v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Health Effects Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-600 1 79-002
January 1979
Research and Development
Environmental
Carcinogens and
Human Cancer
Estimation of
Exposure to
Carcinogens in the
Ambient Air
;.? 600/1
79-002
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are
1 Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5 Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6 Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8 "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH series. This series
describes research on the effects of pollution on humans, plant and animal spe-
cies, and materials. Problems are assessed for their long- and short-term influ-
ences. Investigations include formation, transport, and pathway studies to deter-
mine the fate of pollutants and their effects. This work provides the technical basis
for setting standards to minimize undesirable changes in living organisms in the
aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric environments.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/1-79-002
January 1979
ENVIRONMENTAL CARCINOGENS AND HUMAN CANCER
Estimation of Exposure to Carcinogens in the Ambient Air
by
Niren L. Nagda
GEOMET, Incorporated
15 Firstfield Road
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760
Contract No. 68-03-2504
Project Officers:
Carl G. Hayes
Population Studies Division
Health Effects Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
and
John A. Santolucito
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
HEALTH EFFECTS RESEARCH LABORATORY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C. 27711
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Health Effects Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The many benefits of our modern, developing, industrial society
are accompanied by certain hazards. Careful assessment of the relative
risk of existing and new man-made environmental hazards is necessary
for the establishment of sound regulatory policy. These regulations
serve to enhance the quality of our environment in order to promote the
public health and welfare and the productive capacity of our Nation's
population.
The Health Effects Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park,
conducts a coordinated environmental health research program in toxicology,
epidemiology, and clinical studies using human volunteer subjects.
These studies address problems in air pollution, non-ionizing
radiation, environmental carcinogenesis and the toxicology of pesticides
as well as other chemical pollutants. The Laboratory participates in
the development and revision of air quality criteria documents on
pollutants for which national ambient air quality standards exist or
are proposed, provides the data for registration of new pesticides or
proposed suspension of those already in use, conducts research on
hazardous and toxic materials, and is primarily responsible for providing
the health basis for non-ionizing radiation standards. Direct support
to the regulatory function of the Agency is provided in the form of
expert testimony and preparation of affidavits as well as expert advice
to the Administrator to assure the adequacy of health care and surveillance
of persons having suffered imminent and substantial endangerment of
their health.
This report is one of a series under the main title Environmental
Carcinogens and Human Cancer. A broad range of objectives directed to the
quantitative assessment of the relationship between environmental exposure
to carcinogens and increased risk of cancer were addressed. Particular
attention was given to development of methodologies and appropriate data
bases as well as to identification of community populations for study of
specific carcinogen-cancer associations. The series of reports documents
the methodologies, resource data, and findings resulting from project
activities.
F. G. Hueter, Ph. D.
Acting Director,
Health Effects Research Laboratory
i i i
-------
ABSTRACT
In this study, a methodology for ambient exposure analysis of
carcinogens was developed based on a pilot study of the Detroit Metropolitan
area. The specific aim of the analysis was to identify high and low
exposure areas within the study area. Four known or suspected carcinogens
and groups of carcinogens: BaP, trichloroethylene, nickel and its compounds,
and cadmium and its compounds were studied. The analysis of ambient exposure
to BaP consisted of the use of the Air Quality Display Model (AQDM) to
simulate levels of BaP which might have existed during 1956 to 1960. The
analysis for BaP involved a multistep procedure. In order to examine the
accuracy of AQDM predicted BaP ambient concentrations, present conditions
(1975-1976) were simulated and compared against known concentrations in the
area. Next, BaP emissions for the period 1956-1960 were estimated by
analyzing past trends for significant sources. This emissions data base,
along with meteorological data for the same period, was used as an input to
AQDM to predict historical exposure to BaP. The analysis for the other
three carcinogens was less detailed than that for BaP. It was comprised
of estimation of emissions and calculation of emission density for each
of the three carcinogens. For nickel and cadmium, it also included a
comparison of spatial variation in emissions with measured air quality
patterns in the Detroit area. The results of this study were very encouraging
in light of the scarcity of data on carcinogens. Excellent correlation
between observed and estimated concentrations was obtained for BaP. In the
case of nickel and cadmium, the estimation between observed and estimated
concentrations was obtained for BaP. In the case of nickel and cadmium,
the estimated emission density patters matched well with observed air quality
patterns. Due to the lack of data on ambient concentrations, a similar
comparison was not possible for trichloroethylene. The carcinogen exposure
patterns developed in this study are being used in the selection of population
samples for an epidemiological study of the area.
IV
-------
r
CONTENTS
Foreword in
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables viii
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary and Conclusions 3
3. Technical Approach 5
Rationale 5
Overall approach 6
Extent of available information 6
Modeling 10
4. Carcinogen Exposure Analysis—Detroit Pilot Study Area .... 20
Selection of carcinogens for exposure analysis 20
Benzo-a-pyrene 23
Trichloroethylene 67
Nickel 67
Cadmium 73
5. References 88
Appendices
A. Point-source data system of Michigan Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) 93
B. Housing data and factors for estimation of 1955 residential
coal consumption 105
C. Emissions data for the Detroit metropolitan study area .... 109
D. Air quality monitoring data for the Detroit metropolitan
study area 118
E. Meteorological data for Detroit metropolitan airport 124
-v-
-------
FIGURES
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
An example of a composite isopleth
The minimum area composite isopleth based on isopleths
for individual years during 1957-76
Isopleth for 1965
Detroit metropolitan study area
A schematic diagram for estimation of BaP emissions
for input to AQDM
CAASE area source grids for Detroit metropolitan
study area
Revised area source grids for BaP emissions
Map of communities in Detroit metropolitan study area . . .
BaP monitoring sites
Reported ambient BaP concentrations in the Detroit study
area, 1958-76
Quarterly BaP concentrations for the NASN site and an
adjacent Wayne County site '04'
1975-76 BaP sources and their emissions
Observed versus AQDM predicted concentrations for six
Wayne County monitoring sites
Predicted and observed 1975-76 ambient BaP concentrations. .
1956-60 BaP sources and their emissions
Predicted 1956-60 ambient BaP concentrations
Characterization of ambient exposure to BaP, 1956-60 ....
Receptor sites for BaP source-contribution analysis ....
Sources of trichloroethylene and their emissions,
1976 .......
Page
17
18
19
21
25
30
32
45
57
58
59
61
62
63
64
65
66
68
70
-VI-
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
20 Trichloroethylene emission density, 1976 71
21 Characterization of ambient exposure to trichloro-
ethylene 72
22 Sources of nickel and their emissions, 1976 76
23 Nickel emission density, 1976 77
24 Ambient concentrations in the Detroit metropolitan
study area, 1971-76 78
25 Ambient concentrations of nickel, 1976 79
26 Characterization of ambient exposure to nickel 80
27 Sources of cadmium and their emissions, 1976 82
28 Cadmium emission density, 1976 83
29 Ambient cadmium concentrations in the Detroit metro-
politan study area, 1971-76 85
30 Ambient concentrations of cadmium, 1976 86
31 Characterization of ambient exposure to cadmium 87
-V11-
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Ranked List of Chemicals with Carcinogenic Potential .... 2
2 Estimated Emissions by Type of Source 8
3 Extent and Quality of Information on Emission Factors .... 9
4 Extent of Available Air Quality Information 11
5 Atmospheric Reactivity 12
6 Selection of Carcinogens for Exposure Analysis in
the Detroit Pilot Study Area 22
7 Nationwide Estimates of BaP Emissions 26
8 Sources Selected for Estimation of BaP Emissions in
the Detroit Area 28
9 Categories of Area Source Emissions 31
10 1976 Coal Consumption for the Detroit Study Area
by Type and Size of Coal-Fired Boilers 33
11 BaP Emission Factors for Coal-Fired Combustion Units .... 34
12 BaP Emission Factors for Sources Other than Coal
Combustion Units 35
13 Size-Dependent Efficiencies of Control Equipment 36
14 Coal Consumption in Electric Power Utilities 38
15 Coal Consumption in Manufacture of Coke 39
16 Coal Consumption Related to Retail Deliveries 40
17 Coal Consumption in Steel and Other Industries 41
18 Factors for Estimating 1956-60 Coal Consumption
for Point Sources 42
19 Number of Coal-Consuming and Total Housing Units
for the Detroit Area 44
-vm-
-------
TABLES
Number Page
20 Coal Consumption in Residential Furnaces by Area Grids ... 46
21 BaP Emission Estimates for Point Sources 51
22 BaP Emission Estimates for Point Sources with Less Than
0.3 kg/yr Emissions in 1975-76 55
23 Estimated 1956-60 Source Contributions at Various
Receptor Sites 69
24 Sources of Nickel Emissions and Their Emission Factors ... 74
25 Emission Control Equipment and Their Control
Efficiencies 75
26 Sources of Cadmium Emissions and Their Emission
Factors 81
-IX-
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
In order to investigate the association between exposure to a carcin-
ogen present in the ambient air and incidence of cancer, high and low carcin-
ogen exposure areas need to be identified. Human carcinogenesis generally
has a long latency period—spanning 5 to 40 years. Such a latency period
implies that identification of current high and low exposure areas is not
sufficient in itself; historical trends in spatial variations must be exam-
ined. Estimation of historical exposure to a carcinogen is possible if
monitoring data on the carcinogen are available for several sites for a
period of years. It is recognized that sufficient information on ambient
concentrations to depict historical and spatial variations is not avail-
able for any of the 23 carcinogens or group of carcinogens selected for
this study (Table 1). The objective of this study was to develop and
apply alternative approaches for characterization of carcinogen exposure.
Based on a pilot study of one area, a methodology for first genera-
tion ambient air exposure analysis of carcinogens was developed. The
specific aim of the exposure analysis was to identify high and low expo-
sure areas within a multicounty study area. This report gives a rationale
and technical approach for the methodology used and describes results for
the first pilot study area—Detroit metropolitan area.
The summary and conclusions of ambient exposure analysis for the
Detroit metropolitan area are presented in the next section. A detailed
discussion of the rationale and technical approach for characterization
of ambient exposure to carcinogens appears in Section 3. Using this
approach, exposures to various carcinogens prevalent in the ambient atmo-
sphere of selected study areas were estimated and analyzed. Section 4
describes available data bases, specific approaches, and results for
each carcinogen included for exposure analysis in the Detroit pilot
study area.
The results of the carcinogen exposure analysis performed in this
task, in the form of spatial gradation or differences in ambient concen-
trations, are used to support an epidemiologic study. In order to
examine the degree of association between high carcinogen exposure and
increased cancer risk, samples of cancer victims and matched control
groups are selected from both high and low exposure areas. The details
of this primary data collection and its analysis will be reported as
the epidemiologic study is completed.
-1-
-------
TABLE 1. RANKED LIST OF CHEMICALS WITH CARCINOGENIC POTENTIAL*
Priority Group
I
Number 1"
Chemical Name
Known or suspected
human carcinogens
II
Carcinogenic to
laboratory
animals
III
Carcinogenicity not
confirmed or chemi-
cal is no longer
produced
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Benzene
Vinyl chloride monomer
A crylonitrile
Nickel and its compounds (primarily nickel carbonyl and nickel
subsulfide)
Ethylene dibromide
Asbestos
Chromium and its compounds (primarily calcium chromate)
Benzo-a-pyrene (BaP)
Arsenic trioxide
Benzidine
Ethylene oxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Chloroform
Vinylidene chloride
Cadmium and its compounds
Dimethyl sulfate
Chloromethyl methyl ether (along with bischloromethyl
Formaldehyde
Tetraethyl lead
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
Beryllium and its compounds
ether)
* Reference 1.
t Ranked within priority group of U. S. production.
-2-
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Due to the generally perceived lack of information on the sources of
carcinogenic substances, their emissions and their concentrations in the
air, ambient exposure analysis would seem impossible at the present time.
This is no doubt true for many carcinogens for which there is little or
no information on emissions or ambient concentrations. However, for some
carcinogens piecemeal information related to emissions and air quality
exists. An attempt has been made in this task to show that various pieces
of information can be integrated to obtain some understanding of differ-
ences in ambient exposures to carcinogens on a subregional basis.
Candidate pollutants for exposure analysis for the Detroit study areas
were chosen based on their carcinogenic risk and feasibility of analysis.
Benzo-a-pyrene (BaP) offered the most promise; it had one of the most com-
prehensive sets of emission factors of the 23 carcinogens selected in this
study. Similarly, some historical air quality data were available for BaP
in the Detroit area. The exposure analysis for BaP consisted of air quality
modeling with a routinely used multisource model to simulate present (repre-
sented by 1975-76) and past (1956-60) ambient concentrations in the study
area. The 1975-76 conditions were simulated to check accuracy of prediction
by estimating concentrations at BaP monitoring sites. The,,agreement between
observed and predicted BaP concentrations was excellent; R = 0.98. The
1956-60 concentrations were estimated to assess past exposures. Past emis-
sions were estimated by analyzing trends for significant sources. The air
quality information for the period 1956-60 was very limited; only 12 monthly
observations were available for one site during 1958-59. No statistical
analysis was possible, but for the one site for which data were available,,
the observed and predicted concentrations were close (observed, 15.0 ng/m ;
predicted, 14.1 ng/m ). Based on the 1956-60 simulation, high and low BaP
exposure areas were identified (see Figure 17, page 66).
Three other carcinogens—nickel,* cadmium,* and trichloroethylene—
were also analyzed for the Detroit study area. However, in these cases,
the data were inadequate for an extensive analysis. Simulation of the
atmospheric diffusion process was not included and only 1976 emission
density and air quality profiles were examined. For nickel and cadmium,
crude air quality patterns developed based on limited data matched well
with emissions profiles. Since emissions and air quality patterns are
based on two independent data bases, the agreement was impressive. The
* Certain metal-containing compounds are identified as carcinogens. However, due to a lack of data
on specific compounds, the analysis and discussion included in this report refers only to metals in their
elemental form.
-3-
-------
high/low exposure areas for nickel and cadmium will be shown in Figures 26
and 31, respectively. In the case of trichloroethylene, no air quality data
were available and uncertainty exists about its behavior in the atmosphere.
Consequently, only limited confidence can be attached to its high/low expo-
sure characterization which is solely based on emissions data (see Figure 21,
page 72).
It has been demonstrated in this task that a first generation charac-
terization of ambient exposure is possible for a limited number of carcino-
gens, primarily, trace metals and combustion products such as BaP. For most
organic chemicals very limited information on emissions and virtually no air
quality concentration data are available. As information on source emissions
and ambient concentrations becomes available, it should be possible to charac-
terize ambient exposures to these chemicals.
-4-
-------
SECTION 3
TECHNICAL APPROACH
RATIONALE
The objective of this study was to estimate variations in ambient
exposure to carcinogens within an area consisting of a few counties. A
detailed exposure analysis requires information on time-varying ambient
concentrations at several locations which are spatially representative.
For more precise estimates of exposure, factors such as indoor-outdoor
concentration differentials, occupational exposure, etc., need to be
addressed. However, these were not within the scope of the present
study.
The extent of information which describes existing levels of car-
cinogens varies from data on ambient concentrations at a few sites in an
area to no air quality data at all. Even when the ambient air quality
data are available, these are seldom sufficient to describe spatial
variations. Historical data which can describe past air quality are
even more scarce. For most carcinogens there is little information
available on past ambient concentrations. Ambient air quality has been
monitored for a few carcinogens but generally it has been limited to one
or two locations in any given region. Consequently, air quality infor-
mation alone cannot describe spatial or historic changes in ambient
exposure to carcinogens, and there was a need to develop another method
for determining high and low exposure areas.
Exposures could be estimated by air quality models which calculate
concentrations at designated locations by simulating an atmospheric dif-
fusion process in the area under consideration. Primary input to these
models comprises information on emission sources and meteorological con-
ditions. Due to uncertainties in the actual diffusion process and
limited emission and meteorological data, results of the model calcula-
tions have to be checked or calibrated against measured concentrations
for a period which is compatible with the input data. Historical trends
in spatial distribution of ambient concentrations could be established
if the air quality model predicts present conditions fairly well, and if
there is some information on past air quality at one or more locations.
For estimating historical emissions, significant emission sources need to
be identified and trends in process parameters relating to those sources
have to be examined. Similarly, the extent of emission control in the
past has to be considered.
The modeling approach may not be justifiable if the input data are
insufficient and no air quality information exists. In such cases, a
simpler analysis such as plotting of emission density would be prefer-
able. Emission density is determined by computing emissions per unit
-5-
-------
area. It does not involve simulation of atmospheric diffusion, yet is
useful in distinguishing between high and low exposure areas. Moreover,
plots of emission density would be of a significant value if there is
some air quality information available to support identification of high
and low exposure areas.
OVERALL APPROACH
The approach for identification of high and low exposure areas within
a study area consisted of the following steps:
• Examination of availability of data on air quality and
emissions
• Selection of an approach for exposure analysis
• Identification of emission sources
• Compilation of appropriate emission factors
t Identification and estimation of factors which can be
used to estimate past emissions
• Estimation of present and historical emissions and prep-
aration of other data bases
• Spatial analysis by air quality modeling, emission-
density plotting and comparison with available air
quality data
• Identification of high and low exposure data.
As mentioned earlier, the extent of information on ambient concentra-
tions and emissions for each carcinogen determines the approach to be taken
for identification of high and low exposure areas. The extent of informa-
tion available for 23 carcinogens is described below. The remainder of this
section discusses air quality models and their input requirements. The other
steps outlined above are described in Section 4 as they relate to each spe-
cific chemical selected for exposure analysis.
EXTENT OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION
The extent of information available on emissions and air quality has
to be examined before an approach can be selected for exposure analysis.
The amount of information varies considerably for the 23 carcinogens.
For some, an extensive analysis is possible, while on the other extreme,
virtually no information exists for many others. An attempt is made here
to describe the extent to which information is available for selected
chemicals with specific reference to types of sources, emission factors,
-6-
-------
air quality measurements, and atmospheric reactivity. The following dis-
cussion addressing these specific points for each chemical is by no means
comprehensive, yet it highlights availability as well as gaps in the data
bases.
Types of Sources
One important consideration here is the nature of the emission sources.
For estimation of emissions and subsequent analysis, it is useful to dis-
tinguish between "direct" sources of a carcinogen, those resulting from its
production or use, and "indirect" sources, those in which the carcinogen
is emitted as a result of some other process (i.e., coal or oil combustion,
petroleum refining, waste disposal, etc.). These direct and indirect sources
can be further classified into point sources, which represent identifiable
sources at a stationary location, or area sources, which are clusters of
mobile or small stationary sources.
The estimated percentages of emissions for each carcinogen from each
of the four classifications of sources are shown in Table 2. Although in
many cases these are crude estimates, they give a general idea of the rela-
tive magnitude of different sources. For example, sources of acrylonitrile
emissions consist only of the processes by which acrylonitrile is manufac-
tured or used. On the other hand, in evaluating exposure to benzene, pro-
duction and various uses of benzene must be considered. However, even
more important in the case of benzene are inadvertent sources such as
automobile evaporative losses and exhaust, gasoline handling, etc., which
do not involve either production or a direct use of benzene.
Emission Factors
Emission factors, when combined with appropriate operating data such
as amount of fuel burned per hour or amount of chemical processed per year,
will yield estimates of emissions. Thus, if operating data are available,
the availability of emission factors for all sources and their quality
will determine the completeness and quality of emission estimates.
Table 3 summarizes information on emission factors using the terms
"partial" and "limited" to describe the completeness of emission factor
data and the terms "source tests," "engineering estimates," and "crude
estimates" to describe the method of determination, or quality, of these
factors. "Source tests" include direct measurement techniques such as
optical emission spectroscopy, neutron activation, etc., and "crude
estimates" indicate either that rough calculations have been made by
methods such as material balances or else that a wide discrepancy exists
between values given in different references. The term "source tests"
does not appear in Table 3, since source testing was not used to deter-
mine emission factors for all sources of a given carcinogen. The term
"varying reliability" is used for carcinogens which have emission factors
of more than one quality.
-7-
-------
TABLE 2. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS BY TYPE OF SOURCE
(in percent of total emissions for each carcinogen)
Chemical (Reference)
Benzene (2)
Vinyl chloride (3)
Acrylonitrile (4)
Nickel G compounds (5)
Ethylene dibromide (6)
Asbestos (5)
Chromium G compounds (5)
BaP(5)
Arsenic G compounds (5)
Benzidine (4)
Ethylene oxide (4)
Carbon tetrachloride (4)
Trichloroethylene (4)
Chloroform (4)
Vinylidene chloride (4)
Cadmium G compounds (5)
Dimethyl sulfate (4)
Chloromethyl methyl ether (4)
Formaldehyde (4)
Tetraethyl lead (4)
Pentachloro phenol (4)
Polychlorinated biphenyl (4, 7)
Beryllium G compounds (5)
Direct *
Point Area
18
< 100
100
small
2
98
77
0
2
100
100
M
unknown
<100
unknown
<100
<1
100
M
unknown "
M
unknown
t
unknown
unknown
10***
6
0
0
0
0
98
1
0
0
33
0
0
small
0
0
0
<1
0
0
0
unknown* §
MJJ
unknown
22 ttt
0
Indirect T
Point Area
0
unknown
0
<59
-.t
<1
18
12
64
0
0
0
small
0
small
< 98
0
0
unknown TT
0
0
68 ^
94
82
0
0
<41
~*
<1
5
88
< 1
0
0
0
0
unknown **
0
unknown
0
0
unknowns §
0
0
0
0
* Production or use of a chemical constitutes a direct source for that chemical.
t Indirect source—sources other than those involving production or use.
T None known.
§ Direct-point sources consist of asbestos mining; other types of sources may have been
underestimated since their estimates of emissions are not available.
W Production and use, emissions unknown.
** Chlorination of water, emissions unknown.
it Incineration of plastics, emissions unknown.
ff Petroleum refining, emissions unknown.
§ § Vehicle exhaust, emissions unknown.
## Used as fungicide and bactericide for treating wood and textiles, emissions unknown.
*** Production banned in 1970; since then, production has declined.
ftt Evaporation of plasticizer in paints and coatings.
•f-f-f Spills, leaks and disposal of PCB used in transformers.
-8-
-------
TABLE 3. EXTENT AND QUALITY OF INFORMATION ON EMISSION FACTORS
Chemical
Benzene
Vinyl chloride
Acrylonitrile
Nickel & compounds
Ethylene dibromide
Asbestos
Chromium & compounds
BaP
Arsenic & compounds
Benzidine
Ethylene oxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Chloroform
Vinylidene chloride
Cadmium & compounds
Dimethyl sulfate
Chloromethyl methyl ether
Formaldehyde
Tetraethyl lead
P ent achlorophenol
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Emission Factors
Availability Quality
limited
partial
partial
partial
limited
limited
partial
partial
partial
none
limited
limited
limited
limited
partial
partial
none
none
limited
none
none
none
engineering estimates
engineering estimates
crude estimates
varying reliability
crude estimates
unknown
varying reliability
varying reliability
varying reliability
--
engineering estimates
engineering estimates
engineering estimates
crude estimates
engineering estimates
varying reliability
—
—
engineering estimates
--
--
--
Reference
8
3
4
4
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
9
4
4
-
ti. -cim •puma." mpli,* ;mu approximately 75 percent or more of the total emissions can
be estimated with the available emission factor.
-9-
-------
Air Quality Data
Ambient air quality measurements are extremely important in assessing
the performance of air quality models to predict ambient concentrations.
Although criteria pollutants, such as particulates, sulfur dioxide, etc.,
are routinely measured at several sites within an urban or rural area, only
very few of the chemicals listed are monitored regularly. The few carcino-
genic substances for which ambient air quality data are available include
elemental metals such as nickel, cadmium, chromium, lead, etc. The partic-
ulate samples collected at the National Air Surveillance Network (NASN)
sites are routinely analyzed for these metals. Several urban and nonurban
sites are included in NASN, and this sampling program, which began in 1966,
provides useful data for trend analysis. However, for most organic chemi-
cals, there is very limited or no air quality information available.
Table 4 summarizes available air quality data; details are reported
elsewhere (4).
Atmospheric Reactivity
Reactivity of a chemical in the atmosphere determines whether that
chemical will persist, be converted into more harmful substances, or will
decay and be transformed into innocuous material. Information on this
aspect of the 23 selected carcinogens is generally insufficient for any
extensive analysis of atmospheric transformation. However, available
information could be useful for determining gross behavior of the chemi-
cal emitted into the atmosphere. Data presented in Table 5 are extracted
from reference 4.
MODELING
As indicated in the previous section, emissions of some of the car-
cinogens occur from a limited number of sources, while emissions of other
carcinogens, especially those resulting from various combustion processes,
involve large numbers of sources. In order that both types of situations
could be examined, two diffusion models were selected. EPA's single source
(CRSTER) model was selected for small numbers of point sources having the
same geographical location, and the Air Quality Display Model (AQDM) was
used for multiple sources.
Both AQDM and CRSTER have been extensively used for some of the cri-
teria pollutants, especially particulates and sulfur dioxide. Their use
for estimation of atmospheric transport of specific carcinogens has not
been reported. One of the aims of this task was to develop a methodology
for determining carcinogen exposure. We have used the two established
models to see if these are adequate for a first-generation diffusion anal-
ysis of carcinogens.
