EPA - TTN ATW NATA -1996 National Air Toxics Assessment Activities
wysiwyg://58/http://www.^^»v/ttn/atw/nata/
ffivfrofMiMfifaf P
About the
Assessment
Frequently Asked
Questions
Results (Maps, Data,
Charts)
Emissions
Modeled Ambient
Concentrations
Modeled Human
Exposure
Estimated Risk
Limitations,
Variability,
& Uncertainty
Peer Review
Air Toxics Reduction
NATA Site Map
NATA Home
ATW Home
Technology Transfer Network
National Air Toxics Assessment
Contact Us | Print Version Search
EPA Home > Air A Radiation >
> National Air Toxics Assessment
The National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment
As part of EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment activities, EPA conducted a national-scale assessment of 33 air
pollutants (a subset of 32 air toxics on the Clean Air Act's list of 188 air toxics plus diesel oarticulate matter (diesel PM)).
The assessment includes four steps that look at the year 1996 Note: As of May 2002, the results posted for all four
steps include revisions based on input from scientific peer review.
1. Compiling a national emissions inventory of air toxics emissions from outdoor sources. Available i
2. Estimating ambient concentrations of air toxics across the contiguous United States. Available here
3. Estimating population exposures across the contiguous United States. Available here
4. Characterizing potential public health risk due to inhalation of air toxics including both cancer and noncancer effects.
Available here
The goal of the national-scale assessment is to identify those air toxics which are of greatest potential concern, in terms of
contribution to population risk. The results will be used to set priorities for the collection of additional air toxics data (e.g.,
emissions data and ambient monitoring data).
I of 2
1/10/03 8:54 AM
-------
EPA - TTN ATW NATA - National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment Overview: The 33 Pollutants
Wysiwyg://! 36/http://www.epa.gov/ttn^^pi
iata/34poll.html
About the
Assessment
Frequently Asked
Questions
Results (Maps, Data,
Charts)
Emissions
Modeled Ambient
Concentrations
Modeled Human
Exposure
Estimated Risk
Limitations,
Variability,
& Uncertainty
Peer Review
Air Toxics Reduction
NATA Site Map
NATA Home
ATW Home
Technology Transfer Network
National Air Toxics Assessment
Contact Us | Print Version Search: ] ^H
EPA Home > Air & Radiation > TTNWeb - Technology Transfer Network > Air Toxics Website > National Air Toxics Assessment > National-Scale Air
Toxics Assessment Overview: The 33 Pollutants
National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment Overview: The 33
Pollutants
AIR POLLUTANTS INCLUDED IN THE ASSESSMENT
1. acetaldehyde
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrile
4. arsenic compounds
5. benzene
6. beryllium compounds
7. 1,3-butadiene
8. cadmium compounds
9. carbon tetrachloride
10. chloroform
11. chromium compounds
12. coke oven emissions
13.1, 3-dichloropropene
14. diesel particulate matter
15. ethylene dibromide
16. ethylene dichloride
17. ethylene oxide
* also represented as 7-PAH
More information about the general sources of the emissions is available.
18. formaldehyde
19. hexachlorobenzene
20. hydrazine
21. lead compounds
22. manganese compounds
23. mercury compounds
24. methylene chloride
25. nickel compounds
26. perchloroethylene
27. polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
28. polvcyclic organic matter (POM)*
29. propylene dichloride
30. quinoline
31.1,1. 2, 2-tetrachloroethane
32. trichloroethylene
33. vinyl chloride
[of 2
1/10/03 10:21 AM
-------
EPA - TTN ATW NATA - Results: Emissions
wysiwyg://60/http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/riatsal.htrnl
Technology Transfer Network
National Air Toxics Assessment
ji
Con tact Us | Print Version Search:
EPA Homa > Ajf ft pflfflfUfrn > TT^Web - Tadlnotoqv Transfer Networt > i
I > Emissions
t> 1996Asse«ment
About the
Assessment
Emissions
Frequently Asked
Questions
Emission Density Maps
Data Tables
• Data Summaries
• Data Sources
Results (Maps, Data,
Charts)
Emissions
Modeled Ambient
Concentrations
Modeled Human
Exposure
Estimated Risk
Limitations,
Variability,
& Uncertainty
Peer Review
Air Toxics Reduction
NATA Site Map
NATA Home
ATW Home
You can view information about the 1996 emissions of the 32 air toxics plus
diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) used in the national-scale assessment
through the links below.
Emlfsjgn Density Maps
These maps allow you to view 1996 emission density values (in tons per
square mile per year) on a county average basis for any State in the United
States (except Alaska and Hawaii) plus Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Data Tables
There are two types of tables you will be able to view: one type is organized
so you can see data specific to an individual pollutant, and the other is
organized so you can see the data for each county in a State. All of these
tables are available as either a downloadable file in Excel Spreadsheet
format or as an Adobe Acrobat pdf file. Both types of tables contain
information about annual emissions and emission densities and a
breakdown of emissions into major, area and other, onroad mobile and
nonroad mobile sources.
Data Summaries:
The 1996 National Toxics Inventory (NTH is the underlying basis for the
1996 emissions used in the national-scale assessment. For details about
how the 1996 NTI was modified to prepare the emissions for computer
Iof3
1/10/03 9:19 AM
-------
EPA - TIN ATW NATA - Results: Emissions
wysi wyg://60/http://ww w .qja.gov/ttn/atw/nata/natsa 1 .htmf
iiiuueiiiiy, sew me umcussiui i ui LI it; Hiiiiuaiiuiia in me eniissHJiis. i MB IM 11
contains air toxics fimission estimatf>s for four overarching source types:
major, area and other, onroad mobile, and nonroad mobile.
For additional information about 1996 emissions of air toxics, including
sources of emissions, visit AIRData.
For summary information on air toxics trends, see the air toxics section
(pdfln 290KB1 of the 1999 National Air Quality and Emissions Trends
Report.
Data Sources:
EPA compiled the 1996 National Toxics Inventory (NTI) using five primary
sources of data:
• State and local toxic air pollutant inventories (developed by State and
local air pollution control agencies),
• Existing databases related to EPA's air toxics regulatory program,
• EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database,
• Estimates developed using mobile source methodology (developed
by EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality), and
• Emission estimates generated from emission factors and activity
data.
in compiling stationary source emissions information for the NTI, preference
is given to State- and locally-generated information where available. Where
such data are not available, existing data from EPA's regulatory
development databases are utilized. If neither of these data sources
contains information for a known stationary source, EPA uses data from the
TRI. EPA also gives preference in inventory development to emissions data
resulting from direct measurements over those generated from emissions
factors and activity data.
