UnitedStates OfficeofAir Quality EPA450/2-81-078 EnvironmentalProtection Planning andStandards December 12, 1980 Agency Research Triangle ParkNC27711 Air 

# A Screening Final Procedurefor

# the Report 

# Impactsof

# Air PollutionSources

# on Plants,Soils, and Animals

# EPA450/2-81-078



# A Screening Procedureforthe ImpactsofAir PollutionSourceson 

# Plants,Soils,andAnimals

A.E. Smith andJ.B.Levenson

Argonne National Laboratory

9700SouthCassAvenue Argonne,1160439

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

Preparedfor U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OfficeofAir Quality PlanningandStandards Research Triangle Park, North Carolina27711

December 12,1980

### The guidelineseriesofreports is

### being issuedby theOfficeofAir

### Quality Planning andStandards (OAQPS)toprovideinformationto state andlocal airpollution control agencies; for example, toprovideguidanceon the acquisition and processing of airquality data andontheplanning and analysisrequisiteforthemaintenanceof airquality. Reports published in this serieswillbe available

### - assuppliespermit

## -fromtheLibrary Services Office (MD-35), 

### U.S

# .Environmental Protection Agency, ResearchTriangle Park,NorthCarolina

### 27711; or,foranominalfee, fromtheNational TechnicalInformation Service, 5285PortRoyalRoad, Springfield, Virginia 

### 22161.

PublicationNo. 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

iiiTABLES



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



# ......................... 2.2 Pollutants Screened 6 3.1 Screening Concentrations for Exposure toAmbient



# .......................... 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 toAnimals



# .................... 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



# ............ SignificantEmission Rates for Trace Elements



# .................... Summary of Bepresentative Stacks Dispersion Coefficient Parameters and Maximum



# ...................... Concentration Coefficient



# .................. Averaging Time Conversion Factors



# ............. Sulfur Dioxide Sensitivityof Crop Species



# .......... Solfur Dioxide Sensitivityof Natural Vegetation



# .................. Ozcne Sensitivity of Crop Species



# ............... Ozone Sensitivity of Natural Vegetation



# ............ Nitrogen Dioxide Sensitivity of Crop Species



# ......... Nitrogen Dioxide Sensitivity of Natural Vegetation



# .................... AirQuality Data forArsenic



# .................... AirQuality Data for Cadmim



# .................... AirQuality Data for Chromium



# .................. AirQuality Data for Fluoride Ion



# ...................... AirQuality Data for Lead



# ................... AirQuality Data for Manganese

### TABLES (Cont

## 'd)



# ............... Air Quality Data for Selenium



# ............... Air Quality Data for Vanadium



# ................. Air Quality Data for Zinc

FIGURES



# ......... SO2 ~ose-InjuryCurves for Pfant Species



# ......... NO2 ~ose-InjuryCurves 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



# ..... 26ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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 concentrations 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. xegulations2 implementing these provisions require:

e 

### An analysis of the impairment to visibility, soils, and vegetation (52.21 (0))

### and A 

### notice from theEPA Administrator to the appropriate FLM 

### of any pewit application frm a sourcewhose 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 togeneral '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 tothe 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.2The information and screening procedure presented here provide interim guidance: To aid in determining whether emissions are significant or whether there are significant airquality 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 airquality 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 airquality 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 concentrations

# . 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 inthe soil and subsequent uptake by plants are made based on an estimate of the maximum annual concentration. The 

### est bated concentrations of the pollutant in the soil and aerial plant parts are then compared to appropriate screening eoncentrations

# . Concentrations 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 arenot available for the source, significant emission levels corresponding to the various screening

- 

### concentrations are developed in Sec. 5.2. 

### In these cases, emissions inexcess 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 is1 !' I I good deal of controversy among experts. In addition, this procedure isbased 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 AirAct, 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 disulfide, carbon disulfide, 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 

# II Available Not Available

Mercury Beryl

### 1 ium Fluoride Hydrogen Sulfide Asbestos SulfuricAcid Mist Vinyl chloride Methyl Mercaptanc Dimethyl SulfideC Dimethyl Disulfidec Carbon DisulfideC Carbonyl Sulfidec
aFraction of TSP present as trace elements treated through deposition and uptake by plants. b~creenin~ concentration availablebut 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 emittingmore 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 concentrations

### .4 Information 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 towhether the potential effects are caused directlyby concentrations of the pollutant in the ambient air orwhether 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 concentration 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 sen ic Boton Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper .Fluoride Lead Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium

Lead Cobalt Copper Fluoride Lead Manganese Manganese Mercury Nicke

### 1 Nickel Selenium 

### Selenium Vanad

### im Vanadiun 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 

### ismade 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 ingestion of plants containing toxic elements taken up from pollutants deposited on soils. Thus, the information presented here represents a preliminary definition of airquality 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 published

# . 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 germination 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) arenot 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 information 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 iscurrently 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 

### inthe soil and later uptake by the plant. For each pathway certain qualifications and cautions should be kept inmind in order to avoid interpreting the values presented here either as absolutely safe levels for allplants or as levels which could never be exceeded without damaging vegetation. The following discussions arenot intended tobe 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 atwhich visible damage or growth retardationmay occur or the observed minimum levels atwhich injury and mortality toplants have been reported. These numbers are generallythe lowest values consistentlyreported inthe literatureon plant response to controlled exposures of single pollutants. Both field and greenhouse studieshave been used indeveloping 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 sensitivityof 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 withcurrent 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 allmembers 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 forAmbient Exposures Table 3.1 presents the suggested 'screening values for seven gaseous pollutants. These values represent the minimum concentrations atwhich adverse growth effects or tissue injury inexposed 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 forNO2. For both pollutants there isreasonable 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 

### Concentrationsa,

Minimum Reported Level (pmv)c Vegetation Sensitivity Averaging pollutant 

### Time 

## ensitived Intermediate Resistant Reference
so2 1hr .35(917) 

# - - 14 3 hrs .30(786) .80(2096) 5.Q( 131 00) l6 1. 

### YP .007(18) 17

4 hrs 2.0(3760) 5.0(9400) 9.0( 16920) 19 8hrs 2.0(3760) 4.0(7520) 8.0(15040) 19 1mo .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 1mo '(0.01) 2 7

, <a ~eadj 3mo (1.5) .$. 28 aA11values except beryllium and lead refer toeffects on vegetation. bMinimum reported levels atwhich visible damage or grbwth effects to vegetation may

occur. 