-10-
-------
TABLE 4. EXTENT OF AVAILABLE AIR QUALITY INFORMATION
Chemical
Available ambient air quality data
Benzene
Vinyl chloride
Acrylonitrile
Nickel G compounds
Ethylene dibromide
Asbestos
Chromium & compounds
BaP
Arsenic & compounds
Benzidine
Ethylene oxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethy lene
Chloroform
Vinylidene chloride
Cadmium & compounds
Dimethyl sulfate
Chloromethyl methyl ether
Formaldehyde
Tetraethyl lead
Pentachlorophenol
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Beryllium & compounds
several urban sites, limited period of measurements *
source-oriented, limited period of measurements
none
NASNt
source-oriented, limited period of measurements
source-oriented, limited period of measurements
NASN
NASN
NASN
none
none
limited number of sites, limited period of measurements
limited number of sites, limited period of measurements
limited number of sites, limited period of measurements
none
NASN
none
none
NASN data for 1967, otherwise limited
no specific data, limited measurements for elemental lead
none
source-oriented measurements for a single source
NASN, air quality levels tend to be near lower discriminatory limits
of analytical techniques
* Limited period of measurement implies less than 1 year of continuous measurements.
t National Air Sampling Network.
-11-
-------
TAB IE 5. ATMOSPHERIC REACTIVITY
Carcinogen
Half-life period
Remarks
Benzene
Ethylene dibromide
Asbestos
Chromium &
compounds
BaP
Arsenic trioxide
Benzidine
Ethylene oxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Chloroform
3 days (reaction with OH radical)
Vinyl chloride
Acrylonitrile not known
Nickel & compounds not known
days (OH radical)
days (ozone)
not known
stable
not known
< 1 day (degradation of BaP on surface of
soot particle in presence of sunlight)
stable
4 days (RO2)
1 day (03)
1 day (OH)
not known
> 10 years
not known
reacts slowly with oxidizing
materials
reacts with oxidizing
materials
nickel carbonyl decomposes
quickly; no data on other
compounds
reacts with oxidizing mater-
ials; decomposes by photo-
chemical degradation
subject to reentrainment
no data
much longer for BaP present
inside the particle or in
absence of daylight
can be diazotized and
oxidized
undergoes reduction
inert
photochemical degradation
by reductive chlorination
1 to 2 months (OH radical in the troposphere) highly reactive in tropo-
sphere; undergoes thermal
reactions
Vinylidene chloride several hours
Cadmium & compounds
Dimethyl sulfate
not known
1170 hours (oxidation by OH radical)
1 to 2 hours (hydrolysis)
quite reactive and believed
short-lived in the
atmosphere
no data
(continued)
-12-
-------
TABLES(cont'd)
Carcinogen
Half-life period
Remarks
Chromethyl ethers
Formaldehyde
Tetraethyl lead
Pentachlorophenol
Polychlorinated
biphenyls
BCME: < 1 day (moist air)
< 10 days (OH radical)
CMME: < 1 day (moist air)
2-3 hours
not known
not known
not known
Beryllium oxide & other not known
beryllium compounds
some variations in half-
lives are reported by
different sources
photochemically reactive,
but may be a significant
contribution to smog in the
atmosphere
undergoes decomposition
when exposed to sunlight
no data
photochemical degradation
by reductive chlorination
no data
-13-
-------
Uncertainties in estimating atmospheric transport of substances by
diffusion modeling are well recognized (10, 11). Similarly, due to uncer-
tainty in emission factors data, estimation of emissions is also subject to
potentially large errors. Despite these limitations, it was felt that if
sufficiently complete input information is available and if some actual
measurements of ambient air concentrations are available for verification
of the results of the model, the uncertainty in the results could be min-
imized.
For both models, AQDM and CRSTER, preparation of input data was mostly
analogous to input for criteria pollutants. One significant deviation for
their use is estimating past carcinogen exposures was in the selection of
representative time periods for meteorological data (discussed on page 15).
Brief descriptions of the two models follow.
AQDM (12)
The computer program used in AQDM is based on the Gaussian diffusion
equation which describes the spreading, or diffusion, of a plume as it is
transported downwind from an elevated, continuously emitting point source.
The model is utilized here to compute annual, arithmetic-averaged, ground-
level pollutant concentrations resulting from specified point and area
sources. The model calculates the effects of each source on each receptor
for the observed combinations of wind direction, wind speed, and stability
class. The relative frequency of occurrence for each combination is then
included as a factor, and the resulting data are summed for each receptor
over all combinations and all sources. The plume is assumed to be normally
distributed about its center line (i.e., a Gaussian distribution) in the
vertical direction and distributed as a linear function of crosswind dis-
tance in the crosswind direction. The required input includes the fol-
lowing.
Receptor Data--
Up to 225 receptor locations corresponding to the intersections in
a horizontal grid pattern having equidistant rectangular coordinate
spacing are included. A limited number of nongrid receptors can be
included.
Point and Area Source Data—
For each point source the location, average annual emission rate
(tons/day), and exhaust stack parameters must be specified. The stack
parameters (physical stack height, stack exit diameter, effluent exit
velocity, and effluent temperature) are used to obtain the effective
height of release (i.e., the height at which the plume becomes horizon-
tal) for use in the diffusion calculations. If the stack parameters are
not known, an effective stack height value may be used. For each area
source (assumed square in shape) the area, centroid location, average
annual emission rate, and effective height of release must be input.
-14-
-------
Stability Wind Rose Data—
This data base gives the relative frequency of occurrence for each
wind direction, wind speed class, and stability category combination as
observed for the region and time period of interest. To prepare this
meteorological input, a computer program called STAR (STability ARray),
which generates frequencies of wind direction by speed classes for each
stability category, is used in conjunction with meteorological surface
elevations.
Mixing Depth —
The mixing depth is defined as the depth above the surface through
which the pollutants are mixed. Since this depth varies greatly from
season to season, day to day, and diurnally, it is only practical to
account for major changes. The program uses a single input value, the
annual average afternoon mixing depth, and modifies it according to the
stability class.
CRSTER (13)
CRSTER is the single source model designed to calculate ambient con-
centrations of pollutants emitted from multiple elevated stacks located
at a single location. This model is also based on the Gaussian plume equa-
tion and uses empirical dispersion coefficients. As in AQDM, computations
include adjustments for plume rise and limited mixing height. However,
unlike AQDM, the effect of terrain is considered in CRSTER.
Hourly pollutant concentrations are computed in CRSTER from measured
hourly values of wind speed and direction and estimates of atmospheric
stability and mixing height. Concentration estimates are made for 180
receptors (36 radial directions and five ring distances) surrounding a
plant location. Input data required are basically similar to those listed
for AQDM with the addition of receptor elevations relative to the source.
Actual hourly meteorological data are required instead of frequency distri-
bution used by AQDM. Since the number of sources is limited in this model
and computation time required is small, it offers greater flexibility.
Selection of Time Span of Meteorological Data
The primary aim of air quality modeling in this project was to esti-
mate past exposures, specifically, to estimate concentrations over a
period of 20 to 30 years to identify high and low exposure areas. An
idealized approach for estimation of past exposures would be to model
concentrations for each year during this timespan, which represents
the latent period for cancer. The obvious drawback of this approach
was that, even though meteorological data for each year were available,
year-to-year changes in emission rates were not expected to be available
for any carcinogen. Consequently, it was evident that a more limited
timespan for meteorological data could be used without significantly
sacrificing the accuracy of results.
-15-
-------
In the case of AQDM used for the Detroit pilot study area (Section 4),
a 5-year average of meteorological frequency distribution was employed as
recommended by Doty et al. (14). CRSTER was not used for the Detroit area
but a different and logically more attractive approach in selection of time
span of meteorological data was possible for the single source model. Use-
fulness of this approach is limited to the purpose of the task, i.e., to
find high and low exposure areas.
The approach consisted of identifying a year which, when used as input
base for meteorological data, the model would effectively simulate extreme
conditions (high or low) during the 20-year period. To identify a year for
such an extreme case, first the CRSTER model was used to draw isopleths for
a certain constant concentration for each year from 1957 to 1976. The data
on emissions and stack parameters were kept the same for all 20 computer runs.
Thus, the effect of emissions and stack parameters was controlled and differ-
ences in the shapes of 20 isopleths represented the influence of meteoro-
logical conditions alone. Next, the isopleths for individual years were
combined to give a "minimum area" composite isopleth, the rationale being
that during any of the 20 years, average annual concentrations inside the
composite isopleth will always be greater than the isopleth concentration.
By properly choosing a concentration for drawing isopleths, the composite
isopleth would then represent the outer boundary of a high exposure area for
the time period of analysis. Lastly, for selecting a year, the isopleths
for individual years were compared with the composite, and a year for which
an individual isopleth most closely matched the shape of the composite was
selected.
An example of a composite isopleth based on isopleths for 3 years repre-
senting the period 1962-64 is shown in Figure 1. The inputs to CRSTER for
each year were identical except for the yearly meteorological data (emission
rate, 1 g/s; stack height, 100 m; diameter, 1 m; exit velocity, 1 m/s; and
temperature, 350 K). The isopleths were drawn for an arbitrary but constant
concentration of 15 concentration units. The three isopleths were superim-
posed on each other and an inside boundary representing a minimum area was
plotted. Any point within the composite (shaded area in Figure 1) would, by
definition, have an annual average concentration for each of the 3 years
which is greater than or equal to the isopleth concentration.
The process illustrated above for the period 1962-64 was repeated for
the entire 20-year span. Figure 2 shows the 20-year composite isopleth
for Detroit. When the isopleths for individual years were compared with
this composite, the isopleth for year 1965 matched most closely with the
composite (Figure 3). The meteorological data for 1965 used as input to
CRSTER would thus give isopleths for identifying "high exposure" areas.
For identifying areas which area definitely lower than the isopleth con-
centration, a similar process was repeated by drawing a composite based
on a "maximum area" isopleth.
-16-
-------
•••• •**
4>
"a
f ^
s
r
\
r\
V
/
V
I/r~^.">-—•
CTI
T-t
f-l
O
c
^.. /
/ -^
5
^
"S,
o
o
o
rt
<+H
o
-17-
-------
00
I
rt
3
-a
-a
o
IU
"a.
d
o
T3
-------
•5
-------
SECTION 4
CARCINOGEN EXPOSURE ANALYSIS-
DETROIT PILOT STUDY AREA
The Detroit metropolitan area (Figure 4), consisting of Macomb, Oakland,
and Wayne Counties, was selected as the first pilot study area for carcinogen
exposure analysis and subsequent epidemiological survey. The following cri-
teria were used in the selection of the pilot study area:
t The study area must include a county or counties which
have significantly high mortality rates for individual
cancer sites. In order to eliminate counties which
have high cancer rates due to occupational exposure,
the rates must be high for both males and females.
• To facilitate statistical analysis, in addition to
significantly high rates, the absolute number of
deaths should be large.
• The county with high cancer rates should have an
adjacent county which has rates significantly lower
than national averages. Inclusion of counties with
extreme rates would permit selection of population
samples from high carcinogen exposure areas as well
as low exposure areas for examination of association
between environmental exposure to a carcinogen and
increased cancer risk.
• In order that up-to-date information is available,
the potential study area must be included in either
the Third National Cancer Survey or the continuing
cancer Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results
(SEER) reporting program.
Only the Detroit, Michigan and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania metropolitan
areas met these criteria. Subsequently, the Detroit metropolitan area was
selected as the first pilot study area.
SELECTION OF CARCINOGENS FOR EXPOSURE ANALYSIS
From the list of 23 carcinogens selected in this study (1), substances
which have potential for emissions in the Detroit area were identified. The
potential for emissions was determined based on emissions inventory, produc-
tion and use of a chemical, or air quality information. Table 6 identifies
carcinogens which may be emitted in significant quantities in the Detroit
area. Next, for these chemicals, the adequacy of emission factor data was
-20-
-------
r
! WAYNE COUNTY
.1 ,
IIGIND
. INTIUMATIONAL BOUNDAIT
, COUNVT KOUNOARY
MUNICIPAL ftOUNOAUr
... ixrmsswAr
IXPRISSWAT UN01K CONSTRUCTION
Figure 4. Detroit metropolitan study area.
-------
TABLE 6. SELECTION OF CARCINOGENS FOR EXPOSURE ANALYSIS
IN THE DETROIT PILOT STUDY AREA
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Potential for
Significant Adequacy of
Emissions Emissions
Chemical Name in Detroit Data
Benzene DCP*
Vinyl chloride monomer
Acrylonitrile
Nickel & compounds AQ X
Ethylene dibromide
Asbestos
Chromium & compounds
BaP DCpt, AQ X
Arsenic trioxide
Benridine
Ethylene oxide DCP
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene MDNR§ X
Chloroform
Vinylidene chloride
Cadmium & compounds AQ X
Dimethyl sulfate
Chloromethyl &
bischloromethyl ether
Formaldehyde DCP
Tetraethyl lead
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB)
Beryllium & compounds AQ X
Exposure
Exposure Analysis by
Analysis Emissions
by Modeling Density
X
X
X
X
* Directory of Chemical Producers (15)
^ Air Quality Data (16)
f As a by-product of coke production
§ Michigan Department of Natural Resources point-source data system
-22-
-------
examined. Insufficient emissions or source data existed for three organic
chemicals: benzene, ethylene oxide and formaldehyde. Further, no infor-
mation on ambient air concentrations was available for these three chemi-
cals. Consequently, they were excluded from further consideration.
Limited data on emission factors were available for nickel, BaP,
cadmium, and beryllium. BaP offered greatest potential for an in-depth
analysis since emission factors data were more extensive than others and
some historical air quality information was available. Ambient concentra-
tions of BaP were simulated by air quality modeling. Nickel and cadmium
had comparatively limited air quality and emission factors data, and thus
were not included for extensive analysis similar to BaP. Emission densi-
ties were calculated for nickel and cadmium. In the case of beryllium,
even though emission factors and air quality data were available, levels
of ambient concentration were very low—near its detection limit—and thus
it was not included in the exposure analysis.
For trichloroethylene, emission factors per se were not available, but
the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) emissions data system
(discussed later in this section) listed the amount of trichloroethylene
used as annual makeup solvent in each establishment. All makeup solvent
was assumed to be emitted. Since no air quality data for trichloroethylene
were available, only an emission density analysis was performed.
BENZQ-A-PYRENE
BaP is a component of a family of compounds known as polycyclic organic
matter. It has been suspected for approximately the last 40 years of being
carcinogenic to humans (17). Possibly for this reason, BaP has been studied
more extensively than many other carcinogens.
One of the earliest studies on BaP ambient concentrations in the
United States was done by Sawicki et al. (18). Detroit was included in
this study as one of the nine urban sites where BaP concentrations were
measured for a 12-mo period beginning in July 1958. Routine measurements
of ambient BaP concentrations began in 1966 at the National Air Surveil-
lance Network's (NASN) 126 urban and 22 nonurban stations in the United
States. A trend analysis of BaP concentrations prevalent during 1966-70
showed a downward trend (19, 20). As shown later in the discussion on
BaP air quality data, this trend does not agree with measurements taken
in Detroit since 1971.
Contributions to ambient BaP levels due to automotive exhaust (21)
and coke oven emissions (22) have been analyzed. Fewer studies exist on
concentrations of BaP in effluent streams from specific sources (23, 24).
-23-
-------
Emissions
Sources--
A schematic diagram of the general procedure followed in estimation
of BaP emissions for input to AQDM is given in Figure 5. It involved
parallel considerations of sources and emission factors. Sources of BaP
and their nationwide estimates of emissions are given in Table 7. Esti-
mates I and II in Table 7 represent the information available at the start
of BaP exposure analysis for the Detroit area and these were used in the
initial selection of type of sources to be included for estimation of
emissions. Emission estimates under Estimate III were available after
emissions and air quality computations were completed.
Sources included in the initial considerations were:
• Coal-fired utility and industrial boilers and indus-
trial furnaces
• Oil-fired utility and industrial boilers
• Gas-fired utility and industrial boilers
• Petroleum refining
• Coke production
• Asphalt production
• Incineration
• Automobiles.
To include the above categories of sources, data on both point and area
sources were necessary. Initially, point-source data were obtained from
the National Emissions Data System (NEDS). NEDS data appeared to be incom-
plete and a contact with the State of Michigan Department of Natural
Resources revealed that Michigan has its own source and emissions data
system. This data system contains information quite similar, but not iden-
tical, to that in NEDS. For identification of source categories, instead
of the Source Classification Codes (SCC) used by NEDS (28), the Michigan
system contains a list of equipment. The MDNR list of sources, their codes,
and other information are given in Appendix A. Sources selected for esti-
mation of BaP emissions are listed in Table 8.
In contrast to point sources for which data are available on an
individual source basis, the smallest geographic unit for which area-
source data exist is the county. The county data have to be disaggregated
and apportioned to smaller areas to provide an adequately detailed input
for modeling. Since coal-fired residential furnaces account for over one-
third of nationwide BaP emissions, a careful consideration of area sources
-24-
-------
2
Q
53 c
a o
8 *
O
-25-
-------
TABLE 7. NATIONWIDE ESTIMATES OF BaP EMISSIONS (tons/yr)
Source
Estimate I* Estimate II t Estimate III'
Detroit Pilot Study
Area
Combustion
Coal fired
power plants
industrial boilers 7
residential furnaces
Other solid fuel
domestic store 25
residential fireplaces
Oil fired
industrial boilers
comm/inst boilers
residential furnaces
Gas fired
industrial boilers
comm/inst boilers
residential furnaces
Industrial Processes
Petroleum catalytic cracking
fluid
Thermofore 7
Houdriflow
Coke production 170
Asphalt production
saturate rs
air blowing
hot road mix
Other industrial processes
iron G steel sintering
carbon black production
0.6 0.
8.6 0.
410.0 26.
40.
0.
1.5 19.
0.
0.
1.2 0.
0.
0.22 0.
13.0 0.
5.6 0.
0.
0. 00005 0.
46
057
0
0
37
0
98
019
4
31
00023
0012
0048
0044
0044
0.00005 0.0044
0.63
0.088
Included
Included
Included
No data
No data
Included but not
significant
Not included
Included but not
significant
Not included
Included
No sources
No sources
Included
Included but not
significant
Not included
Not included
* Estimate I: Preferred Standards Path Report for Polycyclic Organic Matter (25)
t Estimate II: Goldberg, A. J. (26)
T Estimate III: Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. , Draft Report (27)
(Continued)
-26-
-------
TABLE 7 (Cont'd)
Source
Estimate I*
Detroit Pilot Study
Estimate II t Estimate III T Area
Incineration/Open Burning/Fires
Incinerators
Municipal
Commercial
Open burning
Municipal refuse
Auto components
Grass/leaf
Agricultural G forest fires
Bagasse boilers
Forest fires
Coal refuse burning
Mobile Sources
Automobile (gasoline)
Automobile (diesel)
Trucks (diesel)
Rubber tire wear
10
25
11
310
11
0.1
4.8
4.8
5.7
4.8
0.027
2.1
8.6
2.0
11
310
16
0.0009
0.13
11
Included
Included
No data
No sources
No data
Included but not
significant
Not included
Not included
-27-
-------
TABLE 8. SOURCES SELECTED FOR ESTIMATION OF BaP EMISSIONS IN THE DETROIT AREA
Process
Equipment
Equipment
code*
Open burning
Incinerators
Heating
Coal burning boilers
Turbine generators
Asphalt blowing
Coke production--
by-product process
Petroleum refining--
catalytic cracking
Open burning 0001
Single chamber 0005
Multiple chamber 0006
Flue fed 0007
Controlled Air 0008
Conical Tee Pee 0009
Liquid waste 0010
Municipal 0011
Multiple hearth—sewage sludge 0012
Fluidized bed—sewage sludge 0013
Other type 0014
Warm air furnaces—coal fired 0016
Hand fired 0019
Underfed stoker 0020
Spreader stoker 0021
Other type stoker 0022
Pulverized corner fired 0023
Pulverized other type 0024
Cyclone type 0025
Gas turbine—gas fired 0026
Gas turbine—oil fired 0027
Blowing still 0300
Coke battery 0700
Fluid cracking unit 0980
MDNR point-source system given in Appendix A.
-28-
-------
was necessary. An area-source data file used in air quality maintenance
planning for metrpolitan Detroit by MDNR was available but it contained
aggregated criteria pollutant emissions which were not directly usable in
computation of BaP emissions (29). EPA has developed a computer-aided
gridding procedure to apportion fuel-usage and other data for counties
to smaller areas. This system, called Computer Assisted Area Source Emis-
sions (CAASE) (30), was not fully operational for general application when
this study was being performed. However, 1970 data for the Detroit study
area were available as test-case results of CAASE (31). The area-source
file for the three-county area consisted of 2024 grids with sizes ranging
from 1 to 100 km (Figure 6) and for 54 categories (Table 9). Categories
No. 2 and 27, representing residential fuel combustion and automobile gaso-
line usage, were selected for initial evaluation. In order to reduce com-
puter time required for modeling, grids were aggregated and the total
number of grids was reduced significantly. The revised grids are shown
in Figure 7.
Emission Factors--
Work done by Hangebrauck et al. (24, 32) and von Lehmden (23) provides
much of the bases for emission factors summarized in different forms in sev-
eral references (5, 25, 33, 34). Initial computations for BaP emissions
showed source categories such as coal combustion and coke ovens to be
important, but asphalt blowing and automobiles were not significant. In
the case of coal combustion, the emission factors data were found to be
inadequate for different types of coal-fired boilers and their sizes con-
tained in the MDNR point-source data system (Appendix A). Coal consumption
was examined by type of boiler and its size in the study area (Table 10).
The detailed emission factors data given by Hangebrauck (32) were used to
estimate appropriate emission factors for coal-fired boilers and furnaces
(Table 11). Table 12 lists BaP emission factors for other sources.
Efficiencies of Control Equipment—
BaP emissions are known to be associated primarily with particles
less than 3 ym in size (37). The small-size particles are difficult to
control and, depending on the type of control equipment, the efficiencies
for smaller sizes could be considerably lower than those for overall parti-
cle size distributions. Efficiencies for particle size-range of 0 to 5 ym
were used for calculating controlled emissions.
Information on type of control equipment was included in MDNR point-
source data. This information was used to obtain control efficiencies for
small-size particles (Table 13), with one exception. In the case of coke
ovens, the information on control equipment for coke ovens yielded effi-
ciences of 95 to 99 percent for less than 5 ym particles. These were
judged to be unrealistically high and were not used. Instead, control
efficiency estimates obtained from EPA Region V Office (38) were used
in estimation of BaP emissions from coke ovens.
-29-
-------
o
-------
TABLE 9. CATEGORIES OF AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS*
CATEGORY
NUMBER
MAJOR
CLASSIFICATION
MINOR
CLASSIFICATION
1 RESIDENTIAL FUEL
2 RESIDENTIAL FUEL
3 RESIDENTIAL FUEL
4 RESIDENTIAL FUEL
5 RESIDENTIAL FUEL
6 RESIDENTIAL FUEL
7 COMMERCIAL & INSTITUTIONAL
8 COMMERCIAL & INSTITUTIONAL
9 COMMERCIAL & INSTITUTIONAL
10 COMMERCIAL & INSTITUTIONAL
11 COMMERCIAL & INSTITUTIONAL
12 COMMERCIAL & INSTITUTIONAL
13 INDUSTRIAL FUEL
14 INDUSTRIAL FUEL
15 INDUSTRIAL FUEL
16 INDUSTRIAL FUEL
17 INDUSTRIAL FUEL
18 INDUSTRIAL FUEL
19 INDUSTRIAL FUEL
20 INDUSTRIAL FUEL
21 ON-SITE INCINERATION
22 ON-SITE INCINERATION
23 ON-SITE INCINERATION
24 OPEN BURNING
25 OPEN BURNING
26 OPEN BURNING
27 GASOLINE FUEL
28 GASOLINE FUEL
29 GASOLINE FUEL
30 DIESEL FUEL
31 DIESEL FUEL
32 DIESEL FUEL
33 AIRCRAFT
34 AIRCRAFT
35 AIRCRAFT
36 VESSELS
37 VESSELS
38 VESSELS
39 VESSELS
40 EVAPORATION
41 EVAPORATION
42 MEASURED VEHICLE MILES
43 MEASURED VEHICLE MILES
44 MEASURED VEHICLE MILES
45 MEASURED VEHICLE MILES
46 DIRT ROADS TRAVELED
47 DIRT AIRSTRIPS
48 CONSTRUCTION LAND AREA
49 ROCK HANDLING & STORING
50 FOREST FIRES
51 SLASH BURNING
52 FROST CONTROL
53 STRUCTURE FIRES
54 COAL REFUSE BURNING
ANTHRACITE COAL
BITUMINOUS COAL
DISTILLATE OIL
RESIDUAL OIL
NATURAL GAS
WOOD
FUEL ANTHRACITE COAL
FUEL BITUMINOUS COAL
FUEL DISTILLATE OIL
FUEL RESIDUAL OIL
FUEL NATURAL GAS
FUEL WOOD
ANTHRACITE COAL
BITUMINOUS COAL
COKE
DISTILLATE OIL
RESIDUAL OIL
NATURAL GAS
WOOD
PROCESS GAS
RESIDENTIAL
INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL & INSTITUTIONAL FUEL
RESIDENTIAL
INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL & INSTITUTIONAL FUEL
LIGHT VEHICLE
HEAVY VEHICLE
OFF-HIGHWAY
HEAVY VEHICLE
OFF-HIGHWAY
RAIL LOCOMOTIVE
MILITARY
CIVIL
COMMERCIAL
ANTHRACITE COAL
DIESEL OIL
RESIDUAL OIL
GASOLINE
SOLVENT PURCHASED
GASOLINE MARKETED
LIMITED ACCESS ROADS
RURAL ROADS
SUBURBAN ROADS
URBAN ROADS
AREA-ACRES
AREA-ACRES
ORCHARD HEATERS
NUMBER PER YEAR
SIZE OF BANK
* Reference 30
-31-
-------
o
LO
o
Tf
r-
o
on
c-
o
(NJ
c-
o
r-
o
o
o
en
CD
03 |
CD i
o
CO
CD
O
LO
CO
DETROIT METROPOLITflN flREfl
'.80
!90
HO
320 330
350
360
Figure 7. Revised area source grids for BaP emissions.