For more information on emission inventories, see the National Emission
Inventory Data web page.
2 of 3
1/10/03 9:19 AM
-------
EPA - TTN ATW NATA - Results: Map of 1996 Emission Densities
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?geo=USA&pol==45201&c.,.ice=nata&_program=nata.scl.comap.scl&_debug=2&nata2=l
Technology Transfer Network
National Air Toxics Assessment
Contact Us Search
EPA Ham* >
Maps
>TTNW«h- Technology Transfer Nahmorh > i
Results: Map of 1996 Emission Densities
1996 County Emission Densities
Benzene — United States Counties
Distribution of U.S. Emission Densities
Highest In U.S. ^^_ 4-1
65
90
Percentile 75
so
25
I
1.01
°-5fl Pollutant Emission Density by County
(tons/ year / sq, mile)
0-0*0
0
Source: U.S. EPA/OAQPS
fWA Not'onal-Seale Afr Toxfcs Assessment
Overall Confidence in Benzene Data: Q Higher
Iof2
1/10/03 9:20 AM
-------
EPA - TTN ATW NATA - Results: Map of 1996 Emission Densities
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?geo=STTX&pol^5201&...ice=nata&jrogram=nata.sclxomap.scl&_debug=2&nata2-
Ue
HMPO
Technology Transfer Network
National Air Toxics Assessment
Contact Us Search:
EPA Horn*
Maps
Results: Map of 1996 Emission Densities
1996 County Emission Densities
Benzene — TEXAS Counties
Distribution of U.S. Emission Densities
High** In U.S. ^^_ 41
95 ^^H 1.01
o^r^nt-iio 80 ^^1 °'50 Pollutant Emission Density by County
PercentMe „ Q «£ (tonfi / yeflr / fiq mjte f
25 ^^^ 0>0« Source: US. EPA / QAQPS
' ° NATA Na tfonal-Scale Afr Toxics Assessment
I of2
1/10/039:21 AM
-------
EPA - TTN ATW NATA - Results: Modeled Ambient Concentrations
wysiwyg://71/http://www .epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/natsa2.html
About the
Assessment
Technology Transfer Network
National Air Toxics Assessment
Contact Us | Print Version Search:
EPA Home > Ak & Radiation >'
Reaulte > Modeled Ambient Concentrations
t> 1996 Assesment
Modeled Ambient Concentrations
Frequently Asked
Questions
Results (Maps, Data,
Charts)
Emissions
Modeled Ambient
Concentrations
Modeled Human
Exposure
Estimated Risk
Limitations,
Variability,
& Uncertainty
Peer Review
Air Toxics Reduction
NATA Site Map
NATA Home
ATW Home
• Summary of Results
'Maps
* Data Tables
• Bar Charts
* Comparison to Monitored Values
• About the Model
Summary of Results
This link provides an overview of what the results show.
Ambient Concentrations Maps
These maps allow you to view 1996 ambient concentration estimates (in
micrograms per cubic meter) based on the median concentration in each
county. You can select the entire U.S. or any State in the United States
(except Alaska and Hawaii) plus Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The
maps are color-coded (by percentile breakdown relative to the rest of the
country) to show how each county's median concentration compares to the
rest of the U.S. The median concentration is the value for which 50% of the
census tracts in the county have ambient concentrations less than the
median, and 50% of the census tracts in the county have ambient
concentrations greater than the median. In other words, it is the midpoint for
the ambient concentration values in that county. The median is expected to
be more representative than the average of the estimated "typical" 1996
concentration within a county since it is less affected by outliers (i.e., very
high or very low concentrations).
Ambient Concentrations Bar Charts
This link allows you to view two types of bar charts for each air pollutant:
1. A comparison of statewide estimates
2. A representation of the contribution of each of the four major source
types as well as background estimates to the statewide
concentration.
lof3
1/10/039:22 AM
-------
EPA - TTN ATW NATA - Results: Modeled Ambient Concentrations
Note that you need Adobe Acrobat 4.0 (or higher) to be able to correctly
view and print these bar charts. You can obtain this version free of charge
at: httD://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html.
Wysiwyg://? 1 /http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/natsa2.html
Ambient Concentrations Data Tables
There are two types of tables you will be able to view from this link: one type
is organized so you can see ambient concentrations specific to an individual
pollutant, and the other is organized so you can see the ambient
concentrations for all pollutants for each county in a State. All of these
tables are available as either a downloadable file in Excel Spreadsheet
format or as an Adobe Acrobat pdf file. Both types of tables contain
information about ambient concentration distributions (i.e., as percentiles)
as well as a breakdown of ambient concentrations into maior. area, onroad
mobile and nonroad mobile and background contributions. The county
information includes a designation as urban or rural.
Comparison to Monitored Concentrations
This link provides details about EPA's efforts to compare available 1996
monitored air toxics concentrations to estimates from the dispersion model.
This comparison helps EPA evaluate and refine its air quality models. Note
that many of the ambient concentrations estimated for 1996 are below
detectable limits of most available ambient monitoring equipment. In
addition, EPA does not have methods to monitor for 6 of the 33 pollutants
included in the assessment (acrolein, acrytonitrile, ethytene oxide,
hydrazine, coke oven emissions and quinoline). EPA was able to compare
available 1996 monitored air toxics concentrations to estimates from the
dispersion model for seven pollutants: benzene, perchloroethylene,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, cadmium, chromium and lead.
