Human Exposure to Atmospheric
Concentration of Selected Chemicals. Volume I
Sy stein;s Applications, Ine .
San Rafael, CA
Prepared for
>Eiiv4rdJaaient,al Protection Agency
triangle Park^ NC
1980
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
NTIS
-------
r ,1
; *' Human
To Atmospheric Concentrations
Of S6jected
Offfce of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Environmental Prdtectiojn Agency
Research
-------
TECHNICAL RIPORT DATA ,
(Ptttti fttd Initnictloni OH thi mint otfon compleitntl
3, MClPllNT'
TT
4, TITLB ANOIUBTITLI
Human Expogure to Atmospheric Concentrations of
Selected Chemicals, Volume X
8, HIPORTOATI
8, PERFORMING OHOANIJtATION CODC
7, AUf HORJlT
B, PIHPORMING ORGANIZATION RIPOUT NO,
D, PiPIPOPlMINO ORGANIZATION NAMt AND ADDRESS
Systems Applications, Inc.
San Rafael, CA 94903
10, PNOQAAM ELSMINT NO,
11. CONTP1ACT/QRANT NO,
19. IPONBOPUNG AOflNCV NAMI AND AOOPIESS
Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards
Environmental Protaction Agency
RTF, N.C, 27711
13, rVPfl OP rtHPOBT AND PBftlOD COVBHSO
14, BPONdORlNG AOBNCV CODS
IS, •UPPLIMINTANV NOTB8
10. ABBTHACT
Population exposure was estimated for 29 selected chemicals or groups of
chemicals emitted into the ambient air, The exposure assessments Identify types
and locations of sources of air pollution; estimate emissions, ambient concen-
trations, and surrounding populations; and provide rough order-of-magnitude
estimates of the number of people exposed to various concentrations of the
Individual chemicals on a nationwide basis.
This study was performed by Systems Applications, Incorporated, under the
sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The work was completed
as of May 1980,
17,
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DE9CPHPTOHB
b.lDENTlFIBRS/OPeN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Flold/Gioup
IB. OlSTruAuTlOPJ STATEMENT
Release to Public
IB. SECURITY CLASS (This Rtport)'
unclassified
21. No, OF PAGES
20, SECURITY CLASS (TMspagt)
unclaasifled
23. PRICE
EPA
(*•«• 4-77) »Atv>ioui
n oaioLcri
I -
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUM.ENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED
FROM THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY
THE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT
IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS
ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED
IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
SAI
Human Exposure
To Atmospheric Concentrations
Of Selected Chemicals
Volume I
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
SAI HUMAN EXPOSURE TO ATMOSPHERIC CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED CHEMICALS
ERRATA SHEET
Values for the reaction rate constants found on page 73 of the SAI Report
"Human Exposure to Atmospheric Concentrations of Selected Chemicals" were used to
estimate population exposure for 21 of the 35 chemicals evaluated. The computer
program used to estimate population exposure requires reaction rate constants to
be calculated on a decay per second basis. However, the values presented on page
73 were specified in decay per minute units. In some cases, this error resulted
in an underestimation of exposure and dosage estimates by as much as a factor of
ten. Corrected factors for the affected chemicals follow:
Acetaldehyde 7.3 x 10" sec"
Acrolein 1.6 x 10"4 sec"1, 5.0 x 10"6 sec"1
Allyl Chloride 3,0 x 10~5 sec"1, 1.5 x 10"6 sec"1
Benzyl chloride 2.8 x 10" sec"
Chlorobenzene 4.67 x 10" sec"
Chloroprene 7.6 x 10" sec " , 2.0 x 10" sec"
m-Cresol 1 .68 x 10"4 sec"1, 1.0 x 10"6 sec"1
p-Cresol 1.41 x 10"4 sec'1, 1.0 x 10"6 sec"1
o-Cresol 1.41 x 10"4 sec"1, 1.0 x 10"6 sec"1
o-Dichlorobenzene 7.5 x 10" sec" , 5.0 x 10" sec"
p-Dichlorobenzene 7.5 x 10" sec" , 5.0 x 10" sec"
Ethylene Oxide 1.4 x 10" sec"
Formaldehyde 4.2 x 10" sec"
PCB 7.0 x 10"5 sec"1
Phenol 2.95 x 10"5 sec"1, 1.5 x 10"6 sec"1
Propylene Oxide 1.4 x 10" sec"
Toluene 2.8 x 10 sec"
Trichloroethylene 2.8 x 10 sec"
m-Xylene 1.12 x 10"4 sec"1
p-Xylene 1.12 x 10"4 sec'1
o-Xylene 5.6 x 10"5 sec"1
-------
CONTENTS
Page
FIGURES Hi
TABLES , - 1v
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ,.,., 1
2. DATA BASES , : ,,,,,, 37
Emissions Data , , 37
Meteorological Data . 46
Population Distribution Data Bases., 55
Atmospheric Transformations of Toxic Compounds 65
3. EXPOSURE-DOSAGE ESTIMATION APPROACH 94
Major (Specific) Point Sources 94
Prototype Point Source Exposure and Dosage Estimations-.. 120
Area Source Modeling Approach 144
4. UNCERTAINTIES , 203
Uncertainties Involved in Emissions Estimations 203
Uncertainties 1n Exposure/Dosage Estimations 204
REFERENCES 226
APPENDICES
m
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 List of Chemicals for Human Exposure/Dosage Estimation 6
2 Rank Order Listing of Chemicals by Total Emissions 20
3 Rank Order Listing of the Top Twenty Sites by Total
Emissions With Individual Chemical Contribution 21
4 Studied Chemicals Ranked by Estimated Total U.S. Dosage 26
5 Top Twenty Major Point Sources Ranked by Total Dosage 27
6 Location and Recording Period of STAR Stations in the
Reprocessed File 74
7 Location of Six Major Chenical-Emitti ng Sources 51
8 Location of Selected STAR Station of Specific
Point Sources 82
9 Selected STAR Stations for PCB Incinerators 54
10 Selected STAR Stations Representing Various
Cl imatological Conditions 56
11 Distribution of ED/BGs With Population Centroids
Located Outside Their Corresponding Counties 63
12 Decay Rate Estimation Categories for 25 Chemicals 69
13 Photochemical Reactivities of Selected Chemicals 73
14 Pasquill-Gifford Stability Classes Used in Point
Sources Analysis 104
15 Sequence of Input Data Cards for Progran Gauss 110
16 Chloroprene Concentration Pattern Around the Denka
Plant at Houston 116
Preceding page blank
-------
TABLES (Continued)
i
Number Page
17 Nationwide Trichloroethylene Emissions from Solvent
Degreasers „ 121
18 1970 Population Density and Number of Trichloroethylene-
Using Degreasers in the Nine Geographic Regions 124
19 Major Parameters and Concentration-Dosage Results of
Dm form Emissions Approach 125
20 Emissions Parameters for Generic Point Sources of
Tri chl oroethyl ene 127
21 Thrichloroethylene Concentration Pattern Around a Model
Open Top Vapor Degreaser In New England Region 128
22 Land Areas for Specified Concentration Centers 129
23 Population Exposure to Trichloroethylene Emitted from
a Model Degreaser 132
24 Trichloroethylene Dosage Resulting from a Model
Degreaser Emissions. . 135
25 Nationwide Trichloroethylene Exposure Resulting from
Emissions from Degreaslng Operations 140
26 Nationwide Trichloroethylene Dosage Resulting from
Emissions from Degreaslng Operations 141
27 Nationwide Trichloroethylene Exposures and Dosages
Resulting from Emissions from Different Types of
Degreasing Facilities . 142
28 Exposure/Dosage Analysis Data Base for Type I City
Areas Sources 180
29 Exposure/Dosage Analysis Data Base for Type II City
Area Sources 192
30 Exposure/Dosage Analysis Data Base for Type III City
Area Sources 199
31 Major State Statistics Related to Area Source Emissions
Distribution 151
32 Major Parameters for Estimating Exposure/Dosage Result-
Ing from Area Source Emissions of Beryllium 155
vi
-------
TABLES (Concluded)
Number Page
33 Beryllium Exposure and Dosage Resulting from Area
Source Emissions 1n Type I Cities ........... . ....... ...... 156
34 Beryllium Exposure and Dosage Resulting from Area
Source Emissions 1n Type II Cities ..... . ........... . ...... 168
35 Beryllium Exposure and Dosage Resulting from Area Source
Emissions In Type III Cities .............................. 175
36 Summary of Beryllium Exposure and Dosage Resulting From
Area Source Emissions .....................................
37 Definition of Uncertainty Levels 1n Chemleal Source
Locations and Emissions Estimations ................. »...., 206
38 Levels of Uncertainty for Assessed Chemicals ..... ...... ..... 207
39 Percentage of Change In Dosage from Base Case
Resulting From Location Shift ............................ . 224
40 Percentage of Change 1n Exposure from Base Case
Resulting From Location Shift. ............... . ............ 224
-------
SECTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Recent federal legislation has responded to the increased public
awareness of and concern about the public health danger of man-made chemi-
cals in the environment. These laws have, in turn, placed more responsi-
bility on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess the need for
regulatory control over the sources of these chemicals. Assessment of the
need for additional control requires information about the chemicals,
their interaction with the environment, and their health impacts on the
human population. As part of a continuing effort by the EPA to fulfill
this information need, the Strategies and Air Standards Division of the
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards has commissioned the
study of human exposures to atmospheric concentrations of selected chemi-
cals that is reported here.
Chemicals such as those analyzed in this program are subject to con-
trol through several different legal and regulatory mechanisms. However,
regardless of the regulatory approach that is utilized, issues pertaining
to the health effects of the chemicals indicate the need for development
of the following information:
> Quantities of pollutants emitted
> Population at risk
> Chemical and physical properties of the chemicals
> Danger to public health.
-------
Thus, in support of the primary goal of estimating human exposure to
the given chemicals. It was necessary to quantify emissions of the chemi-
cals and to estimate the chemical and physical properties of the sub-
stances.
This study of human exposure to certain chemicals is one element of a
health risk assessment. Health risk depends on:
> The effect on human health of exposure to a pollutant
> The patterns of pollutant concentration
> The human population exposed to the pollutant patterns.
Since this program does not address the development or use of a health
effects model, it is not known what peculation factors (e.g., age, sex,
occupation, racial background), environmental factors (e.g., climate,
diet, chemical reactions), and exposure factors (e.g., duration and dosage
of exposure, concentration threshold, concentration level) are impor-
tant. Accordingly, the methodologies developed for use in our study are
designed to accommodate the guantification of such effects in future
studies.
The results of this study are expressed in terms of both the human
population exposed to different concentration levels of each substance and
U 3 dosage potential (here called dosage) for the exposed population. As
used in this program, exposure is the number of people whose breathing
space contains the given pollutant at a specified concentration. Dosage
is not the quantity absorbed by human bodies, but for this program merely
the potential dosage measured by a concentration multiplied by the number
of people exposed. Both exposure and dosage are presented in annual
terms.
-------
THE STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY TEAM
The study of human exposure and dosage to atmospheric concentrations
of the selected chemicals involves three major aspects, which may be for-
mulated in terms of "what, where, and who" questions:
> What material is released to the atmosphere?
> Where does the material qo?
> Who receives the material at the places it reaches?
Each of these three program elements was addressed by a specific study
group:
> Systems Applications, Incorporated (SAI)--SAI managed the
program and developed and carried out all transport and
dispersion analyses (where); defined and executed the
exposure/dosage computations (who); and undertook all
auxiliary studies, such as the species monographs,
reactivity studies, etc.
> Hydroscience, Incorporated (Hl)--HI performed all emis-
sions work (what), determining the locations, processes,
emission characteristics, and emission rates of all
sources of the studied pollutants.
> Minimax Research Corporation (MRC)--MRC created the popu-
lation data file (who) and the computer program used to
interpolate population concentration data and calculate
exposure-dosage.
The Principal Investigator of the program was Gerald Anderson of SAI,
and the SAI program associate manager was Chung Liu. Hoi-Ying Holman
(SAI) carried out the programming of the "matrix modeling." The associate
•anager for emissions studies was Dwight Erickson of HI, and the associate
manager for exposure/dosage software was Dr. Carlos Puig of MRC.
-------
Untn September, 1979, the project manager for the EPA's Strategies
and Standards Division (SASD) was Richard Johnson; after a reorganization
of SASD, project management was the responsibility of Dr. Nancy Pate.
STUDIED CHEMICALS
Early 1n the program study period, the EPA presented a 11st of 41
chemicals to be assessed 1n this study. Subsequently, the following six
chemicals were deleted from the 11st under EPA Instructions:
> Acetylene tetrachlorlde
> Blschloromethyl ether (BCME)
> Chloromethyl methyl ether (CMME)
> Methyl Iodide
> l-naphthylam1ne
> 2-nttropropane.
Acetylene tetrachlorlde and 1-naphthylamlne were deleted from the
11st because preliminary review of available Information Indicated that
neither chemical Is any longer produced or used In the United States,
CMME 1s an Intermediate created and consumed captlvely 1n the manufacture
of Ion exchange resins. BCME 1s an Impurity also created with CMME.
Available Information Indicated that BCME and CMME are totally consumed
when the reaction to form Ion exchange resin 1s completed. The only
potential emissions source of either of these chemicals 1s through an
emergency vent of the reactor at some time when one or both of the
chemicals 1s present. Methyl Iodide Is an extremely small-volume
specialty chemical with an estimated annual production of 50,000 pounds.
Emissions from production and use as a reagent would be negligible. The
IMC Corporation plant, located at Sterllngton, Louslana, 1s the only
chemical plant that produces 2-nltropropane. This chemical 1s another
small-volume specialty chemical. State air emissions files Indicate that
no 2-n1tropropane emissions results from Its production.
-------
Table 1 is a complete 11st of the remaining 35 chemicals. Emissions
data were estimated for all of them, with the exceptions of dimethylnltro-
samine and n1trosomorphol1ne. These two nltroso compounds are formed 1n
the atmosphere as the result of reaction between nitrous acid and amines
(Hanst et al., 1977), so emissions data for their corresponding precur-
sors, dimethylamine and morpholine, were estimated Instead.
HEALTH RISK ANALYSIS
The human exposure analysis conducted in this study is part of a
health risk analysis for atmospheric pollutants. The latter is based on
the concept that adverse physiological changes may be produced in human
tissue that has contacted or absorbed some airborne material. The change
might depend—at least statistically—on some characteristic of the indi-
vidual (e.g., age, sex, occupation, racial background), on the complete
time pattern of the pollutant received (amount of dosage received over
exposed time), and on any measure of that pattern. Pollutant patterns
can be measured in several ways:
> Total dosage.
> Dosage in a given time.
> Exposure at or above a given dose rate.
> Linear or nonlinear and continuous or noncontinuous func-
tions of any of the above measures.
Exposure is the occurrence of contact between human and pollutants.
Dose 1s the total amount of material received. In this report, the
concentration to which a person is exposed on an average annual basis
1s a measure of the potential dose he may receive. This quantity,
summed over all exposed persons, 1s referred to here as dosage.
-------
TABLE 1. LIST OF CHEMICALS FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE/DOSAGE ESTIMATION
No. Chemical
1 Acetaldehyde
2 Acrolein
3 Ally! chloride
4 Benzyl chloride
5 Berylliun
6 Carbon tetrachlorlde
7 Chlorobenzene (mono)
8 Chloroform
9 Chloroprene
10 m-Cresol
11 o-Cresol
12 p-Cresol
13 o-Dichlorobenzene
* 14 p-Dichlorobenzene
15 Dimethylnitrosamlne
16 2,3,7.8-TCDD (dioxin)
17 Epichlorohydrin
18 Ethylene oxide
19 Formaldehyde
20 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
21 Manganese
22 Methylene chloride
23 Nitrosomorpholine
24 Nickel
25 Nitrobenzene
26 PCBs
27 Phenol
28 Phosqene
29 Propylene oxide
30 Toluene
31 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
32 Trichloroethylene
33 m-Xylene
34 o-Xylene
35 p-Xylene
-------
Determinina the health risk of a person requires knowledge of the
coefficients of dependence on factors such as those listed above. Pro-
viding the Inputs required for a health risk analysis, then, must Include
identification of the following:
> A health effect as a function of characteristics of the
exposed person and of a pattern of exposure to an airborne
chemical,
> Emissions sources and emissions rates of the chemical.
> The dispersive environment of the source.
> The chemical and physical properties of the chemical in
the ambient air.
> The population distribution patterns, stratified by iden-
tifying characteristics, that are subject to the influence
of the sources-
Three general tasks are required to convert these inputs to a health
risk assessment:
> Estimation of concentration patterns of the pollutant in
time and space.
> Computation of the appropriate measure of the concentra-
tion patterns.
> Summation of the product of the concentration pattern
measure, the health effect coefficients, and the popula-
tion in each class over space and time.
The limitation of the focus of this study to human exposure rather
than health risk eliminates the necessity of having to identify a health
effect function. However, appropriate methods of exposure analysis depend
on the form Of the health effect function. The function must be presumed
to depend On some function of the time history of concentration to which a
person is exposed. Even statistical bases for identifying health effects
-------
functions are usually weak; therefore, the health effect functions used in
practice typically are based on the simplest possible measures of a con-
centration pattern. The two simplest measures are exposure and dosage.
Exposure is generally related to a given concentration level. This
type of model is applicable to reversible health effects. That 1s, below
the "standard" concentration, the body can repair damage rapidly enough to
suppress symptoms. As the standard 1s exceeded, the human body becomes
less capable of repairing damage at a satisfactory rate. Thus, damage
symptoms appear 1n more and more people. All of the so-called criteria
pollutants subject to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are
presumed to produce reversible effects at NAAQS levels. The NAAQS them-
selves are exposure types of standards. Of course, sufficiently high
exposure to such pollutants can produce Irreversible organ damage or
death.
Some pollutants can produce irreversible cell or genetic damage or
Irreversible cancerous consequences at very low concentrations. Because
of the irreversibility of such effects, the total damage to the body can
depend on the accumulation of such events and thus on the pollutant dosage
that the body receives. If such damage 1s sustained at very low levels,
it may well be generally undetectable, yet Its cumulative or randomly
critical nature may create an unacceptable health risk to the total popu-
lation. Some bodily damage may be reversible or Inconsequential at low
levels of exposure or dosage but Irreversible at higher levels. Such
behavior is referred to as "threshold" variation.
It is presumed that the effect of carcinogenic materials 1s to pro-
duce critical cell damage. Thus, carcinogenic health effects models
generally are dose (I.e., Integrated exposure) models, not exposure
models. The lack of firm statistical bases often leads to the adoption of
nonthreshold, linear models, even though thresholds and nonlinear effects
might be expected.
-------
If linear (dose) models without thresholds are to be used for car-
cinogen (or other) risk assessment, estimation of exposure at specified
levels becomes irrelevant or, at least, nonintuitive. For example, a car-
cinogen risk analysis may be based on a linear, nonthreshold health
effects model. The total health risk would thus be proportional to the
long-term exposure summed for all affected people for the identified
period. Exposure of many people at low concentrations would be equivalent
to exposure of a few to high concentrations. The atmospheric dispersion
that reduces concentrations would also lead to exposure of more people;
therefore, increments to population risk would not necessarily diminish
with increasing dispersion time or distance. Limits to human risk would
exist only if the concentration or population patterns were bounded.
Since the model does not exclude background concentrations from global
transport, bounding of the concentration patterns by either chemical decay
or scavenging by such phenomena as precipitation and respiration would be
necessary for legitimate analysis by a linear, nonthreshold model.
However, arbitrary boundary limits (e.g., 20 km for specific point
sources) were set for this purpose.
In spite of this argument, a linear health effects model was assumed
in this study. It is not practical to determine the time history of expo-
sure for a single person or for all the population as a whole in this
study, so the annual average exposure levels were estimated. Population
exposure was defined in this study as the number of people exposed to
annual average concentrations of ambient chemical no less than certain
exposure levels. Dosage was defined as the product of population and con-
centration (at no less than certain levels) to which they would be
exposed. Therefore, both exposure and dosage are functions of exposure
level.
A time factor has been built into both exposure and dosage. Since
the health risk is proportional to the long-term exposed concentration
under the linear assumption, annual population exposure should be a good
-------
estimate of the number of people with a given level of health risk, and
dosage should be a good indication of risk Involved at a given level of
artlent concentration.
SOURCES AND EMISSIONS
The list of chemicals presented in Table 1 contains materials of
quite disparate character. Distinctive characteristics Include the fol-
lowing:
> Phase—Solids, liquids, and gases (at ambient conditions)
are represented.
> Chemical Reactivity—Some are nonreactlve; some decay by
atmospheric chemical processes; and some are created by
such processes.
> Ubiquity--Some are widely distributed; others are found in
Isolated locations, Isolated times, or both.
> Mode of emission--In general, when a pollutant is exposed
to the atmosphere some fraction is lost to the atmos-
phere. Since each material 1s handled differently, 1t
enters the air by a different mode. Some Identified modes
are
- Evaporation from open surface.
- Emission through a stack.
- Emission through a vent (a vent is not designed to ele-
vate the emitted material; a stack is).
- Leaks In plumbing or storage containers.
- Hind-blown dust.
> Emission rate—Rates range from minute to massive.
> Proximity to people—Materials are emitted from sites of
varying remoteness.
10
-------
Because of the number of characteristics that must be addressed,
three different methods were used for estimating concentration patterns,
one method for each of three categories of sources, The three source
categories are
> Major, specific point sources--These consist of indivi-
dually Identified sources, usually a manufacturing
plant. Such sources have known locations and modes and
rates of emission. Each accounts for a significant frac-
tion of the national emissions of some species.
> Other point sources--Sources that are too numerous, small,
or of uncertain location, and yet produce Isolated pat-
terns of significant concentration, are not treated speci-
fically. Rather, a prototype of such sources 1s defined,
and the results of prototype analysis are multiplied by
estimated numbers of sources that the prototype repre-
sents. Degreasers are an example of sources that were
treated by prototype,
> Area Source—Sources that are so numerous and emit so lit-
tle that patterns of concentration are analyzed only "en
masse." Such sources Include both stationary (e.g., home
chimneys) and mobile (e.g., automobiles) types. Emission
rates per unit area are estimated; emission modes are not
addressed.
Emission rates, modes, locations, and times were described for each
species studied. The emission work was done by Hydroscience, Incorporated
(HI), of Knoxvllle, Tennessee. Emissions characterization Involved review
of trade literature, files of the various states, EPA reports and data,
and site visits and correspondence with staff of specific sources.
The results of this program Include the completion of emissions sum-
maries that Identify source locations and estimate the total nationwide
11
-------
emissions of the 35 chemicals. These summaries are Included in the
attached species reports. Further description of the emission estimation
process is given in Section 2. Rankings of the studied chemicals and
their sources by emission rate are given at the end of this section on
pages 21 to 32.
DISPERSION MODELING
The estimation of human exposure/dosage to atmospheric concentrations
of the studied chemicals involved three computational tasks:
> Estimation of annual average concentration patterns of
each chemical on the region about each source.
> Estimation of the population pattern over the area of each
computed concentration pattern..
> Computation of sums of products of the concentration and
population patterns to provide exposure/dosage estimates.
Concentration Patterns
The large number of chemicals and sources that were modeled in this
program would consume large computer resources if conventional modeling
systems had been used. To keep computer costs within reasonable bounds
while ensuring that the computing effort would meet program needs, we
developed a combined "reactive prototype" and "matrix" modeling system.
The estimation of concentration patterns was done with a different
approach for each of the three source types described above.
> Specific point sources
> Prototype point sources
> Area sources.
12
-------
Each of these types of sources requires a different modeling
approach. In addition, the concentrations of some of the selected chemi-
cals depend on reactions in large-scale plumes of photoreactive materials
from urban reqions or industrial complexes. Although SAI has developed
and used many types of photochemical simulation models, application of
such models to the number and variety of sources studied in the present
program would require large labor and funding resources; hence, these
models were not recommended for this program.
MAJOR (SPECIFIC) POINT SOURCES
Major sources of most of the selected chemicals are specifically
identified chemical manufacturing plants. Concentration patterns due to
unit emissions from such sources depend most strongly on several factors:
> Source elevation above terrain
> Wind vectors (speed and direction)
> Disoersive effects (intensity of atmospheric turbulence).
Long-term average concentrations depend on the time histories of the
meteorological parameters. A useful simplification that greatly reduces
computational requirements is the computation of long-term average concen-
trations by taking climatological weighted sums of concentrations computed
for a set of discrete states of the atmosphere. This approach is used in
the EPA's climatological dispersion models, AQDM and CDM; for each state
of the atmosphere, these models compute Gaussian dispersion patterns. The
annual average concentration pattern is then computed as a weighted summa-
tion of the patterns for each atmospheric state. AQDM and CDM are
designed for application to urban regional problems with large inventories
of sources. The EPA's point source models, PTMAX, PTDIS, PTMTP, and CRS,
also use a Gaussian kernel, but are designed for estimating short-term
(one-hour to one-day) average concentrations. The approach used to
develop long-term average concentrations in the EPA's benzene exposure
13
-------
study (Mara and Lee, 1978) was to compute one-hour results and to Infer
annual averages by using assumed time-averaging period scaling factors.
In the present study, the computations were carried out taking Into
account the following source-specific factors:
> ClImatologlcal data from nearest or otherwise most appro-
priate recording station.
> Individual treatment of releases from each identified
process or vent within a plant.
> Release height, speed, and buoyancy.
> Effects of wakes from nearby structures.
> Diurnal variations of emissions.
> Seasonal variations of emissions.
> Urban or rural character of area.
> Atmospheric chemical reaction after release of emissions.
GENERAL POINT SOURCES REPRESENTED BY PROTOTYPE
Some point sources are not treated individually because of their num-
ber and emissions strength; such sources are too numerous, their emissions
are too small to warrant Individual modeling, or both. Unlike area
sources, these sources are separated widely enough that their patterns of
pollution impact do not generally overlap. In lieu of the individual
modeling of each such source, a prototype source is defined to
represent each such source; dispersion and exposure/dosage patterns are
computed for the prototype; and results are multiplied by the number of
sources the prototype represents.
Such sources were modeled using the matrix model for unit emissions
rates rather than emissions rates for actual, specifically identified
sources. When appropriate, prototype sources were analyzed for each
region of the country using meteorological data representative of that
14
-------
region. The nine geoqraphic regions 1n the United States (see Figure 1)
are used here, and a model source would be defined for each generic source
category 1n each of the nine regions.
AREA SOURCES
Area sources of either a selected chemical or a precursor present a
common problem for modeling. In particular, the rich and complex patterns
of hydrocarbon emissions from general urban and industrial sources either
Include or might produce through atmospheric photochemical reactions some
of the species on the analysis list. The treatment of such species in
photochemical airshed modeling 1s difficult (Anderson et al., 1977; Tesche
and Burton, 1978). The effort reguired for any one such exercise is sub-
stantial, and the effort required for a comprehensive analysis of all
urban regions relevant to this program would be prohibitive.
We have treated reactive effects through Judicious scaling of non-
reactive results by factors developed by photochemical "prototype" defini-
tions. Nonreactive modeling of area sources was carried out by use of a
box mode! (Hanna, 1973). This type of model can be used to treat general,
undifferentiated source densities in an Urban region. Box model results
for each wind speed and stability, weighted by climatological probabili-
ties, were used to compute long-term averages.
Basic box models cannot portray effects of nonuniform source pat-
terns. If, for particular chemical species or particular source classes,
the dependence of emissions on population density or other identifiable
parameters is apparent and significant, we have used modifications to the
box model approach. As an example, it might be assumed in modeling
products of combustion of the lighter fuel oil distillates that source
distribution patterns are proportional to population density patterns,
because most of such fuel is burned in residential furnaces in cold-
weather cities.
15
-------
CTi
FIGURE 1. U.S. GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
-------
Where possible, we have addressed dispersion modeling requirements by
using models that
> Are specific to source type
> Are specific to site
> Address relevant physical and chemical phenomena
> Address relevant time and space scales
> Are based on EPA-recommended algorithms
> Are computationally efficient.
More extensive descriptions of the dispersion modeling methods used
are presented in Section 3.
POPULATION' MODELING
Population modeling was also done using different methods for each of
the three types of sources:
> Major, specific point sources
> Prototype point sources
> Area sources.
For major point sources, site-specific population patterns were
extracted from U.S. Census Bureau files using data at the Enumeration
District/Block Group (ED/BG) level. These data provide the finest resolu-
tion of population patterns available. The data were scaled from 1970 to a
base year of 1978. Interpolations of population and concentration pat-
terns were used to develop patterns of exposure/dosage that were then
summed to produce source-specific exposure/dosage totals.
The same dispersion procedures were used for modeling of other point
sources, but, since only prototype sources were addressed, population data
were required only for prototypical conditions In each geographic
17
-------
region. Prototypical population was represented by the average population
density In the urbanized areas of each region.
For area sources, only city-average population density and area were
used for each city so modeled.
Extensive descriptions of these techniques are presented_1n
Section 3. Further description of the population data bases Is given 1n
Section 2.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine reports are presented as attachments to this report.
Each report summarizes, for a single species, the following-.
> Emissions sources, including number, 1dentification( and
location of sources of each type.
> Emission and rate modes.
> A table of physical and chemical data.
> Tables of concentration, exposure, and dosage for each
source and source type, and total exposure and dosage.
The emissions study Identified and provided computations of the con-
centration, exposure, and dosage patterns for the following:
> There were 311 major chemical manufacturing or consuming
plants covered 1n this study. Because some major chemical
plants were Involved in more than one chemical, specific
point source modeling was applied for 53B plants. Since
there may be more than one source type In a plant, dis-
persion-dosage modeling was conducted for a total of 1619
Individual point sources 1n this study.
IB
-------
> There were 62 source categories Involved 1n the prototype
modeling, each with nine regions. Hence, the prototype
point source modeling was conducted for a total of 558
prototype sources,
> Gaussian dispersion model computations were made for all
"Urbanized Areas" (248) for each of the 77 area source
categories^ for a total of 19,096 runs.
> Gaussian dispersion model computations were made for all
other cities (243) with a population over 25,000 for each
of the 77 area source categories, for a total of 18,711
runs.
> Box model computations were made for 150 cities with popu-
lations between 2,500 and 25,000 for each of the 77 area
source categories, for a total of 11,550 runs,
In total, emission estimates and dispersion, population, and
exposure/dosage computations were made for 51,734 cases.
In Table 2 the 35 chemicals are ranked by their 1978 nationwide emis-
sions. Table 3 lists the 20 sites that emitted the greatest quantHites
Of the 35 chemicals In 1978. A detailed breakdown of emissions from these
20 chemical plants 1s also given. Figure 2 displays sources that emit
more than 10,000 pounds per year of these chemicals; a complete list of
specific point sources of these 35 chemicals 1s Included 1n Attachment A.
Similar rankings of the 35 chemicals by their dosage potential to the
national total population are presented in Table 4, and the 20 sites pro-
ducing the greatest dosage potential of all studied chemicals combined are
presented 1n Table 5.
An extensive review of the uncertainties associated with these esti-
mates 1s presented 1n Section 4.
19
-------
TABLE 2. RANK ORDER LISTING OF STUDIED CHEMICALS BY TOTAL EMISSIONS
Chemical Abstract Total Emissions
Rank Chemical Service Registry No. (Ib/yr)
1 Toluene 108-88-3 2,235.842,590
2 1.1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 538,730,000
3 m-Xylene 108-38-3 453,533,940
4 Methylene chloride 75-09-2 407,700,000
5 o-Xylene 45-47-6 268,497,360
6 Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 240,700,000
7 p-Xylene 106-42-3 239.270,414
8 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 175,376,130
9 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 65,030,000
10 p-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 49,900,950
11 Manganese 7439-96-5 35.000,000
12 Formaldehyde 50-00-0 33,000,000
13 Chloroform 67-66-3 24,040,000
14 Nickel 7440-02-0 22,573,640
15 o-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 15.269,450
16 Nitrobenzene 98-95-2 13,040,000
17 m-Cresol* 108-39-4 10,960,000
18 Morpholine 110-91-8 10,028,000
19 p-Cresol 106-44-5 9,124,941
20 Phenol 108-95-2 6,924,360
21 Acetaldehyde 75-07-0 4,853.950
22 o-Cresol 95-48-7 4,504,150
23 Chloroprene 126-99-8 3.523,092
24 Ethylene oxide 75-21-8 1,991,000
25 Propylene oxide 75-56-9 1.346,160
26 Allyl chloride 107-05-1 1,110,000
27 Epichlorohydrin 106-89-8 479,000
28 Beryllium 744-04-17 357,035
29 Phosgene 75-44-5 253.176
30 Dimethyl amine§ 124-40-3 215,400
31 Acrolein 107-02-8 102,920
32 Benzyl chloride 100-44-7 100,271
33 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 , 59,500
34 PCBs 11097-69-1; 30,020
11096-82-5
35 2,3.7,8 TCDD-(dioxin) 828-00-2 84
* Actual emissions estimated as of 1978. See attached species reports.
Emitted precursor to atmospheric formation of nitrosomorpholine.
* Emitted precursor to atmospheric formation of dimethylnitrosoamine.
Source: Species emissions summaries by Hydroscience, Incorporated, Knoxville,
Tennessee included in attached species reports.
20
-------
TABLE 3. RANK ORDER LISTING OF THE TOP TWENTY SITES BY TOTAL EMISSIONS
WITH INDIVIDUAL CHEMICAL CONTRIBUTION
Individual
Rank Company/Location
1. Dow/Freeport, TX
2. A/noco/Decatur, AL
3. Celanese/Bishop, TX
4. Du Pont/Laplace, LA
5. Hercules/Hopewell, VA
6. FMC/S. Charleston, WV
Chemical
Propylene oxide
Phenol
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
Mixed xylenes
Allyl chloride
Epichlorohydrin
Phosgene
Toluene
Ethylene oxide
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
p-Xylene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Chloroprene
Toluene
Emissions
Contribution
(Ib/yr)
577,700
826,720
1,118,010
226,200
30,400
539,120
170,740
18,450
300,560
176,000
185,880
30,230
14,280
184,400
292,800
3,294,800
2,541,678
679,294
Total
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
4,438,760
3,896,400
3,587,600
Nitrobenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
3,220,972
2,263,125
2,184,000
21
-------
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Rank Company/Location
7. Dow/Plaquemine. LA
3. Shell/Deer Park, TX
9. BASF Wyandotte/Geismar, LA
Chemical
Individual
Emissions
Contribution
(Ib/yr)
Total
Emissions
(lb/yr)
Nitrobenzene 567.375
Methylene chloride 331,410
Chloroform 78,690
Carbon tetrachloride 140,950
Ethylene oxide 192,000
Pronylene oxide 174,160
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 630,400
Phenol 884,440
*1ixed xylenes 59.CGO
o-Xylene 367,200
p-Xylene 125,600
Allyl chloride 259,490
Epichlorohydrln 89,030
Toluene 190,800
Phosgene C.190
Ethylene oxide 121,000
o-Dichlorobenzene I.IIG.OIO
Formaldehyde 270,000
Propylene oxide 5.G80
Toluene 70,400
2.122,985
1.976.440
1,593,480
22
-------
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Rank Company/Location
10. Mobay/Baytown, TX
11. Tennessee Eastman/
Klngsport, TN
12- Celanese/Clear Lake, TX
Chemical
Phosgene
Toluene
o-Dlchlorobenzene
Propylene oxide
Acetaldehyde
p-Xylene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Ethylene oxide
Individual
Emissions
Contribution
(Ib/yr)
35,548
90,080
1,453,416
5,830
1,416,810
57,270
1,231,360
5,965
185,300
Total
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
1,585,724
1,474,080
1,472,625
13. Stauffer/Lemoyne, AL
Carbon tetrachloride
1,456,000
14. Amoco/Texas City, TX
Mixed xylenes
m-Xylene
p-Xylene
Toluene
140,520
176,000
1,034,630
19,760
1,370,910
15. Mobay/New Martlnsvllle, WV
Phenol
Phosgene
o-Dichlorobenzene
Propylene oxide
Toluene
23
23,400
35.006
1,113,010
4,660
70,400
1,256,556
-------
TABLE 3 (Concluded)
Rank Company/Location Chemical
16. Olin/Lake Charles, LA Phosgene
o-Dichlorobenzene
Pronylene oxide
Toluene
Individual
Emissions
Contribution
(lb/yr)
17.082
1,118,010
1,840
70/00
Total
Emissions
Mb/yr)
1,207,332
17. Amoco/Cooper River, SC
o-Xylere
1.199,520
IS. Du Pont/Deepwater, NJ
19. Hercules/Louisiana, flO
20. Allied/Moundsvllle, WV
Nitrobenzene 1,275
Phosgene . 18,934
Chlorobenzene 63,650
Carbon tetrachlorice 75/20
Chloroform 143,000
Toluene '3.640
o-Dichlorobenzene 732,610
Formaldehyde 399,500
Acetaldehyde 130.600
Phosgene 14,214
Methyl chloride 89,440
Chloroform 22,640
Carbon tetrachloride 820
o-Dichlorobenzene 894,410
Toluene 56,320
1.144,329
1,030.100
1,077.844
Source: Species emissions summaries by Hydrosdence, Incorporated, Knoxville,
Tennessee; included In attached species reports.
24
-------
r\j
Ul
CHI33I0N3 » I•000.000 LD/TR
CHI33HN3 " 300.000 LD/TR
EMISSIONS » 100.000 LB/TR
EM133IBN3 > 50.000 LB/TR
EHISSIING » 10.000 LB/YR
Source: Species emission reports were made by Hydroscience , Incorporated, Knoxville, Tennessee, and
are included in the attached species reports.
FIGURE 2. SPECIFIC CHEMICAL-EMITTING POINT SOURCES
-------
TABLE 4. STUDIED CHEMICALS RANKED BY ESTIMATED
TOTAL U.S. DOSAGE*
Ranking
Chemical
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
Toluene
Methylene chloride
m-Xylene
1,1.1-Trichloroethane
o-Xylene
p-Xylene
Chlorobenzene (mono)
Carbon tetrachloride
p-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
Manganese
Chloroform
Nickel
Formaldehyde
m-Cresol
p-Cresol
o-Dichlorobenzene
o-Cresol
Nitrobenzene
Phenol
Acetaldehyde
Beryllium
Chloroprene
Epichlorohydrin
Propylene oxide
Ethylene oxide
Phosgene
Benzyl chloride
Hexachloropentadiene
Allyl chloride
PCBs
Acrolein
Nitrosomorpholine
Dimethyl nitrosamine
2.3,7,8-TCDO (dioxin)
Total Dosage
) persons]
1,748,971.000
410,800,000
348,852,000
338,000,000
216,759,000
174,532,800
73,059.100
68,806,200
51,430,000
34,523,000
30,420,000
24,729,508
16,669,800
16,197,800
11,012.000
9.185,000
7,238,000
4.485,000
2,774.000
1,028.300
469.000
219.600
188.000
177.400
107,930
78.200
26,300
19,180
19,100
9,770
9,130
380
900
620
76
* Potential dosage: Exposed persons times annual average
atmospheric concentration to which they are exposed.
Source: Systems Apolications, Incorporated,
computations.
26
-------
TABLE 5. TOP TWENTY HAJOR POINT SOURCES RANKED BY TOTAL DOSAGE* TO EXPOSED POPULATIONS
FROM ALL STUDIED CHEMICALS EMITTED FROM EACH SOURCE
Individual
Chemical Dosage Total Dosaae
IX)
•••J
Ranking Company Location Chemical
1 FMC South Charleston, WV Carbon tetrachloride
2 ARCO Houston, TX Toluene
m-Xylene
o-Xylene
p-Xylene
3 Amoco Decatur, AL p-Xylene
4 Allied Moundsville, WV Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
o-Oichlorobenzene
Methylene chloride
Phosgene
To 1 uene
[(ug/mj) persons]
1Z.500
9,870
371.000
302,000
725
18,900
382 ,000
70,600
6,190
8,290
[(uj/mj) persons]
2,310,000
695,370
558,000
486,700
-------
TABLE 5 (Continued)
Ranking Coapany
5 Amoco
6 Monsanto
Location
Vulcan
Wichita, KA
Cheatcal
Copper River. SC
Sauget, 1L
p-Xylene
Benzyl chloride
Chlorobenzene
o-Dlchl orobenzene
p-D1chlorobenzene
2,3.7,8-TCDD
Toluene
Carbon tetrachlorlde
Chloroform
2,3,7,8-TCOD
Methylene chloride
Individual
Cheslcal Dosage Total Dosage
[(r 'n3) . persons] [(ug/oH) • persons]
1,580
282.000
15,200
24.400
1.6
960
36,400
44,700
0.73
161,000
381.000
324.142
242.100
-------
TABLE 5 (Continued)
Ranking Company
8 Dow
Location
Freeport, TX
IS)
Chemical
Du Pont
Parkersburg, WV
Ally! chloride
Carbon tetrachlorlde
Chloroform
o-D1chlorobenzene
Eplchlorohydrin
Ethylene oxide
Methylene chloride
Phenol
Phosgene
Propylene oxide
Toluene
L,l ,1-Trichloroethane
TMchloroethylene
m-Xylene
o-Xylene
p-Xylene
Formaldehyde
Individual
Chemical Dosage Total Dosage
) • persons] [(ug/m3) • persons]
4,950
1,780
3,830
67,400
19,100
6,310
21,100
8,320
1,110
22,700
11,200
71,600
1,550
180
100
84
241.320
199,000
-------
TABLE 5 (Continued)
Individual
al Dosags Total Dwefe
11
12
Hercules
Shell
13
Du Pont
South Charleston, HV
Hopewell, VA
Dear Park, TX
Deepwater, NJ
o-D1chlorobenzene
Phosgene
Propylene oxide,
Toluene
Nitrobenzene
Allyl chloride
Ep1chlorohydr1n
Phenol
Toluene
m-Xylene
o-Xylene
p-Xylene
Carbon tetrachlorlde
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
o-DI chl orobenzene
Nitrobenzene
Phosgene
Toluene
145,000
4,460
3,050
5,560
2.610
40,300
1,570
7,520
647
45,200
15,700
25,000
13,900
33,300
48,800
330
3,500
6,740
158,070
158,000
143,550
131,570
-------
TABLE 5 (Continued)
Ranking Company
Location
Cb€«1cal
Individual
Cbevfcal Dosage
persons]
Total Dosage
persons]
14 Mobay Baytown, TX o-Dfchlorobenzene
Phosgene
Propylene oxide
To! uene
15 Dow Plaquemlne, LA Carbon tetrachlorlde
Chloroform
Ethyl ene oxide
Methyl ene chloride
Nitrobenzene
Propylene oxfde
1 , 1 , 1-Tri chl oroethane
16 Du Pont Laplace, LA Chloroprene
Toluene
17 Union Carbide Institute, HV Nitrobenzene
Propylene oxide
116,000
2,080
123
4.520
14,900
8,440
10,500
34,800
13,200
4,430
30,300
90,200
25,400
109.000
4.130
122,270
116,570
115,600
113,130
-------
IN)
Location
TABLE 5 (Concluded)
Cnenlcal
Individual
Chealcal Dosage Total Dosage
persons] [(ug/m3) • persons]
18 01 In Lake Charles, LA o-Dlchlorobenzene
Phosgene
Propylene oxide
Toluene
19 Celanese Bishop. TX Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
20 Perstorp Toledo, OH Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
104.000
1,320
57
4,240
4.910
99,100
12.11
75,700
109,620
104,010
87,800
* Potential dosage: Exposed persons times annual average atomospherlc concentration to which they are exposed.
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated computations.
-------
CAVEATS
The program goals can be technically met at different levels of rigor
and detail. The rigor and detail possible in applying program results to
health risk analyses depend not only on the quality of this program's
results, but also on the validity of the health effects function used and
its consistency with the results of this program and with practical con-
straints of an economic, social, or political nature.
The program team has sought to produce results that are as broad and
flexible in scope and as rigorous and detailed as possible given con-
straints such as those identified below.
> Dispersed sources such as vehicle emissions and small
industrial and commercial users have been linked to popu-
lation, heating (degree-days) or other surrogates wherever
possible. Thus, only coefficients of emissions per unit
surrogate as a function of time (where appropriate) were
developed for this source class.
> Site-specific exposure and dosage calculations were termi-
nated at 20 kilometers. To avoid double counting of expo-
sures at low concentrations, generic source exposure tabu-
lations were terminated at distances corresponding to
estimated typical source separations (dosages were not so
terminated).
> Reactive production or decay rates of studied chemicals
were developed only for prototype species. Reactive
effects for each species were estimated using rates
related to rates for the most appropriate reactive proto-
typical species. No attempt was made to model chemical
reactions downwind of each source, and reactive effects
were addressed by assuming constant rates.
33
-------
> Diurnal shifts of population from residential to employ-
ment areas were not computed. Nationally comprehensive,
disaggregated employment data are not available for this
purpose. The methodology developed would, however, pro-
vide for this computation when specific site applications
in future programs warrant assembly of a data base.
> Certain existing data that would support more detailed
city specific fuel usage estimates were not collected
because of resource limitations. For example, 1t Is known
that distillate fuel usage for space heating 1s not dis-
tributed solely by heating degree-day patterns; such use
also depends on patterns of availability of alternative
fuels or on the local cost of electricity, or both.
> Diurnal emissions patterns were not estimated. This is
valid for continuously operated industrial sources, but it
is not valid for most area or generic point sources or
some specific point sources. For example, 1t 1s clear
that some gas stations, dry cleaners, and businesses using
degreasers close at night.
> Because diurnal emissions patterns were seldom estimated,
correlations between meteorology and emissions parameters
were not addressed. That 1s, night shutdowns were not
correlated with slow, stable winds, nor with possibly pre-
ferred directions.
> The issue of the effect of world-wide exposures at vanish-
ingly small concentrations was not addressed 1n the analy-
sis (this Issue is discussed, however, 1n Section 3).
> The issue of preferred spatial distributions of area or
generic point sources was not resolved (e.g., four gas
stations at a single Intersection Is a common deviation
from a uniform density of stations).
> The atmospheric production of some species studied (e.g.,
formaldehyde) from other anthropogenic precursors (e.g..
34
-------
gasoline fumes) was not addressed. Such a study would
require photochemical modeling of the entire country. The
capability of modeling individual hydrocarbon species on
such a scale is not now available.
> Natural sources of the selected species (e.q., the metals)
were not considered.
> Computation of pollutant dispersion by building wakes does
not address details of building shape.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that several features of the analysis and of the com-
puter programs be addressed or improved in the course of their future
use. Specifically, we recommend the following;
> Certain options (e.g., urban/rural choice of dispersion
parameters) were suppressed in the final computer programs
because implementing data were not available. We recom-
mend some additional programming to permit more flexi-
bility in the use of program options.
> An effort be made to determine and address space heating
fuel use patterns.
> Available data on background concentrations of species of
interest be reviewed for possible consideration in
validating or supplementing dispersion studies, or both.
> Atmospheric production and associated ambient concentra-
tion estimates be made for species for which this is
important.
> We recommend that detailed dispersion-exposure estimation
modeling techniques be developed and applied for a small
set of Chemical-emitting specific sources. This would
incorporate detailed plant emission characteristics, a
complete decay/removal package, and population exposure
characteristics.
35
-------
We recommend that a detailed urban areawide concentration-
dosaqe modelinq approach be developed. A typical metro-
politan area may be selected as an example to determine
the concentration-dosage patterns for certain chemicals of
concern.
We recommend that population distribution patterns and
diurnal variations be examined for urbanized areas. This
is of prime importance to the estimation of exoosure--
dosaqe of chemicals emitted from area sources.
We recommend that the method of estimating the exposure-
dosage be related to the current methods of estimating
health effects of chemical exposure; that is, the implica-
tion of any choice of health effects model should be
explicitly recognized in carrying out exposure/dosage
estimations. This should provide basic information for
focusing the modeling efforts on the critical threshold
levels and time and dosage patterns of chemical exposure.
36
-------
SECTION 2
DATA BASES
Four major types of data are essential for assessing exposures to and
dosages of atmospheric chemicals:
> Emissions inventories of chemicals
> Atmospheric reactivities of chemicals
> Meteorological data
> Population distributions.
The acquisition, processing, and preparation of these data bases are
delineated in this section.
EMISSIONS DATA
The development of emissions inventories for the 35 chemicals was
conducted by Hydroscience, Incorporated (HI), under subcontract to SAI.
HI has an extensive background in determining emission levels and control-
ling the release of pollutants from various manufacturing processes. HI
is the prime contractor to the Emission Standards and Engineering Division
(ESED), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental
Protection Agency, for the project entitled Emissions Control Options for
the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry, Contract No. 68-
02-2577. The term of the contract is March 1977 to March I960. The cur-
rent estimated total cost is approximately $2.9 million. The primary
objective 1s to gather sufficient Information to allow ESED to fulfill Its
responsibility to establish new source performance standards and asso-
37
-------
dated guideline documents for the synthetic organic chemical manu-
facturing industry. HI acquired the data necessary to Identify emissions
of chemicals that would provide a basis for dispersion model studies for
human exposure assessment. Emissions were Identified for each chemical
for both production sites and user locations, and emissions characteris-
tics such as quantity, rate, composition, and stack parameters were
defined.