-32-
-------
TABLE 10. 1976 COAL CONSUMPTION FOR THE DETROIT STUDY AREA
BY TYPE AND SIZE OF COAL-FIRED BOILERS*
MDNR
Equipment
Code
019
020
021
022
023
024
Boiler
Handfired
Underfeed stoker
Spreader stoker
Other stoker
Pulverized corner- fired
Pulverized other type
Annual Coal Consumption in
Boiler Size, MBtu/h
<1 1-10 10-100
400 2,200
400 35,700 36,200
114,000
300 68,200
3,500 2
1
Tons
>100
212,700
239,900
,349,700
,188,500
* Based on Michigan Department of Natural Resources point-source data.
-33-
-------
TABLE 11. BaP EMISSION FACTORS FOR COAL-FIRED COMBUSTION UNITS
(Uncontrolled Emissions)
MDNR
Equipment
Code
019
020
021
022
023
024
--
Boiler
Hand-fired *
Underfeed stoker *
Spreader stoker T
Other stoker §
Pulverized corner-fired ff
Pulverized other type **
Residential coal-fired
furnaces 'T
Emission Factors in g/ton of Coal
Boiler Size, MBtu/h
<0.2 0.2-10 10-100
45.0 4.5
1.1 0.14 0.003
0.0018
0.0018 0.0018
0.002
23.0
100+
0.003
0.0014
0.002
0.002
* For capacities less than 0.2 MBtu/h, three values from Hangebrauck et al. (32) were averaged to
give 45 g/ton; this value combined with a scaling factor based on carbon monoxide emission
factors (35) was used to compute the emission factor for size 0.2 to 10 MBtu/h.
t Factors of 1.1 g/ton for units smaller than 0. 2 MBtu/h and 0.14 g/ton for units of capacities
between 0. 2 and 10 MBtu/h were calculated by averaging several values from Hangebrauck (32).
A factor of 0,003 g/ton presented in the Preferred Standards Path Report for Polycyclic Organic
Matter (25) was used for larger capacity stokers.
^ Factors of 0.0018 g/ton for units smaller than 100 MBtu/h and 0.0014 g/ton for units larger than
than 100 MBtu/h were calculated using data from Hangebrauck (32) and assuming a multiple
cyclone efficiency of 63 percent for particles less than 5 mm in size.
§ The emission factor was assumed to be the same as for spreader stokers.
ff A value of 0.002 g/ton was calculated from Hangebrauck (32) assuming a multiple cyclone
efficiency of 63 percent.
** A factor of 0.012 g/ton was calculated by averaging 13 values from Hangebrauck (32) using
efficiencies of 63 percent for electrostatic precipitators.
"H" Calculated assuming equal fraction of<0. 2 MBtu hand-fired and underfeed stoker furnaces.
-34-
-------
TABLE 12. BaP EMISSION FACTORS FOR SOURCES
OTHER THAN COAL COMBUSTION UNITS
MDNR
Equipment
Code
0700
0980
0005-
0008
—
Source
Coke production (36)
Petroleum refining (5)
Incineration (5)
Automobiles (34)
P re- 1964
1968-1970
Post-1970
Emission
Factor
2.0*
0.00024*
0.31
170
30
<11
Unit
g per ton of coke
produced
g per barrel of crude
processed
g per ton of refuse
burned
vg per gallon of
gasoline
ng per gallon of
gasoline
nq per gallon of
gasoline
* Uncontrolled emissions
-35-
-------
TABLE 13. SIZE-DEPENDENT EFFICIENCIES OF CONTROL EQUIPMENT*
MDNR
Control
Equipment
Codet
01
02
03-04
05-06
07
10
13
Control Equipment
Settling Chamber
Single Cyclone
Multi cyclone
Low Efficiency
High Efficiency
Scrubber
Low Efficiency
High Efficiency
Venturi Scrubber
Fabric Filter
Electrostatic Precipitator
Low Efficiency
High Efficiency
Particle Efficiency, percent
Particles-
All Sizes <5 um
58.6
65.3
74.2
93.8
93o6
98o5
99,5
99.7
97.0
99,0
7.5
12.0
25.0
63.0
85.0
93.0
99.0
99,5
72.0
97.0
* Reference 35
* See Appendix A, Table A-3
-36-
-------
Historic Data for Point Sources--
For estimation of BaP emissions during 1956-60, trend data were exam-
ined for significant sources such as coke production and coal combustion.
No historic data were compiled for two other point-source categories, petro-
leum refining and incinerators. However, it was assumed for all sources
that during 1956-60 no air pollution control equipment was in operation.
Trend data on coal consumption were obtained from the Bureau of Mines
(BOM) publications (39). Major categories for coal consumption involving
BaP emissions used in BOM publications were electric utilities, coke and gas
plants, other industries, and retail deliveries. Since categories in the
MDNR data were not directly comparable to BOM categories, the latest sets of
data from both sources were analyzed to group categories from MDNR files
which are comparable to BOM categories:
BQM Catgegories MDNR Category Groupings
Electric utilities All boilers with >60 MBtu/h
and with SIC number 4911
Other manufacturing All other boilers with >60 MBtu/h
industries
Retail deliveries All boilers >60 MBtu/h capacity
Coke and gas plants Coke
Data on coal consumption for the period 1956 to 1974 for these four
categories are given in Tables 14 through 17. The pre-1962 data are given
as U.S. totals only, and no separate data for Michigan were available. U.S.
totals were apportioned to Michigan based on the average Michigan/U.S. ratio
for the post-1962 period. Trends in consumption for Michigan were used for
the study area. Procedures for estimation of 1956-60 coal consumption
based on the information contained in Tables 14 through 17 and the MDNR
data is given in Table 18. The ratios of average annual coal consumption
in 1956-60 to 1974, as given in Table 18, were used for estimation of
1956-60 emissions.
Historic Data for Area Sources--
Out of the two categories of area sources, preliminary estimates of
emissions based on 1970 data showed that BaP emissions from automobiles
were much smaller and practically insignificant compared to emissions from
residential fuel combustion. Due to significant decreases in BaP predicted
for catalyst equipped automobiles (34), this situation was unlikely to
change for 1975-76 even though coal usage also had declined by approxi-
mately 50 percent from 1970 to 1975. Consequently, BaP emissions from
automobiles were not considered for 1975-76. Automobile emissions during
1956-60 may have been important and were considered in an indirect manner
described in the section on modeling.
-37-
-------
TABLE 14. COAL CONSUMPTION IN ELECTRIC POWER UTILITIES*
Coal Consumption
U.S., Michigan, Ratio: Michigan/U.S.,
Year thousand tons thousand tons percent
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
154,983
157,398
152,928
165,788
173,882
190,833
223,032
264,202
294,739
318,921
348,612
390,068
t
—
—
—
—
12,276
14,690
18,464
20,832
23,244
21,424
20,623
6.4
606
7.0
7.1
7o3
6.1
5.3
* From Bureau of Mines, Minerals Yearbook, 1960 through 1974 (39),
t No data.
-38-
-------
TABLE IS. COAL CONSUMPTION IN MANUFACTURE OF COKE*
Year
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
Coal Consumption
U.S., Michigan, Ratio: Michigan/U.S.,
thousand tons thousand tons percent
101,870
104,547
75,563
77,354
79,375
72,923
86,732
93,523
89,497
94,581
86,213
t
—
—
—
—
4,249
5,309
5,012
4,914
4,942
5,378
5o8
6ol
5=4
5.5
5.2
6.2
* Reference 39
t No data
-39-
-------
TABLE 16. COAL CONSUMPTION RELATED TO RETAIL DELIVERIES*
Coal Consumption
U.S., Michigan, Ratio: Michigan/U.S.,
Year thousand tons thousand tons percent
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
48,670
35,710
35,620
29,140
30,400
28,188
19,615
19,965
15,224
12,072
8,748
8,840
t
—
—
—
—
2,358
1,771
1,831
1,474
1,008
649
351
8.4
9.0
9,2
9.7
8.4
7.4
4,0
* Reference 39
t No data
-40-
-------
TABLE 17. COAL CONSUMPTION IN STEEL AND OTHER INDUSTRIES*
U.S. Coal Consumption
Other Manufacturing and
Steel Industry* Mining Industries,
Year in thousand tons in thousand tons*
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
7,189
6,938
7,268
6,674
7,378
7,495
7,319
7,117
5,657
5,410
4,850
6,155
93,302
87,202
81,372
73,396
76,487
78,766
82,928
89,332
82,637
82,909
67,131
57,819
Reference 39
Includes a selected list of representative manufacturing
plants.
-41-
-------
VI
W
U
PM
£3
O
in
0
tf.
2
"Z
o
t-H
D
!
U
(J
<£
o
U
0
VO
1
s
2
o
fc
H
^
a
r"*
i
w
PC
O
00
qj
o
U
<
^
00
'—I
a
CQ
^1
H
to
cu
°£
-M
to
•a
c
H 1
—
i-
CD
_C""
^ >
O
U
"^
^"
U
r—
UU
r—
\U
<1J
to
s-
O)
.E
-1 ^
o
to
0)
^ il
•»->
-^ U
O 3
0 "O
0
S-
Q-
O)
S- -r-
o •—
O- f-
• ^
CD
O
•k
0
LO
CO
A
CM
00
O
o
Cfi
LO
co
o
o
fl
1""^
CO
o
0
o
vo
1
*
^-^
v>
i — c:
it] O
0 4J
•o
• c:
• 4->
S-
0) C
> o
u
•r—
^*-^
O C
ai
o u
+J OJ
to Q.
<-»^ ^*->
a; •
(O •
(U
> o
c
o
C 1 ^
CDTD
•i- c:
-E 10
O CS)
i- 3
I— •«->
(O ^^^
3
C C
c o
<£••-
0 D.
1 3
vo to
LO C.
en o
i— O
.[ ^
LO
LO
r—
VO
-H-
cn
1— >
CO
A
f*^
LO
t~
LO
CO
tin
CO
LO
LO
•t
^J-
CO
CM
vo
CD"
CM
c
o
•r—
4_>
a.
E
3
to
o
o
^— .
ra
o
to
c c
«a o
•r*
-C TJ
0 E
S w
«d- O
cr> +->
i
,
«
t—
^~
•
i —
cr>
CO
•
r—
LO
•
o
^i"
(x^
r— CTi
*O r—
o
0 O
4->
CO O
3 VO
E 1
c vo
«=E LO
en
a» i—
CD
(O E
S- T-
ai
> E
< 0
(^ +^
O CL
E
0 3
•r- (/)
•«-> C
•r- O)
^1 O
r^ o s-
i— -i- 3
z: o
O «/)
+-^ t-_ i
O -M
^j- Cf_ c
1 •!—
O.
0) Z
(O
to is) t/>
•O O (O
QQ Z ID CQ
* +- -H- un
-42-
-------
The residential coal combustion data obtained from CAASE were for
1970. Thus, in addition to estimation of coal consumption in the past,
updating the data for 1975-76 was necessary. Two factors were considered
in estimation of change in coal usage over a period of time for a county
subarea. First trends in coal-burning residential furnaces in the three
counties were obtained. The Census of Housing (40) contains information
which was used to examine this trend. Secondly, the county trends in coal
consumption were adjusted to consider changes in population patterns within
a county. This "adjustment" was done based on data on changes in occupied
dwelling units for subcounty areas. The following relation was used to
estimate the coal consumption for a subcounty area for year YY based on
coal consumption data for 1970.
cc
= cc
Subcounty, YY ~ Subcounty, 1970 \CC
(subcounty 1970 coal consumption) x
/county coal consumption\ /subcounty population
\ trend factor ' \ shift factor
or
(subcounty 1970 coal consumption) x [subcounty correction faetor for year YYJ
where CC is the coal consumption in residential furnaces and DU is the
number of occupied dwelling units.
The census data on residential coal-burning furnaces are given in
Table 19.
TABLE 19. NUMBER OF COAL-CONSUMING AND TOTAL HOUSING UNITS FOR THE DETROIT AREA*
Year
1950
1960
1970
Macomb
Coal- Consuming
20,755
7,709
1,079
Total
Occupied
49,935
106,995
171,644
Housing Units
Oakland
Coal- Consuming
47,890
12,978
1,093
Total
Occupied
107,835
188,986
264,566
Wayne
Coal- Consuming
343 , 100
128,309
25,175
Total
Occupied
662,555
784,668
830,737
* Reference 40
-43-
-------
From the census data, the following factors were computed to account
for the trend in residential coal consumption in each county:
Macomb Oakland
Ratio of 1975 to 1970 county coal
consumption factors 0.48 0.44
Ratio of 1955 to 1970 county coal
consumption factors 12.0 24.1 8.5
In updating data for 1975 a trend factor of 0.5 was used; population shifts
were not considered.
To estimate coal consumption in residential furnaces in 1955, correc-
tion factors (coal consumption trend factor X population shift factor) were
computed for subcounty areas, i.e., communities within the three counties.
Appendix B gives 1955 and 1970 occupied dwelling units for each community
(41, 42) and lists calculated population shift and correction factors. The
communities are shown in Figure 8. For determining a correction factor for
each area-source grid, the grid map (Figure 7) was superimposed on the com-
munity map and appropriate correction factors were obtained. Table 20
gives coal consumption for each grid for years 1970, 1975 and 1955 along
with the correction factors for computation of 1955 coal consumption.
Estimation of Emissions--
Estimates of BaP emissions from point sources for 1956-60 and 1975-76
are given in Table 21. The approach for estimation of emissions consisted
of the following steps:
t Trend factors given in Table 18 were used to estimate
1956-60 process rates based on 1975-76 data.
• Uncontrolled emissions for 1956-60 and 1975-76 were
calculated by using emission factors listed in
Tables 11 and 12.
• Controlled emissions were computed based on control
efficiencies for particle size less than 5ym given
in Table 13.
As mentioned earlier, only trends for coke production and coal combus-
tion were investigated. No adjustments were made for 1956-60 rates for incin-
erators and petroleum refining. However, it was assumed that no control
equipment were in operation during the period 1956-60. Table C-l in Apendix
C gives detailed point-source emissions data in the AQDM-input format and
includes data on stack parameters. (In Table C-l, source numbers 1 through
49 are point sources.) Emissions from smaller point sources with 1975-76
emissions of less than 0.3 kg/y were aggregated for each county and were
treated as area sources. Table 22 lists emissions from these small-point
sources by source type (source numbers 180 to 197 in Table C-l).
-44-
-------
Figure 8. A Map of communities in Detroit metropolitan study area.
-45-
-------
TABLE 20. COAL CONSUMPTION IN RESIDENTIAL FURNACES BY AREA GRIDS
Coordinates of Grid Centers, km
X
285
285
285
285
285
292.5
292. 5
292.5
292.5
292.5
292.5
292.5
292.5
295
295
295
295
302.5
302.5
302.5
302.5
302.5
302.5
302.5
302.5
302.5
302.5
305
305
305
Y
4745
4735
4725
4715
4705
4677. 5
4682. 5
4687. 5
4692. 5
4697. 5
4707. 5
4712.5
4717.5
4670
4725
4735
4745
4677. 5
4682.5
4687. 5
4692. 5
4697. 5
4702. 5
4707. 5
4717.5
4722. 5
4727. 5
4670
4735
4745
Correction Factor
for 1955
24.9
24.0
19.6
23.3
21.0
5.9
5.4
3.7
2.7
4.0
21.5
20.3
20.3
4.9
18.0
21.3
19.7
5.2
5.5
2.9
3.2
3.5
15.3
13.2
21.8
23.4
23.4
7.2
21.5
29.7
Coal Consumption
1970
20
10
30
20
20
60
30
20
50
30
10
10
10
100
60
10
10
90
270
300
230
250
40
50
30
30
10
100
70
20
1975
10
5
15
10
10
30
15
10
25
15
5
5
5
50
30
5
5
45
135
150
125
125
20
25
15
15
5
50
35
10
in Tons
1955
500
240
590
470
420
350
160
70
130
120
210
200
200
490
1080
210
200
470
150
870
800
800
610
660
650
700
230
720
1510
590
(continued)
-46-
-------
TABLE 20. (continued)
Coordinates of Grid Centers, km
X
307.5
307.5
307.5
307.5
307.5
307.5
307.5
307.5
307.5
307.5
307.5
312.5
312.5
312.5
312.5
312.5
312.5
312.5
312.5
312.5
312.5
312.5
312.5
312.5
312.5
315
315
317.5
317.5
Y
4677. 5
4682. 5
4687.5
4692. 5
4697. 5
4702.5
4707. 5
4712.5
4717.5
4722.5
4727.5
4662. 5
4667.5
4672.5
4677.5
4682. 5
4687.5
4692.5
4697. 5
4702. 5
4707. 5
4712.5
4717.5
4922.5
4727.5
4735
4745
4662.5
4667. 5
Correction Factor
for 1955
5.2
4.5
5.1
3.2
3.5
15.3
13.2
13.9
21.8
24.4
23.4
5.9
5.4
6.2
4.9
4.9
5.8
6.8
8.4
12.9
13.4
11.6
11.6
36.4
31.3
18.7
17.7
4.9
5.2
Coal Consumption in Tons
1970
40
290
590
330
330
150
40
30
20
60
30
70
50
100
290
580
610
660
660
290
40
40
30
150
70
60
20
40
190
1975
20
145
295
115
115
75
20
15
10
30
15
35
25
50
145
290
305
330
330
145
20
20
15
75
35
30
10
20
95
1955
21
1300
3010
1060
1150
2290
530
420
440
1460
700
410
270
620
1420
2840
3540
4490
5540
3740
540
460
350
5500
2190
1120
350
200
990
(continued)
-47-
-------
TABLE 20. (continued)
Coordinates of Grid
X
317.5
317.5
317.5
317.5
317.5
317.5
317.5
317.5
317.5
317.5
317.5
317.5
322.5
322.5
322.5
322.5
322.5
322.5
322.5
322.5
322.5
322.5
322.5
322.5
322.5
322.5
325
325
327.5
Centers, km
Y
4672. 5
4677. 5
4682.5
4687.5
4692. 5
4697. 5
4702. 5
4707. 5
4712.5
4722. 5
4727.5
4657.5
4662. 5
4667. 5
4672.5
4677. 5
4682.5
4687. 5
4692. 5
4697. 5
4702. 5
4707. 5
4712.5
4717.5
4722. 5
4727. 5
4735
4745
4682. 5
Correction Factor
for 1955
5.3
6.0
7.8
9.0
10.0
10.0
17.0
20.2
33.3
22.6
22.6
5.6
5.6
4.9
6.2
8.0
9.1
9.4
10.0
10.0
32.5
39.8
19.9
13.5
19.8
21.7
17.5
23.8
10.0
Coal Consumption
1970
310
630
520
410
1110
1110
310
130
150
40
10
20
20
70
250
570
610
800
1330
1130
400
290
90
10
20
40
30
10
70
1975
155
315
260
205
555
555
155
65
75
20
5
10
10
35
125
285
305
400
665
565
200
145
45
5
10
20
15
5
35
in Tons
1955
1640
3800
4060
3690
11100
11100
5270
2630
5000
900
230
110
110
340
1550
4560
5550
7520
13300
11300
13000
11540
1790
140
400
870
520
240
700
(continued)
-48-
-------
TABLE 20. (continued)
Coordinates of Grid Centers, km
X
327.5
327.5
327.5
327.5
327.5
327.5
327.5
327.5
327.5
332.5
332.5
332.5
332.5
332.5
332.5
332.5
332.5
332.5
335
335
337.5
337.5
337.5
337.5
337.5
337.5
340
342.5
Y
4687.5
4692.5
4697. 5
4702. 5
4707. 5
4712.5
4717.5
4722.5
4727. 5
4687.5
4692.5
4697. 5
4702. 5
4707. 5
4712.5
4717.5
4722.5
4727.5
4735
4745
4692.5
4697. 5
4702. 5
4707. 5
4712.5
4717.5
4725
4692. 5
Correction Factor
for 1955
10.0
10.0
10.4
37.8
19.4
13.5
13.5
20.1
22.8
10.0
10.0
10.5
14.0
14.0
4.6
3.6
10.2
9.7
11.2
15.4
10.0
10.0
13.9
10.8
4.6
5.9
13.0
8.4
Coal Consumption in Tons
1970
1080
2170
1350
410
180
50
10
10
20
700
1360
1010
350
110
40
60
20
20
20
20
930
310
360
140
60
20
20
340
1975
540
1085
675
205
90
25
5
5
10
350
680
505
175
55
20
30
10
10
10
10
465
155
180
70
30
10
10
170
1955
10800
21700
14040
15500
3490
680
130
200
460
700
13600
10600
4900
1540
180
220
200
190
220
310
9300
3100
5000
1510
280
120
260
2860
(continued)
-49-
-------
TABLE 20. (continued)
Coordinates of Grid Centers, km
X
342.5
342.5
342.5
342.5
342.5
345
347.5
347.5
347.5
347.5
350
352.5
355
355
Y
4697. 5
4702. 5
4707. 5
4712.5
4717.5
4735
4702. 5
4707. 5
4712.5
4717.5
4725
4717.5
4735
4745
Correction Factor
for 1955
8.1
16.8
15.2
6.4
9.7
18.8
14.6
14.6
11.1
16.9
14.6
10.6
19.2
21.7
Coal Consumption in Tons
1970
800
320
200
80
30
10
30
20
60
80
20
20
20
10
1975
400
160
100
40
15
5
15
10
30
40
10
10
10
5
1955
6480
5380
3040
510
290
190
440
290
670
1350
290
210
380
220
-50-
-------
s
u
pi
^
o
00
H
2:
S.
Pi
o
w
H
P
01
w
Z
O
t/5
a
PL]
a,
rt
pa
•
CM
TABLE
«£>
^
-H" <*
JC
c
o
'«
"p ^
*** s
—
-3 "u £
llg
o u ^
U ^ ""~
(3
s" ?
*« "o «
E c w
S « —
«3l<
*
c
V
c
1 "
" 1
3
~* £
1 1
1
•3
O (O
1 M?
o m
U 0%
c -•
D
tN-
in
K
^ 1
o o ^
•s £ o
_w O ^
t§ ^ *
^
i s
II
#
*
Type of
Source
(Equipment
m in o> in ro oo
—i ro eo ro oo in
O CM «-< -^ m •*
tN -» ^ O-i O *O
IN. *o rg o\ in «
CT\ r^ in -H o ro
ro -H »-(»-(
ml
^1 0 -i O O O O
1 i£> m to \o \o \o
ro|
(*\
~l
ro|
(Ml
«l
§§»§§§
SCO N. TH «tf- O
IN IN. Oi m in
!§§§§!
N. *o -^ & o m
rN ro rj o\ in \o
ot t/> in *H o CM
N i-i l-H »-l
^^. ro O in *-i *H O
TP IM 5 — •«*• ro <*
u ro ro *-* ^ co -H
_g o\ M m tN to oo
U J*
« OO (M ro m '-"
O m CM CM co in in
c o *o m tN. o rn
o co r- r-- in in O
t- —4 ro m co tN 01
*""' rJ
O O 00 00 CO 00
°0 O^ rO ro ro ro
< < sfl (Q (Q (4
i
•S o
e g
c S
w ^^
J£ C
as
rO
t~ (M -^
J 0* CJ
rO 10 ~
ra <-! rg
^
00
in O O
CM
•£>
fO
0\
m
•* 0, O
O
ro in in
° 00
•* O IN.
tN. in vo
« m o
rg" -T rT
^* O IN
IN. m >£J
CM WO
n *H N
*~* Q\ "DOW
> ro p in oo
-s - I
5 * I
1 o .S o .
J2 Ci *-, 5 rj
O Cs O O O\
a "f S «" »"
£ 5:_ (2
c,
CM m m
§ ° °'
0
i ii
E S I g
S "g o" go
!!S- 11
^H
-T
-i
_?
o
0
^*
o
o
c\)
in
O^
"
CM
8
^
ro
ro
CS)
ro
ro
m
0*
1
rr>
N
O
1
£
a
<
-51-
-------
T3
(U
3
C
C
8
a
CO
111
E S
•S
CM Oi
O O O 0 0
o *•* ^
co O in
-* 00 CM
-I o
-! o
(Ml
ooooooooooooooooooooo
roo
^•in
in m in in m in
tn in inm
§
^8
rri W w
-52-
-------
T)
(U
P
•a
R
_8
*
§
^
s
t^ r-
c
o
8
7; o
t >o
UJ '
— ' « — •
0 C £
o | S,
ttl
- 5 I
iii
w
t
s
a.
i!
