& EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA-453/R-94-075
October, 1994
Air
A SCREENING ANALYSIS OF
AMBIENT MONITORING DATA FOR
THE URBAN AREA SOURCE
PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
-------
453-R-94-075
A Screening Analysis of Ambient Monitoring
Data Sets in Support of the
Urban Area Source Program
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
Mr. Vasu Kilaru
Pollutant Assessment Branch
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared Under:
EPA Contract No. 68-D3-0035
Work Assignment No. 0-20
September, 1994
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document has been reviewed by the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (OAQPS, EPA).
Approval of this report for publication does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
any trade names or commercial products constitute an endorsement or recommendation
for use.
n
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would like to acknowledge the contributions of
numerous individuals from State and local environmental protection agencies whose
efforts made the development of this document possible. In addition, the following people
should be credited with making substantive contributions to the development of this
report.
Vasu Kilaru, Tom Lahre, and Charles French at the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS), MD-13, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
111
-------
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
ACRONYMS xv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xvii
1.0 METHODOLOGY 1
1.1 Compilation of Ambient Monitoring Data Sets 1
1.2 Compilation of Ambient Data in a Standardized Spreadsheet Format ... 3
1.3 Compilation of Cancer Risk Factors and Noncancer Health
Benchmarks 3
1.4 Computation of Increased Cancer Risks 6
1.5 Computation of Noncancer Risks • 7
1.6 Assumptions and Limitations 8
2.0 ATLANTA'S SUMMER OZONE PRECURSOR STUDY 15
3.0 BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 25
4.0 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 31
5.0 BRIDGEPORT DIOXIN/FURAN STUDY 39
6.0 CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 43
7.0 COLUMBUS, OHIO 63
8.0 LAKE MICHIGAN URBAN AIR TOXICS STUDY (LMUATS) 91
9.0 NONOCCUPATIONAL PESTICIDE EXPOSURE STUDY (NOPES) 97
10.0 OHIO DIOXIN/FURAN STUDY 101
11.0 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 105
12.0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DIOXIN/FURAN STUDY 115
13.0 SOUTHWEST OHIO 119
14.0 STATEN ISLAND/NEW JERSEY URBAN AIR TOXICS ASSESSMENT
PROJECT 137
15.0 TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 157
-------
16.0 URBAN AIR TOXICS MONITORING PROGRAM 185
REFERENCES 211
APPENDIX A . . . A-l
APPENDIX B B-l
APPENDIX C C-l
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
ES-1. Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant for each Study xxi
ES-2. Average Cancer Risk Ranking by Pollutant for each Study xxiii
ES-3. Hazard Quotient Summary by Study for Pollutants with Available
Inhalation Reference Concentrations xxv
ES-4. Hazard Quotient Summary by Study for Pollutants with Available
Preliminary Evaluation Concentrations xxix
ES-5. Pollutants Demonstrating Exceedances of Noncancer Health
Benchmarks and their Associated Method Detection Level by Study xxxiii
1-1. U.S. Cities that have Participated in the UATMP 2
1-2. Weight of Evidence (WOE) Classification and Available Inhalation Unit
Risk (IUR) Estimates for HAPs 11
1-3. Available Reference Concentrations (RfCs) and Preliminary Evaluation
Concentrations (PECs) for HAPs 13
2-1. Atlanta Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 17
2-2. Atlanta Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant 17
2-3. Atlanta Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 23
3-1. Baton Rouge Hazard Quotient by Pollutant 29
4-1. BAAQMD Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 33
4-2. BAAQMD Cancer Risk Rank by Site and Pollutant 34
4-3. BAAQMD Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 38
5-1. Bridgeport Cancer Risk by Dioxin and Furan Congener 41
6-1. GARB Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 45
6-2. GARB Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant 47
6-3. GARB Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 60
7-1. Columbus Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 66
7-2. Columbus Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant 67
7-3. Columbus Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 90
8-1. Lake Michigan Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 96
9-1. NOPES Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 99
9-2. NOPES Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant 99
10-1. Ohio Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 103
11-1. SCAQMD Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 107
11-2. SCAQMD Cancer Risk Rank by Site and Pollutant 107
11-3. SCAQMD Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 114
12-1. Southern California Study-wide Cancer Risk by Dioxin and Furan
Congener 117
13-1. South West Ohio Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 121
13-2. South West Ohio Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant 121
13-3. South West Ohio Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 135
14-1. Staten Island Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 140
14-2. Staten Island Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant 141
14-3. Staten Island Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 156
15-1. TNRCC Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 159
15-2. TNRCC Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant 160
15-3. TNRCC Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 183
vii
-------
16-1. UATMP Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 188
16-2. UATMP Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant 190
16-3. UATMP Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 209
A-l. Summary of Pollutants Included in Ambient Monitoring Programs A-3
A-2. Summary of Dioxins, Furans, and Pesticides Included in Ambient
Monitoring Programs A-8
A-3. Sample Spreadsheet of Summary Statistics for SCAQMD A-9
A-4. Pollutants Monitored and Corresponding Method Detection Level by
Study A-ll
B-l. List of HAPs with Available Cancer and Noncancer Health Effects
Information B-3
Vlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
2-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the Atlanta Study 16
2-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Acetaldehyde 18
2-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Ethylbenzene 19
2-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for n-Hexane 20
2-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Styrene 21
2-6. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for m/p-Xylene 22
3-1. Baton Rouge Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 26
3-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Ethylbenzene,
Hexane, and Toluene 27
3-3. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Xylene Isomers and
Cumene 28
4-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the BAAQMD Study 32
4-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Ethylene Dibromide 35
4-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Toluene 36
4-4. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Methyl Chloroform 37
5-1. Aggregate Cancer Risk by Pollutant for the Bridgeport Study 40
6-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the GARB Study 44
6-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acetaldehyde 49
6-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethyl benzene 50
6-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethylene dibromide 51
6-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for p-Dichlorobenzene 52
6-6. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Styrene 53
6-7. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Toluene 54
6-8. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorobenzene 55
6-9. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for m-Xylene 56
6-10. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Methyl Chloroform 57
6-11. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for o-Xylene 58
6-12. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for p-Xylene 59
7-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the Columbus Study 65
7-2. NAAQS and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Lead 68
7-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 69
7-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,2-Dibromoethane 70
7-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,2-Dichloropropane 71
7-6. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 3-Chloropropene 72
7-7. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acetaldehyde 73
7-8. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acrolein 74
7-9. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethyl benzene 75
7-10. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethyl chloride 76
7-11. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Manganese 77
7-12. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Methyl bromide 78
7-13. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for p-Dichlorobenzene 79
7-14. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Styrene 80
7-15. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Toluene 81
7-16. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 82
7-17. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1-Dichloroethane 83
ix
-------
7-18. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Benzyl chloride 84
7-19. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorine 85
7-20. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorobenzene 86
7-21. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for m/p-Xylene 87
7-22. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for o-Xylene 88
7-23. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Propanal 89
8-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the Lake Michigan Study 92
8-2. NAAQS and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Lead 93
8-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Manganese 94
8-4. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorine 95
9-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the NOPES Study 98
9-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Dichlorvos 100
10-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the Ohio Study 102
11-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the SCAQMD Study 106
11-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for 1,2-Dibromomethane . . . 108
11-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Acetaldehyde 109
11-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Toluene 110
11-5. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ... m
11-6. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for m/p-Xylene 112
11-7. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for o-Xylene 113
12-1. Cancer Risk by Pollutant for the Southern California Study 116
13-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the South West Ohio Study 120
13-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Chloroethane 122
13-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Ethyl benzene 123
13-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Hexane 124
13-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for p-Dichlorobenzene 125
13-6. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Styrene 126
13-7. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Toluene 127
13-8. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 128
13-9. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Carbon Disulfide 129
13-10. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Chlorobenzene 130
13-11. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Cumene 131
13-12. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for m/p-Xylene 132
13-13. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for o-Xylene 133
13-14. PEC (1,1-Dichloroethane, Benzyl chloride) and RfC (Bromomethane,
Chloroprene) and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean at Carthage 134
14-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the Staten Island Study 139
14-2. NAAQS and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Lead 142
14-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethyl benzene 143
14-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Hexane 144
14-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Manganese 145
14-6. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Mercury 146
14-7. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for p-Dichlorobenzene 147
14-8. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Styrene 148
14-9. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Toluene 149
14-10. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane .... 150
14-11. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1-Dichloroethane 151
14-12. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorobenzene 152
14-13. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Cobalt 153
x
-------
14-14. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for m/p-Xylene 154
14-15. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for o-Xylene 155
15-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the TNRCC Study 158
15-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,2-Dichloropropane 161
15-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 2-Butanone 162
15-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acetaldehyde 163
15-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acrylonitrile 164
15-6. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Bromomethane 165
15-7. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chloroethane 166
15-8. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethyl benzene 167
15-9. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for lodomethane 168
15-10. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Methyl tert-butyl ether . . . 169
15-11. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for p-Dichlorobenzene 170
15-12. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Styrene 171
15-13. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Toluene 172
15-14. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Vinyl bromide 173
15-15. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane .... 174
15-16. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1-Dichloroethane 175
15-17. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acetonitrile 176
15-18. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorobenzene 177
15-19. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Cumene 178
15-20. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for m/p-Xylene 179
15-21. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Methanol 180 -
15-22. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Methylisobutylketone .... 181
15-23. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for o-Xylene 182
16-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the UATMP Study 187
16-2. NAAQS and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Lead '. 192
16-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,2-Dichloropropane 193
16-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acetaldehyde 194
16-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acetaldehyde-1988 195
16-6. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acrolein-1988 196
16-7. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Bromomethane 197
16-8. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chloroethane 198
16-9. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chloroprene 199
16-10. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethyl benzene 200
16-11. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Manganese 201
16-12. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for p-Dichlorobenzene 202
16-13. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Toluene 203
16-14. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane .... 204
16-15. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1-Dichloroethane 205
16-16. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorobenzene 206
16-17. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Cobalt 207
16-18. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for m/p-Xylene 208
C2-1. DeKalb Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-2
C2-2. Ft. McPh. Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-3
C2-3. Georgia Tech Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-4
C2-4. M. L. King Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-5
C2-5. Mars Hill Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-6
C2-6. Tucker Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-7
xi
-------
C4-1. Antioch Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-8
C4-2. Concord Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-9
C4-3. Fort Cronkhite Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-10
C4-4. Fremont Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-ll
C4-5. Livermore Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-12
C4-6. Martinez Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-13
C4-7. Mountain View Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant . C-14
C4-8. Napa Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-15
C4-9. Oakland Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-16
C4-10. Pittsburg Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-17
C4-11. Redwood City Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-18
C4-12. Richmond/7th St Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-19
C4-13. Richmond/13th St Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-20
C4-14. San Francisco Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-21
C4-15. San Jose - 4th St. Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-22
C4-16. San Jose - WSC Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-23
C4-17. San Leandro/Fairmont Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-24
C4-18. San Leandro/Thornton Ave. Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-25
C4-19. San Rafael Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-26
C4-20. Santa Rosa Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-27
C4-21. Vallejo Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-28
C4-22. Walnut Creek Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-29
C6-1. Bakersfield Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-30
C6-2. Burbank Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-31
C6-3. Chico-Salem Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-32
C6-4. Chula Vista Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-33
C6-5. Citrus Heights Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-34
C6-6. Concord Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-35
C6-7. El Cajon Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-36
C6-8. El Monte Cancer Risk by Pollutant :. . . . C-37
C6-9. Fremont Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-38
C6-10. Fresno - First St. Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-39
C6-11. Fresno - Olive Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-40
C6-12. Los Angeles Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-41
C6-13. Merced Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-42
C6-14. Modesto - 14th Street Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-43
C6-15. Modesto - (Courthouse and Oakdale) Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-44
C6-16. North Long Beach Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-45
C6-17. Richmond Cancer Riskfcy Pollutant C-46
C6-18. Rubidoux Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-47
C6-19. San Francisco - Arkansas Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-48
C6-20. San Jose Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-49
C6-21. Santa Barbara - Carrillo Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-50
C6-22. Simi Valley - Cochran Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-51
C6-23. Stockton Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-52
C6-24. Upland Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-53
C7-1. Site One Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-54
C7-2. Site Two Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-55
C7-3. Site Three Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-56
xii
-------
C7-4. Site Four Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-57
C7-5. Site Five Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-58
C7-6. Site Six Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-59
Cll-1. Anaheim Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-60
Cll-2. Azusa Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-61
Cll-3. Burbank Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-62
Cll-4. Hawthorne Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-63
Cll-5. Pico Rivera Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-64
C13-1. Carthage Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-65
C13-2. Lower Price Hill Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-66
C13-3. Winton Place State Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-67
C14-1. Bayley Seton Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-68
C14-2. Carteret Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-69
C14-3. Dongan Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-70
C14-4. Elizabeth Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-71
C14-5. Eltingville Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-72
C14-6. Great Kills Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-73
C14-7. Piscataway Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-74
C14-8. Port Richmond Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-75
C14-9. PS 26, Travis Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-76
C14-10. Pump Station Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-77
C14-11. Sewaren Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-78
C14-12. Susan Wagner HS Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-79
C14-13. TottenviUe Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-80
C15-1. Site #12 Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-81
C15-2. Site #100 Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-82
C15-3. Site #102 Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-83
C15-4. Site #801 Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-84
C15-5. Site #803 Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-85
C15-6. Site #804 Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-86
C15-7. Site #807 Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-87
C15-8. Site #808 Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-88
C15-9. Site #815 Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-89
C15-10. Site #900 Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-90
C15-11. Site #901 Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-91
C15-12. Site #2008 Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-92
C16-1. Atlanta, GA Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-93
C16-2. Baton Rouge, LA Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-94
C16-3. Birmingham, AL Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-95
C16-4. Burlington, VT Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-96
C16-5. Camden, NJ Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-97
C16-6. Cleveland, OH Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-98
C16-7. Chicago, IL (C4IL) Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-99
C16-8. Dallas, TX Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-100
C16-9. Dearborn, MI Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-101
C16-10. Detroit, MI Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-102
C16-11. Fort Lauderdale, FL Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-103
C16-12. Hammond, IN Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-104
C16-13. Houston, TX (H1TX) Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-105
xiii
-------
C16-14. Jacksonville, FL Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-106
C16-15. Lansing, MI Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-107
C16-16. LouisviUe, KY Cancer Risk by PoUutant C-108
C16-17. Miami, FL Cancer Risk by PoUutant C-109
C16-18. Midland, MI Cancer Risk by PoUutant C-110
C16-19. Orlando, FL Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-lll
C16-20. Pensicola, FL Cancer Risk by PoUutant C-112
C16-21. Port Huron, MI Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-113
C16-22. Portland, OR Cancer Risk by PoUutant C-114
C16-23. Port Neches, TX Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-115
C16-24. Sauget, IL Cancer Risk by PoUutant C-116
C16-25. St. Louis, MO Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-117
C16-26. Toledo, OH Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-118
C16-27. Washington, DC Site #1 Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-119
C16-28. Washington, DC Site #2 Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-120
C16-29. Wichita, KS Site #1 Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-121
C16-30. Wichita, KS Site #2 Cancer Risk by Pollutant C-122
xiv
-------
ACRONYMS
AALG
AREAL
BAAQMD
GARB
CRAVE
DNPH
ECD
EOM
EPA
FID
GC
HAP
HEAST
HPLC
HQ
IRIS
IUR
LMUATS
LOAEL
MDL
MID
MS
NAA
NAAQS
NOAEL
NOPES
PAH
PCB
PCDD
PCDF
PEC
PDCE
POM
PUF
QA
RfC
SCAQMD
TNRCC
UASP
UATMP
VOC
WOE
Ambient Air Level Goal
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
California Air Resources Board
Carcinogen Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor
Dinitrophenylhydrazine
Electron Capture Detection
Extractable Organic Matter
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Flame lonization Detector
Gas Chromatography
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
High Pressure Liquid Chromatography
Hazard Quotient
Integrated Risk Information System
Inhalation Unit Risk
Lake Michigan Urban Air Toxics Study
Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
Method Detection Limit
Multiple Ion Detection
Mass Spectrometry
Neutron Activation Analysis
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
No Observed Adverse Effect Level
Nonoccupational Pesticide Exposure Study
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxin
Polychlorinated Dibenzofuran
Preliminary Evaluation Concentration
Proton-induced X-ray Emission
Polycyclic Organic Matter
Polyurethane Foam
Quality Assurance
Inhalation Reference Concentration
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Urban Area Source Program
Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program
Volatile Organic Compound
Weight of Evidence
xv
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Under Sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(1990 Amendments), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to
develop and implement a strategy to control emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)
from categories of area sources. The term "area source" in the context of Section 112
means, any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous
area and under common control, that emits, or has the potential to emit in the aggregate,
less than 10 tons per year of any HAP or less than 25 tons per year of any combination of
HAPs. Under the Urban Area Source Program (UASP), EPA must publish a national
strategy by 1995 that identifies 30 or more HAPs presenting the greatest threat to public
health in urban areas. Subsequently, EPA must implement this strategy by the year
2000, promulgating emission standards for targeted area sources of these 30 or more
HAPs.
The 1990 Amendments clearly intend EPA to consider ambient monitoring data
when selecting the 30 or more HAPs and developing the national strategy. Section
112(k)(3) specifically states that EPA must consider the information collected pursuant to
an ambient monitoring program conducted for a broad range of HAPs, including, but not
limited to, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides, and products of incomplete
combustion, in a representative number of urban locations.
This report summarizes an effort to analyze a number of currently available ambient
monitoring data sets for HAPs from various urban areas in the United States.
Specifically, the data were obtained from 16 studies that were generally available and
quality-assured, representing over 40 urban locations in the United States. The Toxics
Air Monitoring System (TAMS) data base was not included in this report since it was
comprehensively addressed in a prior report. Ambient air concentration data were
available for 195 air contaminants, however, not all studies sampled and analyzed each of
these pollutants. Moreover, the risk analysis focused exclusively on 93 HAPs for which
health effects data were available. The following statistical parameters were calculated
for each monitoring site within each study:
• arithmetic and geometric means;
• standard deviation;
• maximum concentration;
• 25, 50, 75, 90, 95 and 99th percentile concentrations; and
• percentage of values above the method detection levels (MDLs).
For each site within each study, a "long-term average concentration" was calculated
for each HAP from all the reported data. When raw data were not available, the
summary statistics reported by the author were used. Long-term averages were used
because the cancer and noncancer health benchmarks8 for most of the HAPs are based on
'For this report, a health benchmark is a quantitative measure of toxicity. For carcinogens, the health benchmark are
inhalation unit risk (IUR) factors. For noncancer effects, the health benchmarks are inhalation reference concentrations
(RfCs) and preliminary evaluation concentrations (PECa). See Chapter 1 for further explanation of these health
benchmarks.
xvii
-------
long-term/chronic (i.e., lifetime) exposures to pollutants. In fact, none of the data sets
utilized in this report spanned more than a few years, with some being limited to one or
several seasons. Hence the temporal average concentrations calculated in this report can,
at best, only be considered as approximations of lifetime exposures from outdoor air at
any monitoring site. The studies with longer durations and greater sampling frequencies
should yield better approximations of long-term mean concentrations for purposes of
estimating chronic health effects.
Values reported as below the MDLs were generally assigned 1/2 the MDL value, for
averaging purposes. The resulting arithmetic average concentrations were then applied
to cancer and chronic noncancer health benchmarks to estimate lifetime excess cancer
risks and potential noncancer health effects for each HAP. All health benchmarks used in
this analysis were developed under other efforts, and are summarized herein. Where
available, health effects data were adopted preferentially from EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS); however, some non-IRIS health benchmarks were also used in
this report. Preliminary evaluation concentrations (PECs) for particular HAPs were
obtained from a draft final report entitled, Development of Interim Noncancer Health
Effects Preliminary Evaluation Concentrations for Screening Study of Hazardous Air
Pollutants.1 No health benchmarks for acute toxicity were available for use in this study.
When such benchmarks become available, acute exposure health benchmarks could be
compared with the maximum or upper percentile concentrations from these monitoring
studies, to estimate potential health risks from short-term exposures to ambient HAPs.
Cancer risks are estimated by multiplying the average pollutant concentration by
the respective unit risk factor. The result is a cancer potency-weighted ambient
concentration for each pollutant, which can be compared on a relative scale to other
pollutants. This ranking procedure was used in the Integrated Environmental
Management Project (IEMP) conducted in Baltimore, Maryland.2 Using ambient air
monitoring data and dispersion modelling results, rough estimates of cancer risk were
developed. A recommendation was made by the Johns Hopkins Risk Assessment Review
Panel to separately rank pollutants according to their cancer potency-weighted ambient
concentrations. An advantage of this approach is that it avoids relying on highly
uncertain exposure assumptions (e.g., continuous exposure for 70 years), and it does not
incorporate population weighting factors.
All monitoring data in this report represent ambient (i.e., outside) air, and not
indoor air or workplace air, or air in contaminated microenvironments (such as near
gasoline pumps or within motor vehicles). No estimates of population risks (e.g., urban
cancer incidence) are made because of uncertainties of the spatial representativeness of
monitored values at sampling sites across urban areas.
This report also assumes that certain metals present in the atmosphere appear in a
specific chemical form. This was done because available measurement methods only
report total elemental metal mass present in a sample, and not the actual chemical form
or valence state. This may result in an overestimation of the calculated risks for metals
such as chromium or nickel, where the most toxic form of metal is assumed to be the form
that is available in the ambient samples. In contrast, the health benchmarks for mercury
were only available for the elemental form, which may result in an underestimation of
actual risks since this may not be the most toxic form.
xviii
-------
The results of this study are summarized in Tables ES-1 through ES-4. Table ES-1
presents the computed individual cancer risks for each HAP, averaged over all sites
within each study. Table ES-2 rank orders the monitored HAPs by average individual
cancer risk within each study. Tables ES-3 and ES-4 present the range of hazard
quotients (HQs) within each study for HAPs with available inhalation reference
concentrations (RfCs), and for HAPs with available preliminary evaluation concentrations
(PECs), respectively. A hazard quotient is a ratio of the measured ambient concentration
of a pollutant to the noncancer health benchmark concentration (see Section 1.5 for
further explanation). Tables ES-3 and ES-4 also show the number and percent of
observed concentrations exceeding a hazard quotient of unity (i.e., one). Hazard
quotients above unity are an indication of potential health concern for noncancer
endpoints. There are significant limitations and uncertainties associated with the results
shown in Tables ES-1 through ES-4. Readers should exercise caution when interpreting
the results (see Assumptions and Limitations discussed in Section 1.6).
With respect to cancer risk, 1,3-butadiene possessed the highest estimated individual
risk among pollutants in all four studies where monitored. Estimated cancer risks for
benzene and formaldehyde also consistently ranked close to the top among the studies
included in this report. Benzene is considered a known human carcinogen-
Formaldehyde and 1,3-butadiene are considered probable carcinogens, but are currently
being reassessed by EPA. This reassessment could result in new cancer risk estimates for
these two HAPs.
In regards to noncancer risk, the average ambient concentrations of acrolein
exceeded the corresponding RfC in two studies: the UATMP and Columbus studies. The
largest HQs computed in this report were for acrolein at the six sites in the Columbus
study, with values ranging from 17.2 to 56.8. The pollutants 1,2-dibromoethane and
manganese each exhibited exceedances of their noncancer health benchmarks (RfCs) in
the SCAQMD study and the UATMP study, respectively.
In six of the eight studies where m/p-xylene was monitored, average concentrations
exceeded the PEC developed for mixtures of xylene isomers and individual xylene isomers.
Concentrations of other isomers of xylene (m- and o -xylene) also exhibited exceedances of
the health benchmark in several studies. Benzyl chloride also exceeded its corresponding
PEC in the Columbus study and the Southwest Ohio study. However, because of the
limited toxicity data available for benzyl chloride, there is substantial uncertainty in the
PEC for benzyl chloride. Therefore, these exceedances are of questionable significance.
Caution should be exercised when comparing average ambient concentrations with
health benchmarks. An ideal situation would be where the benchmark is well above the
MDL. In such a case there would be sufficient confidence in the relationship between
monitored values (above or below the MDL) and the benchmark. Table ES-5 provides a
summary of pollutants which exceeded their corresponding benchmark, as well as the
analytical MDL for the study. A crucial check is to compare the MDL and the benchmark
value with the percentage of monitored values above the MDL. If "nondetects" comprise a
large percentage of the total number of monitored values, and the health benchmark is
below the MDL, then the results may be biased high or low. For example, the resulting
HQs for 1,2-dibromoethane from the SCAQMD may be artificially greater than 1 since the
four sites reported 97.6 to 100 percent of the monitored values as nondetects. The HQs
xix
-------
for acrolein may also be affected by this MDL bias. Cancer risk estimates are also prone
to this type of biasing (see Section 1.4 for further discussion of MDLs).
Exceedances of PECs or RfCs do not necessarily indicate that there is a threat to
public health. For each exceedance, the assessors need to consider the extent of
exceedance, the toxicity data, uncertainty and other factors.
Qualitative health effects data (e.g., weight of evidence, confidence in the RfC) were
not directly considered in this analysis. However, qualitative information will be an
important consideration in the development of the National UASP Strategy and in any
related risk management decisions.
The results of this report, in conjunction with other analyses of emission inventory
information, toxicity data and source receptor modeling shall all be considered in
determining the 30+ pollutants and formulating the EPA's National Urban Area Source
Strategy.
xx
-------
•a
55
u
CO
0)
UJ
0.
H
3
TNRCC
«l
S-a
~ c
« «
o
V
*?
Ul
r;
T-
I
||l ,2-DIbrontoethane
(Ethylena dibromide)
in
Ul
CO
•*
in
lil
10
Ul
CM
CM
:
i
Ul
CO
2
in
Ul
en
lil
en
CO
jJAcetaldehyde
co m
Ul Ul
CM O
in cvi
in
Ul
CO
cp ift
ui ut
CM Cf
CM T-
cp oo in in
Ul lil lil lit
ft <0 ^ «»
T- CO f~ ^
Ut
^
0 cp
HI Ul
o t
6 •»
iii
S
0)
in
tit
IT 11
1 it
j || | c || |
enmbooobo
•«
IU
eai
n
<•>
1
Ul
CVI
to
fi
IChloroethene (Vinyl
chloride)
in
Ul
o>
'-
CO
lil
in
in
in
lil
cp
lil
en
iri
in
iii
cvi
cp
lil
q
co
iii
00
cvi
iii
in
CO
|| Chloroform
(Trichloromethane)
Is.
iii
[[Naphthalene
XXI
-------
S3
U
ra
0)
co
o
O.
J2
OC
Q>
O
(D
O
0)
O)
2
I
(0
Ul
.a
UATMP
U
O
C
0
5 *3™
«o
11
o n
w£
o
CO
0
s
o
o
in
o
2
O
(0
Ul
Q.
O
O f
«H
"s
0)
3
E
3
S
CO
oc
o
t
o
a
o
D)
2
00
C V
s s?
a o
ffl oc
Q
a
5
CD
S
Pollutant
ui tir !'"
CO U* ,
* !** •
K ' : '
U
T"
f
UI
UJ
in
> §
gft 1
fll ^
,|ILj
:• ,
T3
« E
1 a
= 0)
0 &
x0-
m O>
s: -•=
O)
XX11
-------
•o
*tf
0)
o
to
O)
LU
_aj
^
(0
0.
a
TNRCC
o
£
O
S
CO
C TJ
35 2
"3
o
CO
Q
S
o
o
CO
O
CO
ill
Q.