# ( cValues in parentheses are ug/m3 at 20'~ and 1atm. d~hese values should be used in the-screeningprocedure unless it isknown that only intermediate orresistant plants willbe affected. eThe values for 20%injury are reported here, since they correspond closelywith other

values in the literature. 

# 1 f~ased on generalization of results of a number of studies. 8Reversible decreases inphotoeynthetic ratehave been shown tooccur at significantly

lower levelsbut effects on growth have nat been demonstrated. -

## - h~thylene 

## "



# .

# ..is the onlyhydrocarbon that should have adverse effects on vegetation atambient concentration of 1ppm or less." (Ref. 23). 'NEW value to protect ~ublic health. Very toxic tohumans 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

X 

### * VALUES 10 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 Concentrations or Gas1 Compared to Ambient Criteria
Vegetation S Averaging Pollutant Time Sensitive Interme



### , 

## .--. .-"a i so2 3ht 

## < NAAQS~ 

## > PSD~ 2 PS~ ensitivity :diate Resistant



### 1yt 

## < 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 tobe 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 include backgroupd

# .

, '2,

increments and for the annual exposure, it exceeds the Class I incremem However, the screening concentration should be compared to the total Si concentration 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 forNAAQS attainment: SO2 exposures at 1hour, 3 hours, and 1 year, Ozone exposures at4 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 minhvalues 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 stillbe 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 arenot noted in Table 3.3 but which could be added to the table and incorporated in the screening procedure at a laterdate.16

Table 3.3 Synergisms of Gaseous Pollutants (plants)a

~onc entrat ions Pollutants (PPV ) Exposure Reference

sop .05 

### 1hr 30 No2 .05 

## so2" .30 1hr 31 03 .10 

## sotb .05 4hr 3

### 2 O3 .05 so2 .14 6hr/day 33 O3 

### .05 for 28 N02 .10 days aThe same criteriawere wed in selecting these

vaiue's from Ref. 15aswere used indeveloping Table 3.1. b~ntagmism, as well as synergism, has been reported formixutes 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 inthe soilhas 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 inaqueous nutrient solutions ereignored. 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

### Table

### 3.4 Screening Concentrations for Exposure of Vegetation to Pollutant Conceneraeions in Soil and Tissue

Minimum Reported Level (ppmw) Pollutant Source Pollutant Soil Tissue Reference Arsenic Boron Cadmium Chromium 

### C~balb~ mpper Fluoridea Leada Manganese Mercury Nicke

### f Sef

### eniuma Vanadium Zinc aTiisue concentrationsmay affect animals

before affecting plants. Compare to toxic levels for animals inTable 

### 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 criteriacan be made. It 

### shouldbe 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 littlehas 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 soif system 

### is sufficiently small, the natural ecosystem can adapt to these small changes inmuch the same way as the ecosystem adapts to the natural weathering processes that occur in allsoils. cultural practices (e.g.. 

## , liming, fertilization, use of insecticides and herbicides) add elements and modify a soil system more than a small amount of deposited 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-:&ommunities 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 toplants appears reasonable as a first attempt at identifying the airquality related values associated with soils. When viewing soils in this way it 

### is important to know the endogenous

orbackground 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 (seeFig. 3.4) 

### .41 

### Bsth 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 inTable 

### 3.4: the screening values are exceeded for some part of the listed range for nine out of the twelve elements for which screening concentration 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 

### Lead 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 concentration 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 willbe among the species present in soils where the endogenous concentrations of that element exceed leve

### 1s toxic tomore sensitive species

# . l2 The problan associated with the amount of an element in the soilwhich 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 cultures22

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, erenot examined in the literaturereviewed. Also, effects

### on aquatic and terrestrial microorganisms are not considered here. Table 3.7 presents the screening concentration values based on data summarized inRefs. 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 concentrations so minimum concentrations were insluded

# . A 

### secondary purpose of the information was to identify locations where high concentrations already exist. For this purpose, maximum concentrations were included. Compilation 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 locationshad 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 formercury, 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 allreporting stations are given. With multiple stations, it 

### is unlikely that both values come from the same location.
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 theminimum detectable 

### limit. In some cases, thiswillbe 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 inthe 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 isconsidered 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 the27 

# I i I I subsequent deposition of such substances inbodies of water. Also, no account istaken of deposition directly frcm the air intowater. 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 1and 2 apply to airborne pollutants; steps 

### 1and 

### 3-7 apply for tracemetals 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 1against the corresponding screening concentrations inTable 3.1 or against the corresponding NAAQS, NESHAP or.PSD increments, whichever applicable standard ismost restrictive. In addition, the possibility of synergisms should be considered. 3. For tracemetals, calculate the concentration deposited in the soil from the maximum annual average concentration assuming that alldeposited material is soluable and available foruptake by plants. 4. Compare the increase inconcentration inthe 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 inTable 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 6using estimated solubilities of elements in the soil to provide supportive indications, recognizing that actual solubilitiesmay vary significantly from the estimated values. 8. If modeling results areunavailable, 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 arenot.
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 frequentlybe unavailable, particularly during earlydiscussions 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 sourceI Table 5.1 Steps in Screening Procedure
Applicable Text Step Description Sect ion Tables Equation
1 Esthateambient 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 concentrationsb 5.1.3 3.5 5.4 5 Calculate tissueconcentrationa ' 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 traceelemeqg, solubilityb 5.1.3 3.4,3.7,5.4 5.7,5.8 8 Apply significanceemission levelsc 5.2 5.6,5.7 

## - aReviewers may want to review the information inAppendix D toassess the potential for

harm toanimals from directly ingesting deposited materials. b~upport ive indjcation only, not primary decisionparameter. CUsedonly when source-specific modeling results arenot available.Table 