1
3
~ i?
1 2
•a
s o
B 2
1 s
to
c Si
S. "
K
&
Proress
1956-60
8 f I
I S
11
X) 3
g 2
*
Type of
Source
(Equipment (I
s s s sssstsssaES
O O »-« O O ffO O O O O •** O O
S w § u- \o o o o (M « tnrvico
mi
IMl
ml
Ml
^looooooooooooooooo
BiSRtSSSSSSSSKSggg
!IIII!!!!II!I!II!
"tT
s
•a
V
^
Q *O *O *-< *O VO t^- ^ «-i
U ™
LO in in m t/) in
c 7s 2-
II °
o\ o\ in
•*•*'*
0 0 O
? 5 S
O 0 O
in in o
o\ o\ in
in in m
-« o o
*H
oo ON Oi
in
S 55 £
-53-
f
-------
T3
tu
rJ
c
tfj
c
8^
t— i
n
OJ
5 "
w t^-
c m
£.
0
et
&
tn
S °
S VC
2 <0
£ S
O*
e
3 S o
^ o S
1 £ ~»S
£ "* a
e
V
£ 8
J= .0
J* E
3 3
§ 2
UJ
#
*t
"o « p
^§ E
?lf
5
CT* 0*1 r-*
»$• ro m
o o o
O TJ- 00
\O TP 00
0 n -.'
m|
~l
"1
-1
r
"1
"I
*-*jOOOOOOOO cococococo
O O O O O
CTiOi^-Tj-oorororo oo oo DO oo oo en
co.Orxin^«cMOi^ co co oo oo o ^
«-i ^ «-!«-««-« CM CM CM N <£J
CM
r^i-iPO^fMOOiMfM •* V ^" •* ]2! •*
^•cociincM^coco 4 -3- -* 4 2 N
•-I »•» <-« CM CM ft ft ft ft T*i^
*~*
^.torxr-w^pOooco t^ r>- f» r** -v CM
e«r)VomcMin«»-i*-< ^f^^^i*^
O -* co ro ^ ^- •^^••^'M'O
^ _ ^H ^t 4-1 CO
"8
E
OCM-^-Tj-oOOOOO *tDVO«3cOfO
U^rM3t'i«*|ootj'*oo cocococor^.«5
^^t^tnooo^f*^ »-i«-trti-i«-*Oi^i«H rMPOCMrJCMCM
.r*H^-com v tNt^t^N.in
y, »
cocorocococo CMCMCMfMCMrJ
SSoSSS^^ 888880
OOOOC3OOO OOOOOO
OOOOOt't' OOOOOOOOOQ^
ssssss&x s s s a s s
•0 •& T3 ^T
JiSes- «^S§
3 "fill ?2|!
j-Sle -3 g^S
(3 D u 8
^ e*. m
CO 10 *
o o o
O in Q
CM CO 80
^ ^ O
CM
t^
rv. r^. h- Is- **• r^-
& S3
rv)
s ™ °° s s S; &
2 S S S S
0
co co co co co co en
OOOOOO
ooinmcococo*ri»"*Tj
corMOON.f,r^KOQ
(K> >G \O *& V> 00 9o
O01CM1D«J^«>QQ
^-iT^ij'cOtoco'OOO
^ CO CO CO **> 'C ^
tn o o oo oo oo oo in in
•^•iftPOCMrjPOCMCMCM
ro(Mm10
-------
TABLE 22. BaP EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR POINT SOURCES WITH LESS THAN 0.3 kg/yr
EMISSIONS IN 1975-76
1956-60 Annual Emissions
Coal-fired boilers
Incinerators*
1975-76 Annual Emissions
Coal-fired boilers
Incinerators
Macomb
4.3
2.6
0.5
2.6
Oakland Wayne Total
3.2 74.5 82.0
4.3 19.3 26.2
0.6 8.2 9.3
4.3 19.3 26.2
* Same as 1975-76 estimates.
-55-
-------
Emission estimates for area sources are given in Table C-l, source
numbers 50 through 179. The coal consumption figures for 1955 and 1975
given in Table 20 and emission factors listed in Table 11 were used to
compute emission estimates. Stack height was assumed to be 10 m for all
area sources representing residential coal combustion.
Air Quality Data
Ambient BaP concentrations in Detroit have been measured by at least
four organizations or investigators over a timespan of approximately 20
years. Figure 9 shows locations of monitoring sites and indicates periods of
measurements. Pre-1960 measurements are available only for one site and for
1 yr in duration (18). The NASN monitoring program for BaP which began in
1966 offers long-term trend data. However, the uninterrupted continuous data
measurements in the Detroit area are also for only a single site (43, 44).
In 1968, BaP measurements at several sites in the Detroit-Windsor area (three
in Detroit) were performed under a United States-Canada International Joint
Commission Study (45). Fairly comprehensive spatial measurements are avail-
able for Wayne County since 1971 (16).
BaP air quality data for the period 1958 through 1976 are plotted in
Figure 10. Concentrations at the NASN site show a clear downward trend.
Such a trend is not evident for Wayne County sites. Similarly, BaP con-
centrations measured at the NASN site were close to the lowest observed
concentrations among the six Wayne County sites. The NASN site is between
two Wayne County sites, '02' and '04', and all three lie almost on a
straight line. The concentrations at Wayne County site '04' and the NASN
site are plotted in Figure 11. No clear explanation for the differences
between NASN and Wayne County measurements was found; techniques for
laboratory analysis were basically the same for both. EPA has been using
an improved method (46) since 1972; the improvements primarily relate to
increases in the number of samples that can be analyzed, the specificity
and sensitivity of the method, and the reproducibility of results (47).
However, it was speculated that these reasons may not be sufficient to
address the apparent differences in NASN and Wayne County measurements.
One factor that may account for the difference is that the instruments
for NASN measurements were at a height of 75 ft (22.5 m) above the ground.
whereas the the Wayne County measurements were done at a standard height
of 12 to 13 ft (3.6 to 3.9 m) above ground. If the combined effective
height for all BaP sources was less than 75 ft (22.5 m), it is possible
that the measurements at a higher elevation would be substantially less
than ground measurements.
For calibration purposes, the 1975-76 air quality monitoring data for
six Wayne County sites were used. The 1958-59 measurements offer only a
check point in estimation of past ambient concentrations. Detailed BaP
monitoring data for the Detroit area are given in Appendix D (Tables D-l
through D-4).
-56-
-------
DETROIT METROPOLITflN RREfl
Sawicki 1958-59.
NASN 1966-
X UC 1968
Wayne County 1971-
(numbers above symbols indicate
site numbers as referred to in
Appendix D)
280
360
Figure 9. BaP monitoring sites.
-57-
-------
o
-13
«3
S_
01
o
c
o
o
Q.
(O
CO
15--
14 ••
13--
12- •
11 ' '
10- -
9- -
8--
7--
6- '
5 • -
4--
3 --
2--
1--
0
i
00
in
VO
cn
NASN Detroit Site
N
Wayne County
Site 05
Wayne County Average of
f\ Six Sites
/ v
V \
\
•• Wayne County v
• «t Site Oil
.
H h
UD
cr>
(30
CTl
o
r»^
O1
c\j co
CT> CT>
LT)
Year
Figure 10. Reported ambient BaP concentrations in the Detroit study area, 1958-1976.
-58-
-------
7 --
6 --
E
CD
c
*t
c.
o
"3
OJ
o
Q-
(O
CQ
4 "
2 --
1 --
Wayne County
'04'
-1971 1 1972 4—1973 -| 1974 f—1975-
Year
Figure 11. Quarterly BaP concentrations for the NASN site
and an adjacent Wayne County site '04'.
-59-
-------
Modeling
As mentioned previously, AQDM was used in modeling of ambient BaP
concentrations for present and past conditions.
1975-76—
Emissions data for 1975-76 given in Appendix C were used. The BaP
sources and strength of their emissions are depicted in Figure 12. The
1975 and 1976 meteorological data for Detroit Metropolitan Airport were
converted into STAR frequency distributions for each year. An average of
these two distributions was used since part of the emissions data was for
1975 and others were for 1976 (Table E-l in Appendix E). One hundred and
eighty-two grid receptors were used and, in addition, concentrations were
also predicted for the six Wayne County monitoring sites. The observed
versus predicted concentrations for these monitoring sites are shown in
Figure 13. The agreement between the observed and predicted was excel-
lent; 98 percent of the variation in the observed values was accounted for
(R = 0.98). The least-square regression line is shown in Figure 13, but
it was not used for calibration. The regression line was such that it
tended to reduce the differential between low and high concentrations. Two
separate regression lines,^one for low concentrations or for concentrations
below approximately 2 ng/m and the other for larger concentrations, may
have reduced the problem but the total number of points was judged to be
too small for such analysis. Instead, no calibration line was used in
estimating past exposures.
Isopleths for 1975-76 BaP concentrations are shown in Figure 14. Note
that even without any calibration, the observed concentrations at the moni-
toring sites are consistent with the predicted isopleths.
1956-60—
The BaP emission sources for 1956-60 and their relative emission rates
are shown in Figure 15. (See Appendix C for detailed data.) Averaged
annual meteorological frequency distributions for the period 1956 through
1960 were used (Appendix E, Table E-2). The AQDM-predicted concentrations
and isopleths are shown in Figure 16. It was indicated earlier in this sec-
tion that emissions from mobile sources were insignificant compared to area
emissions from coal-fired residential furnaces and thus were not included
in simulating 1975-76 conditions. However, it is possible that in 1956-60,
due to higher emissions from older cars, automobile BaP emissions might have
had a significant impact. The traffic data for 1956-60 were not available
in a format from which emissions could be computed. A precaution was taken
to ascertain that the low-concentration areas predicted by the model were
not erroneously labeled as low due to exclusion of automobile emissions.
A traffic density map for that period was superimposed onto the predicted
BaP concentration map (Figure 16); areas with low BaP concentrations, but
with high vehicular travel density, were excluded from "low" concentration
areas. Resultant high and low exposure areas are shown in Figure 17.
-60-
-------
o
LD
o
•
-------
15 --
C
(U
o
C
o
o
D_
fO
CQ
•o
O)
>
S-
d)
10 •-
5 --
Least Square Regression Line
A
Y =0.58x + 0.94
R2 = 0.98
10
15
20
Predicted BaP Concentration, ng/nT
Figure 13. Observed versus AQDM predicted BaP concentrations
for six Wayne County monitoring sites.
-62-
-------
0.3 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.7 O.I
O.I 0.8 0.4 0.4
).3 0.4 0.5 0.7
0.4 0.4 O.S 0.7
DETROIT METROPOLITflN flREfl
BENZO(fl)PYRENE
CONCENTRRTIONS
1975-76
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 O.S 0.8 N /1.2
NRNOORRHS PER CUBIC METER
O.Z 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.
MONITORINO SITE LOCflTION
( ) HITH HEflSURED CONCENTRATION
280
36C
Figure 14. Predicted and observed 1975-76 ambient BaP concentrations.
-63-
-------
o
LD
r-
o
•^
•*_
o
en
O
CM
r-
o
T—4
r-
o
o
o
CD
CO
•>*•_
o
oo
CD
•<*•_
o
r-
CD
O
CD
CD
•*_
O
ID
CO
OR
OH
OH OH OR OR OH OH
OH OR OR OH OH OH
OR OR OR
OH OR
OH OR OH OH OR
OH OH OH OH
o°'
OH OH OR OR O1** O
OH OR OR OR
DETROIT METROPOLITflN flREH
BENZOmPYRENE
EMISSION SOURCES
1956-60
o 30 KO/YR
- 300 KO/YR
- 3000 KO/YR
('A1 indicates area source)
280
290 300 310 320 330 340 350
Figure 15. 1956-60 BaP sources and their emissions.
-64-
-------
DETROIT METROPOLITAN PREfl
BENZO(H)PYRENE
CONCENTRRTIONS
1956-60
Figure 16. Predicted 1956-60 ambient BaP concentrations.
-65-
-------
DETROIT METROPOLITflN RRER
,Vj High Exposure
Low Exposure
310320330340 3
280
300
50
36C
Figure 17. Characterization of ambient exposure to BaP, 1956-60.
-66-
-------
As mentioned before, no spatial air quality data were available for
the period for which BaP concentrations were predicted. Consequently, no
spatial analysis was possible. However, for the single site for which
12-mo BaP measurements were available, the agreement between observed and
predicted was good (observed, 15.0 ng/m ; predicted, 14.1 ng/m ).
In order to evaluate the importance of the sources to BaP concentration,
the source contributions were analyzed for five sites. Sites were chosen so
that different source-impact areas were represented (Figure 18). The source
contributions by major categories are presented for these receptor sites in
Table 23. As expected, coke ovens contributed significantly (over 25 per-
cent in all cases) and the heaviest contribution is to the site nearest to
coke ovens. Area sources representing coal-fired residential furnaces were
also judged equally important; and for sites away from coke ovens, they were
dominant. Other point sources including industrial and commercial boilers,
incinerators and petroleum refining contributed generally less than 10 per-
cent.
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Trichloroethylene is widely used as a vapor degreasing solvent for fab-
ricated metal parts, and this process results in substantial atmospheric
emissions. Although it has not been associated with cancer in humans, recent
positive tests on animals have caused increasing concern about this chemical.
Unlike NEDS, Michigan's point-source data system includes a separate category
for trichloroethylene under "organic solvent use" (equipment code 0031 in
Appendix A). Amount of solvent usage per year was included in the data, but
no emission factors were available. It was assumed that all trichloroethyl-
ene was released into the atmosphere. (About 95 percent is believed normal.)
Another category which provided information on trichloroethylene emissions
was metal cleaning operations (equipment code 0065). In this case, the
amount of trichloroethylene makeup solvent was used as an estimate of emis-
sions. Although there may have been some overestimation of emissions, this
was not expected to have any significant impact on demarcation of high and
low exposure areas. Emission sources and their relative strength are shown
in Figure 19.
No data on stack parameters were available for trichloroethylene sources.
This fact combined with uncertainty in the atmospheric reactivity of trichloro-
ethylene and lack of air quality data precluded air quality modeling. Instead,
the emissions data were used to compute emission densities (Figure 20) and
high/low exposure areas (Figure 21).
NICKEL
Nickel and/or nickel compounds (primarily nickel subsulfide, nickel
oxide, and nickel carbonyl) are believed by many researchers to be responsi-
ble for human lung and nasal cancer. As in the case of most metals, emis-
sion and air quality information on nickel compounds is generaly in terms
of elemental nickel rather than specific compounds. Although nickel com-
pounds are implied in the following discussion, it refers to nickel only.
-67-
-------
o
in
o
•*•
r-
o
on
r--
o
CM
o
o
r-
o
en
CO
o
00
CD
o
r-
co
o
CO
CO
o
in
CO
-Q-
O
61
DETROIT METROPOLITflN flREfl
AQDM Receptor Site
280
290 300 310 320 330 340 350
360
Figure 18. Receptor sites for BaP source-contribution analysis.
-68-
-------
TABLE 23. ESTIMATED 1956-60 SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONS AT VARIOUS RECEPTOR SITES*
Source Contribution, Percent
Source-Category Receptor #1 Receptor #61 Receptor #91 Receptor #113 Receptor #151
Point sources
Coke ovens 37 26 37 78 37
Other point sources 7 4 14 2 7
Area sources
Residential coal- 56 70 49 21 56
fired furnaces
Total 100 100 100 100 100
BaP concentrations,
ng/m3 2.7 6.0 6.4 31.9 12.9
* See Figure 18.
-69-
-------
DETROIT METROPOLITflN flRER
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
EMISSION SOURCES
1976
o - 500 OflL/YR
H - 5000 OflL/YR
- 50000 OflU/YR
280
300 310 320 330 340 350
360
Figure 19. Sources of trichloroethylene and their emissions, 1976.
-70-
-------
780.
+
22.
935.
93.
2692.
388
ZOO.
3SB.
•I-
82.
427.
84.
1207.
24.
280.
+
too.
DETROIT METROPOLITHN flREfl
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
EMISSION DENSITY
1976
OflUONS / 30.KH.
280
320
990
TsT
Figure 20. Trichloroethylene emission density, 1976.
-71-
-------
DETROIT METROPQLITRN flREfl
High Exposure
Low Exposure
PI Uncertain
280
360
Figure 21. Characterization of ambient exposure to trichloroethylene.
-72-
-------
Coal and oil combustion, cement manufacturing, steel production and
waste incineration are major sources of nickel. Area sources for combus-
tion could also be important; but due to limited time available, only
point sources were considered in this exposure analysis. The MDNR equip-
ment codes considered for estimation of emissions along with appropriate
emission factors selected from Anderson (48) are given in Table 24. In
some cases, emission factors were corrected with control efficiencies to
compute the uncontrolled emissions. The quantities of material processed
at each establishment were obtained from the MDNR Point Sources Data Sys-
tem and multiplied by the appropriate emission factors to calculate the
annual uncontrolled emissions. Controlled emissions were then determined
using the control efficiencies given in Table 25. Emissions data are given
in Appendix C, Table C-2; emissions sources and their relative strengths
are shown in Figure 22; emission density profiles are shown in Figure 23.
In order to compare emission profiles with observed air quality, ambi-
ent nickel concentration measurements at seven sampling sites were obtained
from the wayne County Air Pollution Division. Data for NASN sites were
obtained but were not used in this analysis, due to incomplete or missing
data (detailed air quality data are listed in Appendix D). The values at
the sites with nighest and lowest annual concentration during 1971 to 1976,
along with the average concentrations for each year, are shown in Figure 24,
The ambient nickel concentration data for 1976 were used to see the spatial
variations in ambient levels of nickel (Figure 25), Although it is recog-
nized that the isopleths in Figure 25 are based on very limited air quality
data, the general distribution of ambient nickel compares extremely well
with the estimated distribution of nickel emissions (Figure 23). This is
remarkable since the spatial patterns of emissions and air quality were
obtained from two separate independent sources of information. Figures 23
and 25 were combined to depict high and low exposure areas for nickel
(Figure 26).
CADMIUM
Cadmium and several cadmium compounds have given positive results when
tested for carcinogenicity in animals, with most attention centering on the
lung and the prostate and testes. Some researchers have suggested cadmium
as a human carcinogen, but so far no conclusive evidence of this has been
presented; however, the animal evidence is believed to warrant concern about
this chemical.
Atmospheric cadmium emissions in the Detroit area are primarily from
point sources, the most important being zinc smelting and large-scale coal
combustion. The MDNR equipment codes included for estimation of emissions
along with emission factors are given in Table 26. Figure 27 shows point
sources of cadmium and the relative magnitude of their emissions; detailed
emission estimates are included in Appendix C. Based on the estimates of
cadmium emissions, emission densities were computed (Figure 28).
-73-
-------
TABLE 24. SOURCES OF NICKEL EMISSIONS AND THEIR EMISSION FACTORS
Process
Sewage sludge incinerators
Municipal hearth
Fluidized bed
Cement manufacturing
Dry process kiln (gas fired)
Dry process kiln (oil fired)
Dry process kiln (coal fired)
Dry process mill
Wet process kiln (gas fired)
Wet process kiln (oil fired)
Wet process kiln (coal fired)
Wet process mill
Alloy of steel melting -- electric
arc furnace
Combustion
Coal
Distillate oil
Residual oil
MDNR
Equipment
Code
0012
0013
0360
0361
0362
0365
0366
0367
0368
0371
0637
Emission factor for
uncontrolled emission *
0. 15 Ib/ton of waste incinerated
0. 15 Ib/ton of waste incinerated
3
99.7 lb/10 tons of fuel
3
99.7lbs/10 tons of fuel
3
99.7 lb/10 tons of fuel
3
0.2 lb/10 tons of fuel
99.7 lb/10 tons of fuel
3
99.7 lb/10 tons of fuel
3
99.7 lb/10 tons of fuel
3
1.33 lb/10 tons of fuel
10 Ib/ton Ni changed
3
19.4 lb/10 tons coal burned
3
0.0005 lb/10 gallons oil burned
3
0.08 lb/10 gallons oil burned
* In cases where emission factors were given based on controlled emissions (48), these were
corrected by the expression:
Controlled emission factor
Uncontrolled emission factor =
1 - fractional efficiency
-74-
-------
TABLE 25. EMISSION CONTROL EQUIPMENT AND THEIR CONTROL EFFICIENCIES
MDNR
Code
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
Control equipment
settling chamber
single cyclone
multicyclone
other centrifugal type cyclone
scrubber with water
scrubber with solution
venturic scrubber
oil filter
condenser
fabric filter
after burner
catalytic burner
electrostatic precipitator
primary burner
wet baffle
Efficiency used, percent
59
65
80
91
96
96
99.5
80*
90*
99.7
80*
95*
97
60*
59
* No data, efficiencies assumed arbitrarily.
-75-
-------
o
LO
r-
o
••»
r-
o
en
r-
o
-------
2.
2.
I—
— 1
2.
2.
2.
2.
8.
4.
\
4.
\|9.
2.
53.
V
SO/.
/
/
"s.
+8;/
/,.
f
3.
3.
2.
7.
+
3.
^c
1.
^^
J
^
\
1
r
Ss
f
— J
J
DETROIT METROPOLITRN RREH
NICKEL
EMISSION DENSITY
1976
KO. / SO. KM.
61
Figure 23. Nickel emission density, 1976.
-77-
-------
10
r-.
(Ti
r-%
(Ti
co
CM
a
O
O
CO
O
O
1-^
O
•
O
O
<£>
O
•
O
o
o
*
o
o
o
o
o
co
o
o
CM
o
o
I—1
o
o
o
o
o
IN
-------
DETROIT METROPOLITRN flREfl
A Nickel monitoring sites and
ambient concentrations
(numbers above the symbol
indicate site numbers as
referred to in Appendix D)
280
ilO
40
360
Figure 25. Ambient concentrations of nickel, 1976.
-79-
-------
DETROIT METROPOLITAN flREfl
High Exposure
Low Exposure
Uncertain
280
110
20
330
)40
350
36C
Figure 26. Characterization of ambient exposure to nickel.
-80-
-------
TABLE 26. SOURCES OF CADMIUM EMISSIONS AND THEIR EMISSION FACTORS
Process
Sewage sludge incinerators
Municipal hearth
Fluidized bed
MDNR
Equipment
Code
0012
0013
Emission factor for
uncontrolled emission *
0. 34 Ib/ton of waste incinerated
0. 34 Ib/ton of waste incinerated
Cement manufacturing
Dry process kiln (gas fired)
Dry process kiln (oil fired)
Dry process kiln (coal fired)
Dry process mill
Wet process kiln (gas fired)
Wet process kiln (oil fired)
Wet process kiln (coal fired)
Wet process mill
0360
0361
0362
0365
0366
0367
0368
0371
99.7 lb/l(r tons of fuel
99.7 lb/103 tons of fuel
99.7 Ib/IO3 tons of fuel
99.7 lb/103 tons of fuel
99.7 lb/103 tons of fuel
99.7 lb/103 tons of fuel
99. 7 lb/103 tons of fuel
6.65 lb/103 tons of fuel
Lead smelting
Reverbratory furnace
Zinc smelting
Retort furnace
Horizontal muffle furnace
Pot furnace
Sweating furnace
Copper smelting
Furnace
0641
0661
0662
0663
0664
0761
0. 2 Ib/ton lead produced
2 Ib/tons of zinc produced
2 Ib/tons of zinc produced
2 Ib/tons of zinc produced
2 Ib/tons of zinc produced
0. 07 Ib/ton of copper produced
Combustion
Coal
Distillate oil
Residual oil
19.4 lb/10 tons coal burned
0.0005 lb/103 gallons oil burned
0.08 lb/103 gallons oil burned
In cases where emission factors were given based on controlled emission (48), these were
corrected by the expression:
controlled emission factor
uncontrolled emission factor =
1 - fractional efficiency
-81-
-------
DETROIT METROPOLITRN flREfl
CfiDMIUM
EMISSION SOURCES
1976
0 - 20 KO/YR
- 200 KO/YR
- 2000 KO/YR
80
Figure 27. Sources of cadmium and their emissions, 1976.
-82-
-------
14.
6.
\.
5.
21
8+7.
3.
27.
63.
12.
22.
51.
"555"
41.
DETROIT METROPOLITflN flREfl
CflDMIUM
EMISSION DENSITY
1976
KO. / SQ.KH.
-53T
355-
m-
-W
"W
Figure 28. Cadmium emission density, 1976.
-83-
-------
The ambient cadmium concentrations are measured at seven sites in Wayne
County. Figure 29 shows the 1971 to 1976 trend at sites with the highest and
lowest concentrations and the average values of all seven sites (detailed
air quality data given in Appendix D). The concentrations have decreased,
substantially in some cases, since 1971. The spatial variation in ambient
concentrations on 1976 air quality data is shown in Figure 30. Again, as in
the case of nickel, the number of sites is too few to put any great degree of
confidence in the exact shape of the isopleths plotted in Figure 30, but it
offers some insight into high and low concentration areas.