O
z
« 4=
(0 "
-J S
o>
.0
E
3
3
CD
OC
<
O
C
o
&
3
m
c »
2 ?
a o
co oc
Q
Z
o
01
a
c
S
7
c
1
25 « - £« co* - . * E a o *" Jt a ° ^ >.
Illfllllgfil | El If 1
'T'wH2cHcnx^^:20<»f£E| ^25«'qT£
" *i * » U * U "" •* ' S S S ^ JS M M M ^ ^ ^ ^ h" • S ^^ *"• S
S ^8 «> CO
n K
T^ T»
C* T-
- "
(0
,_
? •* 2 CM
O TO
•*
CM
*». CO
_ 0) 00
« ^o o>
£ •£• « -n ^
lll,Ellils
o E — — S— 22^
Ilillilll
Tf
TO
CM
CO
robenzene
robutadiene
2 2
a co
X X
XXLll
-------
0)
o
a
O)
_c
CO
OC
^o
cc
a>
o
CO
O
0)
O)
co
•2 3
a o
CD EC
O
s
a
£0
1
J5
*-
Pollutant
it> a> . . h.
\r--P* . »~
$? * w
o n
^" v*
»o o> • ^f
CO T-
o> j;
CM r»
*-
o> to ^ i».
o »-
CM T-
CQ 0)
i
tt g _ j»
f I ?g 1 g
S£ O <° ft. O e**£S
«Cc—' JicS"£
'- if Iff 1 1 1 1
f 1 Illilfi ill
2 Z 0. b 0. 3 £&!•= ^ 1- >
o
_-
c
. o °
= f 1
•S °'f
c> c 2
,
Q .^
2 o
I!
co <
co
in
O
?f=
co • 2
w m o
c *- 45
ill
|l.=
Sco.s
< i^ c
s"!
wl|
Q..S
XXIV
-------
n
I
0)
o
o
O
0)
o
o
0)
DC
» 0>
CM CO
W ^
'5.cc
g 5 S gj. g M |S > >
XXV
-------
0)
o
I
o
u
8
i
o
o
«
£
C
O
5
"
o>
c
s
~o
o.
v.
O
<••
•o
3
S)
(0
E
3
V)
**
J>
o
3
O
0
s
0
u
0)
0)
UJ
0.
O
c
a
.5*
u
S
4)
JC
3
M
3
'o
u
A
3?
7
*
C9
CD
C
CO
C
A
A
4k
W
O)
e
CO
QC
A
S?
^.
A
Ol
<0
cc
A
S?
T-
A
%
O
at
a
CC
Pollutant
g:
T-
o : a
«* O . O
b
a
10
CM
i
O
t- CM
cb : i
u> : oo
^f •
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
o
o
5
IO
a>
eg
II 1,2-dibromoethane (Ethyien
dibromide}
o
o
0>
o>
»1 ,2-Dichloropropane
(Propylene dichloride)
CM
CD
in
uS
CM
CD
CD
CM
O O O O O O O O OO
aocoooo o o oo
T^™ ^ ^ CO Vt CO ^f Ol
* i ' ' jl
«l CM b; O M Ol * CO f";"!
cMcouicoxcd »« oo c\ir>
^^^•t"*CO eo ••; _ >>3'^inIe
I 1 irlt I « |1 § !
l«i 4 I - . s 5 1! j?_f . «
il"!1 € S I € il^Slis&^it: Si
£*«c|22|J»§|.||'£'Sg^«c« „ „ 82
(522'5>,^2E'c § o S ^. * ~ S'S.^s.e'ai fi-^iL
J a a c t, Sflf o o — ~ o£x-§ a S?1?*^^ cc
UJ
0)
.2
XXVI
-------
I
I
I
O
U
8
oc
_
£
CO
JO
n
*ra
«
'c
to
*«
_3
"o
a.
^
,0
•o
3
53
m
E
E
.2
o
3
a
•a
a
N
a
u
A
7
OL %
s
f
3
o
0)
c
cc
A
S?
o *
0 *
0
O)
g
CO
OC
A
0 J
o
J
(0
0
O)
c
a
oc
A
S?
- A
5 A
1 *
«5
f 4)
01
c
CO
oc
Pollutant
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
0
o
^.
i
CM
CM
i
CM
in
CM
O
0
CM
i
en
CO
£
CD
1,2-dlbromoethane (Ethyl
dibromide}
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
(Propylene dichloride)
o o o
a o e
«* T- V
III
« CD 0
(M CM
a o
o o
^ i
eg q
O
o
<0
0
CO
t
0
p
•"•
o
o
I
T^
"^
i
e»
"*
1,4-Pichlorobenzene (p)
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde -1 90S
§ 0
2 o
9 t-
T i
CD «
0) CM
CO CM
i i
9 «!•
± »
CO «
CM Nr
O O
0 O
i i
o en
in to
o
o
i
Acrolein
Acrylonltrlle
Allyl chloride
(3-Chloropropene)
Bromomethane (Methyl
bromide)
o o
o o
m *•
i «
*~ *7
CO r
1 K
in ty
o to
" *•
o
o
T-
cb
CM
CM
i
CD
O O
0 O
in T™
i 0
0 CM
in in
«•
Chloroethane (Ethyl chloi
Chloroprena
Dichlorvoa
o
o
M
i
*
N
i
t
0
p
u>
o
e
t
ei
IT
•o
lodomethane (Methyl lodt
-
_
o
o
co ci
• *
CM CO
o to
•* CM
Manganese Compounds
Mercury (Elemental)
o
o
CM
i
o
CM
0
CD
CO
ui
Methyl ethyl ketone
(2-Butanone)
0
0
*•*•
«
oo
^
i
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl bromide
II
a
1
o
CO
f 1
2 en
co g
o c
•s eo
II
O H
•z <
CO -
UJ C
Q. .2
9 s
^. E
CO O
o O
C
to o
o a>
w a>
CD C
m = .
cc « » w
a o c
§!«
25^
tc-2
§ 1 *
a CD .E
g T;<
< CO CD
< O
-------
-------
.0
*3
CO
fc.
0>
u
c
o
0
c
o
a
"5
Ul
a
c
E
2
0.
2
JO
"3
^
^
^^
5
T- O
i ' J S A
•» »- T- «P
co CM' T^ ta
i , t i
«? ' V TV
O : a) (D **
oo q in w
co in CM' ft
o o o o
o o o o
CM ^ ^~ *~
. • T T T
9 Q> 4> Q>
a> (O co co
i^ ui «d c\i
o
o
"
to
0
^
I
O
0
in
'a
c
a
— a.
1 sf
§ 0 fe
a. 55
c E 5- **
2 1^? . S 1 1
I 1 ! I II i 1 ! If f 1 !
XXIX
-------
:r
o
CO
o
y
w
i
c
5
c
0
^
g
To
ui
|
1
4>
L.
Q.
3
5
"3
>
<
£
'1
•2
2
0
0.
L.
O
13
3
|
(5
I
*•«
c
o
3
a
a
re
X
en
UJ
2
Q
O
0
0)
(0
UJ
a.
O
c
a
O)
j=
o
S
03
03
^
«
A
E
3
0
o
T"
y\
^
%
1
oc
^
A
ss
1-
A
O
O>
C
(B
DC
T"
A
S?
^
%
O
O)
c
(B
oc
A
7
4k
V
Ol
C
c
Pollutant
«... . :..> ••• tit • o
• O- - • f, 10
O rt CM
o o o
W - 4) O
"? r« cj
: i ,i
' m * '
f? P> ^
fi ai to
o o
e a
i A
« K
O O O U O —IS' c c 5 S 9> o a. a.
XXX
-------
(0
o
o
c
CO
(0
£
I
tt
(0
(0
^^
CO
«^
J3
"o
Q.
•O
4*
CO
en
CO
a
"S
(0
N
a
UJ
JO
.ID
OL
Z
3
O
O
oc
p
z
3
0)
•B
C
10
a
£
I
A
7
O)
c
oc
A
*"
7
*
0
O)
c
a
OC
A
*
C)
C
a
A
s?
7
*
0
O)
c
Pollutant
'a
o
1
ct
¥-•
T
**•
o
0
CO
• &
5^
•*
*
fl>
*»
O
o
2
*•»
f-
*
o
o
I
W-
V
V
£
1"
«
s
I! 1 ,1 ,1 -Trlchloroethane (
chtoroform)
o
o
CM
0
CO
|
f
O
in
«- .. .
o e
o e
,-
0
^j *-
CM ^
0
N-
CO
0
O
1
o
.
o
0
CO
0
CO
CO
1
eo
0
in
1,1-Dlchloroethane
(Ethylldene dichloride)
Acetonitrile
o
o o
T- O
*-
0
o ^
+
00 O
^ ot w
• f ^
^ ^O- t*J
iO O> T^
00 «* 5-
o o
O 0
^ T—
o o
°i °>. :
CM co :
CO CM
o o
i-
*~
CM
O
^
T
fV
in
§ 0
T*
JJ 0
T CM
0 0
«0 r
t i
O CM
» |S
T! ^-
&
M
o
m
fu
t
0
CM
™ WJ
»'R
0 o
a. i-
i^
•s s
(0 ^
fl
o 1-
z <
co -
01 C
a. .2
"2 E
CO O
o O
c
CO O
0 —
CJ CO
O 0
S 2
*8
1 o
® CO
CO "•
Si a
CD = .
DC fl
.2 ii CO
Q g c
g..
lil
fit
o •z <
< <0 CD
< O CD
CD O CO
CO
O
z
XXXI
-------
Table ES-5. Pollutants Demonstrating Exceedances of Noncancer Health
Benchmarks and their Associated Method Detection Level by Study.
Study
ATLANTA
GARB
COLUMBUS
SOUTH COAST
SOUTHWEST OHIO
STATEN ISLAND
TACB
UATMP
Cas#
1330207
108383
95476
100447
107028
106934
1330207
95476
100447
1330207
1330207
1330207
95476
107028
1330207
7439965
Pollutant
m/p-Xylene
m-Xylene
o-Xylene
Benzyl chloride
Acrolein - 3 hour
1 ,2-dibromoethane
m/p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Benzyl chloride
m/p-Xylene
m/p-Xylene
m/p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Acrolein - 1988
m/p-Xylene
Manganese
Method
, Detection
Level
0.15
0.60
0.10
NA2
0.30
0.10
1.0
1.0
NA2
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.10
0.01
0.02
NA2
Reference
Concentration1
8.72E-03
2.60E-02
8.72E-03
4.00E-01
Preliminary
Evaluation
Concentration1
1.38E+00
1.38E+00
1.38E+00
4.25E-02
1.38E+00
1.38E+00
4.25E-02
1.38E+00
1.38E+00
1.38E+00
1.38E+00
-
1.38E+00
1 All method detection levels, reference concentrations, and preliminary evaluation concentrations are
expressed in parts per billion volume (ppbv), except the reference concentration for manganese, which
is expressed in ug/cubic meter.
2 NA = Not available.
XXXlll
-------
-------
1.0 METHODOLOGY
1.1 Compilation of Ambient Monitoring Data Sets
Ambient air monitoring data for HAPs were compiled and analyzed from the
studies/geographical areas listed below. The number of monitoring sites included in each
study is also indicated.
Chapter
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Study Area
Atlanta's Summer Ozone Precursor Study
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD)
Bridgeport Dioxin/Furan Study
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Columbus, Ohio
Lake Michigan Urban Air Toxics Study
(LMUATS)
Number
of Sites
6
1
22
6
25
6
3
9 Nonoccupational Pesticide Exposure Study 2
(NOPES)
10 Ohio Dioxin/Furan Study 5
11 South Coast Air Quality Management District 5
(SCAQMD)
12 Southern California Dioxin/Furan Study 8
13 Southwest Ohio 3
14 Staten Island/New Jersey Urban Air Toxics 13
Assessment Project
15 Texas Natural Resource Conservation 12
Commission (TNRCC)
16 Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP) 30
Many of these data sets represent a single urban area, however, several are broader in
geographical scope. For example, the Lake Michigan Urban Air Toxics Study includes
data collected at several monitoring sites within the lower Lake Michigan Basin. The
UATMP data base is a multi-year collection of toxics monitoring data for a varying
number of cities throughout the United States. The EPA's UATMP data collection
program began in 1987, and in each subsequent year anywhere from 12 to 19 cities have
participated in the program, as displayed in Table 1-1.
-------
Table 1-1. U.S. Cities that have Participated in the UATMP
1988
1989
1990
Burlington, VT
Atlanta, GA
Birmingham, AL
Louisville, KY
Jacksonville, FL
Miami, FL
Chicago, IL2
Cleveland, OH
Detroit, MI
Dearborn, MI
E. St. Louis (Sauget, IL)
Hammond, IN
Port Huron, MI
Midland, MI
East Lansing, MI
Dallas, TX
Houston, TX
Baton Rouge, LA
Portland, OR
Camden, NJ
Washington, DC1
Miami, FL
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Pensacola, FL
Chicago, IL2
Sauget, IL
Dallas, TX
Houston, TX
Baton Rouge, LA
Wichita, KS1
St. Louis, MO
Camden, NJ
Washington, DC1
Orlando, FL
Pensacola, FL
Chicago, IL
Sauget, IL
Toledo, OH
Houston, TX
Baton Rouge, LA
Port Neches, TX
Wichita, KS1
St. Louis, MO
UATMP monitoring sites were located in these cities.
site location for Chicago was changed from 1988 to 1989. However, readings taken at the two
separate sites were averaged together.
-------
Tables A-l and A-2 in Appendix A provide a list of the studies and the pollutants
monitored in each study. The studies compiled for this report vary considerably in
pollutant coverage and in the methods used for sampling and analysis. Because of
differences in measurement methods and quality assurance (QA), the results of the
various studies are kept distinct from one another in this report.
Many pollutants measured in these studies are not HAPs (i.e., they are not
specifically listed under Section 112(b) of the CAAA of 1990). Conversely, not all HAPs
are represented by these studies, in part because of the lack of cost effective measurement
methods sensitive enough to detect many HAPs at the low levels typically encountered in
ambient air.
1.2 Compilation of Ambient Data in a Standardized Spreadsheet Format
The following statistical parameters were calculated for each ambient monitoring
site within each study:
• arithmetic and geometric means;
• standard deviation;
« maximum concentration;
• 25, 50, 75, 90, 95 and 99th percentile concentrations; and
• percentage of values above the method detection levels (MDLs).
The long-term averages for each site were constructed by aggregating all available
data for a given site. The resulting averaging periods differed since each study varied in
the length of time that monitoring was performed. The main reason for this approach is
because the health benchmarks (both cancer and noncancer) are chronic values (i.e.,
70-year lifetime exposure). Values reported as below the MDLs were generally assigned
the value of 1/2 the MDL concentration, for averaging purposes. This is common practice
in the treatment of nondetected values for statistical purposes.3
Table A-3 in Appendix A shows a sample spreadsheet compiled for several
monitoring sites included in the SCAQMD study. (The actual spreadsheet is compiled
using Microsoft's Excel'™ software.) In addition to the statistical parameters described
above, the spreadsheets include the site name, pollutant name, Chemical Abstract
Services (CAS) number, number of samples, and the value of 1/2 of the MDL.
1.3 Compilation of Cancer Risk Factors and Noncancer Health Benchmarks
In order to determine potential public health threats from ambient levels of HAPs,
either in terms of levels of risk or just in terms of relative rankings, the arithmetic
average concentrations must be "married" with health benchmarks.15 This is because
pollutant concentrations, by themselves, cannot be meaningfully compared without
factoring in the relative toxicity of each pollutant. For carcinogenic (i.e., "nonthreshold")
pollutants, health benchmarks are typically expressed as some increased risk of
bFor this report, a health benchmark is a quantitative measure of toxicity. For carcinogens, the health benchmark are
inhalation unit risk (IUR) factors. For noncancer effects, the health benchmarks are inhalation reference concentrations
(RfCs) and preliminary evaluation concentrations (PECs).
-------
developing cancer per a unit measure of exposure. Health benchmarks for noncancer
pollutants are typically expressed as a concentration below which no adverse health effect
is expected to occur. It should be noted that Section 112(k) does not authorize EPA to
consider ecological effects as an endpoint for determining the 30 HAPs to include in the
urban area source national strategy. Hence, no "eco" effect benchmarks were compiled in
this project.
Tables 1-2 and 1-3, respectively, show the cancer and noncancer health benchmarks
compiled and used in this analysis. Supplementary information on HAPs with cancer and
noncancer health effects, including critical health effects and weight of evidence, is
provided in Appendix B, Table B-l. Detailed health effects data are contained in the
listed references. When available, benchmarks were preferentially taken directly from
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), a clearinghouse of EPA-verified health
effects data.4 The IRIS contains toxicological information on approximately 500
chemicals, and is updated monthly to reflect currently available toxicological information.
The EPA's Carcinogen Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor (CRAVE) Workgroup
reviews cancer data and estimates carcinogenic potency of chemicals on a regular basis for
input into IRIS. These risk estimates (i.e., inhalation unit risk estimates and oral unit
risk estimates) represent general EPA consensus with respect to a chemical's potency.
For health effects other than cancer (i.e., noncancer health effects), the IRIS data base
contains inhalation reference concentrations (RfCs). An RfC is an estimated concentration
of a pollutant in air, below which is not expected to cause any adverse health effects. The
EPA's RfC workgroup has the responsibility of developing RfCs. The workgroup studies
toxicological data, and if the data are adequate, the workgroup establishes an RfC as an
EPA-verified noncancer benchmark. The IRIS RfCs are considered EPA-verified.
Included with the 46 carcinogens in Table 1-2 are the inhalation unit risk (IUR)
factors and the cancer weight of evidence (WOE) for each IUR. The IUR is a quantitative
estimate of the increased probability of developing cancer from a 70-year continuous
exposure to a concentration of one microgram (ug) of a given pollutant per cubic meter
(m3) of air. Inherent in the lURs used in the calculations of this report is the assumption
that an individual weighs 70 kilograms (kg), and that the rate of inhalation is 20 m3/day
over a 70-year period. The IUR is typically derived by performing a low dose
extrapolation of experimental data assuming linearity in the low dose range. The IUR is
usually based on a 95th percentile upper-bound of the dose-response data. For more
information, refer to EPA's Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986.5
In addition, CRAVE developed a classification system to qualify compounds
according to the evidence of carcinogenicity. After extensive review of available
toxicological, scientific, and carcinogenic information for a compound, CRAVE assigns a
WOE classification to the chemical. The WOE is the degree of confidence that a pollutant
is a human carcinogen. Currently, the following groups constitute the WOE system:
-------
• Group A — known human carcinogen (based on human epidemiological
evidence)
• Group B — probable human carcinogen
Bl — sufficient evidence from animal studies and limited evidence from
human studies
B2 — sufficient evidence from animal studies, but inadequate evidence
from human studies
• Group C — possible human carcinogen, some evidence, but data is inconclusive
• Group D — not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (based on lack of
evidence)
• Group E — evidence that pollutant is not carcinogenic in humans
Noncancer health benchmarks in Table 1-3 are expressed either in terms of RfCs,
where available from IRIS, or in terms of preliminary evaluation concentrations (PECs),
which are non-verified, interim benchmarks used for screening purposes in this study. An
RfC is an estimate of a daily inhalation exposure to an air contaminant over a period of
70 years that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse effects. As such, it is not
a value or concentration at which some adverse effect is expected. Most of the RfCs and
PECs are based on health effects endpoints that typically result from long-term
exposures. However, there are a few RfCs that are based on health effects endpoints (e.g.,
developmental) that may occur after short term exposure. This could be an important
consideration for ranking HAPs, and for risk management decisions. Inhalation reference
concentrations are routinely established by EPA in IRIS, and serve as a tool to assess the
potential noncancer concern associated with various concentrations of specific chemicals.
Out of concern that IRIS (EPA-verified) RfCs are not available for many pollutants being
measured in ambient air, PECs were developed for some pollutants to serve as interim,
screening values specifically for this report.
For more information on RfC derivation and methodology the reader is referred to
Interim Methods for Development of Inhalation Reference Concentrations.6 Additional
information concerning RfCs for particular pollutants can be obtained from IRIS. For
information on PEC methodology and PECs for particular HAPs, the reader is referred to
a draft report entitled, Development of Interim Noncancer Health Effects Preliminary
Evaluation Concentrations for Screening Study of Hazardous Air Pollutants (see
reference 1). The PECs were developed using a methodology similar to that of RfCs.
However, PECs are not equivalent to RfCs. For PECs, the minimum toxicological data
requirements are less rigorous and there is typically greater uncertainty compared to
RfCs. Also, the PECs have undergone only limited EPA peer-review.
Reference concentrations are available for only 23 of the 195 pollutants for which
ambient air concentration data were available. The RfC status for the remainder of the
pollutants are either currently under review, determined non-verifiable, or have not been
reviewed yet. Due to concern of potential noncancer health effects for chemicals with no
RfCs, a parallel effort was undertaken to develop PECs. As mentioned above, these
interim, non-verified EPA benchmarks are solely for the screening purposes of this study.
-------
Most of the PECs used for the purposes of this report have been developed by the EPA's
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards' Pollutant Assessment Branch. It should be
noted that four of the PECs are based on non-verified RfCs obtained from EPA Health
Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST), and Ambient Air Level Goals (AALGs)
developed by Calabrese and Kenyon.7 It is important to consider the basis for each PEC
when assessing the potential health concerns for HAPs in this report.
1.4 Computation of Increased Cancer Risks
The estimates of cancer risk calculated in this report are of increased, or excess,
cancer risk to a hypothetical individual breathing ambient air, over a 70-year lifetime, at
levels monitored at each site or urban area in this report. These risk estimates are
neither actual estimates of observed cancer incidence to populations within the urban
areas wherein the ambient monitoring was performed, nor are they projections of risk to
any particular individuals. Instead, these are pollutant-specific, point-specific estimates
of excess, lifetime individual cancer risk calculated for relative ranking purposes only,
keeping in mind the assumptions and limitations in the data (discussed in Section 1.6).
Each cancer risk estimate is associated only with a particular monitoring site, or,
when appropriate, averaged across monitoring sites within an urban area. No attempt
was made to compute population incidence because it was not known to what extent the
concentrations of HAPs monitored at each site are representative of a larger spatial area.
(This type of analysis may be attempted subsequently in certain urban areas having
numerous monitoring sites, based on new information correlating the spatial
predictability of certain HAPs from single site observations — which will vary
considerably among HAPs and with local geography.)
Before calculating increased lifetime cancer risks, the units for the monitored values
and cancer potency factors need to be consistent. Ambient levels are typically reported in
parts per billion, by volume (ppbv). Concentrations in ppbv can be converted to
micrograms per cubic meter (}ig/m3) by the following equation, so that the units are
consistent with the units of the IUR. The resultant number (the cancer risk estimate) is
a unitless number.
ppbv
™
24.45L
= JME
Where: ppbv = parts per billion (dry, by volume)
M = molecular weight of chemical
24.45 L = volume of 1 mole of substance in gaseous state at 70° F
and 1 ATM
ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Particle-based pollutant concentrations are generally reported in ug/m3, or other
consistent units such as nanograms/cubic meter (ng/m3), and need no such conversion
from ppbv.
-------
An estimate of potential increased lifetime cancer risk for an individual exposed to
the ambient concentration for 70 years is calculated by multiplying the average
concentration in ug/m3 by the inhalation unit risk estimate for that pollutant, using the
following equation:
Lifetime individual cancer risk = HAP average cone, (jig/m3) x IUR, (1/ng/m3)
The resulting value is a dimensionless risk probability of contracting cancer due to a
lifetime inhalation exposure to a HAP. For example, 5.0E-06, or 5.0 x 10"6, is equivalent
to a 5 in 1 million risk of contracting cancer.
Caution should be exercised when interpreting the cancer risk estimates presented
in this document. Since many of the measured values for some pollutants are below the
MDL, the cancer risk estimates and rankings may be biased high or low. If a large
percentage of the measured values are below the MDL, then the cancer risk estimates
and cancer risk rankings (e.g., Tables ES-1 and ES-2) contain significant added
uncertainty. This report is a screening analysis, as such it does not include an evaluation
of the MDL bias on the cancer risk estimates, or the rankings. However, further
examination of the MDLs and their impact on the risk estimates and rankings will be
important considerations in any risk characterization or risk management decisions, or in
any decisions regarding the development of the UASP National Strategy.
1.5 Computation of Noncancer Risks
Noncancer effects are generally acknowledged as being threshold in nature. This
implies that a level exists below which exposure is not likely to result in adverse health
effects. Noncancer risks are estimated by comparing an observed ambient concentration
of a HAP with the noncancer health benchmark, preferably the RfC. Comparison between
ambient air concentrations and reference concentrations is performed by converting the
two concentrations to the same units (usually mg/m3) and calculating the Hazard
Quotient (HQ):
ambient concentration
reference concentration (R/€,PEQ
As such, the hazard quotient is simply a mathematical ratio of the long-term ambient
concentration and the chronic noncancer health benchmark. An ambient concentration
greater than the reference concentration (i.e., an HQ >1) constitutes an exceedance. The
reader should note that the existence of an exceedance of an RfC does not necessarily
mean that an adverse effect will occur. A brief explanation of the RfC methodology is
provided here to help explain this point.
First, existing toxicological data is reviewed to determine a No Observed Adverse
Effects Level (NOAEL), and a Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL). The
LOAEL is the lowest experimental exposure concentration at which an adverse noncancer
health effect was observed. The NOAEL, on the other hand, is an exposure concentration
at which no adverse health effect was observed. To calculate an RfC, typically a NOAEL
-------
is divided by uncertainty factors to account for sensitive subpopulations, animal to human
extrapolation, and less than chronic (subchronic) experimental exposure. These
uncertainty factors are usually assigned an order of magnitude value of 10. Also,
modifying factors are applied to account for incompleteness in data. The result is an RfC
that is from 10 to 100,000 times lower than a NOAEL.
As mentioned earlier, PECs are also derived using a similar method. Since HQs in
this report are based on RfCs and PECs, the more meaningful conclusion can be reached
when HQ <1. For HAPs where HQ <1, in many cases the EPA can reasonably conclude
that the corresponding HAP concentration is "safe" (i.e., no adverse noncancer effects
should result from the concentration). However, potential health effects cannot be
automatically ruled out if HQ <1. If the HQ is based on a PEC, extra caution should be
exercised. The basis for the PEC, and value of the HQ ratio should be examined more
closely before ruling out potential health concerns. Conversely, an HQ >1 is only an
indication of the potential for an adverse health effect. In this situation, further
examination is warranted to clarify the potential health concern. This follow-up study
should include an assessment of the potential population exposure, the extent and
frequency of RfC and PEC exceedances, and a review of toxicological data, health
endpoints, severity of effect, and the basis of the RfC or PEC. For those HAPs where
HQ » 1, EPA will subsequently also compare the ambient concentration to LOAELs.