### 5.2 Pollutants and Averaging Times
Required Averaging Times Pollutant 1hr 3 hr 

### 4 hr 8hr 

### 24 hr 

### 1wk 10 days 1mo 3 mo 

### 1yr

H2S Ethylene Fluoride Be Pb 

## xb XC Trace Elementsd Xe
aFor comparison with criterianot necessarily related to impacts on plants, animals,

or soils (NAAQS, NESHAP 's

## ,PSD increment91

# . b~pplies toboth impacts on plants, animal's, soils and other criteria. CAlsoincluded intrace element analysis. d~race elements: As, B, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, 

### F (as fluoride), Pb, Mn, 

### Hg, Ni, Se, V, Zn. eRequired for use inestimating amount of deposition.

### review. These methods were used to develop EPA's significance levels for published aspart of theproposed PSD regulations

### .43,44
As 

### an alternative, the procedure used in Ref. 

### 45 to estimate 

### air quality impacts can be used as presented inAppendix 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. Beanalyst 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 todevelopbackground e%tC@ates-for other than annual averaging times..
For the 14 trace elements (including lead), !PA'S 

### SAROAD files were searched asdescribed in Sec. 

### 4. No 

### information was found formercury, 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 may33

be selected from among those tabulated inAppendix C and used ina 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 inTable 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 possibilityof synergisms should also be checked at this point. Consideration should b'e given to the synergisms listed inTable 3.3 but no screen on thevalues 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 inTable 5.3 are the values used in reviewing new sources 

# I under other criteria. The value expected tobe controlling foreach pollutant hasbeen circled in the tableunder 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 toaveraging time raised to the power -0.17. This observation ismade only to give some feeling forwhat 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 stillneed to do a review for plant, soil, and animal impacts if 3-hour background levels are high enough tomake the predicted ambient concentration 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 Concentrations

Ambient Concentration (vg/m3) Po1 lutant and Averaging 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 

# aa

PSD Increment 1e

Df 

# - 25a2 

# - 11e8f 

# - 512 91 20 

# -

111~8~ 

# - 700 182 40 

## - Variancee,g 

# - 325 91 20 

# -

Note: Circled values expected tobe controlling; see text. aNumerals: hours W: 1week M: lmonth 'A: Annual b~mbient concentratione thishigh areunlikely. C40CFR 50. d~aeed on maximum impact of source

### &background. eRef. 1. f~ased onmaximum impact of source alone. iq gIncludes the source together with allother sources. h40 CFR 61.35

II 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 themaximum annual

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

### known. Reviewers may alsowant 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

. canbe used to estimate themaximum concentration inthe 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 alsobe noted that an estimate of the source's lifetimemust 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

### .45347 If the source istied to a resource, the estimated resource lifetimemight 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 lifeof 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 1m2 canbe calculated as:

### x (1m2) 

### x (Time).

The weightof the soil inthe volume of interest 

### is I 

## j i 

# 1

I



### = (1m2) 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 velocityof 

### 1cm/sec,

e 

### Average bdlk densityof soil

### = 1.47 gm/cm3, Uniform distribution of deposited material throughout the soilvolume, and
e All

### deposited material isretained by 

### the soil, that is, no leaching, surface runoff, or erosion.

Calculate Increase over Endogenous Soil Concentration (Step4). The Purpose of this simple calculation 

### is to -

### provide a supportive indication3

### 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 simplycalculated from (X ~ncrease) [DC( ppmw) 

### x 100)

### 1 /[Endogenous Concentration (~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 inPlant Tissue (step5). 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:
Allthe deposited material 

### is soluable and available foruptake 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 theseTable 

### 5-4 Solubilitiesof Endogenous Trace ~lements~,~
Solubility 

### %iss ion Rate Element (% 

## Ic Increase

## ast tor^
Arsenic 

### 9 %

### 1 Boron Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper 

### Ffuoride Lead Manganese 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 isrequired.

are chemical form, temperature, presence of other elements, selective uptake by plants, soil pH, and soilmoisture 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 concentrations to tabulated screening concentrations. In this step, however, three comparisons need to be made:

### 1. The deposited concentration 

### (DC) iscompared 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 inexcess 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 foflowing additional assumptions have been made:

e Alldeposited 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 theburden which would result fromboth 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 asdefined 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 concentration 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 isequivalent



### 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 tobe controlling inthe table.

Table 5.5 Equivalent Exogenous Soil .Screening Concentrations
Equivalent Deposited Concentration (ppmw) Trace Plant Element Soila 

### issueb 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 Lead 1080 280 180d Manganese 2.5d 6,100 7,600 Mercury 

### 455d 

# - - Nickel 500d 1,300 22,000 Se1 

### enium 13 100 5d

Zinc 

# - 470d 780 aSame as soilvalue in Table 3.4. ~EDC 

### = (STCfor plants from Table 3.4)/CR. CEDC 

### (STC for animals from Table 3.7)ICR.

# !I1 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 orblown off the plants and carried into the soil. hesame 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 inthe procedure outlinedhere. In either case, the fluoride example serves to illustrate the potential problems involved in screening for impacts on airquality 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 isneeded on a source because its emissions willcause a trace element screening concentration tobe 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 foruptake (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 reflectingthe 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 inTables 

### 3.4 and 3.7, respectively. 

# / 5.2 EXAMPLE SCREEN

### AND SIGNIFICANTEMISSION 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, theavailable 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 littleforesight willshow that estimates need not be made for 

### 1mo and 1yr.) These results complete Step 1.
Then in Step 2 of the screening procedure, thesemaximum concentrations for NO2 would be compared to the appropriate screening concentrations in Table 3.1 or Table 5.3. For N02, the screening concentration atboth 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 themodeled 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 forNO2 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 isused 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 asthe 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 furtherreview 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 tobe 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) forarsenic 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, concentration)/(~oncentrat ion 

### from source)

## 1

x (~ource' 

### s emission 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 tocause a soil concentration in excess of the screening concentration. Similarly, significant emission ratesbased on plant tissues (TC 

### = 1.05 ppmw) and animal ingestion (TC 

### = 3 ppw) can alsobe 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 qualitymodel presented4 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 criteriamay 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 isbased 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 5.4Table 5.6 Significant Emission Rates for Direct Acting ~ollutanto~

Significant hissionRate (~/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: 1month A: AnnualTable 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 81OC 1000C 1lc Mercury 6 lc 

# - - - Nicke1 67C 17Oc 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, dividethe tabulated valuesby (N/10). b~or use as a supportive indicator only; based on a 10% increase over the average values.inTable 3.5. CExceeds the significant emission level for TSP of 10

T/yr established forPSD (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 inpercent.