The concentration pattern in Figure 30 compares extremely well with
emission sources and profiles given in Figures 27 and 28. Note that the
high concentration areas are identical in both air quality and emissions
plots. Since these air quality measurements and emission estimates are
obtained independent of each other, similarities in the spatial patterns
substantially increased the confidence of the exposure analysis. Figure 31
shows high and low exposure areas for cadmium which were determined based
on ambient air quality concentration patterns and emission density patterns
(Figures 30 and 28).
-84-
-------
O)
CO
r^
CT>
CM
r^
CTi
o oo to ^ c
CSJ i— •— •— r-
0 O O 0 C
| 1 1 1 T"1 1
^1 O CO (£3 *& CM
r— O O O O
D O O O O O
oooooooooo
vo
t-.
1
g
.•a
g
-i-j
Q
-------
o
in
r-
o
•*
r-
o
CO
r-
o
Cs)
o
o
o
O)
CD
O
00
co
o
r~
CD
o
co
CO
o
1/5
(O
01
06
012
A
0.001
0.002
0.004
DETROIT METROPOLITRN flREfl
k Cadmium monitoring sites and
ambient concentration
(numbers above the symbol
indicate site numbers as
referred to in Appendix D)
280
290 300
110
320 330 340 350
360
Figure 30. Ambient concentrations of cadmium, 1976.
-86-
-------
DETROIT METROPOLITRN flREfl
High Exposure
Low Exposure
Uncertain
280
30
350
360
Figure 31. Characterization of ambient exposure to cadmium.
-87-
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
1. uEOMET, Incorporated. Environmental Carcinogens and Human Cancer:
Ranking of Chemical Carcinogens. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1978.
2. GCA/Technology Division. Assessment of Benzene as a Potential Air
Pollution Problem. GCA-TR-75-32-G(4), Bedford, Massachusetts.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, January 1976.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Scientific and Technical
Assessment Report on Vinyl Chloride and Polyvinyl Chloride.
EPA-600/675-004, Washington, D.C., June 1975.
4. GEOMET, Incorporated. Environmental Carcinogens and Human Cancer:
Summary Information on Selected Chemical Carcinogens. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 1978.
5. Sittig, Marshal. Environmental Sources and Emissions Handbook. Noyes
Data Corp., Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1975.
6. Dorigan, J., B. Fuller, and R. Duffy. Scoring of Organic Air Pollu-
tants: Chemistry, Production and Toxicity of Selected Synthetic
Organic Chemicals. MTR-7248, Rev. 1, Appendix II, MITRE Corporation,
McLean, Virginia, 1976.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Scientific and Technical
Assessment Report on Polychlorinated Biphenyls. EPA-600/6-75-OOX,
Washington, D.C., January 1975.
8. Delaney, J.L. Special Project Report: Petrochemical Plant Sites.
Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, Ohio. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 1976.
9. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Vinylidene Chloride Monomer Emissions from
the Monomer, Polymer and Polymer Processing Industries. Final Report
on Task Order No. 13, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, North Carolina, April 1976.
10. Allen, R.J., L.R. Babcock, and N.L. Nagda. Air Pollution Disper-
sion Modeling: Application and Uncertainty. Regional Science
Perspectives, 5:1-26, 1975.
-88-
-------
11. Nagda, N.L. Priorities in Air Pollution Source Control: Modeling
of Population Exposures and Health Effects. Ph.D. dissertation,
Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (Also, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Publication No. EPA 600/2-76-063),
1976.
12. Tkw Systems Group. Air Quality Display Model. National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, PB 189-194, 1969.
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. User's Manual for Single-
Source (CRSTER) Model. EPA Publication No. EPA-450/2-77-013, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, July 1977.
14. Doty, S.R., B.L. Wallace, and G.C. Holzworth. A Cliniatological Anal-
ysis of Pasquill Stability Categories based on "STAR" Summaries.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic
Center, Asheville, N.C., April 1976.
15. Stanford Research Institute. 1977 Directory of Chemical Producers.
henlo Park, California, 1977.
16. Uayne County Health Department 1971 through 1976 Annual Air Quality
Reports, and personal communications with Dr. Peter 0. vJarner, Air
Pollution Control Division, Detroit, Michigan, 1977.
17. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs on the
Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of the Chemiqal to Man: Certain
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Heterocyclic Compounds, Vol. 3.
Lyon, France, 1973. pp. lib-lib.
16. Sawicki, E., W.C. Elbert, T.R. Hauser, F.T. Fox, and T.W. Stanley.
Benzo(a)pyrene Content of the Air of American Communities. Amer.
Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., 21:443-451, 1960.
19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Special Report: Trends in
Concentrations of Benzene-Soluble Suspended Particulate Fraction
and Benzo(a)pyrene, 1960-197? EPA-450/2-74-022, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, November 1974.
20. Faoro, R.B. Trends in Concentrations of Benzene-Soluble Suspended
Particulate Fraction and Benzo(a)pyrene. J. Air Poll. Control
Assoc., 25:638-640, June 1975.
21. Colucci, J.M., and C.R. Begeman. The Automotive Contribution to
Airborne Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Detroit. J. Air Poll.
Control Assoc, 15:113-122, March 1965.
-89-
-------
22. Jackson, J.O., P.O. Warner, and T.F. Money. Profiles of Benzo(a)-
pyrene and Coal Tar Pitch Volatiles at and in the Immediate Vicinity
of a Coke Oven Battery. Amer. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., 276-281, May 1974.
23. von Lehmden, U.J., R.P. Hangebrauck, and J.E. Meeker. Polynuclear
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Selected Industrial Processes. J. Air
Poll. Control Assoc., 15:306-312, July 1965.
24. Hangebrauck, R.P., U.J. von Lehmden, and J.E. Meeker. Emissions of
Polynuclear Hydrocarbons and Other Pollutants from Heat Generation
and Incineration Processes. J Air Poll Control Assoc., 14:267-768,
July 1964.
25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Preferred Standards Path Report
for Polycyclic Organic hatter. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Durham, North Carolina, October 1974.
26. Goldberg, A.J. A Survey of Emissions and Controls for Hazardous
and Other Pollutants. Report No. PB-223-568. National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, February 1973.
27. Personal communication with Paul C. Silbert, Energy and Environmental
Analysis, Inc., 1701 N. Fort Myer Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22209,
December 1977.
28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Guide for Compiling Compre-
hensive Emissions Inventory. Publication No. APTD 1135, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, March 1973.
29. Michigan Department of National Resources. Air Quality Maintenance
Area Analysis Document for the Metropolitan Detroit and Monroe
County Area. Air Pollution Control Commission, Lansing, Michigan,
December 1976.
30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Computer Assisted Area Source
Emissions Gridding Procedure (CAASE) User's Manual. EPA-450/3-74-035,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, January 1974.
31. Personal communication with Jerome B. Mersch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, October
1977.
32. Hangebrauck, R.P., D.J. von Lehmden, and J.E. Meeker. Sources of
Polynuclear Hydrocarbons in the Atmosphere. PHS AP-33, PB 174-706,
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, 1967.
-90-
-------
33. Committee on Biologic Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants. Particu-
late Polycyclic Organic Matter. National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D.C., 1972.
34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Scientific and Technical
Assessment Report on Participate Polycyclic Organic Matter (PPOM),
EPA-600/6-75-001, Office of Research and Development, Washington,
D.C., March 1975.
35. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollution
Emission Factors. EPA AP-42 and supplements, 2nd edition, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1973-77.
36. Personal communication with Mark Antell, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, November 1977.
37. Pierce, R.C., and M. Katz. Dependency of Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbon Content on Size Distribution of Atmospheric Aerosols.
Environ. Sci. Technol., 9:347-353, April 1975.
38. Personal communication with Larry Kirtcher, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Region V Office, Chicago, Illinois, November 1977.
39. U.S. Bureau of Mines. Minerals Yearbooks. Vol. 1, Metals, Min-
erals and Fuels for Years 1960-1974. GPO, Washington, D.C.
40. Bureau of the Census. Census of Housing: Housing Characteristics
for States, Cities and Counties, for Years 1950, 1960 and 1970.
Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
41. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). Population and
Occupied Dwelling Units in Southeast Michigan, 1975. Detroit,
Michigan, June 1976.
42. Detroit Metropolitan Area Regional Planning Commission (now SEMCOG).
Population and Occupied Dwelling Units - Detroit Region 1950-1955-
1960. Detroit, Michigan, February 1956.
43. National Air Quality Data Branch. Computer Retrieval of Noncriteria
Pollutant Air Quality Data for the Detroit Study Area. November
1977.
44. Personal communication with Justice Manning, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, November 1977.
45. International Joint Commission. Joint Air Pollution Study of
St. Clair-Detroit River Areas for International Joint Commission,
Canada and the United States. Ottawa and Washington, D.C.,
January 1971.
-91-
-------
46. Swanson, D., C. Morris, R. Hedgecoke, J. Bumgarner, and R. Jungers,
New Benzopyrene Analytical Method. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina (undated).
47. Personal communication with Joseph Bumgarner. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1977.
48. Anderson, D.O. Emission Factors for Trace Substances. EPA-450/
2-73-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, December 1975.
-92-
-------
APPENDIX A
POINT-SOURCE DATA SYSTEM OF
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (MDNR)
The MDNR system consists of three separate data sets which describe
source, business, and emissions information for each point source. Source
and business files for all sources in Michigan were received on two sepa-
rate tapes. The source data set contains information for each establish-
ment on type of equipment, operational parameters, control equipment, fuel
usage, stack parameters, and estimated emissions for certain pollutants
(Table A-l). The equipment descriptions are included in Table A-2 and
control equipment is listed in Table A-3.* The emission estimates are
included in the data set if an establishment wishes to calculate its own
emissions due to special circumstances such as unusual control equipment,
proprietary processes, special processes stack studies, etc. The busi-
ness data set includes information on physical location, owner, contact
person, mailing address, etc. (Table A-4).
* State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Reference Tables and General Instructions. 1976
Michigan Air Pollution Reporting Form. (These instructions are also useful in understanding elements
of the MDNR data sets.)
-93-
-------
TABLE A-l. ELEMENTS AND FORMAT OF MDNR SOURCE DATA SET (LRECL = 216)
Record
Type Field Start Position Length
20 Record Type
Identification:
Establishment
SIC
County*
District
FEE Region
AQ Region
Source I.D.
Equipment Name
Equipment Codet
Number of Pieces
Operating Schedule 1:
Hour-Day
Day-Year
Operating Schedule 2:
Percent Qtr. 1
Percent Qtr. 2
Percent Qtr. 3
Percent Qtr. 4
Rated Capacity:
Capacity Amount
Capacity Unit
Material Processed:
Material Amount
Material Unit
Control Equipment Codes: tf
Control 1
Control 2
Control 3
Collection Efficiency
Natural Gas
1
3
8
12
14
16
17
20
23
43
47
50
52
55
58
61
64
67
76
77
86
87
89
91
93
98
2
5
4
2
2
1
3
3
20
4
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
9
1
9
1
2
2
2
5
9
Type
N
A
N
N
N
N
N
N
A
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
D(2)
N
D(2)
N
N
N
N
D(2)
N
<4r /"»-....« J.. . __ J. - _ r A M_ .___!- /" O A-l-1 1 1 rtO I I ^ _ _ _ _ * "'
t See Table A-2
•It See Table A-3
-94-
-------
TABLE A-l. (Continued)
Record
Type
20
(Con't)
24
Field
Dist. Oil:
D.O.
D.O. - Sulf.
Residual Oil :
R.O.
R.O. - Sulf.
Wood
Coal or Coke:
Coal
C.L. - Sulf.
C.L. - Ash
Other Fuel:
Other
O.T. - Sulf.
O.T. - Ash
Error Codes
(Occurs 10 times)
Creation Date
Change Date
Indicators:
FEE Bypass
Confidential
Business Master
Record Qual .
Filler 20
Stack Key
Stack Height
Stack Dimensions:
Stack Length (ft.)
Stack Length (in.)
Stack Width (ft.)
Stack Width (in.)
Stack Diameter:
Stack Diameter (ft.)
Stack Diameter (in.)
Start Position
107
116
119
128
131
140
149
152
156
165
168
172
192
200
208
209
210
211
212
1
23
27
30
32
35
37
40
Length
9
3
9
3
9
9
3
4
9
3
4
10(2)
8
8
1
1
1
1
5
22
4
3
2
3
2
3
2
Type
N
D(2)
N
0(2)
N
N
0(2)
D(2)
N
D(2)
D(2)
N
A
A
N
N
N
N
A
A
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
(cont.)
-95-
-------
TABLE A-l. (Concluded)
Record
Type Field Start Position
24 Stack Temperature
(Con't)
Stack Velocity Flow Rates:
Stack Velocity - Low
Stack Velocity - Normal
Stack Velocity - Maximum
Stack Source I.D.'s
(12 Times)
Filler 24
Filler
SEE Key
SEE Source I.D.
SEE Equipment Name
SEE Equipment Code
SEE Estimates
(Occurs 10 times):
SEE Pollutant
SEE Emission
Filler 29
Filler
42
46
54
62
70
106
172
1
23
26
46
50 1n
52 10
150
172
Length
4
8
8
8
12(3)
66
45
22
3
20
4
2
8
22
45
Type
N
N
N
N
N
A
A
A
N
A
N
N
D(2)
A
A
-96-
-------
TABLE A-2. EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION INFORMATION
ABC
PRODUCT PROCESS EQUIPMENT NAME
INCINERATION
WASTE DISPOSAL Open Burning Open Burning
Incinerators Single Chamber
Multiple Chamber
Flue fed
Controlled Air
Conical Tee Pee
Liquid waste
Municipal
Multiple hearth —
sewage sludge
Fluidized bed —
sewage sludge
Other type
D
EQUIP-
MENT
CODE NO.
0001
0005
0006
0007
0008
0009
0010
0011
0012
0013
0014
E F
QUANTITY OF MATERIAL STACK
PROCESSED, HANDLED OR DATA
COLLECTED DURING 1976 REQUIRED
Pounds or tons of waste burned No
Pounds or tons of waste burned Yes
Pounds or tons of waste burned Yes
Pounds or tons of waste burned Yes
Pounds or tons of waste burned Yes
Pounds or tons of waste burned Yes
Gallons of waste burned Yes
Pounds or tons of waste burned Yes
Pounds or tons of waste burned
(dry solids only) Yes
Pounds or tons of waste burned
(dry solids only) Yes
Pounds or tons of waste burned Yes
HEATING, STEAM OR
POWER GENERATION Heating
Coal Burning Boilers
Turbine Generators
Diesel Engine
BOILERS, TURBINES, WARM AIR FURNACES, ETC.
Warm air furnaces—
coal fired 0016 Not applicable
Warm air furnaces—
other fuels 0017 Not applicable
Boilers without coal
firing capability 0018 Not applicable
Hand fired 0019 Not applicable
Underfeed stoker 0020 Not applicable
Spreader stoker 0021 Not applicable
Other type stoker 0022 Not applicable
Pulverized corner fired 0023 Not applicable
Pulverized other type 0024 Not applicable
Cyclone type 0025 Not applicable
Gas turbine—gas fired 0026 Not applicable
Gas turbine—oil fired 0027 Not applicable
Diesel engine—generator 0028 Not applicable
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT (COMMON TO MANY ESTABLISHMENTS)
MISCELLANEOUS - Organic Solvent
Usage
Solvent Based
Coatings
Applied by Spray
Coating
Solvent Based
Coatings,
Applied by Other
Methods
Mixers & Blenders
Perchloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Methylchloroform
Mineral spirits, Naptha
Methanol, Ethanol, Isopropanol
Methyl — or Ethyl — Ketone
Toluene, Xylene or mixtures
Benzene
AH other types
Enamel (electrostatic spraying)
Enamel (other)
Lacquer (electrostatic spraying)
Lacquer (other)
Stains
Varnishes
Under coating
Inks
Adhesive
All other types
Enamel
Lacquer
Stains
Varnishes
Under coating
Inks
Adhesives
All other types
Chemical & plastiocompounds
0030
0031
0032
0033
0034
0035
0036
0037
0038
0040
0041
0042
0043
0044
0045
0046
0047
0048
0049
0050
0051
0052
0053
0054
0055
0056
0057
0058
Gallons evaporated
Gallons evaporated
Gallons evaporated
Gallons evaporated
Gallons evaporated
Gallons evaporated
Gallons evaporated
Gallons evaporated
Gallons evaporated
Gallons used
Gallons used
Gallons used
Gallons used
Gallons used
Gallons used
Gallons used
Gallons used
Gallons used
Gallons used
Gallons used
Gallons used
Gallons used
Gallons used
Gallons used
Gallons used
Gallons used
Gallons used
Tons of material processed
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
-97-
(cont.)
-------
TABLE A-2. (Continued)
A
PRODUCT
WIRE
STEEL DRUMS
GRINDING WHEELS
MISCELLANEOUS
METAL
WASTE OIL
B
PROCESS
Abrasive Cleaning
Machining
Welding & Brazing
Metal Cleaning
Blue Prints
Heating & Drying
Oil Quenching
Molten Salt
Quench Tanks
Metal Plating
Acid Pickling or Etching
Other Acid Treatments
Material Handling
Systems
Cooling
Engine Testing
Reclaim
Reclaim
Reclaim
Stripping
Metal Fragmentizing
Waste Oil Distilling
Waste Oil Storage
Finished Product
Storage
D E F
C EQUIP- QUANTITY OF MATERIAL STACK
EQUIPMENT NAME MENT PROCESSED, HANDLED OR DATA
CODE NO. COLLECTED DURING 1976 REQUIRED
Grinders, sand blasters, shot
peeners (vented outside)
Buffers and polishers
Millers, borers, lathes
Manual & automatic
Degreaser tanks
Parts washers
Blue print machines (ammonia)
Fuel powered heaters, ovens,
furnaces, dryers, etc. Not
listed elsewhere in thib table.
(Do not include steam or
electric ovens)
Quench tanks (vented outside)
Quench tanks (vented outside)
Plating tanks
Acid tanks
Acid tanks
Conveyors, elevators, transfer
stations, etc. Not listed
elsewhere in this table.
Material cooler not listed
elsewhere in this table.
Engine test stands
PRODUCT RECLAMATION
Reclaiming furnace
Reclaiming furnace
Reclaiming furnace
Kolene strip furnace
Fragmentizer
Stills
Tanks
Tanks
0060
0061
0063
0064
0065
0066
0067
0070
0071
0072
0074
0075
0076
0077
0078
0079
0080
0081
0082
0083
0084
0085
0086
0087
Tons of material collected in dust
collectors, (if no collector.
estimate the amount of emissions)
Tons of material collected in dust
collectors, (if no collector,
estimate the amount of emissions)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Gallons of solvent make-up
Gallons of make-up
Gallons of ammonia used
Not applicable
Gallons of make-up
Gallons of make-up
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Tons of material handled
Tons of material handled
Gallons of fuel consumed
Tons of wire reclaimed
Number of barrels reclaimed
Tons of product reclaimed
Gallons of tank capacity-
Tons of metal fragmentized
Gallons of finished product
produced
Gallons of material stored
Gallons of material stored
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Ye.s
Yes
FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL
FEED, GRAIN &
GRAIN PRODUCTS
MEAT
COFFEE
DRY MILK
POTATO CHIPS
POPCORN
SPICE
Grain Handling
Grain Handling
Grain Handling
Grain Drying
Grain Drying
Grain Drying
Grain Cleaning
Grain Milling
Grain Cooking
Grain Mixing
Meat Smoking
Rendering
Rendering
Charbroiling
Roasting
Roasting
Roasted Bean Cleaning
Roasted Bean Cooling
Instant Coffee Drying
Evaporation
Cooking
Industrial Manufacture
Spice Grinding
Shipping and receiving docks
Conveyor
Screen
Dryer, column
Dryer, rack
Dryer, drum
Cleaner
Mill
Cooker
Mixer
Smoke house
Edible animal fats
Inedible animal fats
Charbroil Grill
Direct-fired roaster
Indirect-fired roaster
Stoner
Cooler
Spray dryer
Dryer
Fryer
Popper
Spice mill
0100
0101
0102
0103
0108
0109
0104
0105
0106
0107
0120
0121
0122
0123
0150
0151
0152
0153
0154
0160
0170
0171
0180
Tons of total grain handled
Tons of total grain handled
Tons of total grain handled
Tons of total grain handled
Tons of total grain handled
Tons of total grain handled
Tons of total grain handled
Tons of total grain handled
Tons of total grain handled
Tons of total grain handled
Tons of meat smoked
Tons rendered
Tons rendered
Tons of meat cooked
Tons of green beans roasted
Tons of green beans roasted
Tons of beans stoned
Tons of beans cooled
Tons of green beans input
Tons of dry milk produced
Gallons of cooking oil used
Tons of corn popped
Tons of spice processed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-98-
(cont.)
-------
TABLE A-2. (Continued)
A
PRODUCT
BEET SUGAR
DIAMMONIUM
PHOSPHATE
FERTILIZER
NORMAL SUPER
PHOSPHATE
TRIFLE SUPER
PHOSPHATE
FERTILIZER
ASPHALT
ROOF IX G
ASPHALT BATCHING
CASTABLE
REFRACTORY
CEMEN7T
CONCRETE
BATCHING
GLASS
GYPSUM
LIME, DOLOMITE,
& MAGNESIA
PERI.ITE
B
PROCESS
Pulp Drying
Acidulation
Acidulation
Acidulation
Granulation
Granulation
Granulation
Acidulation
Acidulation
Acidulation
Granulation
Granulation
Granulation
Acidulation
Acidulation
Acidulation
Granulation
Granulation
Granulation
Blowing
Dipping Only
Spraying Only
Combine Dipping &
Spraying
General Process
Raw Material Dryer
Raw Material Crushing
& Grinding
Melting
Curing
Casting Handling
Casting Handling
Dry Process
Dry Process
Dry Process
Dry Process
Dry Process
Dry Process
Wet Process
Wet Process
Wet Process
Wet Process
Wet Process
Wet Process
General Material
Handling
General Material
Handling
Mixing Wet
Mixing Dry
Transferring
Storage
Soda Lime Process
Other (Specify)
Drying
Grinding
Conveying
Calcining
Storage
Primary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Calcining
Calcining
Calcining
Cooling
Storage
Exfoliation
D E F
C EQUIP- QUANTITY OF MATERIAL STACK
EQUIPMENT NAME MENT PROCESSED, HANDLED OR DATA
CODE NO. COLLECTED DURING 1976 REQUIRED
Pulp Dryer
Mixer
Den
Curing
Ammoniator-granulator
Dryer
Cooler
Mixer
Den
Curing
Ammoniator-granulator
Dryer
Cooler
Mixer
Den
Curing building
Ammoniator-granulator
Dryer
Cooler
MINERAL PRODUCTS
Blowing still
Saturator
Saturator
Saturator
Rotary Dryer, Screens,
Conveyor, Mixer
Dryer
Crushers & Grinders
Electric arc furnace
Oven
Molding station
Shakeout station
Kiln (gas fired)
Kiln (oil fired)
Kiln (coal fired)
Clinker Cooler
Grinder
Mill
Kiln (gas fired)
Kiln (oil fired)
Kiln (coal fired)
Clinker Cooler
Grinder
Mill
Conveying & transfer points
Hoppers, bins or silos
Mixer
Mixer
Conveyor & elevator
Bins & hoppers
Furnace
Furnace
Material dryer
Grinder
Conveyor & transfer points
Kettle
Hoppers, Bins or Silos
Primary mill
Secondary mill
Vertical kiln
Horizontal kiln
Multiple hearth calciner
Rotary cooler .