It was apparent that Individual chemical emissions assessments could
best be completed in a combined summary, especially 1n eases of common
producer and user locations or where products are co-produced at the same
location. Chemicals such as o-, m-, and p-cresols were summarized 1n one
report. A total of 25 emissions summaries that cover the 35 chemicals
were completed. All 25 summaries are included In Attachment A. The
methodology used to Identify chemical emissions 1s discussed here together
with summarized emissions results and uncertainties Involved 1n developing
the emissions inventories.
Source Identification
In this study we Identified three distinct categories of sources;
each source category presents different data-gathering problems.
Specific Point Sources--
Specific point sources are defined as known locations identifiable by
geographic coordinates for which the emissions of a specific chemical can
be estimated and assigned. Specific point source locations were deter-
mined from a variety of published sources:
> 1978 Directory of Chemical Producers and Chemical
Economics Handbook, published by Stanford Research
Institute.
38
-------
> "Chemical Marketing Reporter."
> U.S. Government publications, such as the U.S. Tariff Com-
mission's "1977 Synthetic Organic Chemical Production and
Sales."
> Reference guides, such as the "1977 Kline Guide to the
Chemical Industry."
> Other sources, such as trade associations, trade Journals
and periodicals, and technical Journals and periodicals.
Once the point source locations (including company name, dty, and
state) were determined, geographic coordinates were assigned. Most of the
geographic coordinate Information was obtained via personal communication
with various state air agencies or, 1n some cases* from EPA regional
offices. Information also was obtained from emissions Inventory files; in
some cases, HI determined coordinates by using United States Geological
Survey maps. Some of the geographic coordinates obtained were In
Universal Transverse Mercator units (UTMs), which were converted by use of
a computer program to geodetic coordinates (latitude/longitude) by SAK
After the locations were identified, the total quantity of the spec-
ific chemical produced or used at each of the sites was estimated. Total
chemical production and use quantities were obtained from published
sources. Three methods were used to determine individual site production
and use quantities. When possible, total capacity and Individual plant
capacity figures were obtained. Total production and Industry use was
then distributed over each site based on the ratio of the site capacity to
the total Industry capacity. This was done because the total Industry
capacity 1s a much more accurate estimate than 1s the Individual site
capacity. In a second method, used 1n a few cases, average site capac-
ities were estimated because only ranges of site capacities were known.
In such cases, production and use quantities were then distributed by
ratlolng the average site capacity to the total Industry capacity. Using
the third method In cases for which Individual site capacity figures were
39
-------
not available, the total quantity of production or use was distributed
evenly over all sites In the Industry or apportioned on the basis of num-
ber of employees at each site.
Prototype Point Sources--
Prototypes were defined and analyzed for some point sources because
the sources are too numerous or unknown to allow identification of
specific locations with geographic coordinates. Prototype model sources
were defined for different regions and were modeled in the same fashion as
specific point sources. The results were then scaled to represent all
sources of the same nature. Examples of this type of source are power
plants, refineries, and gas stations. Prototype point sources were used
to analyze some specific chemical uses and most Incidental sources of the
chemicals assessed 1n this program.
To enable a regional analysis of exposure from sources analyzed by
prototype, the prototype model source had to be defined and the number of
sources 1n each of the geographic regions had to be determined. Total
usage was then distributed over each of the regions by assuming an average
quantity per site or by apportioning the use based on the number of
employees 1n each region Involved 1n the use of that specific chemical.
Incidental source locations were distributed 1n the same manner.
Area Sources--
Area sources are those sources of chemical use or incidental emis-
sions that could not be described as either a specific point source or as
a generic point source because the use Is too widespread or unknown. Such
sources included home, business, and transportation uses of specific chem-
icals such as p-dichlorobenzene for moth control or toluene as a solvent
1n paints or as a constituent of gasoline.
40
-------
Emission Estimations
Emissions Factors--
Emissions factors were developed to estimate the emissions from the
production, consumption, and incidental formation of the various chemicals
assessed. The emissions factor is expressed as the total pounds of a
specific chemical lost to the atmosphere per pound of the chemical pro-
duced or used. Multiplication of the emissions factor by the quantity of
the chemical produced or used at an individual site or 1n a specific geo-
graphic region during a specific time period yields the estimated chemical
emissions, in pounds, for that location.
The total emissions resulting from the production or chemical inter-
mediate use of a specific chemical are a summation of process, storage,
and fugitive emissions losses:
> Process emissions are discrete losses that occur at
process vents from reactors, columns, and other types of
plant equipment.
> Storage emissions include losses from the raw material
feed, in-process and final product storage tanks, as well
as from loading and handling losses.
> Fugitive emissions are losses that result from plant
equipment leaks, visual openings, evaporation from waste
products, and other nondlscrete sources.
For most chemicals emitted from chemical production and intermediate con-
sumption facilities, emissions factors were estimated spearately for pro-
cess vent, storage emissions, and fugitive emissions. However, in some
cases, only a total emissions factor could be determined, and further
breakdown was not possible given the lack of emissions data at those
specific sites.
41
-------
Emission factors were not used to determine losses of chemicals used
In solvent applications. Emissions resulting from solvent applications
were estimated by assuming that all the solvent used, or all but a small
waste fraction of the solvent used, 1s eventually released to the atmos-
phere. For the purpose of this report, emissions from the export of spe-
cific chemicals were assumed to be negligible. To develop specific
chemical emissions factors, data from four different types of Information
sources were used:
> Level A—Plant Site Visits: These data were obtained by
Hydroscience while performing tasks for EPA contract No.
68-02-2577, "Emission Control Options for the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry." Under this con-
tract HI assessed approximately for uncontrolled,
controlled, and best estimates of current volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions resulting from chemical produc-
tion facilities. Data were obtained by actual site visits
to selected producers. Emissions estimates were developed
for model plants based on the data obtained by visiting
two or more producers of each chemical assessed. The
emissions factors derived from this Information reflect
some degree of control and Include only the estimated
losses of the specific chemical 1n question. Other
associated VOC losses were not included in the emissions
summaries. This level of Information was considered the
best because 1t Includes the most recent data available,
and it Incorporates some level of existing control in the
emissions estimates.
> Level B - State Air Emission Inventory Questionnaires
(EIQs): The air EIQs for most manufacturing sites are on
file at various state air agencies throughout the United
States. Hydroscience has obtained air files from Texas,
Louisiana, Illinois, New Jersey, and others states, on
42
-------
approximately 200 chemical and petrochemical manufacturing
sites. These files were used to develop emissions factors
for a number of the chemical-emitting processes. Emis-
sions data on most of the questionnaires Include total
quantities per year of various kinds of VOC emissions from
process and storage vents as well as fugitive estimates.
The total emissions of a specific chemical were tabulated
from process, storage, and fugitive sources for one or
more producers and divided by the total production
expressed as a percentage of a plant's rated capacity.
The quality of the emissions data usually varies
considerably. Process vent data are usually obtained from
test results, while storage tank losses are usually based
on AP-42 calculations. Fugitive estimates, 1f made, are
normally obtained by the material balance method. As 1n
the case of Level A data, only the emissions of the
specific chemical In question were estimated. Other asso-
ciated VOC emissions were not Included 1n the emissions
estimates.
Level C--Other Published Sources: These emissions factors
were obtained from a variety of published reports prepared
by other contractors for the EPA. In the Individual
chemical summaries, the specific emissions factor obtained
from these sources 1s referenced: In most cases, the
accuracy of these data 1s not known, since the specific
Information used to derive the emissions factors Is not
given. This level of Information was used only 1f Level A
or B data were not available.
Level D--Hydrosc1ence Engineering Estimates: In some
cases, emissions factors were not available from any of
the three source levels previously discussed. Rather than
omit these sources of emissions entirely, emissions esti-
mates were made by HI process engineers. These estimates
43
-------
were made using synerglsm between the unknown process and
a process that had been previously defined. In other
Instances, an emissions factor for an unknown chemical
Intermediate use of a specific chemical was Calculated
based on a weighted average factor of all the other known
chemical Intermediate uses of the same chemical. Although
specific quantification of the data quality 1s unknown,
this Is obviously the least accurate source of the four
levels used.
Vent Parameter Data--
Vent parameter data are necessary for dispersion modeling of the
chemical emsslons. The vent parameter data 1n each of the chemical sum-
maries Include the number of process and storage tank vents, vent height,
vent diameter, gas discharge temperature, gas emission velocity, fugitive
discharge area, and building cross-sectional area. These data were
obtained from the same four source levels discussed above, under emissions
factors. Some data were supplied by producers during site visits, some
data were obtained from EIQs, and some from other published reports or
text books. The vent parameter data in the Individual chemical summaries
are usually an average of two or more sources of Information. In cases
where no data were available, they were estimated by Hydrosclence
engineers.
Summary and Conclusions
Emissions summaries covering 35 selected chemical compounds were com-
pleted for this program. The amount of effort required to complete each
summary varied greatly. Chemicals that are produced and captlvely con-
sumed, such as chloroprene, required minimal effort; chemicals with multi-
ple production processes and multiple, complex uses and Incidental
sources, such as toluene, required considerably more.
44
-------
The completed summaries and resulting emissions estimates are felt to
be representative of current manufacturing activities for the production
and use of each of the assessed chemicals. It is acknowledged that there
are discrepancies between some of these estimates and others previously
completed. The following points need to be considered when comparing
these estimates:
> The base year for all chemicals assessed in this program
Is 1978. A number of the chemicals assigned for study
have known toxicity problems, and considerable pressure
has been exerted to restrict their use in numerous appli-
cations. As a result, almost half of the chemicals
assessed had lower production totals in 1978 than in pre-
vious years. In addition, most solvent applications,
which are usually the single largest source of emissions
for most chemicals, have negative growth forecasts because
increased concern for health and safety have brought about
further use restrictions. Reduced production levels will
result in reduced emissions, assuming the percent lost
remains constant. Reduced solvent usage will markedly
reduce total nationwide emissions of a chemical.
> The emissions factors used to estimate emissions represent
only the fraction of the specific chemical that Is lost.
They do not take Into account other associated volatile
organic compounds (VOC) that normally are emitted along
with the chemical being assessed. For example, nitro-
benzene accounts for less than 20 percent of the total VOC
emitted from nitrobenzene manufacture and captive use to
produce aniline.
> Some degree of control is inherent in most of the data
used to compute emissions factors. The factors do not
represent completely uncontrolled emissions losses. As
more old plants are taken out of service and replaced by
45
-------
new ones with a greater number of more efficient control
devices, the overall emissions factors will be reduced.
This might result 1n smaller total Industry emissions even
1f production were to Increase significantly.
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
The dispersion computations carried out on this program require Input
data on wind speed, wind direction, and the Intensity of atmospheric tur-
bulence. The turbulence Intensity was represented, as usual, by the
atmospheric stability class.
Acquisition and Processing of STAR Data
Martin and Tikvart (1968) developed a computer program (the "STAR,"
or STablHty ARray program) that generated frequencies and percentage fre-
quencies of wind direction by speed classes for each stability category
from routinely collected data. The specifications of stability categories
depending on wind speed and sky cover were set up by Pasquill (1961) and
were modified by Turner (1964). The program was adopted for use at the
National Climatic Center (NCC) 1n Ashevllle, North Carolina, where
archived records of all national reporting weather stations are kept. The
most up-to-date version of the STAR data from all STAR stations In the
country was obtained on magnetic tape from NCC, and the matrices of STAR
frequencies used 1n this study were taken from these tapes.
The STAR data obtained from NCC for this study were reprocessed for
the following reasons:
> There are more than one set of frequency summaries for
most STAR stations. By way of Illustration, STAR station
14819 (Chicago/Midway) has 27 sets of data corresponding
to different periods of record and different methods of
46
-------
categorizing stability (e.g., one method distinguishes
between day and night hours; another does not). It would
be time-consuming to select the appropriate set of data
for use each time a source 1s studied. Rather, selection
should be conducted uniformly using the same criteria, and
the most appropriate set of data would be used for each
station.
> The entire STAR data consist of six files, and the sta-
tions are arranged 1n numerical order of their station
codes within files 1 to 4, file 5 and file 6. UUhout
reprocessing the data, the tape must be fully scanned for
each source, the cost alone of which 1s sufficient Incen-
tive for data reprocessing.
> Not all dat* sets for all stations are 1n the same
format or array. The great majority of data sets are
developed for 16 wind directions, but there are a few with
only B. The greatest variation 1n the data format
Involves the specification of stability categories. The
number of stability categories defined for different data
sets varies from five to eight, and the most common varia-
tion was the Inclusion/exclusion of day and night distinc-
tions. The day-night splits were based on probabilities
provided 1n the current STAR algorithm. The dispersion
model 1s based on the availability of daytime and night-
time STAR data, so a day-night STAR data set was developed
for each station.
The first stage In the development of an appropriate STAR data base
was to manually select the most appropriate set of frequency summaries for
each STAR station. The STAR Tabulations Master List (National Climatic
Center, 1979) was used to make the selection by applying the following
criteria, arranged here 1n order of Importance:
47
-------
> Data sets with errors or incomplete data were deleted.
> Data sets based on measurements conducted during a limited
time period 1n a day or under special conditions would not
be used.
> Data sets covering only parts of years would not be used.
> Data sets with day-niqht split would be selected in pre-
ference to those for which there is no day-night break-
down.
> Data sets with the longest recording period would be
selected.
> Data sets with seven stability categories would be
selected in preference to those with eight; sets having
six and five categories would be selected last.
> Data sets with the most recent records would be selected
preferentially.
The selected data sets were then reprocessed into a common format. /
computer program was coded and used for selecting the appropriate data
sets and converting these data sets with different specifications of sta-
bility categories into the default stability array with 16 wind direc-
tions, 6 wind speed classes and 7 stability categories (A, B, C, Dday,
Dniqhf EI and F)- Following are the basic rules used in conducting such
conversions (U.S. EPA, 1977):
> Day-night data sets with seven stability categories are in
the default format.
> For day-night data sets with six stability categories, a
seventh category, F, would be added with all zeros for Us
freguencies (F frequencies having already been assigned
to E).
> For day-night data sets with eight stability categories,
the frequencies for the last two stability categories (F
and G) would be combined into a single category (F).
-------
> For data sets with five stability categories, the fourth
category (D) would be split Into two categories (Dday and
Dn1_ht) with 60 percent of the frequencies assigned to
Dday and 40 percent to Dnighr The original fifth cate-
gory would become category E, and a new category with all
zero frequencies would be added as category F.
> For data sets with six stability categories, but without a
Dnignt category, the fourth category would be split
(60:40) into categories Dda., and Dn1ght.
> For data sets with seven stability categories, but without
a Dn.jght category, the fourth category would be split
(60:40) into Dday and Dn1ght, and the last two categories
in the original data set would be combined to form cate-
gory F in the new default format.
> For data sets with eight stability categories, but without
a Dnignt category, the fourth1category would be split
(60:40) into Dday and Dp1ght. The last three categories
in the original data set would be combined to form cate-
gory F in the new default format.
The reprocessed data sets would have a format Including 16 wind
directions, six wind speed classes, and seven stability categories with
categories A, B, C, and Dday 1n the daytime and categories Dn1gnt, E, and
F in the nighttime. There are data sets for 311 stations 1n this repro-
cessed STAR data file; their locations and recording periods are listed
in Table 6*. This data file was used for dispersion modeling of chemical
emissions from specific and generic point sources. It 1s also 1n a form
suitable for direct application for most long-term air quality modeling.
Because of Its length, this table appears at the end of this subsection
on pp. 74 ff.
49
-------
STAR Station Selection
Meteorological data recorded at the STAR station nearest to the
source may be used in the dispersion modeling. However, local meteoro-
logical trends and topographic features may be more Important factors 1n
selecting a STAR station than Is the absolute distance between the source
and the station. A STAR station with cl1fflatolog1cal conditions most
similar to those of the source of emissions nay not be the nearest sta-
tion, so the STAR stations were manually selected to take Into account
these factors.
The STAR station selection process developed and used In this study
consists of e crude candidate Identification process and a detailed
assessment process.
Preliminary Candidate STAR Station Identification Process
The purpose of the preliminary process Is to Identify 2 to 10 candi-
date STAR stations for each major point source. The major criteria used
in selecting these candidates are the availability of STAR data and the
absolute distance between the source of emissions and the STAR station.
Only those 311 stations listed In Table 6 were considered STAR stations
here. The following steps were Involved In this process:
> All of the 311 STAR stations were computer-plotted on four
transparency maps [(Figures 3(a) to 6(a)]» The five-
digit code of each STAR station was printed on the maps
with the third digit representing the exact location of
the station.*
Because of their length, these figures appear at the end of this
subsection on pp. 90 ff.
All codes that do not overlap In printing are presented 1n
Figure 3(a). Potential overlapping codes are printed on subsequent
figures [4{a) - 6(a)].
50
-------
> Information on each specific point source of emissions was
collected:
- Company name.
- Plant location.
- Geodetic coordinates (longitude and latitude).
> Each of the sources was computer-plotted on a map with the
same coordinates and scales. For example, the six sources
as plotted on the background maps of Figures 3 through 6
represent six major chemical-emitting sources 1n the
United States (see Table 7).
> By overlapping the STAR station transparency maps and the
emissions source maps, the candidate STAR stations were
Identified for each emissions source based on the nearness
of the STAR stations to the emissions sources.
TABLE 7. LOCATION OF SIX MAJOR CHEMICAL-EMITTING SOURCES*
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Company
Dow
Amoco
Celanese
DuPont
Hercules
FMC
Location
Freeport, TX
Decatur, AL
Bishop, TX
Laplace, LA
Hopewell, VA
S. Charleston, WV
Latitude
28°59'30"
34°36'12"
27°34'06"
30e04'00"
37°15'34"
38°22'10"
Longitude
95°23'35"
86058'24"
97°49'27"
90°32'00"
77°17'14"
81°40'02"
From Table 3.
51
-------
Detailed STAR Selection Process
Of paramount Importance 1n this process 1s the matching of STAR sta-
tions and emissions sources that are In similar local meteorological
regimes and are Influenced by similar orographlc (topography on the scale
of mountain ranges) conditions. Major features considered here Include
the following:
> Surface thermal patterns, which can affect the locel
Mind. For example, the local sea-land breeze wind system
1s usually limited to surface-based layers several hundred
meters thick. This layer, of course, 1s where chemicals
are emitted; it 1s Important 1n our study, especially for
chemical plants located on ocean coasts or adjacent to
large lakes. Another example concerns fohn winds, the
influence of which was considered for emissions sources
located in Montana (Chinook) and in Los Angeles County
(the Santa Ana wind). About 10 STAR stations were chosen
in consideration of local winds.
> Wind patterns are taken from the Climatic Atlas (U.S.
Environmental Data Service, 1968) and from maps of the
U.S. Geological Survey (1:500,000; 1:125,000). We have
matched about 20 emissions source-STAR station couples for
Pacific and Atlantic coasts and Great Lakes shore.
> Topographical effects, such as that of mountain-valley
wind. The behavior of the wind 1n ridge-valley topography
depends, on one hand, on the relationships between the
wind direction and the solar azimuth, and the orientation
of the ridge lines and valleys on the other. These local
wind effects were taken Into consideration for selection
processes, especially for emissions sources located 1n the
valleys of the Cascades and coastal ranges (northwestern
states) or the Appalachian Mountains (Eastern states).
52
-------
> Urban effects, Including wind flow disturbances by urban
thermal or frlctlonal elements such as organized patterns
of urban skyscrapers (Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles
metropolitan, etc.). Such features substantially
Influence airstream and, consequently, the diffusion of
air contaminants. If an emissions source 1s located in a
small city, and If STAR stations In a large city and 1n a
small city are equidistant from the emissions source, then
preference was given to the STAR station in the small
city.
If two or more STAR stations were equally appropriate, preference was
given to the station with the longest and most recent period of record;
this information can be found in Table 6.
Table 8t lists all the specific point sources identified In this
study, together with the STAR station selected for each. The latter were
selected by means of the selection process described above. Table 9 lists
the location and the selected STAR stations for the 12 PCB Incinerators.
Meteorological Data Base for Prototype Point Source Modeling
A prototype model source was defined to represent all the sources of
the same nature in each region,* so 1t was desirable to define a set of
meteorological data for dispersion modeling that Is representative of the
whole region. However, the use of a mean or composite matrix of cllma-
tologlcal frequencies of occurrence In a regional model source emissions
dispersion estimation would not be appropriate, because the averaging pro-
* pp. 74 ff.
t pp. 82 ff.
* See Figure 1.
53
-------
TABLE 9. SELECTED STAR STATIONS FOR PCB INCINERATORS
NO.
8ITE
LATITUDE LONGITUDE STAR BTATIOR
1
2
3
4
5
«
7
a
9
19
II
12
ATLA1TTA, GA
BATON ROUGE. LA
BRIDGEPORT. RJ
CHICAGO. !L
DEER PARK. TX
DENVER. CO
EL DORADO. AH
LOS ANGELES. CA
RICHMOND. VA
9ARDUSKY, OH
6AJ1 FRANCISCO. CA
WATERFORD. NY
33 49 17
39 33 38
39 46 0
41 52 0
29 49 59
39 43 12
33 14 38
34 0 0
37 2B S3
40 26 19
38 0 0
42 49 3
84 22 HI
9f IB 30
70 22 0
87 43 38
93 9 0
163 0 0
92 18 48
MB 0 0
77 25 6
82 41 21
122 0 0
73 45 13
19874
13970
13739
14819
12906
23062
93992
23174
13740
I4B9I
23234
14739
-------
cess leads to loss of characteristic biases In the original records. For
example, 1f the prevailing wind 1s from a different direction at each of
four stations that are averaged, the mean will have a more Isotroplc dis-
tribution with no strongly prevailing direction. Therefore, typical
cllmatologlcal data recorded at STAR stations that are representative of
each region were selected and used for generic source modeling; the
Climatic Atlas of the United States (1968) was used as the basis for
selection. The major criteria used 1n selecting each representative STAR
station Include the following:
> Representativeness of annual surface wind rose
> Availability of STAR data at the station
> Size of the urban area at or near station.
Table 10 lists the code and location of the STAR station selected for each
region. The meteorological data recorded at these stations were used to
estimate the concentration patterns 1n the vicinities 1n generic point
sources.
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION DATA BASES
The estimation of human exposure to atmospheric chemicals requires
knowledge of both concentration patterns and population distributions.
Errors 1n specifying either of these factors affect the reliability of
human exposure and dosage estimates. The acquisition, validation, and
processing of population data were performed by Minlmax Research Corpor-
ation under subcontract to SAI. This subsection summarizes the approaches
and results of these efforts 1n these aspects. (The User's Manual and
Programmer's Manual for applying the processed population data 1n specific
point source exposure-dosage estimation are included in Attachment B.
Selected stations had wind roses like those of most other stations.
55
-------
TABLE 10. SELECTED REGIONAL PROTOTYPE STAR STATIONS WITH REPRESENTATIVE
REGIONAL CLIMATOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
Region
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
STAR Station
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific Coast
Code
14739
94789
14855
14942
13874
13882
12923
23062
23174
Site
Boston
New York
Chicago
Omaha
Atlanta
Chattanooga
Houston
Denver
Los Angeles
Location
Boston/Logan
New York/J.F. Kennedy
Glenview
Omaha
Atlanta
Chattanooga/Lovel1
Galveston/Scholes
Denver/Stapleton
Los Angeles
Longitude Latitude
71°02'
73°47'
87°50'
95°54'
86°26'
85°12'
96°52'
104°52'
118°24'
42°22'
40°39S
42°05'
41°18'
33*39'
35°02'
29°16'
39°45'
33°56'
-------
Population Data Acquisition
The Computer Science and Applied Mathematics Division of the Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) has assembled an extensive collection of compu-
terized data bases from federal government agencies and contractors.
Several of these data bases that could be used 1n assembling a population
distribution data base were reviewed.
The LBL data bases are organized according to the system used by the
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistics are reported at various levels:
state, county. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), census tract
(CT), enumeration district (ED), or block group (BG), and so on. The
SMSAs are composed of one or more contiguous counties (or, in New England,
cities and towns). Counties within SMSAs are subdivided Into census
tracts (covering an average of about 6,000 people), and the tracts are
subdivided Into block groups (covering an average of about 800 people).
With some exceptions, areas outside of SMSAs are not tracted. Non-SMSA
counties were divided Into enumeration districts (ED) in the United States
in 1970. An ED in the non-SMSA counties would be equivalent 1n terms of
average population to a BG In the SMSA counties.
The population distribution data bases must contain, at a minimum,
the following Information for each designated area (county, tract, or
block group):
> The Federal Information Processing System (FIPS) code of
the area.
> The 1970 census population count.
> The geodetic coordinates (latitude/longitude) of the 1970
census population centrold.
Other information would be useful, but not necessary. Such Information
would Include, for example, area (water, land, and total) and population
density.
57
-------
To the fullest possible extent, the resolution of the population dis-
tributions should be commensurate with dispersion pattern resolution. The
effective radius of dispersion of emissions varies considerably with
source characteristics and atmospheric conditions. Some emissions are
highly concentrated at certain azimuths and radii, whereas others are more
uniformly distributed. Detailed population distribution statistics are
required to estimate exposure to concentrated emissions. Using compara-
tively large areas, such as counties, as the geographic unit of enumera-
tion could seriously bias the results In such cases. These considerations
dictate the use of the finest resolution possible 1n compiling the popula-
tion statistics. Unfortunately, however, the cost of creating, main-
taining, and using a population distribution data base Increases rapidly
with the degree of geographic detail. Within the context of this study,
cost must be balanced with level of detail. Accordingly, the current
availability of population data bases at LBL was first reviewed.
County Level Population Data Bases--
A data base entitled "Geographic Area Code Index (GACI)" contains the
following items for each state and county 1n the United States:
> FIPS code
> Name
> Geodetic coordinates of the population centrold
> Population
> Land, water, and total areas
> Population density.
This data base can be used in Its present condition with only minor
reformatting.
58
-------
Census Tract Level Population Data Bases--
At the tract level, FIPS codes and population counts art readily
available from several data bases* The most convenient source for codes
and populations seems to be the "Master Enumeration District List
(MEDLIst)." Centrolds must be computed from one of two sources:
> The raw digitized tract boundaries 1n the "US by SMSA
Census Tract" map data base, which contains coordinates
for 1.09 million boundary points for some 35t900 tracts.
These data have been used many times and are quite clean.
> The centrolds of the constituent ED/BGs In the "Master
Enumeration District List—Extended" (MED-X) data base.
Processing the tract map files would require the development of a
moderately complex program, portions of which could be adapted from
existing LBL programs. To cover an entire county, further processing
would be required to merge the resulting tract level data base with por-
tions of the county level data.
ED/BG Level Population Data Base--
The "Master Enumeration District List—Extended (MED-X)" data base
contains, for each block group and enumeration district, the following
variables:
> Complete FIPS codes.
> Population count.
> Latitude and longitude of population centrold (areas are
not available).
This data base contains approximately 350,000 records and 45 million
characters. However, the data base had not been cleaned, and the known
defects 1n MED-X Included the following:
59
-------
> Several hundred Illegal alphabetic characters 1n numeric
fields.
> An unknown number of erroneous centrold coordinates.
> The omission of half of the state of Louisiana and part of
Vermont.
Despite these defects, MEO-X contains all of the essential Informa-
tion required in a readily usable form. It 1s arranged so that popula-
tions and centrolds can be easily and cheaply computed for areas larger
than ED/BGs, such as tracts and counties. As a result, 1t provides more
options in choosing the degree of resolution of the population distribu-
tion data base for different parts of the country. In addition, the MED-X
base was determined to have the most accurate data for both population
counts and distribution, and 1t offers the finest resolution.
The severity of problems with MED-X was estimated to be marginal
after spot checking for Illegal alphabetic characters and comparing county
centroids and populations computed from MED-X with those listed 1n the
county level base discussed above. The MED-X data base was selected for
this study.
Population Data Validation
MRC undertook a thorough evaluation of both the Internal consistency
of MED-X and its consistency with independent external f1gures» At the
start of the validation effort, two copies of MED-X existed at LBL; one
was already in LBL-compat1ble format from Argonne National Laboratory (the
ANL version), which was missing approximately half of Louisiana and 15
ED/BGs In Vermont; and another 1n IBM-compatible format from Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (the ORNL version), which had never been used at
LBL. The ORNL versions of Louisanna and Vermont were found to be complete
and were used to replace the corresponding missing portions of the Argonne
version. This revised version of MED-X was subjected to a detailed
evaluation.
60
-------
The MED-X validation process consisted of five separate tasks:
> Detection of missing or altered data resulting from tape
errors.
> Verification of record formats (typographical errors and
records out of order).
> Comparison of population sums of ED/BGs 1n each county to
MED-X county population figures.
> Comparison of ED/BG centrold coordinates with digitized
county boundaries.
> Comparison of MED-X state and county population figures
with published 1970 census figures.
The first three tasks were conducted to check the internal consis-
tency of the MED-X data base. The last two tasks were external checks
performed to assess the overall accuracy of MED-X with respect to incor-
rect or geographically misplaced populations. Two kinds of errors cannot
be detected by comparison with other Independent sources, namely, mis-
placed ED/BGs that fall within the encompassing census areas and errors in
Individual ED/BG population figures.
Such errors, if reasonably infrequent, would have little effect on
the final exposure results except 1n the rare Instance that a substantial
population error occurred In the Immediate vicinity of an emissions
source. The 20 km radius exposure area about each source covers only
0.0025 percent of the area of the contiguous U.S., and only over a small
part of that area do the chemical concentrations vary widely. Therefore,
such rare errors are extremely unlikely to significantly affect the
exposure results.
The results of each of the five validation tasks may be summarized
briefly.
61
-------
Missing Records--
Besldes the missing data for Louisiana and Vermont, which were
replaced by the ORNL version, there was no detection of missing or altered
data.
Format Conslstency--
Four typographical errors were found and corrected. These errors took
the form of nondlgits In numeric fields. Incorrect digits undoubtedly
exist, but they cannot be detected except by their effects on the popula-
tion distribution. The order of records on the tape was found to be cor-
rect.
Internal Population Conslstency--
Populatlons for 2 of the 3141 counties (Keokuk County, Iowa, and
Bergen County. New Jersey) did not equal the total population of their
ED/BGs. The cause of these errors has not been determined, and no correc-
tion has been made. The total of the ED/BG populations for Keokuk County
fell short by 173; the total for Bergen County was 3,387 over the corres-
ponding county figure.
ED/BG Coordinate Conslstency--
A total of 12,859 (5.5 percent) of the ED/BGs 1n the contiguous
United States, containing 5.75 percent of the population, fell outside the
digitized boundaries of their corresponding counties. Table 11 classifies
these ED/BGs by the distance of their centrolds from the nearest point on
the county boundary. Undoubtedly, other ED/BGs with Incorrect coordinates
fall within their boundaries; therefore, the error counts above are lower
bounds. However, most of the ED/BGs that fall Immediately outside (within
1 km) are attributable to either digitizing errors In the county bound-
aries or concavities in the ED/BG boundaries that cause the ED/BG centrold
to be outside its boundary; such discrepancies are not errors. Further-
62
-------
TABLE 11. DISTRIBUTION OF ENUMERATION DISTRICTS/BLOCK GROUPS (ED/BDs)
HAVING POPULATION CENTROIDS LOCATED OUTSIDE THEIR CORRES-
PONDING COUNTIES
Distance from
County Line
I km)
0.1
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
20.0
100.0
200.0
No. of
ED/BGs
2,182
7,533
10,265
11,893
12,475
12,711
12,815
12,857
12,859
Proportion
of Outlying
ED/BGs
16.97%
58.58
79.82
92.49
97.01
98.85
99.66
99.98
100.00
Proportion
of All
ED/BGs
95.37%
97.69
98.87
99.58
99.83
99.94
99.98
99.99
100.00
Source: Mlnlmax Research Corporation consistency
check of U.S Census Bureau files.
63
-------
more, the county codes used in the comparison were those to which the
ED/BGs belonged 1n 1970. Since that time, some of the county boundaries
have moved and the county boundary file has been updated. Thus, some of
the ED/BGs that fell more than 2 km outside their county boundaries may
really be outside the current county boundaries. It 1s Interesting that
of the 922 ED/BGs that fell between 2 and 20 km outside their counties,
564 occurred in only 23 of the 188 associated counties. This concentra-
tion of discrepancies in so few counties suggests the affect of boundary
changes rather than of coordinate errors.
Statistical analysis of the outliers that are almost certainly errors
(those beyond, say, 5 km) may provide an estimate of the distribution of
all such errors. Alternately, ED/BG coordinates could be compared to
digitized census tract boundaries for SMSA counties. These additional
tasks could further quantify the probable error by county, but they seem
unnecessary.
County Population Consistency--
The county population figures from the MED-X county records were com-
pared to the 1970 county populations In Table 24 of the 1970 Census of
Population, United States Summary, Vol. 1, Part 1, keypunched at LBL. The
discrepancies were then double-checked manually against the published
document. Of the 3141 counties and county equivalents compared, 46 (1.5
percent) did not match. The net population difference for the entire
country was 34,907 (0.017 percent of the 1970 U.S. population). It is
very likely that the published figures, which were the first ones produced
by the Bureau of the Census, are less reliable than those 1n MED-X.
MED-X was found to be the most accurate and the most detailed of all
the population distribution data bases at LBL. The relatively few errors
found 1n MED-X affect exposure results less than the lower resolutions of
the alternatives.
64
-------
Population Data Processing
MED-X contains the population centrold coordinates (latitude and lon-
gitude) and the 1970 population of each ED/BG 1n the country (50 states
plus the District of Columbia). In addition to these essential data, MED-
X contains large amounts of descriptive and summary data. While these
data were invaluable in verifying the high degree of accuracy of MED-X,
they Interfere with efficient access to the small subset of Information
needed for the exposure calculations. Moreover, MED-X is collated by
Federal Information Processing System (FIPS) codes, which are assigned
alphabetically by state and county. These codes are not appropriate for
accessing ED/BG records by their locations. The efficiency design goal
required that a data base be created containing only the essential Infor-
mation, and that it be organized to permit access to only the relevant
geographic areas. To this end, a new, smaller data base was produced from
MED-X.
MED-X was reduced in two phases to a randomly-accessible binary file
that contains only the data essential for exposure estimation. An
indexing system was also created to locate the appropriate ED/BGs. A
separate binary file of county-level growth factors, based on the 1970 to
1978 growth factor at the county level and used for scaling population
figures to 1978 estimations, was also produced. The entire system, based
on MED-X ED/BG population data, was used for estimating the human exposure
and dosage of atmospheric chemicals resulting from specific point source
emissions.
ATMOSPHERIC TRANSFORMATIONS OF TOXIC COMPOUNDS
Species monographs for the 35 toxic compounds Included in this study
are presented in Attachment A. It 1s the purpose of this section to
explain the procedures used to describe the transformations 1n the atmos-
phere that are undergone by the various compounds. However, the Informa-
tion presented is subject the following caveats:
65
-------
> First, the gas phase photochemistry of many of these com-
pounds is not well known; 1n several Instances, no Infor-
mation about the behavior of the compound 1n the gas phase
Is available. Accordingly, many of the reaction rates
given are estimates, with possibly large margins of error,
based on liquid phase chemistry or on the known behavior
of chemically related compounds.
> Second, a compound does not necessarily become less toxic
even though it undergoes transformation and decay. A good
Illustration of the point 1s acetaldehyde, which decays to
form formaldehyde--another compound on the 11st of toxic
chemicals. It may be that some of the 35 toxic compounds
decay to other substances perhaps even more toxic than the
precursors; current lack of knowledge regarding formation
yield and toxic effects could result 1n such occurrences
passing unnoticed.
Given the considerable body of knowledge that does exist, the pro-
cedures discussed below were used to estimate the atmospheric lifetimes of
the 35 toxic compounds.
A variety of studies have reported the lifetime or atmospheric resi-
dence time of many of the listed chemicals. Too often the basis for the
decay estimates is not given, so 1n many cases we were unable to verify
prior estimates of chemical reaction rates and could not compare and
reconcile the results of these past studies. In recognition of the uncer-
tainty of reaction data, we have adopted the concept of a reference
species against which to compare the relative rates of reaction for the
Important photochemical pathways. We also state the assumed ambient con-
centrations of hydroxyl radical and ozone, the principal species that
attack and degrade gas phase organic compounds.
66
-------
Most chemical destruction of gaseous compounds In the atmosphere
occurs by one of the following three mechanisms:
> Photolysis
> Reaction with free radicals (chiefly hydroxyl)
> Reaction with atmospheric oxldants (chiefly ozone),
The processes of photolysis and reaction with hydroxyl radicals occur only
1n the daytime. Hydroxyl radicals have a short atmospheric lifetime and
rtqulre a continuing photolytlc source to maintain their concentration.
Reference species for atmospheric reactivity selected for this study
are as follows:
> Butane
> Propylene
> Formaldehyde.
Butane 1s used when a species 1s OH' reactive; propylene Is used when a
Spedes 1s reactive to 03; formaldehyde Is the reference species for
photolysis. Propylene 1s approximately seven times as reactive to OH- as
butane (EPA, 1977).
The concentration of OH- assumed for the daylight hours 1s 5 x 106
molecule cm""*, or 2 x 10"^ ppm (Wang et al., 1975). Ozone background 1s
assumed to be 0.04 ppm. The decay rate for butane due to OH* reactions 1s
8.4 x 10"4 mln"1. The propylene decay rate due to oxidation by 03 1s
6 x ID'4 mliT1.
The photolytlc decay rate of formaldehyde, averaged over the daylight
hours at conditions near the equinox, 1s about 10"3 mln"1. The midday
decay rate 1s about twice this figure. At the summer solstice, the dally
decay rate Is larger owing to Increased duration of the day, but the maxi-
mum photolytlc decay rate for the sunnier Is still only about
2 x 10"3 mln"1; at solar zenith angles below 20°, photolysis rates become
nearly constant (Klllus et al., 1977).
67
-------
Decay Rates for Classes of Compounds
The 35 compounds assessed 1n this study may be divided Into six
general categories (Table 12) on the basis of their general structure and
the data available for each compound. The six categories are as follows:
> Solid substances for which no gas phase chemistry applies;
all of these substances are metals except for TCDD
(D1ox1n).
> Hell characterized compounds. I.e., substances for which
some laboratory data exist as a basis for our estimates.
> Methane analogues, which are compounds with electronic
configurations similar to methane and which are, there-
fore, quite unreactlve.
> Aromatic compounds, with reactivities assumed to be
similar to benzene or toluene.
> Formation products, which are compounds formed by atmos-
pheric reaction.
> Miscellaneous.
The last two categories need further explanation. In the "Miscel-
laneous" grouping, four of the compounds--allyl chloride, chloroprene,
hexachloropentadlene, and phosgene—are chlorine substituted compounds of
hydrocarbons with high reactivity. Although chlorine substitution 1s
expected to modify reactivity somewhat (Gay et al., 1976), we may say with
some confidence that the reactivity of these compounds Is also high. The
reactivity of these four compounds 1s, to that extent, better charac-
terized than for the other miscellaneous compounds. Estimates of the
reactivity of the remaining four compounds may be In error to a substan-
tial degree.
For the "formation products" category, the two nltroso-compounds may
be formed from the nighttime reaction of nitrous add (MONO) and precursor
amines that have been Inventoried. He have estimated the possible produc-
68
-------
TABLE 12. DECAY RATE ESTIMATION CATEGORIES FOR 35 COMPOUNDS
Category
cr,
Solids^
Dioxin§
Manganese
Nickel
Well Characterized
Compounds
Beryllium Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Cresols
Formaldehyde
Toluene
Tri chloroethylene
Xylenes
Methane Analogues
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
1,1,1, Trichloroethane
Aromatics*
Benzyl chloride
Chlorohenzene
Dichlorobenzenes
Nitrobenzene
Phenol
Formation Products
Ni trosomorpholi ne
Dimethylni trosamine
(Acetaldehyde)
(Cresols)
(Formaldehyde)
(Phosgene)
(Ethylene oxide)
(Propylene oxide)
Mi scellaneous
Allyl chloride
Chloroprene
Epichlorohydrin
Ethylene oxide
Hexachlorocyclo-
pentadiene
PCBs
Phosgene
Propylene oxide
No gas phase reactions.
Benzene analogues.
§ 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated, review of species characteristics.
-------
tlon rate for these nltroso-compounds. Photolysis of HONO and nltroso--
compounds precludes the occurrence of significant concentrations of these
compounds during the day.
Nitrous acid and dimethyl amine react to yield dimethyl nitrosamlne and
water (Lucas, 1933):
HONO
Knowledge of the HN02 concentration, the dimethyl amine concentration, and
the rate of dlsappearence of dimethyl amine, combined with the assumption
of the bimolecular reaction expressed above; allows a rate constant to be
calculated for the expression:
d(CH3)2NH
3t* K ' P(CH3)2NH ' PHONO
The value was estimated to be K = 0.08 ppm"1 mln"1 (Hanst et al.,
1977). Assuming a homogeneous reaction, with a 100 percent yield of
dimethylnitrosamlne, the formation rate under normal atmospheric condi-
tions can be estimated.
Nitrous oxide and nitrogen dioxide are two other pollutants of con-
cern here. These two species. In the presence of water vapor cause the
gas-phase formation of nitrous add:
NO + N02 + H20 + 2HN02
The equilibrium constant at 23°C has been estimated by Calvert et al.
(1975) to be:
70
-------
fi ,
1.5 x ^ pplfl-i
By assuming a moderatedly polluted urban air mix with a 1:1 mixture
of NO and N02 of 0,05 ppm total and water vapor of 13,000 ppm, Hanst et
al, (1977) have estimated the typical nighttime nitrous acid concentration
to be 0.0035 ppm, This value was used here, together with the blmolecular
formation expression In estimating the pseudo-first order reaction rate
constant,' It was estlamted to be:
d(CH3)2NNO
31= k ' PHONO
(0.00028
This rate constant applies only In the nighttime. In sunlight, both
the nitrous acid and dimethylnltrosamlne would be destroyed by photolysis
much faster they can be formed.
Because of the chemical similarity of dimehtylamine and morphollne,
the same approach used for eatlmatlng the ambient concentration of nltro-
somorphollne. It should be noted that because of the cyclic structure of
morphollne, the lone pair of electrons of the nitrogen atom are more sus-
ceptible to electrophlllc attack, and therefore, the formation of nltro-
somorphollne from reaction between morpollne and nitrous add should pro-
ceed faster than the formation N,N-d1methylnltrosamlne from reaction
between dimethyl amine and nitrous add. However, there Is no adequate
data available to estimate the pseudo-first order formation rate constant
for nltrosomorphollne, the estimate for dimethylnltrosamlne was taken to
be the same as for nltrosomorphollne.
71
-------
A summary of estimated relative reactivity for each studied chemical
1s presented 1n Table 13. Also Included 1n this table are the day and
nighttime net effective decay rates based on the relative reactivities.
To treat the formation reactions of the remaining compounds 1n the
formation products category 1s beyond the scope of this work. Relatively
sophisticated photochemical models would be required for such an under-
taking, and a full accounting of compounds not Inventoried 1n this project
would be required. For acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and phosgene, 1n par-
ticular, this omission 1s unfortunate. Formaldehyde, for example, 1s
emitted as roughly 1 to 2 percent of automobile exhaust, whereas the
photochemical equilibrium for the compound Is roughly twice this amount.
Consequently, on a day of high photochemical reactivity, more than half
the population exposure to formaldehyde may come from secondary forma-
tion. Similar Inferences apply to acetaldehyde and phosgene. Phosgene 1s
one of the major termination products of the decay of chlorinated hydro-
carbons.
72
-------
TABLE 13. PHOTOCHEMICAL REACTIVITIES OF SELECTED CHEMICALS
Btrjl 1 urn
!li-cMoromethyl
Carbon t* Irichl or Idc
CKIorotw ntfnt
Ch loro fonri
Oilorometh,! mrih/1 tlher
(BCME]
•>-Crnol
p-Cr»iol
o-Cr«sol
o-Oichlorobtnient
Dlonn (J.3.7.B-TCDD)
Cplchlorohydrin
[ih/lene oildf
Fonulden/de
Ht
chloride
(odide
PI1 Iroicmwrphol inr
NUtfl
Hiiro benzene
?-Ni iropropme
PCB
Phinol
Toluene
Tnchloroflhylrne
•-Ijrlene
P-I/line
0-1/lene
I*, en on bit
»«tcll»H]F To-trd Coninnl
OH
(ISul.fy)
4
0 5
I
2
0
1
0
O.JJ
0
1
4.0
12
10
10
0.5
0.5
_ _ •
--
1
3
0
0
0
p
0
0 5
0.05
2
2
;
8
4
8
0,
(IPropjrlene)
0
0 5
0.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0.1
0 1
0.1
0 05
0.05
--
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.15
0
0
0
0
0
f ho ID 1 y 1 1 1
(Iforwldeny
O.S
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
0
1
0
0
0
0.05
D
D
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
He) Canine
4.36.10°
9.5.10°
_ *
1.77.10 J
_•!
1.68.10
0
J
8.4.10 *
0
_j
Z.BilO
0
B.4,10"1
4.56.10°
1 01ilQ"Z
. i
B.46.10
a 46.io°
,J
4 5.10
. j
4 5.10
_fl
Z 52.10°
0
0
0
5.10"5
0
4.2.10"*
4.2.10°
1.77ilO°
1.68.10°
1 68.10°
6.72.10°
3.16.10°
6.72.10°
mqnulu*
0
3.10"'
c
9.10
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
1.2.10°
6.10"5
C
6.10
6.10'5
Ji 1 0
3il 0
--
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
;;
9mlO"5
0
0
0
0
0
reactivity unknown
73
-------
TABLE 6. LOCATION AND RECORDING PERIOD OF STAR DISPERSION DATA FILES AS REPROCESSED
FOR USE IN HUMAN EXPOSURE DISPERSTOTTSTUDIES
HO.
CODE
SITE
STATE LATITUDE LORCITUVC STAKTIHG EHDIRC
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
fl
9
IO
II
12
13
14
IB
16
17
IO
19
29
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
29
no
31
:i2
33
34
33
36
37
3D
39
49
3133
3013
3n 16
31129
311^2
31155
3072
3927
3937
4739
4743
47BI
I2BI3
12834
I2O3S
I2B39
i : i; ; \ i
121*42
I21W4
I290C
12917
129IO
12923
12925
12947
I295O
I2V60
13701
13703
13767
13713
13714
13V 17
13721
13723
13720
13732
13733
SU734
13739
YOCCA FLATS
NACOFI
PADUCAW
AUCUMTA
SAVAHIIAn
PKR8ACOLA
DKCKLKY
FT WOI1TII
LAKE CHARLES
DF.LMAn
PORTS HOUTH
BRADFORD
TAUT A
DAYTORA
FT MYERS
NIAMI
nill.AMDO
TAHP/l
WEST PALH D.
noijsnui
PIIT Airrmm
iioiitmiH
CALVtiJ'roR
DF.EVILLE
COTULI.A
REW (in LEANS
IIOUSTON. 12910
ADKllDl.l.N
HAOII MUTTON
1)0 V PR
COLPSIiniiO
FT I1OACC
HYirrui iiEAcn
PATUXKHT iiiven
CRKENSHflRO
DARVILLK
CORDOIigviLLE
l.YNCIiniinC
HANI MISDimC
niLLVILLE
RV
CA
ICY
CA
CA
FL
MV
TX
LA
NJ
NH
PA
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
••-•x
'IX
TX
IX
TX
IX
LA
TX
HD
DC
DC
HC
RC
SC
ND
RC
VA
VA
VA
W
KJ
36 07
32 42
37 4
33 22
32 8
3O 21
37 47
32 54
39 7
4O 1 1
43 B
41 48
27 Bl
29 1 1
26 38
20 48
20 27
27 58
26 41
29 37
29 57
29 39
2') 16
2(1 23
2O 27
29 49
29 59
39 20
30 49
39 B
33 29
33 19
33 41
3O 17
36 B
36 34
38 4
37 2«
39 24
39 22
116 3
O3 39
00 46
01 58
81 12
O7 19
01 7
97 2
93 13
74 4
79 49
73 38
02 31
81 3
Bl B2
89 16
lit Ili
O2 32
O9 6
95 19
94 1
95 17
94 52
97 40
99 13
90 1
95 22
76 19
76 52
75 20
77 50
79 1
78 06
76 25
79 07
79 29
78 19
79 12
77 59
7B 4
61X1'
67x
60x
79x
69x
67x
7IX
7lx
79X
55x
69X
7#X
6Bx
67x
69X
7©x
6«x
69X
70X
C6X
64x
64X
B6X
66X
GOX
79X
7ix
G5X
66X
66X
66X
66X
66X
52X
6QX
B9X
B6X
69X
$9X
sex
> 64x11
71X12
64x12
74X12
7'jxl2
7lxl3
73X12
75x12
74X12
59X12
69X12
74X12
69xl£
71X12
73X12
74X12
6'ixili
73x |2
7UXI2
7Ox|2
64X12
0(VI2
6OXI2
7OXI2
54X12
74X12
75X12
57X12
7OXI2
7OXI2
70X12
7OXI2
7«X12
7IXJ2
72X13
04X12
6OXI2
73X52
64X12
54X12
-------
TABLE 6 (Continued)
NO.