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 Flow 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 formajor sources un.less a large number of 

### stacks are used. Also given inthe table are emission rate increase factors foreach 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~~,,::~)
rission ncrease rate factor for stack 5.6 or 5.7 from Table 5.8APPENDIX 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 

### komone hour to one year. The developments presented here follow the presentation inRef.

### 45which can be consulted foradditional details. The procedure isuseful 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 Il1/'1 

### The familiar Gaussian plume model 

### is the basis for estimating shortterm ground level coneentrati~ns.~~ According to thismodel the plume centerline concentration 

### isgiven 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 atx 

### (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 representat 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 arepresented in Table A.1. Both Xm and 

### x, depend on stabilityclass 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 forneutral/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 bhGI h*

# * 2 & 

# 2".
a~u 

### odu -4a 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<55m4/sec3, C a 38.7flo6m2/sec forF>55m4/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 unstable conditions,

with a corresponding mglc

For stableconditions

Equation A.17 has no maximum unless b/d 

### is greater than 2. Operationally, this difficulty 

### is solved by settingu 

### = 2 m/sec for the stable case inwhich

caseEqs. 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 stabilityclass, 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 stabilityclass 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 

### impiementi,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 inmulti-source applications. For averaging times less than one month, he finds that for a year's data ~-(t) 

### = xmaX(1hr)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 10days as shown inTable 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 Conversion Time (hrs) Factor

aBased on Ref

# .49

# . b~ee discussion intext.

where:

> r n 

### = the'number of sectors intowhich the en&re 

### 360" range of wind directions 

### is divided and f the ftaction of the time during which the wind direction lies inthe 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 ex

### pected wind direction in a single 

### 22.5" sector (nel6) 

### is about 

### 27% (+0.27). 

## or monthly wind roses, thismaximum persistence is about 

### 45%(f10.45). 

### The wind speed u 

### used for both the 

### annual and 

### monthly calculations 

### isu 

### 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 lo6for annual mglcfs a2.

### 46
and

### APPENDIX 

### B Pollutant Sensitivities

### of Plant SpeciesTable B

### .l. Sulfur Dioxide Sensitivityof Crop Speciesa
Sensitivity Sensitive Intermediate Resistant Alfalfa 

### Eeek Cotton 

### corn APP~ e Lettuce Sorghum Bar

### 1 ey Oats Cantaloupe Bean, field Okra Citrusspp.



## , %ha Onion 

### Beet, sugar Parsley



## ,table Parsnip Blackberry Pe

### a Blueberry Peach 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 Spinaeh agplant Squash End

### ive Tobacco 4ik

, , Gooseberry Turnip Grapes Wheat Kale aCompiEed from data inRef. 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

# .bluegrass -orchard gras

### s -red fescue Hazel, beaked



## , California Hemlock, mountain Larch, western Maple, Manitoba



## , Rocky Mt. Mulberry, Texas Pine, easternwhite



## ,.jack



## ,red



## ,Virginia Rockspirea, creambush Serviceberry, low



## , Saskatoon



## ,Utah Sumac, st aghorn Tulip tree Willow, black 

### Atnus tenuifotia Poputus grandidentatcr EbpuZus tremutoides Mnus penmy2

### vanica Frcdnusamericana Bstutapoputifo

## tia Betdapczpyrifera conautata BetuZapapyrifetvl Bs

### tutaattegheniensis Vmciniumangustifotim L)plmus emarginata Abies Zaswcarpa AgrostispaZustris Eba annu Oryaopsishymenoides Poapratensis mtyZisgtomeratu Pestuca mcbm COY~~US COP~U&CZ 

### CoryZuscornuta catifomica Tsugamertensia Lark @@dentat is Acer negunao 

### interius Ace? gtabna &PUS 

### micmphytta Pinus strobus Pinus banks* Pinus msinosa Pinsvirginirma Eiotodiscusdiscotor Ametanchder stotondfera AmeZanchier aZnifoZia Ametanchder utahensis Haus typhina Lirwdendm tutipiferu Sa2i.xnigraTable 

### B.2. (Cont'd)

Common Name Scient if ic Name
Intermediate Basswood Birch, water Boxelder Chokecherry Cottonwood, 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 Betutuoccidentalis Acer negundo Prtaws virginiana Pogutus trichocarpu PopuEus dettoides Boputus UngustifoZia Cornssto Eonifera Ytmusamepicrma Abies bcrEsmsa Pseudoteugumenziesii Abies gdis 

# vitzs rigs* 

### Tsuguheterophy

## tZu 

### Cercocarpusmontunus Ace? gZabreun dougtasii Acsrs 

### mcbrum S~rbus eeopulinu @ereus alba Enus eontorta Erneponde~o~a %ims echinaty Pinus montic~~a Populus baEmnriferu A~%enaisia bddentatu Symphoricurpos oreophizus S~mpho 

### PicarposPivutaPis Hceu engetmumii Hca, gkuca Bizmanelis vif.ginimur
Resistant Black gum Buck-brush Buffalo-berry Ceanothus

## , redstem Cedar, western red



## ,white(arborvitae) Dogwood, flocjering Fir, silver



## ,white Hawthorn, black 

### flyssa sytvatica GemthusveZutinus Shepherdicr cdensio Cem thussanguineus fiuja plicatu fiuja occidentatia Comsftorida Abies amubitis Abies concotor CrataegusdougZasiiTable 

### B.2. (Cont'd)

Common Name ScientificName
Resistant (cont'dl 

# . Grape, Oregon 

### Odostemonaquifo 

### 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 

### Robiniapseudoacacia Mahogany, curl-leaf mt. 

### Ce~cocarps ZedifoZius Maple, mountain ace^ 

### spicatum



## , silver 

### Acer saccharinurn



## ,sugar 

### Acer saccham Oak, gambel 

### Que

### rcusgambe

### 2ii



## , live 

### Quercus virginh



## ,northern red 

### Quercusrubra

9 pin 

### &uercuspatustris Pine, limber 

### Pinusft&Zis



## , pinyon 

### Pinus edutis Poplar, Carolina 

### PopuZus canudensis Sourwood 

### Oceydendrontzrborewn Spruce

## ,blue 

### 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 inRefs. 

### 9 and 16.

I



### 111 - -
I

P I

!
1 I 1 

## 1 I%
oi 

### ,

### Table B.3. Ozone Sensitivityof Crop Speciesa Sensitivity Seasitive Intermediate Resistant 

### AI fa 

### Ifab bean, pinto white Broccoli C% 

### overb Corn, sweet oatsb 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 Vegetationa
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