Hoppers, Bins or Silos
Vertical furnace
-99-
0190
0200
0201
0202
0203
0204
0205
0220
0221
0222
0223
0224
0225
0240
0241
0242
0243
0244
0245
0300
0301
0302
0303
0320
0340
0341
0342
0343
0344
0345
0360
0361
0362
0363
0364
0365
0366
0367
0368
0369
0370
0371
0372
0373
03SO
0381
0382
0383
0400
0401
0410
0411
0412
0413
0414
0420
0421
0422
0423
0424
0425
0426
0430
Tons of pulp dried
Tons of fertilizer produced
Tons of fertilizer produced
Tons of fertilizer produced
Tons of fertilizer granulated
Tons of fertilizer granulated
Tons of fertilizer granulated
Tons of fertilizer produced
Tons of fertilizer produced
Tons of fertilizer produced
Tons of fertilizer granulated
Tons of fertilizer granulated
Tons of fertilizer granulated
Tons of fertilizer produced
Tons of fertilizer produced
Tons of fertilizer produced
Tons of fertilizer granulated
Tons of fertilizer granulated
Tons of fertilizer granulated
Tons of saturated felt
Tons of saturated felt
Tons of saturated felt
Tons of saturated felt
Tons of asphalt produced
Tons of material produced
Tons of feed material
Tons of feed material
Tons of feed material
Tons of feed material
Tons of feed material
Tons of cement produced
Tons of cement produced
Tons of cement produced
Tons of cement produced
Tons of cement produced
Tons of cement produced
Tons of cement produced
Tons of cement produced
Tons of cement produced
Tons of cement produced
Tons of cement produced
Tons of cement produced
Tons of cement produced
Tons of cement produced
Cubic yards of concrete produced
Cubic yards of concrete produced
Cubic yards of concrete produced
Cubic yards of concrete produced
Tons of glass produced
Tons of glass produced
Tons of gypsum produced
Tons of gypsum produced
Tons of gypsum produced
Tons of gypsum produced
Tons of gypsum produced
Tons of material produced
Tons of material produced
Tons of material produced
Tons of material produced
Tons of material produced
Tons of material produced
Tons of material produced
Tons of perlite charged
(cont.)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-------
TABLE A-2 (Continued)
A
PRODUCT
PHOSPHATE
BRICK & CLAY
PRODUCTS
STONE QUARRY
SAND & GRAVEL
WOOD PULP OR
PAPER
HARDBOARD
PARTICLE BOARD
MISCELLANEOUS
WOOD PRODUCTS
PAPER AND
CARDBOARD
ALUMINUM
BRASS & BRONZE
B
PROCESS
Drying
Grinding
Conveying
Open Storage
Raw Material Handling
Raw Material Handling
Curing & Firing
Curing & Firing
Curing & Firing
Curing & Firing
Curing & Firing
Curing & Firing
Primary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Screening
Fines Milling
Conveying
Open Storage
Drying
Cooling
Crushing
Screening
Conveying
Open Storage
Sulfate Pulping
Sulfate Pulping
Sulfate Pulping
Sulfate Pulping
Sulfate Pulping
Sulfate Pulping
Sulfate Pulping
Sulfate Pulping
Sulfate Pulping
Neutral Sulfite Pulp
Neutral Sulfite Pulp
Neutral Sulfite Pulp
Neutral Sulfite Pulp
Neutral Sulfite Pulp
Neutral Sulfite Pulp
Drying
Drying
Pressing
Tempering
Baking
Drying
Drying
Pressing
Woodworking
Woodworking
Fabricating
Sweating
Smelting
Smelting
Chlorination
Metal Holding
Melting (No Flux)
Melting
Melting
Melting
Melting
Melting
Melting
Chip Drying
Metal Holding
D E F
C EQUIP- QUANTITY OF MATERIAL STACK
EQUIPMENT NAME MENT PROCESSED, HANDLED OR DATA
CODE NO. COLLECTED DURING 1976 REQUIRED
Dryer
Grinder
Conveyor
Storage pile
Dryers, Grinders, etc.
Storage pile
Tunnel kiln (gas fired)
Tunnel kiln (oil fired)
Tunnel kiln (coal fired)
Periodic kiln (gas fired)
Periodic kiln (oil fired)
Periodic kiln (coal fired)
Primary crusher
Secondary crusher
Tertiary crusher
Screen
Mill
Conveyor
Storage piles
Dryer
Cooler
Crusher
Screen
Conveyor & transfer point
Storage pile
WOOD PRODUCTS
Blow tank accumulator
Washers & screens
Multiple effects evaporator
Recovery boiler
Direct contact evaporator
Smelt dissolving tank
Lime kiln
Turpentine condenser
Fluidized bed calciner
Recovery boiler
Sulfiting tower
Blow tank
Dissolving tank
Evaporator
Pulp washers
Coe dryer
Predryer
Press
Oilspray or flow coater
Bake oven
Flash dryer
Jet dryer
Board press
Planers, saws, routers
Sanders
Cutters and Shredders
SECONDARY METALS
Sweating furnace
Crucible furnace
Reverbratory furnace
Chlorination station
Holding furnace
Furnace (All types)
Blast furnace
Crucible furnace
Cupola
Electric induction furnace
Reverbratory furnace
Rotary furnace
Kiln
Holding furnace (any type)
0440
0441
0442
0443
0450
0451
0452
0453
0454
0455
0456
0457
0460
0461
0462
0463
0464
0465
0466
0470
0471
0472
0473
0474
0475
0500
0501
0502
0503
0504
0505
0506
0507
0508
0520
0521
0522
0523
0524
0525
0540
0541
0542
0543
0544
0550
0551
0552
0560
0561
0570
0600
0601
0602
0603
0604
0605
0610
0611
0612
0613
0614
0615
0616
•617
Tons of phosphate rock processed
Tons of phosphate rock processed
Tons of phosphate rock processed
Tons of phosphate rock processed
Tons of product produced
Tons of product produced
Tons of product produced
Tons of product produced
Tons of product produced
Tons of product produced
Tons of product produced
Tons of product produced
Tons of raw material
Tons of raw material
Tons of raw material
Tons of raw material
Tons of raw material
Tons of raw material
Tons of raw material
Tons of product produced
Tons of product produced
Tons of product produced
Tons of product produced
Tons of product produced
Tons of product produced
Tons of air dried unbleached pulp
Tons of air dried unbleached pulp
Tons of air dried unbleached pulp
Tons of air dried unbleached pulp
Tons of air dried unbleached pulp
Tons of air dried unbleached pulp
Tons of air dried unbleached pulp
Tons of air dried unbleached pulp
Tons of air dried unbleached pulp
Tons of air dried pulp
Tons of air dried pulp
Tons of air dried pulp
Tons of air dried pulp
Tons of air dried pulp
Tons of air dried pulp
Tons of dry product
Tons of dry product
Tons of dry product
Tons of dry product
Tons of product baked
Tons of material dried
Tons of material dried
Tons of material pressed
Tons of woodwaste collected in
dust collector
Tons of woodwaste collected in
dust collector
Tons of material collected in
dust collectors, (if no
collector, enter zero)
Tons of aluminum processed
Tons of aluminum processed
Tons of aluminum processed
Tons of chlorine used
Tons of aluminum processed
Tons of aluminum processed
Tons of brass ot bronze charged
Tons of brass or bronze charged
Tons of brass or bronze charged
Tons of brass or bronze charged
Tons of brass or bronze charged
Tons of brass or bronze charged
Tons of brass or bronze charged
Tons of brass or bronze charged
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ye*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-100-
(cont.)
-------
TABLE A-2. (Continued)
A
PRODUCT
IRON
STEEL
ALLOY STEEL
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
ZINC
AUXILIARY
CASTING
PROCESSES
COKE
IRON ORE
IRON
STEEL
COPPER
DBF
B C EQUIP- QUANTITY OF MATERIAL STACK
PROCESS EQUIPMENT NAME MENT PROCESSED, HANDLED OR DATA
CODE NO. COLLECTED DURING 1976 REQUIRED
Melting Cupola
Melting Reverbratory furnace
Melting Electric arc furnace
Melting Electric induction furnace
Metal Holding Holding furnace (any type)
Melting Electric arc furnace
Melting Electric induction furnace
Melting with Oxygen Open hearth furnace
Lance
Melting without Open hearth furnace
Oxygen Lance
Metal Holding Holding furnace (any type)
Melting Electric Arc Furnace
Smelting Pot furnace
Smelting Reverbratory furnace
Smelting Blast (cupola) furnace
Smelting Rotary reverbratory furnace
Melting (No Flux) Furnace (All types)
Smelting Pot furnace
Melting (No Flux) Furnact (All types)
Smelting Retort furnace
Smelting Horizontal muffle furnace
Smelting Pot furnace
Smelting Sweating furnace
Galvanizing Kettle Galvanizing kettle
Calcining Calcine kiln
Melting (No Flux) Furnace (All types)
Foundry Sand Handling Sand dryer
Foundry Sand Handling Sand silo
Foundry Sand Handling Muller
Foundry Sand Handling Shell core machines
Foundry Sand Handling Core oven
Foundry Sand Handling Conveyors & elevators
Foundry Sand Handling Shakeout machine
Foundry Sand Handling Sand screens
Foundry Sand Handling Other core machines
Foundry Sand Handling Casting knock out
Metal Pouring Pouring station or area
Casting Cleaning Tumblers
Casting Cleaning Chippers
Investment Castings Wax burn out
PRIMARY METALS
By-Product Process Coke battery
Beehive Process Beehive oven
Coke Crushing Crusher
Coke Screening Screens
Pelletizing Kiln
Ore Handling Conveyors, transfer, &
loading facilities
Ore Reduction Ore charged blast furnace
Agglomerates Reduction Agglomerates charged
blast furnace
Sintering Sintering furnace
Steel Production with Open hearth furnace
Oxygen Lance
Steel Production with Electric arc furnace
Oxygen Lance
Steel Production Basic Oxygen Furnace
Steel Production Open hearth furnace
without Oxygen Lance
Steel Production Electric arc furnace
without Oxygen Lance
Scarfing Scarfer
Roasting Roaster
Smelting Furnace
Converting Converter j
Refining Reverbratory furnace
Holding Holding furnace
0620
0621
0622
0623
0624
0630
0631
0632
0633
0634
0637
0640
0641
0642
0643
0644
0650
0651
0661
0662
0663
0664
0665
0666
0667
0669
0670
0671
0672
0673
0674
0675
0676
0681
0682
0677
0678
0679
0680
0700
0701
0702
0703
0710
0711
0720
0721
0722
0740
0741 <
0742
0743
0744
0745
0760
0761
0762
0763
0764
Tons of iron charged
Tons of iron charged
Tons of iron charged
Tons of iron charged
Tons of iron charged
Tons of steel processed
Toms of steel processed
Tons of steel processed
Tons of steel processed
Tons of steel processed
Tons of alloy steel processed
Tons of lead processed
Tons of lead processed
Tons of lead processed
Tons of lead processed
Tons of lead processed
Tons of magnesium processed
Tons of magnesium processed
Tons of zinc processed
Tons of zinc processed
Tons of zinc processed
Tons of zinc processed
Tons of zinc processed
Tons of zinc processed
Tons of zinc processed
Tons of sand handled
Tons of sand handled
Tons of sand handled
Tons of cores produced
Gallons of core oil used
Tons of sand handled
Tons of sand handled
Tons of sand handled
Tons of cores produced
Tons of sand handled
Tons of sand handled
Tons of castings cleaned
Tons of castings cleaned
Tons of wax burned
Tons of coal charged
Tons of coal charged
Tons of coal charged
Tons of coal charged
Tons of ore processed
Tons of ore processed
Tons of iron produced
Tons of iron produced
Tons of iron produced
Tons of steel produced
Tons of steel produced
Tons of steel produced
Tons of steel produced
Tons of steel produced
Tons of steel produced
Tons of concentrated ore
Tons of concentrated ore
Tons of concentrated ore
Tons of concentrated ore
Tons of concentrated ore
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ye.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ye»
Yes
Ye*
Ye*
Yes
(cont.)
-101-
-------
TABLE A-2. (Concluded)
A
PRODUCT
B
PROCESS
DBF
C EQUIP- QUANTITY OF MATERIAL STACK
EQUIPMENT NAME MENT PROCESSED, HANDLED OR DATA
CODE NO. COLLECTED DURING 1976 REQUIRED
CHEMICAL AND PETROLEUM MANUFACTURING
AMMONIA
HYDROCHLORIC
ACID
NITRIC ACID
SULFURIC ACID
PAINT
VARNISH
CHLOR-ALKALI
PRINTING INK
PETROLEUM
PRODUCTS
Converting
Processed with CO
Absorber
Storage & Loading
By-Product Process
Ammonia — Oxidation
HjNOj — Concentration
Conversion of SO? to SOj
93%
94%
95%
96%
97%
98%
99%
99.5%
99.7%
100%
Mixing
Solvent Storage
Pigment Preparation
Cooking — Bodying Oil
Cooking — Oleoresinous
Cooking— Alkyd
Cooking — Acrylic
Cooking — Alkyd
Cooking — Acrylic
Solvent Storage
Liquefaction
Liquefaction
Loading of Chlorine
Loading of Chlorine
Air Blowing of
Mercury Cell Brine
Vehicle Cooking-Oil
Vehicle Cooking-
Oleoresinous
Vehicle Cooking-Alkyds
Pigment Mixing
Catalytic Cracking
Catalytic Cracking
Compressing
General Process
General Process
General Process
General Process
General Process
Desulfurization
Storage
Storage
Storage
Storage
Flaring
Flaring -
Purge gas exit
Regenerator exit
Tanks
Final exhaust
Final exhaust
Concentrator
Waste gas exit stack
Waste gas exit stack
Waste gas exit stack
Waste gas exit stack
Waste gas exit stack
Waste gas exit stack
Waste gas exit stack
Waste gas exit stack
Waste gas exit stack
Waste gas exit stack
Mixing tank — dry
Mixing tank — wet
Tanks
Grinders, Millers
Cooking tank
Cooking tank
Cooking tank
Cooking tank
Reactor Vessel
Reactor Vessel
Tanks
Diaphram cell
Mercury cell
Tank car vent
Storage tank vent
Air blow exit vent
Cooking kettles
Cooking kettles
Cooking kettles
Mixing facilities
Fluid cracking unit
Moving bed cracking unit
Internal combustion engine
Blow down systems (includes:
pipeline-valves, relief
valves, pumpseals, compressor
seals, air blowers etc.)
Process drains
Vacuum jets
Cooling towers
Miscellaneous heaters
Sulfur recover unit
Fixed roof tank_(gasoline or
finished product)
Fixed roof tank (crude oil)
Floating roof tank (gasoline
or finished product)
Floating roof tank (crude oil)
Hydrocarbon
Hydrogen sulfide
0800
0801
0802
0820
0840
0841
0880
0881
0882
0883
0884
0885
0886
0887
0888
0889
0900
0901
0902
0903
0920
0921
0922
0923
0924
0925
0926
0940
0941
0942
0943
0944
0960
0961
0962
0963
0980
0981
0982
0983
0984
0985
0986
0987
0989
0990
0991
0992
0993
0994
0995
Tons of ammonia produced
Tons of ammonia produced
Tons of ammonia stored
Tons of final acid
Tons of pure acid (100%)
Tons of pure acid (100%)
Tons of HjSOi produced (100%)
Tons of HZSO« produced (100%)
Tons of H,SO* produced (100%)
Tons of HiSO* produced (100%)
Tons of H2SO« produced (100%)
Tons of H,SO« produced (100%)
Tons of H2SO* produced (100%)
Tons of H2SO4 produced (100%)
Tons of H2SO« produced (100%)
Tons of H2S04 produced (100%)
Tons of pigment used
Tons of pigment used
Tons of solvent stored
Tons of material collected in
dust collectors (if no
collector, enter zero)
Tons of bodying oil produced
Tons of oleoresinous oil produced
Tons of alkyd produced
Tons of acrylic produced
Tons of alkyd produced
Tons of acrylic produced
Tons of solvent stored
Tons of chlorine liquified
Tons of chlorine liquified
Tons of chlorine liquified
Tons of chlorine liquified
Tons of chlorine liquified
Tons of oil based ink
Tons of oleoresinous based ink
Tons of alkyd based ink
Tons of total ink produced
Barrels of fresh feed
Barrels of fresh feed
1000 cubic feet gas burned
Barrels of refinery capacity
Barrels of waste water
Barrels of vacuum distillate
Gallons cooling water
Not applicable
Tons of sulfur removed
Barrels of product stored
Barrels of crude oil stored
Barrels of product stored
Barrels of crude oil stored
1000 cubic feet of gas burned
Tons HjS burned
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yw
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ye»
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
ALL OTHER POINT SOURCES
Other sources
Not listed elsewhere
0999
Appropriate quantity of material
Yes
-102-
-------
TABLE A-3. EMISSION CONTROL EQUIPMENT CODES
CODE NAME
00 No control equipment used
01 Settling chamber
02 Single cyclone
03 Multicyclone
04 Other centrifugal type
05 Scrubber with water
06 Scrubber with solution
07 Venturi
08 Oil filter
09 Condenser
10 Fabric filter
11 Afterburner
1 2 Catalytic burner
13 Electrostatic precipitator
14 Primary burner
lo Wet baffle
-103-
-------
TABLE A-4. ELEMENTS AND FORMAT OF MDNR BUSINESS DATA SET (LRECL = 360)
Field
Record Type
Identification:
Establishment
SIC
County
District
FEE Region
AQ Region
Physical:
Business Name
Plant Name
Street Number
Street Name
City
Zip
Owner
Person
Phone Number
FEE ID
Number of Employees
Mailing Information:
Line 1
Line 2
Street
City
State
Zip
Business Flags:
Mailing Address
Old Establishment
Plan Region
FEE Bypass
Sec. County
Creation Date
Change Date
3000 Sq. Ft.
Asterisk
Confidential
Filler
Start Position
1
3
8
12
14
16
17
20
48
76
83
103
123
128
156
176
186
195
200
230
260
290
310
315
320
321
326
328
329
332
340
348
349
350
351
Length
2
5
4
2
2
1
3
28
28
7
20
20
5
28
20
10
9
5
30
30
30
20
5
5
1
5
2
1
3
8
1
1
1
1
10
Type
N
A
N
N
N
N
N
A
A
N
A
A
N
N
A
N
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
A
N
N
N
A
N
N
A
A
A
-104-
-------
Appendix B
HOUSING DATA AND FACTORS FOR ESTIMATION
OF 1955 RESIDENTIAL COAL CONSUMPTION
County
Macomb
Community
Armada
Armada Twp.
Bruce Twp.
Center line
Chesterfield Twp.
Clinton Twp.
E. Detroit
Fraser
Grosse Pt. Shores
(in St. Claire Shores)
Harrison Twp.
Lenox Twp.
Macomb Twp.
Memphis
Mount Clemens
New Baltimore
New Haven
Ray Twp.
Richmond
Richmond Twp.
Romeo
Roseville + Irin
Shelby Twp.
Sterling Heights
Occupied Dwelling
Units
1955
330
340
320
2,300
1,300
4,100
9,500
520
--
2,250
550
1,000
200
5,850
670
330
510
720
340
990
10, 760
2,750
2,250
1970
375
422
561
3,095
2,626
13,026
13,077
3,006
(43)
5,519
739
1,602
211
6,588
1,169
500
707
953
429
1,170
16,453
7,405
16, 325
Community
population
shift factor*
for
1955/1970
1.91
1.75
1.24
1.62
1.08
0.68
1.58
0.38
--
0.89
1.62
1.36
2.06
1.93
1.25
1.44
1.57
1.64
1.72
1.84
1.42
0.81
0.3
Correction
factor**
22.97
21.03
14.89
19.4
12.92
8.22
18.96
4.51
—
10.64
19.42
16.29
24.74
23.18
14.96
17.23
18.83
19.72
20.69
22.08
17.07
9.69
3.60
* Community population shift factor is given by
DU
community, 1955
DU
community, 1970
X
DU
county, 1970
DU
county, 1955
(continued)
where DU is the number of occupied
dwelling units.
** Correction factor for 1955 is equal to
CC
county, 1955
CC
X / community population\,
county, 1970
I
shift factor
where CC is residential coal
consumption.
-105-
-------
APPENDIX B. (continued)
County
Macomb
[continued)
Oakland
Community
St. Claire Shores
(plus Grosse Pt. Sh. )
Utica
Warren and War. Vil.
Washington
Total number of dwelling
units in Macomb
Addison Twp.
Anon Twp.
Berkley
Beverly Hills
Bingham Farms
Birmingham
Bloomfield Hills
Bloomfield Twp.
Brandon Twp.
Clarkston
Clawson
Commerce Twp.
Farmington (City)
Farmington Hills (Twp. )
Ferndale
Franklin
Groveland Twp.
Hazel Park
Highland Twp.
Holly Village
Holly Twp.
Huntington Woods
Independence Twp.
Keego Harbor
Lake Angelus
Lake Orion
Lathrup Village
Leonard
Lyon Twp.
Madison Heights
Milford
Milford Twp.
Occupied Dwelling
Units
1955
-
13,800
470
16, 200
645
78, 995
350
3,150
6, 100
--
—
7,000
490
3,200
580
240
3, 050
1,900
1,330
4,300
9,400
500
340
6,600
1,100
900
450
2,250
1,500
800
50
850
850
130
540
5,200
680
400
1970
24, 597
1,149
48, 595
1,500
171, 799
785
6,037
6,354
3,753
157
8,636
1,053
11, 354
999
348
4,779
3,839
3,132
13,363
10, 197
919
709
7,201
2,304
1,270
897
2,478
4,212
1,001
160
914
1,321
116
1,344
10,963
1,325
645
Community
population
shift factor *
for
1955/1970
1.22
0.89
0.73
0.94
0.76
0.89
1.64
--
--
1.38
0.79
0.48
0.99
1.18
1.09
0.84
0.72
0.55
1.57
0.93
0.82
1.56
0.81
1.21
0.85
1.55
0.61
1.36
0.53
1.58
1.10
1.19
0.68
0.81
0.87
1.06
Correction
factor **
14.64
10.68
8.70
11.22
18.31
21.43
39.42
—
—
33.29
19.11
11.57
23.84
28.32
26.21
20.32
17.44
13.21
37.86
22.34
19.69
37.64
19.61
29.10
20.60
37.29
14.62
32.82
12.83
38.19
26.42
46.02
16.50
19.48
21.08
25.47
-106-
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX B. (continued)
County
Oakland
(continued)
Wayne
Community
Northville
Novi
Oakland Twp.
Oak Park
Orchard Lake
Orion Twp.
Ortonville
Oxford
Oxford Twp.
Pleasant Ridge
Pontiac
Pontiac Twp.
Rochester
Rose Twp.
Royal Oak
Royal Oak Twp.
Southfield
South Lyon
Springfield Twp.
Sylvan Lake
Troy
Walled Lake
Waterford Twp.
West Bloomfield Twp.
White Lake Twp.
Wixom
Wolverine Lake
Total number of dwelling
units in Oakland
Allen Park
Belleville
Brownstown Twp.
Canton Twp.
Dearborn
Dearborn Heights
Detroit
Ecorse
Occupied Dwelling
Units
1955
— —
1,400
510
7,700
290
1,900
240
750
610
1,160
22,700
2,100
1,500
390
19, 400
2,300
8,200
470
620
540
4,000
450
9,600
2,600
1,760
—
500
155, 920
8,600
580
2,100
1,300
32, 800
8,200
543, 000
4,700
1970
566
2,676
1,197
10, 940
410
4,708
278
782
1,640
1,196
25, 581
3,801
2,541
668
27, 823
2,350
24, 073
753
1,196
697
12, 195
1,065
16, 829
7,333
4,025
608
1,155
265, 741
11,489
830
3,103
3,261
34,614
22,481
498,621
5,326
Community
population
shift factor *
for
1955/1970
_-
0.89
0.73
1.20
1.21
0.69
1.47
1.63
0.63
1.65
1.51
0.94
1.01
0.99
1.19
1.67
0.58
1.06
0.88
1.32
0.56
0.72
0.97
0.60
0.75
—
0.74
0.81
0.76
0.73
0.43
1.03
0.40
1.18
0.96
Correction
factor **
__
21.48
17.50
28.90
29.05
16.57
35.45
39.39
15.27
39.83
36.44
22.69
24,24
23.98
28.63
40.19
13.99
25.63
21.29
31.82
13.47
17.35
23.43
14.56
17.96
—
17.78
6.90
6.44
6.24
3.67
8.73
3.36
10.03
8.13
(continued)
-107-
-------
APPENDIX B. (continued)
County
Wayne
(continued)
Community
Flat Rock
Garden City
Gibraltar
Gross e He Twp.
Grosse Pointe
Grosse Pointe Farms
Grosse Pointe Park
Grosse Pointe Shs.
Grosse Pointe Woods
Hamtramck
Harper Woods
Highland Park
Huron Twp.
Inkster
Lincoln Park
Linonia
Melvindale
Northville
Northville Twp.
Plymouth
Plymouth Twp.
Redford Twp.
River Rouge
Riverview
Rockwood
Romulus
Southgate (Ecorse) Twp.
Sumpter Twp.
Taylor
Trenton
Van Buren Twp.
Wayne
Westland (Nankin)
Woodhaven
Wyandotte
Total number of dwellin
units in W ayne
Occupied Dwelling-
Units
1955
990
6,300
600
1,400
2,100
3,400
4,400
445
4,700
11,950
4,950
14, 350
1,630
8,100
12,800
10, 500
3,300
1,060
770
2,450
1,460
14, 600
5,750
1,400
330
3,700
5,500
1,150
7,500
2«950
2,100
3,750
7,300
—
12, 100
!
767, 085
1970
1,554
10, 482
1,106
2,297
2,293
3,732
4,823
904
6,391
10, 138
6,402
12,412
2,099
10, 443
15, 999
27, 686
4,403
1,082
1,762
3,762
4,909
19,759
5,090
2,951
885
6,574
9,189
2,173
18, 498
6,530
3,590
5,998
23,046
~
12, 922
831,609
Community
population
shift factor *
.*:_„
lor
1955/1970
0.69
0.65
0.59
0.66
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.53
0.80
1.28
0.84
1.25
0.84
0.84
0.87
0.41
0.81
1.06
0.47
0.71
0.32
0.80
1.22
0.51
0.40
0.61
0.65
0.57
0.44
0.49
0.63
0.68
0.34
~
1.02
/"• 4-'
v_orrsction
factor **
5.87
5.54
5.0
5.62
8.44
8.39
8.41
4.54
6.78
10.86
7.12
10.65
7.16
7.15
7.37
3.49
6.91
9.03
4.03
6.00
2.74
6.81
10.41
4.37
3.44
5.19
5.51
4.88
3.74
4.16
5.39
5.76
2.92
~
8.63
-108-
-------
APPENDIX C
a
2
w
S
h
O
w
Q
w
O
u.