This could provide additional useful information, since the LOAEL is a concentration at
which an adverse effect was actually observed in an experimental population.
Caution should be exercised when comparing average ambient concentrations with
chronic noncancer health benchmarks. The ideal situation would be when the benchmark
(an RfC or PEC in our case) is well above the MDL. In such case there would be
sufficient confidence in the relationship between monitored values (above and below the
MDL) and the benchmark. Table A-4 presents a listing of pollutants monitored for
several studies, and where available, the MDL for the study. A crucial check is to
compare the MDL, the respective benchmark, and the percentage of monitored values
above the MDL. If nondetects comprise a large percentage of monitored values, and the
health benchmark level is below the MDL, then the results may be biased and
indeterminate. Therefore, the screening power of the noncancer benchmarks exists
mainly when the hazard quotient is less than 1, since the nature of the benchmark is to
establish a level below which there are unlikely to be any health effects over a lifetime of
exposure.
1.6 Assumptions and Limitations
Many assumptions have been made in this analysis and certain limitations should
be considered when evaluating the results. This analysis is of course subject to and
qualified by numerous assumptions and limitations. The following is a list of
assumptions and limitations to be considered before drawing any conclusions from the
screening assessment described in this report:
• Estimates of cancer and noncancer risks computed at monitoring sites are assumed
to be useful surrogates for population risks within the urban areas studied. Their
utility lies mainly in the ability to rank order chemicals based on potential health
8
-------
effects. However, very few actual individual exposures, and consequent risks, are
likely to be represented by data at any monitoring site.
Assessments of cancer and noncancer risk presented are based on the assumption
that the annual average concentration calculated from a year or more of monitoring
reflects an individual's exposure to a specific pollutant at a site for a 70-year period.
In a few studies included in this assessment, data may have only been available for
one or several seasons of the year. Hence, long-term temporal representativeness of
these data is more questionable in some cases.
All of the monitoring sites included in this report may not be comparable in terms of
land use and potential neighboring sources of pollution. Due to the geographic and
meteorologic variation among monitoring sites, care must be taken in relating the
results for one study to other studies.
Carcinogenic substances are assumed to cause some level of risk at any exposure
level (i.e., assumes a zero-threshold for adverse effects). The concentrations of
carcinogens observed in ambient air in these studies are, in fact, much below those
levels used to determine dose-response relationships leading to the ITJRs.
Many of the lURs are based on "upper bound" estimates of the dose-response data.
If "lower bound" estimates were used, the estimated risk would be lower, possibly
zero risk, for some HAPs.
The ITJRs for benzo(cc)pyrene (BaP), 1,4-dioxane, captan, and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) are based on route-to-route extrapolation from oral unit risk to
inhalation unit risk. These lURs are not verified by the EPA, and are used in this
report for screening purposes only. This conversion introduces significant
uncertainty for these four HAPs. See Appendix B footnotes for further explanation.
All of the assumptions and limitations inherent in lURs and RfCs, including those
relating to high-to-low-dose extrapolations and interspecies applicability, are thereby
also inherent in this analysis. Also, risk estimates provided do not account for
potential synergistic, or antagonistic effects of ambient pollutant mixtures relative to
their individual effects.
Qualitative toxicity data such as weight of evidence and severity of effect were not
considered in this analysis.
Calculated excess risk assumes continuous outdoor exposure, without accounting for
the potential risk derived from exposure to indoor air, workplace exposures or other
microenvironment exposures. This is important because some pollutants (e.g.,
several VOCs and formaldehyde) are commonly found in some non-outdoor
environments at concentrations many times higher than outdoor levels.
The cancer WOE, lURs, RfCs, and PECs represent the current state of toxicological
knowledge for the individual chemicals. All of these values contain uncertainty.
The degree of uncertainty varies for each chemical and benchmark. These values
are likely to change as more information is obtained. The RfCs for individual
-------
chemicals are derived using various methods that include different uncertainty
adjustments and modifying factors. The PECs used herein have undergone only very
limited internal EPA peer review, and are not EPA-verified or approved. The PECs
are interim, screening benchmarks.
• Errors or limitations in the ambient monitoring data can have a significant effect on
the reliability of the risk estimates. With exceptions to specific studies mentioned in
this report, no effort was made to independently assure the quality of the ambient
monitoring data used in this report. However, data generally used in this report
were from quality-assured studies, often using EPA-approved measurement
techniques.
• The assumption that "nondetects" are 1/2 the MDL, or zero where a MDL was not
specified, may introduce some error — particularly for pollutants commonly found
below these detection levels.
• This report assumes that certain metals are present in the atmosphere in a specific
chemical form. This was done because the available measurement methods only
report total elemental metal mass present in a sample, and not in actual chemical
form or valence state. This may result in an overestimation of the calculated risks
for metals such as chromium or nickel, where the most toxic form of metal is
assumed to be the form that is available in the ambient samples. The inhalation
unit risk factor applied to all chromium readings corresponds to the hexavalent form
of the element, Cr+6, while the risk factor used for nickel corresponds to nickel
subsulfide. For mercury, in contrast, the only available health benchmark was for
the elemental form, which may result in an underestimation of actual risks since
this may not be the most toxic form.
• Hazard quotients >1 should not be assumed to indicate the existence of an adverse
health effect. Given the uncertainty factors inherent in the RfCs and PECs used in
this analysis, HQs >1 may pose no threat to human health. Hazard quotients >1
should be examined further by considering the extent of exceedance, toxicity data,
and uncertainty.
• Qualitative and quantitative health effects data should be examined more closely
before making risk management decisions based on this analysis.
10
-------
Table 1-2. Weight of Evidence (WOE) Classification and Available Inhalation
Unit Risk (IUR) Estimates for HAPs
CAS
Number
50000
50328
56235
57749
67663
71432
74873
75014
75070
75092
75252
75354
76448
79005
79016
79345
87683
91203
106934
106990
107062
107131
118741
123911
127184
133062
593602
1336363
1746016
3268879
7440382
7440417
7440439
12035722
18540299
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Benzo(a)Pyrene (BaP)
Carbon tetrachloride (Tetrachloromethane)
Chlordane
Chloroform (Trichloromelhane)
Benzene
Chloromethane (Methyl chloride)
Chloroethene (Vinyl chloride)
Acetaldehyde
Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane)
Bromoform (Tribromomethane)
1,1-Dichloroethene, -ylene (Vinylidene
chloride)
Heptachlor
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene, -ylene
1,1,2,2-TetrachIoroethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Naphthalene
1 ,2-dibromoethane (Ethylene dibromide)
1,3-Butadiene
1 ,2-dichloroethane (Ethylene dichloride)
Acrylonitrile
Hexachlorobenzene
1,4-Dioxane
Tetrachloroethene, -ylene (Perchloroethylene)
Captan
Vinyl bromide
Polychlorlnated biphenyls (PCB's)
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Octochlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium Compounds
Nickel
Chromium
Cancer
WOE
B1
B2
B2
B2
B2
A
C
A
B2
B2
B2
C
B2
C
B2
C
C
C
B2
B2
B2
B1
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
A
B2
B1
A
A
IUR
per ug/m3
1.30E-05
2.10E-03
1.50E-05
3.70E-04
2.30E-05
8.30E-06
1.80E-06
8.40E-05
2.20E-06
4JOE-07
1.10E-06
5.00E-05
1.30E-03
1.60E-05
1.70E-06
5.80E-05
2.20E-05
4.20E-06
2.20E-04
2.80E-04
2.60E-05
6.80E-05
4.60E-04
3.10E-06
5.80E-07
1.00E-06
3.20E-05
2.20E-03
3.30E+01
3.30E-02
4.30E-03
2.40E-03
1.80E-03
4.6E-04
1.20E-02
WOE
Source
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
ODER
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
ODER
ODER
ODER
IRIS
HADD
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IUR
Source
IRIS
ODER
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
ODER
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
ODER
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
DOER
ODER
ODER
ODER
DOER
HADD
TEFD
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
11
-------
Table 1-2. Weight of Evidence (WOE) Classification and Available Inhalation
Unit Risk (IUR) Estimates for HAPs (cont.)
CAS
Number
35822469
39001020
39227286
40321764
51207319
57117314
57117416
67562394
70648269
NA
NA
Pollutant
2,3,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Octochlorodibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,7,8-Penlachlorodibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran
Nickel Refinery Dust
Potycyclic Organic Matter (POM)
Cancer
WOE
A
IUR
per ug/m3
3.30E-01
3.30E-02
3.30E+00
1.65E+01
3.30E+00
1.65E+01
1.65E+00
3.30E-01
3.30E+00
2.40E-04
1.00E-04
WOE
Source
IRIS
IUR
Source
TEFD
TEFD
TEFD
TEFD
TEFD
TEFD
TEFD
TEFD
TEFD
IRIS
EHP
Notes: See Appendix B for further explanation of health data.
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System (see reference 3)
ODER = Documentation of De minimis Emission Rates (see references 8 and 9)
HADD = Health Assessment Document for Dioxin (see reference 10)
TEFD = Toxic Equivalency Factor Document (see reference 11)
EHP = Environmental Health Perspectives Journal (see reference 14)
12
-------
Table 1-3. Available Reference Concentrations (RfCs) and Preliminary
Evaluation Concentrations (PECs) for HAPs
CAS
Number
62737
67561
71556
74839
74884
75003
75058
7S07Q
75150
75252
75343
78875
78933
95476
98828
100414
100425
100447
106423
106467
106934
107028
107051
107131
108054
108101
108383
108883
108907
110543
120821
123386
126998
593602
1330207
Pollutant
Dichlorvos
Methanol
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl chloroform)
Bromomethane (Methyl bromide)
lodomethane (Methyl iodide)
Chloroethane (Ethyl; chloride)
Acetonitrile
Acetatdehyde
Carbon disulfide
Bromoform (Tribromomethane)
1,1-Dichloroethane (Ethylidene dichloride)
1,2-Dichloropropane (Propylene
dichloride)
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone)
o-Xylene
Cumene
Ethyl benzene
Styrene
Benzyl chloride
p-Xylene
1,4-Dichiorobenzene (p)
1 ,2-dibromoethane (Ethylene dibromide)
Acrolein
Allyl chloride (3-Chloropropene)
Acrylonitrile
Vinyl acetate
Methylisobutylketone (Hexone)
m-Xylene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Hexane (n-Hexane)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Propionaldehyde (Propanal)
Chloroprene
Vinyl bromide
m/p-Xylene
RfC
mg/m3
5.00E-04
5.00E-03
1.00E-02
1.30EtQ1
9.0QE-03
6.00E-03
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
8.00E-01
2.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.00E-03
2.00E-03
2.00E-01
•
4.00E-01
2.00E-01
2.00E-01
7.00E-03
3.00E-03
PEC
mg/m3
3.10E+00
9.50E+00
1.60E-03
1.00E-02
2.00E-02
5.40E-03
6.00E-03
9.00E-03
2.20E-04
6.00E-03
1.00E+00
6.00E-03
6.00E-02
9.00E-03
6.00E-03
Critical
Health Effect
CNS, Decreased Cholinesterase
Activity
Systemic Toxicity
Hepatotoxicity
Olfactory Lesions
CNS, skin, eyes
Developmental Toxicity
.Liver Hypertrophy, immunosup
Olfactory Degeneration
Fetus Toxicity
Hepatotoxicity
Kidney Damage
Nasal Mucosa Hyperplasia
Decreased Fetal Birth Weight
Develop. Effects, and CNS
Nasal Irritation, CNS
Developmental Toxicity
CNS '
Myocardial Necrosis
Develop. Effects, and CNS
Increased Liver Weight
Sperm Effects
Nasal Metaplasia
Peripheral Neurotoxicity
Nasal Degeneration
Nasal Lesions
Liver Increase Wt., Kidney
Develop. Effects, and CNS
Neurological
Renal, Hepato & Testicular
Neurotoxicity
Increased Liver Weight
Olfactory Epith. Degener.
Nasal Lesions
Liver • Hypertrophy
Develop. Effects, and CNS
13
-------
Table 1-3. Available Reference Concentrations (RfCs) and Preliminary
Evaluation Concentrations (PECs) for HAPs (cont.)
CAS
^^~~^^^
l^^^^^K^n^
7439921 Lead and Compounds (inorgant)
7439965; Manganese Compounds
Mercury (Elemental)
7440484
Cobalt
,7782505 Chlorine
RfC
mg/m3
5.00E-01
4-OOE-04
3.00E-04
PEC
mg/m3
1.50E-03
l_
Note$: See Appendix B for further explanation of health data.
CNS = Central Nervous System
Critical
Health Effect
Brain,Kidney,Adrenal,Liver
Hepatological, Neurological,
Kidney
Respiratory, Psychomotor
Hand Tremor, Memory,
Autonomic
7.00E-05 Respiratory, immuno-allergic
1.70E-02 jrritafjon
14
-------
2.0 ATLANTA'S SUMMER OZONE PRECURSOR STUDY
During 1990, the U.S. EPA's Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment
Laboratory (AREAL) conducted a Summer Ozone Precursor Study in Atlanta. The
program was established to monitor ambient levels of 47 VOCs and three aldehydes at six
separate sites. Hourly concentrations of VOC were determined using automated gas
chromatographic (GC) systems located at the monitoring sites. For the aldehyde data, 6
and 12-hour integrated values were obtained from high pressure liquid chromatography
(HPLC) analysis of samples collected on silica gel cartridges coated with 2,4-
dinitrophenylhydrazine (2,4-DNPH).
The three pollutants for which cancer risk information was available included
benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde. Figure 2-1 presents the additive
(i.e., multipollutant) lifetime risk by site for the three pollutants, and Figures C2-1
through C2-6 in Appendix C show individual risk for the separate sites included in the
study. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 provide the values of the risk estimates by site, and the
numerical ranking of the pollutants according to cancer risk, respectively.
Reference concentrations have been established for acetaldehyde, ethylbenzene, n-
hexane, and styrene. Generally, RfCs are expressed in units of mg/m3, but for purposes of
comparison the values were converted to ppbv. The RfC (indicated as "benchmark") is
graphed relative to the monitoring data percentiles and the mean concentration for these
pollutants in Figures 2-2 through 2-5. Figure 2-6 compares the PEC for m/p-xylene with
the appropriate statistical parameters. In Table 2-3, the calculated hazard quotients for
the pollutants are presented for the six separate sites.
Data Contact:
Larry Purdue
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory
MD-56
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
15
-------
16
-------
Table 2-1. Atlanta Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant
DeKalb
Ft. Mcph.
GATech
M.L. King
Mars Hill
Tucker
Acetaldehyde
5.22E-06
7.07E-06
9.21 E-06
9.18E-06
3.25E-06
7.75E-06
Benzene
1.04E-04
1.53E-04
1.78E-04
1.44E-04
9.26E-05
1.24E-04
Formaldehyde
8.05E-05
1.18E-04
1.19E-04
1.38E-04
7.42E-05
1.05E-04
Table 2-2. Atlanta Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant
DeKalb
Ft. Mcph.
GATech
M.L. King
Mars Hill
Tucker
Acetaldehyde
3
3
3
3
3
3
Benzene
1
1
1
1
1
1
Formaldehyde
2
2
2
2
2 '
2
17
-------
3
02
3
fl
03
18
-------
=i
-U
02
a
•4J
1=1
03
19
-------
CQ
1
20
-------
CQ
CS
-u
C
ed
21
-------
OT
cd
22
-------
Table 2-3. Atlanta Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant
DeKalb
Ft. Mcph.
GA Tech
M.L. King
Mars Hill
Tucker
Acetaldehyde
1.8E-01
2.6E-01
2.3E-01
2.8E-01
1.3E-01
2.6E-01
Ethyl
benzene
4.4E-03
1.5E-02
2.0E-02
t.OE-02
3.2E-03
9.0E-03
m/p-Xylene
2.1E+00
6.3E+00
1.1E+01
4.9E+00
1.5E+00
4.2E+00
n-Hexane
2.2E-02
3.7E-02
6.0E-02
3.5E-02
1.8E-02
6.8E-02
Styrene
1.2E-03
8.3E-03
7.7E-03
2.7E-03
1.2E-03
2.0E-03
23
-------
3.0 BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA
Beginning in January 1988, Louisiana's Department of Environmental Quality
monitored for 8 VOCs at a single station located near the State's Capitol building. By
March 1990, the scope of the study expanded from 8 to 20 air contaminants. Hourly
readings were obtained on diskette from the Department of Environmental Quality, and
were averaged over each appropriate 24-hour period. The 24-hour values were
subsequently averaged over all years. For the purposes of this report, statistical analyses
were performed on data collected from 1988 through 1992.
Modifications in sampling and analysis of compounds resulted in more precise and
accurate readings starting in August 1989. After this date, samples were collected using
an organic vapor concentrator consisting of a combination absorbent trap, which
alternated between sample collection and sample injection. The concentrator was coupled
to a Hewlett-Packard gas chromatograph fitted with a flame ionization detector (FID) to
detect selected alkane and aromatic precursors.
Quality assurance procedures consisted of the following steps. A calibration mixture
composed of each of the target compounds was used to calibrate the analytical system a
minimum of three times per week. Retention times according to the gas chromatograph
were computed and compared with previous calibration runs. Data sets were declared
valid if the results were found to be within 20 percent of the previous analysis.
Although numerous compounds were monitored during this study, only benzene has
an established unit risk factor to provide an estimate of its potential carcinogenic effects.
It should be noted that the laboratory which performed sample analysis reported inflated
readings for benzene samples taken prior to August 1989. Due to peak coelution during
gas chromatography, readings for benzene may be biased by a factor of 2 to 2-1/2. If
readings taken prior to this date are included in the risk calculation for benzene, the
estimated individual lifetime cancer risk is 5.19 E-05. However, if the calculation is
performed using the average concentration of readings starting in August 1989, the value
for individual cancer risk is estimated to be 3.12 E-05. Figure 3-1 provides a graphical
representation of cancer risk for benzene based on the post-August 1989 readings for
benzene and the appropriate IUR.
Figure 3-2 presents the RfCs for ethylbenzene, hexane, and toluene, graphed relative
to the Baton Rouge monitoring data statistics. Figure 3-3 presents the same information
relative to PECs for cumene and three different isomers of xylene. Hazard quotients were
calculated for these seven pollutants, and are displayed in Table 3-1.
Data Contact:
Bob Bailey
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Air Laboratory
11720 Airline Highway
Baton Rouge, LA 70817
25
-------
I
-u
CQ
-------
CQ
0)
bfl
fi
o
•s
M
27
-------
.2
CO
0
bo
I
fl
o
CQ
28
-------
Table 3-1. Baton Rouge Hazard Quotient by Pollutant
Pollutant
Ethylbenzene
Hexane
Toluene
Cumene
m/p-Xylene
m-Xylene
o-Xylene
Baton Rouge
1.4E-03
2.2E-02
2.0E-02
7.9E-02
6.3E-01
5.6E-01
2.3E-01
29
-------
-------
4.0 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
The BAAQMD toxics network initially started ambient monitoring for 11 toxic
pollutants in January of 1987. The data analyzed in this report reflect 24-hour readings
taken approximately every 2 weeks through December of 1993. The majority of the sites
contained data for 1987 through 1993, but some sites had data for fewer years. Readings
were available for 22 separate sites within the District.
An update to the monitoring data was received on diskette from the BAAQMD. All
sites were appropriately updated to incorporate this additional data for 1992 and 1993.
However, the 3 sites of Antioch, Martinez, and Walnut Creek could not be updated due to
discrepancies in the available data. Only the original data were analyzed for these sites.
Samples were collected in 20-liter tedlar bags equipped with a pump that allows for
an adjustable flow rate. Prior to sampling, the bag valve stem is opened, the nitrogen is
exhausted, and the bag is placed in the sampling carton. After collection, the carton is
shipped to the laboratory, where the samples are preconcentrated using a Tenax trap.
Analysis was performed using a gas chromatographic system equipped with electron
capture detection for halocarbons, and photoionization detectors for selected alkanes and
aromatics.
Quality assurance measures performed during sampling included collocated
sampling, field controls, and field accuracy tests. Analytical QA procedures included daily
system checks, audits, duplicate sample analysis, and bag contamination checks.
Nine of the HAPs in the program have IUR values associated with them to assess
the carcinogenicity of the pollutant. Figure 4-1 presents additive cancer risk by site and
pollutant, and average cancer risk by pollutant for individual sites is provided in
Appendix C, Figures C4-1 through C4-22. The values for cancer risk associated with
individual pollutants are presented by site in Table 4-1, and the HAPs are numerically
ranked according to cancer risk in Table 4-2.
Figures 4-2 and 4-3 present RfCs and site-specific percentiles for ethylene dibromide
and toluene, respectively. Site-specific statistics for methyl chloroform are shown relative
to the PEC for this pollutant in Figure 4-4. Values corresponding to the hazard quotient
for the three pollutants are presented in Table 4-3.
Data Contact:
Hanford Chew
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
31
-------
uojuiouj/oipueai UBS
UBS
- asop UBS
- asop UBS
oaspuBJj UBS
32
-------
o
n
LLJ "'tit' LU HI" LU Ul LU 111 LU UI* LU 111- LU -*"fi LU S|ll- LU
cvj co oo -*•' CM eo ^ oi CQ co "co ^ **F* co _*^" co f*Bp= co:
1;
_»-j co CO
CO t»^
lil LLJ 111 LLJ Ul LU 111 LLJ lit. LU Ul
TP*»" -r- CO C3> IO O> - CO *fl* CO l|
10 "T- 01 "< i-'
"
<£
co in o> m co *"" co u> TT
O> CO- CO G>- CM ,f* ^^ "CO h*^
lit
-
III- LLJ 111 I'l "HI*' UJ -III"
CM T- »- CM U> CO W
oju> -^-co-r-!(p-^-eor-.«ocvjcoco.«<> t-••<*•-*-.•*•
fe"1**
LU III
S S
co to
s
LU
3SJ
cvi *^-
LUUILUUILUUILLJUIUJlllUJ Ul LLJ LU LU "' LU "111
CO CO CO CNJ CV CO CO O5 CO- CO CO CO CO CO "CO
CVjCJOJ^CVJdjlOUJCVjevJCOCJCNjCjCVI -pj" CJ Is.
lotoiriwiriininioinininioiri «> ui "» >o 10
LU III
CO (O
C\l Q> C>| O> 0) CO CO O) O> •»— O) O5 O} O> O> O> to O>
co to to t^- co r~
'
S
5
coc»-r- u) to u> to u> u)
LUUILUUILUUILUIIILLI UI LLJ Ul LLJ -UI "'' '" "*' "' "'' "' "'' "''
'»— T-T-T— T— *i T-^»— en i— a>-»— *•
in •!•» ui iit MI til in
uj T— ••— ^ cvj eo co
co *r r»- ui
ui LU
» P
^r co
i1 i»t
ui co
in HI ui iti in in
8J 5 «5'£ S'SS s?fif S2 » ®
O> CO
eo ^r
1
S
1
<
d!
§€
> «
_i S
1
M C
s«
^K
^•i^
-I
§£ CO t
**i
*5
ill
2 t5 f
O
5 E -
•si « s g «
ocflCDCjo co:«»
e c
£
I
at
£
O
°.S
= i
£g
33
-------
•S
I
jsi
o
1
_O d>
II
r** QJ>
5 •
S *^
3
o fa
•o f 1
>» "5» S
JQ f O
^ Ul Q
C
(0 a>
QC « 2
c "£
(0 >» "
CC UJ Q
O c
O E
C S.
(0 o
0 o
Q S
O «
2 —
2 ||
cvi 8$
0 g
•Q N
(0 c
H flr> r*» -I**" o> <»" o co o> "t*»* o> -10
4 _:' - '""- ";-T- --7. r *
"^ "-„ "- -,: ; " ""-
"k 4 ^ f" ^ ?•
oo ~t**> en co oo -co oo t**? r** ot~ oo ,0^
;. -;r " - '™ "•"-- •;"- - — .'--
•„-„; "- ~z_ "- -_ _7_ -1 —i - --~" *--^"
r** root QO ok r** f** r^* o> oo -co)v r** ^*
;^ _:;' -•_- -r"\ _ ~--f~*
:-:. ' - : ;
in in m in- in to m in in in to in
^f CO Ol "CO CO CO CO CO. CO ^flf CO C^
"" -:
--
to ^o (o fo co ^t* to ico" to ttr in ^o
^ . •• -
--*
• iCS Q> , jT <*J
III III if llll
."-i ^^ ^ JrJ JPr
:S ^ ^3 H": 2*
i- or oi -W- 1- "-«" oi "oi": 01 -«M
-- , *-?-- "- >:" •'- °- "'
^ V> * i-j ^
OO 4ft O) d> O) OO O) fr"*' O) O)
-:::" /;:-- -;:_
~~ "" <1 s- ~ —
^ S f ^ fs
Cn OO QO CO 00 O>~ If) -O> QO <3O
•;: ;i - •-.
:
r^iot-lii-K-^i-t-
-
-.
inuitnininmtotnmin
•-
-
CO CO CO CO C*l CO CO CO CO CO
toto9
34
-------
O
o
a)
(0
^^
o
g^
Q. •§.
(0
9
cc
CM
£
3,
O)
il
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
n
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
D
^ O« IO Q lO
^ o- rx Cf5 CN c.
• D O O < 1
D.,
•^1
T
|
i
t
f
[^ •
3
S
1
! j _ ! !
=> S e S 2 §
OJ9||BA
esoy BJUES
|8BjBa UBS
•9AV
UO)UIOm/OJpUB31 UBS
UIOUUjBJ/OJpUBai UBS
JSOSM-asopuss
" via*. NOT «8
oospuejj UBS
fo!0 pooMpau
6jnqsuid
PUBPIBQ
; ™
luoiuajj
PJOOUOO
9
03
O"
^
CQ
35
-------
CO
.S
03
P
s
O"
1
pq
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D-CSJ
n — cs:
D-cs:
CH33
D— O»
CKS
n — oa
D — oa
n — (S3
o<«
OS
a — d»
a — ae
CHS:
D-CKl
CKS3
D OX
a— (S:
s
D-CB:
H33JO PU|BM
o|a«BA
B80U 8)UB$
RBjeu UBS
•3AV
yoapu
JUOlUJjBJ/OJpUBSl UBS
WOSM-asopuBS
AJIO pooMpay
BdBN
JUOU13JJ
PJ03U03
a s s s
36
-------
CO
Q
37
-------
Table 4-3. BAAQMD Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant
Anttoch
Concord ':> \ ! *;;'"" :> /_ ;
FortCronkhite
Fremont .. , '1 " .'. '
Livermore
Martinez
Mountain View
Napa ' . ! ' '•
Oakland
Pittsburg
Redwood City
RJehmonoVTthSt
Richmond/13th St
San Francisco •
San Jose- 4th st
San Jose -WSCst
San Leandro/Fairmont
San Leandro/Thornton Ave.