## ,easternwhite



## ,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 Quercusgambelii Quercus atba Pinus coutteri Pinus strobus Pinus banksicrna Pinusjeffreyi Pinus ta& 

### Pinus radicrta Pinus ponderosa 

### Pinus virgidzm Ametmrchieratnifolicr PZatams occidentatis Lirwdendron tutipifera
Intermediate
Boxelder Cedar

## , incense Grasses-Ky

# .bluegrass -perennial rye -red fescue Oak, black



## ,pin



## , scarlet Pine, lodgepole



## ,pitch



## ,shortleaf



## , slash



## ,sugar


## ,Torrey Redbud Sweetgum 

### Acer neg& Li 

### bocedms decurrens Poa pratensis Lotimperenne Festuca mcbss Wercusvetutina &uercuspatustris @emuscoccinea Pinus contorta Pinus 

### rig& Pinus echimtu Pinus ettibttii Pinus ZambertiaM Pinus torreyam Cerciscunadensis 

### LiquidambaretydftuaTable B.4. (~ont'd)

Csutmon Name Scientific Name

Basswood Birch, white (paper) Black germ Cedar, white (arborvitae) Dogwood, 

### fPowering 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
aCanpiled 

### from 

### lists inRefs. 18 and 57.Table B.5. Nitrogen Dioxide Sensitivity of Crop Speciesa

Sensitivity Seasit 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 inRefs. 19, 

### 20, and 58. b~ome cultivars intermediate or resistant.

### Table 

### B-6. 

### Nitrogen Dioxide Sensitivityof Natural ~ege t

### ationa
Common Name Sc

### ieatif ic Name Sensitive ~rasses-Viper 

## 's grass 

### Scorzonemr hispareha
Intermediate Fir, common silver



## ,white Grasses-bluegrass Spruce, blue white 

### Abies peetimta Abies aZba 

### Poa annuok 

### Piceapungsns 

### Picea gtceecea Resistant Grasses-Ky

# .b luegrass 

### Poapratensis 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 013181VdtIVS 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



## ........................................................................................................ 3IN351VMod V1V0ABI[IVflbMIV '%-3 316VPTABLE 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 1000'0TABLE 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 RIOARRIBA 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0100 0.0002 0.0001 A INDICATESONLY ONE STATION REPORTINGOOOOOOOOOoOOdOoOOOOOOOOooo 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 I EZ:Z~~SIZIZI~Z~I ~yr~o~~o~q~q~qq~~~q~oq~o~~~~~~~~~qq;~~~~qo~o~~~ IZIE~~Z~IIIS%~~~%Z~~~S~ZZ~E~~~ 

### * 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 a 

### d 0404 o er l M4 a; 1 

# 3; -YI~II'SI~ISIRZI q=~q~~q~q~q:qq~~~q:qq;q;;;;qq::qqq;;;q;qq~o~~~ 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~o~~oo~ooooo -I 1 I ~100000000000000000000000000000000Q0000000~00 m I a 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)HINIMUHtUGIM3) HAXItUIItU6/H31



# ............................ ............................ 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 IflDICATESONLY MtESTATIONREPORTING4 0000 wm-N t aooo 1 0.0o*-z!

we00I 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 I o ooooooooooooooooodoodd 

## isin'-TABLE C-5. AIR QUALITY DATA FOR LEAD



## ........................................................................................................ MINIEUM (UG/M31 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

LOSANGELES HADERA tIERCE0 HODOC EtI%TEREY NAPA ORAiIGE RIVERSIDE SACRAllENTO SAM BERIIARDINO SANDIE60 SAN FRAIICISCO SAN JOACUIN SANEIATEO A IlttlICATESONLY ONE STATION REPORTINGTABLE C-5. AIR QUALITY DATA FOR LEAD



## ........................................................................................................

ARITH GEO ARITII CEO STATE COUHTY OBS MEAN tiEAN 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 HENCASTLE

FL DADE 0.1000 OUVAL 0.3000 HARDEE 0.0400 HIGIILANDS 0.0 HILLSBOROUGH 0.1500 PIHELLAS 0.1100

I CHATHAH

FULTON tIUSCOGEE ADA BAtMOCK BUTTE tIEZ PERCE SH6SliOIIE COOK LAKE PEORIA


### . ROCK ISLAND ST. CLAIR A IIIDICATESONLY OIiE STATIOIiREPORTINGTABLE 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 HEAN 

## .----------- OBS 

### .--------------- 0.8300 1.2100 2.0500 GEO MEAN 

### .---------- 

# --- 9

A INDICATESOtlLY 01%STATIONREPORTINGTABLE 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 IBERVILLEPARRISH 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 --. -. - - - - .-- HETROWLlTAtlBOSTOtlAPCO PIONEER VALLEY APCO SOUTHEASTERNMA. APCO HI GEllESEE 0.3800 ItlWiAti 0.2100 KEtlC 0.2700 SAG1 NAN -0.1400 HAYIIE 0.1800 Mtl BELTRAHI 0.0860 816STONE 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 IMICATESOtlLY ONE STATIOIIREPORTINGTADLE C-5. AIR QUALITY DATA FQR LEAD



## ........................................................................................................ HINIHUn I UGIM3)



# ............................ MAXIMUM I UGM31



# ............................
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 

## --- --- LENSAND CLCRK 0.3300 

# --- --- 24.6200 

## --- --- A IIIDICATES MLYOIiE STATIOM REPORTING1 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? 7S'??TTS~S??T?q ? 