CODE
SITE
tn
41
42
43
44
49
46
47
48
49
r,o
51
52
53
54
er?
O<*
56
57
50
59
69
61
62
63
64
rrl
ll J
66
67
68
69
ve
71
72
73
74
78
76
77
78
9n
79
89
13736
13737
13739
I374O
13741
13743
13744
13749
13733
13773
13892
I3OO6
I38O7
138 15
13829
13824
13325
I3O40
13859
13863
13866
13868
13870
13871
131 173
1387-1
13077
131181
1 .1I1O2
I3U1I9
I3O91
I3O95
I3U97
13921
13933
13939
13941
13942
13943
13956
MORCAJmoWH
NORFOLK RKC
"mi A.TFT PHI A.
• H 1 1 tJIMfl iLfL UI n
RICURORO
n/lA N Ar *"f?
i H f /in 1 1 1 +IL
WASHIRCTON DC
FLOREHCE
FRCOERICK
ATLANTIC CITY
QUANT ICO
RF.LLEVILLE
KT CAWDELL
FT IvHOX
ALOAHY
11 1 1 1 1 vi
II 1 l_4lfi 1
SAVAfiriAD
coLiinnus
DAYTOII
SEU1A
MERIDIAN
CHARLESTON
PULASKI
ALflA
ANNISTON
AI'IIKriCi
A-ILAHTA
nn i r^mi
illl IN 1 Ulj
CHARLOTTE
CHA11AHOOCA
| A/*|.r|-i/l||V/ | | f C*
>intjlxE -(Ml v 1 Ll^L
KNOJJVI/.LE
HONTCIlffERY
NASHVILLE
FT IJ^VF.NWORTU
ALEKAHDHIA
GREENVILLE
LAKE CHARLES
NDNROE
FT SILL
JACKSON
__ fJ^JE- LATITUDE
STARTING EM IRC
HV
VA
PA
VA
VA
DC
sc
no
HJ
VA
IL
KY
KY
CA
rid
CA
nsr
ou
AL
BS
W
VA
CA
AL
CA
CA
TH
RC
TN
FL
TN
\L
TR
Kd
LA
K3
LA
LA
OK
MS
39 39
36 54
39 53
37 3«
37 19
38 31
3-t II
39 2G
39 27
38 30
38 33
36 49
37 54
31 35
39 25
32 i
33 39
39 49
32 29
32 29
38 22
37 8
31 22
33 35
33 U7
33 39
36 29
35 13
35 2
36 30
33 49
32 10
36 7
39 22
31 23
33 29
30 13
32 31
34 39
32 28
79 55
*• ' \J*f
76 12
75 15
77 20
79 50
77 2
79 43
77 27
74 35
77 19
09 51
07 29
85 58
84 7
00 55
81 O
OO 27
C4 3
RA KQ
am 9r
88 45
81 36
no 41
••v ^ L
82 31
85 SI
OU 19
84 26
G2 24
UO 56
85 12
01 42
83 59
86 24
86 41
94 B5
92 18
90 59
93 Ifl
•* " I v
02 3
98 24
99 13
CA —
59x
L(jx
67x
74X
68x
74x
A Ay
O?TX
49x
54x
63x
ft 1 S
O Is
65s
64s
69s
69s
66x
66x
64x
ff4x
66x
68x
S6x
I4x |
49x |
69x i
69X
6 Ox
69x
68x
70x
6Ox
6 Ox
7|x
62x
79x
56x^
58x
54X
66X
60x i
—
54X12
64xr2
7|xi2
75xi2
72x|2
74X12
I 64x f2
1 G2XI2
' 58X12
1 69X12
I 7Oxf2
1 69X12
68x12
73x12
64xi2
7OX12
70^12
64X12
58X12
79X12
73X|2
54X12
L 58X12
54X12
r:ixi2
73X12
64X12
73X12
73X12
74x|2
73X12
64X12
75x|2
7OX12
74X12
6OX12
62X12
58X12
7OX12
64X12
-------
TABLE 6 (Continued)
NO.
core
SITT
STATE LATITUDE LONGITUDE STAKTING ENDING
ni
112
U3
U4
09
06
117
110
U9
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
90
99
IOO
101
102
IO3
104
IO5
IO6
107
IWB
lev
10
II
12
IJ
14
10
16
17
ID
19
129
I39B7
I39BO
13960
13961
13962
10963
l3')6-t
13967
I396O
13969
13970
13972
13976
13977
I39U3
1390H
13994
13993
13990
I46O7
1461 1
14622
I47O2
14704
I4V06
I4VUH
14712
14717
14733
147 3 to
14737
14739
I-J/-1O
14V 42
147-13
14747
1 47-1O
I47KO
14731
14732
SHnEVKPOHT
AUSTIN
DALLAS)
fl NOimi
ABILENE
LITTLE ROCK
rr i;nmi
OKALAIIOHA CITY
TULSA
PONCA CITY
IIATON nOUCE
TYI.F.H
IJIKAYITITE
TEXAIIIOWA
roLutmiA
KANSAS CITY
RT LOUIS
SPRINGFIELD
TOPEKA
CARfltOM
niuinutucrc
OLD TOW
UEOFOIIO
FALNnirni
wiin:irTtriTiN
IIEBI*JI IT; AD
HEADING
IWHE
ALBANY
ALTOONA
ALLEHTOWn
DOSTON
imir> <>nD
MIJJII.IIir-lUN
CONCflllD
DUNK 1 UK
KLHIflA
CLENJ FALL
nAnnismmc
nAirrForiD
LA
TX
TX
TX
TX
AR
An
OK
OK
OK
LA
TX
LA
An
IK)
no
HO
HO
I'.S
HE
(IE
HE
IIA
HA
NJ
NY
PA
NY
NY
PA
PA
MA
CT
VT
III!
NV
NY
NY
PA
CT
32 28
39 IB
32 Bl
32 49
32 26
34 44
33 20
33 24
36 12
36 44
3O 32
32 22
30 92
33 27
3D 3D
39 7
3O 43
37 14
39 4
40 32
43 33
44 07
42 2O
41 39
40 1
4O 44
49 23
43 14
42 45
40 IB
49 39
42 22
41 GCi
•W 2U
43 12
42 30
42 19
43 21
40 13
49 44
93 49
97 42
96 01
97 21
99 41
92 14
94 22
97 36
95 64
97 6
91 9
93 24
91 G9
94 0
92 22
94 36
90 23
93 23
9G 30
6O 1
69 B9
6O 4\»
71 17
70 31
74 36
73 36
7B 68
7B 24
73 48
7B 19
7B 26
71 2
72 41
73 9
71 30
79 17
76 54
73 37
76 Bl
72 39
79X
69x
69X
49 x
67X
66x
BOX
70x
OBx
49X
7OX
BOX
64X
63x
64X
64x
70X
66X
63x
53X
6OX
6OX
63X
69X
66X
B9X
49X
66X
69X
49XH
64X
66X
65X
70x
6OX
49X
BOX
BOX
64X
4OX
74x12
73X12
70x12
82X12
71X12
79X12
74X12
74X12
74X12
D4XI2
74XJ2
84X12
GOXI2
67X12
6UXI2
64X12
74x|2
70X12
72X12
62X12
69X12
64X12
67X12
64X12
70X12
60X12
49X92
79X12
64X12
» 04X 9
73X82
7OXI2
04x11:
74X12
6->xi2
33x12
B4XS2
G4XI2
73X12
52X12
-------
TABLE 6 (Continued)
HO.
CODE
KITE
„ '*• L*riTUDE LONGITUDE STARTING ENDING
1 *» |
122
123
124
125
126
127
1211
129
130
131
132
133
134
113
1:16
137
I:KJ
139
i-to
141
1-12
143
1 44
143
l'!6
147
MO
149
l!iO
Oil
152
Ib.'l
154
153
156
157
158
139
169
14757
14761
14762
14763
14764
14765
14771
14777
14778
14790
14793
14806
14820
14821
I4J122
141125
14037
I4U39
141)40
I4U42
14843
14(143
14(155
I4U6O
14(191
I4U95
I4I19U
14904
14913
I49M
1 49 1 8
14920
14922
14923
14925
14920
14931
14933
14935
14938
PoucnrcEEpgiE
PHII.IPSIJIJRC
PiTTsnuncn
PITTSFIELD
PORTLAND
PROV i PENCE
SYRACUSE
HILKKO-DARRE
WILLIAMSPORT
SOUTH WEYHOUTH
WILLOK GROVE
RANTOUL
CLEVELAND
COLUMBUS
HKTIIOIT CITY
KINOLAY
MAD 1 SOU
MILWAUKEE
HUSKTCON
PEORIA
PERJiY
RAG 1 HAW
GLEN VIEW
ERIK
MANSFIELD
AKIIOM
CRKEfl DAY
LINCOLN
nui.uiu
FAIICO
INT If MAS
I.A cn.0oyt;
MINNEAPOLIS
MOLIN
IIOCIItSTER
ST CLOUD
nURLINCTON
DES MOINES
CRARD IS
KIR1C3VILLE
NY
PA
PA
MA
ME
HI
NY
PA
PA
HA
PA
IL
OH
Oil
Ml
on
\J 1
" 1
HI
rn
1 1
1 L.
on
HI
1 1
• LI
PA
r A
on
on
I; f
'" I
•I |«
nU
UN
riii
no
TIN
W|
I-IN
IL
UN
TIN
IA
IA
NO
no
41 3O
40 53
4O 21
42 26
43 39
41 44
43 7
41 20
41 15
42 9
40 12
40 18
41 24
40 0
42 25
41 |
43 8
42 57
4:i 10
40 40
41 47
43 26
41 j—
t- 5
4*^ *i
40 49
•Ml 55
44 29
40 5 1
4t» 50
40 54
40 34
43 52
44 53
41 27
43 55
43 35
40 47
41 32
40 5O
-------
TABLE 6 (Continued)
no.
CODE
SITK
oo
1 A 1
IO 1
162
163
164
163
166
167
I6U
Hi9
170
171
172
173
174
173
IV6
177
178
179
ino
181
1(12
IIKI
U»»
1113
1116
MI7
ino
mo
190
191
192
193
194
193
196
197
198
!99
209
14940
14942
14943
14944
14949
14991
23092
23OO9
23023
23O34
23O39
23043
23044
23O47
23049
23032
23962
23964
23960
23966
239O1
23O99
231 12
23 1 1 4
23IIQ
23132
23129
23131
23136
23152
23 1 34
23155
23I3U
23I6O
23161
23169
23179
23174
23179
23IO3
HASOR CITY
OMAHA
SIOIJH CITY
8IOU3 KALLS
OMAHA
EAIJ CLAIIIE
ALAKOCOnuu
llft>Jhf-~l I ^u «• .
ii'PSnM.LxWALKEn
NIDL/HJD
HAH AHCELO
l-Ay CRUCKS
HOSWELL
EL PASO
AH/miLLO
SANTA KE
RATONxCREHS
DENVER
GARDEN CITY
COODLAUD
GRAND JUNCTION
GALLUP
F ARLINGTON
LAS VMMy
EDWiUin >
llfHtfi/'Ti"1 A rk
iULivif^ij IKAD
RAN DCRIIAnDirio
iXinr nrr-A^n
• JPIH, IK ./iCIl
VlCTOilVlLLE
OXNARD
iii'niiAnf
EI,V
f1A''l> . ~ >r i E*I n
i in .1 .• I fc,LD
my • v
* • • i
TlHlKiHi
• "\Jtjf JM
DACCET
LAS VEC/'S
JIANKSVILLE
l^OS AIICELL3
NEEDLES
PHOEWIK
.' i /i 1 E
IA
NO
IA
SD
NO
W|
NH
un
TX
TX
HN
Nfl
TX
TX
Nn
Nn
CO
KS
KS
CO
Hn
Nn
NV
<:A
uv
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
NV
CA
C,\
AZ
CA
HV
UT
CA
CA
AZ
• LATITUD
43 9
41 IO
42 24
43 34
41 7
44 82
32 0|
33 III
31 06
31 22
32 22
33 24
31 40
33 14
33 37
36 43
39 40
37 86
39 22
39 7
38 31
36 43
36 15
34 54
39 49
34 6
33 49
34 30
34 13
34 12
39 17
3-T 26
33 37
32 7
34 52
36 0
3fl 22
33 36
34 46
33 26
E LONCITUD
93 29
95 04
96 23
96 44
9G 54
91 29
f n«. f.
I VO fy
104 32
102 12
IOO 39
IO6 29
IO4 32
106 24
1OI 42
106 0
104 39
194 02
IM 43
101 42
108 12
108 47
108 14
1 10 2
1 17 5*i
M9 62
1 17 14.
lie 14
no 9
117 23
119 0
1 IO 22
114 r •
• • ^ if |
119 1
• • ^ o
114 <*3
IIO 06
116 47
IIC 19
IIO 43
MO 24
M4 37
112 1
• • ft i
E STARTI
?9x
6 Ox
6Ox
74x
69x
69X
49x
73x
66x
69X |
Glx |
49x |
60x 0
B5x |
6Ox
49x
79x
OOx
69x
69x
73x
• A f
B4x
6UX
66x
66X
66x
49x
08x
6 Ox
60x
67x
64x \
69x 9
53x
55x
6 Ox
49 x
05x
B3x
73x
I»C ENDING
74X|2
64X12
64X12
74X|2
64XJ2
73x|2
7OX|2
73x|y
64X12
64X|2
(»3x|2
54X|2
64x|2
64XJ2
04XJ2
Glx|2
74x|2
04X12
73x|2
64X12
7BXI2
64X12
67xu
70xi2
6Jx|2
70X12
64x|2
67xi2
64x(2
64XJ2
71X82
V3x§2
74x o
64x|2
64X12
64x|2
54XJ2
64X|2
64x|2
70X12
-------
TABLE 6 (Continued)
HO.
COOF.
UD
KITF STATE LATITU1»E LOnCITODE STARTINC EHDIPC
201
202
203
204
205
2O6
207
2on
2»»9
2IO
21 1
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
22O
221
1-1O
223
224
223
226
227
228
229
230
j;n
2il'i
233
2:: -1
235
236
237
238
239
240
23184
23183
23iao
2HI9O
23194
23195
23199
23202
2321 1
23230
23232
23234
23230
23239
23244
23245
23273
23275
24012
24OI3
24OI5
24823
24025
2402U
24036
24637
24090
24101
24106
24110
241 18
24121
24128
24130
2413 1
24135
24137
24141
24144
24143
PREBCOTT
RENO
SAW DIEGO
8AHTA DAHRA11A
H INFLOW
YDIIA
EL CEHHIO
FAIRFICLD
RAH HAT- A EL
fi A in Ann
lf/\M Ji M If
SACIMHLIITO
SAN FHANCI?CO
SAWTA flARIA
AI.AHEDA
SUNNYVALE
MOHTOIV
SANTA ami A
UK 1 All
DICKIMSON
Minor
AKHON
NOHTII PLATTE
p i F.nnrc
SCOTTliRI (IFF
LEWISTOWN
RAVLIRS
RAPID CITY
OCDEN
rrr TOME
flOSES LAKE
1 1 i'. uuu -:u
KLKO
VINNEI.UCCA
HAKFJl
tui i r*ii"
IWJ 1 : f\L
Hum.
pinTiArjrr
\**l 1 1 ''ill LV
EPIIIIATA
IIELFNA
IDAHO FALL
AZ
nv
CA
CA
\L
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
C,\
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
110
NO
CO
RO
SO
nn
HT
WY
SO
UT
ID
WA
HY
NV
HV
on
ID
HT
MT
WA
HT
ID
34 39
39 30
32 44
34 26
orr |
J,l 1
32 48
32 49
3(1 16
3(1 4
37 44
:ill 31
37 37
34 56
37 48
37 25
30 35
34 54
30 8
46 47
48 16
4O IW
41 U
44 23
41 52
47 3
41 48
44 3
41 7
43 3
47 12
41 24
4O 50
4O 54
44 50
43 34
45 57
4O 36
47 19
40 36
43 31
12 26
19 47
17 1
19 56
It* 44
14 36
15 41
21 56
22 3O
22 12
21 ao
22 23
28 25
22 18
22 4
21 52
20 27
23 12
102 40
101 17
10.1 13
100 41
100 17
103 36
109 27
107 12
103 4
II 58
IS 92
19 19
10 25
15 47
17 48
17 49
16 13
12 3O
12 22
19 31
12 0
12 4
*7X
60X
65X
60x
49X
67x
54x
6 0x
66X
6 Ox
66X
69X
49x
69x
60x
69x
65x
55x
OOx
67x
5Ox
69x
67x
67x
67x
83x
67x
65x
65x
6lx
5
-------
TABLE 6 (Continued)
NO.
CODE
SITE
STATE LATITUDE LONGITUDE STARTING END IRC
CD
o
241
240
243
24 +
24B
206
247
24(1
249
2G»
251
252
::'..3
2'.J4
2'JS
2^6
2^7
25Q
2n9
26O
261
262
26 :i
264
2O5
266
267
2611
269
270
271
272
•JV3
274
278
276
277
278
279
280
24146
24 1 T. I
24153
24153
24136
24137
24169
24293
24297
24217
24219
24220
:M;T? i
242213
242ti7
24229
24230
24232
24233
24234
24241
24243
242113
90026
93034
93037
9304<>
93O57
931 02
93106
93111
931 12
93294
93706
93733
93739
93R04
93083
931107
93813
KALIRI'F.LL
riALAI) CITY
NISSOW.A
PF.NDLI.TOR
I'OC ATI LLO
SPOKANE
WALLA WALLA
EVERETT
TACOHA
DELL INCH AM
DALLES PORT
ELLERSDURG
F.uoji ••.
FfF.IH-OIlD
OLYNPIA
PORTLAND
I9KDKOH
SALRH
SEAT1 1.R
SEATTLE
roi.Eno
YAK 1 HA
Alii: ATA
IKMH7LA3
imnra
COLO SPRINGS
•aw 1
CHARTS
FALLOII
LOS ALAHITOS
POINT HUGU
SAN niliCO
VANDENIUiltC
IIAUEHSTOWN
FT NEADE
WALLOI"S 19
SPACTANDimC
TALLAHASSEE
WINBTON SALEfl
DAYTOH
MT
ID
MT
Oil
ID
WA
HA
VA
WA
WA
WA
WA
on
on
HA
on
on
on
WA
WA
HA
WA
CA
AZ
HH
CO
KM
NM
HV
CA
CA
CA
CA
HD
MD
VA
8C
FL
NC
Oil
4R 10
42 10
46 35
43 51
42 S3
47 3O
46 «
47 09
47 9
40 48
48 37
47 2
44 7
42 22
46 5O
4j 36
44 16
44 30
47 27
47 32
46 29
•X* 34
4O 59
31 27
III 41
38 49
33 6
33 19
39 23
33 48
34 7
32 43
34 43
39 42
39 B
37 Ot
34 BB
30 23
36 O
39 94
14 i6
12 19
14 5
10 61
12 36
17 32
18 17
122 17
122 29
122 32
121 9
120 3!
l^:i 13
122 G2
122 04
122 36
121 9
123 1
122 HO
122 10
122 48
120 32
124 6
109 36
IO3 12
IO4 43
I€>O 48
IO7 54
MO 43
IIO 7
119 7
117 12
129 34
77 43
76 46
75 29
81 87
84 22
8O 14
84 13
6Ox
48x
67/
65/
65X
74X
B»x
63/-
66X
74X
64/
BOX
7 ix
7 ex
74X
69X
5GX
74x
7
-------
TABLE 6 (Concluded)
?*o.
CODR
RITE
CD
STATE LATITUDE LONGITUDE
____
20 1
202
21)3
204
2K5
206
2IJ7
208
2O9
290
201
202
203
294
295
296
207
29D
209
300
391
392
393
304
305
1"6
"117
• '*/ •
300
309
310
311
_ — — __
93817
93019
93O20
93022
93024
93036
93041
93842
93846
93919
93050
930O7
030OO
93992
94012
94014
94224
94225,
9424O
94728
94741
9474B
94746
94789
94790
94704
04:ii:2
94U39
940,16
941)46
94910
EVANS V1LLE
INDIANAPOLIS
LEXINGTON
SrillNCFIELD
CAmUllDCE
nnuNswicK
HILTON
COLIIHUUS
AHOFUSON
ffc^orm
Mr A 1 1'"' ITF n
n* i/if. •»• I c.n
LUi-i IN
nil i MI 'v
uu i ni./ 1
ELDOiUDO
HAVIIE CITY
WILLIGTON
ASTORIA
noouiAn
QUILLAYUTE
HASSENA
TETERBOnO
WHITE PL
WO RC HESTER
HEW YORK
WATEHTOWH
irn«:\
uoi;i;i .11 D
TtH 1'^llfk
1 J*LL.ULr
C;WIHN
fit i I'Apn
ijii i f j(iijii
WATF.nLOO
IN
IN
KY
IL
OH
CA
FL
CA
SC
t to
ID
f\tf
UK
TX
IL
AH
HT
ND
on
WA
WA
NY
HJ
HY
HA
HY
HY
HY
IL
Oil
IL
IA
"'" • • • VBJK*
3O 3
39 44
30 2
30 50
39 97
31 15
30 42
32 31
34 39
31 15
34 53
31 14
30 56
33 13
4O 33
4O II
46 9
46 SO
47 57
44 06
4« 01
41 4
42 16
49 47
44 9
43 9
42 12
41 36
'}6 2 1
41 09
42 33
biruu 1 1 UlSCj
O7 32
06 17
O4 36
09 40
01 04
01 20
O7 1
O4 56
02 43
90 2O
95 47
94 45
91 12
92 48
109 46
103 38
123 53
123 56
124 33
74 51
74 3
73 43
71 52
73 46
76 1
75 23
09 6
03 40
O7 24
07 G4
92 24
D 1 AHI 1
70x
55x
55x
70x
BOX
69X
62x
69x
B4x
49x
54x
67x
B0x
B0x
67x
67x
74x
54x
74X
70x
02X
6Bx
70x
74X
60X
50x
70X
70x
63X
70x
6 Ox
nu KNDINC
74X12
74X12
64X12
74X12
54X12
73X12
71X12
73X12
5OXI2
54X12
54X12
71X12
54X12
54X12
71X12
71X12
74X12
5OXI2
74X12
74X12
06X12
72X12
74X12
74X12
64X12
T**/ f »
o ^f i *
74XILI
74X12
67X12
74X|J
64X12
-------
TABLE 8. LOCATION OF SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES AND SELECTED
STAR DISPERSION DATA STATION
COHPANY
S I IT.
LATITUDE LONGITUDE STAB STATION
CD
ro
1
2
3
4
3
6
7
a
9
10
1 1
i °
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
•JO
21
•n
23
24
23
26
27
21)
29
no
:l 1
:i-i
33
3 >
33
-'16
:i7
:in
39
•ie
AIR PRODUCTS
AKZONA
AKZONA
ALLIED
.M.LI 1,0
ALLM'.D
ALLIED
ALLIED
ALLIED
ALLIED
ATIAX
AriER CYANANID
AHEH CYANAMID
AMEIl CYANAHID
AMER. IIOECIiyT
A HER PETROKINA
AHKR PETROFINA
AMOCO
AHOCO
AMOCO
AflOCO
AIU:O
ARCO
ASHLAND
ASHLAND
ASHLAND
BASF WYANDOTTE
ASHLAND
BASF WYANDOTTE
HASF WYANnOTTI-
ll.i.'ir W1! MIIMH 1 1
III. TIM, till ri SIM L
lil.UK >~!'IUJCI''.
nopor.N
nonDF.N
BOIIDFIN
QdllDKN
rxiiiDF.N
IIOHOKN
BO ADEN
VEN8ACOLA. FL
NCCOOK. IL
noiiHis, IL
DANVILLE, IL
M.I.VM.l/IU. HJ
H S'-CUIUJO, CA
HIAW.KOHD, r.\
IIDPEWELL. VA
MMJHO^VILI.L", WV
nOUTIIPOIWT. Oil
I'OIIT HM;KKL. LA
ROUND nilOOK, NJ
en \iiLone. IK;
WILLOW ISLAND, WV
RATON ROUCl-:. LA
MIC SPRINGS. I'X
pnni Arvinun. ix
CUPPER uivEii, s«:
Dr.CATUR. AL
-•')( n.r, IL
m.:<,v> CITY, TX
CIIAH«1'-.LVI1-W. 'IX 2
HOUSTON, ] •<
^A'n^KTTSRURC. KY
FOliD, N.I
.1ANESVILLK, Wl
CEISriAR. LA
N. TUNAWANDA, NY 4
KEARNEY, NJ
WASHINGTON. NJ
\. i >mif> n i , ii i
SIMilMUlo I'OIHT, flD
lui'itir niuioK. NJ
IIMInrOl.l-:. AL
DilUM.L. TX
I'lUI'/rrEVlLLL, HC
ri>L'r;oNT, CA
CK'^HAR. LA
KI'NT, W^
LA CIUHDE, OR
30
41
41
49
40
:i:i
•M>
:i7
;«9
no
29
49
;!5
39
:io
:I2
29
:i2
:I4
-\ i
29
•Ki
29
:ui
40
42
;io
25
4O
4O
J
19
40
12
1 1
ir>
17
10
4.7
45
36
4O
24
H
40
5f>
III
O'>
54
25
52
24
12
n I
uo
17
57
45
:>(•
20
21
O
42
•>'»
ni
41
1 1
94
45
45
1 2
III
:i2
:i<>
1 1
i
U2
1:1
23
20
29
17
24
30
i:>
'J«
15
13
39
43
33
45
16
50
•»
10
3O
57
12
4O
4O
40
17
39
29
G6
34
OH
53
20
55
30
IO
10
52
43
6
0
12
33
87
87
08
67
74
1 IB
79
77
BO
O2
O9
74
00
Ul
191
101
93
79
U6
OB
94
950
95
02
74
09
91
705
74
74
03
70
74
27
94
711
121
91
122
ioe
B
49
IB
33
13
20
52
IB
44
30
57
33
50
IB
15
23
53
5B
50
10
55
64
16
35
20
e
e
52
9
511
O
34
29
50
46
51
07
|
13
T
12
41
ie
43
r> i
30
43
B
49
0
26
40
32
00
50
17
20
2O
42
4 1
50
31
1
5U
3O
ie
42
71
3
22
:i;,
:io
lit
0
00
41
24
O
IT,
^»
3893
94846
14833
14806
47:l<>
2U 1 29
14762
13740
13736
9C1O24
I29SO
94741
[3IU1I
13736
13970
13962
12917
13717
I3OO2
I4H55
I29OO
29O6O
I296O
IUO66
4739
14B39
13978
47470
4739
4739
i-:ii^2
13VHI
14737
1:1050
939117
13714
23244
13970
24233
24136
-------
TABLE 8 (Continued)
no.
COHPAHY
SFTK
LATITUDE LONGITUDE STAR STATlOff
CD
ui
41
42
43
44
15
46
47
48
49
00
31
52
53
54
35
56
37
50
59
66
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
7H
79
00
nOHDEN
BORDER
BORDER
nORDEH
none- HAIINER
imusH WELLMAR
HUU9H WELLNAN
BRUSH WELLHAW
E.R.CAflP ENTER
CELANESE
CELANESE
CEI.ANESE
rLTANKSc
CELANE3E
CELAHESE
CELANESE
CHARTER OIL
COENBOND
CIIEHBOND
CnEHTHOR
CHEVRON
CHEVRON
C1BA-CEICY
CLARK
COASTAL STATES
CONTINENTAL
CONTINENTAL
COS-MAR
crc
cnovi.Y TAU
CROWN OIL
DF-CUS9A
UKNKA
DIAHND SHAMROCK
DOW
DOH
DOW
now
DO PONT
DU PONT
LOiriSVfLLE. KY
MISSCWLA.MT
SHEBOYCAN. Wl
SPRINGFIELD, on
HOl'.CAHTOWN . W
FLI'.OflE. OH
HAMPTOW. HJ
REABIRC. PA
BAY PORT, TX
HAY CITY, TX
BISHOP. TX
CLEAR LAKE, TX
MWUEH, W.I
LOUISVILLE. KY
NEWARK, BJ
ROCK HILL. SC
nousTon, TX
SPRIRCFIELD, OH
WIRBIFIELD, LA
LA PORTE, TX
PASCACOOLA, MS
nicfmono. CA
TOtlS RIVER, RJ
BLUE ISLAND, IL
CORPDS CimiSTI. TX
CLIFTON. NJ
HEWARK. BJ
CARV1LLE. LA
LYNDRURST, HJ
HOUiJTOn . TX
PASADENA, TX
THEODORE. AL
HOUSTON, IX
DF.LLE, HV
FIIEEPORT, TX
MIDLAND, F/l
PI1TSBURG. CA
PLAQUEMINE, LA.
AHT IOCII. CA
BEAUMONT, TX
nn
46
*^
4+
39
41
40
46
29
2fl
27
29
40
Ofl
40
34
29
44
31
29
:)0
-jr
39
41
27
40
40
no
40
29
29
30
29
311
20
43
37
3O
37
3W
12
54
45
i
40
20
42
46
43
SI
34
37
37
1 I
43
57
42
2
54
39
19
56
59
39
40
43
43
13
47
43
44
33
41
14
59
35
59
19
59
8
9
ie
26
00
39
6
32
45
29
45
6
17
IU
e
30
25
50
00
49
20
4
12
20
21
43
34
34
30
3O
50
40
6
31
9
30
2G
34
e
37
5[
65
114
07
122
oo
03
74
76
94
96
97
95
74
85
74
ue
95
122
92
95
U8
122
74
87
97
74
74
91
74
95
95
UO
95
81
95
64
121
91
121
94
51
4#
46
59
58
16
57
t I
54
1
49
3
15
50
7
57
15
59
40
2
28
20
22
41
26
7
7
4
4
14
10
10
15
32
23
13
54
15
52
1
49
e
17
6
34
37
41
10
0
e
27
51
53
0
25
32
12
6
35
18
37
48
33
56
28
26
26
0
34
2O
30
35
12
3B
35
8
56
0
e
49
93820
24146
I489B
24231
13736
94O.10
94741
14712
129*6
12423
12923
I2*«6
9474t
93fl20
94741
93Q04
12906
*>^tO |
13942
12906
1 34120
23239
14706
14O55
12925
94741
94741
13970
94741
129*6
129*6
3855
129«6
13O66
12923
I4O45
232*2
13970
23202
12917
-------
TABLE 8 (Continued)
no.
COMPANY
SJTK.
LATITUDE LONGITUDE PTAJl 8TAT1OW
fll
112
113
114
113
110
117
na
89
99
9 1
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
I9fl
mi
102
103
104
195
196
107
ion
109
IO
1 1
1 2
13
14
13
16
17
IB
19
2O
DU PONT
DU PONT
nu PON i
DU PONT
»u I-ONF
OU PONT
DU POUT
nu PONT
I1U I'ONT
DU PONT
nu PONT
DU POUT
DU PONT
DU PONT
DU PONT
DU PONT
EASTMAN KODAK
EASTMAN KODAK
EASTMAN KODAK
EASTMAN KODAK
TNERY
K.HERY
ETHYL
F.xxon
tx;iON
LXXON
FALLEK
FERRO
FIRST CRTHICAL
FPM;
FHC
KNC
FIIC
FHC
C/»F
<;AF
CAF
CF,N ELECTTIIC
GEORGIA-PACIFIC
GEORGIA-PACIFIC
BELLE. KV
conpus CIIRFSTI . TX
OLLPWATM1, 11,1
CIDRSTOWN. FIJ
HEAL MM: SPRING. NC
llOUSItW. IX
LflPLAtE, l.A
LAPOIllE. TX
LINDEN. NJ
LOUISVILLE. KY
HONTACl'E. Ml
OLD HICKORY. TN
PARKEfUSDURG. WV
TOLEDO, OH
V!CTOHIA, TX
WILfllNCTOW, NC
COLUMBIA. PC
KINC8PORT. TH
LONG VIEW. TX
ROCHESTER. NY
NAULDIN, SC
SANTAFE SPRINGS, CA
BATON ROUGE. LA
DATON ROUGE. LA
HAYTOWN. TX
DAYWAY, NJ
TUSCALOOSA, AL
SANTA FE S. , CA
PAPCACOULA, fES
BALIPIORE, WD
RUFFALO, NY
niDDLEPOm. NY
NITRO. KV
8O CHARLESTX>W, WV
CALVERT CITY, KY
LINDKN. NJ
TEXAS CITY, TX
MOUNT VERNON, IN
ALBANY, OR
coLurmus. on
nn in A
27 r»:i o
:i') 41 'jr>
:i'» 4(> r.o
ur» i o«i
29 42 4
30 4 0
29 42 4
40 36 2
311 II 51
43 24 10
36 10 24
39 IS 27
41 U9 22
2Q 44) 29
34 19 9
33 59 09
36 31 41
32 29 59
43 12 1
:i4 411 16
33 55 39
30 IB 9
30 9 IO
20 44 59
40 3M 4f,
33 1 1 9
33 50 3O
HO 21 20
3<* 14 09
42 59 10
4!l 12 21
:iJI 25 33
311 22 10
37 2 50
40 OH 19
29 25 ?9
37 56 42
44 37 7
:i<» 5:1 7
81 34 12
97 15 0
7T» 'JO 35
75 10 BO
UO 10 39
95 2 C
90 32 9
95 2 B
74 12 B
a". 54 13
OA 23 49
06 U4 12
Bl 32 B2
BO 33 2O
96 97 21
77 86 6
Bl 4 17
82 12 22
94 41 6
77 37 5B
U2 1 6 9
1 10 6 49
91 09
99 04 29
95 1 9
74 1 1 48
Q7 34 09
IIB 4 BO
OB 32 55
76 39 39
7B 59 39
7B 29 20
Ol 56 5
Ol 49 3
BO 21 12
74 15 26
94 90 7
87 34 20
123 5 13
82 96 49
13866
12925
I37U9
13739
13714
12906
I295O
I299«
94741
I3O07
I4O4O
I3TO7
I3R66
9463®
12923
13? 17
13744
13877
13972
14771
9HIM14
23174
13979
13979
12936
94741
93SO6
93196
93329
13791
14747
14747
13366
13366
3BI<&
94741
129 2O
93OI7
24232
I4C2I
-------
TABI F d (Continued)
HO.
12
134
(25
137
f3O
139
• I'M
IOC
nra
nw
lift
137
OD
P*6
M.7
(91
f-12
ISO
(55
TSB
COftPAtlY
~-"-*~"-*-|l-
SITE
LATITUDE
HTAfl 8TAT!Ot1
GEORGIA-PACIFIC
i, i A-i'rtf;'i' ic
i ic
CET»>; on. -
>r. rv. in
CMI:F
TlllliF
IMFTRA PIIHINC
HEWUJEEK
OERCOIIBG
IWWIOfiJffl
HKTUCBLES
•KTCtt
VKHZOIRT
IHC
nic
WTER MINERAL
'JWTRRJHIN
JONES 0 LAUCITL1
KALrtffA
RAWROKI nF.nYLCO
KAWF.CKI NFvRYLCO
COOS BAY, OR
CIWJs.SETT. .A.H
Mr- 1.1 n, rx
I. A
nUSNKLV 11,1 1' , FC
F.L uoiwno, i:s
tlASIMIrt. HII
ALLIAflCE. t.A
CR&AR- SAYQU, IX
JERSEY Cl'lY, NJ
I.I'IIIA, I'A
u, ns
:. on
NC
DHUMSVICIt, CA
n/moon OEACH, ni
-, VA
L, J1U
NJ
HC
LCDI, HJ
HIGH POIHT, P?C
STQKJB, IL
FALI^?. HY
H TONAWANin, NY
I'Al.LS, MY
Hrt
FTFRLINCTON, (.A
TF.fVrXE MAllli:, IN
AUSTIN, TH
cormoE, i;<
ronr BECIII.S. TX
ALIOUJI'PA, PA
KALAWA, HA
HA7.ELTOH, PA
READ INC, I'A
42 27 26
OJ 8 Of,
;;'i 21 o
:m in n
:> i r> i o
;I7 47 ((I
•>:i 4». o
J(> £0 0
ii'» 4'.) ^y
;fc> G-i o
n
:i4 i'i 27
U I 703
43 5 I 7
ri7 in U4
•40
ao
3^4 ,19 9
4,0 i^ e
V &r' '-y
42 I 56
43 24 *3
4,":i :i 2
4:i 2 47
4:1 :i ;j:i
40 311 i:»
;|^ <4:i 2.r,
:i'» ,27 <-
:K> 20 o
2'» 57 4T»
•Ki l» T)4
4(» 21 I'll
40 47 32
124
U.I
l« 47
2 1 J
47 (>
l I (>
25 1)
ZI 27 ^2
90 7> l1^
94 55 (0
74 f> 14
75 12 3O
,90 34 0
ll£l 25 0
77 4* 56
Ul 20 5
i\2 42 a
77 17 (4
9-1 -3 37
<4 27 ,.10
77 ^9 23
74 6 6e
O v V ••• I
^7 43 ^^
06 22 30
79 8 27
7U 5.1 44
7,9 0 55
?V> 31 yn
92 ,fl 56
07 25 2
97 14 15
95 2.3 6
93 56 0
UO 14 24
?5 20 0
122 01 5
7,1 57 JO
76 I I 3«
242BO
9474 1
/3-J42
12^t7
14^62
J3739
24^29
14737
14712
-------
TABLE 8 (Continued)
no.
COHPARY
BITE
LATITUDE LONGITUDE STAR STATION
CD
161
162
163
Ib4
169
166
167
I6Q
169
176
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
I7O
179
nto
ill!
102
1113
1114
1U3
106
III?
ina
iii9
100
191
192
193
194
193
196
197
I9H
199
206
II. KOHNSTAH
II. KOIINSTAH
KOPPERS
KOPrens
KOPPERS
LACHAT
I.OKZA
I1ACNA
HAK CBEMICAL
HALL 1 NCKRODT
MKPICIIHI
FIILLIKEN
MINKRF.C
3H
NODAY
HOHAY
FKIIMLE
noNSANTo
BONSAN1X)
NONSAint)
HOHSANTO
HONSANTO
MONSANTO
P10NSAHTO
HORSANTO
HONSANlt)
HONSAN1V
HONSANTO
MOHS A NTO
HON THOSE
noNTnosE
NALCO
NAPP
NATIONAL STAJlCn
NEPARA
NORDA
N PETROCHEMICAL
OCC 1 DENTAL
OLIH
OLIN
CAriDEN . H J
Cl.f.AP INC. 1 L
crcEno. IL
KOLLANSDEK, WV
OIL CITY. PA
REOUON. HI
MAS'LETON, IL
HOUSTON. TX
MUNCIE, IN
LODI, NJ
HOUSTON. TX
IIIMAII, SC
DALTIKORE. HD
DCCA1UR. AL
HAYTOWN, TX
NP.H IIAHTNSVILLE, WV
nr.AUMONT. TX
ADDVSTON, OH
Al.VIN, TX
nnincEPOHT. NJ
CHOCOLATE DA YOU, TX
El 1C EN E. Oil
KE/MXNEY. HJ
I.ULINC. LA
nrnio. wv
HAUCI;T. IL
srniNCFiELD. HA
ST. LOUIS. MO
TEXAS CITY. TX
HENDERSON. NV
TOIUIrtNCE, CA
SUCAR LAND, TX
LODI. NJ
SALISDUHY. NC
HAnRin.\N, Ny
Dd'JNTOE. NJ
EAST MORRIS. IL
N 10NAWANDA, NY
ASHTARULA, OU
BRANDENBURG. KY
!I9
41
41
4U
41
43
46
29
40
46
2'>
34
•J9
34
29
39
30
39
29
39
2ft
44
40
29
311
:iu
42
:ia
29
36
33
29
40
33
41
40
41
43
41
3O
C4
4')
4U
23
29
13
34
40
12
52
45
Q6
14
311
45
44
4
7
14
47
14
*>
46
55
24
35
9
34
22
3
46
37
52
43
16
G4
24
2
53
e
42
10
•14
10
36
56
«
10
17
56
Ul,
10
1 i
39
30
50
14
3O
55
33
55
59
12
10
26
31
33
37
45
32
00
10
30
36
43
13
6
47
7
27
75
07
O7
UO
79
88
89
95
63
74
95
B2
76
O7
94
00
94
84
95
75
93
123
74
96
Ol
90
72
90
94
114
118
95
74
B0
74
74
88
7O
80
86
8
43
45
35
43
2
43
23
20
a
10
6
34
2
04
SO
3
42
12
23
12
8
9
22
51
16
29
II
33
60
22
28
6
28
B
24
17
51
43
6
53
48
4
7
26
36
1
3O
38
46
4U
29
41
25
25
50
46
56
43
45
45
19
8
30
26
II
9
42
36
34
6
32
!4
J9
24
44
IB
44
50
60
13739
14853
I4A35
14762
14866
14839
I4G42
12966
93813
94741
!2<>O6
93BO4
13701
13682
129 O6
13736
12917
93613
12966
13739
12966
24221
94741
I295O
13O66
13994
14763
13994
12923
23DI2
23129
12906
94741
13723
14757
94741
94O46
14747
14843
13807
-------
TABLE 8 (Continued)
R(l.
COHPAflY
201
282
203
2O4
2H3
286
207
208
289
218
21 1
212
213
214
215
216
217
2IO
219
220
221
i'ji
"*°3
114
°°5
226
227
22Q
229
2HO
2O 1
232
233
204
205
206
207
20U
239
24«
OLIN
ORB IS
OVERS-CORN INC
OXIRANE
OXIRANE
PACIFIC RESINS
PBI-CORDON
PF.LBON
PERNVALT
PERSTORP
PETROLITE
PETROLITE
PFIZER
PLASTICS ERG
PPC
PPG
PPC
PPG
PPC;
PROCTR n GAMBLE
PURLICKI.R
QUAKER OATS
Oil INT A HA- HO WELL
nfLicinioi.n
»[:icnno( i)
niilCIKIOLI)
REICRIIOLI)
HF.ICIIHOLO
REICIIIIOLD
HF.icnnoLi)
REicnno(.n
REICIIMOI.il
REICnnOLD
REICniJOLD
REICDROLD
REILI.Y TAH
RIVERDALE
Ronn o R/XAS
ROHM 0 HAAS
RUBICON
SITE
LAKE CHARLES
HEW ARK, RJ
NEWARK. Oil
BAYPORT,
CRARNELVIEW
EUGENE. OR
KAHSAS CITY
LYOWS. IL
CALVEBT CITY
TOLEDO. OH
OREA, CA
9T LO€IS,
TERRE HAUTE,
SHEBOYCAN.
BARBERTON.
BEAUMONT.
CIRCLEVIEW.
i.Ar;r. cm
wrw HART
hT.HPUIS,
PHILADELPHIA,
MEMPHIS,
CORPUS c:n
/MtnUVER,
AZtJSA, CA
CAFTERKT.
DETROIT,
IIArPTOM. l
ROUHTON ,
KANSAS CITY
HALVKRH.
riOHCIIRE.
TACorr/v, WA
TUSCALOOSA.
WHIIT: CITY,
1UDIANAPOLIS.
crricACO rn
ocrn PARK,
PHILADELPniA.
CE1SMAR.
LATITDDC LORGITUDE STAR BTAT1OW
JS. LA
1
1
-x
:w. TX
i
PY, MO
1TY. KY
I
no
PE, IN
, WI
, OH
TX
if. OH
.[•V, LA
5VILLE, WV
H
II A, PA
IN
MSIT. TX
IA
NJ
II
;<:
X
T, KS
IR
1C
L
I, AL
f. OR
,IS, IN
:rcirr, IL
TX
IIA. PA
,A
oe
4O
40
21*
29
44
09
41
37
41
30
3B
39
43
41
3«
39
OU
09
05
39
05
27
42
04
40
42
02
29
39
34
35
47
341
42
39
41
29
39
3*
13
41
5
37
40
1
U
44
0
40
50
41
26
45
e
3
36
10
47
ID
5O
10
4B
0
7
35
211
50
45
9
24
31
16
12
26
42
30
43
54
12
55
16
36
26
59
»
53
56
IB
10
30
se
i
e
37
40
5
14
22
48
00
36
05
3O
52
56
17
.J3
ro
28
9
10
1 1
3
18
e
3«
0«
5*
0
93
74
82
95
95
123
94
87
88
83
117
90
87
87
81
94
82
93
Be
O9
75
89
97
71
117
74
83
81
95
94
92
79
122
87
122
O6
87
95
75
VI
19
12
26
3
7
5
49
49
19
31
58
12
24
47
36
2
67
16
51
56
1 **
56
27
8
53
13
7
6
10
37
48
4
22
34
7
14
38
6
1 1
1 1
37
17
e
7
38
5
59
4
48
28
45
8
22
8
29
38
34
54
27
38
IB
56
30
28
51
13
52
IO
15
41
45
52
57
e
7
8
I 1
15
38
38
3937
94741
93O24
12906
12986
24221
IOOOO
94046
3816
94O04*
20 174
13994
93819
14839
14895
12917
93824
O'»07
137O6
13963
13739
I396O
12925
14739
23174
94741
14022
3828
12906
139 OH
13963
13714
24287
13U25
24225
93819
94846
12986
13739
12908
-------
TABLE 8 (Continued)
no.
CONPAflY
SITK
LATITUDE LOHCITUDE BTAR 8TAT1OH
s
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
24O
249
2r>o
2.T1
2r.2
233
.".r.-t
235
250
257
250
239
260
261
262
263
264
263
21.6
2b7
2611
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
27O
279
26O
SCHEnF.CTADY
SCHEflKCTADV
SCIIEH D ROTH EOS
SHELL
SMI:U,
SHELL
SHELL
SHELL
SIIEREX
8HERWIN WILLIAM
SPECIALTY ORGAN
STANDARD
STAND CI1LOHIHE
STAUFFKH
STAUIFEfl
STAUFFER
STAUFKER
K 1 AUFFER
STF.PAn
STEM. IRC
STIPBOn
sim OIL
sun OIL
sun OIL
sun OIL
SUN OIL
TELEDYnE KCCOnJI
TCNn I.ASTMAN
TENHECO
lEnNECO
TF.nnECO
TEXAS EASTHAn
TOMS RIVER
union CARHIDE
UniOM CAHRIDF.
union CARD i UK
UN IOH CAR!) I DP.
union CARHIDK
union CARBIDE
UniOfl CAJU3IDE
OV3TKR. CREI'.K. TX
RO'ITKRIMH JUNC. HY
CLIFTUH. NJ
DF.I'.n PARK. TX
J7E!SFrAR. LA
HAH 1 INEZ. Cil
NOIICO. LA
OUES?A, TX
JANF.9VILLE, Wl
CIIICrtGO, IL
inWINDALE. CA
niCHHOND. TA
DFLAVAIUS CITY. DE
COLD CREEK, AL
CALLIPOLIS FY. , HV
ED 1 SOH. nj
Lrr;ovi»E. AL
LOUISVILLE. KY
HILLS DALE, IL
CINCinnATI. OB
ANACORTE8, WA
CLAYMOnT, OE
CORPUS CBHISTI. TX
riARCUS BOOK, PA
TOLEDO. OH
lill-JA. OX
110' LISTER, CA
I'.IIICSPORT. TN
CDrtLNElTE. LA
Fonua. HJ
CAUFIELD, NJ
LOnGVICW. TX
Tony RIVER, nj
AH15LER. PA
BOUND BROOK, NJ
FRKNOnT, CA
IHSTITUTE, KV
8EADRIFT, T.l
SO CBARLESTOW, WV
ST. JOSEPB. PIO
29 5U 21
42 47 22
4O 42 14
29 42 DO
:j» 1 1 e
311 O D
34) 0 1 1
31 49 14
42 40 47
41 43 4
34 6 30
37 56 12
39 33 54
30 5U 'Jit
38 46 40
40 29 23
30 53 DO
Oti 12 9
46 26 3
39 d 16
46 28 31
39 4O 29
27 50 0
39 40 43
4! 36 52
::<. n lu
36 5(1 6
36 31 27
:m 3 30
40 30 GO
40 52 2B
32 23 50
39 58 14
4(1 1 46
40 33 32
37 20 38
:»n 2:1 2
2(1 30 31
3(1 19 33
39 <6 36
95 29 38
73 43 12
74 19 17
95 7 34
90 09 0
122 6 40
90 23 42
102 19 53
89 9 30
87 36 30
1 17 55 48
122 20 40
75 38 47
88 1 16
82 BO 64
74 23 3
87 58 60
O5 01 49
00 9 48
84 33 9
122 32 48
75 25 49
97 31 29
79 24 SI
83 31 40
96 1 ID
121 25 O
BO 32 29
89 58 36
74 19 17
74 6 47
94 41 6
74 12 U6
76 13 41
74 31 10
122 © *O
81 47 24
96 46 f8
81 40 29
94 80 46
12960
14730
94741
12906
I295O
23202
I290O
23023
I4O37
94546
23152
12906
9474!