About the Model
To develop nationwide estimates of annual average ambient concentrations
of air toxics, EPA is using the Assessment System for Population Exposure
Nationwide (ASPEN) model (developed and used in EPA's Cumulative
Exposure Project). The scope of this national modeling effort is the
contiguous United States (i.e., excluding Alaska and Hawaii for this initial
assessment), Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The ASPEN model
simulates the impacts of atmospheric processes (winds, temperature,
atmospheric stability, etc.) on pollutants after they are emitted. The output
of this air dispersion model is an estimate of the annual average ambient
concentration of each air toxic pollutant at the centroid of each census tract
2 of 3
1/10/03 9:22 AM
-------
EPA - TIN ATW NATA - National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment
Wysiwyg://130/bttp://www,epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/draft6.html
Ratio
2-
1-
1/2-
1J4-
1/B-
1/16-
1)32-
>*
Figure 4. Ratio box plot showing distribution of model/monitor ratios for each pollutant. The
jbottom of each box is the 25 percentile, the top is the 75 percentile, and the horizontal line in
ithe middle is the median. See section III.A.ii for more details. Also note the number of sites
(summarized in each box plot (see Table 8 below). ,
For comparison to the results from historical literature (see section IV.A), the table below gives the
percentage of sites estimated within 30% and within a factor of 2. It also reports the percentage of sites
which are underestimated by the modeling system.
32 of 52
1/10/03 10:19 AM
-------
EPA - TIN ATW NATA - National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment
wy si wy g: //13 0/h ttp ://w ww .epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/drafl6 .html
| Table 8. Agreement of model and monitors by pollutant, on a point-to-point basis.
jCompare to Table 1.
Pollutant
Benzene
Perchloroethylene
Formaldehyde
Acetalrifihyrie
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium
Number of
Sites
87
44
32
32
242
20
' ~36
Median of
Ratios
0.93
0.53
0.66
0.62
0.18
0.18
0.15
Within
Factor of
2
89%
55%
53%
59%
18%
15%
28%
Within
30%
59%
32%
28%
22%
10%
5%
19%
Underestimated
59%
86%
88%
91%
91%
85%
83%
These results are
! surprising given the
results of the historical
studies, Only for benzene is there comparable agreement between our results and historical studies on a
point-to-point basis. The remainder of the pollutants show poor agreement on a point-to-point basis, with the
model estimates systematically lower than the monitor averages. From the ratio box plot graph, we can see
that this is especially true for the three metals, which all have ratio medians of less than 1/5. This means that
on average they are underestimated by more than a factor of 5. This is most interesting for lead, because
this is a well-studied criteria pollutant, for which we have extensive monitoring data as well as a detailed
emissions inventory.
Because past model-to-monitor studies (see section IV.A) show much better agreement than this particular
study, something must be different in this study compared to previous studies comparing model results to
monitor data . We do not feel that the underestimation is due to the model itself, because the model
employed here is very similar to the model used in all the historical studies. Possible explanations for the
systematic underestimation in this work include:
1. The emission rates are systematically underestimated and/or many sources are missing from the
emissions inventory.
2. Many of the monitors were likely sited to find peak concentrations. Often, the ambient concentration falls
off quickly around the peak area. Even under the scenario of a "perfect" model and "perfect" monitors, if the
monitor is situated right at the peak and the emissions or meteorological inputs are even slightly inaccurate,
the model will tend to underestimate results. This is especially likely for pollutants dominated by point
sources with elevated releases, because any errors in release height, exit velocity, and/or emissions location
will likely cause the model to find a peak concentration area different from the true peak.
The MAXTOMON statistic described in section III.B.iv is especially designed to investigate the second
explanation on why there seems to be a systematic underestimation by the model in this work.
B. Benzene.
33 of 52
I/IO/03 10:19 AM
-------
EPA - TIN ATW N ATA - National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment
Wysiwyg://130/http://www.epa.gov/ttn/at\v/nata/drafl6.html
The ratio box plot (Figure 4) and short list of statistics (Table 8) in the previous section show good agreement
between model output and monitor data for benzene. Below is the scatter plot.
Model to Monitor plot for Benzene
Model Cone.
6
5
4
3-
2-
I
2
3455
Moo i lor Concentra I ion
2001 Aspen Model concentrations vs 1996 Monitor Averages
\Figure 5. Model-to-monitor scatter plot for benzene. Most points fall within the factor of two
Iwedge, and none are far outside the wedge.
As expected from Figure 4 and Table 8, most of the points in the scatter
plot fall between the 2:1 and 1:2 lines. The high- concentration monitors
seem to be estimated less reliably. Most of the points falling outside the
"factor of 2 wedge" are those with high monitor concentrations. "Misses"
are both low and high, but note that none of the points "miss" by a large
margin. The largest model-to-monitor ratio is 2.45 and the smallest is 0.34,
so all monitors are estimated within a factor of three.
There are several reasons why we would expect good agreement between
model prediction and monitor results for benzene:
34 of 52
I/10/03 10:19 AM
-------
EPA - TTN ATW NATA - Background Concentrations
*
About the
Assessment
Frequently Asked
Questions
Results (Maps, Data,
Charts)
Emissions
Modeled Ambient
Concentrations
Modeled Human
Exposure
Estimated Risk
Limitations,
Variability,
& Uncertainty
Peer Review
Air Toxics Reduction
NATA Site Map
NATA Home
ATW Home
Wysiwyg://18/http ://w w w. epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/backcon. html
(
L/.S. Environmental Protection Afftncy
Technology Transfer Network
National Air Toxics Assessment
Contact Us | Print Varaion Search:
EPA Homa > (t |j fTllliillnn "
Concentrations
> Background
Background Concentrations
The emissions inventory and modeling methodologies in the national-scale
assessment are used to estimate long-term outdoor concentrations of air
toxics attributable to 1996 anthropogenic emissions, within 50 kilometers
of each source. For many toxic air pollutants, however, outdoor
concentrations should include "background" components attributable to
long-range transport, resuspension of historical emissions, and
nonanthropogenic sources. To accurately estimate 1996 outdoor
concentrations of air toxics, it is necessary to account for these
background concentrations that are not represented by atmospheric
modeling of 1996 anthropogenic emissions.
In this assessment, except for diesel PM, background concentrations are
based on monitored values identified in the Cumulative Exposure Project
(study which estimated 1990 ambient concentrations of air toxics). From
that study, EPA obtained background concentration values for 13 of the
toxic air pollutants which are added to the modeled concentrations for
these pollutants.
The total estimated concentration for each pollutant in each census tract is
determined by summing the estimated background concentrations and the
modeled concentrations. Because the available data are insufficient to
address any possible geographic variations in background, background
concentrations are assumed to be constant across all census tracts. For
pollutants whose background concentration values could not be identified
in the technical literature, the background concentrations are assumed to
be zero. This may result in underestimation of outdoor concentrations for
some toxic air pollutants. (See list of the background concentration
estimates for the 13 air toxics.)