San Rafael
Santa Rosa
Vallejo
Walnut Creek
Ethylene Dibromide
3.8E-01
•• •• i i> 1 1 1 ,1 -s-w... i i., -ii "ii- *
3.8&01
3.8E-01
, -.^g^- "|
3.8E-01
3.8E-01
4.0E-01
3.9E-01
3.8E-01
3.8E*01
3.9E-01
3.8E-01
3.8E-01
3.8E^01
3.8E-01
3.8E-01
3.8E-01
4.0E-01
3.8E-01
3.8E-01
4.1E-01
3.8E-01
Methyl Chloroform
3.0E-04
" ,'S»j^' "
1.1E-04
liE-u3
5.5E-04
4.3E-04
3.5E-04
2.3E-04
2.9E-04
6.0E-04
8.3E-04
3.0E-04
2.8E-03
5.4E-04
5.1E-04
4.4E-04
3.7E-04
4.9E-04
4.3E-04
2.3E-04
7.2E-04
3.2E-04
Toluene
2.4E-02
";*2;6E-02 '
5.0E-03
2.8E-02
4.8E-02
3.6E-02
2.9E-02
3.0E-02
2.1E-02
2.3E-02
4.3E-02
1.8E-02
5.3E-02
3.6E-02
3.9E-02
3.6E-02
2.1E-02
3.7E-02
2.7E-02
2.6E-02
2.8E-02
2.9E-02
38
-------
5.0 BRIDGEPORT DIOXIN/FURAN STUDY
The Baseline Monitoring Program took place in Bridgeport, Connecticut beginning
on November 13, 1987 and continuing through January 13, 1988. The study was intended
to provide an indication of pre-operational ambient background levels of polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) in the immediate
vicinity of a planned municipal solid waste incinerator. Twenty-four to 72-hour samples
were collected for 9 discrete sample sets including 6 sites in the Bridgeport metropolitan
area.12
Polyurethane foam (PUF) samplers equipped with a glass fiber filter and sorbent
trap were used to collect particulate and vapor-phase PCDDs and PCDFs, respectively.
All native dioxins and furans collected from the ambient air were quantified against a
series of isotopically-labeled internal standards. After fortification with the internal
standards, the PUF samples were extracted using toluene prior to high resolution gas
chromatography/high resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS) analysis. Nondetected
values were assigned 1/2 the MDL value.
Data were not reported by sample site in this study, but rather, were aggregated
across sample sites and reported for a series of nine temporal intervals. To construct a
long-term average, all reported data were averaged across all temporal intervals, yielding
a single, study-wide average concentration for each measured dioxin and furan congener.
Hence, only a single, study-wide cancer risk is calculated.
Figure 5-1 presents the study-wide aggregated risk for all dioxin congeners (total
dioxins) and all furan congeners (total furans). The aggregated risk accounts for all
congeners that possess an inhalation unit risk factor. All other congeners (those without
cancer risk factors) are assumed to present no cancer risk. Table 5-1 breaks out the
aggregate dioxin and furan risks into individual risks for those specific congeners with an
available IUR.
39
-------
40
-------
Table 5-1. Bridgeport Study-wide Cancer Risk, by Dioxin and Furan Congener
Congener
Individual Lifetime Cancer Risk
Dioxins
2,3,7,8-TCDD :
2,3,7,8-PeCDD
2,3,7,8-HxCDD
2,3,7,8-HpCDD
2,3,7,8-OCDD
Total Dioxins
4.01E-07
3.94E-07
4.87E-07
1.57E-07
6.93E-08
1.51E-06
Furans
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,7,8-HpCDF
2,3,7,8-OCDF
Total Furans
2.59E-07
5.19E-08
7.68E-07
7.91E-07
8.08E-08
6.95E-09
1.96E-06
41
-------
-------
6.0 CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
In 1985, the ARB's toxics sampling network initiated ambient air monitoring at 25
separate sites in California. Based on CARB's advice, readings taken prior to July 1988
were discounted for the risk assessment. Twenty-four hour samples were collected for 38
air contaminants for the duration of the study, which continued through June 1991.
Readings for gases and aromatics data were expressed in ppbv, while readings for metals
and semi-volatiles were expressed in ng/m3. The data that were collected were stipulated
as preliminary and subject to revision, yet no revisions to date have been received or are
expected.
Inhalation unit risks have been established for 11 of the pollutants included in the
GARB study, and additive lifetime cancer risk is presented for the 25 sites in Figure 6-1.
Figures C6-1 through C6-24 in Appendix C display this data for the individual sites
within the study. Tables 6-1 and 6-2 provide the values for the risk estimates by site, and
the ranking of the 12 pollutants according to cancer risk, respectively.
Inhalation reference concentrations have been developed for six compounds, and
PECs have been established for five of the pollutants. Figures 6-2 through 6-7 present
the RfCs, and Figures 6-8 through 6-12 display the PECs. The RfC or PEC is graphed
relative to the mean concentration and the monitoring data percentiles for each site.
Hazard quotients were calculated to assess noncancer risk associated with these
pollutants, and are listed in Table 6-3.
Data Contact:
Robert Maxwell
California Air Resources Board
2020 L. Street (or P.O. Box 2815)
Sacramento, CA 95812
43
-------
44
-------
I
>.
£
(8
O
0.
•o
(0
o
*-
(0
(0
m<^tn o to co
c* co ^ t>; ut o ., CM in co
T-^43»O><*"O5O>'^: i-^O? "fli
8g8c?8Sog8
LU in LLJ Ul LLJ Ul LLJ Ul LLJ
TT 4O CM CO - O> U> O O CO
S- O
O) t& •»— i^* CO ,*"" •*•" O> "^~
8 S 8 Sf 8 S 8 8 S f 8
LLJ III- LLJ 111 LLJ -Ul LLJ LLJ Ul~- UU ttl
f*- "^4 ^O ^O m tt> OO O 40
in «o cvi to
8 i?
LU Ul
r- in
co ^
in co
^- in
Ul ui
o co
5 2
s
9
LU Ul LU
co a in
OD
in in in
99*?
LU LU Ul LU
m in in
o -
LU
ao
CM
r-.'
8
to in to co co coino--.
cn«o^7J>^cocv}incOT-;inc3
- >r» co co W
14!
8gS:g8g8g8g§
LU Ul LLJ 'Ul LLJ Ul LLJ 111 LLJ Ul LLJ
co •»— in <«r to
CO CO
in f~ p CM r=i efj r-.
o> •* oi to co iri in
S
£3 2
tO T-
S S S S S S S
LLJ Ul LLJ Ul LU LLJ LU
ao •* -r-^ CO CM «O
S
9 9
111 LU
9 9 9 ? 9
in
o
LLJ Ul LLJ
"~ O Is-
«o co
CM-»--^T-eM
-------
O
I
"o
0.
•o
(0
a)
(0
0
u
(0
O
GQ
CC
(O
o
2
(0
o>
g
•5.
i
o
a.
at
|
u
-S
I
I
00
OC
111 : LU III LU
^?:c3 ;^.S
«M •«• -«*r CM
LU UJ
« 5
!». t>~ «O 1^
«"•; «M" <3 OJ CO
•r^ U> O> '*<•• in
1— co en
co CM
cb •» c\i
g c| 5 fe g S g
LU til LLJ 111 LU til LU
s
5?
III iti , III ill III
i— to vn »•• T—
CO CM <0 CO CM
cvi t^ T-' co -r-"
til LLJ 111 LU
a § a s
T- -r- O> C\i
S
LLJ
g cf g ^1 g ^ g c? g 8 g „ g 8 g
LU til LU HI LU Hit LU Ut LU 111 LU UJ III LU
g C? g §
LU 111 LLJ 111
g
LLJ
g
LLJ
gc?g^gS§ g
LLJ Ul LU Ul LLJ HI LU LU
g«Sg«3gSg g
Ul
in
n'l iii n'l ii| n'l in n'l in n'l
p o p § p o o S o
fc 2
DC to to t/> to to
46
-------
a>
J
TJ
C
O)
c
(0
(0
E
0>
o
(0
o
CQ
DC
O
I
0)
Q
0>
TJ
2
<
92
TJ
O3
"?
m
oc
O O ILI IU l£ £ £
47
-------
o
o
O)
s ;: -a- °:« «
2
o> o> o>
o> o» en
^1 o> oo o> 0} o> o> o>
c
(0
OC
CO CO CO €O,
m
OC
oQoaooooujiiJu.u_
UIUJU.U-U.-J
48
-------
<0
•a
o
v
u
O
«^
(0
.2
|
w ^^
to 3*
Q a
o in
.ti II
<
•o
c
CO
O
to
2
3
D)
il
c
CO
in
CD l»»
D 0
to
J
^O *^O 3C
0 U5 0>
in c«i r
O < 1
D
1
3
-u
03
O
c
[
i
i
i
i
Dj
D-j
i
i
i
i
i
i
II-L
1
If^
In ...
i i
i
i
t.
In
c
3
— •-<
— ^_
-•— O
0-
0
-•5—
)-«O-
3»-0-
•0-<
-•— c
O — «
-<
o-«-o
)-•<>-
-o—
-o-«>
J
-<
<]
<
<
-4
3
d
puB|dn
uowoojs
UBJipoo-Aa||BA|ui|S
0||!JJBO-BJBqjBg Bjueg
asop UBS
SBSUB^JV-
xnopiqny
puouiipm
ipeag 6uoi IAJON
a|Bpi|eo-
-------
0)
c
O
N
C
f
£
111
i_
Q
t^M
(0
to
4-1
co OL
« a
Q CM
2*uj
~ o
o co
•tS CM
§0
4- £
C -"
0)
!5
E
^
•a
c
(0
g
cc
•
to
2
3
O)
il
ca
c •§
5 o> i-~ LO c\j CQ
• a o o < il
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
•
1 DUBIC|n
*r " I 'I
f
6 uopioois
i ueJMOOO-AanBAIu.iS
ra o|||UBO-BJeqjBg ejues
J
Kl asop UBS
a sesuB)|JV-oospuaij UBS
T
gh xnopiqna
op puouiijom
T
gb vpeag 6uo-muoN
B? IS mn-oisapow
f
IB sajaBuv soi
£ IStsJU-ousuj
C juourajj
-f
9P uofeo 13
D PJ03UOO
I
[O s)i|6|3H SHOO
• j
BJ] Jiueqjng
+
K3 OIWISWMBS
T
£
-S
O2
O
Q
O
50
-------
CO
Statistics for Ethylene dibromide
ppb)
10
2
gure 6-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data
(RfC=2.60 E-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 (
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
c
0
c
1 C
D-C
— o-e
] C
pueidn
UOHOOJS
asop UBS
8BSUB)(JV-03S!OUBJJ UBS
xnopiqnu
puouiqam
ipeag 6uoi WON
ISJSJU-ousajj
luouiaij
uo|eo o
PJOOUOQ
i|UBqjng
s
8
O
S
3
0
S
O
S
0
51
-------
1
U5
vt
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D P"B|dn
D UOHOOIS
D UBJIJOOO-
OEJ qiMJBO*
6 asoruBS
vh CDfiiiini fu
U otfoUllJfJy
D xnopiqny
rxh niiniiiiiin
Kl puoiuq9|!
D ipeag 6u
ft 1C Ifllf 1 "O
V *& Mlrt^1'
D S3|36UV S
O JS»«J!J-«
| WOUKy
C uofeo 13
C pjoouoo
i sjq6|aHS
i B)S|A 8|m
D uia|es-oo
i P|3|}SW)(I
S
S
S
52
-------
$
3
-u
CO
0)
c
£
CO
^
£
(0
to
1
CO
(0
SI
en Q«
C CM
"C +
o ui
•— m
o ***
SCM
ii
** O
C lfr_
0) QC
5 ^
E
<
•o
c
(0
0
H—
oc
(0
(O
0)
3
.2?
c •§
CO ^v ^9 *^ ^^ J^
SJ 8^ S~ S~ 3- £
4££ o> 10 o to *w
2 en ^ m CM CQ
• a o o < ii
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
? PUB|dn
C UOP|30)S
t
T "IIMJO-BJBqJBgBUiBS
A esopuBS
m 8BsuB5(JV-oos|oueJd UBS
I
sb xnopiqny
I
at] puoiugoiu
en yoBsg 6uoi HJJON
I
T
C IS tw-ojsapow m
J S
HD sata6uv son OT
1
T
C IS JSJ(J-OUS3JJ
f
C JUOUMJJ
f
C UOJBOI3
f
D pJOOUOQ
C 8)M6|3H snflio
D B^IA Bingo
f
t UW|BS"03W°
OD iiUBqjng
S § 8 8 g
uo||||q tsd syej
O
53
-------
3
CO
S? S?
O UJ
-------
55
-------
-
CO
PQ
3? 55
o in -<
(X
-<
— <3
-O- <
IO-<
XJ-<
) — <
S8)86UV SOI
UOH30JS
asor UBS
WSUR|JV-03S|OURIJ UBS
xnopiqnu
puouiqoju
IUOUWJJ
UO|8Q |3
pjoauoo
i|UBC|jng
.ts
o o>
uojinq jad sped
56
-------
£
3
-u
CQ
O
uoinjq 43d syed
57
-------
GO
PQ
58
-------
CO
o
_«
x
Q.
^
(0
"to
(A
ro
Q-,
•= °-
£3
C T^
iu
*- u
c a.
a> ^
'E
•o
(0
O
HI
a.
cvi
to
£
S? 2S s? 35 c
o> r^ m CM CQ
• D 0 O <
C
D
D-
1
I
1
1-1 |
1
1
a
— i
a
a
i
•
1
1
rf
yfl
h-
in
i
In
K>
D-
H
K
10
1-
IC
1
<3S3
] G
-€>-<
-0»<
-O«-<
J-OOO
—CXI
CXI
oc
ao«a
»O —
-------
I
o
0.
•o
(0
00
o
3
o
(0
N
(B
ffl
cc
s
|j
u
eu
s
_cu
l^y
E
fit
s%
o>
_|Q
^J^
£
in
CD
e
s
o
o
o
f
"S
IS
cu
o
CVI
CO
o
+
fs^
"
LLJ
cvi
CO
LLJ
co
CO
UJ
o
UJ
10
CO
JBakersfield
1
'«
ij-
T"
.**-"
LU
CM
tit
CO
^^
«7
UJ
LU
•^
i
3
05
LU
Oi
CO
LLJ
cvi
CO
til
10
^~
CO
III
CO
CM
Chico-Salem
s
.:/
_-:""
tit
•^J
in
UJ-
S
,-:
ul
•r"*
co!
UJ
-CO -
•-:
;
^
CM:
_ =
Chula Vista
T T T
in in in
10 «c* «*•
cvi CM- cd
•:-.»
~...
LLJ Irl UJ
1*- 1>»~- CM
"-""
"r.
ll'l UI ll'l
CM CM •*
cvi CM~ CM
CO CO CO
UJ LU UJ
i-
CVJ •*- 1-
CO CO CO
UJ UI LU
••9- O O
UJ UI LU
CM CM CD
CO CO CO
Citrus Heights
Concord
El Caion
' LU "'
- . CO ]OJ
\-f: -'
- *- "*?
' -UJ (5
P1^ T**
"*""
LLJ l/i
I1- CM
• cvi CM
LU til
CD tO
"ir" CM
, "? *?
LU LU
CD CM
UJ UJ UI
CO i— CO
co co «r
El Monte
Fremont
Fresno-First St
LU
to
Fresno-Olive
2-
o"
ri.3?
Q
Li
-in"
"f^~.
til
3
2.
vt
ea
--1-
Ul
in
CM
s
*»
CM
„
UI
^—
CO
LU
LU
CO
•*
X
IX
.111
-_5
UJ
•^3-
^
"-'-
ui
CM
Ul
fM»
<7
Ul
in
-:
Ul
CM
CO
(O
C
9
1
i
LLJ
0
IO
UJ
CM
UJ
O
CM
CO
Ul
CO
CM
CO
LU
O
LJJ
CO
San Jose
i
to
o
Ul
-*-•
LU
cvi
*7
tit
in
CM
co
Ul
£
CO
2
•g
Santa Barbara-Ca
LLJ
CO
O5
LU
r*^»
10
LU
O
cvi
CO
LU
IO
^-*
CO
Ul
o
LU
CD
CM
«
SimiValley-Coch
S
<=>
to
ut
1f*»
to
Ul
CM
Ul
0
CM
CO
LU
<*>
LU
CO
Stockton
LLJ
CD
f—
^
Ul
CO
CM"
CO
LU
CM
CO
UJ
LU
IO
IO
•o
CO
Q.
60
-------
o
CO
£
•o
c
(0
(0
c
.2
'S
O
O
(0
m
DC
S
.
•2 §
O £J
i5
s
>>
6
CM
UJ
m
CO
in
o
CM
UJ
CM
"
IJJ
LU
tn
CO
IBakersfield
Ul
0
•«»„
s
CO
CM
Ul
*?
tut
CO
Ul
*""
i
m
CM
LU
CO
CM
^
1**.
cn
LU
CO
CM
UJ
CO
LU
cn
CO
Chfco-Salem
CM
Ul
^*
S
0
Ul
CM
CM
S
CD
til
Ul
CM
Chula Vista
CM
K
CM
T
^f
cn
Ul
CO
^
CO
00
LU
01
CO
I
cn
i
u
CM
!H
CM
Y
^*
Ul
CM
Ul
Ul
in
•7
Ul
Ul
CO
s
cn
CO
0
*
i
9
^
San Francisco-/*
CM
LU
in
T
CO
LU
cn
LU
CO
in
S
CM
O>
LU
CO
San Jose
CM
111
CM
5?
Ul
Ul
m
Ul
eo
CM
Ul
<0
in
o
t
CO
Santa Barbara-C
CM
UJ
CM
LU
CM
r~-
LU
CM
LU
CO
UJ
CO
S
r-
Simi Valley-Coc
S
CM
S
in
en
Ul
CO
T
Ul
in
«u
*
Stockton
CM
LU
0
CO
LU
CO
UJ
••I-
LU
UJ
in
in
-------
7.0 COLUMBUS, OfflO
During 1989, the Columbus Field Study was conducted to measure ambient levels of
79 air contaminants within the Columbus, Ohio urban area. The effort was headed by the
Methods Research and Development Division of EPA's AREAL, with contractor support
from Battelle Laboratories. For details concerning the study design, measurement
methods, and sample and statistical analyses, the reader is referred to a report entitled
Variability and Source Attribution of Hazardous Air Pollutants - Columbus Field Study.13
During June and July of 1989, measurements of air contaminants were made at six
sites within the urban area, designated as Sites 1 through 6. Data were collected for
VOCs, carbonyls, particle elements, and extractable organics every 3 hours over three 2-
day intervals to assess spatial variability. Hourly data for formaldehyde and automated
gas chromatography samples of VOCs were also collected and two sites included samples
integrated over 24-hour periods. However, only results corresponding to 3-hour samples
were analyzed in this report.
All VOC samples were collected by pumping ambient air into a trap consisting of
stainless steel tubing packed with silanized glass beads, while carbonyl compounds (i.e.,
aldehydes and ketone) were collected using a 2,4-DNPH cartridge enclosed in an impinger
to avoid interference by atmospheric ozone. All particle samples were collected on
"streaker" particle samplers equipped with motor-driven rotating circular filters. Volatile
organic compound sample analysis was performed using a GC equipped with both a FID
and a mass selective detector system (MSC). The latter system enables the monitoring of
only preselected ions, rather than scanning a range of masses continuously. This results
in increased sensitivity and improved quantitative analysis of the data set. Aldehydes
and ketones were analyzed using HPLC. Metals were analyzed with a proton-induced
X-ray emission (PDCE) system. The resulting X-ray energy spectrum is analyzed to
determine the elemental composition of the sample.
•
Quality assurance activities included single and multipoint calibration checks of the
GC/FID and GC/MSC system. The HPLC system was calibrated daily using DNPH
derivative standards. Duplicate sampling was also performed to separate the variability
due to sampling and analysis from the actual variability of HAPs in the air.
Inhalation unit risk factors have been established for 19 of the HAPs monitored in
this study, and additive lifetime cancer risk is presented by site for each of these
compounds in Figure 7-1. In this case, polycyclic organic matter (POM) refers to the sum
of the concentration of organic material extracted from a particulate matter sample using
both extracting solvents cyclohexane and dichloromethane. This method was used so that
cancer potency values derived from the extractable organic matter (EOM) fraction of the
particulate sample could be applied.14 Figures C7-1 through C7-6 in Appendix C provide
lifetime cancer risk for the 19 pollutants for the 6 sites. Table 7-1 presents the values for
calculated cancer risk, and Table 7-2 ranks the pollutants based on decreasing cancer
risk.
A National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) has been established for
ambient concentrations of lead. This health benchmark is graphed relative to monitoring
data statistics for 3-hour lead samples in Figure 7-2. Inhalation reference concentrations
63
-------
are available for 13 compounds, and PECs have been developed for 8 pollutants. Figures
7-3 through 7-15 present monitored values relative to the RfCs, and Figures 7-16 through
7-23 display the monitored values relative to the PECs. Hazard quotients were calculated
to assess the noncancer risk associated with these pollutants; these values are listed in
Table 7-3.
Data Contact:
Larry Cupitt
US Environmental Protection Agency
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory
MD-77
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
64
-------
65
-------
Table 7-1. Columbus Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-TrichIoroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
t,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chromium
Dichtoromethane
Formaldehyde • 3 hour
Hexachlorobutadiene
Methyl chloride
Nickel
POM
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloromethane
Vinyl chloride
1
9.95E-06
2.18E-06
4.96E-06
.• 4,23E^15
4.35E-06
6.08E-06
1.76E-05
1.15EXJS
3.50E-05
9.31E-07
6.57E-05
5.87E-06
1.71E-06
6.13E-04
7.91E-07
1.13E-06
7.46E-06
7.17E-08
2
9.95E-06
2.18E-06
4.96E-06
433E-05
4.26E-06
4.84E-06
1.28E-05
120E-05
6.52E-06
1.78E-06
4.69E-05
5.87E-06
1.80E-06
2.57E-07
6.41 E-04
9.21E-07
3.43E-07
3.77E-06
7.17E-08
3
9.95E-06
2.18E-06
4.96E-06
4.23E-05
4.66E-06
4.31E-06
1.35E-05
113E^)5
2.22E-05
5.02E-07
3.42E-05
5.87E-06
1.78E-06
3.37E-04
1.77E-06
3.71 E-07
3.29E-06
7.17E-08
4
9.95E-06
2.18E-06
4.96E-06
4.23E-05
5.81 E-06
6.35E-06
1.33E-05
1.15E-05
2.06E-05
U7E-06
5.28E-05
5.87E-06
1.88E-06
6.05E-04
6.46E-07
5.06E-07
3.56E-06
7.17E-08
5
9.95E-06
2.18E-06
4.96E-06
4.23E45
3.49E-06
3J1E-06
1.35E-05
1.1SEXJ5
8.33E-06
5.76E-07
4.13E-05
5.87E-06
1.90E-06
8.89E-08
5.60E-04
6.09E-07
1.33E-06
3.20E-06
7.17E-08
6
9.95E-06
2.18E-06
4.96E-06
4.23E-05
3.61 E-06
5.21E-06
1.12E-05
1.1SE-05
4.03E-07
4.90E-05
5A7Em6
1.72E-06
4.79E-04
4.90E-07
7.42E-07
2.81E-06
7.17E-08
66
-------
Table 7-2. Columbus Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-TrIchloroethane :
1,1-Dlchloroethene
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chromium
Dichloromethane
Formaldehyde
Hexachlorobutadiene
Methyl chloride
Nickel :
POM
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloromethane
Vinyl chloride
1
7
', .I?.'.'!
11
3 • •„
12
J; 9.,,,
5
I "* !
4
16
2
10
14
! 19 ,
1
.17
15
8
18
2
6
,i~ .,-
,,i, :-.,'*•
9
;•' • ,3 .',
11
..:. 104'
4
, 5.',..
7
";' is ;L
2
\ 8 !
14
18
1
16
17
12
19
3
7
\T13-
9
:..:• 2
10
11
5
, 6
4
16
3
••••• 8
14
19
1
15
17
12
18
4
7
13
11
3
10
8
5
6
4
15
2
9
14
19
1
16
17
12
18
5
6
13
9
2
11
10
4
5
7
17
3
8
14
18
1
16
15
12
19
6
6
12
9
3
10
8
5
4
18
16
2
7
13
18
1
15
14
11
17
67
-------
-E
M
0}
o
O
68
-------
3
•u
CQ
o
O
uoiinq .wd sued
69
-------
C/2
en
o
O
70
-------
-u
CQ
en
O
2
D>
2 2
uoniiq jad sited
71
-------
03
o
O
72
-------
CO
o
O
73
-------
-------
o
O
75
-------
CO
to
i
o
O
of
uoiinq Jed sy Bd
76
-------
c
05
£
•
s?
%
a
g
o
5?
o
in
0
-2
ta
E
5? 1
"> £
CM CQ
< I
1
CO
0
&
s
J3
"o
O
0)
w
en
c
n
2
£
(0
.0 I
.2
yS
«
w ^
as E
^j
« 3
Q o |
O) O)
.E 3
2 iii
1 <=>
£ °.
s •*
*- n i
c o
v £.
SE
E
<
T3
C
(0 1
0
QC
•
T-
1
h-
£ i
3
O)
i!
i
i
i
i
i
i
-
•
E
IB
O-«
CS
IB
D — 8
]
3 -r
n
3 ^~
3 CM
V)
S
85
««
s
jaiaui Ojqno jad siuej6ojoiw
77
-------
M
CO
en
3
43
s
J3
"o
o
78
-------
CO
3
1
J3
'o
O
g
uojinq jad sped
79
-------
CO
XI
B
*o
O
80
-------
S *? s?
ss
J£ en if> o in S
S o> r-. 10 cj CD
a
-
03
CO
3
,0
S
3
i—^
o
O
a
^
0)
3
O
1-
o
(0
to
*3
-^
E
<
•a
c
CO
o
QC
U)
1
h-
£
3
O)
E
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
B
05
as
Q5
us:
as
S
3 S
uojHjq iad syej
81
-------
GQ
CO
o
O
82
-------
a
-U
OQ
o
O
83
-------
3
-u
02
CO
3
&
I
-3
O
84
-------
J3}3Ui ojqno jad stuejBojOjw
-u
CQ
09
-Q
JJ
"o
85
-------
.2
03
o
u
86
-------
CO
c
!
o
(0
_o
1
«J
75^
O) Q.
.E °-
O CO
** •
II
.2 *"'
E
TJ
C
(0
O
HI
Q.
2
O)
il
1
C ^
S% S^1 ^- c^* ^^ CI
v£ O> tO ^3 LO *W
-2 o> r^- m oj CD
• a o o o ii
-
1,.
t
11^ ^v
— \j ^?^
•
m
>~
-o»-o—
D <
:» o
-•-o —
- is
-------
3
CO
W
3
ja
s
^
'o
O
88
-------
02
CO
S3
42
S3
p-H
o
O
89
-------
Table 7-3. Columbus Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant
1,1,1-Trichtoroethane
1,1-Dichtoroethane
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dibromoettwne
1,2-Dichloropropane
3-Chloropropene
Acetaldehyde
Acroiein-Shour
Benzyl chloride
Chlorine -3 hour
Chlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl chloride
Lead • 3 hour
m/p-Xylene
Manganese
Methyl bromide
o-Xylene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Propanat
Styrene
Toluene
1
5.1 E4
1.9E-2
1.2E-3
9JE-1 .