### 113.8q S2Z8s3%$ 

### 38Z *M-*hManr Cl I ;OO 000 ooo oo ddoooooo dog ooo~~ooeo ooooo o m I 1 ITABLE &-5. AIR QUALITY DATA FOR LEAD



## ........................................................................................................

ARITH GEO ARITIi GEQ STATE COUNTY OBS ElEAN ElEAH 03s HEAN HEAM



# ........................................................................................................ CUYAHOBA FRAtXLIN 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 INDICATESONLY ONE STATIONREPORTIHGI i io ooo
I I m a10 Io a=* urn- 8s nw 8Z88Z8888888888~8Z8=Z~ZSZZZ8Z80"8S8 -uo~-~oJQ~~~~u--oQ~~~F~~FJ~N~~o~~cJ~oIo,N~~ 0 I I O;? W.5' qy ~~~UO~~~UhJ~h~N~N~MNU~~Uh~UUvINuU~N a I I I 10ornu or Sd~ddd~d&ddd&dd&dd&d&dd4d4dd~cj&d&~ WI -I 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~r3NCJN01NN~N 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 SANPATRSCSO 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 INOICATESOtlLY Ot1E STATIOfIREPORTINGTABLE C-6. AIRQUALITY DATA FOR tlAtIGAtIESE



## ........................................................................................................

ARITH 6E0 ARITH 08s HEAN HEAN 00s I1EAM GEO STATE COUNTY MEAN


## ........................................................................................................ AZ APACHE COCONINO ElARICOPA HDllAVE NAVAJO CO LAPLATA 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 INDICATESONLY ONE STATIONREPORTIHGTABLE C-6. AIR QUALITY DATA FOR MASGAIIESE



## ........................................................................................................

STATE COUNTY



# ......................... LXVItlGSTON HARIOll tlEHEIADRIB NODAUAY PETTIS Pi1ELPS PLATTE ST. CHARLES STE. GENEVIEVE SCOTT VERNON ARITH CEO llEAN HEMl 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 RIOARRIBA 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 INDICATESOIiLY ONE STATIOtd REPWTIIJGI 100000 000000000600000000 OOOOUOOOOOOOOOOOOO 01Q*lnh0 000~00000000000000000O00000000000000 m 1 *OVYVYr NCJNNNWNCJNCJNNNNCJNNN NNN~JNC.lNNNCJ*JNNNNNNN 

### O1????O 9????39949?93??0039000??000090~343343 100000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000w0TABLE C-8. AIRWALITY 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 PUTNAH 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 

### .--------------------------------------

STATIONREPORTIttG 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 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 0LOO'O 0100'0 OtOO'O 0100'0 0100'0 O[OO'O 0100'0 OlOO'O 0100'6 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~mm00r0 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 

# ,n=es*es% WCq0114LLXYf3~7~YY ccY s 

### .W22$$ 

# -- ~8d~l~~srnBIs QU~~WAY-DLL~** 

### i9dSfS~PY85r~~ce-r-*

### IPS 

### 3 **U~Yw=~~X4d&rm'"C>>3 

### 5 mom C 

### U4STATE COUNTY



## ................................ BRAZORIA BHAZOS BROIW CALHOUN CAIIERON 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 STATIONREPORTING ARITH HEAt4 

# ------------ 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



## --- 0.0200APPENDIX 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.6lFluorides 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 operations 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 hereported biological half-life of arsenic compounds ranges from 30-60 hours.

### 74,75 

### Those compounds excreted most rapidly tend tobe 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 surfacedeposits 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 inAustria 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 ~ewman9Opresents a state-of-knowledge review of the effects of industrial airpollution 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 themajority 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

### : AirPozzutwn

## ,The Chemical Rubber Co

# ., Cleveland, Ohio (1972) (as cited inRef. 5). 5. Cleland, J.G., 

### and G.E. 

### Kinsbury, Multimedia EnviromentaZ Goalsfor 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 toCongress, U.

### S

# .EPA Report No. EPA 450/5-79-008, Research Triangle Park, N.

### C. (0ct. 1979).
7. 

### 40 CFR 

### 51, 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 theEvaluation of 

### Impacts of Coal-Pir'ed Power PZants onFish, 

### 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, etal,

### Impacts of Coal-Fired PajerPlants on Fish, WiZdZike, 

### adTheir Habitats, U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceReport No. FW~/o~S-78/29, Ann Arbor, Mich. (~ar. 1978). 10. Webster, C.C., 

### fie Effeots 

### of AirPoZZution on P'tanta 

### a& SoiZ, Agri

### cultural Research Council, London (1967). 11. Katy, M., 

### Sulfur %oxide 

### intheAtmosphre 

### and Its ReZatwn toPZant 

### Life, &dust. and Eng

# . Chem., 431

### ~2450-2465(1949). 12. Dvorak, A.J. 

### etal., The Enviromental 

### Wfects of Using Coal for 

### GmemtingEzectricitg

## ,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 onHeaZth 

### and EnviromnentaZ QuaZity

### from MetaZs

### Entering the Efnviroment 

### as a Result 

### of Coal Utizization, Unnumbered Bate1le 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 PhotosynthesisRate 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 Statementfor

### Montana Ambient AirQuatity

### 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 AirCongr. 3rd, Dusseldorf, West Germany (1973) (as cited inRef. 15). 18

# . National Research Council, 

### Ozone 

### and OtherPhotochemicaZ 

### O&dants, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. (1977). 19. Heck, W.W., and D.T. Tingey, Nitrogen 

### Dio&e: The-Concentration Mode2 

### toPredict Acute FoZiarInjury, 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 

### toAirPottutamte, Academic Press, New York (1975)

# . 21. National Research Council, CarbonMomede, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. (1977). 22. Thompson, C.R., and G. Katz, 

### Effects of Continuous82.9RdgatwnonCrop 

### mrd ForestPlants, Envt. Science and Tech. 12:550-553 (~a~ 1978). 23. National Air~ollution'Contro1 Admin'istration, AirQuatityCriteriar for Hydrocarbow, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Va. PB 190489 (1970). 