For diesel PM, instead of using monitored air quality data to estimate
background concentrations, a modeling-based approach was used to
provide a rough approximation of concentrations due to transport from
sources located between 50 km and 300 km from the receptors.
I of 2
1/13/039:16 AM
-------
EPA - TTN ATW NATA - Background Concentration Estimates
wysiwyg://20/http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/haptbl.html
About the
Assessment
Frequently Asked
Questions
Results (Maps, Data,
Charts)
Emissions
Modeled Ambient
Concentrations
Modeled Human
Exposure
Estimated Risk
Limitations,
Variability,
& Uncertainty
Peer Review
Air Toxics Reduction
NATA Site Map
NATA Home
ATW Home
Technology Transfer Network
National Air Toxics Assessment
Contact Us I Print Version Search: j ^H
EPAHama > Air & Radiation > TTNWafa - Technology Tran«faf Natvwk > 4
Concentration Estimates
Background Concentration Estimates
I > Background
Pollutant
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethyiene dibromide
Ethylene dichloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachlorobenzene
Mercury compounds
Methylene chloride
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Perchloroethylene(Tetrachloroethylene)
Trichloroethytene
National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment
Background Concentration Estimates
Background
Concentration (M9/m3)
0.48
0.88
0.083
0.0077
0.061
0,25
.000093
0.15
0.14
Iof2
1/13/03 9:17 AM
-------
EPA - TTN ATW NATA - Results: Map of 1996 Modeled Ambient Concentrations http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?geo=USA&polM5201&c...ic
f£S* £i*¥fraiiiii*fttaf Protection Afftncy
Technology Transfer Network
National Air Toxics Assessment
Contact Us Search:
.T»chn(}loQV Transfer N«twoffc>/
Results: Map of 1996 Modeled Ambient Concentrations
These results have limitations (see below!
1996 Estimated County Median Ambient Concentrations
Benzene — United States Counties
Distribution of U.S. Ambient Concentrations
Hlgh««tlnU>S. ^^_ 4J6
95 ^^H 1.44
90 ^^^ K1* County Median Ambient Pollutant Concentration
jj'j" ( micrograms / cubic meter )
Percent! le
75
so
25
L»w»«t.1nU.£.
fl.57
0.48
Source: U.S. EPA / QAQPS
NATA Na t" on ol—Scale A'rToxfcs Assessment
Iof3
1/10/03 9:22 AM
-------
EPA - TTN ATW NATA - Results: Map of 1 996 Modeled Ambient Concentrations
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?geo=STTX&pol=45201 &...ice=nata&_progranv=nata.scl.cotrap.scl&_debup=2&nata2=l
S. £ftvfraitm*fifaf Protect/oil Afftncy
Technology Transfer Network
National Air Toxics Assessment
Contact Us Search:
Results: Map of 1996 Modeled Ambient Concentrations
These results have limitations (see below)
1996 Estimated County Median Ambient Concentrations
Benzene - TEXAS Counties
I
• -^^^-
r-~-lJjt:i
Distribution of U.S. Ambient Concentrations
Highest In U.S. ^^^ 4,76
95 ^^^
80 ^^^ '•''•'County Median Ambient Pollutant Concentration
n'«| ( micrograms / cubic meter )
Percent! le 75
so
25
Uw««tlnU.£.
0.57
o.4a
Source: US. EPA / QAQPS
NATA Nafionol-Scate Air Toxfcs Assessment
Iof3
1/10/03 9:23 AM
-------
FJPA - TTN ATW NATA - Results: Modeled Human Exposure
wysiwyg://82/http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/natsa3.htmI
About the
Assessment
U.S, Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Transfer Network
National Air Toxics Assessment
Contact Us | Print Version Search: | ^H
EPA Horn* > fifr t RiflitHttl * TTNWab - Technotoov Tran«far Network > i
Raaute > Modeled Human Exposure
Modeled Human Exposure
t > 1996 Aaaaamant
Frequently Asked
Questions
Results (Maps, Data,
Charts)
Emissions
Modeled Ambient
Concentrations
Modeled Human
Exposure
Estimated Risk
Limitations,
Variability,
& Uncertainty
Peer Review
Air Toxics Reduction
NATA Site Map
NATA Home
ATW Home
Health Effacte Criteria
This link provides cancer and non-cancer information which is associated
with each toxic air pollutant as well as a reference to the source of that
information.
Exposure Concenjjrftjgnf Map?
These maps allow you to view 1996 exposure concentration estimates (in
micrograms per cubic meter) based on the median concentration in each
county. You can select the entire U.S. or any State in the United States
(except Alaska and Hawaii) plus Puerto Rico and trie Virgin Islands. The
maps are color-coded (by percentile breakdown relative to the rest of the
country) to show how each county's median exposure concentration
compares to the rest of the U.S.
Exposure Concentrations Bar Charts
This link allows you to view three types of bar charts for each air pollutant:
1. A comparison of statewide exposure concentration estimates.
2. A representation of the contribution of each of the four major source
types as well as background estimates to each statewide average
exposure concentration estimate.
3. A chart for each State containing median exposure concentration
estimates for each pollutant.
Note that you need Adobe Acrobat 4.0 (or higher) to be able to correctly
view and print these bar charts. You can obtain this version free of charge
at: http://www.adobe.com/Droducts/acrobat/readstep.html.
I of 3
1/10/03 9:25 AM
-------
EPA - TIN ATW NATA - Results: Modeled Human Exposure
wysi wyg://8 2/http ://www .q3a.gov/ttn/atw/nata/natsa3 .html
Exposure Concentrations Data Tabto«
There are two types of tables you will be able to view from this link: one
type is organized so you can see exposure concentrations specific to an
individual pollutant, and the other is organized so you can see the median
exposure concentrations for each of the 32 air toxics and diesel PM for
each county in a State. All of these tables are available as either a
downloadable file in Excel Spreadsheet format or as an Adobe Acrobat pdf
file. Both types of tables contain information about exposure concentration
distributions (i.e., as percentiles) as well as a breakdown of exposure
concentrations into maior. area, onroad mobile and nonroad mobile and
background contributions. The county information includes a designation
as urban or rural.