1.9E-2
* 1.8E-1
3.1 E-1
2.7E+1
1.1 E+1
2.4E-5
1.9E-3
1.4E-3
5.1 E-6
3.7E-3
8.0E-1
4.4E-3
1.9E-2
2.9E-1
2.2E-4
5.6E-2
2.7E-4
1.6E-2
2
3.8E-4
1.9E-2
9.3E-4
9.6E-1
1.9E-2
3.0E-1
2.4E-1
1.7E+1
7.8E+0
5.1E-4
1.9E-3
1.0E-3
5.1 E-6
5.0E-3
5.6E-1
7.8E-3
1.9E-2
2.1 E-1
1.9E-4
5.3E-2
1.7E-4
1.2E-2
3
4.4E-4
1.9E-2
9.3E-4
9.6E-1
1.9E-2
2.0E-1
2.2E-1
4.5E+1
6.9E+0
5.8E4
1.9E-3
1.1E-3
5.1 E-6
6.8E-3
6.1 E-1
8.8E-3
1.9E-2
2.3E-1
1.9E-4
5.4E-2
1.7E-4
1.2E-2
4
5.5E-4
1.9E-2
9.3E-4
1 9.6E4
1.9E-2
2.3E-1
3.2E-1
5.7E+1
7.8E+0
1.4E-3
1.9E-3
; 1.1E-3
5.1 E-6
4.0E-3
6.4E-1
4.5E-3
1.9E-2
2.5E-1
1.9E4
5.3E-2
2.0E-4
1.4E-2
5
3.2E-4
1.9E-2
9.3E-4
9.6E-1
1.9E-2
2.2E-1
2.0E-1
1.7E+1
7.1 E+0
7.8E-4
2.1 E-3
1.3E-3
6.2E-6
6.0E-3
6.8E-1
4.1 E-3
1.9E-2
2.5E-1
1.9E-4
5.5E-2
1.8E-4
1.3E-2
6
3.9E-4
1.9E-2
9.3E4
9.6E-1
1.9E-2
3.0E-1
2.6E-1
1.7E+1
8.7E+0
O.OE+0
1.9E-3
1.1E-3
5.1 E-6
5.5E-3
5.6E-1
1.6E-3
1.9E-2
2.0E-1
1.9E-4
7.0E-2
2.2E-4
1.3E-2
90
-------
8.0 LAKE MICHIGAN URBAN AIR TOXICS STUDY (LMUATS)
During the summer of 1991, a monitoring program was carried out in the lower Lake
Michigan area to quantify atmospheric concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), VOCs, particle mass, and
trace elements. A paper entitled, "Lake Michigan Urban Air Toxics Study - Design and
Overview", was published by EPA's AREAL to provide a description of the study.
Monitoring results for pesticides, PCBs and metals were obtained on diskette from
AREAL. Twelve-hour samples for ten trace elements were taken daily beginning July 8
through August 9, 1991 at three separate sites: the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT),
Kankakee, IL (OKAI), and South Haven, MI (OSHM). Monitoring for pesticides and
PCBs took place at the IIT site beginning July 8 through July 22, 1991.
Trace element data were obtained for both fine (< 2.5 um) and coarse (2.5 - 10 um)
particles. These two fractions were then added to estimate particulate concentrations
< 10 um in diameter for each element. For each metal, the minimum detection levels
were estimated to be 1/3 of the uncertainty associated with a blank sample for both fine
and coarse fractions. The uncertainty will vary slightly from sample to sample, but the
uncertainty associated with the blanks can be used as an approximation. Particulate
concentrations were reported in ng/m3, and converted to ug/m3 before comparing with
health benchmarks.
Initial concentrations were reported in picograms per microliter (pg/)il), then
adjusted to picograms per cubic meter (pg/m3) depending on the volume of air pushed
through the filter apparatus. For the PCB samples, multi-chlorinated congeners were
identified relative to a radioactive standard when possible. However, even if all of the
congeners could have been identified, congener-specific cancer unit risks are not available.
For this reason, a cancer risk for total PCBs was estimated by first adding concentrations
for all detectable classes (C1-C110) of PCBs before applying the cancer potency score.
Figure 8-1 presents average cancer risk by pollutant for the IIT site. Inhalation unit
risks are available for two pollutants: PCBs and hexachlorobenzene, a pesticide.
Individual lifetime risk due to total PCBs is estimated to be 4.71 E-06, whereas the
lifetime risk due to hexachlorobenzene is estimated to be 8.67 E-07.
The NAAQS for ambient concentrations of lead is graphed relative to monitoring
data for lead in Figure 8-2. Health benchmarks are also available for chlorine and
manganese. Figures 8-3 and 8-4 present the RfC and PEC for these particulates relative
to ambient monitoring statistics. Hazard quotients were calculated to assess the
noncancer risk associated with these pollutants; these values are listed in Table 8-1.
Data Contact:
Gary Evans
US Environmental Protection Agency
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, MD-56
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
91
-------
92
-------
a
d
2
u
§
03
a i i i i
ja)9ui oiqna jad siuejBojoiw
93
-------
i
ja)8iu oiqno jad suiBJBojoiw
a
ca
be
• I— i
•s
.a
94
-------
J9l3iu ojqno jad SUIBJSOJOIW
CQ
0
a
M
I
-------
Table 8-1. Lake Michigan Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant
Chlorine
Lead
Manganese
irr
2.81 E-03
1.69E-02
5.49E-02
OSHM
1.68E-03
6.17E-03
2.85E-02
OKAI
1.93E-03
1.12E-02
2.85E-02
96
-------
9.0 NONOCCUPATIONAL PESTICIDE EXPOSURE STUDY (NOPES)
The Nonoccupational Pesticide Exposure Study (NOPES) involved EPA's AREAL,
and State and local officials in Florida and Massachusetts. Research Triangle Institute
and Southwest Research Institute also contributed to the study effort. The overall
objective of the NOPES was to estimate the levels of nonoccupational exposure to selected
household pesticides through air, drinking water, food, and dermal contact. In January of
1990, the EPA published a report describing the design and results of the study
(EPA/600/3-90/003).15
The data collection effort was conducted in three phases:
• Phase I - Summer 1986 in Jacksonville, FL.
• Phase II - Spring 1987 in Jacksonville, FL, and Springfield/Chicopee, MA.
• Phase III - Winter 1988 in Jacksonville, FL, and Springfield/Chicopee, MA.
The study collected indoor air, personal air, and outdoor air samples. Only the data
corresponding to outdoor air samples were used in this report. Seasonal daily mean
concentrations were averaged using a seasonal weighting to provide an approximate
annual average of daily mean concentrations. The annual average for Springfield/
Chicopee may be underestimated because samples were not taken during the summer, the
season which generally had the highest reported concentrations in Jacksonville.
Outdoor air samples were collected about 1.5 meters above the ground in an area of
high family use. The samples were collected by using a constant-flow air pump to draw
air through a clean PUF plug for a 24-hour sampling period. Extracts from the PUF
plugs were concentrated and analyzed by both GC/electron capture detection (ECD), and
GC/MS/multiple ion detection (MID) analysis. Analytical quality control steps were
followed throughout the analysis activities.
Due to the location of the air samplers, caution must be used in equating the outdoor
residential concentrations with ambient concentrations. Pesticide levels reported were
intended to provide a measure of the occupant's outdoor exposure, not necessarily an
average ambient concentration. Concentrations of these pesticides are likely to be higher
in outdoor residential air when compared to ambient air per the NOPES investigation.
Insufficient data existed to assign minimum detection levels for each compound, since
many outdoor air readings were much lower than what was reported as a general
detection limit for personal, indoor, and outdoor air samples. Since the concentrations
and corresponding health risks are assumed to be a conservative estimate, zero values
were used for averaging (i.e., zero values were not replaced with the value corresponding
to l/2ofthemdl).
Figure 9-1 presents average cancer risk by pollutant for the NOPES study.
Inhalation unit risks are available for four pesticides: captan, chlordane, heptachlor, and
hexachlorobenzene. However, zero levels of captan were reported for this study. Tables
9-1 and 9-2 present the individual lifetime cancer risk and rank the risk associated with
each pesticide, respectively. Figure 9-2 presents the RfC for dichlorvos compared to
ambient monitoring statistics.
97
-------
98
-------
Table 9-1. NOPES Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant
Hexachlorobenzene
"' iMY'.'.,"' • '
Heptachlor :
Chlordane
Jacksonville
2.53E-08
tJTE-05 ;
7.84E-06
Springfield/Chicopee
221E-07
9.55E-07
Table 9-1. NOPES Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant
Hexachlorobenzene -
Heptachlor
Chlordane
Jacksonville
3
1
2
Springfield/Chicopee
2
1
99
-------
CO
GO
100
-------
10.0 OHIO DIOXIN/FURAN STUDY
During November and December of 1987, several sites in Ohio were involved in the
collection of air samples for determination of PCDD and PCDF concentrations. Two
consecutive 3-day samples were collected at an industrial site within a 1 km radius of
both a municipal refuse-derived fuel power plant and sewage sludge incinerator in
Columbus, Ohio (sites COL1, COL2). Two one-week samples were collected coincidentally
in Akron, Ohio, 2 km downwind of a municipal incinerator (sites AK1, AK2). In addition,
the AK1 extract was analyzed twice to measure the reproducibility of the analytical
system (designated as AK1 rep). A three-day sample was collected at a high traffic
density highway site in central Columbus (site 17& 1-71). Finally, a 1-week sample was
collected at the rural site of Waldo, 45 km north of Columbus.16
Polyurethane foam samplers equipped with a glass fiber filter and sorbent trap were
used to collect particulate and vapor-phase PCDDs and PCDFs, respectively. All native
dioxins and furans collected from the ambient air were quantified against a series of
isotopically-labeled internal standards. The PUF samples, fortified with the internal
standards, were extracted using benzene before analysis employing HRGC/HRMS.
Figure 10-1 presents the additive lifetime cancer risk for all dioxin congeners (total
dioxins) and all furan congeners (total furans). Estimated risk for total dioxins and total
furans accounts for all congeners that possess an inhalation unit risk. All other
congeners (those without cancer risk factors) are assumed to present no cancer risk.
Table 10-1 presents the values for congener-specific cancer risk by site.
101
-------
00 10
auijiajH |enp;A!pui (juemnodmnui "a-j)
102
-------
Table 10-1. Ohio Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-PeCDD
2,3,7,8-HxCDD
2,3,7,8-HpCDD
2,3,7,8-OCDD
Total Dioxins
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,WeCDF
2,3,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,7,8-HpCDF
2,3,7,8-OCDF
Total Furans
AKI
3.30E-06
2.23E-06
jMKflT
1.72E-07
3.30E-08
6.18E-06
6.60E-07
4.29E-08
5.28E-07
7.00E-07
8.83E-08
6.27E-09
2.03E-06
AKI rep
2.64E-06
9.08E47
4,42E47;
1.75E-07
3.96E-08
4.20E-06
6.60E-07
5.45E-08
6.93E-07
4.87E-07
8.28E-08
5.61 E-09
1.98E-06
AK2
1J8E-07
2.81 E-07
3.37E-07
1.88E-07
3.%E-08
1.04E-06
&27E-07
4.79E-08
5.61&07
6.92E-07
8.28E-08
5.94E-09
2.02E-06
COL1
135E-05
4.95E-07
1.39E-07
8.58E-08
1.68E-08
1.43E-05
1.06E-06
5.28E-08
t.90E^)7
6.73E-07
6.85E-08
5.12E-09
2.05E-06
COL2
3.96E-06
3.88E-07
$33E47
1.72E-07
3.63E-08
5.09E-06
1.62E-06
9.41 E-08
1.47E-06
1.93E-06
1.60E-07
6.93E-09
5.28E-06
17 & 1-71
2.48E-06
6.77E-07
1.58E-07
1.06E-07
3.17E-08
3.45E-06
2.15E-07
2.97E-08
2.97E-07
2.24E-07
3.09E-08
2.64E-09
7.99E-07
Waldo
9^7E-07
2.72E-07
2.67E-07
7.92E-08
'1.65E-08
1.59E-06
4.29E-07
3.47E-08
2.72E-07
7.03E-07
7.89E-08
2.54E-09
1.52E^)6
103
-------
11.0 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Ambient toxics monitoring was carried out at four sites within the SCAQMD from
January 1986 through December 1993. An additional site was established at Pico Rivera
to monitor for aldehydes beginning in August 1993. Twenty-four hour ambient samples
were taken approximately every 10 days (up to 2 weeks) for 15 toxic air pollutants.
However, the Burbank and Hawthorne sites only monitored for 13 HAPs. The MDL
decreased over the duration of the study for some compounds, most likely as a result of
improvements in sensitivity of the detection equipment.
Inhalation unit risk factors have been established for eleven HAPs, and additive
lifetime cancer risk is presented by site for each of the HAPs in Figure 11-1. Graphs for
individual sites presenting lifetime risk for each pollutant are provided in Appendix C,
Figures Cll-1 through Cll-5. The value of the cancer risk for each of the pollutants is
presented in Table 11-1, and Table 11-2 ranks these values in order of decreasing lifetime
cancer risk.
Figures 11-2, 11-3, and 11-4 present RfCs and monitoring statistics for
1,2-dibromomethane, acetaldehyde, and toluene, respectively. Site-specific statistics are
graphed relative to the PECs for three pollutants in Figures 11-5 through 11-7. Hazard
quotients were calculated to assess noncancer risk, and these values are provided in
Table 11-3.
Data Contact:
Steve Barbosa
South Coast Air Quality Management District
21865 E. Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182
105
-------
o o o o
MSU 9uina)|| ienpiAipui (uiemiiodmnui
106
-------
Table 11-1. SCAQMD Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant
1,2-dibromoethane
1 ,2-dichloroethane
t,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Chloroethene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloromethane
Trichloroethene
Trichloromethane
Anaheim
9.32E-05
8.40E-04
1.60E-04
2.58E-06
6.65E-05
1.59E-04
2.21 E-05
5.59E-06
1.40E-05
2.00E-06
2.36E-05
Azusa
1.08E-04
8.43E-04
1.23E-04
2.37E-06
5.46E-05
1.62E-04
1.56E-05
5.78E-06
1.39 E-05
3.37E-06
2.24E-05
Burbank
9.39E-05
8.34E-04
2.38E-04
1.04E-04
1.59E-04
8.58E-06
1.44E-05
3.13E-06
2.53E-05
Hawthorne
9.31 E-05
8.32E-04
2.12E-04
7.79E-05
1.62E-04
4.71 E-06
1.46E-05
1.62E-06
2.31 E-05
Pico
Rivera
8.83E-06
3.46E-05
Table 11-2. SCAQMD Cancer Risk Rank by Site and Pollutant
1,2-dibromoethane
1 ,2-dichloroethane
1 ,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Chloroethene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloromethane
Trichloroethene
Trichloromethane
Anaheim
4
1
2
10
5
3
7
9
8
11
6
Azusa
4
1
3
11
5
2
7
9
8
10
6
Burbank
5
1
2
4
3
8
7
9
6
Hawthorne
4
1
2
5
3
8
7
9
6
Pico
Rivera
2
1
107
-------
CO
Q
S
O"
<5
o
CO
108
-------
109
-------
I
CQ
110
-------
Q
I
<
o
CQ
111
-------
to in *r eo cxi
uomiq jad sped
3
CO
p
I
o
CO
112
-------
3
CO
P
o
CO
113
-------
Table 11-3. SCAQMD Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant
1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
Acetaldehyde
m/p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Toluene
Anaheim
2.19E-03
2.12E+OQ
1.30E-01
1.02E+00
8.30E-01
5.74E-02
Azusa
2.12E-03
2.46E+00
1.20E-01
8.91 E-01
6.26E-01
5.49E-02
Burbank
3.50E-03
2.13E+00
1.70E-00
1.06E-00
9.79E-02
Hawthorne
1.97E-03
2.12E+00
1.12E+00
1.23E+00
6.68E-02
Pico Rivera
4.46E-01
114
-------
12.0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DIOXIN/FURAN STUDY
Monitoring sites were established at eight locations throughout the South Coast Air
Basin in areas containing potential combustion sources of PCDDs and PCDFs. The
monitoring program began on December 2, 1987 and continued through March 29, 1989,
during which time nine discrete sample sets were collected. Each session involved the
operation of five to seven stations collecting 24-hour and 36-hour samples. However, the
data presented in the final study were not broken down by site.17
This study employed essentially the same collection and analysis procedures as the
Bridgeport and Columbus dioxin/furan studies. Polyurethane foam samplers equipped
with a glass fiber filter and sorbent trap were used to collect particulate and vapor-phase
PCDDs and PCDFs, respectively. All native dioxins and furans collected from the
ambient air were quantified against a series of isotopically-labeled internal standards.
After fortification with the internal standards, the PUF samples were extracted using
toluene. Analysis was then performed using a HRGC/HRMS system.
To construct a long-term average, all reported data were averaged across all
temporal intervals, yielding a single study-wide average concentration for each measured
dioxin and furan congener. Hence, only a single, study-wide cancer risk is calculated for
each congener and for all dioxins and all furans.
Figure 12-1 presents the study-wide aggregated risk for all dioxin congeners (total
dioxins) and all furan congeners (total furans). The aggregated risk accounts for all
congeners that possess an inhalation unit risk factor. All other congeners (i.e., those
without cancer risk factors) are assumed to present no risk. Table 12-1 breaks out the
aggregate dioxin and furan risks into individual risks for those specific congeners with an
available IUR.
115
-------
jeoueo auuiiaju |enp|A|pu|
116
-------
Table 12-1. Southern California Study-wide Cancer Risk by Dioxin and Furan
Congener
Congener
Individual Lifetime Cancer Risk
Dioxins
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-PeCDD
2,3,7,8-HxCpD '
2,3,7,8-HpCDD
2,3,7,8-OCDQ
Total Dioxins
3J6EH)7
7.26E-07
2.11E-07
5.31 E-08
3.33E-08
1.42E-06
Furans
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,7,8-HpCDF
2,3,7,8-OCDF *
Total Furans
9.24E-06
7.92E-08
1.62E-06
7.92E-08
1.09E-08
9J7E-09
1.10E-05
117
-------
120
-------
Table 13-1. South West Ohio Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant
S.W. Ohio
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,2-Oichloroethane
1,3-Butadlene
Benzene
Bromoforim ;
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Carthage
5.84E-05
1.80E-05
2.24E-05
4.8lfc<)4 ;,
j - - 1
3.59E-05
1J1&H ,
1.49E-05
2.10E-05
3.73E-06
3.52E-05
3.02E-06
8.59E-06
2.49E-06
3.08E-05
Lower Price Hill
<
1.26E-04
•* '•
1.13E-05
7.86E-06
2.38E-06
1. IDE-OS
5.28E-06
Winton Place State
«
2.95E-04
2.62E-06
9.44E-06
5.71 E-07
Table 13-2. South West Ohio Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant
S.W. Ohio
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Butadlene
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Carthage
2
8
6
1
3
14
9
7
11
4
12
10
13
5,
Lower Price Hill
1
2
4
6
3
S
Winton Place State
1
3
2
4
121
-------
3
02
O
•ft
O
&
02
122
-------
_o
p
£
to
123
-------
CO
o
124
-------
CO
.2
O
&
125
-------
CQ
_O
O
£
126
-------
C/3
O
*PH
O
127
-------
128
-------
_fl
CO
o
•PH
O
£
129
-------
CO
o
CQ
130
-------
CO
O
I
131
-------
CQ
.2
O
CO
132
-------
-S
CQ
.2
O
133
-------
-S
TO
CO
134
-------
Table 13-3. South West Ohio Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dfchloroethane
Benzyl chloride
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Chtorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroprene
Cumene
Ethyl benzene
Hexane
m/p-Xylene
o-Xylene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Styrene
Toluene
Carthage
1.2E-3
tS&i j
4.7E+0
1.3E.I ;"T.
1 ' ;' •
5.6E-1
"ij&fc •"
5.0E-5
5.2E-1
8.7E-2
3.0E-3
2.3E-2
1.5E+0
5.9E-1
7.0E-4
8.4E-4
3.4E-2
Lower Price Hill
8.3E-3
6.2E-1
1.5E-2
7.6E-2
4.0E-3
6.3E-2
2.3E+0
7.6E-1
3.8E-3
2.0E-3
3.9E-2
Winton Place State
4.4E-4
2.0E-2
1.3E-3
6.2E-1
1.5E-3
1.5E-2
135
-------
14.0 STATEN ISLAND/NEW JERSEY URBAN AIR TOXICS ASSESSMENT
PROJECT
The Urban Air Toxics Assessment Project (UATAP) involved several project
participants, prominently including: the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
both Region II and headquarters; New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection;
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC); New York State
Department of Health; the College of Staten Island; the University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey; and the New Jersey Institute of Technology. Study details are
available in a 6-volume EPA report entitled, Staten Island/New Jersey Urban Air Toxics
Assessment Project Report.18
The ambient monitoring data used in this analysis were received on diskette from
EPA Region II. In comparing the original data received with the data presented in the
UATAP report, some discrepancies were found. Data corresponding to 24-hour readings
were collected between October 1987 and September 1989 at 10 sites in Staten Island and
5 sites in Northern New Jersey for:
• 22 VOCs at 13 sites;
• 16 metals at 5 sites;
• benzo[cc]pyrene at 5 sites; and
• formaldehyde at 5 sites.
The UATAP report describes results for 40 pollutants. Of these 40, two pollutants had all
data withdrawn from the analysis (chloromethane and selenium). In addition, certain
pollutants had data withdrawn for specific sites. For example, all dichloromethane
readings taken by the New Jersey Institute of Technology and the College of Staten
Island were invalidated. All readings declared invalid in the UATAP report were
withdrawn from this analysis. In addition, certain readings were caveated. Readings for
nickel and iron taken by the New York State Department of Health were caveated as
minimum values since recoveries were reported as less than 80 percent. For a complete
list of all withdrawn or caveated data, please refer to Volumes IIIA and IIIB of the
aforementioned EPA report.
The UATAP report included results for formaldehyde and benzo[oc]pyrene, but no
data for these pollutants were included in the original files received. Therefore, no
analyses were performed for these pollutants in this report.
It is also important to note that only the second year of data was used for the risk
assessment performed in the UATAP report. The first year of data was not considered
because the organizations involved were still refining their sampling and analysis
procedures during this time. All available data (i.e., data collected between October 1987
and September 1989) were used in the risk analysis presented in this report. However, a
comparison of risk estimates presented in this report with those in the UATAP report has
demonstrated that the estimates from the two reports vary only slightly.
For VOC sample collection, ambient air was drawn through tubes containing various
adsorbent materials. Trace metals were collected on high volume samplers.
Formaldehyde was collected using a 2,4-DNPH cartridge.
137
-------
Volatile organic compounds were analyzed using GC, verified by MS. Metals were
analyzed by atomic adsorption spectrometry using various established regulatory
procedures. Formaldehyde was analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography
(using a method found to have an ozone interference, resulting in an under-reporting of
formaldehyde concentrations).
A QA subcommittee reviewed the QA operations of the sampling and analytical
organizations, examined quarterly data reports and QA reports, conducted collocation
experiments, field-audited the operations and examined the final data sets. Quality
assurance was more extensive for VOCs than particulates.
Pollutant MDLs reported by the participants in the UATAP varied with time and
differed from one another. For purposes of averaging, the convention for readings below
the MDL has been to assign a value of 1/2 of the MDL to the sample reading. However,
for the method of analysis used by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, values below the MDL were considered actual readings, and this reported
value was used to calculate average concentrations.
Fourteen of the compounds included in the program had available lURs to calculate
potential cancer risks. Additive lifetime cancer risk is presented by site for each of the
HAPs in Figure 14-1. In Appendix C, Figures C14-1 through C14-13 provide lifetime
cancer risks for the 14 pollutants for each of the 13 sites. Table 14-1 provides the values
of the cancer risk for each pollutant by site, and the ranking of the compounds according
to risk is presented in Table 14-2.
Since lead is a criteria air pollutant, the NAAQS was considered the appropriate
benchmark to use. Figure 14-2 presents the NAAQS for lead in comparison to statistics
derived from monitoring data at four sites. Inhalation reference concentrations have been
established for seven pollutants, and graphs corresponding to these pollutants are
presented in Figures 14-3 thrbugh 14-9. Preliminary evaluation concentrations for six
HAPs are shown relative to the monitoring statistics in Figures 14-10 through 14-15. In
Table 14-3, hazard quotients are listed by site for all pollutants in the study with
available NAAQS, RfCs or PECs.
Data Contact:
Carol Bellizzi
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Jacob K. Javitz Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
138
-------
139
-------
(0
o
Q.
•O
(Q
CO
(0
0)
u
(B
O
T3
O)
otten
CL.
0
Ol
s
UJ
UJ
sj
§
03
LU
1
8.71 E-07
S OS: 8
01 Ul Ul
S--JM-- O
t*w ~ CM
CM CM. r
CO ~1OJ CO .•• *-'- f- - U»-' I
2> :-^t 25 -f-.' o L«jJ; .
--* LU r-s--ui io5i
i S ; ? S :^:
- uj -;*-;=. |>. =_^.:;?
Ul
, CO
UJ
"52
! CM
-ffi.
S -»»
CO
od
gf Sfe-iS
^|ii ^ -•-
UJ
CO
CM
8 J
01 I
9-9; 9
LI | ' \fl
•9
UJ :»'l UJ
t— -*t* O
CO <% CM
CM «
9
ys
0> - co
9 9
LU Ul
CM tO
to *.
CM (O
-05
3.
9
LU
oq
eo
9 ? 9
Ol
l^
«- CM
-------
C
(0
o
Q.
T>
(0
(
>.
JQ
O)
2
c
co
QC
^
<0
4)
O
re
O
T3
re
en
Q)
a.
co 2
a. i-
*•• o
o E
o
£
0
en
£
.S
i
Ul
•c
3
- CM T»- oo :-- CD
oo (0 *-
o fs«; CM •*--' o> -
CO -
" CM -:
09 « S! T-
CM
CD CO
«NI CO
(0 tf T-
> r^ oo
T-
-------
s s s
»- O O
J3)3iu oiqno jad luejBoJom
CQ
-O
In
1—4
(3
I
CQ
142
-------
§
10 .
c
5
to
O
^^
w
i
55^
<2 -Q
IS
12
So
*j CO
'E oi
O II
so
^^ ^^
c£
0)
!5
E
<
•o
c
(0
O
oE
CO
1
^1
2
3
O)
il
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
g !