1/5
H*
w
a.
«
CO
o
a
a
«k
0
r» W
a •
at «
EI: tt
t- Ci
w
u
s- u v.
C X
^
ac
c/ z
i- *• ar
•) O «~
1- — >
X X
S
~
u; u u>
*5S £
act |-
5 Zn'
C ®
« tr "
= « S
3f «M O O
•9 f H »
« U -«
1
«
ii tr.
£ K
« ui u:
souRfe
SQUM
•AI. KILOMEl
•. « X
« ct >
t,' U.'
C *•
- u.
S
j; c —
tJ J «c
x >- «-
— *^ C
lf> —
o« r* «r
X •* X.
in in —
>e M K
oc
o o o
O C 0
e o o
or c —
O O O
o o c
e e c
e e e
** m or
z tr \e
<• X r ir> a
J J3 J
O r* «
J J J
« o
o o o
0 O O
o c e
0 O 0
OD et
000
e c o
c o e
o c e
•c a <
O c « cc o\
c c c
o o c
o o c
m r» »
o o o
000
e e o
e c o
« »- p«
* >c x
* * >c
« er r-
•» o- r»
ifi I- X
iC ^*
» * O
-109-
-------
o o m m
cor* «cp<-* o««fi P^CD« tor^«A ««o«o OD^^CM m^m »£>r*ao CT'O'—
^»«rr" CNCMCM mm'n »*c*v CDc>m f^^tm o«oo ooo ooo o***-
a ccccx: cccc ooococ i>.«oc ««aa occcec «^«. — — — .».••- «^«
o o CM •* »•« CD o c* c* mo*1
o o r- OD CD •• o v£ *0 r* OD -«
v ^ ("• CN CN CM mmm ••• o> *
iccx: IE 33 ic oa ff. u u. « m
« a: aiica:
ooo ooo
•o
a
3
o
U
(J
•jj
aj
u u;
x a
1 &.* CiT
a: *-
u: •* i«;
u = r
ac ? o
= T, -3
— « a
f- a: x
< s >
u; z
t > u
OL *
O IT O
-" O —
ooo
ooo
ooo
vO W »f
in "i o
o -• o
O C 0
c c c
X OC 9
\c ^ ac
•e ^ *
X 00 >C
J> f r»
tfl CM O
t/1 CN IT
» O C
moo
— i •* r^
fV f*» f»*
0 !«• 1-
O m ir
•• *^ ^r
o o C
ooo
ooo
CN l/J «•
0 C C
e o o
o o «
coo
^ o~ rM
r- a a-
sO ^ £
X C ~!
" r- «
o o »
«•
O C •"
o o »
O O 01
in m w
o o f>
f* t~ C
o o e
ooo
coo
*•>»"* **1
o c —
c e e
coo
e e e
00 < C
— 0 C
r~ r~ r-
r- ~ a
"* <9 *C
cs «*> ^
r^ m *^
ae c a>
f** O **»
m r»> w-
O — • —
» r- cc
o c o
rn m r-
ff1 r* IT.
CM e e
o e o
I X CC
* >C vO
sC ^ CN
rx £ vc
— 0 —
vC vO
COO
ceo
mom
«• m ir>
x « cc
ooo
~* i^ er
f»> ** m
o c o
yC — IT
f^ f*\ f*i
0 0 C
o o c
m fn *r
cc x a
vC *C •£
(N
o o
ooo
o o c-
— 0 0
cc *r m
»c r^ r*
**» c c
CM iT l/>
T O —
«• .r IT
ooo
e o c
ooo
ooo
ooo
ceo
o c o
ceo
— m c^
e c o
o o c
ooo
c- c =
0 C C
o •= c
coo
CN — C
-- "~ r-
tr in IT
*N *n C f.
ft f. f,
» »
^ vO r-
un <~ iP
COO
o e c
o c c
ooo
o c c
CN — C
o c c
ooo
o c o
o cr m
ooo
o o c
e c e
= 00
IT IT ir
fN 5V CM
\r . m IT
<»• o> c
vc >£ r-
•/! Vf i '^
» on »
« » 3
ir ,n £
-no-
-------
a* c ~* r*
m \o r-tto*
o« 01 m ex cv
o
r» m » in >e r»
o — n n « m t
Q.
T
it.
O
1
ti
o
U
i
U
I
= «r S
5?£i
« u;
ui
z
U"
u
a
c
ia
z
C
f- 1C
u;
or «
3 S
O 3
I/,
~
•
hi
O
w
U
u:
V
Z
»«»
*
z
2
r<
2
a.
i:
f-
u:
c
^
^
2
»
j
«r
(••
z
X
3
T
o e o
e o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
o c c
c e c in v
o o e
e o o
COO
G» O C
ceo
o o c
if m *i
<•» c •»
r» r» r>
0 C 0
fi in in
0 O 0
e o o
o o o
coo
o o o
c — —
o o o
o c o
w o ^»
e o o
o o e
c e c
o e c
ir in IT
in in IT
i^ a C
if f in
r« (N rv
O 0 C
~-
m in tn
(V (N tN
O O C
0 O O
O 0 C
0 C O
e o c
o o o
ceo
coo
o c o
vfl 1C W
o o o
coo
ceo
o e o
in v in
in in ir
r» r- fN
o « tv
r» r- r>
in in in
M IN fN
0 O O
0 O C
0 C C
0 O 0
0 O O
e o o
ceo
0 O O
c o c
IT C C
fs in in
o o c
coo
ceo
O O 0
e o o
0 O O
e e —
o e o
0 O O
r* in «-
C 0 C
c e c
o e c
ceo
e in ir.
in r» rx
«» c- «c
r» « «c
e m in
o » o
o< c —
coo
o o e
e e e
o o e
o e e
o c o
o o o
r» o o
ceo
c o e
o o o
in in in
vC C
in in m
coo
o o e
e o o
coo
c e e
c e c
C 0 C
o o o
coo
— o c
e e e
coo
e o o
IT IT IT
rw r- f
e e —
in in in
o e c
in *A f**
o
o
o
c
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
c
IT
IT
r*
IT
-111-
-------
CD o* o
^r ^ if,
» IP ir IP in ir
rv rn v m *c r*- ODOIIO
••* ^ <• « ^ <*• ^-ff-tfi
CN »** <• ir> *o r* oe efv o —« CN
in IT IT. in IP in IP. IP >£ ^o >o
o —
r- r-
o
U
i
U
•—
a. •
r w
u: u:
(- C
< ^3 U'
«- u; to
o s-
W O »~
x sr
IS
S;
»>JNIIAl. SIH'RC
R MISSION PA1
(Tonix lO'/day)
1960 197
i
4
b: cc
a. x
« u: i:
a: ^«
JHd'llX TV2
wntiy
J3HIIUS.'
C ~
f- LO !i
o i
-3 ^
i:
j: 3 J
y — 5
0 — O
tn e»a
x
z
j; a:
r i u:
ic a
o e o
coo
coo
o o o
coo
c e c
ceo
o o o
cr 31 m
coo
ceo
O 0 C
c e c
CN fN fsj
IP IT IP
t, -c. r~
j: >c vc
CN CN CN
— • rs m
^ y
I
1
COS
O O 0
ceo
C 0 C
coo
— CN CN
c c c
000
c » ec
— — CN
c o c
e o c
fi
** i w
•* IP >C
ceo
o c c
coo
c o c
o c o
CN CN —
0 C C
0 C 0
w
-------
3
i
U
CO
4*
M U)
X •
u u;
H C
o
« j d;
*- u.1 to
C I
If
CJ I
t- —a:
IB O —
X X
S
iM'uc SOUPC
IISSION RA1
Toni * I03/day)
160 1975
* u; 7
*
U. W
a: a
« U' U3
u: « u-
CJ = X
a c c
5 ' —
K iC
C *-
« a >
T
u; c -
LJ J «
a — f-
c ~ c
(£ CO
X
c
I
u. a.
•f. z
000
coo
ceo
e o c
ceo
» n cr
c e e
coo
coo
co in a-
C 0 —
c c c
c c e
0 C C
ir m tr
CV tv CM
in in in
x »c r-
e
— c c
0 0 O
o e o
v in o
CD — e
o o o
o o c
coo
in in m
CN «N «l
in tfi in
o — •-
in in tn
cv o r»
c» 01 p»
O ^ IN
O> 00 00
o o c
o o c
o c o
o c o
o c c
000
0 O O
coo
OB ** P*
C. 0 C
o c c
o o c
o e o
in m c
c o
e o e
c* r* V*
in a o
— 0 —
C 0 C
e c o
m r» rn
0 O> C
in m m
(N fN CM
e o e
o e e
o c o
0 O O
coo
1C (V O
e e e
o c c
o c o
* ^ o
r« c. o
o e e
coo
ceo
ft o »
0- C 0
o o c
o e c
o o o
s o c
o o c
o» m «v
« («• -
O 0 0
e o c
(VOW
0- r- w
o o c
o o o
e- c c
f\ r* rs
in in in
»• =T 0
in in in
(N «N fN
X) f C
-113-
-------
occ © o o o o — •• *• <
Q- e* o» r. r^cvr* o* fj PI (N CN <
^ in >e r*<»(j» o«-fM m «»• in *c t- OD
**»^*" « »• ^* CM C*l Of O»fVfV CV f» Of
P* Ol CX PI P* Oi PI Pl PI Ol PI P* P* pi PI
I OOO OOC G O »* ••<,•* ^- v* ** ^* M n ^ Pf PI PI P* P* Ol P* P* p*
i tO P* pi PI PI P.- PJ PI PI PI p* 01 ot PI PI PI tNexr* CXCSCN PI o* P* CNCVCV
01 m CM
fN o* a
C>* *** fM
w o* a
•o
(U
I
a
o
u
U
1
>•»
a •
*- c
u
u tc
£
— s:
i r
*C
^ rs.
M X
If)
2
X X
Ma *
a c c
- r-
— ~ Z
< 3. >
t j u:
c «-
h^ U.
X ~ H
cc
j.' a.
t ) "j3
- 3
•JJ 3
o e o
c o c
coo
ceo
o e c
c c c
coo
OOC
«- o e
coo
ceo
<= c e
in tr m
ir in ir
c — —
(^ r^ r^
in in in
**. rs rs
ooo
ooo
coo
000
OOC
000
OOC
ooo
e e c
o s a
o c o
ooo
ir m o
in in o
r>« px •*"!
r^ p* *fc
ji in o
££ £
0 C O
ooo
ooo
OOC
ooo
o c o
0 C 0
n in —
C
-------
a)
I
o
O
O
a
03
4»
0
>- 10
^»
a. •
X 0
bi u:
H C
u
1- UK.
« & >x
C E
w
^
U Z
< « •••
^- •- y
K 0 -'
f X
v^
«
c*.
m
u b? s
AMNUAt, SOURC
ftSSJON R»1
(Tons X lO^/day)
1960 1?
s
Oi
«c
u* tr
or a.
a u: tJ
tfc « u:
U := T
oc c r
r: W J
c >-
-> ~- a
< a: >
u u;
o »-
J u;
s
li." C J
U J «
K "i f-
c- ~ o
«; co
H4
OL
o
I
u a
O ii-
ce *
= s.
IT, 2
CN m ^
r*i
000
000
ir IT ir
* IT ST
000
coo
o o c
rw cv rw
^ (M O.
o c o
000
o o o
ceo
0 C C
o o —
o c c
ir £/• i/>
* >C X
C 0 =
f, ir ai
•3 — r»
fv\ fv« /v<
— {%*»>
OD OC X
in * r»
CM CM (N
in >o r~
« Ol «N
a. a. a,
000
m m m
o o o
o o c
ir w^ in
vr ff O
*** t\ **•,
^ m x
OC X CC
a> tr o
«<• CM O»
a a. x.
o c o
m r*i r*>
000
o o o
IT IT IT
\e
000
o o o
m m m
IT in if
« C 1C >C
O m ir
i/) m rsi
^ •- »
O «H (V
o- » a
» in c
m
000
000
i»i m *n
in m in
O» «N CH
o o c
000
o o o
IT m IT
coo
o c o
coo
o o o
coo
in in f
rn «v (s
in in in
rv r- rv
* * *
in in in
?v rv w> f*<
m *r in
9^ o^ a^
r- a>
01 «
r- OD
CM n
a. a
o o
i»i m
o o
0 0
m m
m m
in in
9 in
o — «
0 0
o o
«H
-------
TABLE C-2. SOURCES OF AMBIENT NICKEL AND CADMIUM AND THEIR EMISSIONS
FOR THE DETROIT METROPOLITAN AREA.
Source Establishment
County Category Number
Wayne Zinc smelting
Zinc smelting
Zinc smelting
Zinc smelting
Cement manufacturing
Incinerator
Incinerator
Steel production
Steel production
Coal combustion
Coal combustion
Coal combustion
Coal combustion
Coal combustion
Coal combustion
Coal combustion
Coal combustion
Coal combustion
Coal combustion
Coal combustion
Coal combustion
Macomb Coal combustion
Coal combustion
Coal combustion
Coal combustion
Coal combustion
Oakland Coal combustion
Coal combustion
A8030
B2159
B3175
B3246
B3567
B2103
B2118
A7809
A8640
A8645
B2185
B2800
B2811
B2812
B3011
B3165
B3683
B4009
B4073
B4277
M2680
A3567
A3568
B1801
B2763
B2767
A5260
B4030
Locations, UTM
Coordinates *
X Y
3328
3308
3297
3053
3239
3245
3215
3240
3226
3025
3276
3227
3198
3387
3302
3067
3260
3222
3012
3278
3294
3319
3318
3329
3326
3322
2915
3148
46992
46932
46926
46887
46836
46832
46726
46795
46852
46935
46854
46762
46658
46911
46906
46845
46831
46733
46832
46936
46900
47166
47255
47134
47072
47021
47086
47207
Controlled Emissions
kg per year
Nickel Cadmium
0
0
0
0
278
422
54
97
56
44
86
36
471
34
87
57
138
1454
42
79
41
78
69
43
42
317
40
61
2176
1429
480
299
278
961
123
973
555
73
143
59
782
57
144
95
229
2414
70
131
67
131
115
71
70
526
66
101
* In 100-meter units. (continued}
-116-
-------
TABLE C-2. (Concluded)
County
Oakland
Wayne
Macomb
Oakland
Source
Category
Coal combustion
Coal combustion
Oil combustion
Oil combustion
Oil combustion
Oil combustion
Oil combustion
Oil combustion
Oil combustion
Oil combustion
Oil combustion
Establishment
Number
B4033
B4047
A6928
A9831
B2137
B2798
B3680
B4275
B1798
B4049
A5262
Locations, UTM Controlled Emissions
Coordinates * kg per year
X Y Nickel Cadmium
' 3126
3115
3318
3223
2999
3267
3198
3265
3323
3323
2804
47214
47255
46895
46831
46940
46847
46666
46857
47035
47086
47162
34
208
95
629
55
139
112
112
149
142
60
57
345
4.7
31.4
2.8
40.6
6.9
5.6
7.4
7.1
3.0 •
* In 100-meter units.
-117-
-------
Appendix D
TABLE D-l. AMBIENT BaP CONCENTRATIONS AS REPORTED BY
SAWICKIETAL. (18) FOR DETROIT*
Month
and Year BaP Concentrations in Nanograms/Cubic Meter
July 1958 6.0
August 1958 4.1
September 1958
October 1958 18.0
November 1958 19.0
December 1958 20.0
January 1959 28.0
February 1959 31.0
March 1959 16.0
April 1959 12.0
May 1959 7.4
June 1959 3.4
11-month average 15.0
* Site location shown in Figure 9.
-118-
-------
TABLE D-2. ANNUAL AVERAGE AMBIENT BaP CONCENTRATIONS AT NASN SITES
IN THE DETROIT METROPOLITAN STUDY AREA, ng/m
Year Detroit* Dearborn** Trenton** Flint**
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
4.7
5.4
5.1
3.9
2.6
1.4
1.9
1.0
--
1.0
0.
1.
1.
••
1.4
1.6
0.2
6
0
7
•~
1.4
0.8
1.7
0.5
* Site locations are shown in Figure 9.
t Sites not shown in Figure 9; their UTM x and y coordinates are:
Dearborn: 320.8 4687.5
Trenton: 320.0 4667.4
Flint: 281.1 4765.6
-119-
-------
TABLE D-3. AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF BaP AS REPORTED
BY INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION STUDY IN ng/m3
Site Number*
Date 401 406 409
December 1967
January 1968
February 1968
March 1968
April 1968
May 1968
June 1968
July 1968
August 1968
September 1968
October 1968
November 1968
Average
2.1
1.7
1.3
7.2
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.6
5.9
6.1
3.4
14.9
6.1
3.4
4.3
2.0
2.8
12.0
16.2
6.7
7.0
2.1
1.5
1.4
1.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.6
1.0
1.1
* Site locations are shown in Figure 9.
-120-
-------
TABLE D-4. AMBIENT BaP CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED
AT WAYNE COUNTY MONITORING SITES IN ng/m3 (16)
Site Number*
Year
1971
Annual
1972
Annual
1973
Annual
1974
Annual
1975
Annual
1976
Annual
Months
Jan-Mar
Apr-Jun
Jul-Sep
Oct-Dec
Average
Jan-Mar
Apr-Jun
Jul-Sep
Oct-Dec
Average
Jan-Mar
Apr-Jun
Jul-Sep
Oct-Dec
Average
Jan-Mar
Apr-Jun
Jul-Sep
Oct-Dec
Average
Jan-Mar
Apr-Jun
Jul-Sep
Oct-Dec
Average
Jan-Mar
Apr-Jun
Jul-Sep
Oct-Dec
Average
4
2
1
4
3
3
1
2
1
2
3
3
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
2
2
3
1
0
0
2
1
02
.15
.08
.77
.01
.0
.89
.84
.52
.53
.45
.05
.79
.08
.17
.02
.30
.58
.80
.17
.46
.30
.97
.30
.15
.43
.20
.94
.86
.05
.26
3
1
2
4
2
4
1
4
I
3
5
4
3
3
4
1
2
1
1
1
4
6
3
4
4
2
1
1
2
2
04
.38
.89
.12
.50
.97
.22
.97
.91
.47
.14
.13
.62
.61
.26
.16
.81
.13
.39
.45
.70
.85
.74
.30
.51
.85
.78
.84
.94
.67
.31
05
6.98
5.36
7.05
17.90
9.32
6.53
3.18
8.76
5.33
5.95
18.4
13.5
7.15
8.07
11.78
6.20
9.16
4.04
23.92
10.83
10.63
20.93
11.03
16.27
14.72
6.20
7.75
5.21
5.62
6.20
4
2
2
2
3
3
1
5
1_
2
4
3
2
2
3
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
06
.54
.62
.79
.47
.62
.14
.02
.21
.09
.62
.43
.83
.00
.23
.12
.37
.20
.45
.04
.52
.41
.73
.52
.21
.47
.49
.61
.44
.86
.85
08
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
4.
L
2.
3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
2.
1.
4.
2.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
26
04
79
47
39
42
57
80
45.
56
50
91
26
11
70
65
36
36
39
44
15
03
59
40
54
66
02
10
78
14
on
1.59
1.19
0.91
1.53
1.31
1.79
0.90
1.37
1.22
1.32
2.47
1.85
1.72
1.96
2.00
0.21
0.59
0.39
0.15
0.34
1.16
0.75
0.48
0.54
0.73
0.34
0.61
0.43
0.68
0.52
* Site locations are shown in Figure 9.
-121-
-------
TABLE D-5. AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF NICKEL
IN THE DETROIT METROPOLITAN STUDY AREA IN ug/m3
Year &
Quarter
1971
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Wayne County Sites*
01 04 05 06 012 32 34
.013 .054 .060 .008 .015 .122 .045
.007 .026 .023 .000 .008 .013 .027
.007 .014 .040 .000 .000 .090 .027
.006 .014 .013 .014 .000 .012 .026
NASN Si test
1
Average .008 .027 .034 .005 .006 .059 .031
I ^
1972
1st .031 .066 .086 .018 .039 .256 .078
2nd .078 .078 .128 .018 .026 .118 .031
3rd .101 .087 .112 .043 .091 .082 .044
4th .092 .078 .138 .064 .072 .065 .062
Average .075 .077 .116 .036 .057 .130 .054
1973
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
.028 .048 .039 .022 .015 .015 .024
.028 .041 .039 .010 .010 .030 .027
.023 .025 .035 .013 .013 .024 .018
.020 .036 .029 .015 .010 .025 ".063
.000
.000
.015
Average .025 .037 .035 .015 .012 .023 .033 \
1974
1st
2nd
3rd
: 4th
1
.041 .051 .069 .026 .029 .056 .061
.046 .045 .053 .037 .037 .051 .066
.057 .054 .057 .037 .024 .038 .037
.038 .058 .057 .043 .037 .062 .054
: Average .045 .052 .059 .035 .032 .052 .054
1975
1st -Olf .017 .035 .016 .026 .028 .024
2nd .016 .017 .017 .024 .008 .016 .016
3rd .017 .018 .017 .007 .005 .017 .016
4th .017 .017 .017 .016 .004 .017 .007
Average .016 .017 .035 .016 .026 .019 .016
1976_
i 1st
2nd
! 3rd
: 4th
.012 .023 .016 .040 .034
.019 .025 .033 .021 .008 .018 .013
.012 .025 .022 .016 .017 .017 .016
' .016 .016 .015 .016 .016 .025 .024
Average .015 .022 .023 .018 .014 .025 .022
.000
.000
.000
.000
.019
.012
.013
.015
2
.000
.000
.016
.011
.000
.012
.013
3
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.011
.000
4 i 5
.009
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
1
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
* Site locations shown in Figure 25.
t NASN sites and their x and y UTM coordinates are:
1. Dearborn
2. Detroit
3. Flint
4. Flint
5. Trenton
320.8 4687.5
329.8 4691.4
281.1 4765.6
281.0 4765.3
320.0 4667.4
-122-
-------
TABLE D-6. AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF CADMIUM
IN THE DETROIT METROPOLITAN AREA IN ug/m3
Year &
Quarter
1971
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Average
1972
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Average
1973
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Average
1974
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Average
1975
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Average
1976
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Average
Wayne County Sites*
01 04 05 06 012 32 34
.007 .004 .006 .006 .003 .027 .007
.006 .005 .006 .003 .006 .014 .012
.007 .006 -Oil .003 .003 .002 .006
.005 .005 .012 .005 .004 .018 .003
.006 .005 .009 .004 .004 .015 .007
.108 .004 .008 .002 .005 .010 .005
.006 .006 .005 .006 .005 .010 .004
.003 .003 .004 .002 .002 .008 .003
.006 .004 .006 .002 .003 .004 .005
.031 .004 .006 .003 .004 .008 .004
.004 .005 .005 .003 .007 .009 .003
.003 .004 .005 .003 .003 .009 .003
.004 .004 .005 .003 .003 .011 .003
.004 .005 .007 .003 .003 .009 .006
.004 .004 .005 .003 .004 .009 .004
.004 .004 .007 .004 .003 .005 .004
.005 .004 .005 .003 .003 .006 .003
.004 .005 .007 .004 .004 .004 .005
.005 .006 .006 .006 .004 .007 .005
.004 .005 .006 .004 .003 .005 .004
.002 .003 .004 .002 .003 .005 .002
.003 .002 .004 .002 .003 .005 .002
.002 .002 .005 .004 .003 .004 .002
.002 .003 .004 .002 .002 .004 .002
.002 .002 .004 .002 .003 .004 .002
.003 .002 .001 .002 .002
.004 .003 .002 .002 .000 .004 .003
.004 .002 .005 .002 .001 .005 .007
.002 .002 .004 .002 .001 .003 .005
.003 .002 .004 .002 .001 .003 .004
1
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.. -,
.000
.000
.000
.000
.008
.000
.006
1.005
1
NASN
2
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
: .005
.000
.005
.002
Sites
3
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
t-
4
5
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000 ,
!
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
i
'
1
i
* Site Locations shown in Figure 30.
t NASN Sites and their x and y UTM coordinates are:
1. Dearborn
2. Detroit
3. Flint
4. Flint
5. Trenton
320-8 4687.5
329-8 4691-4
281-1 4765-6
281-0 4765-3
320-0 4667-4
-123-
-------
Appendix E
2
u>
d
H
o
u,
ll_
a
«•.
c
O
2
o
2
U. IT
a «
ca
_ — V
(-« u; «3
Z ^ Wl . ~
c- "£. ^ CJ
a u. x
x e- a. >•
~ H f- *•
tr z 2 -a
— u' u: «*
•- MN <— a.