Results of the Exposure Assessment at th«
C«nsu»-Trict/Countv/Stat« L«vdl
This link provides Excel spreadsheets (zipped files) of the individual
pollutant results at the census-tract, as well as county/state level. These
data are provided for those who wish to do their own technical analyses
and comparisons using the most refined output available from this
national-scale assessment. In performing such analyses, it is extremely
important that users be mindful of the purposes for which the
national-scale assessment was developed. In our judgment, it would be
inappropriate to use these results alone to draw conclusions about local
concentrations and risk. The results are most meaningful when viewed at
the State or national level. There are important limitations that affect how
the data should be used and interpreted. These limitations are related to
gaps in emissions data, limitations in the computer models used, and
limitations in the overall design of the assessment (intended to address
some questions but not others). Please see the limitations section of this
website for more details.
About the Exposure Model (HAPEM4)
The HAPEM4 model has been designed to predict the "apparent"
inhalation exposure for specified population groups and air toxics. Through
a series of calculation routines, the model makes use of census data,
human activity patterns, ambient air quality levels, climate data, and
indoor/outdoor concentration relationships to estimate an expected range
of "apparent" inhalation exposure concentrations for groups of individuals.
Further technical details about the model are available.
2 of 3
• 7
t/10/03 9:25 AM
-------
EPA - TTN ATW NATA - Results: Map of 1996 Modeled Exposure Concentrations http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?g«j=USA&pol^520l&c...ice^
gftvlfoftm+ftfaf Protection Agency
Technology Transfer Network
National Air Toxics Assessment
Contact Us Search:
EPA Horn* > Air ft Radiation > TTNWab - Tschnoloav Transfer Network >
Results: Map of 1996 Modeled Exposure Concentrations
These results have limitations (see below)
1996 Estimated County Median Exposure Concentration
Benzene - United States Counties
SaeramM
Distribution of U.S. Inhalation Exposure Concentration
Hlgheetln U.S. ^^_ 4J3
95 ^^H 1.4-4-
25
L0w«>tln U.S.
Q5Q4-
o
Source: U.S. EPA / OAQPS
^4ATA Notional— Scale Air Toxics Assessment
I of 3
1/10/03 9:25 AM
-------
EPA -TTN ATW NATA - Results: Map of 1996 Modeled Exposure Concentrations http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broka?geo=STTX&poM5201^
fnvlroAiitftfifa/Protection Agency
Technology Transfer Network
National Air Toxics Assessment
Search:
EPAHtxn? > Air & Radiation > TTNWab - TachnBtoov Tfanafar Nrtwnft > Ak Tpxica Wabaifr > National Air Toxica ASM
Human Exposure > Maps
Results: Map of 1996 Modeled Exposure Concentrations
These results have limitations (see below)
1996 Estimated County Median Exposure Concentration
Benzene — TEXAS Counties
Distribution of U.S. ki halation Exposure Concentration
Percent! le
rercentue
M€dbn Exl)Oure Concentration
meter
Source: US. EPA / QA/QPS
N4TA No t'onal- Scale Air Toxics Assessment
Iof3
1/10/03 9:26 AM
-------
EPA - TTN ATW NATA - Results: Estimated Risk
About the
Assessment
wysiwyg://93/http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/natsa4.html
U.S. Eft vJrojimofifaf Protection Agtncy
Technology Transfer Network
National Air Toxics Assessment
Contact Us | Print Version Search: I ^H
EPA Hpfne > Ak * Radiaton > TTNWab - Tachnotoov Transfer Network > Aif Toxka Watoto > I
Rflftute > Estimated Risk
Estimated Risk
Frequently Asked
Questions
Results (Maps, Data,
Charts)
Emissions
Modeled Ambient
Concentrations
Modeled Human
Exposure
Estimated Risk
Limitations,
Variability,
& Uncertainty
Peer Review
Air Toxics Reduction
NATA Site Map
NATA Home
ATW Home
Summary of Results
1 Background on Risk Characterization
What about Diesel PM?
• Health Effects Criteria
•Maps
• Bar Charts
• Spreadsheets
Summary of Results
This link provides an overview of the results of the risk characterization.
Background on Risk Characterization
This link provides general background on risk characterization in a question
and answer format.
What about Diesel PM?
This link provides information about the potential risk from diesel exhaust
emissions.
Health Effects Criteria
This link provides cancer and non-cancer information which is associated
with each toxic air pollutant as well as a reference to the source of that
information. EPA used these quantitative health effects criteria to develop
the cancer and non-cancer risk levels shown on the bar charts and maps.
Risk Maps
This link allows you to select a map showing estimated cumulative cancer
or non-cancer risk by county (U.S. maps or State map) due to inhalation of
toxic air pollutants. You can also view the cancer or non-cancer risk for
individual pollutants.
I of 2
1/10/03 9:35 AM
-------
EPA - TTN ATW NATA - Results: Estimated Risk
wysiwyg://93^ttp://www.q3a.gov/ttn/atw/nata/natsa4.html
Air TcxScs R;sk Characterization Bgr Chart*
This links to groupings of bar charts (28 total) that depict summary
information related to the risk characterization. Note that you need Adobe
Acrobat 4.0 to be able to print these bar charts. You can obtain this version
free of charge at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html.
R««ultm f th« Risk Assessment it the C«nsu8-Tract/Countv/StatQ
This link provides Excel spreadsheets (zipped files) of the individual
pollutant results at the census-tract, as well as county/state level. These
data are provided for those who wish to do their own technical analyses and
comparisons using the most refined output available from this
national-scale assessment. In performing such analyses, it is extremely
important that users be mindful of the purposes for which the national-scale
assessment was developed. In our judgment, it would be inappropriate to
use these results alone to draw conclusions about local concentrations and
risk. The results are most meaningful when viewed at the State or national
level. There are important limitations that affect how the data should be
used and interpreted. These limitations are related to gaps in emissions
data, limitations in the computer models used, default assumptions in the
risk assessment and limitations in the overall design of the assessment
(intended to address some questions but not others). Please see the
limitations section of this website for more details.