I
1
B
8
3
I
B
OS
S
£
•J
1 g
(2
_
' i f s
w 3:
°-g
3c 9
3 (B
°- w
«D J2
3 M a
£ ^
-•1 I
oc
I
1 -
3
»
3 I
±S
tu
e
a
I c*
Q
».<=
1 f s
CD OT
| S S g
uoimq J9d sued
143
-------
-
CQ
1
S
-i_>
rt
•u
CQ
144
-------
<•>
-------
.S
CO
e
5
ed
-u
CQ
aa;aui ojqno jad siuejBoaojw
146
-------
4)
8
c
2
o
JC
o
5
Q.
0
H—
0)
_o
"^
w
"^
u
c «
•C eo
0 T-
•t: ii
c O
0 g
5£
*-
.*
15
E
<
T3
C
(Q
O
^•*
cc
1^
4
2
3
m
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
a
-£
F
c
^ o> &j 2a &j
S o> r>- m CM c
• a o o < i
ii oo
|
i
i
S S 52
S
i
i
i
i
(
i
i
i
i
£
•5
] g
°
c o>
1 i i
o_ e
1 H
» 51
0. h-
TO
« §
= II
_o
cc
M
3 1
O
i
3 |
ni
p
m
1 i1
S
1 "g- g
00 OT
a o
CQ
T3
0}
CQ
147
-------
o>
-u
c«
-M
TO
148
-------
CO
0)
^ Jl
o
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
•SE
CO
C 0 0 0 0 "5
S% 3s** 3s* &^ 3s" ^
S o> 10 o in
-------
6? 3?
ca an o 10 <£
en r-- LO c\j CQ
Q O O <
03
-u
CQ
(0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3 9||!AU9»Oi
3 SH »u6eM uesns
3 U3JBM3S
] UOIJBJS duind
3 8|ABJl'9ZSd
3 puouiipiu yoj
3 ABMEVSOSJd
3 S|||)(IB9JO
3 a||(A6u|«3
3 M»a
-------
TJ
.3
CO
TJ
a
cd
CO
uojiijq jad syed
151
-------
o
V
N
c
o
o
_0
J=
o
o
•^
(0
o
^4
.2
§
2 §
Q a
w» T**
^JJ ^L
.E uj
o o
*5 CO
C T-"
0 II
s o
_._, QJ
c a
.2 """
1
.g
c
CB
O
UJ
Q.
OJ
T"
^t
£
3
,0)
iT
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
-£
^
E
c -g
ccs ""^5 '*•$ "~-5 *^5 fS
^ in U3 cb &s a>
S en r^- en c\j CO
• D 0 O < 1
-
e
1
I
g
K
3
3
g
8
E
I
- £
•5!
s
§
,_
3 IIs
«, «>
3 SI
&> h-
^ 0 «»
^ I I -«
*• •§ o>
DC
£
5
1 -x
a
£
1 §•
s
UJ
c
' 1
o
S-i
1 1-1
m co
CQ
T3
C
OS
1—4
CO
HH
C
1
152
-------
C
OS
fl
CD
•a
0)
O)
I 1
^ CO
J313W ojqno jad suiBj6ojoi.w
153
-------
1-
1-
HH
t*
H
I
fX
-4
a
-O«— 0
^>-
-------
.3
<£
03
TS
»— i
I
-4->
CQ
D O O <
<0
0)
[
1 ? f 5 s
K s K § 1
-<
)«O-<
0-^3
~9>-3
•O-<
? 1 5 ?
g 1 §
- W « c
SH »u6BM uesns
U3JBM9S
UOJJBJS duind
S|ABJi'9ZSd
SUM iBaio
ueSuofl
uoieas XajAeg
155
-------
I
"o
Q.
TO
(0
CO
0)
1
O
CO
z
TJ
4>
S
0)
S
.2
&
S!
i
to
S
.<2
a.
IS J»
o> as
<5 2
±2
Ul
£
03
^
UJ
a
o>
-2 o
1*3
S
CM
evi
CO
c\i
S
o
T '
r--' *»., co"
: V '«?-=
in -i£|
: •*- _*»*.
- CM
LU "'
cvi to
-- j" = til
">*=-: 0
- csi
I
~W
1
.ill
T
LU
CM
CO
til
to
J:-
in
CM
S
ci
2
CD
CO
-"
•^ to
LU Ul
^ *>.
CM !«-.
S
«
CM
"^ r~
CM to - co
CO ,. ^r
W cvi «S •*
<>* CO
g
rt
•«»• -«9 i^
LU Ul LU
cn QQ in
T— SO 1^*
CO «S»
LU Ul
S 5
LU UJ UJ ILI
^^ ^pBt QJ l^HHI
CO ^ CO •»
LU
CD
CM
01 CM i- CM «O i-
Ul LU Ul LU lit LU
10 cn 10 cn c3 ~ co
•W CO IV tCJ V»: CM
S
«0
LU III LU
•«t N; CM
cvi to cd
CO CJI
UJ Ul
CD CO
CM 1^
2
CM
v *? T *y
LU Ul LU Ul
CO ^ CM IO
Cvi rZ CO «
T- ^ O
156
-------
15.0 TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Data corresponding to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
(TNRCC) ambient monitoring study were obtained from a report entitled, Data Summary
Supplement to the Initial Analyses of Ambient Toxics and Volatile Organic Compound
Data.19 This information was compiled by two privately funded networks, the Houston
Regional Monitoring Corporation and the Southeast Texas Regional Planning
Commission. Monitoring data were presented by yearly average for each pollutant by
site. The majority of the sites contained data for 1987 through 1991, but some sites had
data for fewer years. Mean concentrations were calculated for pollutants at each of the
12 sites by averaging all available data for each site. The 12 sites are located in one of
4 counties including Chambers, Harris, Jefferson, and Orange county.
According to the TNRCC, 1,3-butadiene was found to be leaking from industrial
sources near two of the monitoring locations (Sites 807 and 2008) during 1989. The
operational problems at the sources have since been corrected, but this problem caused
significantly high 24-hour readings on a few of the monitoring days. The annual average
levels of 1,3-butadiene were elevated due to the magnitude of the high 24-hour readings,
but have since dropped considerably (from an annual average of 20-30 ppbv in 1989 to 2-3
ppbv in 1990). The estimated lifetime cancer risk due to 1,3-butadiene is likely to be
inflated by these elevated readings.
The TNRCC has collected monitoring data for additional years (1992-1993) and for
six additional sites. However, due to time and resource constraints, these additional data
were not incorporated into the results of this study.
Inhalation unit risk factors have been developed for 18 pollutants included in the
monitoring program, and additive lifetime cancer risk is presented by site for each of the
HAPs in Figure 15-1. Figures C15-1 through C15-12 in Appendix C provide graphs for
lifetime risk for each pollutant at each site. Table 15-1 presents the values for calculated
cancer risk, and Table 15-2 ranks the pollutants in order of decreasing cancer risk.
Reference concentrations have been developed for 13 compounds, and PECs have
been established for 9 of the pollutants. Figures 15-2 through 15-14 present the RfCs,
and Figures 15-15 through 15-23 display the PECs. Hazard quotients were calculated to
assess the noncancer risk associated with these pollutants, and the pollutants and the
corresponding HQ values are listed in Table 15-3.
Data Contact:
Red Barta
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Monitoring Operations Division
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
157
-------
158
-------
o
Q.
•o
C
(0
(0
£
8
(3
o
o
QC
m
T"
0)
A
.2
u>
i
to *BN C; *B- 5t * IS -S3
'-I 9 ;:^f c? ;^ -
r~u»> g . in
Ul 11* Ul LU Ui Ul LU
8 ? &;ss i »-8
s
LU
«- in to co
Ul LU Ul
(O 00 U>
C9 O !*•
LU
CD
O4
8
r- ^ CM ** ' 0> <»-
LU Ul
O> CD
^:S
LU
S
CO
8 ^ 8
•ft
LU
t~-
cq
CO
fe-8
Ul LU
SO
^J
Ul
8 tg S
LU 111 LU
fc S 2
Ul LU Ul
ui T-^ to
UJ
§
od
S; &
10
i5 8 8
LU til LU lil in ii'i lit
co i*- «o- T~ t*- f
i
up in in •*!•
ui uj ui LU
•r- ^T • «M «•»- CM
UJ
3
r*-'
Ul
O>
«o
LU
a>
co'
LU
LU Ul
o S
c$
LU
LU
•8
. LU Ul
. en -sn
co
co
a>
to
CO ^O f**" ?*••
CJ ^S* f™> Cl
UJ UI UJ Ul
8^8^
r~^ oo co co
co m to
i i §
(n ^£
Ul LU
s» s
8 8-8
UJ Ul "•
o> en
^ 12
S*
co
$ 8
SUJ
en
_ _ r- in
in 01 *• i-:
tn
I
8 8,8
s 52
i •«-•
CO
LU ui
«? «»
in *r
o
LU
CO
CO' ^^
S s
^ CO
8 8
LU
i- M>
s
LU
s
CO
8
Ul
8
LU
CO
159
-------
in
(0
O
Q.
•O
(Q
(5
o>
2
c
(0
DC
.*
(0
d)
u
(0
O
O
O
DC
Z
U)
T-
fl)
jQ
<0
CO
s
CM
O
CM
-Uf T- r->--;: o> ;«M; CO :
'52 oo ;
*- : «MCO
» «
ifi
•S flX M ^E
x: 5 £ £
o 5 a> »
lill
•p a,
160
-------
1
£
(0
to
**
ens
« a
Q 0
f T?
Ambient Moni
oropropane (R
"O £
«5
£
e>i
10
£
3
O)
iZ
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
» oj «- oo
-------
TJ
5
CQ
O
3
162
-------
1
CO
o
O
1
0)
•a
« i
0)
u
0 '
»*••
w
I '
s
en
i
o> a i
.E o
|BH ^5
^3 •
?j LO
'E " i
!~ •
E
< i
-Q
C
(0
y '
cc
in i
£
§>
il
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
j*
£ a
c = e
c .« .i -g
eo -a x c
(D TO n>
S 2 2 m
• o a
i
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
D
-g
i
i
in
S
03
s
i
S
32
-------
T3
-4-9
CQ
O
O
O D
0)
(0
CM
O
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
p- 0> «0 1
0 0 <
D
a
a
a
a
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
«•
-------
CQ
O
O
165
-------
C/D
O
O
166
-------
167
-------
CO
O
8
o o
uoimq jad SVIBJ
168
-------
-
CQ
O
">.
3
.0
t
£•
o5
«s
£
w
_o
*rf
_«>
co a
a i
O) 01
.C CO
2li
'1 °
IE
ll
2 »
•D
(0
O
oE
d
in
T""
o
3
O)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
§ 1
^
5
Q> Q> CO m
2 S S m
• o a i
1
[
[
[
rn r g
1— J %
c
DC
C
C
CM
[
t
(
ao
' §
) i
> 1
in
oa
} 0
> i
^ i
} §
> §
> i
' I
) £!
g s s § s
uoiniq jad syed
169
-------
-
CO
o
o
170
-------
O
1
CO
1_
(0
+3
.52
1
13
Q JQ"
0)0.
c Q.
'C CM
o +
.1± 111
ll
|£
<
•o
c
10
o
cc
CM
T-
T-
£
3
O)
E
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
_ •£
£ «
<= i e
c .52 E -S
<8 T3 'X £
0> fl> CO m
S 2 S m
• o a
II
M
c
CK
C
a
a
CK
(X
D
C
C
c
. 1
> S
> i
v *°
oo
~ 1
h*
. 1
> i
> §
> i
) §
) S!
•n
s
OT
o
o
171
-------
c
0)
1
5
(0
_o
S
(0
Ol %^^
^* ^^»
• M ^U
h* J^J
O o
s ^
c "
1^
c
(0
£
CO
in
T"
2
3
D)
ii
-=^=2xx^^B^^^a«^^^^sa=cv^^^^avaa
E "1
C .1 .1 |
«0 T3 5< £
fl> 0) 03 nj
222m
• o a il
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
D-
c
D— O
D 0
CE
D— O
f^.
A^i
^^
D 0
Q JJ
-O-O
r g
*"
i
s
in
i
CO
a>
as
(O
S
S
§
S
|
OJ
>>
T3
5
CQ
O
O
3
172
-------
173
-------
1
T~
I
0)
.—
.2
5) o.
" w
Q uj
Ij
It
s g
fl% OTV
« (Q
E o
< 2
•o o
C £
(0 O
UJ 1-
0.
in
in
£
3
O)
il
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
e "i
1 1 1 1
Co
S S S m
• O O II
•
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
[
a
c
c
;
> I
} g
in
J S
> I
~ 1
> I
) §
> i
> 1
* 2
I
o
o
174
-------
175
-------
c .£S .5
S
O D
en
O
o
I
jj>
'5
'E
o
V
o
<
0
H—
(0
o
I
'S
S
tn
»?
S*
€?
0 UJ
» co
§S
SO)
II
c°
la
ja ^
E
<
•o
(0
0
UJ
Q.
•
h-
V*
10
o
3
O)
E
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
D
D
D
D
D
Q
D
D
D
D
D
D
i
i
S
in
oo
_§
i
i
" i
i
3
§
CM
to
uojiijq jad sued
176
-------
03
O
o
T£
'=S
2 eo
0 IF
s o
+* HI
= s^
15
£
T3
C
(0
O
Ul
Q.
00
i
u>
2
3
.2*
• •
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
|
I
c -§ 1 |
OJ -D X g
(D CO
-------
o
o
3
O
(0
u
*
CO
ca
%
a
o **•
*5 CO
E «
Or^
s£
o Cu
15 *^
(0
U
HI
a.
o>
in
i
o>
il
i 1 '
• o a i
i
i
8
i
t
i
i
i
rf
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
a — <
a
DC
£
3
OT
O
O
I
s
178
-------
c
?
t
itoring Data Statistics for
,38 ppb)
Xmbient Moni
(PEC=1,
^^«
•o
i->
l
l
O
o
t>
5
02
O
O
35
179
-------
180
-------
181
-------
S"2
-------
I
"o
a.
•o
c
(0
(0
>
J3
?
0)
I
O
•o
S
(0
z
o
o
oc
in
in
00
i
s
t
Ul
t>-I
*S I- CM 7T-?r V -
-tit= III lit III .
u> -- p o-j p :- -.
to- co "^#-i in t-j
; co
CM .*0
Ul Ul
CM
2
in
•*5*" "^
Ul- Ul
n «N
**• - co
1111 ~ *t*t" L1J -tit- -tit- LLJ uj - LLJ U| - Ul Ul>
«>HI oj „<•»- :«s|. p :^" oq _T^* 10 --co,
CO iJS*~ CM CM- -1h*. CM UE> CO -CM~- Is* I***
-v ---. **-
co
ICVI
Ul
p o.* cp
CO
T fllF «? ? CO 'fi- r }fy CM
f 1 CO .
K— ; co
CM ~**t ^
LLJ IIP
p c;=
co "»=
III 111 III -ftf III
O TCB; CO --O"- CO
UJ
OJ
m
co _-TT-
^ $
irr <* ^-
ot ep '^ • co
Ul UJ Ul UJ
«7 p «v«- OO
« CM ipr> CO
!-g l«
. CM is*
co «j» CM .-." , CM wj T- iw; cp i«; •»- :rt i- O-
LLJ Ut. Ul - Ul "* UJ Ul in -tit - MI in - in iTi .
in oo - oj cp GI-^ CP -O&- co *-^^ - oj -*f ~ oj f*«-
*~ !* " ---•«> T# j « ;«7_ oj _<»if eo ;«p c\i ««J-
CO ,flj Cp "CJ> TJ- ^
LLJ UJ UJ Ut. Ul Ul
p T^ |»II
CM --<*-"• t-
UJ
m
LLJ
0)
•^- «»» CO
CM -in- f^- ;«si v -"9
UJ Ul" UJ III UJ "lit UJ :UI Ul III
p 'a" p -o»- CM o CM :T- e» tS
CO n^1- in "(P» •* — ~!
*? °? S °? *? V 'T
111 "' Iff "' I"! '" "'
1^ p ^J CD T^ O CO
O)* CM f» CO CO ^~ fs»
CO «S| CM
Ul Ut LU
p O» OJ
•^ ^. co
CM Y"*-- ^~ T9 - CO "IA - v~ CO ' ^^ 4^ ~
LLJ til LLJ lit " LLJ ttl~- LLJ Ul LU Ul
O C3 O O» CO O O t~- O> CM
co «# in v> oj *i-- co *«» c\i CM"
lit
cp -.j- cp
LLJ Ul LLJ
O •* CO
CM |Sr CO
•^ -v
UJ Ul
(D CO
in i<
CO fj,- CM "- - CM -*£' 1^ { " C3J ^
*— o i co cd 'v' in in
CO CM tp
S S :S
CM Tf
LU Ul
Ul
T ^
Ul Ul
•^ •*
183
-------
16.0 URBAN AIR TOXICS MONITORING PROGRAM
The Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP) was initiated by the EPA in
1987, and provided an opportunity for State and local air agencies to obtain air toxics
monitoring data without having to develop their own in-house analytical capabilities.
Instead, EPA supplied participating agencies with sampling apparatus, and all
subsequent samples were then shipped to EPA (or an EPA contractor) for analysis and
QA. An EPA report published in 1987 provides a general overview of the UATMP.20 In
addition, annual reports have been published for each year that monitoring studies have
been performed under the UATMP. The UATMP data base is a multi-year collection of
toxics monitoring data for a varying number of cities throughout the United States. Each
subsequent year after 1987, anywhere from 12 to 19 cities have participated in the
UATMP. The following table summarizes the cities participating in each year for which
data was used in this report:
1988
1989
1990
Burlington, VT
Atlanta, GA
Birmingham, AL
Louisville, KY
Jacksonville, FL
Miami, FL
Chicago, IL2
Cleveland, OH
Detroit, MI
Dearborn, MI
E. St. Louis (Sauget, IL)
Hammond, IN
Port Huron, MI
Midland, MI
East Lansing, MI
Dallas, TX
Houston, TX
Baton Rouge, LA
Portland, OR
Camden, NJ
Washington, DC1
Miami, FL
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Pensacola, FL
Chicago, IL2
Sauget, IL
Dallas, TX
Houston, TX
Baton Rouge, LA
Wichita, KS1
St. Louis, MO
Camden, NJ
Washington, DC1
Orlando, FL
Pensacola, FL
Chicago, IL
Sauget, IL
Toledo, OH
Houston, TX
Baton Rouge, LA
Port Neches, TX
Wichita, KS1
St. Louis, MO
UATMP monitoring sites were located in these cities.
site location for Chicago was moved between 1988 and 1989. However, readings taken at the
two separate sites were averaged together.
Three types of samples were taken: filter samples to be analyzed for certain metals
and benzo[oc]pyrene (BaP), DNPH cartridges for collection of carbonyls (formaldehyde and
other aldehydes), and stainless steel canister samples for 38 target VOCs. All samples
were collected simultaneously every 12th day for 24-hour periods. Samples collected in
each city were shipped to Research Triangle Park, NC for centralized analysis.
185
-------
Canister samples for VOCs were analyzed by GC and either a FID for hydrocarbons
or an electron capture detector (BCD) for chlorinated hydrocarbons. A portion of the
canister samples was also analyzed using a GC/MS for identification confirmation.
Carbonyls (aldehydes) were analyzed by HPLC with ultraviolet absorption. .Certain
metals were analyzed by neutron activation analysis (NAA) and others by inductively
coupled plasma (ICP) spectroscopy. Samples of BaP were analyzed by thin-layer
chromatography.
Extensive QA measures were carried out through such means as daily calibration
checks, sample "blanks," duplicate and replicate samples, and audit samples.
For the purposes of this report, average concentrations were calculated over all
applicable monitoring years at 30 different sites. For acetaldehyde and formaldehyde,
calculations based on monitoring during 1988 were separated from the other years of the
study. Data corresponding to this year were analyzed separately because the actual raw
monitored values were not available, only the summary statistics.
Of the 57 air contaminants for which data were collected, 21 had known unit risk
factors to determine the potential risk of cancer from exposure to these compounds.
Additive lifetime risk for the 21 pollutants is presented in Figure 16-1. Graphs for the
individual sites are presented in Appendix C, Figures C16-1 through C16-30. Calculated
cancer risks for each of the pollutants are presented in Table 16-1, and Table 16-2 ranks
these values in order of decreasing lifetime cancer risk.
Figure 16-2 presents the NAAQS for lead in ug/m3, and compares this value with the
monitoring data statistics at all sites which sampled for lead. Inhalation reference
concentrations have been established for 11 HAPs; graphs corresponding to these
pollutants are presented in Figures 16-3 through 16-13. Preliminary evaluation
concentrations graphed relative to the monitoring statistics for 5 HAPs are shown in
Figures 16-14 through 16-18. Table 16-3 provides a comprehensive list of the pollutants
with available reference concentrations and indicates their corresponding hazard quotient
by site.
Data Contact:
Neil Berg
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
MD-14
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
186
-------
i~.
-------
re
^
"5
o.
•o
CO
s
(7)
CO
<
o
c
CB
O
(O
(B
I
f-. -* - ™. >; "
i- :jj«»?-: co «»--:
S -fp I0-
CO .-IB* *-
His. "H-'
:*%jf co ,*?«/
I
o>
f$$
5-5 UJ
5?- 1O
!is
tsi
I
•9
3 :5i
o »»'
--£-- c? t'-V- c?
• "^ UJ _-V~a UJ
:;j?5 p?f 8|
9 «:9
Ul UJ ' UJ
s :s.s s
.«* CO
g 'Jfci g g---
S ;SfiS ;S:
5 J|&
00 33i
'tU " '" *"*—
5«— " CO -„*•"-"
i9
eo
31S
5
s
«
CO
i!? ^iS
S *fi£? S
o _-o~:L ^
•* -pi""
- *^i
^9
IU -*•• ~ III
• ^- : ^'1. CO
co ; **:- 1-:
-S-i
IS
1
„-. ri -"T>": co
.^'^
iSi S
"»«: "?
9-s?
S:K
«»-.- h»
K> in
^M - UJ
S? ^2
S CO
5
5
19 ^S
--IIJL ~ UJ
if a s .-^. „
--S* cJ ;il «
fc 9 ^ S ^tf c?
•f^ UJ "ill-- Ul ~IU" '"
::5
•9^9
- f||-a til
• w ~ m
^^~ CNJ
-JM ^ ?»"-: 9
IU * '11 tU UJ
1;S Si S
.^S i tn -V«»---_ _i CO *"• • CO
K
5
«
c\i
* !S £
°P t T
CNJ **: CM
o
UJ
^
•v »•- co •»-
W -9
-Ut UJ
"jj» CO
10 CO
^M UJ JkU
8 £ 5
W cj «•> :
m g
UJ IU
m TO
06 v
i"
UJ
S
K
9
UI
9.9 9
IU UJ ILt
^ s e
U> »- CO
Ul
1O
c\i
^9 -9
UI
"
? E^
g,«! a
»:,•-: ^
9
«-• T «f
S S
S 5
I
9
i &
> «4
s s s
Ul 1U Ul
5 S? 5
r^ |«t- CO
9; g 9 g
tu ui tu ui
a: B. S. &
9 ,9;-9
in Tji in
oj r*> m
<0 K p
tO -H-ttf- CM
!:§._ _
^~ IO CX CO
!». in e> - co
«r. •<«• -*»•" «o
s B 9
9
^ s
9-9^9
UI Ul Ul * Ul
j »-- CO .«— CO
Ul
1
I-S
5 9 9
in *it in
CM K m
r- •*• -r-
9
9
Ul
9
•«!« «-3H
9 ^ -9
9
Ul
s
IU Ul 111
^-K. ^:
jp7 CO ^
9 9
S 8
•3 3
J?-9
Ul Ul
9 ^ 9
2",
ui ui tu uj Ui uj
^» - CO 'w*
5!
«
oc
188
-------
(0
o
Q.
•o
C
(0
(0
ir
i_
0)
u
c
(Q
O
to
£
UI -tit-* UI -rtt|s UI
* S*i S? :S^ «
9 *£-
:9
s _v^l3
rv ^-, CM
9
',--. CM
;_---= CM
9
5
37.? I-: 9
2
3,: 3
OS ~*g-" IO !*•-> ii^»
LU -4U~ - UJ 111 - ~ LU
' UJ
» ^ -T-
I
p
03
9
UI
£
9
"
UI -ui
CM
9 ? ^
S 46. S
9 9
UJ UI
CO W -
^ 9 $
UI 1i| UI
f 9
~5 *^ *^ *S "^
CM « OO « ^-
9
9 -5 •- 9 1
3
CO
-
LU ilt LU
S; R S
>ri in co
9
'
9
UJ
.«— - in
m W
I UJ
1-5?
9
I
in-: CM en • CM
s
in
Si: 2
CM r* CM
$ §-9
SK iiH
CO
I
-9
«1 en
«^ *-
9
i!f
5
^ 9
s s r~ S S
UI til UI UI tu
r- en CM F.- «o
w «l f-: ft ^
co ^
LLJ UI
^r M
O3 T»
9 9.9 -9
111 UJ UJ
O
co
I
9
UI
9 9
UI UI
»- T» CM •» 10
fe~ S S" ea "S S '"
ICr« ^ ^ ^ S j
»^ »- •» CO T». - CO ::
9 ^ 9
UI UI UJ
9 9
UJ LU
9
UJ
235
*f ^P
g S
*• "" UJ
9
9
LU
CM. S» r^
CM ^ CO
9 $ 9 99
in |r| in m in
9
»- *** CO
W ci
9
UI UI
s s?
LU
^ in t^
K *°
Ul ill
55 s
en CM
9
s
9
. UJ
CM 10 in
9^9
CM »i «j
I
9
9
3
9
999
9
s
CM ^^ " CM
-------
!
S
z
X
*s
S i
= *
O~~
s I
C Q
(0
O x
•- £
(0 Q
o) i
.E °
22
i s
QC d
V)
2 i
L. 0
°*
® ^
fR QQ
1
o.
3
"3"1
a-S-| > |«|=5,0.
"•I'l li'l'l5?8^
^'f^4~i«|-y
J2 St: ^ -«?• e» :~ « '-JS ^ - J5-. CM J2 co ^
,^-J ^E'^s-*
^t J2'" ^r - *w *iJ ^r^ jt•.-.„..,
oojr«'^-o> .5i
« « CM "*• 5; co jf -r -:«• CM SS " •
5°S2i°"*~S25£o>2ter'ac35leo*%
^^-« p««r-Jss;e!S*>
g
o> ""1^- ^'^y- ^ ^-*^= °^ -^*~ ^
o> .*» J .. ™ ?" •*
t -Hf w" S :-$! 2 *" f~
°2 «i>: co _ c*. §j -5! 52 J3- «
t is, co < g «o « » •«•
^ J***i-
g.«»co«M««2g| 5S«
9. -SS-S^r,
2? ?«" co - " S5 §1 J2 S •"
JJtftCMW^yS*'*
£:•*• "S^SSS1"
cMS:~-»Si{2t:S«»
^ a,
-------
O
o
a.
•o
c
(0
(
D)
2
c
ra
cc
J£
(0
£
a>
u
ra
O
(O
(0
i
§
5
i
8
i
X
i
CO
i
p
Q.