0
c
o
0
0
0
c
c
c
o
^
c
e
o
o
N
o
o
o
o
<„
0
o
o
o
u
o
0
o
o
o
c
o
o
0
c
c
o
c
0
o
c
c
c
9
o
0
c
c
o
o
0
*
o
o
o
UJ
o
o
o
o
o
c
0
c
o
0
o
c
o
o
o
o
c
o
o
0
0
c
e
o
c
^
0
o
c
5
o
o
o
o
o
o
c
o
o
0
c
0
c
c
0
o
c
c
0
0
0
o
o
o
o
N
—
o
o
c
«r
o
o
o
c
o
o
o
0
o
0
o
0
e
o
c
c
e
o
c
c
0
o
e
c,
o
0
o
o
c
o
I
c
o
o
o
0
o
c
o
o
o
c
c
o
o
o
0
c
o
o
o
c
o
e
c
o
o
o
o
03
e
o
c
o
o
o
c
c
c
o
c
c
o
c
c
3
O
0
O
N
e
c
o
c
o
0
o
o
3
e
o
o
o
o
5
0
O
c
c
a
o
c
c
c
o
c;
c>
c
o
^
0
c?
o
Cf
0
^
0
c
o
^
o
c
c
c
e
e>
o
c
c
0
o
c.
o
o
e
o
o
5
o
c
c
o
c.
o
o
_,
o
0
0
o
i
e
0
c
c
o
c
c
o
o
c
c
c
c
e
e
o
e
c
c
o
e
c
e
c
c
c
^
o
o
o
*
0
c
c
0
c
e
o
e
0
c
o
e
c
o
c
o
e
c
0
o
~>
o
c
c
o
(V
c
c
Q
C
•1
^
^
1
•I
i
-124-
-------
•a
4)
3
W
3
CQ
CJ
C
Cr
V!
c
0
o
3
o
o
o
c
o
o
c
o
c
o
o
p*
o
o
o
o
ft-
c
c
e
c
^
c
o
o
c
o
c
o
0
o
c
c
o
=
o
0
o
o
c
c
0
o
o
o
c
o
c
o
=
c
c
c:
o
s
o
o
o
c
o
r.
O
o
c
c
,"*
o
c
o
^,
o
c
o
0
o
o
o
c
o
c
o
o
c
0
£
o
e
c
c
IT
c
o
o
r—
o
c
o
o
ir
c
o
0
c
o
o
o
o
o
c
o
c
c
0
o
c
o
o
=
o
—
o
c
If!
o
o
o
<=
fN
c
0
c
o
0
o
0
c
o
^
c
c
o
o
=
o
o
c
o
*.
o
o
0
\r.
V*
o
c
o
CN
c
^
o
o
o
0
0
o
c
c-
o
c
o
=
0
c
^
c
o
e
—
c
e
m
c
c
c
o
fs
c
c
e
c
t^
o
o
c
o
o
o
o
*
c
o
o
c
o
o
o
c
0
o
r—
c
c
o
o
in
c
C3
O
c,
^
c
c
c
0
^
c
o
c
0
o
o
c
d
0
0*
o
0
0
p*
.*
c
o
o
*
o
^
c
o
o
o
c
0
o
e
c
c
ss
o
e-
es
c
o
• »- z u; ^ (Au:co (OJEv3
f*, O22ZUJ^^it^C/JtCW3WS
-725-
-------
-^
•V
S
.s
3
0
u_
•
1-1
1
UJ
«
<
(5
O 0
0 0
0 O
• — E
r- O £ S
-: c
*- Z
it •-
« 2
r*
•f.
O
O
c
e
o
c
c
0
o
c
o
•rt
c
c
0
r-
c
0
c
^
3
e
o
f»
0
O
o
c
a!
Z
0
O
c
c
o
e
c
c
o
o
CM
c
o
c
o
X
c
c
0
r-
c
3
c
o
c
c
o
Ib
Z.
u
c
0
e
c
o
e
e
c
0
c
o*
«•
e
e
o
m
C
0
c
0*
c
o
o
0
o
o
0
u
o
o
*
c
o
— .
c
e
~
0
c
c
c
e
o
if.
v
e
o
o
m
c
c
o
o
c
*
c
0
c
u
sc
u
e
c
^
c
0
_ ,
c
c
o
0
CM
0
C
o
0
r*-
c
c
c
a>
c
c
o
3
c
o
"
tb
CO
o
c
o
o
3
c
c
c
0
1*1
c
c
c
c
in
c
c
o
CM
o
c
c
^
o
0
o
kb
U3
U3
O
0
c
o
o
CM
o
o
c
o
IT.
«*
c
c
o
_
IP
c
0
o
o
o
o
c
c
e>
c
!/}
r*
o
c
c
o
c
c
c
0
o
c
o
c
o
—
IT"
e
c
o
IT
c
c
o
3
0
O
O
3
a)
c
c
c
o
e
c
c
c
o
e
in
*•
e
o
o
3>
e
o
c
or-
9
c
c
o
CK
c
c
o
o
Z
US
X
o
o
c
o
c
c
c
c
£
c
e*
v>.
o
s>
c
«f
oc
e
o
c
o>
^
c
c
**l
c
o
c
c
7
0
C
c
c
c
e
^
c
^
o
r-
^
c
e
c
tC
£
C
O
C
C
e
0
r*
c
c
o
S
2
2
3
0
O
0
e
c
c
o
0
•=
a-
o
0
o
c
a
c
c
c
p»
c
c
o
o
c
c
c
:*
z
0
0
c
e
=
,_
c
c
o
c
r»
c
e
e
o
X
0
c
c
*n
^
c
o
m
C
o
c
c
2
Z
1
-126-
-------
^
•o
s
a
o
^H
1
^
a
CQ
H
(V
c
c
iC O
o
V
CM
c
IT 0
O
en ys
Uj —
« » 0
c; o
c
tu fN
a. o>
0 "1 C
»•* o
x
in
IT.
C
rsi ~
C
. _i
«- C 2
f •"
c-
^
c
c
.1)
~*
o
o
o
o
e
in
c
o
°
o
1C
o
c
o
o
ir
e
o
Q
<£
r*
O
0
c
^
o
o
=>
o
[»;
z
K
o
o
c
o
o
in
c
o
~
c
O4
r-j
^^
<^
c
Oi
*
c
c
c
a
o
OD
O
o
o
o
w
w
uJ
tv
o
c
c
c
[M
o
^
c
c
m
1C
o
o
0
1C
~
0
o
(N
CN
o
o
c
^
o
^
c
c
u
02
rx
o
o
o
o
m
O
^
=
0
SD
in
c
o
o
m
—
c
o
_
CM
o
o
o
r»i
C
c
o
c
u
in
w
o
e
o
o
o
i£
0
o
o
^
*r
<*1
c
o
Oi
0
o
o
r-
CN
O
O
c
^^
s
o
o
o
1C
CM
o
o
o
OD
V
o
o
o
cs
rM
t*l
o
0
r-
»
0
e
,,
{M
c
e
o
^
o
c
o
o
X
to
tc
CV
CM
o
o
c
(N
o
o
3
c
5
2
o
o
^
c
o
p_
f*
o
c
c
tr
IT)
^t
o
o
ce
IT
o
c
c
f-
CM
c
0
0
«
c
c
c
o
a
^
=
-127-
-------
•^
*u
3
s
0
c^
>
«-(
i
<;
P
c
o
o
X C
o
c
e
o
ifl C
c
c
in o
U3 C
« «• c
0 C
c
u:
i: c
a. to
tc e
o « o
•— s
X
o*
c
(* C
o
o
c
f C
0
ir>
z
tc c
1C —
— 0
O U!
3t
^ f
H C Z
_2 C •
1-1 Z
a. —
< Tt
coooooooocccocc
oocoooooeoeoooo
COOCCOCCOCOC3OO
COCOC.OCOCCCOOOC
cceeocoooosooco
COOC3COOSOOCOOO
occccccooccoccc
occcceooecceoeo
ceooooocooccocc
ocooooocoocooco
oococcocooccocc
oocccocooooccc e
ccccccooccc-occc
cccooooccocoocc
coccocococcocco
cxr-^»£cc*c»«ic r^cvor*-— «(n
cv
-------
^
lu
TJ
,5
u
fi
0
c^
1
UJ
a
c
o
o
f, C
o
,_,
^
c
ir o
c:
^
& 5
v. e
< V O
i.
1 _
Q. O
y c
O m o
•*
IT,
cv C
0
pn
O
o
'-/3 C
V. —
— t-J
tj LL
- | ,
_: c.
<. ^
cr
ooocooGoccoocoe
cooooooccocoocc
ccoccccoeoococc
occocooceooococ
sooooococcccooo
CCCCCOOOC C.COOOO
occccoccccecrcco
cecocsc-occocooc
occccccoc-eecoco
cccoooocooooooc
cccococooecoeoo
occoccoocoocooc
ccccoccccoccoco
cocceccococooco
oceeecoeocooooc
cscococooeccoce
CCOOCOCCOOCCC'CC'
ccocoocccccocco
cocoooooccccooc
ccceoocooooooco
ilSm^'cvSj^^ScvSmw
oooccooccoooooc
r~ro>T — rrec-, — — r* *• o> i£\ct%
oooocococ ooc ooc
ccccoooooooccoo
OCCCOC CC.OOOOOOC
isib.^«il
-129-
-------
Of
^,
oJ
O
fc.
H
<*
Q
b
§
•— «
j«
5
1— 1
O
2
0
0*
o
H
3
A
A
^Q
1
to
Ul
Ol
1
HI
a
BQ
^
£_i
J.
>
LL
%
at
U -
c ^
CKi • —
a <*i x
u: cc
U r*
M C
e u:
e a. •
— r- b-
« a.
u a =
u. tr
i a cr
t- z u.
a. u; a
U. (- Q.
u z z
r ii u
>c X I
>- r r
X < - Z
< !r
i-
u:
c o
o o
o e
o o
0 0
o e
e o
o e
c e
o e
o o
0 0
e o
C 0
e c
0 0
c o
e e
o o
0 C
c *•
0 0
c c
e c
e o
0 0
0 0
c o
c c
o e
u.
z &
z z
o
o
o
e
o
e
e
0
e
e
e
e
o
c
o
c
0
c
c
0
«v
e
c
c
e
0
o
e
0
c
u.
z
ll.'
C 0
O 0
c o
C 0
o o
e e
e e
0 0
o o
o e
o e
0 0
o o
o c
C 0
o c
0 C
c c
o c
O 0
c r*
o e
c c
e o
e e
0 0
o o
o c
0 0
c c
u.
CO
it' (C
O 0
O 0
o o
O 0
o e
c e
e e
c c
c c
O 0
c c
0 0
e e
o o
o o
e c-
o c
0 0
0 C
c. c
CN O
0 O
e e
o c
e e
— 0
e o
c c
c c
e o
^
u. cc
CO CC
0 0
o o
0 C
e c
o o
o e
e c
«? o
c o
0 0
o c
C 0
o c
0 C
C 0
e o
c c
o e
0 0
0 C
» e
e o
c o
c c
e e
c e
c c
c c
O 0
e e
3
1C
cc Vi
o
o
o
e
e
0
e
c
o
o
c
e
o
e
c
c
e
c
o
o
o
c
c
c
o
e
0
c
c
o
•3.
EC
O O
e e
o o
o c
0 0
C 0
e c
c o
c c
o e
e c
o c
c e
c c
c o
e c
e e
e e
o e
e c
o e
c e
c c
0 0
« e
o —
O 0
c c
e o
0 O
31
tc
X .*
o o
c o
c o
o c
e e
c o
c c
o c
e o
e e
c e
c- o
C 0
c c
c o
e e
o o
0 C
o c
0 0
v* c<
0 O"
0 C
o c
o e
c —
c o
e c
o o
o c
^
z z
X Z
c 9-
0 I
c 2
o £
° 4
c
e
e
e
o
c
o
o
c
o
e
e
c
c
c
CM
C
e
c.
c.
c
c
o
c
c
3
Z
=
-130-
-------
3
g
4-)
a
o
U
SJ
c
Iz.
tC
tr
«r
m
tx
—
2
C
E-
t )
f
OL
M
C
^
3
C
C
O
C
c
e
. c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
tr
c
c
o
o
CN
c
0
0
a
_^
c
c
e
2
O
O
o
o
c
o
e
c
c
c
o
c
c
o
e
r-
^
o
c
c
^
c
c
c
o
IT
C
o
c
c
bl.
2
2
C
O
o
o
c
c
c
c
e
c
e.
c
c
c
o
oc
c
c
c
c
a
o
c
c
o
o
o
o
j;
Z
C
O
o
e
o
o
c
o
o
o
o
c
o
c
o
o
e
c
o
r-
c
c
o
o
c
c
o
o
^
Z
bj
O
O
o
c
o
o
o
c
o
o
c
c
c
e
c
ir
c
c
c
*•
o
c
c
c
c
o
c
U)
c
o
c
e
c
o
o
0
o
o
c
e
c
c
c
*
o
e
o
c
c
e
o
c
c
c
c
k*.
in
u:
o
o
o
o
e
0
o
c
o
o
c
o
c
c
c
r*-
*_
c
c
o
o
c
c
c
c-
c
c
c
cc
u:
e
c
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
c
c
c
c
c
c
in
c
c
o
c
in
o
c
0
c-
o
c
c
c
J 1
!C
CC
o
o
e
o
c
c
o
c
c
o
c
c
c
o
c
w
o
o
c
cc
o
c-
c
c
o
c
c
c
«
c
c
c
e
e
o
o
c
o
c
c
c
c
c
c
cc.
o
e
o
c
in
c
o
0
o
^^
o
o
o
o
2
to
If.
o
o
c
c
o
o
o
c
0
c
o
c
o
c
c
\r
o
c
c
c
«
o
c
o
o
CM
o
c
o
o
3
10
o
o
c
e
0
c
c
o
e>
c
c
c
o
c
c
in
e
o
c
c
<«.
o
e
c
o
_
c
c
c
o
3
1C
3
O
C
C
O
C
0
C
0
o
c
c
c
c
c
c-
•c
e
e
c
o
*
c
o
c
e
IT
O
O
o
c
z
o
c
c
o
0
c
o
c
e
c
c
c
c
c
c
cr
c
e.
o
o
-------
-— ..
73
I
a
1
eg
w
a
CO
f-
0
c
c
(C C
o
e
e
IT e
o
K •»
u: c
« « c
0 C
e
u.
iv if>
& ^
IT 0
O <«1 O
1-1 O
c
(M
c
fs O
o
• »»
«- C Z
-: c
» 2
nr •-
« 3
V.
G 0
e o
e c
e o
O 0
o e
e e
c e
c o
c e
c c
e c
o c
m ff
e c
C 0
0 O
- r
c e
c e
C 0
*> i"
C 0
o e
c o
o c
u.
Z Z
0 O
s o
o o
o e
9 O
e c
e e
C 0
o c
C 0
e e
e o
c- o
CE r-
c c
c c
c e
e —
c c
o o
e c
«N •
c c
o c
e c
c e
u:
2
b: i>:
0
c
o
c
0
o
c
e
e
e
o
c
e
m
c
c
o
!*•
C
C
0
o
<•>
0
c
c
c
,_
5
dl
c
c
e
c
o
o
o
e
o
o
o
e
c
e
«*
o
o
MM
e>
e
e
,»
o
^.
o
o
£k
IO
0 C
O C
o e
o o
e o
c e
e o
o c
0 0
o —
e e
0 C
o e
— c
0 0
0 C
c o
-------
^
-a
o
3
q
"•0
a
Q
CJ
CM
w
a
o3
<;
E-
!•) —
o o
o c
1C O O
c c
^ in
r* C
c c
IT C O
O 0
in • r- Z
5- c c ^
— c
1- £•
o
^
c
*
c c
c c
e e
— «
**• ^
v> vri
O C
c c
CM —
e o
o o
c c
p- n
C CM
c o
o c
c c
la.
3:
u; jj
o o
o o
o o
o o
c c
rv CM-
e c
0 0
o c
o o
^r CM
C C
c o
c c
f* vc
OP O
c ~
c c
o o
» 00
c c
c e
o o
in o
o «
0 C
c o
c o
J.
1C [*!
[&. (C
o —
o o
O 0
o c
c o
r*n *•*
O —
O 0
c o
0 C
*f in
c —
c c
c c
fM
c
c
in
v«
^^
o
o
CM
c
c
o
CM
c
c
o
c
3
1C
I
**> CM
f*l ***
0 0
0 C
o o
0 *
r- o
c —
o c
c o
—
V*
0
0
o
IT
"= i
0 =
o 3
^
^
c
c
o
„
_
c
o
in
p»
^
c
c
c
e
c
in
o
c
o
c
3
2
2
-133-
-------
0
c
c
fl 1/5 C
8 C f, 0
•^ •- c
OJ
1 _
U4 (^
tu ^
3 o> c-
< c
h
o
c
o
— c
o
IT
z
1C C
1C >-
« s-
u u.
CL
>> •••»
e- c z
I «-
e 3
•J:
c
0
e
o
e
c
c
c-
o
c
c
c
o
c
c
f*
c
c
c
_
rs
c.
c
o
0
c
c
c
0
u.
2
-
c
c
c
e
e
c
o
e
c
o
&
c
c
o
o
*
e
c
c
FT
CX
C
c
e
c
c
c
c
c
a.
•z
O O
c o
o o
e o
c o
0 =
o c
e e
c c
c o
o c-
c c
c c
C 0
c o
-------
—
-J
T3
^
O
a
o
(J
("0
1
rjj
[jj
CO
E-
o
c
o
<£ C
°
C
o
c
lf> O
c
c
V. C
(C e
tf •» C
u <=
c
b:
u? c
a e
o- o
e. !•> c
— c
3
X
C
_
CN O
c
cr
cc
o
-« o
o
£
•z.
If z>
tf. —
< (-
J u
u u.
a.
>• — *
r- C 2
E —
" 3
C
O
C
O
O
_
C
O
C
0
c
c
c
c
c
c
o
c
c
o
ft
4p
c
c
e
0-
CM
O
c
c
d.
2?
z
o
o
o
o
o
c
c
c
c
o
o
e
c
c
e-
o
c
c
c
e
in
*»>
c
c
c
3
C
c
c
0
0
e
o
c
c
c
c
o
e
c
o
o
c
c
c
c
c
CN
c
c
0
cc
W!
o
o
c
3
Z.
Z
-135-
-------
5§
Q 55
£*
^ (/)
O *
te. BJ
[5 P
1 ~
< f-j
^ O
o
o
Ifl O
1C C
« » c
U 0
u:
u o
a o
K O
O <*) O
^^ o
m
o
o
CM O
o
«•
o
o
•- o
o
—
z
tc c
«o •-
« t-
J O
o u
a.
>• H4
t- Q Z
*•
J C
M Z
«• X
1-
CQ
ocoocococooooco ^
OOOOOOOCOOOCOCO a
ooococooooooocc i
OOOOCOOCOOOOCOC c
oceooooooooccec "d
ocoooooceoooooo
ccoooccoccooece
eoccceoc ccccoeo
occooococooocco
ooooooooooooooo
ococoooocccooco
oeoceooococeoec
ooccococcococoo
coeceecoooccocc
eoooooococcoccc
cooococe ocooeec
oooeoocccoooooo
oooocooc oooococ
ooococoooococcc
oooceoooeooecoc
»-~ — o~ — —
-------
"3
4)
I
3
O
CJ
a
a
tn
o
^
o
c
o
c
o
c
c
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CM
«-l
e
o
o
m
«
O
c
o
<*
o
o
o
o
o
o
c
o
c
o
c
e
o
o
e
o
0
o
o
-------
f
3
.2
'•H
O
U
.
1
u)
a
3
H
c
0
o
to o
e
_
o
o
lf> O
0
CO —
1C C
* « 0
(J O
o
w
Ui r-
in o
C •»> o
H" e
X
(E
•M
C
CM O
C
r-
O
c
" C
c
I |
< 6-
— (J
^ u:
a.
» i-i
t- c z
^>
1- Z
IE •-
« I
*
o e
O 0
O 0
0 0
c o
0 C
o e
e e
o o
e o
c c
o e
e e
c c
o a
0 C
0 0
0 O
— —
•« w
c o
0 0
c c
o >»
0 C
0 C
0 0
C 0
u:
1 g
0 C
0 0
o o
o e
0 O
0 O
o o
o o
o o
o e
e o
c o
o e
o o
in «
O 0
0 O
o o
r» m
o e
0 0
o e
O 0
CH ^
0 O
o o
O 0
o e
tai
Z
U U
e
o
0
o
0
o
0
c
c
o
e
o
o
e
••
o
0
o
r-
o
o
o
0
«
o
e
o
o
u;
in
u
o
o
0
o
e
o
e
e
0
o
c
o
0
o
o.
c
0
0
«r
v«
c
o
e
P.
o
o
o
o
b:
n
o c
O 0
0 C
O 0
C C
O 0
0 0
O 0
o e
c o
o —
o o
o e
o o
•
o c
c e
C 0
O 0
— 0
O 0
o o
o e
n «
0 O
o o
o o
0\ VO
o c
o o
o e
o o
!•> —
O C
0 C
c o
0 C
X
z
X X
VI*
0
o
o
o
-------
^^
TJ
0)
3
C
«i-4
3
~^
ro
1
id
a
09
C
o
0 0 O
o o o
O O 0
0 C -«
0 0 C
c o c
«• o a
-------
--K
"3
• f^
8- 0 Z
— c
e M
« X
1C
c
c
0
c
e
o
o
o
o
0
o
c
0
o
0
m
o
o
0
r-
o
o
0
c
o
o
o
o
k.
X
z
o
c
c
o
e
o
o
o
c
o
o
o
c
0
o
Ol
c
0
0
o
o
o
c
o
c
o
0
c
u
z
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
c
0
c
0
o
o
m
o
0
o
f>
c
o
0
0
c
o
0
o
u
z
u
o
o
o
o
o
o
c
o
o
o
o
o
e
e
o
f.
o
0
o
o
o
0
0
o
o
o
0
e
u
c
o
0
e
o
o
0
o
0
o
0
c
o
o
c
0
o
0
o
0>
o
e
0
0
0
o
o
o
bj
OJ
u;
o
o
c
o
o
o
0
o
0
0
0
o
o
c
o
m
o
c
o
09
o
c
o
0
o
o
o
0
u:
to
c
o
o
c
e
o
c
o
o
o
0
o
c
e
c
^,
c
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
e
o
o
0
ik.
m
IO
0
c
o
e
o
o
o
c
e
0
c
o
o
o
o
o
^4
C
o
m
c.
0
o
c
o
c
o
o
(O
0
o
o
0
0
c
c
c
c
o
c
c
o
c
o
c
e
o
o
m
o
c
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
X
z
X
c
c
o
o
o
e
o
0
o
0
o
o
c
e
0
*
c
o
o
r-
c
0
o
0
0
o
0
0
o
X
z
c
c
0
o
c
c
0
0
c
o
0
c
0
o
c
c
o
c
c
-------
•5
-3
_2
o
Q
U
^
ro
1
W
Uj
O3
<
H
c
C
c
• **
i- a z
*••
^ ££
1- Z
a •*
•* X
t-
tn
O
c
o
c
o
e
c
c
c
o
c
o
c
c
o
c
e
c
o
o
c
c
o
.
m
c^
c
o
ti.
z
o
o
o
o
c
e
e
o
c
0
o
o
o
0
c
c
c
o
e
0
*
c
o
e
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
•(Please read liutrueaons on the reverse before completing}
EPA-600/1-79-002
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIO^NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Environmental Carcinogens and Human Cancer: Estimation of Exposure
to Carcinogens in the Ambient Air
S. REPORT DATE
January 1979
6. PERFORMING ORUANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOH(S)
Niren L. Nagda, Ph.D.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
GEOMET Report Number HF-701
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
GEOMET, Incorporated
15 Firstfield Road
Gaithersburg, MD 20760
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1HE775
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2504
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Health Effects Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.r.
RTP.NC
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Task Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA 600/11
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
This report describes a part of work done under Task 11 of EPA Contract 68-03-2504.
16. ABSTRACT
In this study, a methodology for ambient exposure analysis of carcinogens was developed based on a pilot
study of the Detroit Metropolitan area. The specific aim of the analysis was to identify high and low exposure areas
within the study area. Four known or suspected carcinogens and groups of carcinogens: BaP, trichloroethylene, nickel
and its compounds, and cadmium and its compounds were studied. The analysis of ambient exposure to BaP consisted
of the use of the Air Quality Display Model (AQDM) to simulate levels of BaP which might have existed during 1956
to 1960. The analysis for BaP involved a multistep procedure. In order to examine the accuracy of AQDM predicted
BaP ambient concentrations, present conditions (1975-1976) were simulated and compared against known concentrations
in the area. Next, BaP emissions for the period 1956-1960 were estimated by analyzing past trends for significant sources.
This emissions data base, along with meteorological data for the same period, was used as an input to ADQM to predict
historical exposure to BaP. The analysis for the other three carcinogens was less detailed than that for BaP. It was com-
prised of estimation of emissions and calculation of emission density for each of the three carcinogens. For nickel and
cadmium, it also included a comparison of spatial variation in emissions with measured air quality patterns in the Detroit
area. The results of this study were very encouraging in light of the scarcity of data on carcinogens. Excellent correla-
tion between observed and estimated concentrations was obtained for BaP. In the case of nickel and cadmium, the esti-
mated emission density patterns matched well with observed air quality patterns. Due to the lack of data on ambient
concentrations, a similar comparison was not possible for trichloroethylene. The carcinogen exposure patterns developed
in this study are being used in the selection of population samples for an epidemiological study of the area.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a.
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c, COSATI Field/Group
Carcinogens*
Air pollution*
Exposure*
Mathematical model
Detroit
Benzo-a-pyrene
Cadmium
Trichloroethylene
Air Quality Display Model (AQDM)
06, F
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
150
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
142
-------
|