Frequently Asked Questions
Glossary of Terms I Site Map
EPA Home I Privacy and Security Notice I Contact Us
Last updated on Thursday, December 19th, 2002
URL: http://www.epa.90v/ttn/atw/nata/natsa4.html
2 of 2
1/10/039:35 AM
-------
EPA - TTN ATW NATA - NATA Glossary of Terms
http://www.epa.gov/rtn/atw/nata/gloss.html
1 in a Million Cancer Risk:
A risk level of 1 in a million implies a likelihood that up to one
person, out of one million equally exposed people would contract
cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) to the specific
concentration over 70 years (an assumed lifetime). This would be in
addition to those cancer cases that would normally occur in an
unexposed population of one million people. Note that this
assessment looks at lifetime cancer risks, which should not be
confused with or compared to annual cancer risk estimates. If you
would like to compare an annual cancer risk estimate with the
results in this assessment, you would need to multiply that annual
estimate by a factor of 70 or alternatively divide the lifetime risk by a
factor of 70. A1 in million lifetime risk to the public in 1996 was 250
cancer cases over a 70 year period.
"N" in a Million Cancer Risk:
A risk level of "N" in a million implies a likelihood that up to "N"
people, out of one million equally exposed people would contract
cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) to the specific
concentration over 70 years (an assumed lifetime). This would be in
addition to those cancer cases that would normally occur in an
unexposed population of one million people. Note that this
assessment looks at lifetime cancer risks, which should not be
confused with or compared to annual cancer risk estimates. If you
would like to compare an annual cancer risk estimate with the
results in this assessment, you would need to multiply that annual
estimate by a factor of 70 or alternatively divide the lifetime risk by a
factor of 70.
Activity Pattern Data:
In an inhalation exposure assessment, activity pattern data depict
both the actual physical activity (including an associated inhalation
exertion level), the physical location, and the time of the day the
activity takes place (e.g., sleeping at home at midnight, jogging in
the park at 8 a.m., or driving in a car at 6 p.m.). The HAPEM4
model extracts activity pattern data from the EPA's Comprehensive
Human Activity Database (CHAD).
Air toxics:
Also known as toxic air pollutants or hazardous air pollutants are
those pollutants known to or suspected of causing cancer or other
serious health problems. Health concerns may be associated with
both short and long term exposures to these pollutants. Many are
known to have respiratory, neurological, immune or reproductive
effects, particularly for more susceptible sensitive populations such
lof II
1/13/03 9:18 AM
-------
EPA - TIN ATW NATA - Results: Map of 1996 Modeled Risk
http://www.epa.gDv/cgi-bin/brokert geo=USA&|x>l^520I^
1/.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Transfer Network
National Air Toxics Assessment
ji
Contact Us Search:
EPAHoma > Air & Radiation > TTNWab - Tachnqtogy Transfer NaNmrk > i
Bisk > Maps
Results: Map of 1996 Modeled Risk
These results have limitations (see below)
1996 Estimated County Median Cancer Risk
Benzene - United States Counties
Upper-Bound Lifetime Cancer Risk
100 In a million
30 In a million
10 In a million
3 In a million
1 In a million
3 In a mil lion
Source: US* EPA / OAQPS
NATA Nat'onal-Scale Afr Toxics Assessment
I of 3
1/10/03 9:36 AM
-------
EPA - TTN ATW NATA - Remits: Mao of 1996 Modeled Risk
http://www.epa.gov/cg>bin/broker?geo=STTX&pol^
ie^g2
U£, £»¥lrafii9i*fif»l Protection Agtiicy
Technology Transfer Network
National Air Toxics Assessment
ji
Contact Us Search:
EPAHoma > Air & Radiation > JJNWa^ •.ffdinology Tranafar Network > Air Tmdca Wabafta > National Ajf TOBttt A««*««'T Result*
Results: Map of 1996 Modeled Risk
These results have limitations (see below)
1966 Estimated County Median Cancer Risk
Benzene - TEXAS Counties
ton
Upper—Bound Lifetime Cancer Risk
HI 00 In a million
30 In a million
10 In a million
3 In a million
1 In a million
_3 In a mil lion
0
Source: U.S. EPA/QAQPS
NATA Nat'onol-Scale A'r Toxics Assessment
I of 3
1/10/03 9:37 AM
-------
TIT
e
N
»
CO
o
0)
01
8
01
£
I
(0
U
01
0
-------
CO CO'OO CMiCM
co I co' co! co i co
-------
Texas - Benlfhe Exposure Concentration
T«x«s
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Statewide
State Urban Counties
State Rural Counties
Anderson County
Andrews County
Harris County
Jefferson County
Bexar County
Dallas County
Galveston County
Tarrant County
.
U
R
R
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
s from Varioi
Expo. Conce
•
Median
1.07E+000
1.20E+000
5.12E-001
6.25E-001
5.61E-001
2.08E+000
1.65E+000
1.62E+000
1.59E+000
1.30E+000
1.28E+000
js Sources f<
n.
Average
1.2SE+000
1.32E+000
5.71E-001
6.37E-001
6.02E-001
2.12E+000
1.79E+000
1.63E+000
1.60E+000
1.91E+000
1.30E+000
>r"Selected H
Major
9.71E-002
1.07E-001
7.26E-003
1.44E-003
1.70E-004
3.50E-001
6.66E-001
4.21E-002
3.17E-003
9.09E-001
2.43E-003
igh concentr
Contribution to /
Area and Other
5.74E-002
5.77E-002
5.42E-002
5.61E-002
1.50E-001
1.40E-001
1.06E-001
2.22E-002
3.18E-002
7.38E-002
2.41E-002
ation Counti<
Vveragefrom ...
Onroad Mobile
S.7SE-001
6.29E-001
9.78E-002
1.69E-001~I
3.46E-002
9.81E-001
5.33E-001
1.03E+000
9.44E-001
4.16E-001
7.40E-001
es
Nonroad Mobile
1.21E-001
1.32E-001
1.37E-002
8.92E-003
1.71E-002
2.47E-001
844E-002
1.41E-001
2.25E-001
1.21E-001
1.32E-001
estimated'
Background
3.98E-001
3.98E-001
3.98E-001
4.02E-001
4.00E-001
3.99E-001
4.00E-001
3.96E-CG1
3.97E-001
3.93E-001
3.97E-001
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Statewide
State Urban Counties
State Rural Counties
Anderson County
Andrews County
Harris County
Jefferson County
Bexar County
Dallas County
Galveston County
Tarrant County
.