_l
a.
2
Q.
i
IU
0.
_J
u.
K
o
i
2
2
£
J
a.
CM _** ,0 |%i ^ t_ -. ; - N _ - to ";^"J „, -7^:. co -_-~f m •%•£ r- _ "' v
............ ___^™™ „ s ......... ... .............. _.... ___„
53 St ^ ^- co : - r^ 52- co J5 J5 5 in f%». t» - ~" » r :,-'- 52 .;""; CO -Jf* J2 .f-1" CM r«.": . J _ ^
5! «o o> « eo -/ "..»- •» ~-~- 52 " "> -JS" 5 -:~^ •>••-. ^ - r-
o> " ^' J «>« <2 :--- " in jf^ ,- -g CM " •" " ••_- •• _ ;"
t ?; « :!«»• f2 *« i- 35; •* -S"- 8 P 2 T- g "« «o •«» gj « f»
52 Si CM :*» at to -«*• » ^JE' J3 5 S Ji 5S _** <• t «o 2
^JCM.W ^toJ{ir-*gj35!c2'-™«» -wSEwS
S<*~:"*S "f-"'°ScM'i£<0**£:*?co, ™S^
o>5!°;ii«co •» !2 " « 5 ^ ? ^ ^ f-
g5*co«i^!2*Ecoj;'»gjg3 u, « co g K ~ « «,- en W «.£:««
s i . - ._ " .'; -r"
otj -a-
»u
«k: in
s
~i-
*=*
*2 CM
.
J> r-
2 m
T- *~
to co
0 ^
5 •*
«^ •§
o ^
191
-------
t
-w
CO
OH
I
CN
CO
O •<
*i o>
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Dfp
AS
D-OCX3
i
OB3
OS
a
a
OS
[£
n-cca
OS
D-OCW
OS
OS
CKS3
O5
OCIX3
•i — **^
XiiH
IdlJ
inia
xiia
iwsa
H010
TNVO
1IW
uaa
viua
1VHS
VOiV
192
-------
PL.
I
193
-------
GG
O
•o
>»
JC
0)
•n
\0
2
o
o
<
l_
o
•*•
(0
o
*&
<0
s
CO
CO
^^
si
O) O.
.£ o
«- o
2 in
§£
2 CC
** ~~"
o
15
E
<
•Q
%^
c
(0
O
CC
i
8 ,
• D O O < 1
_
5
c
g
i
-i
i
31
i
i
i
CH
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
In
i
i
i
1
i
i
In
LJ
I n
I LJ
—
O.,.__
D
• 0
D-
^
(J
,
>v ^
) •<>-
— /N— <^1
~" ^S ^*J
-o-«o-
r-1
rn f\
LJ O
I-, £*
— o-o-
K> <3
-o — <
-i___^_/S—
J W V
tx
-<
^\ ,--)
u ^
<
>-<
-f\—f]
-O-
-------
co
CU
00
00
O)
i
•D
>.
V
•o
2
0)
o
<
o
.2
*o
f\
k'
1IVS
UOId
IWHd
IdIN
man
AJIA1
IWV1
IJVP
NIVH
XltH .1
CO
inia
xina
1IMDD
inau
IJrtTN
HO lO
llfrO
,
\naa
ivHa
V3J.V
«N f O
195
-------
3
&
P-,
10
• D 0 O
pp
Figure 16-6. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acrolein-1988
(RfC=8.72 E-3 b
[
[
t
[
c
D_
c
t
. t "
./V ./s gm
t — 0 II
n m 1 1
K> II
VV I |
n • ii
» — on
O A 11
II
_y\ 1 1
)-• 0 II
» — 0 II
» on
II— ^> II
> — «-on
, r
o>
XIIH 2
a
000
s
s
uoi||iq jad syed
196
-------
I
•4J
CQ
OH
I
• a o o
0)
(0
4>*
V
O
2
m
CO
(0
4)
15
<
•o
(0
O
•»—
cc
1^
to
i
O)
il
'
1
1
:
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
i
i
i
i
i
n—
t_/^
D
D
ID
C
D
D
D
D
O
D
O
ff\
VbJ
ac
D
0
D
O
O
D
C
D
O
O
•—^1
—^1
Q
C
C
O
D
197
-------
•
o
S
i
o
o
JO
§
0
«frM
to
Q
w
1
*-
CO
2 A
(0 Q.
Q a
Ol W
•— m
^J C"3
A^ ^K
•^™ ^7)
I"*
2 O
c OC
.2 ^
-^
£
<
?
(0
0
«*-
oc
.
1
(O
T—
2
§>
B
II
II
1
1
1
II
II
II
1
II
II
1
1
II
1
II
II
1
1
1
II
1
II
II
II
II
II
a
D
£
<= -fi
O
2 0 rx U) CM CD
• a o o < il
•
6 SXZM
i OQZM
J SXIM
5 30 IM
JP HOTI
5 owns
0 1IVS
i XiNd
5 uoid
? IWHd
5 "Ij3d
^ 1dHO
4 njiH
4 IWQN
4 A)IA1 g
a •«
IP IHV1 W
i IJVP
X NIVH
4^ XllH
C 1J1J
|,Wxa
ca xiia
c" insa
4-
JO H010
5 PNVO
y_ 1IW
C 1AUS
~£_ \naa
J IVHfl
9 V91V
il '
198
-------
.3
02
I
lO
If)
I
a
8
_o
O
£
w
.2
s
CO
I
(0 «—«.
C II
00
2«t—
QC
*•• *~*
0)
!5
c
(0
o
H—
cc
O)
to
D)
C
—
c
D
II
II
II
II
I 1
1
II
II
1
II
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
B(-l_
1
1
1
a
E
a— c
a — c
e
c
c
D C5
a — o-c
[Z
1JVP
NIVH
XllH
1J1J
iiua
XJ.1Q
insa
H010
PNVO
UK)
1AUS
viua
1VHS
V9IV
UJ
uoiinq jad syed
199
-------
CO
(X,
O
q
N
CD
JQ
">.
4=
**
UJ
k.
O
H-
(0
_o
*5
(0
i
0)
5S
n a.
0 a.
O.CV,
•nui
0 0
.t; co
o"
5 ii
SH
So:
« "•*
5
£
<
TJ
C
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
D
E
§ o
5*£ 5kc !*£ 5*5 f"
• a o o < i
ii
§ i
i
S S
uonnq jod syed
4 SXZM
S OQZM
J SXIM
f 30 LM
i H01L
0? OW1S
—1—
a-« iivs
—1—
1C XINd
ra uoid
S IHHd
tj U3d
Q£" iduo
— j-
i® uin
^ maw
Iffl A)(A1
ij IWV1
D« 1JVP
J NIVH
5" X11H
— j-
5^ Idld
J mia
t xiia
S" iwsa
~T~
g_ HOIO
iJ rnvo
C^ HfrO
lS 1AUS
D« V1U8
*ci twuti
$" V01V
i
200
-------
OH
I
U)
0)
(0
0)
CO
D)
O
H—
CO
.2
0}
o
=
o
CO
o
*t—
cc
2
O)
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
A A I
V W 1
D|
1
1
Dl
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 i
1
1
1
1
In A
i
i
i
I,.-!
vi
| Q.™ur-n-,-^
1
|
|
1
CKH
CKS
D S»
o ctx"
3 0*X1
ma
c
1 Of
LJBk
CMS
"
CH3C
CKS5
raf
LB»
D — 0«X
GS:
C3
D ©3
OS
DCH
NIVH
-------
3
-w
03
DH
I
202
-------
W
10
0)
V
£
(0
™ CM
O +
*- UJ
o
go
0) H-
2 £
(0
O
H—
CE
n
T-
CO
§
O)
D
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D
[
D (&
as
a — oa
CH3
D G3
DOS:
a — (8
» o-<
D— a»
a— GE
a
-------
3
CQ
3? 3? 5?
IO O IO
i»» to «M
1
T"
T~
£
CO
t>
*3 <<-s
2 x)
to a
a, a
«*?
a uj
£?.
2^
•50
l£
11
^3 A!
il
•o o
ill
u 2
Ul H
a.
^
17
(O
2
3
O)
il
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i SXZM
~&_ OQZM
«b SUM
op oaiM
ap HOii
J owns
ii nvs
S XINd
5 aoid
f IWHd
£ idiw
S man
4 A3IA1
J invn
S uvr
~D_ NIVH
W XilH
W Idld
o inia
S xiia
5 IWBa
S H010
S PNVO
4-
m nw
c' iABS
+
» \nus
J 1VHB
Bl V31V
204
-------
s
(0
o
*3
CO
w
<
.•0
C UJ
o a.
s.g
JQ •*-
£ o
ui
Q.
UJ
to
I
O)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D-C
D-C
D
a — c
aa
D
a-ci
OD
D
D
D— C
tt*1
D
Q
C
a
Q
«E
Q
D— C
a-o
D
aa
G
O
D
dfl
fcJ
o
205
-------
I
206
-------
D
1
O
o
£
tn
"ft
i
-,..
•C O)
^
O UJ
O
(0
O
HI
a.
to
I
D)
il
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
= S
S 8 S
053
n — s
D-S
BS
o-s»
BE
C
3
05
D — OX
CHS
US
OS
OS
D
-------
e
2 ^
s 85
• a
S5 5?
in o
i~- in
0 0
•
s?
K c
< 1
«;
1
I
g
1
3
CQ
CU
I
O
(0
.o
'S
(0
(0
*-
(0
gf
.E a
T3
C
CB
O
LU
a.
I
O)
iZ
c
D_
c
D
Q-
D —
3 d
rrb l
0 1
U
>— 4
>-O< I
D 1
•i J
r» l
)*-o<
K
1
10
1
M
K
K
n
1
n
K
1
Id
10
1
H
K
1VHS
V91V
208
-------
Table 16-3. UATMP Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
t,t-Dich(oroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
Acetaldehyde* all
Acetaldehyde-1988
Acrolein-1988
Bromomethane
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroprene
Cobalt
Ethyl benzene
Lead
m/p-Xylene
Manganese
p-Dichlorobenzene
Toluene
ATGA
1.9E-4
1.5E-2
6.3E-2
3.3E-1
6.9E+0
7.8E-2
5.1E-3
1.0E-5
6.8E-2
5.3E-3
7.6E-4
2.8E-2
2.3E+0
7.8E-2
3.0E-3
2.0E-2
BHAL
2.2E-4
2.2E-2
4.9E-2
4.1 E-1
6.9E+0
7.8E-2
1.2E-2
1.0E-5
2.6E-2
7.1E-3
2.0E-2
3.5E-2
3.0E+0
9.5E-2
4.4E-3
2.5E-2
BRLA
4.4E-4
1.5E-2
1.1 E-1
3.1E-1
2.6E-1
3.4E+0
7.8E-2
3.7E-3
1.2E-5
3.8E-2
6.9E-3
1.9E-3
2.4E-2
1.3E+0
4.1 E-2
1.9E-3
2.4E-2
BRVT
1.6E-4
1.5E-2
4.6E-2
1.9E-1
5.7E+0
7.8E-2
6.0E-3
1.0E-5
3.0E-2
5.6E-3
1.3E-3
2.1 E-2
3.1 E+0
8.7E-2
1.3E-3
2.4E-2
C4IL
7.9E-4
1.8E-2
1.1 E-1
3.3E-1
2.4E-1
4.6E+0
7.8E-2
5.2E-3
5.3E-5
6.7E-2
8.8E-3
2.5E-3
5.0E-2
2.8E+0
3.3E-1
1.1E-3
7.6E-2
CANJ
6.9E-4
1JE-2
6.2E-2
3.9E-1
2.0E-1
1.5E-3
1.2E-5
3.7E-2
1.1E-2
1.5E-3
2.2E-2
1.3E+0
2.3E-2
1.6E-3
3.3E-2
CLOH
6.2E4
1.5E-2
7.9E-2
3.4E-1
5.7E+0
7.8E-2
7.3E-3
1.1 E-5
1.6E-2
1.9E-2
9.3E-4
2.5E-1
2.4E+0
4.9E-1
3.8E-3
3.1 E-2
DBMI
8.7E-5
1.7E-2
4.2E-2
2.6E-1
5.7E*Q
2.2E-1
7.0E-3
1.8E-5
2.6E-2
1.5E-2
1.1 E-3
6.5E-2
1.9E+0
1.2E+0
1.1E-3
1.5E-2
DLTX
3.2E-4
1.7E-2
3.5E-2
2.5E-1
2.6E-1
4.6E+0
7.8E-2
1.7E-3
1.0E-5
2.4E-2
5.2E-3
6.5E-4
1.6E-2
1.2E+0
4.7E-2
1.3E-3
2.6E-2
DTMI
1.5E-4
1.5E-2
3.6E-2
3.1 E-1
6.9E+0
7.8E-2
1.2E-2
8.1 E-5
3.2E-2
1.8E-2
1.2E-3
4.7E-2
3.1 E+0
2.1 E-1
5.2E-3
3.0E-2
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
Acetaldehyde • all
Acetaldehyde-1988
Acrolein-1988
Bromomethane
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroprene
Cobalt
Ethyl benzene
Lead
m/p-Xylene
Manganese
p-Dichlorobenzene
Toluene
FLFL
2.5E-4
2.5E-2
1.3E-1
2.6E-1
7.8E-2
1.2E-3
1.1 E-5
3,7E-2
7.9E-3
2.4E-3
2.0E-2
2.4E+0
3.3E-2
8.6E-4
4.4E-2
H1TX
3.7E-4
3.4E-2
1.5E-1
2.7E-1
4.6E-1
6.9E+0
7.7E-2
5.5E-3
1.0E-5
1.2E-1
6.6E-3
1.9E-3
1.3E-2
1.9E+0
7.4E-2
2.0E-3
3.6E-2
HAIN
9.5E-5
1.5E-2
4.3E-2
2.7E-1
3.4E+0
7.8E-2
1.0E-2
1.0E-5
1.3E-1
7.4E-3
5.0E-4
4.9E-2
1.7E+0
5.7E-1
3.5E-3
2.3E-2
JAFL
3.0E-4
1.5E-2
2.5E-2
2.1 E-1
5.7E+0
7.8E-2
9.2E-3
1.1 E-5
1.6E-2
2.2E-3
2.3E+0
5.3E-3
2.1 E-2
LAMI
7.1 E-5
1.5E-2
3.5E-2
1.8E-1
3.4E+0
7.8E-2
2.6E-3
1.0E-5
1.6E-2
1.2E-2
1.2E-3
1.5E-2
2.7E+0
5.6E-2
3.5E-3
2.6E-2
LVKY
2.6E-4
2.2E-2
6.1 E-2
3.0E-1
6.9E+0
7.8E-2
1.2E-2
1.0E-5
4^E-2
2.0E-2
2JE-3
5.1 E-2
4.4E+0
1.8E-1
3^E-3
6.6E-2
MDMI
3.5E-4
1.5E-2
2.7E-2
7.0E-2
3.4E+0
7.8E-2
1.8E-2
7.5E-5
1.6E-2
5.5E-3
5.5E-4
1.1 E-2
1.0E+0
3.8E-2
1.2E-3
1.9E-2
MIFL
6.6E-4
1.5E-2
2.2E-1
2.3E-1
2.6E-1
5.7E+0
8.0E-2
1.0E-2
1.2E-5
4.5E-2
5.4E-3
2.3E-3
2.0E-2
2.9E+0
3.0E-2
4.4E-3
4.4E-2
ORFL
2.1 E-3
3.2E-2
5.8E-2
2.9E-1
1.1 E-1
3.9E-3
1.0E-5
4.0E-2
3.8E-3
1.1 E-3
2.6E+0
9.4E-4
1.8E-1
PEFL
8.5E-4
1JE-2
4.0E-2
1.7E-1
7.6E-2
1.6E-3
1.0E-5
2.6E-2
2.9E-3
1.2E-3
2.7E-3
8.5E-1
9.5E-3
1.3E-3
5.3E-2
209
-------
Table 16-3. UATMP Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant (cont.)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichtoroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
Acetaldehyde • all
Acetaldehyde-1988
AcroIein-1988
Bromomethane
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroprene
Cobalt
Ethyl benzene
Lead
m/p-Xylene
Manganese
p-Dlchlorobenzene
Toluene
PHMI
8.4E4
1.5E-2
2.7E-2
1.7E-1
2.3E+0
7.8E-2
3.5E-3
3.2E-5
3.3E-2
5.9E-3
7.8E-4
2.3E-2
1.3E+0
5.1 E-2
6.3E-4
2.2E-2
PLOR
1.3E-4
1.5E-2
1.1 E-1
2.8E-1
5.7E+0
7.8E-2
15E-2
1.1 E-5
4.5E-2
2.8E-2
1.0E-3
3.8E-2
3.0E+0
2.1 E-1
6.2E-2
2.3E-2
PNTX
2.5E4
1.5E-2
7.4E-2
4.7E-1
•
7.8E-2
8.4E-4
1.0E-5
3.7E-2
1JE-3
O.OE+0
5JE-1
9.4E-4
2.4E-2
SAIL
1.4E-3
1.8E-2
9.5E-2
1.9E-1
2.1 E-1
4.6E+0
7.8E-2
4.9E-2
1.4E-5
8.0E-2
9.9E-3
3.6E-3
1.0E-1
3.8E+0
1.2E-1
1.4E-2
5.7E-2
SLMO
7.3E-4
1.5E-2
6.4E-2
2.8E-1
7.8E-2
2.7E-2
1.4E-5
7.6E-2
1.4E-2
4.0E-3
8.0E-2
3.9E+0
8.7E-2
5.7E-3
5.3E-2
TLOH
4.8E-4
1.6E-2
8.9E-2
1.8E-1
7.8E-2
2.4E-3
1.0E-5
2.6E-2
8.9E-4
8.8E-1
8.4E-4
2.8E-2
W1DC
7.5E-4
1.9E-2
1.0E-1
7.2E-1
7.7E-2
8.3E-4
1.0E-5
3.7E-2
1.2E-2
1.8E-3
2.3E-2
1.4E+0
4.9E-2
9.5E-4
4.4E-2
W1KS
3.0E-4
1JE-2
5.8E-2
2.8E-1
7.9E-2
1.0E-3
1.0E-5
2.6E-2
9.8E-4
7.8E-1
7JE-4
1.6E-2
W2DC
3.4E4
1JE-2
7.6E-2
4.1E-1
7.7E-2
9.3E-4
1.3E-5
9.1E-2
1.4E-2
2.2E-3
2.4E-2
1.9E+0
6.4E-2
1.2E-3
3.9E-2
W2KS
2.2E-4
1.6E-2
6.2E-2
2.0E-1
7.7E-2
1.6E-3
1.0E-5
2.5E-2
1.1E-3
1.0E+0
7.2E4
1.7E-2
210
-------
REFERENCES
1. Development of Interim Noncancer Health Effects Preliminary Evaluation
Concentrations for Screening Study of Hazardous Air Pollutants. Draft Final Report,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pollutant Assessment Branch, Research
Triangle Park, NC.
2. Baltimore Integrated Environmental Management Project: Phase II Ambient Air
Toxics Report. EPA-230/R-92-013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, Washington, DC. February 1992.
3. Hornung, R., Reed, L. "Estimation of Average Concentrations in the Presence of
Non-detectable Values." Appl. Occupational Environ. Hygiene. 5(1). 1990.
4. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), On-Line. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria
Assessment Office, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1994.
5. Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986. Final Report, EPA-600/8-87-045. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. August 1987.
6. Interim Methods for Development of Inhalation Reference Concentrations. EPA
600/8-90-066A. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, D.C. 1990.
7. Calabrese, E.J., and E.M. Kenyon. Air Toxics and Risk Assessment. Lewis
Publishers, Inc. 1991.
8. Documentation of De minimis Emission Rates - Proposed 40 CFR Part 63.
Suboart B. Background Document. Interim Draft, EPA-453/R-93-035.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Standards Division, Research
Triangle Park, NC. February 1994.
9. Technical Background Document to Support Rulemaking Pursuant to the Clean Air
Act Section 112(g). Ranking of Pollutants with Respect to Hazard to Human Health.
EPA-450/3-92-010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Plannning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 1992.
10. Health Assessment Document for Polvchlorinated Dibenzodioxins. EPA-600/8-84-
014f. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984.
11. Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of
Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989
Update. EPA-625/3-89-016. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk
Assessment Forum, Washington D.C. 1989.
12. Hunt, G.T., Maisel, B.E. "Atmospheric PCDDs/PCDFs in Wintertime in a
Northeastern U.S. Urban Coastal Environment." Chemosphere, 20:1455-1462. 1990.
211
-------
13. Variability and Source Attribution of Hazardous Air Pollutants - Columbus Field
Study. Draft Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park, NC. ,
14. Cupitt, L.T., et al. "Exposure and Risk from Ambient Particle-Bound Pollution in an
Airshed Dominated by Residential Wood Combustion and Mobile Sources."
Environmental Health Perspectives — publication pending.
15. Nonoccupational Pesticide Exposure Study (NOPES). Final Report,
EPA-600/3-90-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park, NC. January 1990.
16. Edgerton, S.A., et. al. "Ambient Air Concentrations of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-
dioxins and Dibenzofurans in Ohio: Sources and Health Risk Assessment."
Chemosphere. 18:1713-1730. 1989.
17. Hunt, G.T., Maisel, B.E. "Atmospheric Concentrations of PCDDs/PCDFs in Southern
California." J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc.. 42: 672-680. 1992.
18. Staten Island/New Jersey Urban Air Toxics Assessment Project Report. Volumes I-
YL EPA-902/R-93-001, a - h. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II,
New York, NY. January 1993.
19. Data Summary Supplement to the Initial Analyses of Ambient Toxics and Volatile
Organic Compound Data. Texas Air Control Board, Data Management and Analysis
Division. June 1992.
20. Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program. EPA-450/4-87-022. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC. September 1987.
212
-------
APPENDIX A
POLLUTANT SUMMARY LIST, SAMPLE SPREADSHEET AND
METHOD DETECTION LEVELS FOR AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAMS
-------
-------
(0
S
o>
S
o.
D>
C
•c
o
_«
^a
E
•o
0)
TJ
«
I
O
CL
(0
|
(0
^
I
o
i
w
§
-5
-90
CM"
X
-83-
CO
CO
X
in
X
A-3
CO
CD
-------
CO
2
O)
o
O)
|
o
0)
!S
E
•o
"o
to
Q
O.
(0
I
(0
CO
o
0.
5-
B
-43-
ine
B
Car
90-
26-
A
0.
A-4
5
-------
o
o
oe
|
o
CO
«
2
D)
O
o>
I
o
I
o
o
tf»
*i
I
~T
i
0)
!5
E
m
T3
0)
•o
M
(0
a
1
to
O
Q.
so
X
(Q
|
(O
UJ
o
HI
74-
LLI
00-
HI
5-
111
85-1
§
UJ
CO
i
CO
*
o
s
N
S
r^-
ob
r-
98-82-8J
9
00
o
ca
"uT
£
a>
3
r-
A-5
-------
m
1
6)
o
£
O)
1
o
c
1
i
co
o
Q.
•5
«
E
3
0)
0)
8
c
Cfl —
I
m
c
3
X
X
2
§•
i
8
-65-
s
06-
A-6
-------
I
Is
POLL
55
64
-6
s.
X
-6
08-
-60-
S
Si
s
g
f
E
to
a
-------
Table A-2. Summary of Dioxins, Furans, and Pesticides Included in Ambient
Monitoring Programs
CAS*
Pollutant
STUDY
Late
Michigan*
MOPES
Bridgeport,
CT
Ohio
Southern
California
DBXMS and FURANS
57117-41-6
57117-31-4
35822-46-9
67562-39-4
39227-28-6
70648-26-9
3268-87-9
39001-02-0
40321-76-4
1746-01-6
51207-31-9
PESTICIDES
94-75-7
72-58-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
309-00-2
319-84-6
1912-24-9
22781-23-1
133-06-2
63-25-2
57-74-9
1897-45-6
2921-88-2
52645-53-1
1861-32-1
333-41-5
62-73-7
115-32-2
60-57-1
133-07-3
58-89-9
76-44-8
1024-57-3
118-74-1
121-75-5
72-43-5
90-43-7
114-26-1
10453-86-8
299-84-3
1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF)
2.3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCOF)
2,3,7.8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dtoxin (HpCDD)
2,3,7,8-Heptachtorodibenzofuran (HpCDF)
2,3,7.8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dloxin (HxCOD)
2,3,7,8-Hexadiloroditxmzofuran (HxCDF)
2,3,7.8-Octochtorodibenzc-p-dioxin (OCDD)
2,3,7,8-Oclochlorodibenzofuran (OCOF)
2.3.7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (PeCDD)
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDO)
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF)
2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-ODE
4,4'-DDT
Alachlor
Aldrin
alpha-BHC (alpha HCH)
Atrazine
Bendiocarb
Captan
Carbaryl
Chlordane
Chlorothalonil
Chtorpyrifos
cis-Permethrin
Dacthal
Diazinon
Oichlorvos
Dlcofol
Dieldrln
Folpet
gamma-BHC (lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Malathion
Metolachlor
Methoxychlor
Mirex
ortho-Phenylphenol
Oxychlordane
Propoxur
Resmethrin
Ronnel
trans-nonachlor
trans-Permethrin
Total Number of Pollutants
«
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
32
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
' The Lake Michigan Study also monitored for metals, as shown in Table A-1.
A-8
-------
Table A-3. Sample Spreadsheet of Summary Statistics for SCAQMD
Site Name
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Pico Rivera
Pico Rivera
Cas#
71-55-6
106-93-4
107-06-2
106-99-0
75-07-0
71-43-2
75-01-4
50-00-0
95-47-6
1330-20-7
127-18-4
56-23-5
108-88-3
79-01-6
67-66-3
71-55-6
106-93-4
107-06-2
106-99-0
75-07-0
71-43-2
75-01-4
50-00-0
95-47-6
1330-20-7
127-18-4
56-23-5
108-88-3
79-01-6
67-66-3
75-07-0
50-00-0
Pollutant
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1 ,2-dibromoethane
1 ,2-dichloroethane
1 ,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Chloroethene
Formaldehyde
o-Xylene
m/p-Xylene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Trichloromethane
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1 ,2-dibromoethane
1 ,2-dichloroethane
1 ,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Chloroethene
Formaldehyde
o-Xylene
m/p-Xylene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Trichloromethane
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
No. of
Samples
(n)
220
220
220
205
189
221
223
219
205
211
223
220
232
220
220
220
221
221
204
201
221
222
229
204
209
222
221
230
221
221
12
12
Average
Cone.
(ppbv)
3.81
0.06
7.98
0.17
0.65
2.51
0.74
1.38
1.15
1.41
1.42
0.29
6.10
0.30
0.21
3.70
0.06
8.01
0.16
0.60
2.06
0.75
0.98
0.87
1.23
1.47
0.20
5.83
0.38
0.20
2.23
2.17
Standard
Deviation
2.79
0.03
1.62
0.09
0.73
1.63
0.44
1.50
0.97
1.36
2.90
1.24
4.02
0.63
0.09
2.24
0.08
1.68
0.06
0.73
1.49
0.45
1.11
0.45
1.05
2.90
0.80
3.65
0.54
0.03
1.43
1.17
Max
Cone.