93O4I
13066
94741
95O4I
931)20
94846
13849
24217
94741
12925
13739
94836
1 39611
2024
3fll6
12958
94741
94741
13972
14706
13739
94741
23244
I3O66
12923
13866
13921
-------
TABLE 8 (Concluded)
no.
COMPANY
SITE
LATITUDE LONGITUDE STAR STATION
CD
vo
281
282
263
284
289
286
287
288
289
29»
291
292
293
294
296
296
297
29O
299
UNION CARBIDE
UHI ROYAL
UOP
UPJOHN
U. 6. STEEL
U. S. STEEL
US STEEL
VAN DE MARK
VELSICOL
VELSICOL
VELSICOL
VELSICOL
VERTAC
VKRTAC
VULCAN
VULCAN
WITCO
WITCO
WRICUT
TAFT, LA
CEISMAR. LA
E RUTHERFOLD. NJ
LAI'ORTE, TX
CLAIRTON. PA
HA VERM ILL, Oil
GENEVA. VT
LOCKPORT. NY
BEAUMONT. TX
CHATTANOOGA, TH
BARS HALL, IL
MEMPHIS, TN
JACKSONVILLE, AR
WIST [IELEHA, Art
CILISMAR. LA
WICHITA. KA
CLEARING, IL
HOUSTON. TX
RILCELWOOD. NC
'J9
30
40
29
40
38
46
43
29
39
39
30
34
34
30
37
41
29
34
5B
13
49
42
IB
34
19
11
08
2
23
9
99
36
19
36
4B
34
19
e
39
46
26
13
52
1
a
16
31
0
90
36
ie
e
55
2
45
22
90
91
74
95
79
82
114
78
94
89
87
89
92
90
9e
97
87
95
78
27
e
9
4
52
49
42
42
3
16
42
97
4
33
59
IB
46
26
12
0
15
30
29
43
36
92
40
17
36
39
49
06
45
e
30
39
0
9
13970
B295B
94741
12906
14762
13866
41010
14747
12917
13882
93819
13963
13963
13939
12950
13969
94B46
12906
13717
-------
FIGURE 3. STAR STATION SELECTION PROCESS MAP I
-------
FIGURE 4. STAR STATION SELECTION PROCESS MAP II
-------
VO
ro
FIGURE 5. STAR STATION SELECTION PROCESS MAP III
-------
UD
CD
FIGURE 6. STAR STATION SELECTION PROCESS
MAP IV
-------
SECTION 3
EXPOSURE-DOSAGE ESTIMATION APPROACH
As discussed in Section 1. the emissions sources were treated In
terns of three main categories:
> Major point sources, Individually specified.
> General point sources represented categorically by a
prototype.
> Area source representations of numerous, widely dis-
tributed, minor sources.
This section explains the exposure-dosage estimation approach for each of
those categories.
MAJOR (SPECIFIC) POINT SOURCES
Major sources of most of the selected chemicals were specifically
identified chemical manufacturing plants. Concentration patterns caused
by unit enissions from such sources depend most strongly on three factors:
> Source elevation above terrain; effective plume elevation
may, in turn, depend on meteorological factors.
> Wind vectors (speed and direction).
> Dispersive effects (intensity of atmospheric turbulence).
For the present study a Gaussian model in the cUmatological form of
the EPA's COM, using the same basic dispersion algorithm, was coded and
94
-------
used to estimate the annual average ground-level concentrations resulting
from emissions from major point sources. It was necessary to plan for
executing the model for up to 1000 major point sources and generic point
sources, but much of the computer time required by comparable existing
algorithms 1s used for repetitive evaluations of the Gaussian kernel.
Because wind velocity and atmospheric stability are the only meteorolog-
ical variables involved 1n the Gaussian dispersion estimation, the Gaus-
sian kernel needs to be evaluated only 36 times (6 wind speeds times 6
stability classes) for a specific combination of source elevation and
building cross-section. The Gaussian algorithms can be used to generate a
file of normalized Gaussian solutions (concentration/emissions), one for
each combination of wind speed and stability, so we computed and stored
these Guassian concentration files for use in conjunction with STAR data,
emissions data, and reactivity data, in estimating the annual average con-
centrations. Substantial computer savings were achieved through this
"matrix modeling" approach.
In SAl's matrix modeling concept, the climatological Gaussian
algorithm would be used to generate a file of normalized Gaussian solu-
tions, one for each combination of wind speed and stability. This task is
accomplished through evaluation of the function given by:
10
where
x ° concentration,
Q = emissions rate,
U.j * 1-th wind speed
Si • j-th stability class.
J
R - travel distance from the source.
95
-------
For reactive materials, this equation is extended to Include a dependence
on an exponential decay rate derived from prototype analysis:
where T^ is the half-life of the k-th species. With this computer file
available, climatological concentration patterns are obtained by matrix
multiplication with STAR data:
The maximum radius considered in the exposure/dosage estimation was
set as 20 km for major point sources. Concentrations were estimated for
10 receptors--0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0, 15.0, and 20.0 km
from the source—along each of the 16 wind directions. As shown in
Table 13 for the example of chloroprene, there may be instances of more
than one type of point source (each with its characteristic release
height, emissions rate, etc.) within a single plant. For the case shown,
fugitive emissions (valve and flange leaks, etc.) that are random and
indeterminate but not negligible are approximated by a single source point
5 m above the ground. This is a height typical of outdoor plumbing. The
building wake effect assures that the assumed point source is represented
STAR data are standard climatological frequency of occurrence
summaries formatted for use in EPA models and available for
major U.S. sites from the National Climatic Center,, Ashevllle,
North Carolina. The data consist of frequencies $, tabulated
as functions of wind speed, U^; stability, S,-; and direction, 9.
96
-------
as a source with dimensions larger than the adjacent structure. Each
emissions category was modeled individually, and the total ground-level
concentrations resulting from plant emissions were then computed by sun-
ming the individual estimates.
The dispersion algorithm can also treat chemical formation and decay,
enhanced dispersion caused by building wake effects, and release or stack
height. These features are discussed in the following subsections.
Chemical Reactivity
The detailed approach adopted in estimating the effect of chemical
reactions on ambient concentrations is shown with chloroprene as an exam-
ple. Chloroprene is an organic compound that is decidedly photoreactive
in the atmosphere. Based on preliminary calculations conducted with esti-
mated decay rate, approximately 90 percent of the chloroprene emitted into
the sunlit urban atmosphere would be removed within an hour through reac-
tion with hydroxyl radicals and ozone molecules. However, the chemical
decay rates are much lower in the nighttime or under overcast condi-
tions. Figure 7 displays a comparison between the resulting concentra-
tions along a single wind direction with and without the chemical decay
computed for a chloroprene example. Because the chemical reactions that
change atmospheric concentrations occur over time, the chemical reactivity
of a compound has less impact on the concentrations near the emissions
source than further downwind. The difference in concentrations between
The data Inputs that are necessary for the reactive case include: the
chloroprene emissions source location (the Dupont plant at Laplace,
Louisiana); the nature of the source emissions (process vent); the map
coordinates (90°32'00"W, 30°04'0"N)- the stack height (20 m); the effec-
tive building cross section (100 rrr); the emissions rate (34.23 g/sec);
the daytime decay rate (0.00058 sec"1); the nighttime decay rate
(0.000020 sec'1); the wind direction (1, from the north); and the STAR
station [12916 (New Orleans Mulsant)].
97
-------
100.0
10.0
.Q
Q.
CL
C
o
(0
u
C
o
QJ
C
D.
E
o
4 REACTIVE (REFERENCE
0.5 ^.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 20.0
Disfeaoce fircun Soyrce C^m)
0.1 0.2
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated computations using SAI
dispersion model and SAI reactivity estimates.
FIGURE 7. EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL REACTIVITY ON CONCENTRATION
DISTRIBUTION OF CHLOROPRENE
98
-------
the two curves of Figure 7 at 200 meters from the source Is about 3 per-
cent (43.2/41.9 - 1); at 20 km from the source the difference 1s about 30
percent (0.070/0.054 - 1).
Building Uake Effect
Pollutants emitted Into the wake of a building are subject to an
enhanced dispersion (I.e., the concentration Is reduced very quickly by
the turbulence on the lee side of the building). If a dispersion analysis
Ignored this effect, the occurrence of high concentrations would be over-
estimated. A detailed description of the equations used in estimating the
building wake effect Is addressed In the section beginning on page 121.
The ground-level concentrations that result from different building
structure dimensions are depicted 1n Figure 8, where the major parameters
for estimating these concentrations are the same as those of the reference
case. Clearly, the building wake effect would have Insignificant impacts
on ground-level concentrations at points further downwind from the source
than 1*0 km. However, sources with larger building effects would result
1n larger ground-level concentrations near the sources. Additional
analyses that assess the precise Impacts of building wake effect may be
required to determine the extent to which the example in Figure 8 is site-
specific.
Release Height
The exact release height of a source can have a great effect on
ground-level concentrations. As Figure 9 shows, concentrations resulting
from ground-level emissions (H « 0) can be more than 10 times as great as
those resulting from emissions at a moderate height (H > 20 m). However,
these differences become Insignificant further downwind (R > 5 km).
99
-------
100.0
D °
C^K-i r-j=T:*gr-=
frera
Source: Systems ApplicationsD
SAI dUspersisn model and SAI bui
computations using
Idlng wake elgorHhms.
FIGURE 8. EFFECT OF BUILDING WAKE ON CONCENTRATION
DISTRIBUTION OF CHLOROPRENE
100
-------
1000.0,
100.0
10.0
0
1 0.2 0.5
Downwind
1.0 2.0 S.O 10.0 20.0
Dtstince from Source (km)
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated com-
putations using SAI dispersion model and
Briggs1 plume rise formulas
FIGURE 9. IMPACTS OF RELEASE HEIGHT ON CONCENTRATION
DISTRIBUTION OF CHLOROPRENE
101
-------
The evidence from Figures 7, 8, and 9 indicates that ground-level
concentrations decrease approximately log-log linearly with distance at
receptors more than 2 km distant from the source. Apparently, a plot of
this log-log linear relationship could be used to interpolate concentra-
tions at specific locations within the range of 2 to 20 km from the
source.
The Point Source Algorithm
The annual average concentration pattern of a given chemical compound
downwind from an emissions source 1s estimated by using the climatological
form of the Gaussian algorithm (Turner, 1970) that is given by the
detailed equation used to prepare the computer program:
STAR(e.S.,N.)EXP(R,S.,H)
x(R,e,H.Tk) = 2..
where the symbols have the following meanings:
Polar Coordinates
R - Distance (meters) from the source to the recep-
tor,
6 = Compass azimuth of the radius, R; also wind azi-
muth.
Atmospheric Parameters
u = wind speed (meters/second),
9 = wind azimuth (i.e. direction from which wind is
blowing), 2
oz = vertical dispersion coefficient I s|Cond I
102
-------
N^ • the 1-th wind speed category,
S^ • the k-th dispersion (stability) category.
Functions
STAR * The STabHUy ARray* of Joint probabilities of
occurrence of wind speed, direction and stability
combinations,
EXP - Gaussian dispersion function for elevated pol-
lutant plume.
DEC - Decay function characterizing loss of chemical
species, k, due to atmospheric chemical reac-
tions.
Emission Parameters
Q « Emissions rate (grams/second),
H * Effective plume height (meters).
Species Parameter
T^ « Decay rate of species k due to atmospheric
chemical reaction.
Grid System
A polar grid array of sectors' of uniformly increasing size radially
outward from the source was used to overlay the region of interest. Con-
centration is calculated at the four corners of each sector. Another use
of the grid system is to catalog population data for exposure/dosage cal-
culations.
CUmatologlcal Parameters
The STAR data were obtained from the National Climatic Center
(Ashevllle, North Carolina). As received they were not in a uniform for-
Site-specific, from data from several hundred sites in U.S.
103
-------
mat with respect to the stability used. Data from some stations was In
the original STAR format with up to eight stability classes. Data from
other stations had been modified so as to distinguish between day and
nighttime occurrences of neutral D stability. After receipt from the NCC,
all unmodified data sets were modified according to the present EPA day-
night system (Busse and Zimmerman, 1973), as shown 1n Table 14. This
splitting of the neutral stability data 1s especially Important when other
processes, such as chemical reactions, have diurnal variations..
For all the point source analyses, neutral (D) stability events
designated by the regular STAR data are divided Into two classes: 40 per-
cent of the neutrally stable hours are assumed to occur at night, and the
remaining 60 percent in the daytime (Burt, 1977).
Since the lower portion of the atmosphere over urban areas is usually
unstable, even when the adjacent rural area is stable, neutral stability
is assumed for point sources analyses in urban areas whenever the STAR
algorithm Indicates stable conditions (Classes E and F). This procedure
follows the recommendations of the EPA.
TABLE 14. PASQUILL-GIFFORD STABILITY CLASSES USED IN
POINT SOURCE ANALYSES
Pasquill/Glfford
Stability Classes Urban Areas Rural Areas
A
B
C
D
E
E
F
Source: Busse and Zimmerman (1973).
104
A
B
C
D-day
D-night
D-n1ght
D- night
A
B
C
D-day
D-night
E
F
-------
Wind Speed
The wind speed 0(1^) for each wind speed class is taken as the
average wind speed of the range for the given class (Busse and Zimmerman,
1973).
Vertical Variation of Wind Speed
Generally, the wind speed at plume height will differ from the
measured wind speed at the anemometer height of 10 meters. To account for
this vertical variation, a power law wind profile in the form
(5)
was used, as recommended bv Turner (1970). The exponent o, as presented
in EPA (1977), is listed for each stability class:
Pasguill/Gifford
Stability Classes P
A 0.10
B 0.15
C 0.20
D 0.25
E 0.30
F 0.30
105
-------
Plume Height
The height of the olume center!ine, he, is the sum of the physical
stack height, hs, and the plume rise, ah:
he = hs + tin . (6)
In this analysis, plume rise is determined using Brigqs's equations (1969,
1970, 1975) for momentum plumes and buoyancy plumes from low level emis-
sions sources as recommended by Turner and Novak (1978).
Vertical Dispersion Function
The value of oz where emissions do not suffer from downwash phenomena
is calculated from formulas recommended by Briggs (1973), where R is the
downwind distance in meters:
Pasquill Stability Class oz (m)
A 0.20 R
B 0.12 R
C 0.08 R (1. + 0.0002 R)'1/2
D(day and night) 0.06 R (1. + 0.0015 R)'1/2
E 0.03 R (1. + 0.0003 R)'1
F 0.16 R (1. + 0.0003 R)'1
The proposed formulas for oz for emissions that are influenced by
building wakes are:
106
-------
Pasqulll Stability Class o. (m)
A 0.20 (R 4 aR)
B 0.12 (R 4 tR)
C O.OB (R 4 AR)[1. 4 0.0002 (R 4
D 0.06 (R + AR)[1. 4 0.0015 (R + AR)]'1/2
E 0.03 (R 4 AR)[1.0.0003 (R 4 AR)]'1
F 0.16 (R 4 AR)[1. 4 0.0003 (R 4 AR)]'1
where AR 1s the displacement distance and 1s calculated using:
Pasquin Stability Class tR (m)
A 1.95 A0'5
B 2.72 A0'5
C 4.09 A0'5
D 4.95 A0'5
E 9.03 A0'52
F 14.88 A0'52
Chemical Decay
The four-class scheme for photochemical decay categorization is
adopted 1n the dispersion models. The default values of reaction rate
constants for each class are listed below:
Class I
Time of Day
Daytime
Nighttime
Very Reactive
1.0 x
5.0 x
10-2
10-5
Class II
Reactive
5.0 x
5.0 x
10-3
10-5
Class III
Moderately
Class IV
Reactive Unreactlve
5.0 x ID'4
0
0
0
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated, review as described 1n
Section 2, pp. 66 ff.
107
-------
Matrix Modeling Technique
To save computing time, the Gaussian algorithm [2.03 EXP(R.Sj,H)/
VR.Sj)] and the decay function (exp [-^(SjJR/UfNj)]) from Eq. (4)
used to generate files of normalized Gaussian solutions—one for each com-
bination of six wind speed categories, seven stability classes, and four
chemical reactivity groups. For each of the combinations, 10 different
downwind distances R, 16 wind directions e, and 5 different effective
stack heights are used. The values chosen for the 10 different downwind
distances are 0.2, 0.3, 0.5. 0.7, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0, 15.0, and 20.0
kilometers. The values for the wind speeds are 1.50, 2.46, 4.47, 6.93,
9.61, and 12.52 m/sec. The values chosen for the effective stack height
are 0.0, 5.0, 10.5, 20.0, and 35.0 meters.
Sector Averaging
The constant 2.03 of Eq. (4) is the product of the factors
2/(/7n 2ir/16) . This is obtained from the bivariate Gaussian sector
averaging form for a 22.5" (i.e.. 2n/16) sector. This results in a
uniform concentration across the wind sector at a given distance and
height.
Operation
MATRIX and GAUSS are the two major computer programs used in major
point source analysis. The function of program MATRIX is to generate a
matrix file containing dispersion functions as a function of wind direc-
tion and radial distance from the source for A single point source with a
chosen physical characteristic. The GAUSS program reads the matrix data
file generated by MATRIX and calculates the ground concentration pattern
carried by the sources defined 1n the source definition data set. Output
from GAUSS is a data file that contains surface concentration values.
108
-------
There is no input data requirement to run the MATRIX program.
However, GAUSS does require input. In addition to the intermediate data
file created by MATRIX, GAUSS requires an input data set that identifies
the locations and characteristics of the sources as well as the sur-
rounding meteorological and climatological conditions. Sequences of input
data cards are shown in Table 15.
Vertical Dispersion Function for Downwash Phenomena
When the pollutants are emitted from a vent or opening on a building,
or when the exit velocity of gases emitted from a stack is less than 1.5
times the mean wind speed, dispersion of pollutants is determined by the
atmospheric dispersion mechanism and the building-induced turbulence.
Following Briggs (1975), the atmospheric dispersion function for
Oy(x), m, and oz(x) can be expressed as follows (open country conditions,
102 < x < 104m):
Pasquill Type O(m) ^Jm)
A .22x(l + .OOlx)'1/2 .20x
B .16x(l + .OOOlx)'1/2 .12x
C .llx(l + .OOOlx)'1/2 .08x(l + .0002X)"1/2
D .08x(l + .OOOlx)-1/2 .06x(l + .OOlBx)'1/2
E .06x(l + .OOOlx)-1/2 .03x(l + .OOOSx)'1
F .04x(l + .OOOlx)'1/2 .016x(l + .OOOSx)"1
Estimation of the additional Initial dispersion in the building wake
is based on Holland's virtual point source concept. In this concept, dis-
persion is as if the emissions came from a virtual source, farther upwind
than the real one and diffused by Gaussian processes to a plume as wide as
the building wake. The downwind distance x can be expressed as x1 + Ax,
where x1 is the distance between the receptor and the actual emission
source, while _AX is the distance between the actual point source and
virtual point source (see Figure 10). The total dispersion factor can be
expressed as:
109
-------
TABLE 15. SEQUENCE OF INPUT DATA CARDS FOR PROGRAM GAUSS
Contents
Number of emissions sources
Emissions source Identifier
Latitude (degree, minute, second)
Longitude (degree, minute, second)
Chosen STAR station number
Ambient temperature (°K)
Lapse rate for stability class E, F
Urban index
IURB = 1 for rural area
IURB = 0 for urban area
User identifier
Number of source type within
each emissions source
Name of the chemical
Compounds
Emissions index
Emissions rates (Ibs/i'ir)
Physical stack height (meters
above ground level)
Typical building cross sectional area
f\
(meters^)
Stack index
IVGNT = 1 for nonverticsl stack
IVGNT = 0 for vertical stack
Stack diameter (meters)
Gas exit velocity (m/s)
Gas exit temperature (°K)
Note: GAUSS also requires the SAI-modified STAR data file.
Card No.
1
2
3
4
Variables
NEMS
LINE
LAT
LONG
I STAR
T
ALAPSE
IURB
IUSE
NOS
ISPEC
ICSPEC
IEMTYP
Q
STAK
XA
WENT
D
VS
TS
Format
no
7A5
16
17
15
F5.0
2F5,0
11
15
12
A10
AID
ZX.A1
F12.0
F4.0
F4.0
11
F4.0
F5.0
F4.0
no
-------
Q = Emission source strength
AX = Distance between the virtual point source and the
actual point source as a result of the building of
displacement zone
FIGURE 10. SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATION OF VIRTUAL POINT SOURCE CONCEPT
-------
Pasqulll
Type
A
B
C
D
E
F
(m)
.22 (x1 + Ax) (1 + 0.0001 (x1 + to)'1/2
.16 (x1 + Ax) (1 + 0.0001 (x1 + to)'1/2
.11 (x1 + AX) (1 + 0.0001 (x1 + Ax)'1/2
.08 (x1 + Ax) (1 + 0.0001 (x1 +
to) (1 + 0.0001 (x1 +
.06 (x1
.04 (x1 + to) (1 + 0.0001 (x1 +
to)'1/2
to)'1/2
to)'1/2
Pasquill
Type
A
B
C
D
E
F
(m)
0.20 (x1
0.12 (x1
0.08 (x1
0.06 (x1
0.03 (x1
0.016 (x1
+ to) -
+ to)
+ to) (1 +
+ to) (1 +
+ ax) (1 +
+ to) (1 +
.0002 (x1
.0015 (x1
.0003 (x1
.0003 (x1
+ to)'1/2
+ to)'1/2
+ to)'1/2
* to)-l/2
(6a)
(6b)
(6c)
(6d)
(6e)
(6f)
For_x'=o, the bull ding-Induced turbulence 1s the only mechanism that con-
trols the dispersion of pollutants. Therefore, the total dispersion func-
tion here can be expressed as:
(m)
(m)
.22 (AX) (1 + O.OOOlto)'1/2
.16 (AX) (1 + O.OOOlto)'1/2
.11 (to) (1 + O.OOOlto)-1/2
.08 (to) (1 + O.OOOlto)-1/2
.06 (to) (1 + O.OOOlto)-1/2
.04 (to) (1 + O.OOOlWx)'1/2
0.20 (to)
0.12 (to)
0.08 (to) (1 +
0.06 (to) (1 +
0.03 (to) (1 +
(7a)
(7b)
0.0002AX)-1/2 (7c)
0.00015to)-1/2(7d)
.0003AX)'1 (7e)
0.016 (to) (1 + .0003AX)-1 (7f)
112
-------
The product of o and oz is:
4.4 x 10'2 (to)2 [1 + 10'4 (to)]'1/2 (8a)
1.9 x 10'2 (Ax)2 [1 + 1CT4 (to)]-1/2 (8b)
8.8 x 1CT3 (ax)2 [1 + 3. x 1CT4 (to) +2 x 10'8 (to)2 ]'1/2 (8c)
4.8 x 10'3 (to)2 [1 + 1.6 x I'3 (to) + 1.5 x 10'7 (to)2]'1/2 (8d)
1.8 x 10'3 (to)2 1 + 7.0 x 1CT4 (to) + 1.5 x 1CT7 (to)2
+ 9. x 10'12 (to)2 '1/2 (8e)
6.4 x 1CT4 (to)2 1 + 7.0 x 1CT4 (to) + 1.5 x 1CT7 (to)2
+ 9. x 10'12 (to)2 ~1/2 (8f)
Gifford (1968) identified the total diffusion factor as:
oy = (oy2 + CA/T,)1/2 ,
where A is building cross sectional area perpendicular to the mean wind
and C is the building factor.* It is found that 0.5 < C < 2.0. At X'=0,
the total dispersion function becomes
0y = (CA/n)1/2 ,
oz = (CA/n)1/2 ,
Multiply ay and erz to obtain:
Dependence on the height/width ratio of a building was not included.
There is great variety in the sizes and shapes of buildings associated
with the variety of emissions sources. Generally, the structures were
complex, there was uncertainty as to how well this correction should be
detailed, and it was difficult to obtain relevant data.
113
-------
OyOz = CA/H (9)
Let C = 0.5 (a conservative estimation), and compare Eqs. (8a), (8b),
(8c). (8d), (8e), and (8f) with Eq. (9); one gets:
Pasquill
Stability °y qz (m ) = T^
A 4.4 x 1CT2 (Ax)2 [1 + 1CT4 (Ax)]'1/2 (lOa) .
B 1.9 x 1CT2 (Ax)2 [1 + 1CT4 (Ax)]'1/2 (lOb)
C 8.8 x 1(T3 (Ax)2 [1 + 3. x 10'4 (Ax)
+ 2 x ID'8 (Ax)2 3'1/2 (lOc)
D 4.8 x 1CT3 (Ax)2 [1 + 1.6 x T3 (Ax)
+ 1.5 x 1CT7 (Ax)2]'1/2 (lOd)
E 1.8 x 1CT3 (Ax)2 1 + 7.0 x 1CT4 (Ax) + 1.5 x 10'7 (Ax)
+ 9. x lO'12 (Ax)2 -1/2 (lOe)
F 6.4 x 10'4 (Ax)2 1 + 7.0 x 1CT4 (Ax) + 1.5 x 1CT7 (Ax)2
+ 9. x 10'12 (Ax)2 -1/2 (lOf)
Eqs. (lOa) through (lOf) are then solved numerically, and the Ax can be
expressed as:
Pasquill Stability Ax
A 1.95A0'5
B 2.72A0'5
C 4.05A0'5
D 4.95A°-5eA x 10"6
E 9.03A°-52e3'6A x 10"6
. F 14.88A°-52eA x 10"5
By substituting them into Eqs. (6a) through (6f), one can obtain the total
dispersion function.
114
-------
Exposure and Dosage Estimation Scheme
SAI has coded this "matrix" dispersion modeling approach Into a stan-
dard Fortran program. The output of the program is a well-formatted con-
centration array for 160 receptors around the plant (10 receptors along
each of the 16 wind directions). These are the sum of concentration pat-
terns resulting from all sources within a plant* A typical concentration
pattern printout is shown 1n Table 16, and the chloroprene-emittlng Denka
plant at Houston Is used here as an example. This subsection delineates
the basic approach used in combining the concentration pattern with the
population distribution pattern around a plant. Two terms are defined
here and are used frequently 1n the following discussion. A polar grid
point is one of the 160 receptors at which concentrations were estimated
by the dispersion modeling. A population centroid is the population-
weighted geographical center of an ED/BG for which geodetic coordinates
are known.
A two-level scheme was adopted to pair up concentrations and popula-
tions prior to the computation of dosages and exposures. The two-level
approach Is appropriate because the concentrations are defined on a
radius-azimuth (polar) grid pattern with non-uniform spacing. At small
radii the grid cells are much smaller than ED/BGs; at large radii the grid
Cells are much larger than ED/BGs. To form the product of population
times concentration, both factors at the same set of points are
required. Interpolation techniques to accomplish this are most appro-
priately applied by interpolating values of the factor defined on the
coarse network at the locations of the finer grid, thus maximizing the
resolution and minimizing the uncertainties of interpolation. Because the
fine/coarse relationship varies with radius, the two-level approach is
used.
For ED/BG centrolds located between 0.1 km and 2.8 km from the
source, populations were apportioned among neighboring concentration grid
115
-------
TABLE 16." ANNUAL AVERAGE CHLOROPRENE CONCENTRATION DISTRIBUTION PATTERN
IN THE VICINITY OF THE DENKA PALNT IN HOUSTON, TEXAS
CMuroiircne ConLpntral Ion (i|/1*"J)
1
t
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
IJ
13
II
15
16
700.00
.I4942C-04
10I6BE-04
.13662E-04
.936IOE-05
.I7444E-04
.2I159E-04
.752WE-04
.1777BE-04
.2880 IE -04
. II375E-04
.I0675E-04
.47475E-05
-5S3a2E-05
.51789E-05
.747ME-05
.49727E-05
300.00
95580t-05
.655C9C-OS
.89314E-05
61220t-05
.117604-04
.13642E-04
. 16369C-04
.11470E-04
.I&WIE-04
732SOE-05
69450E-05
30613E-05
.3S49ZE-05
331JM-05
4B679E-05
.31B53E-05
500 00
.M743E-05
.150B5E-05
.49199E-05
.33440E-05
60W9E-05
.73193E-05
.B87ME-05
.62I4K-05
99365E-05
.39679E-05
.38875E-05
17087E-05
.I9359E-05
.17869E-05
.24034E-05
.17161E-05
700.00
.32*161-05
.22476E-05
.3259IE-05
.Z1B73E-05
.39771E-05
.17477E-05
.58I42E-05
.40S36E-05
.65771E-05
.26502E-05
.272261-05
.I1998E-05
.I33I5E-OS
.I1999E-05
.1B047E-05
.lin88E-05
Dmmrtnd Dl
1000 00
19SOEE-05
.133S2E-05
.2003IE-05
.13271E-05
.24292E-05
.78649E-05
.35W9E-05
74SS4E-05
40685E-05
IE575E-05
.I7797E-OS
7B846E-06
.B5815E-06
75437E-06
.11298E-05
6646 9E -06
jUnce ^n^_
7000 00
.60156E-06
.4085 1C -06
63664E-06
.4I673E-06
.76792E-06
B9354E-06
I1146E-05
76858E-06
.I3053E-05
538?7E-I06
.60395E-06
.26901E-06
787ME-06
.20607E-06
J6659E-06
20559E-06
5000.00
.I0097E-06
.68605E-07
. 10886E-06
7Q896E-07
13D50E-06
15I31E-06
. I8966E-06
13057E-06
22338E-06
.92638E-07
.10570E-06
470I5E-07
49716E-07
.42I99C-07
63I54E-07
.34766E-07
looon.oo
.24494E-07
.167I7E-07
.26667E-07
.17372E-07
.31737E-07
. 36901 E-07
.46349E-07
. 319SOt-07
.54546E-07
.22657E-07
.25916E-07
.1I474E-07
.12I18E-07
. 10266E-07
. 1S406E-07
.85183E-08
i soon oo
.10522E-07
. 77068E-08
. I1S01E-07
.749S3E-08
. I3412E-07
.I5895E-07
.I9983E-07
.I3802E-07
.23487E-07
.97544E-08
.11I30E-07
.49C88E-08
.519I8E-08
.44007E-OS
.66779t-0a
. 3687? t -08
20000.00
.57312E-08
.39377C-08
67744E-08
.409IOE-08
.7I934E-08
.06747E-08
.197I7E-07
.75536E-08
128111-07
.53l5fir-0fl
.60376E-08
.Z6537E-08
.2BI31E-09
.28871E-08
.3M17E-08
.2t»llE-08
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated.
-------
points. There are 96 (6 x 16) polar grid points within this range.
Associated with each of these grid points, at which the concentration is
known, is a smaller polar sector bounded by two concentric arcs and two
radial lines. The boundary concentric arcs were defined by radii of 0.1,
0.25, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.2, and 2.8 km in this study, and the boundary
radial lines were drawn right in the middle of two wind directions. Each
of these concentration grid points was assigned to the nearest ED/BG cen-
troid identified from the MED-X data set. The population at each centroid
was then apportioned among all concentration grid points assigned to that
centroid. The exact land area within each polar cell was considered in
the apportionment, and the population density was assumed to be the same
for all grid cells assigned to a single centroid. Both concentration and
population counts were thus available for each polar grid point.
Log-log linear interpolation was used to estimate the concentration
at each ED/3G population centroid located between 2.8 km and 20 km from
the source. Concentration estimates for 80 (5 x 16) grid points
(receptors at 2.0, 5.0, 10.0, 15.0, and 20.0 km from the source along each
of the sixteen directions) resulting from dispersion modeling were used
here as reference points for this interpolation. For each ED/BG centroid,
four reference points were located as the four corners of the polar sector
in which the centroid is located. These four reference points would sur-
round the centroid as depicted in Figure 11. As shown in Figures 7, 8,
and 9, there is a linear relationship between the logarithm of concentra-
tions and the logarithm of distances for receptors more than 2 km away
from the source. This relationship was used to estimate the concentra-
tions at points E and F (see Figure 11). These estimates, together with
the polar angles, were then used to interpolate the concentration at the
centroid. Using the two-level approach, concentrations and populations
wre paired up for the 96 concentration grid points within 2.8 km of the
source and for all ED/BG centroids located between 2.8 km and 20 km from
the source. The total dosage was then computed as follows:
117
-------
Total Annual Dosage (gg/m -person)
1-1
where P^ = the population at point 1, C^ • the annual average concentra-
tion at point 1, and N • the total number of grid points and ED/BG cen-
troids with a specified combination of concentration and population
(representing the entire area within 20 km of the source).
SOURCE
ED/BG CENTROID
FIGURE 11. REFERENCE POINTS FOR AN ED/BG CENTROID
The population exposed to each of a number of concentration levels,
I,-, was computed by:
Exposure to L. (person)
,L .)
118
-------
where
s. *
1
0
1
1f C^ <
if C, >_
The dosage of the fraction of the population that 1s exposed to concentra-
tions greater than or equal to each of a number of concentration levels,
Lj, was computed by using the following summation:
11
Annual Dosage at L. (ug/m -person) = /^ P^C.S, (C. ,L .)
Note that the annual dosage at the minimum concentration within 20 km of
the source will equal the total annual dosage.
The concentration levels at which exposure is to be estimated can be
selected either manually or by an exponential function coded 1n the pro-
gram. A suggested approach 1s to select the desired number of concentra-
tion levelSj examine the exposure computed at the program-determined
exposure levels, and then compute the exposures at selected levels.
The version of the MED-X data file used 1n these estimations Includes
the 1970 census data, so both exposure and dosage have to be adjusted to
the 1978 levels. The 1978 to 1970 population ratio at the county level
was used as the adjustment factor 1n this study. The exposure algorithm
program was used to estimate the exposure/dosage for each of the major
point sources and total nationwide exposure/dosage.
119
-------
PROTOTYPE POINT SOURCE EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE ESTIMATION APPROACH
Significant amounts of chemicals are emitted from point sources that,
practically, can only be treated generically. Such sources may Include
power plants, refineries, solvent degreasers, solvent users, gas stations,
etc.; they are too numerous to be treated Individually as point sources,
and yet the spatial distributions of their emissions are not sufficiently
uniform to be treated as area source emissions.
SAI conducted a study to compare two approaches for estimating the
exposure-dosage resulting from chemical emissions from point sources
treated as classes. The first approach assumes that these sources are
area sources and that the Hanna-Gifford Model can be used to estimate
atmospheric concentrations. This approach was applied to estimate the
benzene concentration/dosage resulting from gasoline station emissions 1n
an EPA report on human exposure to atmospheric benzene (Mara and Lee,
1978). In the alternative approach, model or prototype sources were
defined; exposure estimates for each model source were developed 1n the
same fashion as they were for major, specifically Identified point
sources. The results were then multiplied by the estimated number of
sources of the same type to obtain- national totals.
TMchloroethylene emitted from metal degreaslng facilities Is used as
an example in this comparison study. Trichloroethylene has been the his-
torical favorite for vapor degreasing uses, but regulations have been
instituted regarding Its use for metal cleaning because of Its toxldty,
Its photochemical reactivity, and the resultant formation of undesirable
byproducts. Vapor degreasers (VD) lose a relatively smaller portion of
their solvents in waste material and as liquid carryout than do cold
degreasers (CD). For both VDs and CDs, most (> 99 percent) of the emis-
sions are those vapors that diffuse from the degreasers. Trichloroethy-
lene vapor degreaslng emissions are estimated by HI to have been 104,550
120
-------
metric tons in 1978, or 99 percent of the total amount of trichloroethy-
lene consumed for this purpose (see Attachment A). An estimated 15 per-
cent of trichloroethylene consumed in metal degreasing operations was used
in cold cleaning equipment. The remaining 85 percent was used in open top
vapor degreasers (OTVDs) and conveyorized vapor degreasers (CVDs). The
averaging emissions rates per unit and the total number of units in opera-
tion nationwide are shown in Table 17.
TABLE 17. NATIONWIDE TRICHLOROETHYLENE EMISSIONS
FROM SOLVENT DEGREASERS
National
Emissions
(metric
Type of Degreaser tons/yr) Degreasers
Cold degreaser
Open top vapor
degreaser
Conveyorized vapor
degreaser
Total
Average
Emissions Rate
Number of per Degreaser
(g/sec)
14,950
55,570
33,340
49,770
6.110
1,232
0.0095
0.288
0.858
104,550
59,382
Source: Hydroscience, Incorporated, Knoxvllle, Tennessee, tri-
chloroethylene emissions summary; included in attached
species report.
In this study, model sources were defined for each of the nine geo-
graphic regions in the United States. Figure "12 displays the nine
regions. The average emissions rate per degreaser, as listed 1n Table 17,
is assumed applicable to all nine regions, and the deviations from the
average rates are regarded as Insignificant in terms of their Influence on
the overall exposure-dosage estimates. Therefore, there are three types
of model sources in each region for trichloroethylene, and their emissions
rates were assumed to be the average rates as listed 1n Table 17. How-
ever, for some model sources of other chemicals, the emissions rates may
be different from region to region.
121
-------
ro
ro
FIGURE 12. U.S. GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
-------
Degreasers that use trlchloroethylene as a solvent are usually
employed In the manufacturing Industry; the population exposed to emis-
sions from this type of Source resides mostly 1n urbanized areas. In this
study, all trlchloroethylene-using degreasers were assumed to be located
1n urbanized areas with populations of more than 25,000. These urbanized
areas were also the major exposed areas. An attempt was made to estimate
the total land area 1n each region, and the average population density 1n
these urbanized areas for each region was also derived. Table 18 lists
these statistics together with the number of each of the three types of
degreaser-S in each of the nine regions. The 1978 population density in
these urbanized areas was assumed not to differ significantly from the
1972 figure. The population and land area data were from the 1970 census
data (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1973) and data on the number of
degreasers were estimates made by HI.
Uniform Emissions Approach
In this approach, trichloroethylene was assumed to be emitted uni-
formly throughout the area covered. To calculate the average annual area-
wide trichloroethylene concentrations, x. resulting from vapor degreasing
emissions, the Hanna-Gifford dispersion equation was used:
(16)
LJ
where
Q • average emissions rate of trichloroethylene from
2
unit area (vg/sec - m ),
u •= average wind speed (m/sec),
225 = an empirical factor derived from several previous
studies on relatively large scale urban areas
(- 400 km2
stability.
o
(~ 400 km ) and under neutral atmospheric
123
-------
TABLE 18. 1970 POPULATION DENSITY AND NUMBER OF TRICHLOROETHYLENE-USING
DEGREASERS IN THE NINE GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
Statistics In Urbanized Areas
Region
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Population
(1n thousands)
8,098
27,959
26.506
8,450
15,862
4,173
10,948
4,692
20,582
Area
(km2)
7,650
14,084
19,543
8,402
14,102
4,986
12,312
4,772
14,335
Density
(persons/km2)
1,059
1,985
1,356
1,006
1,125
837
889
983
1,436
Number
CD§
2,991
7,760
13,179
4,362
6,005
2,944
4,832
1.806
5,893
of Degreaserst
OTVD**
560
1,158
1,742
452
465
265
398
174
896
CVDtf
113
244
405
80
84
52
68
21
165
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1973.
* Source: Hydrosclence, Incorporated, Knoxvllle, Tennessee, trlchloroethylene emissions
summary Included 1n Attachment A.
* Cold Degreaser.
Open Top Vapor Degreaser.
** Conveyorlzed Vapor Degreaser.
-------
Since this approach does not consider concentration patterns, patterns of
wind variability were not judged to be pertinent, and a mean, national
average wind was used. The average U.S. wind speed was determined to be
5.5 m/sec by weighting regional average wind speeds by population, (Mara
and Lee, 1978). Because it was assumed that all of the vapor degreasers
are located in Urbanized Areas, the total land area of the Urbanized Areas
in the United States (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1973) was used 1n the
estimation of unit area emissions rates (Q). Table 19 lists the major
parameters used in this approach, together with the estimated concen-
tration-dosage results. It should be noted that no information on the
differentiation of levels of exposure to the populations residing in the
Urbanized Areas is available, and only the average exposed concentration
is derived from this approach.
TABLE 19. MAJOR PARAMETERS AND CONCENTRATION-DOSAGE RESULTS
OF THE UNIFORM EMISSIONS APPROACH
Major Parameters
Total trichloroethylene
vapor degreasing emissions
Total Urbanized Area
Unit area emissions
rate, Q
Average U. S. wind
speed, u
Average exposed concentra-
tion, x
Total population in
Urbanized Areas in 1978
Concentration-Dosage
Results
104,550 metric tons/yr
100,190
0.0331 pg/sec - m2
5.5 m/sec
1.354 wg/m3
135 mill ion
Information
Source
Hydroscience,
Incorporated
U.S Census
Bureau (1973)
SAI computations
Mara and Lee
(1978)
SAI computations
U.S Census
Bureau (1973)
Total U. S. annual dosage 1.88 x 108 (yg/m3) - person SAI computations
Based on 1970 population in Urbanized Areas, 127.270,000, and the
projected 1978 to 1970 population ratio of 218 million/205 million.
125
-------
Prototype Point Source Approach
In this approach, concentration-dosage patterns were estimated for
emissions from three model sources—a CD, an OTVD, and a CVD--for the nine
regions. The emissions rates of these three model sources were assumed to
be constants, as shown in Table 19.
A set of STAR (STabllity ARray) stations with climatological condi-
tions that are typical of those in the nine regions were selected as the
base for conducting regional model source dispersion modeling (see
Table 10).
Trichloroethylene 1s quite reactive toward ambient hydroxyl radical
(OH )--about one-fifth as reactive as propylene. Its reaction with ozone
molecules is, however, very slow. Therefore, the psuedo-first-order reac-
tion rate constant of trichloroethylene 1n the ambient air 1n the daytime
would be about 1.68 x 10"^ mln"1; during the night it would be close to
zero since atmospheric reactions toward OH species occur only 1n the day-
time.
Most of the trlchloroethylene-using degreaslng un1ts--cold degreasers
or vapor degreasers--are housed inside a building or other shelter. Emis-
sions are from the venting system of the shelter. The emissions para-
meters for these three types of degreasers are summarized In Table 20.
126
-------
TABLE 20.
Source Type
EMISSIONS PARAMETERS FOR PROTOTYPE POINT SOURCES
OF TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Vent Building Vent Vent Vent
Height Cross-Section Diameter Velocity Temperature
(m) (m2) (m) (m/sec) . (°K)
Cold cleaners
Open top vapor
degreasers
ConveyoMzed
vapor degreasers
4.5
4.5
4.5
50
50
50
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.2
0.2
0.2
M «
327
327
Source: Hydrosclence, Incorporated, Knoxvllle, Tennessee; trlchloroethy-
lene report, attached.
The major steps Involved 1n deriving the exposure-dosage estimates
can be delineated as follows;
> Based on emissions characteristics, photochemical reac-
tivity, and the STAR data of the selected stations, the
concentration patterns resulting from emissions from the
three model sources were determined Individually for all
nine regions by using the same dispersion modeling tech-
nique developed for major point sources. As an example,
the modeling results of concentration patterns around a
model OTVD 1n the New England Region are shown 1n Table 21.
> Table 22 lists the distances between the concentration
centers (receptors) and the source, the distances of
boundary areas of the sectors away from the source, and the
land area of sectors corresponding to each concentration
center. The average population density 1n the urbanized
areas for the nine regions, together with the specific
sector land area assigned to each concentration center,
were used to estimate the population exposed to different
concentrations. To make this estimate, the average popula-
tion density is multiplied by the sector land area corres-
127
-------
TABLE 21. TR1CHLOROETHYLENE CONCENTRATION PATTERN AROUND A MODEL OPEN TOP
VAPOR DEGREASER IN NEW ENGLAND REGION
ro
CD
Hind
MnctlOfl*
1
2
3
•
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
* 1 • •. 2 •
Scare*: SjH
(ng/m3)
Oovnolnd Distance Fran the Source
(!••)
0.2
2.617
1.017
1.066
1.013
2.190
1.854
1.2S9
0.882
2.629
1.888
1.897
2.737
2.BS4
2.912
2.771
1.838
0.3
1.180
0.455
0.481
0.458
0.990
0.831
0.551
0.388
1.182
0.869
0.876
1.260
1.325
1.362
1.283
0.841
ME. 3 • HE, etc.
MR AppMcilloat,
0.5
0.390
0.149
0.159
0.152
0.330
0.273
0.173
0.122
0.388
0.298
0.302
0.434
0.464
0.480
0.445
0.284
0.7
0.1752
0.0662
0.0720
0.0688
0.1490
0.1223
0.0745
0.0525
0.1732
0.1384
0.1414
0.2026
0.2202
0.2245
0.2090
0.1308
Incorporated co»|
1.0
0.0697
0.026Z
0.0291
0.0277
0.0604
0.0486
0.0280
0.0196
0.0681
0.0575
0.0591
0.0845
0.0943
0.0988
0.0879
0.0535
NiUtlons.
2.0
0.00867
0.00327
0.00386
0.00357
0.00776
0.00608
0.00295
0.00201
0.00809
0.40789
0.00823
0.01160
0.01412
0.01485
0.01243
0.00702
5.0
2.04 * ID'*
O.B6 i 10"*
1.11 • 10"*
0.93 • 10'*
1.87 I 10'*
1.41 i 10"*
0.48 * 10-*
0.31 * ID"*
1.65 i 10'*
2.1J i ID"*
2.21 » ID"*
2.95 i 10'*
4.50 • ID"*
4.79 » ID"*
3.50 « 10-*
1.70 i 10-*
10.0
3.23 •
1.71 i
2.50 l
1.74 *
2.89 i
1.98 •
0.42 ft
0.29 *
2.12 *
3.42 *
3.42 x
4.18 i
8.96 i
9.98 (
6.03 I
2.36 K
ID'*
ID'*
10-6
10-«
10-'
10-*
10-«
10-6
ID"6
ID"6
10-6
10-6
10-6
10-6
io-«
10-6
15.0
1.30 « IO"7
0.83 • ID" 7
1.3J • 10'7
0.80 n lO'7
1.18 « ID"7
0.68 » ID'7
0.85 i ID"7
0.79 i ID'7
0.73 K ID'7
1.30 • ID'7
1.26 i ID"7
1.40 « 10'7
4.11 i ID'7
4.73 * HP7
2.45 m 10"7
0.79 • HT7
20.0
8.3 « 10"9
6.0 • 10'9
10.1 » 10-'
5.6 » ID'9
7.9 * 10"'
3.9 • 10"9
0.26 « 10-'
0.40 « 10''
4.28 « 10'9
7.71 M 10'9
7.50 » 10'9
7.71 < ID'9
28.4 • 10~9
33.1 « 10'9
15.5 • 10'9
4.4 » lO'9
-------
TABLE 22. LAND AREAS FOR SPECIFIED CONCENTRATION CENTERS
no
UD
Distance of
Concentration Center
from Source
Distance of Boundary
Arc from Source, r
nr1
Land Area of
Sector, Anr2/16
(km)
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
(km)
0.1*
0.25
0.4
0.6
0.85
1.5
3.5
7.5
12.5
17.5
22.5
(km2)
0.0314
0.196
0.503
1.131
2.270
7.069
38.48
176.7
490.9
962.0
1590.0
(km2)
0.0103
0.0192
0.0393
0.071
0.300
1.963
8.64
19.64
29.44
39.25
The radius of prototype plant property is assumed to be 100 meters.
-------
ponding to the specific concentration center. The dosage
corresponding to the specific concentration center can then
be estimated by multiplying the exposed population by the
concentration to which it 1s exposed. Therefore, for each
model source in each of the nine regions, there were three
corresponding matrices--one for the concentration pattern,
one for the exposed population, and one for the dosage
estimates.