### 24. Stahl, Q.R., 

### Pretim&uzryAirPOZZU~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 AirPoZZutwnInjury 

### to Vegetation: A Pictork~t 

### Attas, AirPollution Control Administration, 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.

### EffectsofSuZfur Oxides intheAtmoephe~e on Vegetation: Revised Chapter 5

### forAir &uQtityCritePiafor 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 inLeaves Eqosed to SO2 

### and NO2, Nature, 250:443-444 (1974) (as cited inRef. 15). Bennett, J.H., 

### and A.C. 

### Hill,

### Acute Inhibition ofAppentPhotosyrztbsis bg PhytotodcAir

### PoZZutants, her. Chem. Soc. Sympos., 3:115-127 (1974) (as cited inRef. 15). Costonis, A.C., 

### Iniury to 

### Eastern Whitefine by 

### SuZfw lXo&e and 

### Ozone 

### Atomamd inM-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 ItsEffect on the G~mh 

### of n30 

### Forest TreeSpecies, Cottrell Centennial Symposium, AirPollution and 

### Its Impact: on Agriculture, pp. 128-152 (1977) (as cited in Ref. 15). 

### Naeional Research Council

## ,'C%romium: Medicat and 

### Biological Effectsof 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 Chhiqwde Z

### 'actwnsur Za 

### Vegetationd Effluent Gazeul:

### Industria2 Dontenunt du 

### Chrome ~ecuzvaZ&t, PoLlut. Atmos. f8:224-226 (1968) (as cited inRef, 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 TheirResulking TozdcCty 

### toAnhts. Smithsonian InstitutionAnnual Report 1934-35 : 

### 289 (as 

### cited inRef. 9). 

### PreZMrrc~py 

### InveeigatwnofEffects 

### ofBoron, Indium3 Nicket, Selenium, 

### !Pin, Vanadium, 

### a?dneirCompounds, 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 

## %itPoZZutwnby MetaZZic Rust

### from theSudbury Smetters, Proc. Inst. Environ. Sci., 18thAnnual Technical Meeting, New York (1972). Logerwer

### ff

## ,J

### .V.

## ,geavy-Mebat ContaminationofSoiZ8, Agr

# .Qua1

# .Environ

# . pp. 343-364 (1966). Sillmpaa, M., 

### TraceEZements inSoits

### andAgdcutture, United National Food and Agricultural Organization Report, Rome (1976). Budney, Lawrence J., 

### Guidetinesfor Air

### QualityMzintenancePZanning mrd

### Analysis Volume 10 

### (Revised): Boceduesfor 

### EvaZuating Air 

### QwztityImpact of

### New 

### Stationary Sources, U.S. EPA 

### Report No. EPA

### 450/4-77-001, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 

### (Oct

# . 1977).43. 

### General Guidetines Used 

### inDeterwining "de

### minimis" Air QuaZityImpact8 for the Prevention ofSignificantDeterwratwnReguZations, 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

## ,Prioritiesfor 

### New Source Performance Standud under theaeanAir

### ActAmendments 

### of 2977, U.S. EPA Report No. EPA-450/3-78-019, Research Triangle Park, N.C. (April 1978). 46. 

### Guidetine onAir 

### Qwtity ModeZs, U.S. EPA Report No. EPA-450/2-78-027, Officeof Air QualityPlanning 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 ServicePublicationNo. 456, Washington, D. C. (Revised Aug

# . 1964). 48. Coffin, D.L. and H.E. Stokinger, 

### BioZogicaZ EffectsofAir PoZ~utmrt8, AirPollution VII, A.C. .Stern, ed., Academic Press, New York (1977). 

### - 49. Turner, D.B., 

### WorkbookofAtmospheric Dispersion Estimates, U.S. EPA Report No. 99W-26, Research Triangle Park, N.C. (May 1970). 50. Ragland, K.W. 

## ,Worst-Case Ambient ConcentPcrtionsfrom Point Sources Using the ~ss~ PtmeModet, Atmos. Env., 10:371-374 (1976). 51. Busse, A.D., and J.R. Zimmerman, 

### User's Guidefor the CZimatoZogicaZ DispersionModst, Publicat ion No. EPA-RA-73-024 ('NTIs PB 227346)

## ,U. S

# . EPA, Research Triangle Park, N.C. (19731, 52. Briggs

## ,G.A., 

### Chimney

### Plums8 inNeutmZ and 

### Stabte Surroundings, Atmos

# . Env., 6:507-510 (1972). 53. Briggs, G.A., Plume Rise Predictions, 

### Lectures onAir

### PoZZution-

### and EStviromentat Impcrct

### Andyses, D.A. Haugen, Workshop Coordinator, American Meteotological Society, Boston, pp. 59-111 (1975). 54. Larsen, R.I.

## ,A 

### MzthematicatMode2for Re

### ZatingAir 

### QuaZitySta?zdarda, U.S. EPA Report No. AP-89, Research Triangle Park, N.C. (Nov. 1971). 55. Slade, D.H. 

## ,Meteorozogy 

### a?dAtomic Energy, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Office of Information Services (NTIS TID 241901, Oak Ridge, Tenn. (1968). 56. U.S. Department of Canmerce, 

### CZinmaticAtZas ofthe UnitedStates, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (June 1968)

# . 57. Davis, D.D. and H.D. Gerhold, 

### Selectionof Tressfor ToZemmce ofAir Poztutants, Better Trees forMetropolitan 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 derLuftwer schutaing, Wiss

# . 2.. 

### Tech. Univ

# .,Dresden, 

### 20:1171-1173 (1971)

# . Manning, We J

# .,Bio-enuirornentat 

### Impact of Pine ParticuZate PoZZutunts: A 

### Swmnrry Document and CriticalReviev, 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.

## ,AirPoZZutants 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 nuorosisProbZem inLivestock 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 CaZcimFluoride and NomZ 

### EiQyPZus 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 inAgronomy, 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 inDairy Cattle, J. 