(ppbv)
15.00
0.25
10.50
0.80
2.40
8.70
2.50
7.70
5.10
8.00
39.00
13.00
19.00
6.20
0.90
14.00
0.98
15.00
0.50
2.90
11.00
2.50
4.60
1.90
4.80
32.00
12.00
22.00
3.30
0.56
5.90
4.60
Geometric
Mean
(ppbv)
3.02
0.05
7.43
0.15
0.32
2.05
0.53
0.73
0.91
1.06
0.83
0.15
4.81
0.15
0.20
3.12
0.05
7.45
0.15
0.27
1.70
0.54
0.49
0.76
0.91
0.83
0.15
4.68
0.21
0.20
1.72
1.47
A-9
-------
Table A-3. Sample Spreadsheet of Summary Statistics for SCAQMD (cont.)
Site Name
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Azusa
Pico Rivera
Pico Rivera
Cas#
71-55-6
106-93-4
107-06-2
106-99-0
75-07-0
71-43-2
75-01-4
50-00-0
95-47-6
1330-20-7
127-18-4
56-23-5
108-88-3
79-01-6
67-66-3
71-55-6
106-93-4
107-06-2
106-99-0
75-07-0
71-43-2
75-01-4
50-00-0
95-47-6
1330-20-7
127-18-4
56-23-5
108-88-3
79-01-6
67-66-3
75-07-0
50-00-0
Percent! le
99
13.00
0.25
10.50
0.60
2.33
7.56
2.50
6.35
4.94
6.91
7.59
6.60
17.00
2.44
0.77
11.82
0.47
10.50
0.40
2.59
7.98
2.50
4.50
1.87
4.40
9.61
0.36
16.00
3.04
0.24
5.65
4.42
95
9.69
0.05
10.50
0.30
2.09
5.62
1.00
4.90
1.94
2.50
4.60
0.25
14.00
1.20
0.20
7.94
0.05
10.50
0.30
1.67
4.81
1.00
3.34
1.65
2.90
4.61
0.20
12.00
1.20
0.20
4.64
3.72
90
7.49
0.05
10.50
0.25
1.88
4.91
1.00
3.40
1.71
2.30
2.70
0.20
12.00
0.54
0.20
6.50
0.05
10.50
0.20
1.60
3.61
1.00
2.70
1.50
2.60
3.11
0.17
10.91
0.71
0.20
3.53
2.97
75
4.80
0.05
7.50
0.17
0.93
3.33
1.00
1.85
1.40
1.65
1.50
0.15
8.30
0.27
0.20
4.70
0.05
7.50
0.16
1.15
2.60
1.00
1.60
1.23
1.70
1.30
0.15
8.13
0.44
0.20
2.83
2.69
50
2.95
0.05
7.50
0.14
0.25
2.05
1.00
0.97
1.05
1.20
0.72
0.14
5.00
0.12
0.20
3.20
0.05
9.00
0.14
0.10
1.50
1.00
0.41
0.50
0.50
0.70
0.14
5.30
0.23
0.20
0.05
2.40
25
1.80-
0.05
7.50
0.13
0.10
1.00
0.70
0.28
0.50
0.50
0.43
0.13
0.05
0.05
0.20
2.20
0.05
7.50
0.13
0.10
1.00
0.63
0.15
0.50
0.50
0.44
0.13
0.10
0.10
0.20
1.58
1.78
Value of
One-half
MDL
0.01
1
1.5
0.2
1
0.115
0.1
0.05
10.5
0.01
1
1.5
0.2
1
0.115
0.1
0.05
10.5
0.05
% of Values
Above MDL
99.55
0.91
0.00
15.61
100.00
68.33
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
99.10
98.64
86.21
45.00
2.73
99.09
2.26
0.45
13.73
100.00
55.20
0.00
100.00
97.30
100.00
99.55
99.55
88.70
63.80
0.90
100.00
100.00
A-10
-------
Table A-4. Pollutants Monitored and Corresponding Method Detection
Level by Study
Pollutant
Method Detection
Level
ATLANTA
All pollutants monitored'
0.15
BATON ROUGE
All pollutants monitored'
0.1
BAAQMD
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylene Oibromide
Ethylene Dichloride
Methyl Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Perchloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
variable
variable
variable
variable
variable
variable
variable
variable
variable
variable
variable
CARS
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylene dichloride
Formaldehyde
m-Dlchlorobenzene
m-Xylene
Methyl Chloroform
Methylene chloride
o-Dichlorobenzene
o-Xylene
p-Dichlorobenzene
p-Xylene
Perchloroethylene
Styrene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
0.04, 0.2
0.1.1.0
0.5
1
0.1,1.0
0.02
0.6
0.01
0.2
0.1, 1.0
0.1, 0.2
0.6
0.02
0.2, 1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1. 0.2
0.1, 0.5
NA
0.1
NA
0.02
COLUMBUS
Acrolein - 3 hour
Formaldehyde - 3 hour
All other pollutants'
0.3
0.2
NA
Pollutant
Method Detection
Level
SCAQMD
1,1,1-trichloroe thane
1,2-dibromoethane
1,2-dichloroethane
Benzene
Chloroethene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene
Trlchloraethene
Trichloromelhane
NA
variable
variable
variable
variable
variable
NA
variable
variable
variable
variable
SOUTHWEST OHIO
1,1,1-Trlchloroethane
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Benzyl chloride
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon dlsulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloroprene
cis-1 ,3-Dlchloropropene
Cumene
Ethyl benzene
Hexachlorobutadlene
Hexane
m/p-Xylene
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
o-Xylene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
trans- 1 ,3-dichloropropene
Vinyl Chloride
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
NA
2.0
0.2
NA
0.2
0.3
NA
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.4
2.0
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
0.2
NA
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.3
A-ll
-------
Table A-4. Pollutants Monitored and Corresponding Method Detection
Level by Study (cont.)
Pollutant
Method Detection
Level
Staten bland/New Jersey UATAP*
New Jersey Institute of Technology
1,1,1-Trtehtoroethane
1,1,2-Trlchloroethane
1,1-Dichloroe thane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloromethane
Dichloromethane
Ethyl benzene
Hexane
o-Xylene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene
Tribromotnethane
Trichtoroethene
Trichloromethane
Cadmium*
Chromium, total*
Copper-
Iron*
Manganese*
Mercury*
Nickel*
Zinc*
0.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
0.1
NA
NA
0.01
0.01
0.01
NA
0.01
0.05, 0.1, 0.01
0.01
NA
0.01
0.01
2.5
10
7.5
10
5
0.01
7.5
3.5
NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.06
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.04
1,1-Dichloroethane NA
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.04
1,2-Dlchlorob'enzene 0.04,0.02
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.02
1,4-Oichlorobenzene 0.02
Benzene 0.2
Chlorobenzene . 0.02
Chloromethane NA
Dichloromethane 0.04
Ethyl benzene 0.04
Hexane NA
. Pollutant
Method Detection
Level
Staten bland/New Jersey UATAP2 (cont.)
NY State Dept of Environmental Conservation
o-Xylene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene
Tribromomethane
Trichloroethene
Trichloromethane
NY State Dept. of Health
Arsenic*
Cadmium*
Cobalt-
Copper*
Iron*
Manganese-
Molybdenum*
Nickel-
Vanadium*
Zinc-
College of Staten bland
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloromethane
Dichloromethane
Ethyl benzene
Hexane
o-Xylene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene
Tribromomethane
Trichloroethene
Trichloromethane
0.04
0.04
NA
0.04
0.06
0.1
NA
0.02
0.04
30,2
5.0
5.0
5.0
11.0
5.0
24.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
0.04, 0.02
0.04, 0.02
0.02, 0.01
0.02, 0.01
0.02, 0.01
0.02, 0.01
0.4, 0.2
0.13, 0.06
0.02, 0.1
NA
NA
0.2, 0.1
0.1, 0.05
0.2, 0.1
0.4, 0.2
0.03, 0.015
0.05, 0.03
0.04, 0.02
0.4, 0.2
0.02, 0.01
0.02, 0.01
0.02, 0.01
A-12
-------
Table A-4. Pollutants Monitored and Corresponding Method Detection
Level by Study (cont.)
Pollutant
Method Detection
Level
TNRCC
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trtehloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichtoroelhylene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Butadlene
1 ,4-Oioxane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,4,4-TrimethyM -pentene
2,4,4- Trlmethyl-2-pentene
2-Butanone
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis-1 ,3-Oichloropropene
Cumene
Ethyl benzene
lodomethane
m/p-Xylene
Methanol
Methyl t-butylether
Methylene chloride
Methylisobutylketone
Naphthalene
o-Dichlorobenzene
o-Xylene
p-Oichlorobenzene
Styrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
trans- 1 ,3-Oichloropropene
Trichloroethylene / BCM
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl bromide
Vinyl chloride
0.05
1
0.1
0.1
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.23
0.88
0.1
0.17
0.09
NA
0.61
0.75
0.93
0.35
1
1
0.03
0.16
0.1
0.04
6.1
1
0.07
0.13
1
0.19
NA
0.2
037
1
NA
0.27
0.1
1
0.09
0.03
0.4
0.07
0.02
NA
1
0.09
UATMP
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
0.001
0.002
0.02
0.04
0.04
Pollutant
Method Detection
Level
UATMP (cont)
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Acetylene
Acrolein
Arsenic
BAP
Barium
Benzene
Beryllium
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Cadmium
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloroprene
Chromium
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropylene
Cobalt
Copper
Oibromochloromethane
Ethyl benzene
Formaldehyde
Iron
Lead
m-Dichlorobenzene
m/p-Xylene
Ethyl benzene
Formaldehyde
Manganese
Methylene chloride
Molybdenum
n-Octane
Nickel
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Propylene
Tetrachloroethy lene
Toluene
trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropylene
Trichloroethylene
Vanadium
Vinyl chloride
Zinc
0.04
0.10
0.36
0.36
1.00
0.36
NA
NA
NA
0.04
NA
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.20
NA
0.001
0.02
0.10
0.01
0.20
0.06
NA
0.04
NA
NA
0.001
0.02
0.36
NA
NA
0.02
0.04
NA
0.36
NA
0.11
NA
0.03
NA
0.02
0.09
0.10
0.07
0.02
0.04
0.004
NA
0.20
NA
NOTES: AH concentrations in ppbv, unless otherwise noted by an *". These pollutant concentrations are in ng/cubic meter.
1 For a listing of pollutants monitored, see Table A-1.
2 Method detection levels correspond to samples taken during second year of UATAP study (Oct. 1988-Sept. 1989).
A-13
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
SUPPLEMENTAL HEALTH EFFECTS INFORMATION
B-l
-------
-------
u
u
3
U
JO
to
,0
JC
II)
I
UJ
a
0)
•a
c
i_ 9
g *
(0
o
E £
<0
a.
<
•5
ffl
c O
o S
t
1 ^
co £
§ 1
I U
I §1
I t f
0 -5 «
a
s-
? ? ?
g g g
!
&
I I
9 9 5 8
LU UJ HJ UJ
88° 3
9
Ul
g
UJ
g
« £ CO
coS
~ a ~
CO CO CO
S S S
•? 9 ?
g g g
» - «
CO CO
c E
1
CO CO
E E
g g
m «
a
o
DC
g
a
co
E
CO CO CO
£ S £
0)
E
CO CO CO CO CO CO
cc cc E cc cc £
1
S c?
g g
CO
£
CO
£
8
g
« j; co en co
CC Q CC E CC
— Q — — —
CO CO CO CO CO
£ cc £ £ £
8 8 S 8
g g g g
v- T- w cv
° w to
1 8
5 S
B-3
-------
C 3
•S 1
0)
&
a.
CO
« e s § c
Jlpj
I S s 11 !
i i; i s
3 8 | g i
g I S s &
O S O £ to
UJ UJ
3=
UJ
4->
S
z
§
c
i
o
z
•o
c
CO
§
c
CO
O
0)
S
(0
*. w
8 1
i |
CO
»! S
o |
i o
*
t~
«•
• ui
1 P
u S
9
UJ uJ
od oi
1 *
S £
9 ?
§8 S
So o
UJ UI UJ
8 8 8
oi c*i •*'
CO CO
E E
CO CO
£ i
co £co cocococo ca
i 5 i i i £ £ i
I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
s s
! !
9
111
8
O) CO CO
tc E £
2 •*
2
I
D
9
UJ
8
J
|
2
I
m
„
2
0
3
S
I
X
«*)
9
UJ
°.
2
o
6
fr
a.
fr
o
S
1
tc
|
sf
1
-------
c
o
I
O
€
I
u
Ul
0.
(A
I
UJ
£
|
|
§
£ <•<
£ §
T3
(0
1 '
ra
O £
5 1
5
£
'I
Z
"o
o5
OQ
£
(0
I
E
a. S co co
2 g I I
2 CO
9 9
q S
5
CD 0
S 3
? ?
S | | S
O CO CM CM
? R S S
= |
O • ooo Q Q u. u. £< g,
"8 "S j£ rf PI n en to" co" CM en" co 2 2 "5
Z Z O CM CM" CM" CM" CM" CM" *- CM" CM" Z Z Q.
1
?
0
1
°
<2
o
£
n
en
c
o
Concentratl
CD
1
c
3=
c.
u
O
or
I
>.E. (Vtelghtof Evide
v_»
5'
cument
f Factor Do
ty Equivatenq
2
H
O
U.
UJ
f
TJ
3
X
,Q
1
H
m
c
o
ffl
m Concentr
nary Evalualk
1
£
£
o
UJ
Q.
S
0
1
C
£
3
based on
to
i
£
O
"c
a>
f
•B
B2 * Probably car
|
8
c
3
0
•=
0
i
C
f
C
ts
«
I
1
¥
isllmate {ca
m Unit Risk E
3=
R
CC
2
M
i
1
^
a
1
C - Possibly card
.
a
s.
o
1
•5
2
1
u
D
3
pollutant per
•3
o»
3
.C
Bathing air wit
c.
ogenldty
1
3
C
3
0
to
(9
D « Not dassffiabl
o
q
1
—
8
m
<5
*
at
1
i
*z
T)
O
b
an estimated
J2
J5
I
*
3
S
O
EC
§
i Footnote
m
Z
U.
M
!
I
oi
•o
0.
o
at a rate of 2
L of water, i
pollutant pef
0
xln (EPA)
o
5
S
1
3
1
0 - Health Assessm
a
<
X
u>
1
f
fl
3
-------
o
o
s
w
UJ
*••
I
<0
u
o
•a
(0
(0
O
.2
.0
(0
Q.
<
"5
ffl
0)
3
*!
si
il
II
i
o
£
I
I
3
1
I
s
»
I
o
3
S ^
u 3
Meth
for Chl
I
o
c
been revi
is col
T5
S
TB
oi
OB
£
§
a
3
are Int
I
S
•*
O
s
tt
i
a.
s
Q>
I
n
9
a:
B-6
-------
APPENDIX C
SITE-SPECIFIC CANCER RISK ESTIMATES
C-l
-------
MSU jaoueo aumaju |enpiA|pU|
I
C-2
-------
02
G
a
1—4
-W
<
C-3
-------
>.
03
"c
^j
<3
C-4
-------
-B
OT
n
03
C-5
-------
J5
_u
-------
.3
02
a
-u
C-7
-------
I
-tJ
CQ
Q
§
O"
PQ
C-8
-------
jjsjj jeouoo euui^e/u lonpiAjput
CO
!
C-9
-------
CO
Q
&
G?
$
W
C-10
-------
CQ
P
>jsu jeouoo
C-ll
-------
3
CQ
P
§
O1
PQ
C-12
-------
CO
Q
PQ
C-13
-------
CO
o1
PQ
C-14
-------
CQ
Q
S
O1
ffl
C-15
-------
I
-u
CO
Q
PQ
C-16
-------
CO
Q
§
&
PQ
C-17
-------
C-18
-------
Of
C-19
-------
T3
-u
CO
Q
CQ
C-20
-------
.2
CO
Of
ffl
C-21
-------
>)su jeouoo eumeiji lonpiAipui
02
Q
%
I
PQ
C-22
-------
CQ
P
C-23
-------
Q
I
ffl
C-24
-------
3
Q
§
Of
ffl
C-25
-------
02
Q
ffl
C-26
-------
CO
Q
§
)Sjj jeouoo euijjejji
C-27
-------
CO
Q
S
O"
^
CQ
C-28
-------
T3
-g
CQ
I
PQ
C-29
-------
-3
CO
PQ
O
C-30
-------
C-31
-------
13
3
CO
PQ
0
C-32
-------
>)su jaoueo 3uii)9ii| ienpiAipu|
I
PQ
O
C-33
-------
MSIJ jaoueo aiuijaiii lenpiAipui
CO
PQ
o
C-34
-------
-
CO
PQ
53
O
C-35
-------
J30UBO auiiiajH lenpuupu)
C-36
-------
03
O
C-37
-------
)|su J30UBO aiui)3}j| |enp;AipU|
o
C-38
-------
CO
CQ
O
C-39
-------
O!
PQ
O
C-40
-------
)(SiJ jaoueo auijiaji) (enpiAipu)
OT
PQ
C-41
-------
MSU jaaueo auiiiam (enpiAipu)
--
CO
PQ
O
C-42
-------
CO
PQ
O
C-43
-------
CO
PQ
O
C-44
-------
u J30UBO auiitaiii |enpiAipu|
T3
PQ
O
C-45
-------
C-46
-------
o
C-47
-------
Jfsu jaouBO auiiiajj) |enpiAipu|
3
03
O
C-48
-------
CO
PQ
o
C-49
-------
C-50
-------
CO
tysu J30UBO atuiiaiii |enpjAjpu|
o
C-51
-------
.S
CO
PQ
O
MSU jaauBO auii;am |enpiAipu|
C-52
-------
3
-4J
CO
o
C-53
-------
£
s
-4J
CO
w
o
O
C-54
-------
CQ
CO
f
O
O
C-55
-------
CQ
CD
'o
O
C-56
-------
)|su J80UBO auijiaji) |enpjAjpu|
CO
CO
o
O
C-57
-------
-S
02
j3
"o
O
C-58
-------
){SU J30UBO OUJI13JII |enpjAjpU|
02
CO
o
O
C-59
-------
<0
aueiflaojomoip-zH
auaipeyig-e'i
auamaojomo
aueqpouiojqip-z'i
auazuag
auet))3uiojo|t|3iJi 3
apAt|3p|euuoj
aueinauiojomoeqaj.
9U3lfl9OJO|l|OBJJ3i
apAqapiejaov
auag^ojoigoijj.
CO
9
§
O)
9
ui
§
00
9
UI
§
i^
JISIJ
?
UI
8
-------
c
03
o
Q.
>»
£1
J*
V)
iz
i_
0)
u
c
(0
O
o
O)
09
5
<
03
(0
N
<
cy
O
§
O)
il
o
02
apAqapicjaov
3
VI
§
o>
9
UJ
o
o
co
9
UJ
§
J|S
? ?
UJ UJ
o o
o q
ID 1O
u jaoueo am
9
UJ
0
q
9
UJ
§
ri
9
UJ
o
o
ci
9
UJ
§
g
UJ
g
°.
0
liajH lenpiAjpui
C-61
-------
!
02
P
§
-------
3
-u
02
Q
o
CO
)|sjj jeouDO euiijejj) pnp.iAipui
C-63
-------
3
4-1
o
CO
C-64
-------
o
• I-H
6
CO
C-65
-------
MSIJ jaoueo auuiaiii icnpiAipu)
T3
^J
CO
O
CO
C-66
-------
CO
o
O
o
C-67
-------
'f
MSU jaoueo auii;aii| {enptAipui
"O
_rt
In
I-M
I
5
03
w
en
15
0)
O
'5
O
a
ra
cd
-
C
c3
O
ft
03
cS
0)
C-68
H
O
-------
CO
c
03
CO
I—I
d
CO
0)
4-i
• t—t
U3
CO
^>
-tJ
03
T3
O)
^
c
4-J
• f-H
o
E
-u
o
co
cC
o
a,
a>
CO
fi
m
0)
s
C-69
E-"
O
-------
3
CQ
03
1—4
CQ
CO
w
to
03
T3
• I-H
£3
O
g
-4-i
O
G
j3
'o
CO
G
a3
-------
))Sjj Jaoueo aiuiiaji) jenpiAipu)
C
cd
O)
-»j
rt
-U
03
w
03
03
I
O
s
I
CO
a!
o
a.
CO
C
-------
T5
CO
•n
G
a
-2
5
CO
OJ
-w
'w
w
IS
0)
O
-w
•rH
G
O
s
-u
O
G
to
03
^->
G
tsj
O
OH
01
CO
G
es
CD
B
C-72
-------
CO
c
cfl
I
3
CO
w
3
'3
0
o
co
a
c
CO
-4->
j3
'o
0)
,g
en
C
cO
0)
S
C-73
-------
-u
CQ
"d
C
cfl
03
-4->
03
to
CO
o>
o
o
CO
03
-u
03
O
ex
0)
03
0>
6
C-74
EH
O
55
-------
fl
-4->
CO
CO
•22
03
2
c
o
4-3
O
CO
03
(33
O
&,
0)
rt
CD
S
C-75
E-"
O
-------
3
-u
CO
T3
O
S
-fcj
O
c
tn
fl
-U
^
'o
0)
CO
a
03
C-76
-------
ysu jaoueo auiiiaii) |enpi.Aipu|
CQ
T3
C
J5
'w
I-H
I
4J
cn
O)
4-!
• r— 4
CO
03
a
T3
0)
c
O
s
"o
TO
03
-u
C
cfl
-t-i
j3
'o
0)
CO
cd
0)
C-77
O
53
-------
CO
-c
G
c
I
-t-3
CQ
o>
CD
tn
Cfl
T3
0)
!-i
.2
•i-H
O
a
-u
o
(3
tn
o
a
01
OT
c
ctf
C-78
H
H
O
-------
3
-i_>
CO
-3
0)
-u
ctf
-u
03
0)
CO
CO
CD
O
O
CO
03
c
ca
-u
03
03
CD
s
C-79
-------
-
02
T3
fl
c8
»—i
CQ
HH
fl
O)
-U
5
GO
T3
O)
c
CO
0)
03
0)
a
C-80
-------
ij jaoueo suijjajji |enpjAjpu|
CO
O
O
O
4-5
C
3
O
fi
tn
03
c
4J
j3
"3
0>
Vi
C
cC
03
E
C-81
H
O
-------
CO
o
o
tf
C-82
-------
_
CO
O
o
PS
03
T3
O)
>-i
O
O
fl
CO
03
C
03
O
PH
03
CD
s
C-83
-------
)|SU J30UBO 3U1]}3}I| |BnplAlpU|
-U
02
O
Q
03
C-84
-------
CO
o
o
PS
w
CO
IS
^j
-4^
CO
CD
O
S
-u
O
C
ro
03
4J
C
03
O
a
CD
x:
-i->
CO
C
03
CD
C-85
H
O
-------
3
.<->
CO
o
O
w
W
-4-3
03
o
a
CO
cti
C-86
-------
O
O
tf
g
QJ
•M
O
4J
'S
O
6
4J
O
c
03
O
O.
03
G
03
-------
ytsii jaoueo auijiajjj |enp|Ajpu|
C-88
-------
3
-+->
OJ
O
o
-------
C-90
-------
-------
HSU J30UBO 9U1IJ3J1| |Enp!AlpU|
.3
C/D
U
O
ID
.-s
03
-i-i
-U
ea
2
O
-M
• (-<
fi
O
O3
I
-4J
«
(U
OS
0)
S
C-92
-------
apuoiip auaiAiiiaifl
886l-apAq3P|BUiJOd
CO
OH
C-93
-------
epuoma |AuiA
3U3|Alfl30JO[lJOIJl
3
03
C-94
-------
u J30UBO auiiiaiii |enp!Ajpu|
PH
§
EH
<5
C-95
-------
C-96
-------
apuoigo lAuiA
auaiAmaojoinoi.il
)|SU J80UBO 3Ull)3}j| |enpjAjpU|
C-97
-------
HSU J30UBO auii)aii| (enpiAipu)
T3
03
C-98
-------
apuomo |Au|A
9U3|Al|)30JO|H3!Ji
))su jaouBo auiijaiii lenpiAipui
I
C-99
-------
8861-apAqapieiujOd
lie-apAqapieuuoj
02
C-100
-------
-u
CO
PL,
§
I
C-101
-------
auBMiaojomoui-2'i'i
auEiflaojO|H3BJ]3i-3'3' i
I
-U
CO
OH
C-102
-------
cn
(X,
I
C-103
-------
auBmeojomoui-2'v'i
auBniaoJoinoBJiai-2'z'i.'i.
CO
OH
3
C-104
-------
jaoueo auijiaii) (enpjAipui
OT
OH
1
C-105
-------
TJ
3
-u>
CQ
OH
S
1
C-106
-------
uiJO)oiuojg
uini||Ajag
(Xiuo) auazuag
-u
CO
Pi
C-107
-------
auaipejng-e'i
auBinaojomojQ-2'i.
auBHjaojomoui-2'i I
8UBU}aojo|uoBjjai-2'z' L' i
)|su jaouBO auijta^ii lenpiAipu)
02
PL,
C-108
-------
CO
OH
C-109
-------
a
p.
C-110
-------
CO
PL,
C-lll
-------
T3
3
4J
02
C-112
-------
Lujojooiojg
aini||Ajeg
(Aiuo) euszuag
--
02
OH
C-113
-------
C-114
-------
CQ
OH
I
C-115
-------
3
4->
02
apuoiqa aueiAiflan
8861-apAuapieuiJOd
jaoueo auiii3|i| |enpiAipu(
C-116
-------
MSU jaoueo auiiiaii) mnpiAipui
CO
eu
C-117
-------
I
C-118
-------
auBmaojonjoui-2'i.'i.
aueinaoJO|i)OBJia i-z'z' I' I
P-,
1
ID
>)su jaoueo aui!)3}!| |enpjAjpu|
C-119
-------
CQ
I
C-120
-------
T3
3
-u
CO
PH
C-121
-------
CO
(X,
C-122
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-453/R-94-075
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
A SCREENING ANALYSIS OF AMBIENT
DATA FOR THE URBAN AREA SOURCE
FINAL REPORT
MONITORING
PROGRAM:
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
OCTOBER, 1994
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report is a collection of ambient monitoring data for toxic air pollutants from numerous cities in the
US. The purpose is to perform a screening level analysis of potential health effects by comparing the
monitored levels with their respective health benchmarks (cancer and noncancer). This report was
developed to support the development of a National Strategy for area sources pursuant to Section 112(k)
and 112(c) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS •
a. DESCRIPTORS
Urban Air Toxics, Clean Air Act, Hazardous
Air Pollutants
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution, Health Effects, Air
Toxics
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
Unclassified 419
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page) 22. PRICE
Unclassified
EPA Form 2228-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
------- |