The exposure-dosage data for each model source were then
summarized according to their corresponding exposed concen-
tration. The population exposed to concentrations greater
than or equal to each of a number of concentration levels,
Lj, 1n the vicinity of a model source m 1n region r was
computed by:
N
where
N = the total number of concentration points (with
10 receptors along each of 16 wind directions:
10 x 16 = 160),
Pj « the population corresponding to concentration
center 1,
C^ • the annual average exposed concentration at con-
centration center 1,
0, 1f C. <
1 L 1f C >.
130
-------
The population exposed to trlcMoroethylene concentrations larger than or
equal to different concentration levels resulting from the three model
sources 1n the nine regions Is listed In Table 23. The dosage of the
fraction of population that 1s exposed to concentrations greater than or
equal to each of a number of concentration levels, LJ, 1n the vicinity of
a model source m 1n region r was computed by:
P1C1S1 (C^ I,) . (18)
1=1
The dosages of trlchloroethylene as a function of exposed concentration
levels for the three types of model degreasers 1n the nine regions are
shown 1n Table 24. The exposure-dosage patterns for each of the three
model sources located 1n each of the nine regions can be used as the bases
•for estimating the total exposure-dosage as a function of exposed concen-
tration levels In each Individual region by:
3
(Total exposure at Lj)r -^ (e^ x nm>r) , (19)
m=l
3
m=l
(Total dosage at Lj)p - (d^ x nm>r) . (20)
131
-------
TABLE 23. POPULATION EXPOSURE TO TR1CHLORO£WLENE EMITTED FROM A TYPICAL DEGREASER
(a) Cold Degreaser
Number of Persons Exposed by Geographic Region
concentration uevt
(wg/o3)
0
0
0
0
.25
.10
.05
.025
?i
1
0
0
120
398
2
0
41
264
769
3
0
84
300
522
4
0
71
160
360
5
0
58
226
421
6
9
68
153
339
7
0
28
143
273
8
10
49
169
370
9
30
129
216
614
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated computations.
-------
TABLE 23 (Continued)
(b) Open Top Vapor Degreaser
Concentration ...._.. - -
Lcvei
(uq/m3)
5.0
2.5
1.0
0.5
0.25
0.10
0.05
0.025
1
0
65
286
418
957
2,000
5,554
7,142
2
0
102
477
898
1,857
4,335
9,067
12,176
3
28
98
392
734
1,285
2,210
4,466
8,209
-
4
10
81
241
438
893
2,203
3,783
4,956
5
12
69
314
608
1,032
2,280
4,387
7,161
1 ucutjrdpi
6
17
107
282
430
785
1,642
2,506
4,566
TIC Kegioi
7
0
46
212
457
859
2,108
3,668
5,201
i
B
20
70
295
541
833
1,867
3,086
6,609
1
30
129
488
708
1,216
3,058
4,196
7,087
-------
U)
TABLE 23 (Concluded)
(c) Conveyorlzed Vapor Degreaser
Concentration Number of Persons Exposed by Geographic Region
tevei
(ug/m3)
5.0
2.5
1.0
0.5
0.25
0.10
0.50
0.025
1
120
388
749
1,451
3,265
5,867
7,451
17,876
2
263
672
1,328
2,657
5,205
12,172
13,975
33,443
3
246
496
933
1,674
3,407
6,198
8,716
14,469
4
122
320
764
1.188
2,350
4.663
7,850
17,000
5
182
400
753
1,548
2,869
5,726
7,238
14,167
6
144
338
636
908
1,794
4,019
4,884
7,038
7
107
229
596
1,154
2,471
4,926
5,720
15,000
8
149
314
648
1,214
2,438
4,262
6,905
8,857
9
216
542
1,048
1,491
3,260
5,794
10,363
15,758
-------
TABLE 24. TRICHLOROETHYLENE DOSAGE RESULTING FROM MODEL DEGREASER EMISSIONS
[(ug/n3I/person]
(a) Cold Degreaser
Concentration Geographic Region
Level
(ug/m3)
0.25
0.10
0.05
0.025
0.010
0*
1
0
0
9
19
25
52
2
0
5
22
38
50
98
3
• 0
12
27
34
42
66
4
0
9
15
22
28
49
5
0
8
19
26
33
55
6
2
9
16
22
27
40
7
0
4
11
16
22
43
8
3
8
16
23
28
47
9
8
19
25
3fl
47
70
-------
u>
en
TABLE 24 (Continued)
(b) Open Top Vapor Degreaser
Concentration Geographic Region
uevei
(ug/*3)
5.0
2.5
1.0
0.5
0.25
0.10
0*
1
0
180
488
598
803
979
1,579
2
0
325
915
1,252
1,588
1,960
2,953
3
154
406
924
1.171
1,349
1,498
1,998
4
74
312
551
704
878
1,070
1,478
5
59
260
. 682
895
1,034
1,232
1,671
6
117
351
622
732
853
974
1,211
7
0
161
424
590
719
892
1,296
8
132
285
621
787
891
1,057
1,420
9
230
570
1,063
1.217
1,429
1,719
2,109
-------
CO
TABLE 24 (Concluded)
(c) Conveyorized Vapor Degreaser
Concentration
ueve i
(ug/m3)
5.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0*
,0
5
0
50
25
10
1
2
2
3
1
850
,700
,210
,680
,260
3,730
4,
,700
2
1,900
3,230
4,260
5,200
6,070
7,250
8,810
3
2,160
3,040
3,730
4,250
4,790
5,210
5,950
4
1,150
1,860
2,500
2,790
3,220
3.640
4,400
.._-,.„..
5
1,490
2,260
2,850
3,400
3,830
4,300
4,980
6
1,360
2,000
2,400
2,620
2,940
3,250
3,620
7
850
1,310
1,910
2,320
2,750
3,150
3,850
8
1,310
1,900
2,490
2,880
3,300
3,570
4,220
Q
2,220
3.310
4,090
4,420
5,160
5,500
6,300
* Total dosage resulting from emissions from one model source 1n a
-------
where n,,, r is the total number of model source m (a CD, an OTVD, or a CVD)
1n region r. On the other hand, the total nation-wide exposure-dosage
resulting from emissions from one type of model source can be derived by
9
(Total exposure at L.)m *£ (e^ x n^) , (21)
(Total dosage at L^.J^ «m>r * n^) . (22)
r=l
The following two equations were used to estimate the total U.S.
exposure-dosage for the fraction of the population exposed to concen-
trations of trlchloroethylene greater than or equal to a number of concen-
tration levels, Lj, emitted from this source category:
9 3
Total exposure at U •= (em>r x n^) , (23)
r=l m=l
3
Total dosage at Lj - (d^ x n^^ . (24)
138
-------
The results of such summations are shown In Tables 25, 26, and 27.
The two different approaches for computing total dosages resulting
from emissions from trichloroethylene-using degreasers produce different
results. By using the uniform emissions approach, the total U.S. dosage
of trichloroethylene resulting from degreaslng operations is computed to
be 1.88 x 108 yg/m3 - person (see Table 19), whereas use of the point
source approach results in a dosage of 2.28 x 10' pg/nr - person (see
Table 27). The two approaches can be compared by examining the nature and
detail of the results they offer:
> Degreasing facilities are obviously not uniformly distri-
buted in any siting area. They are point sources and pro-
duce typical point source concentration patterns. Thus,
the exposure levels for receptors close to the source
would be higher than those farther away. The point source
approach would provide better differentiation of the
exposed population and dosage at different concentration
levels, whereas the uniform emissions approach would pro-
vide only a nationwide average exposure level. Tables 23,
24, and 27 list the exposure-dosage by different types of
degreasers. These types of data are useful for risk
analysis and regulatory decision making. For example, one
may conclude from data listed in Table 27 that, although
open top vapor degreasers contribute most to the total
dosages, the conveyorized vapor degreasers contribute most
to the dosage-exposure at high concentration levels.
> The dosage is defined here as the product of concentration
and exposed population. Therefore, it is necessary to set
an arbitrary boundary for dispersion-dosage estimates for
emissions from point sources. In the point-sources
139
-------
TABLE 25. NATIONWIDE TRICHLOROETHYLENE EXPOSURE RESULTING FROM
EMISSIONS FROM DECREASING OPERATIONS
Concentration Thousands of Persons Exposed by Geographic Region
Level
(wg/m3)
5
2
1
0
.0
.5
.0
.5
1
14
79
245
398
2
64
282
876
1,690
3
148
371
1,060
1,960
4
144
624
1,700
2,930
5
21
66
209
413
6
12
42
108
161
7
7
34
125
260
8
7
19
65
120
9
62
205
610
880
u.:>.
Total
349
1,160
3,470
6,170
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated computations.
-------
TABLE 26. NATIONWIDE TRICHLOROETHYLENE DOSAGE RESULTING FROM
EMISSIONS FROM DECREASING OPERATIONS
[106 (wg/m3) - person]
Concentration Geographic Region
uevei
(ug/m3)
5
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.5
.0
.50
.25
.10
.05
.025
.010
0*
1
0.10
0.29
0.52
0.64
0.82
0.97
1.16
1.26
1.38
1.57
2
0.46
1.17
2.10
2.72
3.32
4.08
4.63
5.07
5.56
6.33
3
1.14
1.94
3.12
3.77
4.29
4.88
5.47
5.86
6.07
6.76
4
0.13
0.29
0.45
0.54
0.66
0.82
0.91
0.98
1.07
1.23
5
0.15
0.31
0.57
0.70
0.80
0.98
1.13
1.24
1.31
1.53
6
0.10
0.20
0.29
0.33
0.39
0.45
0.49
0.54
0.56
0.63
7
0.06
0.15
0.30
0.39
0.47
0.59
0.67
0.74
0.83
0.99
8
0.05
0.09
0.16
0.20
0.23
0.27
0.31
0.34
0.36
0.42
9
0.57
1.06
1.63
1.82
2.17
2.56
2.70
2.91
3.09
3.34
U.b.
Total
2.76
5.50
9.13
11.10
13.20
15.60
17.50
18.90
20.20
22.80
Total dosage, assuming the exposed area Is within 22.5 km radius of the source.
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated computations.
-------
TABLE 27. NATIONWIDE TRICHLOROETHYLENE EXPOSURES AND DOSAGES RESULTING FROM
EMISSIONS FROM DIFFERENT TYPES OF DECREASING FACILITIES
Concentration
Level
5.0
2.5
1.0
0.50
0.25
0.10
0.05
0.025
0.010
0**
Exposure (10b
CD*
0
0
0
0
--
--
--
--
--
™ —
OTVDt
0.09
0.57
2.30
4.06
--
--
--
--
--
~" ™
persons exposed)
CVD§
0.26
0.59
1.17
2.11
--
--
--
--
--
™ ~~
Total
0.35
1.16
3.47
6.17
--
--
--
--
--
"
Dosage [10b ( u
CD
0
0
0
0
0.06
0.46
1.01
1.46
1.84
3.15
OTVD
0.59
2.17
4.91
6.22
7.46
8.83
9.93
10.60
11.20
12.20
ig/mj) - person]
CVD
2.17
3.33
4.22
4.89
5.63
6.31
6.53
6.92
7.20
7.43
Total
2.76
5.50
9.13
11.1
13.2
15.6
17.5
18.9
20.2
22.8
Cold degreaser.
Open top degreaser.
5 Conveyorized vapor degreaser.
Total dosage, assuming the exposed area 1s within 22.5 tan radius of the source.
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated computations.
-------
approach, the Impact area of one model source 1s defined
as being within a 22.5 km radius of the source. As
revealed by the data In Tables 26 and 27 , dosages
decrease rapidly with decreasing concentration levels;
thus, dosages also decrease dramatically as one moves
farther away from the source. This convergency nature of
the dosages as a function of concentrations indicates that
the dosages contributed by exposures outside the
arbitrarily defined Impact areas (r < 22.5 km) would not
be significant compared to the total dosage within the
Impact area.
The total dosage for a specified population can be estimated by using
either of the following two methods:
> Estimate the dosage resulting from emissions from each
nearby source and sum then.
> Estimate the overall exposed concentration level and then
compute the total dosage.
Since the overall exposed concentration level cannot be derived
because of the lack of data on geographical distributions of sources, the
first method was used here.
By examining the results derived from adoption of the two approaches
and considering the above Information, the study team concluded that the
point source approach would be more appropriate for dealing with all
general point sources 1n this study. However, not all the data Involved
would be listed 1n each Individual chemical exposure-dosage summary, and
only the modeling results and the major input data, such as the number of
sources in each region and the emissions characteristics, would be
delineated.
143
-------
AREA SOURCE MODELING APPROACH
Certain of the chemicals to be studied 1n the Human Exposure program
are emitted from area sources that cannot be specified 1n detail; such
emissions must be Inferred by relating them to population, motor vehicles,
etc. However, different urbanized areas with different levels of popula-
tion/motor vehicles concentrations are likely to be exposed to different
levels of these ambient chemicals under different environmental
settings. Because the number of urbanized areas to be studied Is quite
large, it is necessary to use a simple dispersion algorithm to estimate
concentration patterns. The Hanna-G1fford urban area dispersion algorithm
(Hanna, 1971; Hanna and Gifford, 1973) has proved to be a simple but
physically realistic model capable of estimating atmospheric pollutant
concentrations caused by area source emissions in cities. The basic
Hanna-Gifford Equation is given as:
X • CQ0/U , (25)
where X is the air pollutant concentration, Q0 is the effective emissions
rate per unit area, and y 1s the average wind speed. The parameter C,
generally referred to as the Hanna-Gifford coefficient, Is a weak function
of the city size; 1t may be taken to be approximately constant. Theoret-
ically, the parameter C 1s given by:
(2/,)1/2 . x1^ / [a(l-b)]-1 , (25)
144
-------
where x is the distance from a receptor point to the upwind edge of the
area source. The constants a and b are defined by the vertical atmos-
pheric diffusion length, o = ax • Values of a and b for different atmos-
pheric dispersion conditions have been discussed by Pasquill (1970,
1971). The parameter C can be estimated for various combinations of the
stability factors a and b and by assuming that x equals half the city size
(Hanna, 1978). For example, 213 would be an appropriate value of C for a
city with a land area of 400 krrr under Pasquill Class D stability (while a
= 0.15 and b = 0.75). Specific values of the parameter C have been
empirically estimated by Hanna and Gifford (1973) for a large number of
U.S. cities based on a large quantity of air quality data, average annual
emissions, and meteorological conditions. The mean value of C has been
found to equal 225, with a standard deviation roughly half that magni-
tude. This value of the parameter C has been recommended for use in
evaluating an area source by the EPA (1977a,b) if removal and decay
processes may be neglected. Because a large number of cities with dif-
ferent sizes would be considered in this study, the theoretical estimates
of the parameter C were calculated by using Equation 2 and by assuming
Pasquill Class D stability as the average long-term meteorological condi-
tion. This is the EPA-recommended approach.
Three types of cities were assessed in this study. Type I cities
include all 248 Urbanized Areas in the United States, as determined by the
U.S. Bureau of Census (1973). An "Urbanized Area" consists of a central
city or cities with 50,000 inhabitants or more in 1960 and the surrounding
densely settled territory. Figure 13 displays the location and size of
these Urbanized Areas. The widely used data bases for Standard Metro-
politan Statistical Areas (SMSAs), displayed in Figure 14, were not used
here. A comparison of Figures 13 and 14 shows clearly that the delinea-
tion of Urbanized Areas provides a better separation of urban and rural
populations 1n the vicinity of large metropolitan areas. Most of the
145
-------
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1973).
FIGURE 13. U.S. URBANIZED AREAS (1970)
-------
Source: U.S. Federal Highway Administration (1974).
FIGURE 14. U.S. STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS (1970)
-------
Urbanized Areas can be further divided into inner cities and urban
fringe. The central cities were classified as inner cities and any
Urbanized Areas outside the central cities were classified as urban
fringe. The latest census data for the Urbanized Areas are based on the
1970 census survey results (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1973); accordingly,
1970 population data were used throughout this study even though more up-
to-date population data (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1978) are currently
available at other levels of population unit/grouping. The 1973 statis-
tics on motor vehicle registrations In the SMSAs were obtained from the
U.S. Federal Highway Administration (1974) and were used, together with
population data, as the bases for estimating the number of automobiles and
trucks and buses in the Urbanized Areas (for both Inner city and urban
fringe). These 1970 population and 1973 motor vehicle data were subse-
quently extrapolated to 1978 figures based on statistics at the state
level. Table 28* lists the land areas, 1970 population, and 1973 motor
vehicle data for Type I cities. The statistics for trucks include buses
and all other heavy duty vehicles. The total 1970 population in these 248
Urbanized Areas is 118,446,000, which is about 59 percent of the total
U.S. population.
Type II cities include all cities with a 1970 population larger than
25,000 but not located in any Urbanized Area. The total population
residing in the 243 Type II cities is 8,594,000, which 1s about 4.3 per-
cent of the total U.S. population. Table 29* lists the land area, the
1970 population, and 1973 motor vehicle data for these cities. These
Type II city estimates used the same data sources and methodology as were
used for Type I city estimations.
Type III cities have 1970 populations of more than 2,500 but are not
Because of their length. Tables 28 and 29 appear at the end of
Section 3.
148
-------
included in Type I and Type II cities. There are over 1,000 cities and
towns in the United States in this category. Therefore, a sample of 150
cities of this type was pulled from the 11st (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1973,
Table B-2) using a random numbers table. Table 30 lists the land area,
1970 population, and 1973 motor vehicle data for these 150 cities and
towns. The motor vehicle data estimates were based on statistics at the
state level. The total population of these 150 cities and towns is
1,077,000 in 1970. It 1s about 5 percent of the total population
(21,708,000) in all Type III cities. The exposure-dosage data estimated
for the 150 cities/towns were scaled by the ratio of all Type III popula-
tion to the sample population so as to represent exposure-dosage for all
Type III cities. Type III cities represented about 11 percent of the
total U.S. population in 1970.
Most of the U.S. population (about 75 percent) is included in cities
of Type I, II, or III. Chemical exposure-dosage in areas not represented
is deemed insignificant because of the low concentrations and low popula-
tion densities. As evidenced later in this report, this assumption—that
less densely populated areas would be exposed to insignificant ambient
concentrations — is valid. The atmospheric concentrations of chemicals
resulting from area source emissions were shown to be much lower for
residents in Type III cities than those in Type I cities. Rural popula-
tion densities and, therefore, rural concentrations are even lower.
Chemical emissions from area sources of various categories are esti-
mated and reported as national totals in the emissions summaries submitted
by HI. These national total emissions estimates have to be distributed
among cities of each of the three types. Depending on the nature of emit-
ting sources, the distribution can be accomplished by one of the following
methods:
Because of its length, Table 30 appears at the end of Section 3.
149
-------
> Emissions from mobile sources can be distributed by the
number of motor vehicles.
> Emissions from home heating sources can be distributed by
the product of population and per capita heating require-
ment.
> Other stationary area sources can be distributed by popula-
tion.
Table 31 lists, 1n addition to those data listed in Tables 28, 29, and
30, the necessary data for area source emissions distributions. These
include the 1970 and 1978 state population data (U.S. Bureau of Census,
1979), 1973 and 1978 state motor vehicle data (U.S. Federal Highway
Administration, 1978), statewide average wind speed, and state-wide
average heating requirements in degree-days (U.S. Bureau of Census,
1979). The 1978 figures are estimates, as population/motor vehicle data
for each of the three types of cities are not available for 1978. These
data at the state level were used to project the growth. For example,
Anniston, Alabama, is a Type II city with city code 1 (as shown in Table
29). Its 1970 population was 31,058, and there were 16,800/3,692
autos/trucks registered in 1973. To estimate the 1978 statistics, the
state growth during the same period (as shown in Table 31) was used. The
1978 population in this city is estimated to be 31,508 x (3.724.000/
3,444,000) = 34,070. The 1978 auto/truck figure can be estimated in the
same way: 16,899 x (2,791,000/2.299.000) = 20,515; 3,692 x (2.791.000/
2,299.000) = 4,482.
Three equations were used to distribute the area sources into each of
the three types of cities (or urbanized areas). For mobile sources,
EM a78 + t78-R .- .
A " 117.147.000 + 31,921,000-R ' ( '
150
-------
TABLE 31. MAJOR STATE STATISTICS RELATED TO AREA SOURCE
EMISSIONS DISTRIBUTION
Stlte
Alabama
Alaska
AHjena
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
t).C.
Florida
feorgla
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
LOuliUne
Ma1n«
Maryland
Maicachusttts
Michigan
Mlnntiote
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Ne« Hampshire
New Jersey
New Me.lco
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
OkUhona
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carol Ina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Teias
Utah
Vermont
Vlrglnli
Washington
West Virginia
Hlicontln
Wyoming
U.S. Total
* Source:
t Source:
§ Source:
Population*
(In thousands]
1970 .. 1.978
3,444 3,724
300 420
1,771 2,365
1,923 2,176
19,953 22,163
2.207 2,674
1.032 3.119
546 587
757 680
6,789 8,687
4,590 5,116
769 912
713 B78
11,114 11.265
5,194 5.348
2.62C 2,686
2,247 2,335
3,219 3,491
3,641 3.95B
992 1.096
3,922 4.16B
5,689 5.795
9,875 9.158
3.B05 3.99B
2.2)7 2,414
4,677 4. 618
697 774
1,483 1.570
489 655
738 642
7,168 7,349
1,016 1,214
18,237 17.674
2,488 2,99?
£18 659
10.652 10,702
2.559 2,646
2.091 2.417
11.794 11.776
947 930
2,591 2.917
666 692
3.924 4.350
11.197 13,062
1.059 1.296
444 489
4,648 5,200
3,409 3.689
1.744 1.875
4.416 4,684
332 417
200,621 215.494
U.S. Census
U.S. Federal
U.S. Census
No. Of Vehicles"
(In thousands] 4,.,
1973
2,299
1SO
1,379
1,195
13,238
1 .757
1,927
336
262
6.242
3,079
465
697
5,940
3,156
1,900
1,726
2,064
2,037
605
2,228
2,838
5.193
2,451
1,285
2.710
560
1,102
431
465
4,023
732
7.273
3,384
502
6,717
1,959
1.527
6,836
548
1,593
467
2,439
7,713
774
269
2.944
2,358
902
2,479
292
124.478
Bureau
1 97|
2,791
280
1.630
1,501
15.514
2,303
2,133
385
261
6,345
3,670
544
762
7,127
3.720
2.301
1,981
2,549
2,504
751
2.67<
3,621
6.252
2.697
1 .544
3,125
761
1.247
5E3
591
4.534
945
7.851
4,273
595
7,766
2,361
1,845
6,183
690
1,941
5B5
3.177
10,021
941
336
3,330
3.046
1.170
2.734
395
149,066
(1979).
Highway Admini
Bureau
(1979)
(rage IMnd Speed Average Heating
(inAec]
4,4
4.0
3.0
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.4
4,2
4.3
5.6
4,3
4.9
4.6
5.3
6,0
4.0
4.0
4,2
4.5
6.0
4.7
5.2
3.6
4.7
6,2
5,2
3.1
3,2
5.1
4,3
4.9
3,7
5.0
4.5
6,1
3.7
4.5
5,1
3.3
5.3
4.1
4.4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.3
3.1-
5.6
6.3
stratlon
(decree -day/ year
1.684
9.007
1,652
3.354
2,660
6,016
6,350
4,940
4,211
767
3,095
0
6,833
6,298
5.B77
6.710
4,687
4.645
1 ,465
7,496
fl.729
6,621
7,710
B.95B
2,300
4,956
7,652
6,049
6,002
7,360
4,946
4,292
6,221
3,366
9,044
5,642
3,692
4,792
5,398
5,972
2,596
7.B3B
3,462
2,165
6.9B3
7.876
3.714
6,010
4,590
7,444
7.255
(1978).
151
-------
where
EM 1s the national total mobile source emissions ([g/sec)
of the chemical,
A 1s the land area of the city (m^).
a78 1s the 1978 estimated number of automobiles 1n the
city.
t78 is the 1978 estimated number of trucks/buses In the
city.
R 1s the ratio of average truck emissions to the average
automobile emissions,
117,147.000 is the 1978 estimated national total number
of automobiles,
31,921,000 is the 1978 estimated national total number of
trucks/buses.
For heating sources.
n EH P78 • HR
7T ' 215,494,000 • 4533 •
where
EH 1s the national total heating source emissions
(ug/sec) of the chemical,
P78 Is the 1978 estimated population 1n the city,
HR Is heating requirements (degree-days/yr),
215,494,000 1s the total U.S. population (excluding
military service) 1n 1978,
4633 Is the population-weighted nationwide per-caplta
heating requirement (degree-days/year).
152
-------
For nonheatlng stationary sources,
EN P78
N T 215,494,00 '
where EN Is the national total emissions from nonheating stationary area
sources (pg/sec).
These three types of emissions can be summarized as the total area
source emissions in the specific city. Some of the chemicals may undergo
chemical decay in the ambient air. Therefore, the effective emissions
rates must be estimated, taking consideration of the decay factor. The
pseudo-first-order decay constants used in estimating effective emissions
rates 1n the dispersion modeling of point source emissions were applied
here also. The average time, t, that wind-blown pollutant remains within
a dty was estimated by assuming the average travel distance to be half
the size of the city and the wind to be at Its annual average speed. The
average of the daytime and nighttime effective emissions rates was used as
the overall effective emissions rate, Q0, in Equation 1 in estimating the
annual average concentration. The equation used in deriving the effective
emissions rate is:
QQ - WM + QH + Qw) • [exp(-Kd) + exp(-Kn-)]/2 , (30)
where Kd is the daytime chemical decay rate (sec~^), Kn is the nighttime
chemical decay rate (sec"*), and p is the average wind speed (m/sec).
153
-------
The total dosage of ambient chemical 1n a specific city can be esti-
mated by multiplying the average ambient concentration of the chemical, x»
by the estimated 1978 population of that city. These exposure-dosage data
for all three types of cities can be summarized at different exposure
levels. The contribution of each of the three types of area emissions to
the total dosage can alsp be estimated for each city and for all cities as
a whole. The distribution of national total dosages among the three types
of cities can also be estimated.
A computer program has been coded to conduct the estimation and data
summarization as described above. Beryllium emitted from area sources was
used as an example to exercise the program and to Illustrate the nature
and details of the estimated results. Table 32 lists the data Input
required for estimating the exposure-dosage resulting from area source
emissions of beryllium. Tables 33, 34, and 35 11st the annual average
ambient concentration computed with the box model, the estimated 1978
population, the total resulting dosages, and the percentage contribution
of total dosage by the different types of area sources for each of three
types of cities. The overall national total beryllium exposure and dosage
resulting from area source emissions are listed 1n Table 36.
This approach was used to estimate the human exposure and dosages
resulting from chemical emissions from area sources 1n this study.
154
-------
TABLE 32. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE
RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF BERYLLIUM
Parameter
Value
f git/sec)
Sources
tn
CJl
Daytime decay rate (K^)
Nighttime decay rate (Kn)
Hanna-G1fford coefficient (C)
Nationwide heating source emissions (EH)
Residential/commercial coal burning
Residential/commercial oil burning
Nationwide nonheating stationary source
emissions (EN)
Coal-burning
011-burnlng
Nationwide mobile source emissions (E^)
Ratio of truck emissions to auto emissions
0
0
225
0.203
0.058
0.145
Section 2
Section 2
EPA, 1977
0.538
0.396
0.142
0.0693
3.0
-------
TABLE 33. BERYLLIUM EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS IN TYPE I CITIES
in
CITY CITT
TYPE CODE
i a
1 2
g 3
1 4
1 3
1 ft
1 7
1 8
1 9
i in
1 1 1
1 12
1 13
1 14
i in
1 16
1 17
1 IO
1 19
1 20
1 21
CITY HAPT,
AniENE.TX
AKRON .OH
ALDANY.CA
ALDARY.RY
ALOUO.lfF.RQUK.nn
ALLF.HTOWM.PA
ALTOOHA.PA
AHARILLO.TX
ANDKRSON. IN
Ann ARRon.ni
APPLETON.WI
_
ACIIF.VILLE.HC
ATLANTA. cA
ATLANTIC CITY.HJ
AUCIISTA.CA
AUIWRA. IL
AUSTIN. TX
llAKF.RSFIELn.CA
DALTinORE.TO
OATOR ROUCE.LA
DAY CITY. HI
INNER
«Mi»Ari
INWER
URRAN
INNER
URRAN
INNER
imnAN
INNER
URRAH
IIMIKR
UTtOAN
INNER
URRAN
INNER
uivn^n
INNER
INNER
URRAN
INNER
URRAN
INNER
URDAN
INKER
IfRHAN
INNER
URRAN
INKER
URDAN
8NNF.R
I'llllAN
INNER
URRAN
INNER
URRAN
INNER
.URRAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URMAN
INNER
IIRRAN
CITY x EXTO LEVEL
CITY
FRINGE
CITY .
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
Cl FY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE-
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRIHCE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
.OOOO7R
.OOOO 15
OOO32O
. OOOI2R
.OOO 144
.OOOO49
. OOOri4n
.OOOI33
. HHO2:)2
.OOO 1 III
. OOO3O:i
.000164
.OOO34O
. OOOOH7
.OOO 129
. ooo 1 1 r.
.oooono
.OOO279
.000209
.OOO2 1?
. oou \r,r>
.000 inn
.OOOO66
.OOO27O
.000176
.OOO 177
.OOOO 117
.O002I2
.oini I2H
. 000255
.000 120
.OOO22;I
.OOOO47
.OOOIOO
. 0002 1 1
.OOO760
. 0!H>22 1
.OOO247
. OOO 1 94
.001)275
.nuoiOfi
DOSAGE
POP < UC'< H) 3-
PKRSOW) PKRSHN)
104391
I2f>5
2767 12
26G6I9
00943
4334
291348
223292
*J(J 1 ** ^ '1
T) 4 1 TV xP
212136
I50O79
62R02
nmc.n
142332
7293:1
1014:1
102979
81-320
60 no 2
760."iO
69233
J7094
£{33981
753193
490911
IM13OI
66724
9929IJ
J3I754
i04?27
29376O
14794
77179
1 193011
962371
716298
OO042W
90762
01023
29 3f. 1
n.
aa!
34.
1 9.
.
B7.
29.
07.
7.
64.
24.
2 1 .
1 .
in.
H.
m
28.
(7.
13.
1 1.
13.
1.
149.
132.
8.
7.
14.
12.
33.
13.
63.
,
12.
23.
737.
108.
44.
10.
PCTCERTACE
OF CO
8TH1I
IR^.ATINC PTATIORARY
2
O
3
3
7
2
3
9
5
6
2
7
4
6
4
4
O
8
O
2
9
0
2
B
9
7
7
2
7
6
3
6
7
3
2
1
O
6
3
14.0
3.
1
13.3
13.3
29.2
29.2
18.3
18.5
31.8
31 .H
23 . 5
23.5
211.4
211.4
2n. 4
21). 4
13.2
2S1.9
2n.9
36.2
36.2
33. n
33.8
19.6
19.6
IO. 3
18.3
26.8
26.8
18. 3
in. 5
30.3
31.3
13.6
!3.6
95.3
13.3
26. O
26. n
9.0
9.3
36. 1
36. 1
75.
73.
63.
63.
73.
73.
62.
62.
«i7 .
67.
64.
64.
64.
64.
7*.
63.
63.
37.
57.
59.
59.
7 1 .
71.
72.
72.
66.
66.
73.
7:t.
61.
69.
76.
76.
73.
73.
67.
67.
79.
79.
97.
97.
3
3
6
6
9
0
7
7
3
3
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
0
0
5
3
9
B
6
6
3
3
1
1
9
9
9
9
6
6
4
<,
4
4
BUTIOT
rmn i LE
11.4
1 1.4
7.2
7.2
8.9
B.e
9.9
3.9
9.2
9.2
7.0
7.O
7.0
7.0
12-2
7.4
7.4
6. 1
6. 1
5.2
3 . :i
8.9
8.9
9.2
9.2
6.6
6.6
n. n
li. :i
7.3
7.3
9.3
9.3
BO. 7
10.7
6.3
6.3
i B. g
1 1 . B
6.3
ft. 3
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
01
CITY CITY
TYTE CODE
1 22
1 23
1 24
1 25
1 26
1 27
1 2O
1 29
1 30
1 31
1 32
1 33
1 34
1 35
1 36
1 37
1 3O
1 39
1 40
1 41
1 42
fcltV HAHh
BErtononr.Tx
RILLIUCS.ffONT
uiLoxi.rts
IIINCIIAMTOn. NY
BIRMINGHAM. AL
BLOOM inCTON. IL
BOISE CITY, 10
POS1 ON . MASS
BOULDER. CO
BRIDGEPORT. CO NTi
BRISTOL. conn
BROCKTON. MASS
DROWNS VILLF,.TX
imYAfl.TX
BUFFALO. NY
CANTON. OH
CFDAR RAP IDS. IOWA
CHAMPA ICN-tmflANA, IL
CHARLESTON . SC
CHARLESTON, WV
CHARLOTTE. [1C
INNER
URJlAn
INNER
URRAN
HIKER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
I/ROAN
INNER
UllDAN
INNER
UHOAN
INNER
UMBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URDAN
INNER
UllDAN
INNER
URBAN
liini-.R
I'RIIAN
INNER
INNER
UKUAN
INNER
UIU1AN
INNER
URDAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URHAH
INNER
UHIMN
INNER
UIUMN
CITY / EXPO LF.VF.L
CITY
FRINGE
Cl IV
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
cri Y
FRINGE
CITY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINCF,
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
.OO«I04
.000003
. O"O2'16
.IIOOO3II
.000 If. 2
.oiioorii
. OOO277
. OllO 14
. OOO22'
.0001 1:
. 0'iO22
. OOOO3
.1)00239
. 0I 13
.000654
.00021 1
.OOO334
. oflooon
. OOO594
.006134
.OOO 136
. OOO090
. OOO IT1)
. 0000(14
.OOO 19 1
.000107
.OOO050
.OO0624
.OOO240
.OOO32O
.000147
.OOO 126
.OOOO90
.0003311
.000106
.O00273
.OOOlfiO
. 000225
. O002 19
.00027O
.O00097
DOSAGE
POP 20
290O7O
4f,07f,
14.
.
14.
.
15
2
17.
14.
72.
31 .
14.
.
22
1-
427.
433.
2(1.
f
93.
40.
7.
1 .
16.
5.
12.
4.
I _
202.
147.
35.
19.
14.
2.
30.
| .
20.
30.
17.
20.
7B.
4.
PF.RCF.NTACE
OF CONTRIBUTION
MkATlnU STATIONARY
1
O
1
4
7
0
4
2
7
4
O
1
0
4
1
1
7
2
6
6
7
3
2
1
4
2
2
n
0
3
II
2
0
6
2
5
6
3
3
4
5
13.3
13.6
3-1. 5
34.5
14.4
14.4
31.7
31.7
10. O
10.0
31.3
31.4
29.7
29.7
29.2
29.2
30.0
30.0
31.8
31.8
31 .B
31. O
29 . 2
1O O
13.0
13.6
13.6
32.0
32.0
29 . 2
29 2
32.7
32.7
31 .6
31.6
16. 1
16. 1
25.0
25.0
19.6
19.6
76.
77.
55.
55
77.
77.
62.
62.
7O.
70.
6 1 .
61 .
62.
62.
63.
63.
6 1 .
6 i .
61.
61.
61 .
61.
63 .
63.
70.
77.
77.
63.
63.
63.
63.
39.
39.
6 1 .
6 1 .
76.
76.
67.
67,
71.
71 .
4
3
4
4
1
1
6
6
9
9
1
1
f,
6
B
0
3
d
B
3
3
5
II
O
3
1
1
1
1
3
6
9
9
7
7
3
3
0
O
4
4
HOBll.E
10. 1
9.O
10. I
10. 1
U. 5
11.4
5.7
5.7
10.3
10. 3
7.5
7. 5
7.7
7.7
6.9
6.9
8.7
8.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
0.9
6.9
7.9
9.3
9.3
4.9
4.9
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.3
6.7
6. 7
7.6
7.6
n.o
0.0
9 .O
9.0
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
CITY CITY
TYl'E COPE
1 43
1 44
1 43
1 46
1 47
i 44)
1 49
1 30
1 3 1
in
as | 32
1 33
1 34
1 53
1 36
1 37
1 30
1 09
1 00
1 61
1 62
1 03
CITV RAW.
CHATTAROCA.TENH
CHICAGO. IL
CIRC IM ATI. Oil
CLF.VELABO.OII
COLORADO SPIIIRCS.CO
coLinra 1 A . ho
coLurmiA.flc
coLuraius.GA
cournnua . on
CORPUS CHRISTI.TX
DALLAS . TX
OAnilimY.CONn
DAVENPORT. IO«A
DAYTOn.OII
DECATUR. IL
DENVER. CO
DES MOIRES. IOVA
DETHOIT.HI
DUDUO.UE. IOWA
DULuni rro
mimnri.no
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
URBAN
INHER
URDAN
INNER
URRAN
INNER
URRAN
INNER
URRAN
INNER
INNER
INNER
URJ1AN
INNER
\mn-Mi
INHER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
UllRAN
INNER
URRAN
INNER
URPAR
INNER
UTTRAN
INNER
URRAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URDAN
JNNER
URJ1AN
INNER
UlUIAn
INNER
URBAN
CITY / EXTO LEVEL
Kill NCR nw;x< ri>:i» <
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
CITY
CITY
FRinCE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRIRCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITV
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
Cl fY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINCE
.OOO 143
.000 104
.000904
. OOO2O4
.OO0379
.OOO 194
.000043
.000177
.0001114
. OOOIOI
. OOOORO
.O00209
.OOO 144
.OOOOO9
.OOO20O
. liiiii |7O
.OOO 135
.0000 10
. OOO242
.000097
.oooono
.OOOOU4
.o
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
CTTY
TYPE
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
__ |
tn
VD ,
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
CITY
COOK CITY NAPTE
64
65
06
67
60
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
no
111
O2
03
04
EL PASO.TX
EIIK.PA
EUCF.HF..OR
EvANsvlLLc. IN
FALL RIVER. HAPS
FARCO.Nn
KAYETTEVILLE.NC
F 1 CIIQURC . ft APS
FLINT. HI
FORT LAUDERDALE.FL
FORT SMITH, AR
FORT WAYHE. in
FORT WORTT1.TX
FRESNO. CA
CADSDEN . AL
CAINSVILLE.FL
CALVESTOH.TX
CRAHD RAPIUS.PII
CREAT FALLS.MT
GREEN DAY.WI
CREF.N^RORO . NC
INNER
URBAN
INNER
INNER
URJHN
IHNER
URBAN
INNER
PRRAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
Ul'U IN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URHAN
INNER
UROAN
INNER
UTIBAN
INNER
UIVBAn
| ff ft EI\
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
irmi u
URBAN
INNER
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
CITY / EXPO I.F.VF.L
FRINCE (IH>»M)3I (
CITY
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FH1NCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
C i i Y
FRINCE
CITY
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
. OOO 1 9 1
. on 1 03
. 1KIO226
.OOOI7I
.OOO 233
. OOOO36
.OOO 155
.OOO 193
.000272
.110(1(1 If,
.OOO 164
.00017 1
.OOOO65
.OOOO 13
. OOO:IOI
.OOO 132
. Oi|l)29 I
. OOO 173
.OOO 103
.OOOO55
.000216
.OOO 140
.OOO 142
.0001 OH
.O002GO
.000162
.000009
.OOOO3I
.mill ['If,
. 0(1(1074
-O<>O 1411
. OOO296
.01101 14
. OOO [99
.OO0066
.nooi 17
. O00O63
-OOO2I7
.OOHO7G
D<
pnp (w
PERSON r
397681
12^022
43972
O0243
72722
(42002
31190
95I9O
41690
87240
2339
64349
I297O9
77703
1003
199546
141 100
315404
4699 1 1
7 1064
143GT
1O30O7
4RR52
450999
330690
IO427I
107624
50294
14916
02.1 4 r>
6 166
72IO4
2O3032
1601 16
6672'J
I2OOO
92963^
43914
173465
T.2Q
OPACE. 1
rrJK.fA
f lAGt
Or COWTRIBOTIOB
EUSOfl ) HE AT 1 HC fH-AT 1 OH ARY
75. O
47.6
4.7
20.0
12.4
33.3
. |
14.8
8. 1
23.7
.O
10.6
22.2
5. 1
.0
75-9
21 .4
92.0
01.5
7.3
.O
39. G
7.3
65.0
35.9
46. 1
17.*
5.2
.5
I2.n
.5
10.7
60.3
10.3
13.3
-O
10.9
2.7
3T.G
.7
13
211
211
25
25
20
2O
39
30
.19
3'»
2O
2O
29
29
36
36
5
5
19
19
2O
20
13
(3
15
IS
to
in
r.
5
13
35
35
34
34
35
35
19
19
.7
.4
. 4
.0
.8
.6
.6
. t
. 1
.O
.O
. |
. I
.2
.2
.O
.O
.3
.3
.0
.O
.9
.9
.4
.4
.5
.5
.7
.7
. n.
.3
.6
.9
.9
.9
.9
.7
.7
.6
.6
77. 9
64.6
64.6
66. 1
66 . 1
63. 1
63. 1
61.8
61.8
53.5
53.5
73.2
73.2
63. O
63. H
57.4
57.4
04.7
04.7
69.7
69.7
63.7
63.7
76.0
76.0
74.2
74.2
77.9
77.9
nr, . i
U5. 1
77.3
57.2
57.2
56. O
56. O
5O.9
5O.9
71.4
71.4
HOBILE
0.4
7 .41
7.0
II. «
O.O
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.2
7.5
7.5
6.7
6.7
6.9
6.9
6.6
6.6
10. O
10.0
1 1.2
1 1.2
7.4
7.4
IO.6
10. «
IO.3
10.3
1 I.S
11.3
9. IV
^.O
9. I
6.O
6.0
9. 1
9.2
5.4
5.4
9.O
9.0
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
CITY CITY
IVI'F. CODE
1 83
1 06
1 07
i on
1 O9
1 9O
1 91
1 92
_ 1 93
CTl
0 , 94
1 93
1 96
! 97
1 90
1 99
1 100
1 IOI
1 102
1 l»3
1 104
1 103
CITY F1AHE
CREENSVILLE.ee
H/miLTOR.On
IIARLIRCEN.TX
iiARRisnimY.rA
HARTFORD. CONN
HICK POINT.NC
HONOLULU. IIAWAI i
HOUSTON. TX
iiurrn NCTON . wv
RVJISVILLE.AL
INDIANAPOLIS. IN
JACK50i1.ni
JACKSON. HS
JACKSONVILLE.FL
JOIINSTOWn.l'A
JOI IF.T. IL
KALArtA7.OO.HI
KAHSASCITY.HO
KENOSOA.WI
KFOXVILLE.TF.nl*
LA C1VJSSE.WI
INNER
UIIIMN
INRER
UllRAN
INNER
IIPRAN
IIUIMl
IJRIMN
INRER
UllOAN
INNER
I'llRAN
INNER
UIIHAN
INNER
imilAN
INNER
URD-\N
INNEIl
UROAN
INKER
URRAN
INNER
INNER
URBAN
INNER
nriiAN
INNER
INNER
URDAN
INNER
unn.Mi
INNER
URRAN
1NNE1\
URn.\N
INNER
URRAA
INNER
URUAN
INNKR
nniiAn
CITY s
HUHCF,
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
Cl 1 Y
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRIDGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
EXPO LF.VEL
( \\^'./^ fl» H)
.000216
. OOJI 157
.OOO22O
.onooSO
. ouim.il
.OOOO74
.0004:10
. onninf.
. iM-orifiO
. 00031 i
. oooir,f.
. noo 104
.nouif,9
.000 145
. noo^29
.OOOSIKi
.000:111:1
.«)OI)l(i9
.OOOO79
.OO003O
.0011172
.O002U9
. OOOOB2
.OOO2I6
.OHOCI4
.O»ni2:i
. OOO;H».
.0(10 l.-l.l
. OMO25O
, ooo i i *
.000210
.00009:1
.1100 ion
.OOO235
. 0»»O2OO
.oooor.-.j
.TOO Id 4
.000090
.iionicio
.000004
DOSAGE
rop »i'Gx(n»3-
[PMISORI I'ERSRN)
609O9
IO9O52
67934
2TH04
;i'M»'J7
19777
67776
172607
16255 1
315795
7snno
360OII
3lir,J02
1:193711
1437679
519652
I 1 I'.KC.
60024
I490H7
9393
O44579
46931
34146
167649
5<>I07
677641
4241 1
5350(1
79712
779OO
OB392
60540
695752
43925O
113562
0772
193540
37642
34232
12955
14.
17.
95.
g .
3-
1-
29.
26.
91.
66.
1 1.
3.
65.
20.
32'».
I4O.
42.
1 1 -
I 1 .
m
149.
1 1.
2.
36.
r. .
83.
14.
7.
19.
9.
19.
6.
93.
IO3.
23.
31*
1 .
9.
.
PERCEWTACE OF CORTfi 1 BtfT 1 ON
nr.ATiNG
9
1
3
4
•»
5
|
9
0
3
II
O
o
3
O
a
7
7
8
3
3
2
8
2
™
o
7
1
9
t
3
4
O
B
4
3
O
7
O
0
19.
13.
29.
29.
1:1.
1:1.
211-
20.
31.
31.
19.
19.
0.
O.
S3.
13.
25.
25.
10.
IO.
29.
33.
33.
14.
14.
5.
20.
2O.
31.
•Jl.
35.
33.
26.
26.
30.
33.
2t>.
2O.
33.
33.
9
9
2
2
II
O
4
4
O
O
(,
6
3
5
O
O
6
6
1
9
9
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
9
9
6
6
7
7
1
1
7
7
STATIONARY
7B.«
73. O
63.6
63.6
rn.;i
7O.3
64.6
64.6
61 .3
61.3
71.4
71.4
92 **
92. 2
76.4
76.4
66.0
66. O
77.3
77.3
64. 1
37.2
37.2
76.2
7C-. 2
B5.4
64.6
64.6
61.1
61. 1
37.2
37.2
63. O
63. B
58.9
5R.9
71.2
71.2
SB. Q
50.8
PTOR 1 LF.
9. 1
9. 1
7.2
7.2
T "*
7.9
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.7
9.0
9.0
7.0
7.J1
10.^
10.2
il.2
11.2
12. 1
12. 1
6. B
6.0
6.8
9.6
9.0
9.3
7.0
7.0
7.3
7.1
6.O
6.6
7.6
7.6
3.4
3.4
31.7
n.7
0.3
3.3
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
cr>
CITY CITY
TYPE CODE CITY NAUF.
1 106
1 107
i ion
1 109
1 1 10
1 III
1 112
1 1 13
1 1 14
1 1 15
1 1 16
1 1 17
1 1 ID
1 1 It
1 I2O
I '21
1 122
1 123
1 124
1 123
I 12*
LA^AIT.TTE.LA
LAFAYETTE. IN
LAKE CIIARLF.S.LA
LANCASTER. PA
LAI'S INC. Ml
LAREOO.TX
LAS VEGAS. NV
LA WHENCE. MASS
LAWTOH . OK
LCWISTON.PIAINr
LEXIHGTON.KY
LI HA. Oil
L 1 NCOLN . NF.n
LITTLE ROCK.AR
LORA i N . on
LOS Ar.rF.LF?,CA
LOUISVILLE, ICY
LOV.T,LL.ri ASP
LUtlDOCK.TX
LYNciinuiiG. vA
riACon.GA
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
UROAN
INNER
URRAN
INNF.Il
unnAfi
INNER
URDAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URDAN
INNER
URDAN
innER
URBAN
INNER
unnAn
MIMER
URBAN
INNER
URDAN
INNER
UROAN
INNER
URDAN
INNER
UIUUN
INNER
URUAN
INNER
URJ1AN
INNER
URDAIl
INNER
URDAN
INNER
INNER
UIIDAN
INNER
UIUIAN
CITY /
FRINGE
CITY
FRIhHE
CITY
FRINGE
Cl TV
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRinGF.
CITY
FRINGE
CITY .
FRIBCE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
ci rr
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
EXPO LEVEL
< UCx< M)H)
.000190
.onomm
.••(1U2T.7
.oooir.n
. IMIO I'JO
.ooon4(i
.000:1112
. ooninu
.0002 or.
.000 IOG
.OOO 176
.0000:12
.000312
.000210
.oooinn
. OO009 1
.OOOI06
.OOOOf.6
.oooo'jr,
.onoor;5
. OOO3 1 2
.000193
. OOO240
. onoooo
.OOOI7O
.oooor*?
.00022:1
.0001 16
.000200
. nooor,9
.OOO520
.00044 1
.oooonr,
.oooiuo
.000279
.OO0096
.OOO 127
.000120
. 000070
. nooir.ft
.0001 III
POP (
(PERSON)
74990
10392
I4H
96007
100314
175 141
60505
11)749
136452
62011
DOSAGE
UC/'(ri)3-
I'KRSON)
14.
1 1 .
5 .
16.
.
22
6.
34.
16.
14.
92.
31.
15.
B.
B.
1 .
4.
1.
36.
10.
12.
I .
20.
37.
9.
26.
3.
21 15.
2314.
143.
70.
26.
9.
22
7 .
1 .
21 .