U
R
R
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Exp.(micro-gram/m3 )
Median
1.07
1.20
0.51
0.62
0.55
2.08
1.65
1.62
1.59
1.30
1.28
Average
1.25
1.32
0.57
0.64
0.60
2.12
1.79
1.63
1.60
1.91
1.30
% Contribution to Average from
Major
7.78
8.10
1.27
0.23
0.03
16.53
37.22
2. 58
0.20
47.54
0.19
Area and Other
4.60
4.36
9.48
8.81
24.94
6.63
5.91
1.36
1.99
3.86
Onroad Mobile
46.08
47.48
17.12
26.47
5.75
46.36
29.77
63.17
58.98
21.72
1.86 1 57.13
Nonroad Mobile
9.66
10.00
2.41
1.40
2.83
11.65
4.72
8.63
14.05
6.34
10.19
Estimated
Background
31.86
30.03
69.73
63.08
66.45
18.85
22.35
24.30
24.80
20.53
30.63
7 7
-------
Bexar uounty
Sources of Exposure - Benzene
24.3°/c
8.6°/c
2.6% 1.40/0
63.1%
l j
Major
Area and Other
Onroad Mobile
Nonroad Mobile
Estimated Background
-------
uaiveston county
Sources of Exposure - Benzene
20.5%
6.3%
47.5%
Major
Area and Other
Onroad Mobile
Nonroad Mobile
Estimated Background
21.7%
3.9%
-------
Anderson County
1
Sources of Exposure - Benzene
0.2% ago/o
63.1%
26.5%
Major
Area and Other
Onroad Mobile
Nonroad Mobile
Estimated Background
-------
National Air Pollution Risk Assessment - All Pollutants
State
National
National
National
County
All
All Urban Countie
All Rural Countie!
Lifetime Can
Median
45.00
51.80
26.20
;er Risk - No.
Average
55.22
60.68
30.58
of cases per
Major
2.99
3.43
1.05
million persor
Area and Other
12.57
14.17
5.31
s
Onroad Mobile
12.27
14.31
3.05
Nonroad Mobile
7.44
8.82
1.17
Estimated
Background
19.96
19.95
20.01
Percentage
Major
5.42
5.64
3.42
Breakdown
Area and Other
22.76
23.35
17.36
Onroad Mobile
22.22
23.58
9.96
Nonroad Mobile
13.46
14.54
3.81
Estimated
Background
36.15
32.88
65.43
-------
^k m jMh MM • -*>fc. •<•* •*"•• •
IHClLIUIICtl
Sources of Exposure - All Pollutants
5.4%
36.1%
22.8%
22.2%
I Major
I Area and Other
I Onroad Mobile
J Nonroad Mobile
I Estimated Background
13.5%
-------
National - Urban
Sources of Exposure - All Polutants
5.6%
32.9%
23.4%
Major
Area and Other
Onroad Mobile
Nonroad Mobile
Estimated Background
14.5%
23.6%
-------
Ndtiuiict! - Rural
Sources of Exposure - All Pollutants
3.4%
17.4%
65.4%
10.0%
Major
Area and Other
Onroad Mobile
Nonroad Mobile
Estimated Background
3.8%
•t
-------
Comparison QTCancer Incidence Data (SEER/NCI) and NATA LifetimeCancer Risk Estimates, All Cancers
leuar
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
State
Rhode Island
New Jersey
Michigan
Massachusetts
Washington
Connecticut
Kentucky
Florida
West Virginia
Delaware
Pennsylvania
Oregon
Ohio
Maryland
Iowa
Minnesota
Idaho
Louisiana
Kansas
South Carolina
New Hampshire
New York
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Illinois
Missouri
North Dakota
California
Colorado
Wyoming
Montana
North Carolina
Utah
New Mexico
Arizona
No. of
Incidences, per
100,000
507
475
467
467
464
464
463
458
456
455
452
451
439
439
438
437
435
434
434
433
432
429
429
427
424
423
407
406
402
401
398
396
376
365
365
Lifetime cancer
Risk, per million
46.5
61.9
53.9
57.7
45.6
53.5
29.9
40.8
32.6
52.5
54.6
39.0
51.9
53.3
26.9
58.9
28.5
37.2
29.5
36.9
33.9
78.7
29.4
43.3
64.0
39.2
21.5
62.0
43.7
23.9
23.9
42.0
45.6
31.1
45.5
Rank
22
25
28
2
16
4
11
3
6
14
10
13
1
33
5
35
29
24
32
8
26
12
18
20
21
9
34
7
19
23
17
15
31
30
27
State
New York
Illinois
California
New Jersey
Minnesota
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Connecticut
Maryland
Delaware
Ohio
Rhode Island
Utah
Washington
Arizona
Colorado
Wisconsin
North Carolina
Florida
Missouri
Oregon
Louisiana
South Carolina
New Hampshire
West Virginia
New Mexico
Kentucky
Kansas
Nebraska
Idaho
Iowa
Montana
Wyoming
North Dakota
No. of
Incidences, per
100,000
429
424
406
475
437
467
452
467
464
439
455
439
507
376
464
365
402
427
396
458
423
451
434
433
432
456
365
463
434
429
435
438
398
401
407
Lifetime cancer
Risk, per million
78.7
64.0
62.0
61.9
58.9
57.7
54.6
53.9
53.5
53.3
52.5
51.9
46.5
45.6
45.6
45.5
43.7
43.3
42.0
40.8
39.2
39.0
37.2
36.9
33.9
32.6
31.1
29.9
29.5
29.4
28.5
26.9
23.9
23.9
21.5
-------
Lifetime Cancer Risk (NATA) Vs 1999 Cancer Incidences (SEER/NCI)
85
80
^ 75
c
o yn
o 60
a
a>
v) 5Q
§45
£ 40
cr
$> 35
o
c
TO
O
o
30
10
5
0
•-I
i i
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Cancer incidences per 100,000 Persons
450
500
550
For 35 Selected States
-------
Comparison
cor Mortality Rates (NCI) and NATA Lifetime Cancer Risk Estimates, All Cancers
