Publ. NO. 824 

(1960) (as cited in Ref. 9). 

Formad, R.J., fie Effect of Smelter Pwnes upon the Liveetock Industry 

in the Northwest, USDA Pathological Division, Bureau of Animal 

Industry Report 25 :237-268 (1908). 

Swain, R.E., and W.D. Harkins, Papers on Smelter Smoke: Arsenic in 

Vegetation Exposed to Snetter Smoke, J . American Chemical Society, 

30: 915-928 (1908) . 

Bischoff, O., Poisioning of Domestic Animals through Copper and Arsenic 

Containing fly Dust, Dent. Tierarztl. Wochschr., 47:442-447 (1939). 
72. Phillips, P.H., % 6ffect8 of Air Pottutrmto on Pam Animats, Air 

Pollution Handbook, Maple Press, New York (1957). 

73. Berry, W.L., and A. Wallace, Race Rentente in the bnvimment: nieir 

 ole and ~otential Toxiciiy a8 Rekted to Fo88ii Nels - A ReZMmry 

study, univ. of california, Laboratov of Nuclear Medicine ad bdiation 

Biology (1974). 

74 Frost 9 D v. , ArsenicaZa in Biology - Retroepect &o8pect, Federal Roceedings, 26: 194-208 (1967). 

75 SuUivan, R. J., Air Poiiaition Aspect8 of Apsmk M It8 covOunh, 

Litton Systems, Inc., Bethesda, Md . (1969). 

7 Allcroft. 8. , Lead a8 a iVutritional Hazard to Pam Livertock rv, Diatributbn of Lead in the fieauee of Bovims after Ingestla of 

Vadous ~ead Co?pounds, J. Comp. Pathol. p. Ther., 60:190 (1950). 

77. Alcroft F. , ~ead Poi8oning in Cattle and Sheep, Vet. RLc., 63:583-590 li 

(1951). t 

I 

78. ~alifornia Air Resources Board, A Joint Study of Pb Contamimtion i 

r, Relative to Home Deaths in th. Area of Southern Soh County (D=. . 1971) (as cited in Ref. 9). 

f 

p 79. Hmmond, P .B: , and A.L. Aronson, Lead Poisoning in CattZe & Home8 " the ~icinziy of a 9rsZter. Annals of New York Acaday of Science, 

111 : 595-611 ( 1964). 

80. schmitt, N., G. Brown, E.L. Devlin, A.A. Larsen, E.D. McCausland, and 

J.M. saviile, Lead Poisoning in Horses, an Envi~omentot Health Hazad, I 

Archives of Environmental Health, 23:185-195 (1971). 

81. Vetter, H., ~oad8 a?zd Dmage by Heavy MeDZ8 in tks Vicinity of a Led 

a?d zinc ~owrdry in Lower &oy, Staub Reinhrltvllg der Luft (English 

ed.), 34:ll-12 (1974). 

82. ~agerweif f, J.V., Lead, Mercuv and 'Cadnrim as &vimmentat Conhimt8, ~icronutrients in Agriculture, J.J. Montvedt, P.M. Giordano, 

and W.L. ~indsay, eds . , Agriculture Soil Science Society of ilnerica, 

Madison, Wisc . (1972). 

83 . ~isk, D. J. , Dace menrent8 in Soit8, PZant8, and Animals, Advances in 

Agronomy, 2#:267-325 (1972). 

84. ~hdahl, 8.1. , rnd J.B. Arvik, had k Soil8 irnd Plants: A Litemtmo 

Revisw, CRC critical Reviews of Enviromental Control, 3:213-224 

(1973). 

Bale 11, R. J. , Lead Poisoning: 200 

Science, 173(3992) : 130-131 (1971). May be the 
- -- -- - -- - - -- .w-- 

86, ~cientifie and TechnicaZ Assessment Report on Vandim, U.S. EPA Report 

No. EPA-600/6-77-002, Research Triangle Park, N.C. (1977). 

87. Ter Heege, J .H., Poisoning of Cattle by Zngestion of fie2 Oil soot, 

Tijdschr. Diergeneesk, 89:1300-1304 (1964). 

88. Henneman, J., Frequent Occurrmzce of Stomash and IntestCmk Diseases 

in Cattle Caused by Iron-Containing Ftue Cases, Wien. Tieraerztl. 

Monatsschr . , 18 : 225-231 (1931) . 

f 89. shupe, J.L., Levets of Toxdcity to Animazs Prooide Sod Busis for 

i Ptuoride Stmrdards, Environmental Science and Technology, 3: 721-726 t (1969). 

I 90. Newman, J.R., Effects of Industrial ~ir Poltutwrs on Wildtifa, 

I 

I Biological Conservation, 15 : 181-190 (1979) . 
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA 

(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing) 

1. REPORT NO. 

EPA 450/2-81-078 2. 3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NO. 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

A Screening Procedure for the Impacts of Air I 

Pollution Sources on Plants, Soils, and Animals 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 

+( 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. 

A. E. Smith and J. B. Levenson 

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO. 

r Argonne National Laboratory b 9700 South Cass Avenue 11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO. 

i 

9 Argonne, IL 60439 EPA-IGA-79-D-X0764 

12. SPONSORING AGENCY AME ADQRESS - Office of Air ~uarit~%yannln~ and Standards TYPE F REP RT AND PERIOD COVERED ytnal Repor% 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

16. ABSTRACT 

Section 165 of the Clean Air Act requires preconstruction review of major 

emitting facilities to provide for the revention of significant deterioration (PSD) 

and charges Federal Land Managers (FLMs with an affirmative responsibil ity to 

protect the air quality-related values of Class I areas. Regulations implementing 

these provisions require an analysis of the impairment to visibility, soils, and 

vegetation (52.21 (0) ) . The information and screening procedure presented here provide interim 

guidance: (1) to aid in determining whether emissions are significant or 

whether there are significant air qual ity impacts under Section 52.21 (0) , and 

(2) to aid in flagging sources which should be brought to the attention of 

an FLM under Section 52.21 (p) . 

Impacts on vegetation and soils are the principal areas addressed by the 

procedure which thus takes a limited view of the possibly broad scope of air 

qual ity-related values. A selected review of impacts on fauna has also been 

included and the odor potential of regulated pollutants is addressed. This 

procedure is intended for use by air quality engineers and is not a manual for the 

t of impgcts on r~ 1 ants, soils, and other air ciua1it.y-related values such 

17. as would be suitable for an 16m&egtist~~ DOCUMENT ANALYSIS . a. DESCRIPTORS b. l DENTI F IERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COSATI Field/Group 

6F 

18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)' 21. NO. OF PAGES 

Re1 ease Unl imi ted None 117 

20. SECURITY CLASS (This page) 22. PRICE 

d 

EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE 

- - ---- . 
-2 n 

- - EPA 450"/Z81-078 \ ' A Screening Procedure for the Impacts of Air Pollution ~inal Report 

Sources on Plants, Soils, and Animals \ 

United States 

Envlronrnental Protection 

Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park. N.C. 2771 1 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use 

5300 

Publication No. EPA 450/2-81-078 Postage and 

Fees Pald 

Env~ronrnental 

Protection 

Agency 

€PA 335