2
9
9
9
1
5
0
4
6
3
1
0
6
7
3
1
B
5
•»
4
6
O
9
0
I
2
7
6
6
Ti
6
I
1
*»
II
6
*»
0
4
3
7
PERCEITTACE
HEATING
9.5
9.5
29 2
29. 2
9.5
9.3
2O. 4
20.4
06. O
36.0
14. 1
14. I
30. 1
30. 1
29.2
29.2
20.7
20.7
3-1.9
34.9
25.0
25.0
21). 9
2O. 9
30.0
3O.Q
19.4
19.4
29.2
29.2
15.9
15.9
211. 9
20.9
29 2
29.2
13.4
21.3
21.3
III. 4
in. 4
OP COirnilBDTION
STATIONARY
79.
7<>.
64.
64.
79.
79.
64.
64.
57.
57.
BO.
00.
61 .
61.
63.
63.
6B.
6fl.
T.7.
37.
66.
66.
63.
63.
62.
62.
71.
71.
63.
63.
75.
73.
63.
63.
63.
63.
76.
7 1 .
71 .
73.
73.
4
4
1
2
4
4
7
7
4
4
1
1
3
3
B
B
9
9
a
2
i
i
0
0
5
a
2
2
6
6
n
8
7
7
0
B
2
0
e
0
0
HOB 1 LE
II 1
1 1 . 1
6.6
6.6
1 1 . 1
1 1 . 1
6.9
6.9
6.6
6.6
5.0
5.O
6.6
B.6
6.9
6.9
19.4
10.4
7.«»
7.9
O.B
O.B
0. 1
B. 1
6.7
6.7
9.4
9.4
7.2
7.2
O :i
0.3
7.4
7.4
6 9
6.9
10.3
7.5
7.B
11.5
O.5
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
CM
CITY CITY
TYVE COOK CITY HAW.
1 "27 rMDIPOff.wi
1 120 nANcrTESTT.R.im
1 129 PIANSFIFLD on
• • • -LIF • V P| |
1 i™ nCALLCK.TX
1 ini nEnpiiis.na
1 i:i2 HER IOEN. CORN
1 "H3 niAPIl.FL
1 1-14 rilDLANO.TX
1 i:i3 niLLMKEE.WI
1 136 MINNEAPOLIS.™
i in? rrooiLE.AL
1 mo MODESTO. C A
1 139 MONROE. LA
1 140 KOnTCOrtERV.AL
i Hi mjnciE.IN
i i«2 nusKEcon.ni
1 1*1 NASHUA, mi
' I** JMPHVILLE.TENN
' »43 NEW BEDFORD. MASS
1 140 NEW RRITAIR.C07N
1 147 NEW !l \VEN.CONR
INKER CITY s
UUMAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
UIU1AN FRINGE
INNER CITY
UROAN FRINGE
INNER CITV
I'HRAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINCF
INNER CITY
INNER CITY
URJIAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
HUMAN FRINGE
INNER CITV
URIIAN FRINGE
INIUC'n •» • .
InnER CITV
IJRMAN FRINCE
1 M M l~ n f* m -^m.
• "Ni.R ci rv
UROAH FRINGE
INNER CITY
IWOAN FRINCE
INNER CITY
W1MAN FRINGE
INNER TITV
' i-n \t 1 1 y
UHMAN FRINGE
1 NNER C ITY
URJIAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
UROAN FRINCE
INNER CITY
UJ1DAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
I'UHAN FRINGE
INNER CITV
INNER CITV
UllRAN FRINCE
INNER CITV
UPMAN FRINGE
INNER CITV
UIIIIAN FRINGE
EXPO LEVEL
< "l,V< ni;|,
-OO02O1
.oooono
• 0002114
OlMMl'P'*
1111 11 1*1 I
. A
** » • i \j \f t
7II2O74
io«)nuoo
203412
TH044
005 1ft
49209
6 12(12
37 | f , 954
63032
A307O
5CI.5
497 1211
103055
32102
051115
492112
14 K.Ofi
2lf-009
UOSACE
n/cxcrtin-
riiis(»r<»
37.3
2.7
20.4
. O
7.3
1.7
6.3
9.2
292. 1
8.7
2. 7
2nn. i
n:i|l. o
O.U
-O
332.7
6 1 .O
393.4
141.9
20.7
3. 4
23.5
»? i
.» . 9
0.7
;| 9
154:!.' 4
»:i
2.0
9. I
6.5
II. S
.9
06.0
22.0
2.9
32. 1
3.9
63.9
UII.9
PERCERTACE OF COTTfl 1 BUT § OFT
lO^ATI NC
33.7
33.7
34 . G
1 A n
^f* . II
291.9
2O. 9
13.7
13.7
14.4
31.8
31 n
1 . 8
3.4
^ . 4
13.2
13.2
36.0
36. O
39.7
39.7
IO.9
mn
. 9
15.4
13.4
9.3
9. 5
11.7
to.a
29.0
OQ A
fc" . W
36. S
36. 1
34. n
:i4.n
20. o
29 . 2
29 **
31.0
31 n
i . n
31.0
31.0
STATIONARY
3B.9
3O.9
5(1. |
5O. I
62.8
62.8
78.6
78.4
77. |
61.9
61.3
B6.O
ttf. . i,
75.O
73.0
59 . 3
39.3
34.4
34.4
79.3
79.3
73.4
73.4
79. 4
79.4
63.0
79. 1
63.6
63.0
37.3
37.3
B8.0
r.o. i
7O.9
A3.O
63.8
61.3
61.3
61.3
61.3
noon E
3.4
5.4
7. 1
7. I
0.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.4
6.7
6.7
B.7
0.0
II n
1 O
11.7
4«
. 7
4.7
5.9
3.9
9.9
9.9
11.2
M.2
1 1 . 1
1 1. 1
3.4
10. 1
7.2
7.2
c«.4
6.4
7.2
7. |
9. I
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
tx>
CITY CITY
TYPE CODE CITY NATE
t I4O
1 149
1 IS*
1 131
1 152
1 153
1 154
1 155
1 156
1 137
1 158
1 159
i 160
1 161
1 162
1 Io3
1 164
1 165
I (66
I 167
1 108
I 169
NEV ORLEANS. LA
NEW YORK. NY
NEWPORT. VA
NORFORK.VA
NORVALK.CONN
OOESSA.TX
OCDEN . UT
OKLAHOMA CITY. OK
OMA11A. IOWA
ORLANDO. FL
osmcosn.KY
OKENSDORO.KY
OKNARD.CX
PENSACOLA.FL
PEORIA. IL
PLrt.RsDURC.VA
PHILADELPHIA. PA
PHOENIX. ARIZ
PINE DLUFF.AR
PITTSDUHC.PA
PITTSFlELD.riASS
PORT AUTHER.TX
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
INNER
URBAN
INNER
UIU1AN
INNER
URRAN
IMHLR
URBAN
INNER
uiimN
INNER
URRAN
INNER
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
INNER
UHRAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
U11DAN
INNER
nr.r. MI
IHWR
Ullll
INNER
URBAN
INKER
URP, \N
INNER
URBAN
INNER
Ullll \N
IIINHl
01(11 AN
1 HHt R
U(UJ \N
CITY / EXPO LFAfEL
KRIHGK (UO^in>3)
CITY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
Cl TY
KRINCE
C 1 TY
KRINCE
CITY
KRINCE
CITY
CITY
KRINCE
CITY
KR 1 NCE
CITY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
KRINGE
CITY
1 R 1 NCE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
KRINGE
CITY
KRINGE
.0003110
.OO 1735
.000317
-UOVI5O
. UOOO2O
.OOO349
. OOOOdfl
4||id|*~)*>U
DODOIUfr
. OOO237
lli)OO24
. OIMI253
. UOO IOO
.ODOI03
. OO0273
.0001 16
.OO02 17
. OOO 1 4 1
. OOo2<>7
. OOO349
. OO0042
.«««I53
. M\l I 2 1
.OOO 144
.OOOI5B
.000197
_i)W> IO4
. «IOO230
. 032
204249
00107
545OO
3O53
(0«72«
9090U
76223
136975
I2H68B
I2l7')O
40390
72175
1997(113
2I247O11
77067O
376259
64O33
4087
519373
1323(151
5U 1(1(1
SfKij
OO437
GO930
397.
14995.
2294.
43.
_
163.
24.
III.
^*
21 .
.
21.
(6.
66.
97.
PEnCENTACE
OF COimUDUTION
HEAT 1 BC STAT IONARY
^
4
0
4
3
7
f,
«,
4
0
|
5
3
*»
O
9.5
32. 0
32. B
21 .R
21. Q
21. B
21 .8
3 1 .11
3 I. 11
132
i:i.2
30.2
3O.2
2O. 7
33. »
17. 9 3a.a
27.
37.
10.
19.
4
1
I
1
1
27>
1 1.
II.
21.
25.
13.
t.
a.
lono.
527.
224
116.
14.
3O3.
266.
2(5.
4.
9.
g
•
7
4
2
3
4
0
3
2
D
6
2
3
6
5
3
9
3
5.2
5.2
24.7
24. B
24. B
15. B
15.8
5.4
5.4
31.3
3l.:r
21.7
21.7
2«».ll
20. n-
10. 1
1O. 1
19.7
19.7
2O. 4
211.4
29. 2
29:-2
13. 3
13.3
79
64
64
71
71
71
71
ii 1
01
74
74
02
O2
0(1
00
00
U3
03
05
65
63
75
75
83
05
O 1
o 1
71
71
CO
66
U»»
DO
72
72
04
64
03
03
76
76
.4
.7
.7
.9
.9
.9
.9
. 5
.5
.6
.O
.0
.O
.9
.4
.4
.9
.9
*>
.7
.7
.5
.5
.7
.7
. t
. 1
.O
.(1
.5
. 5
.O
.0
.a
.»
.5
.5
.0
.O
.4
.4
MOBILE
1 1 . 1
2.5
2.5
6.3
6.3
6.3
6. 3
f, .7
0.7
12.3
1 2 . .'»
7.0
7.0
10.4
6.7
6.7
10. O
10. O
[O. 2
9.5
9.5
B.7
B.7
It. 9
0.9
7.6
7. «•
o.r»
0.5
b.7
6.7
9.O
9.0
U.3
n.3
7. 1
7. 1
6.9
6.9
10. I
(0- 1
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
CITY CITY
TYPE CODE
1 179
1 171
1 173
1 173
1 174
I I7S
1 176
I 177
1 I7B
1 179
I IRQ
1 IBI
1 IO2
1 103
1 104
I IBS
1 IS*
1 1117
1 100
8 109
CITY HAfffi
PORTLAND .FMINE
PORTLAND. Oft
PHOVIDENCE.ni
PROVO.UT
PUEBLO, CO
RACIWE.WI
[ULEICU..IC
READING. PA
RERO.HEV
RtCimOWD.VA
ROAHOKE.VA
ROCHESTER, rai
ROCHESTER. HY
ROCKJORD. IL
SACRAflENTO.CA
SAC 1 HAW, HI
ST. JOSEPH. KO
sr. Louis.no
ST. PETrnSDUnC.FL
SALEM, im
IRREH
UIU)AN
INNER
UIU)\N
ENNEIl
UIID\N
INNtU
8IIUI\N
INNLH
URIIAN
INNLII
UllHAN
INNER
imn\N
INHEIl
iinn,\N
IPNER
URIIAFJ
BNNER
UKJiAN
IH HER
unnAn
!ii;n n
uiunN
1 nn KK
URIIAN
INNER
URIMN
INNER
URRAN
INNER
URIJ\N
INNER
u mi AN
IRNEH
uno\n
INNEn
UIUUN
INNEIl
UKUM1
INNLR
URIlArt
CITY x EXPO LEVEL
FRINGE ltJCx3> »
CITY
FIX INGE
CltY
FRINGE
CITY
FIII nee
CIIY
FRINCt
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRIRCE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
I:IIY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
. OOO223
.OOOO95
. 000:140
.OOO2 |5
.4lOO:i|4
.00010:1
.OOI) 177
.oooo<-9
. noi»:i 19
. OOO04 1
. «MM)J5O
. «MM)O7:i
.0«M»2I7
. IHMIOVO
.0
. IMIOIO4
. OilO^'JTi
. OOU»7f>
.OO044 »i
.000177
.JIOOJ47
.O4IOI22
.OOO IJI7
.0001115
.OOOH H,
. ooo i :i i
. OOO 14 1
. (HMPOG4
. OHUOIO
. omrjuv
. OOO25J
.ODUIMfi
.r.002 13
. OOO 1 4 1
DOSAGE
POP 5
-.1747:1
H74U7
neiuo
97597
33929
279266
10876(1
IOJUT.4
72I6C>
50-19:1
29BI
2'Mi:lJ(.
299O54
I492O4
59b7R
2U24O9
421 190
94747
57509
75IU7
4U?i3
640994
I29U7I5
276472
3371 17
7OU09
2U657
16.
4.
140.
10:1.
104.
7:1.
17.
2.
37.
.
35.
1.
31 .
3.
yis.
B 1 .
2B.
12.
76.
25.
"* 1
"7.
1 2
.
IL">.
02.
36.
7.
32.
77.
2<> .
"7!
IS.
.
391 .
310.
69.
66.
16.
4.
PERCENTAGE
OF COHTRIBUTIOR
HEATING STATIONARY
1
;|
3
•_t
n
i
i
i
7
3
4
7
6
4
^
9
6
a
6
3
fl
3
7
;>
5
<)
11
3
•I
9
0
3
6
2
I
7
9
4
U
0
34.9
34.9
29.9
2'».9
:io. i
30. 1
3O.3
3O.3
30.0
30.0
33. H
35. n
(9.4
19.4
2H.4
2U.4
29.7
29.7
21.9
21.3
2 fl . 3
21.3
39. 5
39.5
'.1 1 . 7
38.7
31.5
31. 5
13.7
15.7
36. 1
36. B
26. 3
26. 3
26.9
26.9
3.3
5.3
25. O
25.0
57.
57.
6 .
f> .
6 .
6 .
02.
«.2.
tf .
fi .
09.
59.
70.
7O.
64.
A« =
69.
6O.
71.
71.
VO.
70.
54.
54.
62.
62.
01 .
6i.
74.
74.
57.
57.
»iO.
fi5.
66.
6f>.
113.
U3.
60.
66.
2
*i
0
O
1)
II
:i
:i
O
'•
O
O
9
9
6
6
3
3
1
1
4
4
t
1
6
6
4
4
II
!)
3
5
*s
6
6
6
O
O
o
2
TtDBILE
7.9
7.9
9. 1
9. 1
0.2
11.2
7. 4
7.4
0.9
11.9
5.2
5.2
9.6
. «J.f>
7.0
7.0
9.9
9.9
7.4
7.4
n. :i
n. :i
«, .4
6.4
5.7
5.7
7.2
7.2
9.3
9.3
6.4
6.4
7.9
7.0
6.3
«i. 3
«.7
9.7
U.O
tt.O
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
CT<
CITY CITY
lYI'E CODE
1 I9O
1 191
1 192
1 I9J
1 194
i 193
1 196
1 197
1 I9B
1 199
1 20O
1 20 1
1 202
1 203
1 204
1 203
1 2O6
1 207
1 20O
1 209
1 2IO
CITY HAHE
SALINAS. CA
SALT LAKE CITY.UT
SAHANGELO.TX
SAN ANTONIO. PX
SAN DERflAJUJINO.CA
SAfl blECO.CA
SAJ1 FRANC 1 SCO. C A
SAN JOSE.CA
SANTA UAIU1ARA.CA
SANTA ROSA.CA
SAVANMAll.CA
SCa\NTON.P.\
SEASIb£.CA
SEATTLE. WA
SHERMAN, TX
SUREVEPORT.LA
SI HI VALLEY. CA
SIOUX CITY. IOWA
SIOUX FALLS. SO
SOUTH REND. IN
SPOKAJ1E.WA
IF.NER CITY /
VJRU\N FRINGE
INNER CITY
URI1AH FRINGE
INNtll CITY
UIUMN FRINGE
INNI 11 Cl 1 Y
INNER CITY
URIMW FRINGE
INNLII CITY
URRAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
I'llll \H FRINGE
IHNLIl CITY
URBAN hRINCE
INNER CITY
URDAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
UIUIAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
UHR\N FRINGE
INNKIl CITY
UIHIIN FRINGE
INNLII CITY
URDAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
nun i FRINGE
IN. (Ill CITY
URO1N FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNLII CITY
URO/\N FRINGE
EXTO LF.VEL
( \H;-M rD'.i)
.0002:17
.OOOOII7
.0(10250
. 01102:12
. OOO 1 12
. OO0254
.OOO 1711
.000 15 1
.000134
.000 175
.O005 1 1
.000700
.OOO277
.000236
. OlIOLlVI.
.OOO I'M*
. 00021)5
.OOO 14 1
.0000110
. OO0253
.OOOO74
. OOO2.'IO
.OOOO9 1
. OOO2O3
. OO02I7
. OOO-UO
.OOO2OO
. oooour,
.000091
.000201
. OOOOO4
. OOO 142
. 001)006
.O00096
. 1, OIHirill
. OOO2 13
. OOOO55
.OOO'J5O
. OOO 144
.0002-19
.000149
POP
653119
3952
21549 1
3720-.IO
74524
76320O
1:179 15
271004
376O59
773368
55700O
I269OI7
2047469
495735
6 12,1113
77'iS2
66 130
55371
27909
131905
506 12
IO3336
IOO557
69 1 14
34454
63204O
707 159
33922
3O63O
190150
56036
62925
200
O70I 1
IOZ:l 1
7530
270 1
129531
167596
IO452I
03950
DOS AC F,
( UG/( N>3-
I'LRSOH)
15.3
. :i
55.5
06.3
O.4
193.6
24.6
41 .0
50.5
133.3
204.7
009.0
567.9
1 16.9
190.:)
14.11
13.5
O.O
2 . 2
33 . 4
3.7
23 . 0
9 . 1
14. 1
7.3
265.6
141.2
2.9
2.O
J9 . U
4.0
B. 9
.0
0.4
d
1 .6
. 2
32.4
24. 1
45.9
9. 3
PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTION
HEATING
15.11
10. O
:io . 2
30.2
13.2
13.7
13.7
15.5
13.5
I3.U
13. U
13.9
15.9
15.0
15.11
15.11
15.0
15.4
15.4
111. 5
10.5
27.9
27.9
15.0
15.11
JO. 1
30. 1
13.1
13. 1
9.3
9.3
13.0
13. O
32.6
ni.o
20. O
35. O
29 . 1
29. 1
29. 0
29.0
STATIONARY
75.6
75.6
62-0
62 0
75.0
77.5
77.5
73.9
73.9
75.6
75.6
75.9
75.9
75.4
Tii. 4
75.4
75.4
73.6
73.6
73.5
73.3
63. 4
63.4
75.6
75 .6
61.4
61.4
74. 2
74.2
79.4
79.4
75.3
75.5
59.6
riv . «i
H2.I.
56. 1
64.0
64.0
60.9
60.9
MOU 1 LE
0.6
n.6
7.0
7.0
11.7
0-0
F..II
10.7
10.7
O.6
0.6
0.2
0.2
O.O
11. 1)
II II
O II
1 1.0
1 1 .0
II. 0
o.o
0.0
o.o
n o
11.6
II 5
11.5
12.7
12.7
1 1. 1
1 1 . 1
B.7
O.7
7.8
7.8
40. 7
O.O
0.9
6.9
9.4
9. 4
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
CITY CITY
TYPE COI1E
1 21 1
1 212
1 213
1 214
1 J ID
1 216
1 217
1 210
1 219
1 22O
1 221
1 222
1 223
1 224
1 223
1 226
1 227
1 220
1 229
1 230
1 23 1
CITY NAHK
SPRINGFIELD. IL
SPRINCriELD.no
SPRINGFIELD. Oil
SPRIRCFIELD.riASS
STArtFORD.CONN
STEUI1LNVILLE.IHI
STOCKTON .CA
SYRACUSE. NY
TACOHA . WA
TALLAHASSEE. FL
TAMPA.FL
TERRE HAUTE. IN
TEXAAKANA.TX
TEXAS CITY.TX
TOLEDO. OIJ
TOPEKA.KANS
TRENTON. NJ
TUCSON, ARIZ
TVLSA.OK
TUSC, \LOOSA.AL
TYLER. TX
UllllAN
INNER
uiiiMN
INNER
UI1HAN
INNER
UllllAN
INNER
URUAN
IHIU.Il
DIUCNN
MINI U
IHIIUN
INNER
UllllAN
INNER
IIIIRAN
INNER
l/RIl AN
INNLH
UIIDAN
INNEIl
UHIIAN
INNER
URIIAN
INNER
IIRJIAN
INNER
iNNER
UM'JAH
INNER
UHIIAN
INNER
URiMN
INKER
UllllAN
INNER
UllllAN
INNER
UMIIAN
INI«LR
uiunN
CITY / EXPO I.F.VFL
FRINGE ( 1IG/I MCI) <
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
Cl IY
FRINGE
Cl IV
FRINGE
Cl FY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
ClIY
FRINGE
G 1 TY
FRINGE
ClIY
FRINGE
ClIY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
CITY
I-RINCE
C 1 TY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
Cl TV
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
Cl TY
FRINGE
. OU02O2
. Olio (62
. 000)20
.OOOO33
. OU02(i7
. OIIIIO7 1
. OOO 163
.OOOOII4
.HIM) I'M
. itmt 159
. OIMI 12:1
. OOO 12 1
. OOO2 17
.OOO 174
. OOO-4O4
. ooo I5:i
. OOO2:i«i
. OOO I7O
. OOO 10 1
.OOOO70
. OOII225
. OOO 124
.OOOI 56
. OOOOII6
. OOO IO1!
. OOOI Ml!
.000066
. OOO342
. I'liooir*
. OHO 124
.OOO047
. OUO599
. ooo io3
. ouo:ir» 1
. OOO 1 15
. OHO IO7
. IIOO III?
-II.IOILM
.OOOO5II
.0110 H g
. 000044
DOS AC F.
TOP (IIG/70
711227
511:100
27592
1 I93O7
5II74II
1933 4:1
1 753311
167249
I925IUI
92044
7573
355:1112
1 I044H
724OO
19906
35576
32740
90034
396260
n,'7(iii;i
I29H3D
7450
9072111
J73D5 i
35 1 121
4 1732
3690*12
44 131
7 1 IL'O
21736
67392
2343
III.
4.
14.
.
22.
m
47.
20.
'• 1
12 .
7.
3.
25.
go.
7».
26.
39 .
-|*i
14.
79.
14.
1 1 .
.
3.
3.
6.
133.
9 .
16.
.
64.
211.
1 23 .
4.
39.
II.
II.
1 .
9.
.
PERCENTAGE
OF COUTH IHUT ION
HEATING STATIONARY
O
II
9
e
e
H
2
0
II
4
1
3
9
•1
-•
II
5
II
II
5
9
5
:i
9
6
3
4
7
5
^
4
^
4
.*
U
3
2
7
3
3
1
:i 1 .2
31.2
26 . 2
26.2
29. 1
29. 1
29.2
29 . 2
II .11
II .11
29 . 3
29 . 3
15.5
15.5
II .7
11.7
10. 1
10. 1
3.4
5.4
3.3
3.3
211. O
211. O
13.3
13.3
13.6
36. O
.Id . O
23. O
25 . O
26.11
26. IB
10. 1
IO. 1
20 . 7
20.7
IO.9
10.9
13.3
13.3
60.
60.
64.
64.
63.
6.1.
63.
on.
O 1 .
01 .
03.
6:1.
74.
7-1.
62.
62.
6 1 .
6 1 .
115.
115 .
115.
115.
63.
63.
75.
73.
77.
57.
57
65.
05.
66.
66.
no.
no.
Oil.
on.
79.
79.
73.
75.
O
II
II
n
:i
:i
u
n
:,
5
II
II
:i
:i
6
6
3
3
9
9
0
O
3
3
3
3
3
3
:i
4
4
6
6
I
|
7
7
7
7
4
4
riODILE
n.o
11.0
9.O
9. A
7.6
7.6
6.9
6.9
0 . V
'». 7
ft . II
6.11
10.2
10.2
5.7
5.7
11.5
11.5
11.7
U.7
9.7
9.7
7.9
7.9
91.4
11.4
9. 1
6.O
«>. II
9.6
9.6
6.6
6. it
9.7
9.7
10.6
10.6
9 . :i
9.3
n.a
1 1.3
-------
TABLE 33 (Concluded)
cinr CITY
TYPE CODE CITY HAflE
1 202
1 2:13
I 234
1 233
1 236
1 237
1 23O
1 239
1 246
1 241
1 242
1 243
1 244
I 245
1 246
1 247
1 24O
UTICA.HY
VJNLLAHD.NJ
HACO.TX
WASUINCTOn.DC
WATERUURY.CONN
WATERLOO. IOWA
WEST PALM UEACn.FL
WHEEL INC.WV
WJCHITA.KAJIS
WICHITA FALLS.TX
HILKZS.PA
WILMINGTON. DEL
WILMIHCTON.NC
WINSTUN.NC
KORCESTUl, MASS
YOIIK.PA
YouHcsTown.oir
INNER
UI1I1AN
INNER
iHili\N
iNm u
IIHII1M
iNNh it
UIUMN
INNLH
imiUN
INNEIl
I)IU)AN
INIin\
UIWAN
IhNHl
UllllAN
INNLIl
uruiAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
INNER
UllflAN
IN HI II
I'HD'XN
INNER
UIU1AH
INKER
UllllVN
INNLR
UIUIAH
INNER
UIIIIAN
IMNMl
UIUJAN
CITY s EXPO LEVEL
FRINGE lUCx(M)H)
CITY
ITIINCK
Cl IV
FRINGE
ci rr
FRINGE
CITY
I RINCE
CITY
KI1INCE
CITY
HIINCE
CITY
KIUNCE
CITY
FIIINCE
CITY
FI1IHCE
CITY
CITY
FRINGE
Cl 1 Y
FltlNCE
CITY
FRINGE
C 1 TY
FRINGE
ci nr
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
.0002R5
. IHHMIIUI
. IM)()U:iV
.IP00079
.00010:1
. OOOO44
.00064:1
. OOO2f'Ci
. nrtoj.ld
. OOO 10 1
. DOOU75
. Ol)0 IT')
. tiooo'>;i
.000 i(,r,
.ooo-jan
.000239
.OOOI 64
. uooor>u
.OOUI42
. OOO424
. OOO 14 1
.OOOUfi-J
.0002 II)
.001) 107
.00001.7
.OOO I'K)
.«0(I007
.0002 Id
. OO007 1
.000-1:17
.000 1:1:;
.OOO274
.00013:1
DOSAGE
POP r>'M»
I i 120:1
27434
6795b5
15495 i:l
1 1 II OL'
5o:r,7
77JM7
•JIII'JI
7;j;i5r.
294599
Ti !9Oti
4UOUI
207535
266UII
1 13(114
5U727
163762
il(> MM,
31 I5IIJ
55521
r.mon
1591123
1 H.44
17911'KI
72 132
502711
72659
204 127
IVJ26U
25
7
1
o
1 1
1
436
410
211
5
5
6
6
411
14
1 1
47
1
16
24
23
30
67
IO
30
3(1
5
22
9
56
29
.6
. (,
9
1
. 4
'1
.7
.3
. 4
. 1
. 1)
.11
. 11
. (>
.(.
.3
.6
.6
. 1
.9
.0
. :i
.9
. 4
.9
.11
.11
.11
2
.0
.6
.0
.6
PERCENTAGE
IIEATINC
31 .
:i i .
26.
26 .
1:1 .
1:1.
24.
24.
3 1 .
3 1 .
:rj.
32
5
G.
25.
23.
24.
24.
13.
27.
27.
2
OP CONTRIBUTION
STATIONARY
62.
<•'.!.
66.
66.
75.
7f>.
7 1 .
71 .
6 1 .
6 1 .
5'».
59 .
1)4.
114.
67.
67.
65.
6.1.
75.
63.
63.
i.r. .
65.
71 .
71 .
71 .
71 .
63.
63.
64.
64.
63.
63.
H
II
6
6
9
9
1
1
r,
5
M
II
7
7
5
5
1
2
4
4
4
II
(1
5
5
4
4
II
II
6
6
6
6
MOBILE
5.4
n . 4
6.6
6.6
10.7
10 7
4. 5
4.5
«, .7
(p. 7
7 r,
7 j
10 O
IO.O
7.2
7.2
9.9
9.9
11.3
o.a
n.n
7. 7
7.7
n.u
n u
9.0
9 0
f, .9
6.9
6.9
6.9
7. 1
7. 1
Source: Systems Application?j Incorporated computations.
-------
TABLE 34. BERYLLIUM EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS IN TYPE II CITIES
00
CITY
TYVE
2
2
2
2
2
i
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
o
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
. 2
2
CITY
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
O
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
13
16
»7
in
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
26
27
2O
29
30
31
32
33
34
33
36
3?
36
39
4O
EXPO LEVEL
CITY H/VnF. (UC/(M)3> (
ANNISTON. AL
BESS ETC H.AL
DF.CATUH, AL
nOTllAN. AL
1 1 <>IU HCh . AL
I'llKN IX CITY. AL
SF.LMA, AL
ANCIIOIIACF.. AL
FLACSTAFJ . Ml
YllttA . All
EL DonADO.Afl
FAYKTrKVI^LE.An
IIOTSPniNG. All
.IONKSCOHO. All
WEST Ml Ml' II IS. AFX
ANTIOCII.CA
CONCOIID.CA
COIIONA.Cil
FAIIXFIELD.CA
LANCASTEH.CA
LIVEKnOllE.CA
LODI ,CA
LOriPAC.CA
NAPA.CA
NEWAIUC.CA
fiOVAIO.CA
OCEAHSIDE.CA
IIEDLANDS.CA
ilf.DHOOl) CITY.CA
SAN LUIS ouisro.CA
SAN IMFAF.L.CA
SI\NTA CIUJ/..CA
S\NTA MAHIA.CA
VISALlA.CA
WALNUT CFXEEK.CA
FOIIT COLL INS. CO
CNF.ELEY.CO
MIDWLETOVN.CON
MILFORD.CCIN
HF.W I.ONJON.CON
.OOOO95
.0001 10
.000075
. OO0042
.O'HIOin
. OOOO<.4
.OOOIOO
. OOO.H)ft
. 4)OOO4'J
.OO02VJ
.OOOIOJ
.0001 1 1
.00010:1
. MOO 14 1
.00017')
.OOOIM't
. UOOIVJ
.OOOO6'>
.000 156
.OOOI2I
.000167
.000204
.OOOJ32
.000149
.000163
.1(0(10115
. O00070
.O0009II
.OOO 1 04
. OiM»I.V>
.OOO 147
.OOOI4J
.OOOIJ 1
.'JOG! Ill
.OOO 147
.000274
.OOO33O
.OOO05U
.000 143
.OOOJIIO
POP
PMISOR)
34069
36^06
4 II 37
39719
5IIJV4
J7:i:ifi
2'»li04
»i74!9
:nr,7o
:III7U6
2IIMIV
:i4«i7O
40:1111
:i.iriiu
•^•>:HO
:i io'>^
') M4h
:i«i.-,:m
4'M»i:i
36161
4III6O
jiiir»4
2(11 II
39944
30144
:i rj:i2
4 1955
4O42O
6lb
30274
44224
52544
471:13
3796 1
52:1 17
:I25I2
DOSAGE
( Ui;x( n>3
-I'MLsClN)
3.
4.
3:
1 .
5.
1 .
3.
20.
1 .
1 1 .
•i
3.
4.
4.
0.
5.
111.
i
7.
1 4.
7.
6.
3.
6.
4.
2
3.
4 .
9.
5.
6.
5.
4.
3.
t>.
14.
15.
2
7.
9.
2
O
1
7
*•
IJ
O
b
5
3
9
9
-i
•J
2
9
1
1
f,
4
e
5
7
O
9
9
I
(1
5
O
4
1
5
f,
5
4
0
-i
f,
1
PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTION
IILATINC STATIONARY
10
ie
10
10
10
10
10
39
10
10
19
19
19
19
19
13
15
13
13
13
19
13
19
13
13
15
15
13
15
15
13
IS
13
15
13
29
29
31
31
33
.0
.9
.6
.6
.7
.0
.0
. 1
-1
••
. 1
'»
. t
I
1
.11
.11
. 7
.11
.9
.9
.3
.6
.6
.9
.U
.19
.3
.7
.6
.U
.5
.a
.6
.O
.6
.0
.1)
.11
.(1
78.
79.
77.
77.
77.
77
77.
53.
00
110.
7O.
70.
70.
70.
7O.
73.
75.
73.
75.
73.
73.
74.
73.
74.
73.
Tr» .
75.
73.
73.
74.
75.
73.
75.
74.
75.
6O.
60.
ft 1 .
6 1 .
bl .
9
9
3
5
(1
5
5
:i
4
4
1
'i
1
1
|
5
3
O
U
n
9
3
4
3
9
1
0
1
1
U
7
9
4
U
Ti
4
4
3
3
5
noo i LE
10.3
9.6
.O
.n
. (l
.11
.11
7.7
9.4
9.4
10.11
10.6
n>. n
10 U
10.11
11.7
U.7
9.4
11.4
II. 3
11.2
ie. 2
8.B
10.0
R.2
11.5
11.6
1 1 .6
9.2
9.6
It. 5
:;).«.
11. U
9.6
U.7
tfi. |
10. 1
6.7
6.7
G.7
-------
TABLE 34 (Continued)
CITY CITY
TYPE CODE CITY HAHE
Ol
UD
2
2
2
o
2
2
-
'9
2
o
2
•>
—
2
-
2
o
o
*>
2
2
2
-
-
*>
p
•1
O
-
O
o
*J
o
2
2
2
o
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
4(1
49
59
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
38
59
60
61
62
63
«. 1
d5
«,6
67
611
69
7O
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
7O n i I^ILI IF.IH . in
NORWICH. CON
SUFI. TON d>N
llllUI 1 IiCTOi' . (ON
IMYTONl HLM.'II.FL
f OHTMY> HM . 1 L
FOHT PIEHU:, FL
KEY W»'T. t L
LAKELAND, M.
m.l HOOHNK. FL
ntlUIITT ISIAHD.FL
PANAMA CITV.FL
POHPANO UF.u:il.FL
SAIIASUTA. t L
TITUSVILLE.FL
ATHENS. CE
IIOrtE.CE
V.ALOOST.I. <:r.
WAIINEH ROUINS.CE
IIILO. HA
IDAHO FALI-S, ID
LEWISTON, ID
POCATELLO. ID
ALTON. IL
I'M 1 h \, II Lh . II.
1) 1NVILLE. II.
OF. KAI II. II.
LIST ST. 1 l»UIS. IL
» IlKFI'OUT, II.
<;,M> SIUMII;. IL
tC^NKAKFE. IL
I't K 1 N . IL
IJUINCV. II.
DLOOM i NI;T(IN , IN
COLI1MIIIIS. IN
E 1 KII/MIT. IN
KOKOF1O, 1 N
n MI ION . i N
Ml CHI CAN. IN
79 HEW Al II \NV. IN
80 RICHMOND. IN
EXPO LEVEL Pop
n
- Olio I 7 I
. 000 lf,7
.OOOI 92
-0002-iH
.000 Kill
. ooii i r..i
.O00246
. OOO2 I I
.00011)11
.OOO 17')
-00017:1
27974
:nio.i9
:i i'ii, i
5.11f, (,
5 1511;;
4 I Klfi
41125:1
5 I 41 If,
342110
3i.22«i
37260
3 I 260
44055
32 IOO
49:iOO
4l»239
4J-I77
1:10.1
441144
211 MU
45.147
4 HI 17
404.17
:I'I54O
•i -"i 3 I 4
DOS'ACI
( U<;/( M;3
-PHLSON)
4.4
I .7
I .11
<•- 5
4 :i
5 . f>
10 9
9.1,
4 . 7
3.7
5 . 2
11.5
II. 2
4 3
II. I
4.2
5 . 6
4. 4
.6
11.6
4. I
Ml. 6
7.2
9. l
7.:i
l:i. 9
III .1
4 Ti
5 5
I, . I
5 3
11.11
11.4
4 . r,
to 9
I I I
11.11
4.4
7. I
7.9
PEIU:ENTACE OF CONTTUHUTIOII
HEAT INC
31 .11
3 1 . II
3 l II
5 . 4
5 . 2
5 . 4
5 . :i
• * . 2
5 . '.1
5 . :i
r . .
J . .1
5 . ;i
5 . 2
53
III. 2
III. 2
III. 2
III. 4
0 .
211.5
211.4
211.5
11.3
l 1 . 1
1 1 1
l 1 1
. 1
;
II 5
'III r-
— II. .1
211.5
'•ii t~
— II . ,i
'•II r-
•-II - O
211. 5
211. r,
211.5
STATIONAIIY
61.5
61.5
1. 1 *~
" 1 . -1
117. 1
113 -t
115 .11
114 . V
113.7
115 . 2
(15 . 2
114.9
III. 7
ii3. :i
115 2
72. 1
72. 1
72. 1
72.11
•*l-5
59 . 9
59. (J
59 . 9
61.1
••I.I
fi 1 . 1
fi 1 . 1
••I.I
<• 1 . 1
61.1
«' 1 . 1
fi 1 . 3
«J 1 . 1
•i2. 7
••2. 7
• •2.7
«.2.7
••2.7
J ' • —•
o _ . ,
62.7
62.7
nouiLE
6.7
6. 7
«• . 7
7 5
10 9
11.11
9. II
1 1 0
9. r.
9 5
9. ||
III. 0
*-
1 1 . .»
'• r"
f . J
9.7
9.7
9. 7
/I II
11.5
11.6
1 1 .0
1 1 6
7.5
7.5
71-
. .1
7.r,
7 5
7.5
7 5
7 2
7.5
M. 9
11 9
11.9
11.9
II. 9
11.9
II. 9
11.9
-------
TABLE 34 (Continued)
CITY
TYPE
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
O
2
2
•9
2
2
2
2
•>
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
CITY
CODE
Ol
02
on
04
03
116
07
00
0->
90
91
92
93
94
93
96
97
98
99
ieo
101
101!
103
IO4
103
100
107
IOO
lO1?
10
1 1
12
13
14
13
16
17
IB
19
20
EXPO LEVEL
CITY HArtE (
AttES . 1 A
nURLINCTON. I A
cum ON. IA
FORT DODGE. IA
IOWA CITY. IA
mnSNALLTOVN. IA
msON CITY. IA
OTTUniVA. IA
HUTCH INSON.KA
LAK11ENCE.KA
LLAVENVOHTM.KA
fUNIIATTAN.KJV
OVFflLAND PARK.KA
riUIHIE VILLACE.KA
SALINA. KA
BOWLING CREFN.KE
FORT KNOX.KE
PADUCAII.KC
ALEXANDRIA. LA
DOSSIER CITY. LA
IIOUrtA.LA
1 LNMKII. 1 ^
NKW IULIUA.LA
ntncoR. rtE
ANNAPOLIS. IID
CUmiERLAND. HD
inCERSTOVIN.MD
ATTLEDOHO.n\SS
GLOUCESTER, MASS
HMiLiioROur.il, MASS
1AUNTON.HASS
DVTTLF.CREKK.mCH
HOLLAND. Ml CM
MIDLAND. hlCII
PORT HURON. MICH
YI'SILANTI , MICH
AUSTIN. Mil
MANKATO.HN
ST. CLOUD. HN
K? NONA. TIN
.OOOI22
. UOOI'Jj
.00003')
.001)1 M>
.0001 til
.OOOD'I^
.0110 10:1
.000124
.0001 14
. IIOO 1 1 f>
. OOO 1 1 1
.0001 4:1
.ooooni
.0001011
.000101
.000144
. eeoi20
.OOO 163
.OOOI79
.0001 IO
.OOO IOO
.000 1 1 1
.000100
.OODO7O
.000247
.000111)1
.OOO2 15
.OOOO54
.O0004')
.OOUO30
.000044
.0001011
.0001 1 1
. OOOOU't
. O00250
.000:156
.000102
.OOO 17 J
.000201
.0001 10
DOS ACE
POP (uo/-
40T.70
J:II30
:iri4in
;i i'»4'>
471170
i:t»'>44
:i i n.o
:io;i40
:m.rjv
47-.H.5
L'd I '.I 1
-jm,:i4
7'MITII
2')^04
:i'» t'> i
39HI6
40670
M4299
45I2O
43304
33SII2
r^r, 14
J^77l
Mi«i43
1 14411
1 Hi'lO
1111 I)
1:1,1^0
J0457
2M430
44371
40172
27176
30:120
30'»7 1
30442
203OO
3J402
4 1704
277UI
5.0
4 . 1
O |
3.9
5.7
2.5
'1 °
•j.o
4 .4
5.5
2-9
4. 1
6.4
4.9
4.O
3.7
5.8
B.7
8. 1
3.0
6.0
3.0
6.4
•J.II
7.11
6.U
11.2
1 -U
1 .4
1 .6
2.0
7.0
3.0
3.2
9.5
10. U
4.0
5.0
O.4
3.2
PERCENTAGE OF COBTHIBUTIOW
tIEATINC STATIONARY
3 .O
3 .11
3 .0
3 .U
3 .U
3 .0
3 .O
3 .0
24.
24.
24.
24.
24.
24.
24.
24.7
24.7
24.7
.3
.3
.5
.5
.5
34. •>
25.7
23.7
25.7
29 . 2
29 . 2
i6.*»
66.7
66.7
03. O
63. O
63.11
63. O
57. !
57. O
37.0
57.4
57.7
53. 1
53. 1
34. 0
33. 1
MODILE
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
•f
T
U .
T
•k
'1
12.
ie.2
ie.2
10. 2
.
.
.
7.9
7.4
7. 7
7.7
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
7. 1
7.3
7.3
6.6
6. 1
fl.2
U.L
6.f
u.:
-------
TABLE 34 (Continued)
CITY
TYPE
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
T
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
*>
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
o
*>
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
o
o
CITY
CODE
121
1 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
130
13 1
132
133
134
139
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
143
146
147
I4B
149
150
151
152
153
154
135
156
157
158
159
ICO
EXPO LEVEL
CITY NAME ( UU/( ri) 3» (
coLurmiJS.ru
CRJ.KnVILLK.nl
HAITI ESUUI1C. Ml
MERIDIAN. Ml
PASCACOULA. m
visKSDunc.ru
C1PE CIIwnDEAU.HO
FEUCUSOH.no
FLORISSANT. MO
FORT LEOHAIUJKOOIt.riO
JEFFERSON C' I TY.PIO
.lOI'LIN.HO
KiatcwooD.no
RAYTOWN.MO
ST. CIIAHLES.no
HISSOULA.HT
CHARD ISLAND. HE
CONG ARD, fill
PORTSMOUTII.Nn
i one iimncii.Nj
NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ
OLD DIIIDCE.NJ
PERTH AHUOY.NJ
SAYREVILLE.NJ
CLOUIS.KM
UODDS.NN
LAS CnUCES.NPl
HOSWELL.NN
SANTA FE.NM
AMSTERDAM, NY
AUI1URN. NY
ELMinA.KY
ITHACA. NY
JANES TOWN. NY
KINGSTON. NY
Ntwnuncii.NY
NICARA FALLS. NY
NORTH TONAMVANMA.NY
POUCIIKEr.l'SIE.NY
VAPEIiroWH. NY
.000177
.0()l»2ni)
.OOO 1 Jd
.000 I «>
.0001 1:1
.DOOM:)
.ooooiii)
.U00222
.000346
.oooi:i<)
. OOOO9 I
.000076
.001)169
.000162
.000162
.000175
.000143
.000034
.000163
. IMI0255
.000309 '
.000175
.000334
.000095
.OOOI5H
. OOOIO4
.00014;:
.O00097
.00009')
.000193
.000 106
.000247
.000203
.000194
.000 M9
.0002711
.0003 10
.000169
.000295
. 000 154
DOS ACE
POP 3
ruisoN) -i'i n>ori)
2MIMI7
43171
4 l«.74
42:l4
403 16
49 1119
25O 1 5
3 3910
39 1 49
25703
39002
25035
25b«l7
I1M9 10
35295
3237 1
30174
5.
12.
5 .
5.
3.
4.
2.
6.
23.
4 .
3 .
3.
5.
3.
a.
5.
4.
1 .
4.
0.
13.
4.
13.
3.
5.
3.
6.
3
4.
4.
6.
9 .
5.
7.
3.
7.
26.
6.
9 .
4.
0
1
7
7
4
O
II
6
6
9
0
1
D
6
3
7
7
n
9
3
3
5
3
1
4
'1
4
9
9
U
3
7
^
6
7
I
0
O
5
7
PERCENTAGE OF COUTH 1 BUT 1 OH
HEAT INC STATIONARY
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
26.
26.
26.
26.
26.
26.
26.
26.
26.
33.
29.
34.
34.
2»> .
26.
26.
26.
26.
•ftrft
••O
22
11
22
31 .
32.
31 .
32.
32.
32.
32.
31 .
3 1 .
3 1 .
32.
.'
'
9
J
*
3
V
O
4
5
3
R
(1
II
II
II
II
II
•)
9
9
9
•>
7
0
7
O
O
0
0
n
(i
n
0
75.
75.
75.
75.
73.
75.
65.
66.
66.
65.
65 .
65.
66.
66.
63.
33.
59.
50.
511.
6l>.
66.
66.
66.
1,6.
1.5.
65.
65.
65.
65.
62.
63.
62-
63.
63.
63.
63.
62.
62.
62.
63.
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
6
6
1
|
1
6
4
4
7
II
1
1
6
«.
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
6
ft
6
• \
'»
•+
-•
n
n
7
2
noR i LE
IO.4
10.4
IO.4
10.4
IO. 4
10.4
(1.7
6.6
6.6
11.7
(1. 7
11.7
6.6
6.9
n.2
12.11
10.7
7. 1
7. 1
1. .6
6.6
6 . 6
0.6
6.6
1 . 6
1 . 6
1 .6
1 .6
1 .6
5.6
4.0
5.7
4.0
4.11
4.11
4.U
5.4
5.4
5.6
4.U
-------
TABLE 34 (Continued)
ro
CITY
TYPE
2
2
2
o
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
i
y
2
2
2
1
2
CITY
CODE
161
162
163
164
163
166
167
160
169
I7O
171
172
173
174
173
176
177
170
179
IOO
IUI
IO2
103
IO4
IO3
IO6
107
IOO
IO<)
190
191
192
193
194
199
196
197
I9S
199
20O
FXPO LF.VKL
CITY HAMF. (Ur./:i) (
DimLINCTON.HC
CArtP LEJUNE CF_nTnAL
CHAPEL IIII.L.MC
CASTTOHIA.NC
COLDS nORA.NC
CI\EF.NVILLF..RC
KANNAPOL1S.NC
HOCKY HOUPIT.nC
WILSOH.HC
DISHAHCK.ND
CHARD FORKS. HD
nmoT.no
ALLIANCE. Oil
AUSTIHTOWH.OII
BOARDHAK.OII
FAiRnoiui.oii
F gniM.AY.oii
LANCASI^n.Oll
PIARION.OII
ft ASS 1 LOW . Oil
NLWAIXK.OII
PORTSMOUTH. Oil
SAHDUSKY.OII
Xi.NIA.OII
ZMIESVILLE.OII
BAIILESVILLE.OK
ENID. OK
flUSKOCEE.OK
PUNCA,OK
SIIAWNE.OK
STI LI- WATER. OK
COIWALLJS.OR
MEDFOnO.OH
Li.n/Mion.PA
HKW CASTLE. PA
STATE COLLEGE. PA
WILLlANSFOnT.PA
nEVTonT.ni
fcOOWSOCKET.RI
ANDEIISOU.^C
.OOP \(<(>
. ono i5i)
.0002U
. 000169
.OHO 197
.00017:1
. oooo<>:i
.01)0190
.oooj:i6
.OOOI97
.000237
.000237
. OO0204
.OOO 177
.000164
.000213
.000162
.000133
. O0026H
. ooo g no
.OOOl 3
I'HlSOU) -PI IVSON)
4:i.~i3O
4 1 TiOV
H(l7l4
56704
32234
:i t'M.M
4357b
41^60
:I529 (
.'M.970
4IA34
344IO
2667 9
293OO
310O4
32430
:I.,V«.M
•j:io«}5
:iiUHi2
32753
420IU
27762
321127
23492
•j:)2IIO
nj'»«»9
49344
41317
2JHJ49
27949
34616
4
-------
TABLE 34 (Continued)
CJ
CITY CITY
TYPE CODE CITY HAHE
2*Mi i FI nnt~Nf*r ^r1
»\F J r HJiULI'U t, , c^L,
2 202 ROCK MILL.SC
2 203 SPAHTANMUIIC.se
2 204 AIIEHDEEN.sn
2 205 RAPID CITY.M^
2 2O6 CLARXSVII LE.TN
2 207 JACKSON . TN
2 200 JOHNSON CITY.TTf
2 2«9 KINCSPORT.TN
2 2I» HURFRF.ESDORO.TN
2 211 OAK RIDCE.TTf
2 212 BIG SPRIHC.TX
2 213 DENTOK.TX
2 214 FORT IIOOn.TX
2 215 1. II. LH II. TX
2 216 KINCSVILLE.TX
2 217 LONCVIEH.TX
2 2lO riKXUUITE.TX
2 219 IIICIIARDSON.TX
2 2 JO TrrU'LE.TX
2 221 VICTOHIA.TX
2 222 DURLINCTON. VT
2 223 CHARLOTTES VILLE.VA
2 224 DANVII.LE.VA
2 225 nELLINCIIAM.HA
2 226 IIREftf-RTON . HA
2 227 FOOT LEWIS, HA
2 220 1 4KES DISTRICT. HA
2 229 LONCVIEW. HA
2 230 HIGHLAND. KA
2 231 YAK IMA. HA
2 232 FAIRfWNT.KV
2 233 riOMCANTOI.'N . HV
2 234 P4lua.RSDIIKC.hV
2 235 DELOIT.HI
2 236 EAU CLAIRE. W|
2 237 FONDDULAC. HI
2 200 JAMKSVILLK. W|
2 209 NANITOVOC.WI
2 240 SIIKDOYCAN, HI
EXPO LEVEL POP
cue/cm:)) (rni-nm
.000177
.MMO 167
. MOO 192
.OOOJ30
. OOO 1411
.OOOH77
. OOO 14 1
. 000 1 1*0
.0001 10
.000132
.0001126
.0001 19
.OOOOR3
.OOO 192
. IIHIIO76
. MOO 1 .'17
. OOO 1 15
. 000 1 2 1
. OO.'I 100
.OOOOO 1
. ooo I:KI
. 00026O
. OOOl'OO
. OUOI50
. OOO 127
.OOO'JliO
. OOO 172
.00019:1
. 000 I.VI
. OOOO75
. 0002.1(1
. 0001*1*4
.00031*0
.000:110
. ooo 1:15
. 000 1 15
. 000177
.000 125
.OMOI4.~>
. oooj:i7
1"»J07
JIIIO4
5O I5O
1-7309
45547
35 n,2
44.i:ill
374:16
n.i.inn
29221
31465
33624
465 13
301 19
4 1421
;l:i,li.v
5:il7i
o M04
5«i7«>7
;IO-I99
4ir^:i6
4254O
4:1477
51900
426 13
.III1MK.