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
State
Delaware
Maryland
Rhode Island
New Jersey
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Louisiana
New York
Ohio
Kentucky
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Illinois
Connecticut
Michigan
Missouri
California
South Carolina
Washington
Oregon
Wisconsin
Florida
North Carolina
Iowa
Montana
Arizona
Nebraska
Minnesota
Kansas
North Dakota
Wyoming
New Mexico
Idaho
Colorado
Utah
Mortality Rate,
per 100,000
190.2
189.4
189.4
188.3
186.4
186
182.9
181.6
181.4
181.4
179.4
178
177.8
176.9
175.9
171.7
171.6
168.9
168.4
167.3
165.5
165.1
164.7
163.7
159.9
159.9
158.6
158.3
157.8
151.6
150.7
149.9
147.5
147.3
127.2
Lifetime cancer
Risk, per million
52.5
53.3
46.5
61.9
57.7
33.9
37.2
78.7
51.9
29.9
54.6
32.6
64.0
53.5
53.9
39.2
62.0
36.9
45.6
39.0
43.3
40.8
42.0
26.9
23.9
45.5
29.4
58.9
29.5
21.5
23.9
31.1
28.5
43.7
45.6
Rank
8
13
17
4
28
5
11
15
14
2
1
9
3
19
35
26
34
21
23
22
16
20
7
18
6
12
32
10
29
27
33
24
25
31
30
State
New York
Illinois
California
New Jersey
Minnesota
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Connecticut
Maryland
Delaware
Ohio
Rhode Island
Washington
Utah
Arizona
Colorado
Wisconsin
North Carolina
Florida
Missouri
Oregon
Louisiana
South Carolina
New Hampshire
West Virginia
New Mexico
Kentucky
Kansas
Nebraska
Idaho
Iowa
Montana
Wyoming
North Dakota
Mortality Rate,
per 100,000
181.6
177.8
171.6
188.3
158.3
186.4
179.4
175.9
176.9
189.4
190.2
181.4
189.4
168.4
127.2
159.9
147.3
165.5
164.7
165.1
171.7
167.3
182.9
168.9
186
178
149.9
181.4
157.8
158.6
147.5
163.7
159.9
150.7
151.6
Lifetime cancer
Risk, per million
78.7
64.0
62.0
61.9
58.9
57.7
54.6
53.9
53.5
53.3
52.5
51.9
46.5
45.6
45.6
45.5
43.7
43.3
42.0
40.8
39.2
39.0
37.2
36.9
33.9
32.6
31.1
29.9
29.5
29.4
28.5
26.9
23.9
23.9
21.5
-------
c
o
,
: 1_
a
o
to
co
0
x.
(0
a:
0}
o
c
(0
! o
E'
w_
^p
HI
4=
'J
— •"•
DC
OD
on
OU
7C
» 0
Tn
/U
cc
DO
on
DU
RR
DO
en,
OU
xc
4O
A(\
4U
oc
OO
Qn
oU
oc
/lO
on
ZU
•1 R
10
•i n
1U
(
Lifetime Cancer Risk (NATA) Vs Cancer Mortality Rates (NC!)
•
* *
* *
*** ^
« * * *
I
* *
• *
• •*
• *
•
) 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2(
Cancer Deaths per 100,000 Persons per Year
i
30
For 35 Selected States
-------
Texas -C
ompaWson
of Lifetime Cancer Risk (NATA) and NCI Cancer (Mortality Rates, Benzene
Mori
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
105
123
211
212
229
County
Harris
Jefferson
Bexar
Dallas
Galveston
Tarrant
Brazos
Travis
El Paso
Collin
Gregg
Denton
Nuecess
Fort Bend
Smith
Ector
Midland
Montgomery
Orange
Taylor
Hidalgo
Bell
Rockwall
McLannan
Harrison
Bowis
Willamson
Hardin
Erath
Robertson
Reagan
Glasscock
Oldham
Exposure
Concentrat
ion
2.08
1.65
1.62
1.59
1.3
1.28
1.26
1.24
1.18
1.17
1.1
1.09
1.08
1.07
1.06
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.01
0.98
0.95
0.89
0.88
0.84
0.83
0.82
0.81
0.8
0.57
0.52
0.43
0.43
0.42
Lifetime
Cancer
Risk,per
million
16.66
13.16
12.99
12.74
10.41
10.26
10.06
9.94
9.42
9.33
8.77
8.73
8.62
8.54
8.46
8.4
8.39
8.37
8.08
7.68
7.56
7.13
7.07
6.73
6.66
6.57
6.47
6.39
4.57
4.16
3.43
3.43
3.35
NCI Cancer
Mortality Rate,
per 100,000
175.95
181.5
166.86
176.4
200.51
178.43
151.74
161.49
151.06
153.92
181.19
163.27
174.34
161.86
170.33
170.52
152.25
180.88
181.95
156.1
114.38
154.82
159.48
165.76
163.18
172.13
155.28
167.42
141.83
170.19
187.26
189.87
199.35
Rank
5
229
212
211
19
2
11
18
6
4
1
13
26
16
15
123
28
3
24
12
25
14
8
23
20
27
22
10
17
7
9
105
21
County
Galveston
Oldham
Glasscock
Reagan
Orange
Jefferson
Gregg
Montgomery
Tarrant
Dallas
Harris
Nuecess
Bowis
Ector
Smith
Robertson
Hardin
Bexar
McLannan
Denton
Harrison
Fort Bend
Travis
Rockwall
Taylor
Willamson
Bell
Collin
Midland
Brazos
El Paso
Erath
Hidalgo
Exposure
Concentrat
ion
1.3
0.42
0.43
0.43
1.01
1.65
1.1
1.05
1.28
1.59
2.08
1.08
0.82
1.05
1.06
0.52
0.8
1.62
0.84
1.09
0.83
1.07
1.24
0.88
0.98
0.81
0.89
1.17
1.05
1.26
1.18
0.57
0.95
Lifetime
Cancer
Risk, per
million
10.41
3.35
3.43
3.43
8.08
13.16
8.77
8.37
10.26
12.74
16.66
8.62
6.57
8.4
8.46
4.16
6.39
12.99
6.73
8.73
6.66
8.54
9.94
7.07
7.68
6.47
7.13
9.33
8.39
10.06
9.42
4.57
7.56
i
NCI Cancer
Mortality Rate,
per 100,000
200.51
199.35
189.87
187.26
181.95
181.5
181.19
180.88
178.43
176.4
175.95
174.34
172.13
170.52
170.33
170.19
167.42
166.86
165.76
163.27
163.18
161.86
161.49
159.48
156.1
155.28
154.82
153.92
152.25
151.74
151.06
141.83
114.38
------- |