### of Dairy Science, 55:790-804 (1972). National Academy of Sciences, Effects of &?uorides inA~~ZB, 

### Washington, D.C. 

### (1974). Phillips, 

### P.H., et 

### al., The Ftuorosis Frobtern inLivestock Production, 

### a Report of theCdtteeonAndmat Nutpition, NAS-NRC Publ. NO. 

### 824 (1960) (as cited in Ref. 9). Formad, 

### R.J., 

### fieEffect of SmelterPwnes upon the Liveetock Industry inthe 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 SnetterSmoke, 

### J

# .American Chemical Society, 30:915-928 (1908)

# . Bischoff, O., 

### Poisioning of Domestic Animals through Copper 

### and Arsenic Containing 

### flyDust, Dent. Tierarztl. Wochschr., 47:442-447 

### (1939).72. Phillips, P.H., 

### %

### 6ffect8ofAir Pottutrmto onPamAnimats, Air Pollution Handbook, Maple Press, New York (1957). 73. Berry, W.L., and A. Wallace, 

### RaceRentente inthebnvimment: nieir ole 

### and 

### ~otential Toxiciiy a8

### Rekted toFo88ii Nels

# -A 

### ReZMmry study, univ. of california, Laboratovof Nuclear Medicine 

### adbdiation Biology (1974).
74 Frost 9 

### D 

## v.

## ,ArsenicaZa inBiology

# -Retroepect &o8pect, Federal Roceedings, 26:194-208 (1967). 75 SuUivan, R.

### J., Air PoiiaitionAspect8 ofApsmk MIt8

# covOunh, Litton Systems, Inc., Bethesda, Md

# . (1969). 7 Allcroft. 8.

## ,Lead a8

### a iVutritionalHazard toPam Livertock

# rv, Diatributbn ofLead inthefieauee ofBovims afterIngestla of Vadous~ead Co?pounds, J. Comp. Pathol. p. Ther., 60:190 (1950). 77. Alcroft F. 

### ,~ead Poi8oning inCattleand Sheep, Vet. RLc., 63:583-590 

# li (1951). t 

# I 78. ~alifornia AirResources Board, 

### A 

### Joint Study 

### ofPb Contamimtion 

# i r, 

### Relative toHome Deaths inth.

### Area ofSouthernSoh County (D=. 

# . 1971) (as cited inRef. 9). 

# f p 79. Hmmond, P.B: 

## ,and A.L. Aronson, 

### Lead Poisoning inCattZe &

### Home8 

# "the ~icinziy ofa9rsZter. Annals of New York Acadayof 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 inHorses, anEnvi~omentot Health Hazad,

I Archives ofEnvironmental Health, 23:185-195 (1971). 81. Vetter, H., 

### ~oad8 a?zd

### Dmage by HeavyMeDZ8 intks

## VicinityofaLed a?d

### zinc ~owrdry inLower &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 Societyofilnerica, Madison, Wisc

# . (1972). 83

# . ~isk, D

# . J.

## ,Dace menrent8 inSoit8, PZant8, andAnimals, Advances 

### in Agronomy, 2#:267-325 (1972). 84. ~hdahl, 8.1.

## ,rnd J.B. Arvik, 

### had

## kSoil8 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 TechnicaZAssessment 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 CattlebyZngestion offie2 Oil

### soot, Tijdschr. Diergeneesk, 89:1300-1304 (1964). 88. Henneman, 

### J.,

### Frequent Occurrmzceof Stomash and IntestCmk Diseases inCattleCaused byIron-Containing Ftue Cases, 

### Wien. Tieraerztl. Monatsschr

# .,18: 

### 225-231 (1931)

# .
f 

### 89. shupe, J.L., 

### Levets of Toxdcity toAnimazs Prooide SodBusisfor 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)

# .TECHNICALREPORTDATA (PleasereadInstructions on thereversebefore completing) 1. REPORTNO. 

## EPA 450/2-81-078 2. 3. RECIPIENTSACCESSION NO.

4.TITLEANDSUBTITLE 

## A Screening Procedure for the ImpactsofAir I 

## PollutionSources on Plants,Soils,andAnimals 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE

+( 7.AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMINGORGANIZATION REPORTNO. 

## A. E. Smith and J. 

## B. Levenson

9. PERFORMINGORGANIZATION NAMEANDADDRESS 10.PROGRAMELEMENTNO. 

# r Argonne National Laboratory

b 

## 9700South CassAvenue 11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO. i 

# 9 Argonne, IL 60439 EPA-IGA-79-D-X0764

12.SPONSORING AGENCY AME ADQRESS - 

## Office ofAir ~uarit~%yannln~ and Standards TYPE F REP RTAND PERIOD COVERED 

## ytnal Repor% U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 14.SPONSORINGAGENCY CODE 

## ResearchTriangle Park,

## NC 27711

15.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16.ABSTRACT 

## Section 165of the CleanAirAct requires preconstructionreviewofmajor emitting facilities toprovide for the reventionof significantdeterioration (PSD) and charges Federal LandManagers (FLMs with anaffirmative responsibility to protect theair quality-relatedvalues ofClass 

## Iareas. Regulations implementing theseprovisions require an analysis of the impairment to visibility, soils,and vegetation (52.21 (0) 

### )

# . The informationand screeningprocedure presented here provide interim guidance: (1) toaid indetermining whether emissionsare significantor whether there are significantairquality impacts under Section 52.21 (0)

## ,and

(2) toaid 

## in flagging sourceswhich should be brought to the attentionof an FLM under Section 52.21 (p)

# . Impacts on vegetationand soils are theprincipal areas addressed by the procedurewhich thus takes a limitedview ofthepossibly broad scopeofair quality-relatedvalues. A selected reviewof impactson faunahas alsobeen included and the odorpotential of regulated pollutants is addressed. This procedure is intended foruse by air quality engineersand is not amanual forthe t of

## impgctson r~

## 1ants, soils,and otherair ciua1it.y-relatedvalues such
17. 

## aswould be suitable for an16m&egtist~~ DOCUMENT ANALYSIS 

# .
a. DESCRIPTORS b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDEDTERMS c. COSATIField/Group



## 6F

18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19.SECURITY CLASS(ThisReport)' 21. NO.OF PAGES 

## Re1easeUnlimited None 117 20.SECURITY CLASS(This page) 22. PRICE d EPA Form2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUSEDITION ISOBSOLETE
--

----

.-2 n

- - 

## EPA

## 450"/Z81-078
\ '

## A Screening Procedurefor the Impacts ofAir Pollution ~inal Report SourcesonPlants,Soils, and Animals

\

UnitedStates EnvlronrnentalProtection Agency OfficeofAir Quality PlanningandStandards U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency Research Triangle Park. N.C.27711

OfficialBusiness Penaltyfor Private Use 5300 PublicationNo. EPA450/2-81-078 Postageand FeesPald Env~ronrnental Protection Agency €PA335