41 I7O
52103
3070J
2.'I44 1
49:i:i2
27065
:i I5V4
47517
:I70UO
47JIIII
37047
49221
35.1i:i
5 14-Jb
DO^ACE
( U(;/( M)0
-I'LILSON)
5 2
6 A
. i
9.6
6.3
6.7
2 7
6.3
4.O
3.9
3.9
.O
4.0
3.9
7 3
3. 1*
4 . 6
6 . 1
7.11
5 7
3 . 2
b . (i
1 1 . 1
07
. •
O- 2
5.4
II. 4
7. 1
IO. 1
4 9
2 1
1 2 - 3
6.2
10. 1
14.7
5. 1
5.4
6.7
6. 1
5 2
12.2
PEKCCHTACE OF CONTHIDUTION
IIEATINC
15.0
15.11
I6.O
34.6
34.6
2O. 3
19.7
20. 1
20.2
19.9
19.6
13.2
13.3
11.7
Ii —•
i . t
ii 'i
1 J . J
1,1.0
11.3
11.7
11.2
36. I1
21.3
21.3
29.4
29.4
30. 1
30 . 1
1!9 . 4
30 . 3
1"* . 3
24.7
1*4.7
25 . 0
35.4
35.4
35. 4
35.4
35 . 4
35.4
STATIONARY HOD 1 LE
74.9
74.9
75.7
54.2
54.2
71 .9
69.9
71.1
71.6
70.6
69.6
74.0
75.7
77.6
77 i.
74.11
74. O
76. 4
75. 6
77. i,
74.11
56. 4
711.6
741.4
60.41
6O.O
61.5
61.5
60.0
61.9
59. O
66. 1
116. 1
67.0
5O.5
50.5
50.5
511. 5
511. 5
50. 5
9. 3
9.3
0.3
11.2
11.2
7.0
10.4
O.O
0.2
9.4
10.0
12.0
1 1 -O
0.7
II. 7
12.0
12.0
III. 2
1 1 . 1
II. 7
12. O
7. 5
O. 1
0.3
10.6
IO.6
II 5
II. 5
IO. 6
7.O
10 9
9. 2
9.2
O.O
6.
6.
6
6.
6.
6.
-------
TABLE 34 (Concluded)
CITY
TYPE
IJIJM
CITY
CODE
241
24"*
243
CITY N/VTIE
WAUSAU.VI
CASPER. WY
CIIKYtnNE.VY
EXPO LEVEL
.O002-IH
.000 r>2
POP
(PULTON)
H47J1I
5 1:124
DO? ACE
( UC'C M)3
-PKIISOIO
4.6
9.9
PERCENTAGE
IIKATINC
33.4
H2.4
OF CONTRIBUTION
STATIONARY
50.3
54. O
54. U
KODILE
6. 1
12.9
12.9
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated computations.
-------
TABLE 35.
BERYLLIUM EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS IN TYPE III CITIES
CITY CITY
TYPE CODE CITY RUff
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1 ARAB AL
2 BAY NINETTE. AL
3 IRONDALE.AL
4 CONWAY.AR
3 I.NCLAND. AR
6 LAKE VILLACE.AJl
7 HENA.AR
8 noNTICELIX>.AJl
9 RUSSELLVILI.E.AR
10 WALNUT RIW.t.AH
M ALTURAS.CA
12 BANNING. CA
13 C \RMEL VALLEY. CA
14 CHINA LAKE.CA
15 CUCAHONCA.CA
16 EUIVEIU.CA
17 CRIDLEY.CA
10 LAMONT.CA
19 NEW1IALL.CA
20 PALMDALE.CA
21 SANTA flARIA.CA
22 SUISAN CITY.CA
23 BRIGHTON. CO
24 GOLDEN. CO
25 DANIELSON.CN
26 ORANCrTllWN m
27 SlflSRURY CENTER. CN
20 WlLLiriANTIC CN
29 r^fU'HIS.FL
30 MIATII SHORES FL
31 PERRY. FL
32 CARnOLLTON.CA
33 LARKSTON.CA
34 SNYHNATOhN.CA
33 IIALEUVA.IIAW
36 CUUDDUCK. ID
37 ALSID.IL
30 CENTREVILLE IL
39 CHESTER. IL
40 CLARENDON HILLS IL
EXPO LEVEL
.OOOOH3
-OOOO4I
.000040
.000106
.OOOOU3
.OOOO49
.O00006
.O0009II
-OOOOU4
.OO005 1
.000046
-00002O
.O00075
-OOOO7H
.0000911
.000139
.0001114
.0001 1 1
. ooeoi i
.000129
.OOO09O
-000176
.0001 1 1
.000 IO2
.OOOO5II
.000167
. oooomi
-000172
.U0004 1
-O00067
. ooo i no
.00010(1
.000040
. 000032
. 000065
.000 122
-000036
.000173
POP
( PERSON)
4756
7273
3423
17550
•)47'>
3745
5125
S754
13295
4299
3 107
13360
3359
12329
6435
27H20
3923
7779
107 15
9449
7915
3238
10067
1 IH94
471 I
139 12
5 137
MB ITi
4103
12059
91153
15069
34115
21352
31 14
3(100
1 1292
1 1532
.131)2
61)41
DOSAGE
• UCx( M)3
-PERSON)
.2
. 3
. 1
1 .9
. 3
.3
.3
.r.
1 .3
.4
•V
.6
. 1
.9
. 5
2.4
. 3
1 .4
1 -2
i .e
.3
1 .0
1-3
.9
. 7
-3
2.5
. 4
2. 1
. 4
1 .0
.6
2.3
. 1
. 1
. 7
1 .4
2
1.2
PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTION
IO.2
10.5
10.9
19.
19.
19.
19.
19.
19.
19.
15.6
15.7
15.7
15. 5
15.3
15.6
15.6
15.5
15.9
13.9
15.0
15.8
29.7
29.7
31 .H
31.11
31.1)
31 .0
5.3
5.3
0.3
10.2
IO.6
IO.O
0.
28.4
32.3
31.3
31.3
31.6
j i H i lurinur
74.4
76.8
79.7
7O
7(1.
70.
70.
70.
70
70.
74.7
75.0
75.2
73.9
73 . 0
74.7
74.7
73.9
75.1)
75. H
73.4
73. U
6O. 5
60.7
6 1 "i
01.5
61.5
61.5
04.9
H4.9
114. 9
72. 1
73.9
71.6
91.5
59.9
f.2. 9
61.1
61.1
61.7
nuu i LE
19.4
12.6
9.4
IO. II
10.1)
10. IJ
10. 1)
10.11
10.11
9.7
9.4
9. 1
10.7
11.7
9.7
9.7
10.7
0.3
0 . 3
n.n
04
9.U
9.6
. 7
6. 7
6.7
6.7
9.8,
9.H
9.H
9. 7
7.5
10.3
0.5
11.7
4.8
7.5
7.5
6.7
-------
TABLE 35 (Continued)
en
CITY
TYPE
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
CITY
CODE
41
42
•13
44
43
46
47
4O
49
50
31
32
33
34
S3
36
37
38
39
60
61
62
63
61
63
66
67
60
69
70
71
72
73
74
73
76
77
70
79
00
EXPO LEVEL
CITY NAHE <
EFFICNIlAn. IL
HENRY. IL
LA cR.\Nt;E PARK. IL
LAWHENCEVILLE, IL
LYONS. IL
SPAIITA, IL
AURORA. IN
AUSTIN. IN
HOIIAHT. IN
DEN 1 SON. IA
El.nORA. IA
MOUNT VEIIHON. IA
ON\WA. 1 A
WINTEIASET. IA
COHCOIIDIA.KA
flULVANE.KA
PIIILLPSmmC.KA
DAWSON SPRING. KN
FORT VRICHT-LOOKdlJt
JENKINS. KN
OKOLONA.KN
CARIBOU. HE
FAIU1INCTON CENTER
K I ITtllY r.KNTKR . lit
UMNUIllUCE.ru>
PALNEII PARK .ttD
DUxnunvTown . MASS
CltEERr 1 tLDTOWN . HASS
IIADLEYTOKW.nvSS
ORANGE CENTER. HAS9
TEWLETONTOWN , MASS
WARETOVH.ri/ISS
W I L'l 1 NCTONTOWH . HASS
FREMONT. HIGH
CAYLORfl.niCII
CROSS t ILE.MCn
LKVEL PARK-OAK PA1VK
ST. LOUIS. men
LAKE CITY. UN
MINNETRISTA.JOI
.000126
. OOO097
. OOOLifiO
.0001 Ml
. 00022O
. OttO 1 1 2
.oooo7:i
.OO009U
.000076
.OOOO j 1
.OIIOO32
.OO0094
.OOOO3 1
. OOOO^'.I
.OOOOO5
.OOOO9;l
. 00000:1
. OOOO44
.OOOI 13
.000023
.OOO 140
. OOOO03
.O0006I
. oiui i?:i
.OOOI 17
.OOG306
.OOOO 14
.000036
.000007
.OOOO30
.OOOOOO
.00001 1
.000041
.000063
.000056
.000036
.O00074
.OOO 103
.OO0054
.O00007
POP
93116
2643
l5fiO'l
r»'»4'j
1 1275
4:ir,3
442O
5047
22 122
r.:i54
:I29-.I
:ioii4
:i22J
',17:14
75113
3:109
:i:io7
3263
5226
2767
19133
1 131 1
3420
III :i4
T.5O6
Ilull4
7770
10453
;!OI9
:i9 i o
5972
IKI-J9
I742O
3573
3 IOO
JI371!
-.11711
423 1
4154
:ioi:3
DO5ACE
-PKRSON)
1.2
.3
4.2
.7
2.6
.5
. :i
.5
1.7
.3
. 1
-JJ
. |
. :i
.6
. :i
. u
. i
.6
. 1
2.7
1.0
.2
1.4
.7
3.4
. 1.
.U
. 2
.O
. |
.7
_ 2
. 2
is
.2
.4
. 2
.0
PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIDUTIOR
HEATING
31.3
31.3
;i2. :i
'J 1 . 3
32 . :i
31.3
29. 1
29. 1
29.4
31. a
13 1 . O
:i s . n
:i i . u
•j i . u
24.3
23. O
24.3
24.7
24.7
24.7
25.4
34.9
34.9
34.9
23.7
23.7
29.2
"*9 2
29 . 2
29 . 2
29 . U
29.2
29 . 2
33. n
33.0
36.3
33. O
33. U
39. O
39.7
STATIOHARY
61. 1
61.1
«>'J. •»
0 I . 1
62.9
61.1
04.0
64. 0
64.7
50.
r.o.
50.
511.
5O.
fi.'l. O
05 . 4
0:1 . f.
63.2
63.2
63.2
67. 1
37.2
57.2
57.2
66.7
06. O
6:i.ll
63.11
03.11
t»:i. li
6:1. 91
63. U
63. O
37. O
37. (l
30. 1
57. 1
37.0
33.3
34.4
MOBILE
7.5
7.3
•1 . II
7.5
4.O
7.3
0.9
6.9
3.9
10.
IO.
IO.
10.
10.
12.
9.6
12. 1
10.2
Id. 2
ie.2
7.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.7
7.3
6.9
fc.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.3
7..1
3.3
v. i
7.3
7.0
3.9
-------
TABLE 35 (Continued)
CITY
TYPE
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
CITY
CODE
01
O2
03
b4
05
06
07
OO
O9
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
IO2
103
104
103
106
107
IOO
109
IO
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
IO
19
2O
EXPO LEVEL
CITY NAME (UC'
«>
1
6
6
9
0
O
3
3
3
6
HOBILE
U
10
in
O
II
O
1 1
7
6
. 6
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
4
r.
7
3
5
5
5
5
4
5
9
IO
10
0
II
II
12
12
1 n
7
*\
.4
.4
.7
.7
.7
.9
. 1
.O
. 0
. 1
. 1
. 1
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
.8
.0
_ fr
.O
. :i
.7
.6
. :i
.6
.11
'•
.4
. O
.0
'»
.O
.O
.5
.5
.5
. 1
-------
TABLE 35 (Concluded)
CD
CITY
TYTE
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
CITY
COUE
121
122
123
124
123
126
127
I2O
129
I3O
131
132
133
134
133
136
137
138
139
I4O
141
142
143
144
143
146
147
140
149
ISO
EXPO LEVTL
CITY N,\rTF. ( UC/( Ml J) (
DOYLESTOKN.PA
CKTTYSnUflC.PA
LIBERTY. PA
ST. CLARI.PA
SLIPPEHY.nUCK.PA
TYRONE, PA
VANDEHCRIFT.PA
WEST WARWICKTOWTI.r\l
CAPEIIAnT.SC
CONVAY.SC
noimincE.SD
LA KOLLETTE.TH
IIOCKVOOD . TN
bUimET.TX
CHOWLEV.TX
FRONIA.TX
LOCKS AJVT.TM
LULINC.TX
PORTLAND. TM
S\ll AUCUSTINC.TX
SEALY.TX
SILSKEE.TX
PRICE. UT
IUDFOIXD.VI
LYDEN . WA
STEILACOOH.WA
II<\RTLANO.W|
M£»FOr\D. VI
SOUTH HILWAUKF.E.WI
CHEEN niVEn.WY
. OOOI III
.0001411
.OOOO94
.0001 J'l
.0001 10
.000175
.0002:14
.OOOKIO
.000134
.O00096
.OOO 123
.OOO 161
.O00073
. OO0036
.OO002O
.OOO093
. OOO070
.OOOOB4
.OOOOB3
. OHU023
.O00062
.0000611
. ooo i no
.0001 13
. O00096
. OOOOBO
.OOO045
. OOOO6I
.0002011
.000046
DOSAGE
POP 'J
'.l.-illll
4TM.9
4'f 4 1
706 1
7H76
2:111116
5054
9176
4722
7651
51129
3341
3163
3629
7369
3503
OS IO
2-J«. i
-.1 1 :i2
114112
7621
12973
HO3O
'.IOII4
2929
:)66 1
246
-------
TABLE 36. SUMMARY OF BERYLLIUM EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
EXPO LEVEL
< UC/(M)3)
.002500
. ooiooe
.000500
.OOU230
.000100
0.
fSST
303140
9I4973O
2O6O 1 329
73U5 IO92
139664750
15O679I35
DOS ACE
( UO( N)3-
1738.
16734.
30552.
45256.
56042.
50136.
PERCFF1TACE OF COTmi BUTION
HKATim; STATIONARY
0
3
2
6
5
O
IS.
3O.
28.
27.
26.
26.
B
8
9
7
•>
n
02.4
66.6
66.7
67.2
67.4
67 . •>
PERCENTAGE OF DISTRIBUTION
MoniLE CITY TYPE 1 CITY TYPE 2 CITY TYPE 3
3.
2.
4.
5 .
5.
5.
B
6
4
1
n
i)
.00.
i0e.
too.
97.
94.
92.
0
e
0
0
2
U
0. 0.
O. 0.
0. 0.
.0 1 .
2.5 3.
2.6 4.
3
3
6
-------
TABLE 28. EXPOSURE/DOSAGE ANALYSIS DATA BASE FOR TYPE I CITY AREA SOURCES
riTT
TYPE
1
1
1
|
1
1
|
1
oo I
o
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITT
CORF.
1
2
3
4
1
A
7
K
9
l«
1 1
12
in
S4
1.1
16
17
m
19
2o
2!
CITT NAHF.
ARII,FriF..TX
AKRON. Oil
AI.RAfJY.CA
I
AI.RAHY.HY
Ai,nuoiiF,RQirF..Tin
ALI.F.NTnvn.PA
ALTOORA.PA
ArMRILLO.TH
ANIlK.RSftR. IM
Ann ARBOR, ni
APPI-FTTON, W|
/VS1IT.V||J.F..Nr,
ATLAHTA.TA
AT1.ANTU: CITY.NJ
AnCUSTA.CA
AIFRORA. IL
AUSTIN. TX
nAKKR.~F 1 F.I.J> . r A
nAi/nnoRF..m>
RATON R011CF.KA
PAY riTY.ni
IWUF.H
IIIUIAH
IHHFR
IIIUIAH
INNKR
IMIIIAH
inurn
IPRRAH
inriF.R
UKHAR
IHHFR
IFRRAB
IRNF.R
uiuiAN
IHHF.R
IIRHAN
INHF.R
irsflKR
IIRRAN
IHHF.R
IHXflAI*
1 H H F.n
IIRRAN
1 W PI fr".l\
IMIRAN
IHHF.R
IMinAH
INNKR
iiiniAn
icwrn
iinjiAN
IHHF.R
IIHRAN
\ N ft p . H
IIHII AW
IHNF.IX
umiAR
IHHF.R
IIIIRAN
INRF.R
URIIAN
IHNF,n
IMIIIAH
CITT /
FRinrr
CITY
Fiiinrr.
CITY
FRIHCF
CITY
FR 1 NCF,
C 1 TV
FHINCF.
CITY
FRIHCF.
CITY
FRIRCF.
CITY
E*U 1 Hf IT"
r n * i» 'F TI
CITY
CITY
FH 1 NCF.
CITY
FRIRCF.
CITY
FRINCF.
r. 1 TV
FRinrr.
CITY
FRIMCF
CITY
Fill HCE
CITY
FRIhCF.
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
FR 1 NCF.
CITY
FHINCF.
CJTY
FRINCF
CITY
FRIHCF,
CITY
FRIRCF,
I.ART> AW.A
«S«l fll
7«
ri
r>4
M<»
2<»
:i
41
tot
112
:i g
41
H7
9
1*
ft 1
.37
n
29
2tl
12
24
22
ir>
ui
3H:i
12
54
15
42
211
41!
72
1:1
2f.
n *
7H
2111
4«
44
III
If.
!»•»
,
. |
o
.11
. 4
. f.
.3
. i
.11
.R
.0
.2
. |
.9
.0
. 1
.9
.H
.2
.7
. 3
. 3
.7
.:•
. r»
.4
. f.
.2
.7
.7
.3
. 1
.9
.9
1
.1
.7
.4
.A
.«
.n
I97W
POPULATION
< I'MISON)
n94RA
IMIIT.
27Ti42»
2fi73»«S
72f.2:i
:uui9
2Sf.f.r.7
229llf-n
24:i7r» i
S37W*
2824f> 1
ISI 1 1*
f>2fi"!>B
101197
I22R 16
7«lir.3
9f1S 9
99797
7BftftR
n74ftfi
724IW.
r.7ri7 1
94WH)
497H24
f.757r»4
47IM19
IMI27
59IK.4
ir»«fr^
1299IM1
IO2929
2r. IIS17
I2AI12
A9SI3
11*7649
9HS7S9
A74A22
|fi~.9T«
0:1493
49449
2IM.4I1
1*73
Aim*
4A43«
rif>:i
I82imn
I4n32.'l
34:if>2
IH40
1 tlN»2l
9nr.nn
!2r»r»fi7
27AA3
1nn
127 15(1
64*4
34446
83337
44H24*
29O3(M
73*27
367:17
233W7
i:ir>nn
tvry
TRIFTK
III722
99 |
lftf.12
IIMA6
7410
4AI
93177
9HS93
t»6ffl«7
Rtftf
133(14
IO942
4H92
IHfK*
2O*«f»
7:i 15
Id 17
72OI
BAIT7
4IO3
R3 13
7 7 OS
1992
93721
7n*3R
27112
rt«H»4
nii2*
H67I
|:«3R9
1 Of. »2
2IUUW
!4f>S
I2BI7
I9B46
(I7O92
43«lt«
2H2 IS
14194
4S66
264*
-------
TABLE 28 (Continued)
CD
CITY CITY
TYTr. CODE CITY ItAfTK
1 43
1 44
1 45
1 46
1 47
1 4fl
1 49
1 5*
1 91
1 52
1 53
1 34
1 3(1
1 36
1 37
i en
In n
nt
I 6A
1 61
1 62
1 63
CTATTANOCA . TF.NN
CHICACO. IL
cmc inn ATI. on
CLFVF.LAnn.on
COLORADO PPRIF1CS.CO
Cfn.uwn i A , HO
coi.umiiA.se
coLimiiiis.i;A
coLimniJS.oH
conrifs CHRIST!. TX
PAI.LAS.TX
DAHBIFRY. COH*
RAVERPOHT. IOWA
NAYTOn.OM
OECATIin. II.
F»F.iw.n.co
DRS noiNF??, IOWA
DFmoiT.m
DUnUOlFF,. IOWA
mn.irrn m
nimnAPi, i»c
imiF.H CITY /
UIUIAN FRINCF.
IPIHF.Tl CITY
UnilAN FIUNCF
IHNFR CITY
1/nnAN FRINCF
INNKR CITY
IIRRAH FHIW:F.
INNI^fl 1 M TV
i i* i* r«n \f I i •
UnnAB FM 1 NTF.
inNF.H CITY
IHIHAN FRIDCF,
IKWF.R CITY
IHNKR CITY
IHHF.U CITY
URRAC FRIHCF,
IWHF.R CITY
uniiAN m i HIT
IJ*ll*'ll* rllirHr™.
inrjp'.n CITY
i/nnAN FRIPCF.
IHNF.R CITY
i m n A N mi ttf p
inuirin r n i n^pr<
tnfiF.R CITY
URHAH FRIHCF,
IHHF.R CITY
iiRn.Af* rnirTF,
innFii ('ITY
uniiAN m i MI~F
ifiiii'\n r ii i ni.r.
INflF.R CITY
unnAPi m i MCT
•/iinfir* r ii i niiTj
INMF.R CITY
I/MOAN FRINCF
IHNF.a CITY
unriAN FR i HCF
I^CIF.R CITY
imnAB FRIHCF,
INNF.H CITY
iinnnn FRIBCF,
INNF.R CITY
imiiAH FRIPICF
IfNF.R CITY
wiriAfi FnrrtcF.
i,Arn> AURA
< ^n nii>.s!
32.5
64.5
3AI . A
rt^ J- n
9 r 6 . II
711. 1
256 . 9
75 . 9
f —ft* i
.t r H . 1
6W II
29.2
42. «
I A:I . A
69. 5
36.3
133 A
I*HI . A
I'M . A
29. A
266. A
4wn. »
44. A
1 1 .A
O4. A
'•A A
.1 * . H
:ni- :i
1115 . 7
:iA.6
6 . 4
95.2
20 1 . n
60.2
4r fl
.1 . II
I:III.A
7M4. A
16.4
2.6
105. A
6 . A
if f
• Hi . Ii
6 4
i»r»
POPULATIOH l»73
» (PKlLvrin) AlfTO
1 I9O76
lom.nn
369279A
:|(»2I7IUI
41— «»^ F A
.) £,\ ->lr
«,r,79f.4
75 IA46
I20|l|i;i4
I :ir«« 1 7
69749
511377
241 7111
I54A9H
345 IO
519H77
2r.«642
2O4599
II2HA
R44IR9
494495
5A7H 1
I5O7A
I95H4I
7«»O7n
24:1439
4424IIJ
9A7A5
IWII1I
BI467II
5n26n^i
20W772
55A52
(31 I.'i:i6
245924H
*i2:i i n
:i237
13279 A
5562
954 12
5:152
• 24113
H4AAH
199594 1
IHA5949
2MI 19 1
3361 HA
393203
636225
754A2
3R932
2322n
I263H9
76I9H
2690H
2R99CI
in45r,i»
97249
3912
4*1794
27696A
3I2HI
9776
1*3 27R
371 All
I37((7:i
23«H»37
4772A
4729
3W7477
3 IH2AH
IA72M6
294A4
743236
I2I26H2
27A7II
14*9
BB774
2462
349A3
3Afl»
I«T3
TRUCK
13317
1 I6R9
I4349H
1 17424
26254
.1017 1
riA272
40724
IIII72
9:i MH
662R
23141
129.12
44H4
31764
I47I.A
264116
IA*,S
1 I3n«5
66.170
2723
B3|
I944H
6Q|in
I62M I
29443
1 1 197
1 1 1*
7W739
7H2A7
22A47
6O43
06724
141 1 in
5966
3IA
I9BA2
662
13266
744
-------
TABLE 28 (Continued)
CITT CITT
TYPF. COOP.
CITT HAW.
CITT /
IinnAN FRINCF,
LARO ART.fi
< s
-------
TABLE 28 (Continued)
CITY CITT INNER
CITY /
LAUD AJtP.A
TYTE CODF. CITY FIABT UHRAN FRINCF < S«J HII.FS)
1 64
1 f.r>
1 66
1 67
1 6H
1 69
1 7fl
1 71
1 72
1 73
£ ' 74
u>
1 75
1 7ft
1 77
1 7fl
1 79
i no
1 III
1 02
1 R3
1 R4
EL PASO.TX
F.niK. I1 A
F.UCF,NF..nn
F.VANSVII.I.F,. IN
FALL ni VF.H.HASS
FARCO.ND
FAYFTTFV 1 1.LF,. NC
F 1 TCIiniFTW; . flASS
FLINT, m
FORT LAALF,.FL
FORT SMITTl.An
FORT WAYHF.. IN
FORT vnnrn.TX
F'n.FJ'Nn.CA
CADSnF.N. AL
CAIHSVILI.F., FL
CALVKSTON.TX
criANi* iiAPins.m
CnF.AT FALLS.1TT
CnF.F.N. RAY, VI
cnF.F.Nsnono. NC
INNF.R
INNF.Il
unnAN
INNKR
unnAN
1 N rl r,l\
iinn A N
INNF.R
inir.AN
INNK.n
unnAN
INNF.R
unnAN
INNF.R
irnnAN
INNF.R
unn/\N
INNF.R
imnAN
INNF.R
unnAN
INNF.R
UIU1AN
INNF.R
unnAN
INNF:R
unnAN
INNF.n
unnAN
INNF.n
unnAN
INNFn
INNF.R
unnAN
INNF.R
unnAN
INNF.n
inillAN
INNF.R
unnAN
CITY
CITY
FniNCF.
CITY
FIUNCF.
CUT
FniNCF.
CITY
FRINCF
CITY
FniNCF
CITY
FHINHF.
CITY
FRINCF,
CITY
FRINCF,
CITY
FRIBCF.
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
FR1NCF.
CITY
FniNCF
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
FniNCF.
CITY
FniNCF.
CITY
CITY
FniNCF.
CITY
FttlNCF.
CITY
FniNCF.
CITY
FniNCE
119.
in.
2S.
26.
211.
'.16 .
Ti.
31.
10.
III.
II.
21.
49 .
56 .
4.
32.
6:1.
nr. .
157.
45 .
15 .
51.
17.
2*»5 .
I'M .
41
:i7.
12.
22.
26.
2-
2:i.
44.
in i .
14.
7.
41 .
:i6 .
r.4.
6 .
•
9
I
I
9
0
ft
ft
»
A
f»
4
6
n
7
n
2
n
A
0
A
5
n
o
<»
n
2
4
«,
1
9
A
9
1
7
3
7
1
4
6
147*
c pK.nsom
33747 1
I2922A
46A4:i
76114 1
629 14
i:ill69A
:I7II6
969:i 1
4246 1
n:io29
2417
1135 1 9
IA7H6A
762H2
1771
I9n:in»
I. '167 40
246555
-T67242
62IW2
127 IS
I7771H
47446
3934f>3
211:1411 1
I65V72
Uf.'ft '\fi
I\*\U t i
1:1795
045 IA
4OI9
61(109
1975:14
155 169
6AA9 1
HIRI4
II76H4
4 1421
144245
IM»07
If 73
AUTO
IH2847
6 IA77
21746
49744
176'MI
652RI
17112
B36A.-I
214411
4A27A
1 172
23714
47fM*«
H76B7
B71
9367H
66244
I7I97A
206 I4H
2fW?lfl
37112
B0951
2241 1
2I9B96
ir.IM.TO
1127:1 1
411,1 19
n 191:1
BI7I
36566
27:12
2H575
|f>l*4n
79H77
293H6
ni2H
3TI9A1
in:i7n
01121
4625
i9n
Tnucit
324*7
95A1
:i:ui6
74:iA
6 1 2'-l
IR9I5
5 16
7«snn
H146
11129
1R2
4A69
B2AH
4-4AI
IA2
I76:i:i
12469
2IA76
31:192
I37H2
279A
IH295
4HH4
B2IIIA
1IU*4II
2IIM96
16 5 114
7424
I9AD
747H
559
7I7B
I7H71
I4A4A
IA7A5
1926
6615
HI.14
16416
9 I I
-------
TABLE 28 (Continued)
CITY CITY
TWE CODF. CITY NAPIF.
1 ft!)
1 RA
i n?
i nn
i ni
1 90
1 91
1 92
g 91
1 94
1 98
1 96
B 97
1 9fl
1 99
1 I«H»
g ioi
CRFCTSV I |,|,F :, .cr
RAnn.Tnn.nn
iiAni.iwrrN.TX
IIAnRlpni»RY,PA
iiARTFonn.roww
men POIITT.IIC
HorroMnji.nAWAi i
fWMISTTlN.TX
mfWTI fWTTTW . WV
mm«5viuJr..AL
iimiANAp«n>is. in
JACKSON. HI
JACKPOB. ns
JAC10W1NVIMJ>..FI,
.nmns •nttm. TA
JOI.IFTT. II.
KAMnA7nn.ni
I IO1 KF.ROSilA. VI
I !«•* KROXVII.I.F,
i ion LA CIWISSF. wi
CITY /
"mi/Mi FHINCF
MNF.R CITY
FRIN
CITY
m 11»
rrrv
mir.An
inriF.R
IMinAN
FR I RCF.
CITY
FRINCF,
CITY
INNF.H CITY
nnnAH FRIHCF
IHPiF.R CITY
miner.
CITY
rnincr,
CITY
FninrF.
CITY
CITY
URHAR FnincR
IHNF.R CITY
JJHIIAH
ICHF.H
IBNMl
UIIIMff
IHNF.R
CITY
CITY
I/MIIAN
CITY
FR I r«CF.
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
IHNKH
CITY
FR I rtCF.
CITY
innF.R
HUMAN
CITV
LAnn AHF.A porin.Arion
2«.7
-TO. 3
H>.tt
. ft
7H.4
30.11
21.2
IK). <>
31 . I
434. •
i»r,.«
22.7
ia.9
nni .»
21 .H
If. .5
3B.S
4.3
77. f»
9.»
ITi.2
n.n
Aim*
.17
ir.iini7
f>:iiHr>
30442
i I7T.24
I2H24«7
in7H7B
«MI7
4.T4HI
7111.44
nun 7
I74SII7
ir.9in
r. 11.11
32*24
12:117
I272B
6439
BI499
9733B
IR9I*4
:i64rii
I7RH1
•4ABHH
47136
B.14DB
R2H7
364704
21970
9B9B3
73*. e«
2 2ft n 2
2»lfifl
>I4
37716
4IIA4
31372
2 I 32711
37f,ri4
2601
22M66
1045 A
3fi 12
I7OI
4IIAII
12449
IM7H
7 (112
176BM
6396
8*1293
1 IT12«
6997
724*9
4»!1.1
0311
BB96
B7369
:in:iit
31192
m»B
7916
a*.«n
6672
4Q2B2
nnr.n
1041
-------
TABLE 28 (Continued)
CITY CITY
TYPE COPE CITY NAW.
I 1*6 LAFAYETTE. LA
I 1*7 LAFAYETTE. IN
I Iflfl LAKE CHARLES.LA
I IW9 LANCASTER. PA
I lift LAN8INC.I1I
I III LAREDO.TX
I I 12 LAS VECAS.NV
I 113 LAWRENCE.HASS
I 114 LAWTON.O1C
I lid LrWISTON.PtAINT.
CD
tn
I 117 LIHA.OH
I MR LINCOLN. NEB
I 119 LITTLE ROCK,AR
I 120 LORAIN.OII
I 121 LOS ANCTLES.CA
I 122 LOUISVILLE. KY
I 123 LOWELL,HASS
I 124 LUHROCK.TX
I 123
i I2« HACON.CA
INNER CITY s
URRAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
IfRRAN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
I/RRAN FRINCF
INHKR CITV
imnrtN FRINGE
INNER CITV
llimAN FRINCE
IN"KR CITY
imnAn FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
URRAN FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
imnAN FRIRCE
INNF.R CITY
URRAN FRINCE
INNER CITY
imRAN FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
URJ1AN FRINCE
INNF.H CITY
URRAN FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
URRAN FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
IIFUIAN FRINCF
INNFR CITY
URRAN FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
URJ1AN FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
iniRAN FRINCE
INNER CITY
URRAN FHINCE
INNF.R CITY
URRAN FRINCF.
INNER CITY
INNF.R CITY
UPRAN FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
URJ1AN FRINCE
LAND AREA
* - £.
nt ••
1 . II
n*i A
••• . *
39. A
2H. 5
Ir
. \t
(11.6
69. 4
•IQ 1
<»^ . 1
44 9
31.2
12.11
34.6
33.4
23.0
17.0
11.7
IB. 3
49. 3
2. 7
49.3
43.7
40. 0
66.0
590.0
9O2 0
60. 0
150.0
13.6
4(1.4
77.0
25 . 1
1 1.9
49. ft
2.O
i*rfn
POPULATION 1973
< rt.HSONl AUTO
68* R4
9560
44935
34 162
7799(1
IH262
R75II9
595(111
I:ii6:ni
97IU10
6II9.-I7
1260
t *%f £_ m M
IZ564 I
1 1 1040
1 13047
O7233
74627
21060
41779
23433
IBHI37
r • ^^ •
•t 1 44f 1
B34H2
I6RI3
149518
"IQ*V t
.1923
149318
73B90
I*!*? i AH
.1^ 1 411
601 17
36I99H2
4731 2114
36 1453
377943
9425 I
9114 80
150135
n A nnt
ii**fiin
16759
12242^
1r A*»
->«i4^
3*083
4206
I8329
13928
34319
4515
27031
27953
6176 1
43923
24973
436
7T4IB
68421
33732
43006
42118
1 1836
21266
1 1927
OA230
26728
29939
9«I2
71662
1881
729 H2
3R6O0
746;i:i
33962
1*46931
2344647
183982
192376
46-466
48301
75374
24822
7691
A4267
2962
1973
TRUCK
1 1727
1623
4133
3157
l:il!64
1745
4132
4270
12479
9279
3173
58
I8T79
16596
6323
B033
12331
3342
6016
3374
13639
6492
B309
1669
I44H2
380
21207
10368
Il4f.:i
34130
313020
409 1 1 7
32*64
33327
3438
B682
21438
6244
1933
I2A02
590
-------
TABLE 28 (Continued)
CITT CITT
TYVF. conr CITY
I07»
i 127 HADimm.vi
I 120
I 129 FWHSFIF,U».OH
RrAU.FW.TX
in)
I.-12
i SM niAni,FL
00
CTi
137 WiniLK.AL
BORROK.LA
II 941 HOFCIF.. |R
i 142 nujHTF.cow.nl
a 149
I 0*4 PA5n«V||,LF.,TF.!lW
0 143 RF.W
I 14* WF,W
D 147 WF.W
CITT
CITT
FRIRCF.
FRIRCF.
IDNF.R CITY
FniRCF.
CITY
imiiftn FRINCF.
IHNKR CITY
IWnKR CITY
nniiAN FRirirr
INWF.R CITY
IHflF.R CITY
IFRIIAH FRIPCF.
IPRF.R CITY
IKPER CITY
imnAn FRIHCF.
IFW.R CITY
imn/\P FRIRCF.
IHBF.R CITY
1RRF.R CITY
BRPF.R
IFRRAW
IRRF.R
IHNF.R
IWPF.R
irRRAH
innrR
innF.R
inwF.R
CITY
FRIRCf.
CITY
FRIRCF.
CITY
FRIRCF.
CITY
FRIRCF.
CITY
CITY
FRIRCF.
CITY
FRIRCF.
CITY
FRIRCF
LART) ARF.A
(SO nil.
4A.B
24. I
M..9
19 .n
2:1.7
47. n
224. 7
29.2
2.n
I»7.B
614.8
I 16. *
r,i .4
9.5
24.S
22.2
17.H
4.6
4.6
12.n
12.2
I:I.R
ng .4
2.ft
n*4.»
i9.n
11.n
23.7
MB.4
1111.6
I9T3
Airm
173242
H22IK
9I77H4
7:1116
717824
7*4.121
IllfJJI*,
AI7I2
4 I m.147
BSI2
4411444
IWI7R9
|:I77|S
2 I Of, 26
I4RH6
47:iB7
H9RB
1:1790
29S7IO
:I447I
2*177
nr.nnsa
42^
32H7B9
24I«R«
94947
20R2H
24R9R
IS04B
2919
9129
2*317
3*143
277*
IH73Q
BI4OO
29911
1141X12
12304
746
496R
47 in
2999
227H
2 I IB*
9 J in
934
92492
242R3
21E2R2
7944
I2I32
R727
9304
ISI6
ft 2*
74^4
22^6
4 I OS
SH7I
CR4I
4472
-------
TABLE 28 (Continued)
CITY CITY
TYPF, CODF. CITY HAfTF.
INWF.R CITY /•
FRINCF.
I I4R
I 149 HF.W YOUK.HY
i inn
' i3i NORFORJC.VA
i ir,2 no
i i rvn ODF.SSA. TX
i ir,4
r.3 OPU.AnOMA CITY,
IIMAIIA, (OWA
CD
i isn osinrosR.rr
i ir.v owKNsnonn.KY
I 161
I 162 PFORIA. II,
I 163 PCTTRPHURC.VA
I 164 PniLARF.LPniA.PA
I 16.1 PlinKNIX, ARI7
I 166 PI UK nUJFF.AR
I 167 PITTPRimr.PA
I I6fl PITTSFIF.LD.PIARS
I 169 PORT ARTTRrn.TX
CITY
CITY
FRINCE
INHI.R CITY
IIRRAfl FRINCF.
IHNF.R CITY
FRINGE
ci nr
FRINCF.
C I TV
FRINCF,
INNKR CITY
IHIRAN
1/llllAfl
mm/if"
URiiAn
inrtF.R
INHKR
imiiAn
ifUF.H
URHAfl
CITY
CITY
FRIHCF
CITY
FRIHCF
CITY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRIKCF.
CITY
IHHF.R CITY
IflNF.R CITY
IHI1F.R
IMlllAfl
inNF.R
UR/IAPr
URRAN
IHHKR
IFRRAN
IHNKR
uiniAn
CITY
FRINCF,
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
FRIIfCF.
CITY
FRI nr.F.
CITY
FRIIfCF.
CITY
FRINCF.
LAWP AHFA
CSQ ffll.KS)
POPULATION
IIW.*
162.*
12:i. II
l«».2
ni .*.
217.4
III.4
(> . 6
21.«
4«. A
m-».«
7f.. f,
74.4
27. T,
IO4 . r.
7*.«
42.«
24.*
42.*
37.4
69.«
n.*
34.*
I97.T
Airm
6^;j. r,
24ii. n
I4H.M
16. I
4.9
S5.B
341 .*
.4
3.6
4R.2
L'4. n
961720 42316ft
RR2*ir. I 2*17343
?:inf>69ft
00242
R797IUI
14
r.o:ii7
2016
162773
n i ruin
r.9^7i
I«7*4H
126964
I 2*inn
361*3
64.114
I94flh*9
207^4.17
TilllhOA
.'16 1 2
4 1119 14
4327
IB27AA
4U7IIJ
l(>949
44214
IR42
327223
166943
6B9I4
6636 I
I3R496
27962
263R3
147:;
0411 I
4231*
3*929
6433«
26824
94IH7I
I«»I7;I4
.'1277*9
ir,H7r.9
22349
1422
2B2RR9
644399
2HI62
2R34
2H37O
29226
1973
Tiiirric
163494
II3HI4
9S.TI7
I752S
63*
32194
19 | A.I
4J45
1473
I44l4n
A 19
1*41*
97BI4
3«66H
1266*
12:116
2Ti7**
l**97
7S22
421
17343
H724
A396
I 1493
I24A2
I IHI3
32.19
(in 17
143927
ir.:i«r:i
97IJ7
779*
491
3B6:|«
9H463
3296
332
799O
HIM 7
-------
TABLE 28 (Continued)
CITY CITT
TYPK COt>F. CIT7 HAW.
riTT
LAH1> ARKA
isu niu
I97A
POPULATION
ATTO
1973
TRUCK
i IT*
I 171 POKTLAHO.On
i 172 pnovinFHCF.m
I 173 PIWVO.UT
i 174 pirp.nLO.co
IRflER.
URRAN
IRHF.R
IUBFR
IIIUIAH
IRHF.R
irnnAR
00
03
|7«
177
170
179
i no
ini
102
103
I ft*
I TO
106
107
inn
HALF.irn.rn:
W.ADIHr.PA
nr.no. HF.V
nOAHOKR.VA
ROCICFORO, IL
8AcinAV.ni
ST. josF.pn.no
ST. LOUlfi.no
PT.
MRRAN
IHRF.R
IKHF.R
CITY
FRINCF,
CITY
FRIHCF.
CITY
FRINCF.
C5TY
FRIRCF.
CITY
FRinCF.
CITY
FRIWCF.
CITY
FRIRCF.
CITY
IHRF.R
unnAH
INRF.R
innF.R
INRF.R
URflAfl
MRF.R
innF.R
SlUHAd
CITY
FRIWCT.
CITY
FRIWCF
CITY
FniHCT.
CITY
FRinCF.
CUT
FRIRCE
CITY
FRIRCP.
CITY
FRIRCK
CITY
FRIRCF.
CITY
CITY
MRRAR
innrn
CITY
FRIRCK
CITY
rn i RCP,
21.ft
34. 4
O9.M
I7O.«
A I .11
102.2
HA .2
2O. O
^2.Ti
9.S
1:1. i
14.9
44.9
2ft. t
!•.«
31 .A
no. 3
7.7
nri.3
:i9.4
13.4
I .ft
3ft.7
IAQ *1
34.2
2ft. O
93. H
l!llt.2
17.3
2A.7
211.7
3.3
ftl .2
.0
.4
n.ft
24.ft
12.4
4l4fl3
443«»49
4.134117
7IUU12
974^:1
9SI93
222 I!)
12 I 120
H7A2I
7 291ft 3
249ft2I
I6A942
921 l!l
3AHI2B
147203
r.nii79
29117
33144
21 I 13
2lfl«l3
107923
3242ft
I«37I
44349
IR39A
17931
3O244
123947
R2B93
49012
34*72
2ft 202
I3TO
191147
I3B4HC1
7SH9I
I3I4II
198991
43897
317:13
1942
24792
I37WT*
177077
^9423
14321
9377
8974
4A94H
B*7Oft
2ft77n
31O92
I32ft9
4244
I61OII
1*14
Bfl*2
I3AO
1*041
4333
ft374
B842
I4A7O
04O3
24*24
i ea*2
7747
07*3
301
IR37*
HR9I
«7Bft
BI3BB
7927
4OI2
9374
SB*
24M34
7«97
237H
-------
TABLE 28 (Continued)
00
CITY CITY
TYPF, CODR CITY HAHR
,
1
1
I
1
I
|
1
1
|
I
1
1
|
1
I
|
1
1
1
1
I9O
191
192
i9:i
194
195
196
197
19(1
199
2OO
201
202
203
204
203
206
207
20R
2O9
210
SAL IN AS. CA
SALT LAKF. CITY.UT
SAN ANCT.I-O.TX
SAN ANTON IO.TX
SAN nF.RNARIHNO.CA
SAN DIF.CO.CA
SAN FRANC 1 SCO. C A
PAN JOSF..CA
SANTA BAHnARA.CA
SANTA IIOSA.CA
SAVANNAP.CA
9CRAFTON. PA
SRASIPR.CA
SRATTLR.VA
RTTRRHAN . TX
SnW.VRPORT.LA
81 HI VALLRT.CA
SIOUX CITY. IOWA
SIOUX FALLS. SI)
SOUTH RF.NO. IN
SPOKANR.WA
INHF.R
UlinAN
INNRR
HIUIAH
INNF.R
1IRRAN
INNF.R
INNF.R
IIIIHAN
INNF.R
URRAN
INNKR
URdAN
INNF.R
URBAN
INNKR
IIIXRAN
INNF.R
URJ1AN
INNF.R
irnnAN
INNF.R
ilHJ* A™
1 ™ n r , R
1 jRJi n ™
1 rl r* r. *\
URRAN
INNF.R
HUMAN
INNF.H
URRAN
INNF.R
URBAN
INNF.R
inUIAN
1 HNKR
UlinAN
INNF.R
ifTUiAn
INNFR
UIU1AN
INNF.R
UlinAN
CITY s
LAND AW.A
FHINCF. (so nn.KS)
CITY
Fll 1 NCR
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
CITY
FR 1 NCR
CITY
FHINCR
«:i TV
Fill NCR
CITY
FRINCF,
CITY
FRINCF,
CITY
FHINCR
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
FRINCR
CITY
FRINCR
CITY
FRINCR
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
FRINCR
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
FRINCF,
CITY
FRINCF,
CITY
FR 1 NCR
CITY
FRINCR
in.
1 .
119 .
124.
34.
IIV4.
:i9 .
I i*>.
194.
3 17.
f>4.
114.
5f,7 .
inf..
141 .
21 .
1*1.
20.
III.
27.
37.
25.
72.
16.
7.
1 13.
3IIA.
19.
15.
57.
37.
23.
2.
52.
II.
;j .
2.
20.
7:i .
r>A.
27 .
3
7
3
7
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
n
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
7
3
9
1
A
A
1
9
A
A
O
A
A
A
r.
A
2
n
n
2
I97O
POPULATION
(PKIISilN*
!HW9fi
nr.ttO
I7r.in:i
30:15 29
f>:irui4
65421)9
1 1 11224
244U.3
3M9434
«.'»f.T.«.*i
501757
1 143713
III44I37
44fi504
r.7H7f.9
7A2I 1
59563
49 O7 3
252 IO
1 IIU144
4!I4«9
IO3494
1007 1 1
6223 1
3IO33
9R4622
65:14115
29079
26264
IH22(1A
5-22114
56676
26O
(15925
IOOI2
724(1
26 5 n
I25IIO2
|f.277O
I7f»5 If,
59104
1973
Aim)
2fl674
1733
91247
IB7R3I
33R2I
3O7364
(IS53H
12^10711
171 102
360 1:12
2f>3O | r.
502407
939O7O
246514
3195341
36959
31354
27H7I
i4«nfl
B9I47
22699
6O647
B90I7
3O3O7
19109
3ASB2H
341516
16703
IH036
BO2O3
2:IOA!1
292O7
134
42327
4932
39A2O
i4:i I
07A4A
73(M»2
119295
3A9T> 1
1973
TRUCK
6729
407
26:137
454*9
1 lf.f.4
6B677
12409
44334
61632
7A4iril|
504f.5
IO5IW6
1704.04
44669
579AI
7AO4
645O
H74f.
4421
1 1069
4247
10290
10021
71 12
3(1411
70916
792*9
AB93
H324
309IU1
HBHH
6A39
2H
II 3311
1321
9974
366
II 139
1441 1
26367
9 139
-------
TABLE 28 (Continued)
CITY CITT
rrrr. com CITT
CITT x
FRIPCF
LAOT> ARF.A
(80 nn.Fs>
J9T*
POPWI.ATIOW
211
212
213
214
21!)
2IA
217
2IH
219
22*
221
222
223
224
221
226
227
22fl
229
230
UPRIHnTIF.LD, IL
ppRincFiFLn.no
R CITT
«;ITV
III1UAH
(JPRIHGFIF.LO.PM9S
«rmmF.nviLi.F..on
STOCKTON,CA
CITY
FRitier
CITY
FIIIHCF.
IHftF.R CITY
FRIKCF.
CITY
u»n/\n
CITY
FRIUCF.
CITY
FRIHCF
IHHF.R CITY
IhMF.R CITY
TAPiPA.FL
TF.HRF. IIAOTF,. IB
TF.XARKAWA.TX
TF.XAS CITY.TX
IWNF.R CITY
IJRRAW FRIRCF,
IHHF.R CITY
linRAN FRINCF.
IHBK.R CITY
IIRRAH FRinCF.
IBKF.R CITY
IKNF.R CITT
TRFWTOW.RJ
TOC«:OH.Ani7.
IWNF.R CITY
imnAH FRIRCR
IRHKR CITY
imnAN Fixinc.F.
IHMK.ll CITY
unnAN FRincF.
IHHF.H CITY
TUSCAI.OOSA. AL
TYI.FR, TX
ICHF.R ci rv
FRIHCF.
CITY
20.2
n.n
Al .!!
I*!?
n.n
BA.3
ini.7
nn. i
:il .9
27 .2
11.11
29.9
17. I
2T5.B
7«.2
47.7
III .3
2*>. I
3.9
114. T.
2*. I
IA.2
14.H
n::.»
ni .2
R4.B
47. !l
Tt.S
7.H
97.3
. 110. A
2.T . O
I72.W
II.»
27.4
lf>. A
23. I
1.9
29107
I |9999
nmr.ft
I IBA3
2:iH7l4
274«,4
IW7439
R29I4
I9727W
I7IUI99
1779ft*,
71934
n9!9
27773*
2IMV73
II4RR4
1*3774
I2493Q
717*
1*49781
lf.9T.7H
'.777*»
2" t I
471QO
in 2.1*
RAH**
4921VH
1 IR22I
27217
I2HR2
B247H
750*2
79514
R6992
37S72
I7A2I7
D774I
2«33I
44 IB
14094
13434
4*531
2*7234
AA94*
349ft
9499*
|!>«76tl
96*2*9
222W7
3*424
929B
IC««4
I9MO4
6A92
I34A.1
nn3!i
4722
2233
18199
R9AI
123**
2«397
234**
71*4
SR9
AA9I
97A*
1471
971*
303I3
9RH2
96093
7»47
73*3
2231
91119
:!42
-------
TABLE 28 (Concluded)
IX)
CITY CITY
IHITF.R
CITY /
I.AIVT) ARFA
TYPE COPE CITY RAfTF. IMUlAlf FRinCF. (Ml PI II. HO
1 232
1 2H3
1 234
1 233
1 23ft
1 2t17
1 23R
1 2fl9
1 240
1 241
1 242
1 243
1 244
1 243
1 246
1 247
1 2411
trricA.nv
VIHELANT). H.l
WACO.TX
WA5HIHCTf)N.DC
WATFnnURY.COlTK
WATERLOO, IOWA
WF.ST PALH PF.ACn.PL
WIlF.F.LinC.WV
WIcniTA.KAWS
WICT1ITA FALLS. TX
WILKKS.PA
•• 1 Ln 1 Hfj'i^ili , Ifr/ij
•• 1 L.H 1 WC«T\Jn i ™fj
w i USTOR . we
woncESTF.n , HAWJ
Yonic. PA
vnimcsTown , on
INFFH
HHRAN
INNFH
iimiAfi
i nt*F.n
i/nnAn
INHF.R
imiiAn
innF.n
lll\H n o
1 rl rl F, t\
Million
IMNKH
uniiAM
innF.u
unnAn
innr.n
ininAN
INMF.n
inwr.u
unnAN
1 P"NF.R
IIIUIAN
INNF.n
unnAN
innKti
imnAn
innni
unnAn
innF.R
i/iinAi
inr«i-n
iMin^n
CITY
FIVIUCE
CITY
Fill nCE
CITY
FHIUCF.
CITY
FH 1 nCE
CITY
FnincE
CITY
FnincF.
CITY
FHIHCF.
CITY
FninrF.
CITY
FI\I nCF,
CITY
CITY
FUIUCF.
CITY
FRI NCE
CITY
FFll DCE
CITY
Fill NCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
Fill NCE
CITY
Fill RTF,
16.
Ti9.
69 .
IB
Till.
31 .
ft 1 .
433.
27.
32.
r.'» .
<> .
30.
'»7 .
1:1.
14.
116.
IB.
42.
6 .
76 .
12.
97 .
17.
1 1 .
T.6.
9.
37.
46.
& .
31 .
4Ti .
n:i .
*
B
r,
r,
7
3
4
6
6
4
2
II
4
f.
:i
7
r,
Tt
A
7
:i
<»
I
5
r,
r.
r.
4
6
3
7
ft
4
POPULATION
( vt nsorn
9lftS4
IIII7AI
473!»
97164
snni7
i64mn
n«nrw>
2'MIIUII
46 169
1 147ft
I329AI
96O3
I766O3
70013
r»«3!ir,
72771
2«:il74
192366
IfTtl
AlfTO
3ft 34*
3f!lft9
24O7W
1:1139
49294
I2lftl
2ft4H24
ft«2*lft
*>6R4fl
30153
3B693
I9W97
OIM.2H
IT.T, I | I
2WBB4
I9;I2A
Ift3334
13132
nnni i
344«,7
961 17
41*77
I4B64*
213R9
631 1
7677*
5593
R7*ftn
3491 1
23724
3429B
1 12421
106441
1971
TIIUCK
ft 194
1994
276 O
ir>«7
141 16
:i5Bi
2I2HO
411472
B79I
2624
IIH6 1
4127
ri:it4
2 1663
4W22
:i72<»
42O2 1
:i967
I49IIW
3 or. 2
lft:i 19
IU142
31997
5422
I34R
1.1124
1 1*2
1*19*
4*O6
3624
fi239
13196
12494
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1973) and U.S. Federal Highway Administration (1978).
-------
TABLE 29. EXPOSURE/DOSAGE ANALYSIS DATA BASE FOR TYPE II CITY AREA SOURCES
CITY CITT
TYTF, COOF.
riTT HART,
LAP!) AHFA
pwtrLATio*
< rF.nsom
1*73
Airnj
TOUCH
iM
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
3
*
7
n
9
iff
1 1
12
in
14
13
1*
17
IB
19
2O
21
22
23
24
23
2*
27
2n
29
no
31
32
nn
:;•*
33
3ft
37
3(1
39
4«
Aimifvmii.AL
nF,SSF.HF.H. AL
nF.CA11lll. AL
l.AL
F..AL
riiF.nix CITV.AL
SF.I.HA. AL
FI.ACSTAFF. AB
VDPIA.An
F.L notiArwt. nn
KAYF.TTF.V I I.LF.. AB
iioTspniric. AH
JOURSnono.An
VF.ST m.firins. AB
cnnonA.CA
FAinFIF.LO.CA
LOPI.CA
LOHPOC.CA
fl/M'A.CA
ni-.vAnic.CA
HIWATO.CA
OI:F.AHSIDF..CA
nt.itwoon
SAN i.'MP oniFrn.CA
KAR RAFAF.L.CA
PANTA
PARTA
VISALIA.CA
WALnirr cnF.nr.rA
FOITT COLL IHS. CO
CIIF.FLF.Y.CO
(SI-.H
I*. I
14.4
44. »
32-4
19.9
7.9
III. I
2:1.4
I2.*»
R.7
7.4
23.11
23.2
13.4
14.3
I I .«*
7. I
9.9
i:«. I
2O. 3
33.2
21 .81
•». I
14.3
12.2
14.3
12.4
14.7
in.a
7.7
44.11
22. :!
ft . I
334114
3IM44
3*733
[»:i9 I I
27:179
4BI37
2*117
232113
33*3 I
23929
HTiBf.7
4414*
3237M
2IW.9I
:i3>»7ll
27IRI
4«»49I
:MI-»49
32749
272*31
391133
433*11
3*90:1
179:17
19379
299W9
I347R
14393
82327
13*91
i*Ml2«
i in*?
|R«23
43*39
142 I I
17097
inmn
I4«ll
1,1.128
I773B
21223
|R»34
I497J
22^191!
872:19
213*9
28370
22732
31329
32**
64*7
*243
R270
429B
11323
470|
8221
R3*«
*232
73B4
8730
277|
4667
2f9l«
4639
2742
D2«W
249fi
4«72
792W
3133
4H74
3347
3941
774 ^
I97B
272ft
l*9«
-------
TABLE 29 (Continued)
OJ
CITT
TYPT.
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
;»
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
^
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
CITT
COOF,
41
42
43
4-4
45
4ft
47
40
4V
5O
5 1
52
no
54
55
5ft
57
5/1
59
ft«
ftl
ft2
ft 3
ft4
*3
ftft
*7
ftn
A9
70
71
72
70
74
75
7*
77
7H
79
no
CITT nAW,
noHwicH.con
sirF.i/mn.con
TORR i ncron , con
IIAYIUN/V iiF.Arn.Fi,
HIHT rfVT.IlS. H,
FORT PIKni;F..KL
KF.Y WKST.H.
LAKT.LAnn.KL
WF.I.rWMHINF,.FL
piF.niiiTr isi.Ann.FL
rAIMHA CITY.FI.
POrtPANO I1KACII. Fl.
HAflAPOTA.FI,
Trnisvii.i.K.Fi.
ATIIF.ns.CA
nOMF.CA
VAUM1STA.CA
wARNF.n nonins.CA
HILO.IIA
IOAIIO FALLS, in
LF.wisron. in
POTAT»-.Ufl. ID
ALTnn. II.
HKLI.F.VILLF,. IL
PAnviU.F,. IL
OF. KALn. IL
F.AST ST. IX>DIS. IL
FPlF.F.PlHrT. IL
r.Ai.Ksmmc. IL
KAnKAKF.K. II.
PKKin. ii.
oinncY, IL
nixxmincrron. in
cm.unniis. in
FJKIIAIIT. in
icoKonn. in
riAnion, in
niciiicAn. in
HF.W ALRArtY. in
ninmoNP. in
I97A
LAm> AHF.A popirumon
(so nn.KS) .
'^2-
12
10
4.
12
nn .
if..
1:1
i i .
14.
1 *•
14.
1:1.
1 1 .
15.
r.h.
9.
15.
1:1.
1 1 .
9.
IZ.
:i.
in.
H.
12.
7.
9.
1 1.
II.
n.
15.
9.
9-
2«-
1 1 .
r.i.
§
n
ft
ii
ii
f.
i
ft
t
•£
II
5
M
•_t
7
5
1
r,
i
4
|
7
«
ft
9
4
9
3
2
ft
1
9
4
7
ft
2
ft
ft
:i
7
4i4m
27194
:||952
4n:i27
27:15 1
2*»72II
27:12:1
4ir.r.o
44*: 1 12
2V2.1-.I
H2 1 ^5
n77i i
44»2H7
nor, 15
441142
n»75ft
H25B2
n:i4:i«
2ft:ir,9
:i577ft
2*0ftll
4«Nt:u,
:i97«A
4i9*»n
424>9*
029211
fc9947
277Hft
Oft29«
;I«IHI*.
OI297
45ZHR
4277ft
272*5
40594
44042
:<9ii:ift
0927:)
OH402
4401 »
1970
Atrro
2SH23
Ift752
!9ftH2
I7f.2ll
III 190
1701.4
I5ftll0
249Ti2
25114ft
111740
111440
2«.:i*M»
:n:iio
I95ftfl
20191
ift*»nn
Ift99ft
I9AO4
12ft 2ft
nun 7
10047
2*»4'»H
I949O
2*577
2«9ft|
IftlftR
04044
lOftIB
I7HIII
15 l(.5
1 5IKtft
2220ft
2IOIU1
I0ft4ll
21797
22021
199 in
I9ft09
19201
2'JO|»5
1*7.1
TRUCK
2221
I41B
1710
4ft2'»
052ft
25 ft 7
0279
ft4ft2
0517
2Sft5
OO5T,
0224
4P.OR
2*711
ftSIB
4321
477H
03«9
2lft7
11019
H2«9
12001
4OO9
401ft
43*7
0092
72M
2RII7
070n
omi
2ft74
4ftft5
ft4lft
4*94
«309
ftft
-------
TABLE 29 (Continued)
CITT CITT
TTPF. COOF.
CITY HAHF.
AHF.A
I9T«
ponn.ATioN
I PF.RSI IN >
1973
tvn
vo
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
81
B2
nn
A4
R9
fWi
117
an
119
90
VI
92
93
94
93
9*
97
90
99
10*
IA2
l«4
IAS
ion
109
10
II
12
13
14
in
IA
IT
Ifl
19
120
ARTS. IA
nuw.incrron.
CLINTON. IA
FOIIT noncF..
IOWA CITY. IA
nARSIIALLTOVN. I A
PAWN CITY. |A
IA
IA
HUTCI! I NSON . KA
l,AWnF,NCF..KA
I.KAVKN WORTH .KA
HANIIATTAn.KA
OVF.IILAND PARK.KA
PRAIRIF. VILLAI:F..KA
SALINA.KA
no wi. IRC rnF.pni.RF.
FORT KNOX.KK
rADUTAII.KF.
ALEXANDRIA. LA
nOPSIF.H CITY, LA
KF.KNKR. LA
RF.W
. rtn
ATrLF.nono.riA55ji
CMM»CF«J-JT.R. MftSS
HAm.Ronoiw:n,nAss
TAIIRTON . flASS
nATTI.F.CRF.KK.nirn
iifiu,A«r>.m«;M
nini.AMi>.nirn
roirr innwm.fticn
YrsiLAim.nM:ii
riAAKATO.NN
HT. i
ift.n
14. 3
21. I
14.A
13. 2
11.9
13.4
IA.7
11.9
7.4
4*.2
13.n
I*.2
2«. 2
11.9
12.0
21. I
O.3
14.2
7.3
34.3
3.H
II.•
2?!o
24.7
47.0
II .H
ri.ll
24.9
7.3
4. I
9.n
in.(i
32444
34719
2 A.I A A
29698
.1*IH13
23 I 47
27333
2JII04
37714
.16233
31*27
41507
417.10
29910
30147
29392
33IH.2
27937
4373*
31193 I
2*337
331129
293N2
230:11
17:131
2*002
14*33
1*923
2030R
23342
42739
1362*
209*9
ll»272
III90I
139 411
IO37O
13393
I3I*«
132*3
i*nira
I3OO*
I33H7
111303
16223
13773
13772
21372
I97W1
111272
1*309
14129
13091
ir, inn
1*433
8310
67)6
79R7
6471
969H
94(lfl
*3I2
*I47
11623
A4I2
7027
71*7
9*17
«89O
R7BA
7»9B
9232
9129
4T7*
2409
2*39
3174
IR99
1*12
1*12
2620
39101
2HIR
37*7
33.17
2129
43K*
B4O7
3301
4617
-------
TABLE 29 (Continued)
CITY CITY
TYPE CODF.
CITY IfAHF.
2
2
2
vo
tn
2
2
•»
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
••
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
121
122
123
124
123
126
127
I2O
120
I3O
131
132
133
134
135
136
i:i7
inn
139
I4O
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
I4O
149
5Z
53
54
157
511
59
,i,F. m
IIATTIESni/Tli:.ni
PA«S«:A<;OHLA. m
vicKsnimc.ni
CAPF. i: i RAnnF.AU.no
.
KI.OniSSANT.nO
FOHT LF.oNAniiwoon.no
JF.FFF.nSON CITY.rtO
JOPMN.no
Kinxwoon.no
HA VIT> wn.no
ST. ciiARLrs.no
CIIANI) ISLAND. NF.
corironn.mi
PORTS HOUTll.NH
LIIMC nnANCM.N.i
NF,W nnuNswicK.NJ
OLO im IIK;F.. N.I
SAYm;VII.LK..rU
CLOUIS.NP1
LAS CHIICES. Nn
nOSWFLL.NM
SANTA FF..NH
i. NY
F.I, ni HA. NY
ITIIACA. NY
KINCSTON.NY
NIAGARA FALLS.BY
Nonni TONAnvANnA.
rom:nicF.F.PsiF,.NY
'. NY
LAND AHF.A
iso nn.Ks)
0.3
II. *
17.5
25 . 4
14.9
lO . 5
III. 5
5 .1)
9 .O
12.2
III II
2O. 7
II. 9
1* . *
9 . r»
7 . 9
1 1 . 1
63 . 3
15.2
5 . 1
5 . 6
6 . M
4. 7
16. 2
11.4
16. 6
17.11
24 . [i
2'f . 4
5. II
II. 5
7. 3
5.6
9. 5
7. 7
'3.9
13.4
!«.«
4. II
9 . 2
197*
POPULATION
f CF.IISON)
2R793
306411
311274
45UI|;i
27471
25rifl6
309 III
2IU137
f.r,(M»4
33II4II
H
39227
3 HUM
3:163!;
31034
294*3
3121.9
3*022
26IIUI
3 1774
41055
25176
30777
325«H
2ar553
26 1*9
:i7ar»7
339OB
41 167
25524
34599
39945
26226
39795
25544
26219
(15610
36* 1 2
33029
307117
1973
Airro
1 1 nr>*
1744^
I6O4 1
I9ii:i7
I2MII7
i iLT.n
14439
14944
342B7
I5IW7
I5M6 1
IH3I9
16521
15569
15741
m29f)
I6f,:i^
16212
14142
16.1116
211140
13142
2*242
16969
I45«n
13263
19231
17225
2*913
IMIWtA
1 2O7 1
I7M6B
97H6
14(1*4
95*2
9753
37243
15666
150119
1 I4T.3
1*73
Tniiric
448H
6H99
666*
71144
47O*
44fi2
4576
1514
3465
n*i*
4773
!IR*6
1674
2762
3B63
9527
711 17
3*32
2645
1(146
2432
1463
22C3
IIW9
71 1*
6101
9426
B443
1*251
17*5
1754
2751
133*
2*10
1295
1329
4520
I9B5
1792
1561
-------
TABLE 29 (Continued)
CITT CITT
TTTK Cnnr.
CITT BAJ1K
LATO AREA
(Sft ni
1973
AHTU
I9TS
2 141
2 1*2
2 1*3
2 1*4
2 1*3
2 I**
2 1*7
2 1*0
2 1*9
2 17*
2 171
2 172
2 173
2 174
2 173
2 17*
2 177
2 I7O
2 179
2 100
2 101
2 IO2
2 IIVI
2 IO4
2 105
2 IO*
2 107
2 MUl
2 IO9
2 190
2 191
2 192
2 I9:i
2 194
2 199
2 I9tt
2 197
2 1911
2 199
2 2*
BURL I HCTOn. RC
CAHP I.FJF.in»F..I»C
ccMjusnono. r*c
CW.KNVILLK.M:
nocmr nmmT.nr
WILSON. PC
BIRItARCK.ro
CRAM
ninor.iiD
AOSTIWTOW.OH
FIUI»LAY.Ofl
LAiM:A-sTm.nq
RASSILOn.Ofl
PORTS urn rrn, on
XFNiA.nfi
7ANFMViiJ.r..nn
POfCA.OK
SIIAVHF.F..OK
CORVAI.I.IS.OH
nr.nFnnn.OR
LF.IIANnn. PA
RF.w <:A.«m,r..fA
PTATF.
in.2
I*.4
7.0
19.9
9.M
11.4
29.9
12.4
II. I
I*.9
9.2
n. i
0.2
9.3
7.3
II .4
13. I
7. I
H.9
12.2
9. I
A.fl
II. I
23.3
22.3
III.7
32.3
7.9
12.2
4.*
7.7
9. I
7.9
in.n
34317
25541
2*1121
29W7R
291147
34*44
3227*
293*3
H2279
ri2<» I I
niy.ni
4IO22
29*72
445411
37:1:11
2594«
231 :i g
3112*
33153
20454
2IIT.72
03770
37910
34R*2
4*1120
21 194
11195ft
14213
14725
939*4
I9O94
1*1 1*
1*045
13975
134*17
1*249
yiM.59
15270
195 g7
IHO43
IB972
19 I 10
24145
IAO7*
e*?no
2259ft
19794
191 13
23 «9]
4914
nn92
4I3H
fl«79
4345
47 III
OO7»
H3B9
47B4
12273
134322
ll«24
1835
1696
1704
2910
321*
3724
3497
2947
37OI
249O
2904
2294
29 B7
I 1*44
ll«93
9*31
3*27
B929
no3i
B4I4
4302
24)43
3O37
33* I
277*
2723
3*l»
3333
-------
TABLE 29 (Continued)
CITY
TYPF.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
CITY
COW.
2*1
2*2
203
1!04
2*5
•jo*
2O7
2»R
2O<»
21*
21 1
212
213
214
213
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
229
226
227
22R
229
23O
231
232
233
234
233
236
237
238
239
24O
CITY WAHT.
rLORKWCT PC
ROCK IIILL.SC
SP ARTANnimC . BC
ARi-.nnF.F.n.sn
MAT ni «:iTY.sr>
O.AHKSVILLF..TH
JACKSON ,TH
JOHNSON CITY.TW
KINCSPORT.TH
nunFnFF.snono.Tn
OAK niiM:F.,Tn
me spniHn.TX
I>F.NTON.TX
FORT iK¥>n.TX
KILLF.F.H.TK
KINGSVILLF..TX
LONCVIF.W.TX
BF.SQUITF..TX
niciiAnnson.Tx
TF,m*LF,.TX
VICTORIA. TX
BI/HL 1 NCTTII1 . VT
CMARJXrnT.S V 1 LLF. . VA
DANVILLE. V A
RF.LL 1 MCllAn. WA
RnF.HF.HTon . WA
FORT LEWI8.WA
LAICKS niPTRICT.WA
LONt;viF.W. WA
MMMII.ANf). WA
YAKIHA.VA
FAIRnoWT.WV
noncArrmwn.wv
pAnicF.Rsnunc. wv
RF.I^IT.WI
F.AU CLAIRE. W1
FONDDULAC.WI
JArtKSVILLF.,WI
HANITOWOC.WI
SIIF,nOYC:AN. WI
LAWI) ARF,A
(su nn.Fsi
9.0
14. 1
16.3
5.6
16.5
•J3 . II
17.3
13. 6
17.4
1 1.3
R2.7
IL'.O
27.6
R.2
26. O
10. o
22.6
25 . II
2(1. O
22-6
16.6
IO. 1
10.4
16.7
20.8
9.B
13. H
13. O
1 1 . 1
23. 1
11.4
0.7
6.7
IO. 9
12. R
19.9
9. 4
19. O
II.*
9.6
197*
< PF.RSON)
25997
33H46
44546
2*«476
431136
317 19
39996
33770
3I92O
2A3fiO
2lt3(V4
2IUI24
391174
32*77
355O7
2J16O5
455IIO
652«»9
4R662
3343 1
41349
3O633
3RIUV*
4639I
39379
353*7
3fl* S3
4RI49
2H373
26 2(13
455IMI
25919
2*»3n7
44I9H
33729
446*3
35690
46426
33497
411525
1973
Airm
I2AI7
I66H6
21472
13264
21962
I2R03
204311
1 4(129
12563
130*7
IRIU14
15190
19274
13629
I4IIO9
15073
24021
31552
24243
13943
21791
I9RI9
21340
23799
2ir>a*
I934R
IR592
23525
I554R
1 1413
24369
I*R*O
12254
III92I
17043
21276
I702R
22145
I597H
23 1 46
rmicic
33B4
4366
4421
7652
I26(>9
3216
6159
4144
3R*2
3316
3271
B505
6nns
3116 R
4204
B464
B7*6
6336
R247I
39 5 R
7R9R
4945
416*
B93R
77IH
692*
8*17
6349
B56I
333*
96*O
4*17
45(15
4B5R
34R*
4344
3477
4522
3263
4726
-------
TABLE 29 (Concluded)
CITY CITY
TYPE COOK CITY HAW.
LARD ARF.A
(so nio.q) .tiNK. WY
II.*
n.2
11.4
224:14
14047
vo
00
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (1973) and U.S. Federal Highway
Administration (1978).
-------
TABLE 30. EXPOSURE/DOSAGE ANALYSIS DATA BASE FOR TYPE III CITY AREA SOURCES
CITY
TYPE
3
3
3
3
3
3
n
n
3
:i
n
3
n
3
3
3
3
3
3
a
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
n
CITY
CODF,
1
2
3
4
5
ft
7
n
9
in
1 1
i °
1:1
14
15
16
17
m
19
2»
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
211
29
:i«
31
32
3:i
34
35
36
37
nil
39
40
CITY HAffF,
ARAB. AL
HAY fliriFTTF.. Al.
lUONhAI F. Al,
CONWAY. All
F,N<:LANO. AQ
I.AICF. VILLAGE, AR
HFNA. AR
noNTlrF.LI.O. An
IUISSF.I.I.VILLF.. AR
wAi.Nirr niocK. AH
Al.TlinAS.CA
nANNINH.CA
CAHMKI. VALI.F.Y.CA
CHINA LAKK..CA
CUCArtONf.'A.CA
F,URF.KA.<:A
cnim.F.Y.CA
I.AHONr.CA
NF.WIIALL.CA
PAUWAI,F,,OA
SAHTA MAIUA.CA
SUISAn «.:|TY.<:A
nmcirmn.co
COLOF.N.CO
RAN 1 ELSON , CH
OllANCF.TOWN.cn
sinsmmY cF.HTF.n.cn
HII.MIIANTIC.CN
nr.HPins. Fi.
MIAMI SII(mF.«!,FL
rrnnv.FL
CAnnoi.i.Ton.CA
LAIIK.^IOM.t;A
SMYIINATOWN.CA
IIALF.irVA. MAW
cinmnucK. in
ALSIO. II.
CF,NTT1F,VIL1,F,. IL
CIIF.<=TFn. IL
CI-APFNUON nil.LS.IL
I.Ann AR
(Hu nn
6.
7.
n.
n
i .
•>
Ti.
:i.
7 .
•»
•;
14
7
7 .
:i
i-i .
i .
i .
4.
47.
2.
I .
2.
r. .
i .
17.
4 .
4.
1 .
^> _
«• .
10.
.
9.
I .
f>.
II.
4.
7.
1 .
IFA 1
KM)
,
4
|
II
7
n
'•
I
M
:i
4
:i
4
t,
n
9
W
6
n
4
4
:i
7
T.
1
4
3
ri
ri
4
n
r,
f,
2
II
n
w
I
727
3K.fi
ITiTi |»
:it»75
331 A
4ri;io
ntxir.
1 I7HM
:III«HI
27<»9
I2«:i4
:n»2(>
I i iori
57VA
24337
3T>:i4
70«7
9«.r. i
nr> 1 1
7 129
2917
nna?
91117
4nii«
i:ir.24
4994
14402
32I»7
942S
77«l
I3T.2«
3127
19 157
2ft 2ft
2924
1 1 141
1 I37H
03 l«
67riO
l»73
Airro
3467
n»,i.r.
1C. 16
ftftnn
i :i i ft
1417
1939
217ft
Ti«29
If, 2ft
ir.2«
<.2I7
i n ft i
6^*13
2V»,»
132 15
19 19
3472
r. 191
4T.7H
3753
1424
4llfl6
(•3411
2H2I
1133 1
M«7ft
IIU72
IR4I
TI4IA
442H
7H7 1
lf.27
12479
I2S7
IG20
4T, 12
r.r,n7
2ft«7
3ftllO
l«73
TRIICIC
921
1295
3«9
H2IUI
<.H2
7«2
9f.M
M>7II
249 1
1106
369
Ifi7tt
3ftft
2B47
126 1
3212
46ft
1292
H33
736
772
3«H
10(17
inri9
243
725
26R
772
3nri
1131
924
19117
219
2«f.»
216
900
346
1 172
847
3T.H
-------
TABLE 30 (Continued)
CITY CITT
TTPF. COOK
CITT
LARD ARF.A
mi.
I9T3
Airm
1*79
TWirr
O
O
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
41
42
43
44
43
46
47
4fl
51
92
54
33
56
57
an
Aft
Al
62
63
6*
A3
7«
71
72
73
74
73
76
77
7B
79
LA
I. IL
'. IL
r.F, PARK.1L
. IL
LVOHH.IL
SPARTA.IL
AURORA.IH
AlfSTIN. IK
IMH1ART. Ill
DF.mSOH. IA
F.l.nOHA. IA
W?IINT vrawon. IA
ONAWA.IA
WimT.RSKT. IA
concnnniA.KA
F..KA
FORT
JF.NK1RS.KX
0 (COLOR A, 1C*
CAniROU.RF.
FAnrtlRCTOn.KE
KITTFJW
PALHF.R PARJC.FB
CRF.F.NF I F.I.DTOWH. RASP
ORARCF.
LETOWTOWK.HASS
w i ui i i»cToirrow». HAW?
FRF.nnnT.nir.ii
ILK.niGH
LF.VF.I. PARK, nECU
KT. LOUIR.HH;i!
cirr.rm
3.2
1.0
2.3
2.*
I .9
1.9
2.9
2. I
13.*
4.4
1.2
4.5
1.3
2.9
1.2
3.7
2. I
7. I
R.2
2.9
2.4
i.9
.n
93.3
21. B
23.2
2.3
31.9
34.2
17.2
2.6
2. J
7.4
i!n
3.3
2*. I
4644
12111
2*1 9
ID4H9
SOA3
III 24
43»7
2 14115
62HI
3654
7221
3 1115
3241
4H!9
2552
0257
0172
101 16
37!t«
3H47
RIH7
I7IA2
3«I2
3MIM
3934
21170
21174.
45AO
21 in
2147
2451
9IMA
3451
I7R9
1673
I 75A
2A2II
ggmi
IIM12
1517
2429
37 4B
2713
4217
3769
ns>3i
R43I
3943
1359
2I2R
lfWW»
15 14
343
444
322
I3:m
1207
6A7
«53
7(16
1041
4H4
O26
077
4*4
I3RA
meo
676
I CMS
472
9B7
371
322
439
•29
-------
TABLE 30 (Continued)
CITT CITT
TYPB COOF.
CITT HAHE
ro
o
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Bl
B2
B3
B4
m
O6
07
OR
09
90
91
93
94
95
96
97
9H
99
IOO
1*1
102
IO3
104
105
IO6
107
I OB
IO9
I IO
I I I
I 12
I 13
I 14
I 15
116
I 17
I IH
119
12O
flORA, fflf
nonroN. n i PS
AVA.niSS
CF.NTHAJ, CITT. TO
I.HH
I. PR
H i LLsnonor.rrrovfi, ra
WF.vnARJCFT COHPACT.il
DimnNT. NJ
KKNIIAU, PARX.flJ
LITTLE PILVFJl.NJ
noonE«m>wn. n j
NF.W niLFnnn.nj
Nonni CAPF, HAY. NJ
ELUA crrnT.R.NY
LAW. CARnF.L.NY
LITTLF. FAUJ4.HY
FIF.V VOfUC HILLS.NY
NORTH HF.LLPORT.HY
HYF..NY
SCOTIA.NY
TICOWnEnOOA.HY
VOOIIIIF.F^VILLE.fl
KFJUISVILLF..HC
NKW RIVFI
STANFORD.NC
CI\F.F,HSVILLF.,OH
N£W PIIILAnF.LPlMA.OH
AD A, OK
PULPHIIH.OK
ni.AKV.I.Y.PA
LAKP ARKA
«SQ niLF,«?l
3. a
3.r,
2.11
2.2
2.3
3.S
1 .7
20. ft
in. 3
44.3
20. n
2. 1
47.4
1 .0
2.0
2.0
7. 1
2.3
.7
n.4
1 .7
4. 1
3.0
.9
3.3
2.O
n.6
i .11
1 .4
2.2
3.*
7. 3
4.4
I*. 7
1 .3
4.4
6.9
1.3
3.3
4.0
< PF.IISnN)
2BH2
2612
2672
2Ti*»4
39114
6024
2IMI3
BII92
OAI 1
2775
3276
2643
3036
2* ins
7412
6OIO
14170
19149
3BI2
27 B4
4796
7629
1 1644
3O*r,
B903
23123
I5R69
7370
326H
21126
4HI5
Bf>99
117 If,
IBIL12
6*92
IOIO4
I4B-19
37OB
5 iriH
639 1
1973
Airm
ins*
1 149
1 176
1 169
in* i
2013
1941
4002
4 -.126
1499
1769
I42R
1639
IOH2I
31169
3137
7397
9996
1990
113*
1704
3012
T.24I
1511
2922
12350
7933
3469
1216
1 lf>9
2923
4776
6432
9276
3321
07 76
OO(I4
2OOH
27'»6
3071
TRUCK
402
4154
46n
371
B9O
B92
7*1
R9R
437
lltl
331
267
3*7
1171
431
349
B23
II 13
221
1 14
243
(13*
I3IR
24B
203
642
434
379
166
IB9
B73
14*9
IR98
1476
0BI
1373
3B34
906
1331
469
-------
TABLE 30 (Concluded)
ro
O
ro
CITT
TYPE
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
n
3
CITT
conr.
131
122
I2H
124
123
12ft
127
I2J1
129
inn
I3i
132
inn
134
133
in*
in?
130
139
I4A
141
142
143
144
143
144
147
I4B
149
ir,»
I
CITT RAW. (
BOYLBJTOVR . PA
CFTTYsmmc.PA
LiRF.RTY.rA
trr. cut in. PA
8l.IPPr.RY ROCK. PA
TYRONE. PA
VAnnr.ncRipr.PA
WST WARN ICKTOVN. Ill
CAPKnART.PC
coHWAY.sc
m>RRincF..«n>
LA FOLLFTnT..TR
Roricwmm.TW
Btfnwrr.TX
cnowLF.Y.TX
PHOBIA. TX
LOCKIIABT.TX
LULinc.TX
POBTLARD.TJI
flMt AUCUSTIRK.TJI
PFALY.TX
RILSKFR.TX
PRICF..UT
RAOFCmn.VI
LYUKN. WA
STEII.ACWWI. WA
iiArm.ANn. wi
vfr.nrnnn. wi
riHini nii>Ainm;.vf
CMF.».« nivF.n.wv
mm) ART* i
[SO niLF.m
n.«
2.«
1 .»
1.3
1.7
l.ft
i.n
n.n
i.n
n.2
i .n
2.«
:i.3
n.6
*. n
1.3
4.3
2.4
3.8
4.7
i.n
n.«
1.9
B.»
1 .4
1.7
2.4
2.2
4.7
4.3
"WP1FLATIOR
( PF.RSfmi
tarm
7273
3394
4C»7A
4949
7*72
7M*9
24n23
4490
RIGI
4:i«3
«9»2
S2r,9
2«*> 4
2f>«>2
3111
*4H9
4719
73*2
293*
2*H8
7271
6218
IJ34*
2mm
2IW»
27f.3
3454
23297
4196
I*f3
A«rm
3T9I
3379
1761
2JM2
29A9
33RO
3777
I34BI
2214
44)18
2277
3327
2«R7
IB«9
IS«9
Ift-.W
3426
24H7
3072 .
1339
1419
31*3
3*68
A3*»
IB39
1392
1434
IA48
|M»2D
2:l*»4
tvn
TB«>TK
BT»
0IA
2*9
4(IG
492
• 1*
877
1917
079
I»B|
1314
l**3
eie
647
asn
694
1239
9«l
912
4m
• 13
1014
isec
1241
SB*
37*
2«*
936
OI4
IB7H
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1973) and U.S. Federal Highway Administration (1978),
-------
SECTION 4
UNCERTAINTIES
The data and data-based estimations described in Sections 2 and 3 are
subject to uncertainties that may be evaluated subjectively or objec-
tively. Quantification of uncertainty has been undertaken where feasi-
ble. If data for the quantification of some aspects of uncertainty were
not available within the scope of this program, an effort was made to sub-
jectively describe the parameters of the uncertainty factor and evaluate
Its qualitative effect.
Review of uncertainty Is presented In two parts:
> Uncertainty of Emissions Estimation
> Uncertainty of Exposure/Dosage Estimation.
UNCERTAINTIES INVOLVED IN EMISSION ESTIMATIONS
A number of factors could cause the estimated emissions of a specific
chemical to be considerably higher or lower than the actual amount calcu-
lated. This 1s true to a greater degree for Individual plant sites and to
a lesser degree for total Industry sources. The primary factors that
could cause emission estimate deviations are listed and discussed below:
> A primary source of error would occur If production or use
quantities were estimated too high or too low. The effect
on emissions and, 1n turn, on ambient concentrations would
be directly proportional.
203
-------
Not all plants operate at the same level of capacity. By
distributing total production of a chemical based on the
ratio of Individual site capacity compared to total
Industry capacity, error 1s automatically built 1n.
Plants that operate below the average Industry level of
capacity would have emissions estimated too low. This
type of averaging necessarily leads to underestimates of
the exposure and dosage at the highest concentration
levels; in fact, the averaging will lead to underestimates
of the maximum concentrations. Depending on population
patterns, however, the effect on total dosage may be rela-
tively little.
The omission of significant sources of emissions In any
summary for a specific chemical would render the total
emissions estimate too low.
The use and efficiency of control devices Is not uniform
for all producers or users of a specific chemical. Emis-
sion factors derived from a plant without control devices
would make emissions estimates from those plants that do
use control devices too high. Conversely, 1f the emis-
sions factor were derived from a plant with an effective
control device, the emissions estimates from those plants
not employing a similar device would be too low.
In general, old plants have greater associated emissions
than do new plants producing or using the same chemical.
Emission factors derived primarily from old plant data
would cause emissions estimates to be too high, and emis-
sions factors derived primarily from modern, new plants
would cause emissions estimates to be too low.
Emissions estimates derived by assuming that all the
chemical 1s lost to the atmosphere when it 1s used In sol-
vent applications are probably too high. Some portion of
most solvents normally Is disposed of by encapsulation for
burial or 1s burned for the heat value of the solvent.
204
-------
There is a level of uncertainty or confidence associated with each
source identified and each emissions estimate. Although that level cannot
be quantified, 1t can be assumed to vary as a function of the quality of
the available Information on sources and emissions. Uncertainty levels
were defined according to this rationale, as shown in Table 37. It should
be noted that emissions uncertainty levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 correspond with
levels A, B, C, and D, respectively, used In the Individual chemical emis-
sions summaries. These defined uncertainty levels are necessarily subjec-
tive. They were assigned by HI on the basis of the nature of data used to
identify the sources and generate the emissions estimates. Even with the
highest level of confidence (level 1), attempts to quantify the uncer-
tainty would represent a formidable task. A complete listing of the
levels of uncertainty assigned to the emissions of the 35 chemicals from
the production, use, and incidental sources is shown as Table 38. A com-
posite uncertainty, based on emissions-weighted averages of the component
uncertainties, Is also presented for each chemical.
UNCERTAINTIES IN EXPOSURE/DOSAGE ESTIMATIONS
Estimating human exposure to toxic chemicals requires detailed know-
ledge of both population distribution and concentration patterns over the
surface of the earth within a given time period. The Ideal estimate would
require error-free characterizations of concentrations, c(x,t),at all
spatial coordinates x and times t and, similarly, of population densi-
ties, p(x,t), for all x and t. At each Instant t, the total dosage would
be given by
D(t) = / c(x,t) p(x,t) dx (31)
and the exposure at level L by
205
-------
TABLE 37. DEFINITION OF UNCERTAINTY LEVELS IN CHEMICAL SOURCE LOCATIONS
AND EMISSIONS ESTIMATIONS
Uncertainty Uncertainty
Type level
Definition
Example
Sources
ro
o
CTi
Emissions
Cooplete data of reasonable accuracy cm site
locations and Individual site capacities
Partially estimated data of Indeterminate
accuracy on site locations or individual site
capacities
Complete data of Indeterminate accuracy on
regional site locations using an average pro-
duction or use quantity per site
Site locations and production or uss quanti-
ties of indeterminate accuracy estimated
without data.
Unable to identify site locations.
Emissions estimated from company site visit
data of reasonable accuracy.
Emissions estimated from data of indeter-
minate accuracy supplied by a company to
state agencies
Emissions estimated from data of Indeter-
nlnate accuracy obtained From other published
sources.
Emissions of Indeterminate accuracy estimated
without data.
Complete data on ethylene oilde-producing
locations are available along with total
Industry and individual plant capacities to
allow for the distribution of total industry
production.
Complete data on peracetlc acid-producing
locations are available but total us* of
acetaldehyde to produce peracetlc acid »wst
be distributed evenly over all sites because
total and individual site capacity data ere
not available.
Complete data on regional locations of phenolic
resin plants are available and an average use
of phenol per site can be determined.
The total number of quaternary anmnnim con-
compound-producing locations was estimated, and
total benzyl chloride usage to produce it was
evenly distributed over the estimated sites.
Site locations for miscellaneous uses of
phenol could not be. identified.
Emissions data were obtained frca site visits by
HI personnel to various companies (I.e..
chlorobenzene production emission factor).
Emissions data were obtained from various state
agencies emissions inventory questionnaires
(i.e., phosgene emissions factor from its use
to produce TD!).
Emissions data were obtained frtw other pre-
viously published enisslons Information (i.e.
pentaerythritol formaldehyde use emissions
factor).
Emissions data and emissions estimates made by
HI personnel (I.e., wined nylen* emissions
factor from ethyl benzene production).
Source: Hydroscience, Incorporated, Knoxville, Tennessee.
-------
TABLE 38. LEVELS OF UNCERTAINTY FOR ASSESSED CHEMICALS
Source Emissions
Chemical Location Estimates
Acetaldehyde 1.2* 2.6*
Production 1 2
Use
Acetic acid 1 2/3
Peracetic acid 2 2
Pentaerythritol 1 3
Pyridenes 1 3
Glyoxal 2 4
1 ,3-butylene glycol 2 2
Miscellaneous 5 4
Acrolein 1.3* 1.8*
Production 1 1
Use
Acrylic acid and esters 1 1
Glycerin 1 1
Methionine 2 4
Miscellaneous 5 4
Ally! Chloride 1.0* 2.0*
Production 1 2
Use
Epichlorohydrin 1 2
Benzyl Chloride 1.6* 2.8*
Production 1 2/3
Use
Butyl benzyl phthalate 2 3
Quarternary ammonium compounds 2 4
Benzyl alcohol 1 3
Miscellaneous 5 4
* Composite level of uncertainty based on weighted average of total emissions,
Source: Hydroscience, Incorporated, Knoxville, Tennessee estimates.
207
-------
TABLE 38 (Continued)
Source Birlssions
Chemical Location Estimates
Beryllium 4.9* 3.0*
Production 5 3
Use
Beryllium alloy 2 3
Beryllium fabrication 5 3
Beryl 1iurn oxide 5 3
Incidental
Gray iron foundries 4 3
Coal burning 3/5 3
Oil burning 3/5 3
Carbon Tetrachloride 4.7* 4.0*
Production 1 1
Use
Solvents 4 4
Nitrochlorobenzene 1 3
DDT 1 3
Diphenyl oxide 2 2
Miscellaneous 5 4
Chloroform 4.8* 3.9*
Production 1 1
Use
Fluorocarbons 1 1
Solvents, miscellaneous 5 4
Chlorprene 2.0* 2.0*
Production 2 2
Use
Neoprene 2 2
* Composite level of uncertainty based on weighted average of total
emissions.
203
-------
TABLE 38 (Continued)
Source Emissions
Chemical Location Estimates
Cresols (m-, o-. p- Isomers) 4.7* 3.9*
Production 1/2 2/4
Use
BHT/antioxidants 1/2 4
Phenolic resins 4 4
Pesticides 3 3
Pyrethroid pesticides 4 4
TCP production 1 3
Solvent 3 3
Disinfectant/cleaning 5 4
Ore flotation 4 4
Miscellaneous 5 4
Incidental
Coke ovens 3 Z
Dichlorobenzenes (o- and p- isomers) 4.8* 3.9*
Production 1 1
Use
3,4-Dichloroaniline 2 3
Toluene diisocyanate solvent 1 4
Miscellaneous solvents 5 4
Dye manufacturing 5 4
Pesticide intermediates 5 4
Space deodorant 5 4
Moth control 5 4
Pimethyl amine 2.2* 3.3*
Production 2 3
Use
Dimethyl formide 2 4
Lauryl dimethylamine oxide 2 4
Rubber chemical accelerators 4 4
Dimethyl hydrazine/pestlcides 4 4
* Composite level of uncertainty based on weighted average of
total emissions.
-------
TABLE 38 (Continued)
Chemical
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)
Incidental
Trichlorophenol
2/,5-T
Pentachlorophenol
Burning
Application of 2,4,5-T
Application of pentachlorophenol
Epichlorohydrin
Production
Use
Glycerin
Epoxy resins
Miscellaneous
Elastomers
Source
Location
4.3*
2
2
1
5
5
5
2.2*
1
1
2
5
5
Emissions
Estimates
3.3*
4
3
4
3
1
4
2.3*
2
2
2
4
4
Ethylene Oxide 1.0* 1.0*
Production 1 1
Use
All 11
Formaldehyde 1.7* 3.7*
Production 1 1
Use
Resins 1 4
Butanediol 1 4
PentaerythMtol 1 3
Hexamethylene tetramine 1 3
Trimethylopropane 1 2
Miscellaneous 5 4
* Composite level of uncertainty based on weighted average of total emissions
210
-------
TABLE 38 (Continued)
Source Emissions
Chemical Location Estimates
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 4.0* 4.0*
Production 4 4
Use
Pesticides 4 3
Flame retardants 4 4
Resins 4 4
Manganese 4.0* 3.0'
Production 5 3
Use
All 3 3
Incidental
All 3/5 3
Metnylene Chloride 4.5* 3.7*
Production 1
Use
Solvents 3
Miscellaneous 5
Morphol ine 4.7* 4 ,Q
Production 2 1
Use
Rubber chemicals 3 4
Corrosion inhibitor 5 4
Optical brightener 4 4
Polishes and waxes 4 4
Miscellaneous 5 4
* Composite level of uncertainty based on weighted average of
total emissions.
211
-------
TABLE 38 (Continued)
Source Emissions
Chemical _ _ Location Estimates
*
Nickel 3.8* 3.0
Production 1 3
Use
All 33
Incidental
Power plants 3 3
Boilers 5 3
Coke ovens 3 3
Diesel fuel 5 3
Nitrobenzene 3.9* 3.9
Production 1 1
Use
Aniline - 1 1
Solvent f. f-
Chemical intermediates 4 3
RGBs 2.0* 4.0*
Incidental
Incinerators 2 fl
Phencl 1.2* 2.2*
Production 1 3
Use
Caprolactam 1 1
Bisphenol A 1 3
Uonyl phenol 1 3
Salicylic add 1 3
Dodecyl phenol 1 4
Phenolic resins 1 4
Adipic add 1 1
Miscellaneous 5 4
Composite level of uncertainty based on weighted average of
total emissions.
212
-------
TABLE 38 (Continued)
Chemical
Phosgene
Production
Use
TDI
HDI
Polycarbonates
Mi seellaneous
Propylene Oxide
Production
Use
Urethane polyols
Propylene glycol
Surfactant polyols
di/tH-Propyl ene glycols
Glycol ethers
Mi seellaneous
Toluene
Production
Use
Benzene
Solvent
TDI
Xylenes
Benzoic acid
Benzyl chloride
Vinyl toluene
Benzaldehyde
p-Cresol
Miscellaneous
Incidental
Gasoline marketing
Source
Location
1.0*
1
1
1
5
5
1.0*
1
1
1
2
1
2
5
3.7*
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
5
Emissions
Estimates
2.0*
2
2
2
4
f,
2.0*
O
L,
2
2
4
2
2
4
3.4*
1/2/4
2
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
* Composite level of uncertainty based on weighted average of
total emissions.
213
-------
TABLE 36 (Continued)
Source Emissions
Chemical Location Estimates
Toluene (Continued)
Incidental
Gasoline - automobiles 3 3
Gasoline - exhaust 3 3
Coke ovens 3 3
Trichloroethylene 3.1* 3.0*
Production 1 2
Use
Vapor degreasing 3 3
Solvent 5 4
1.1.1-Trichloroethane 3.6* 3.3*
Production 1 2
Use
Degreasing 3 3
Chemical intermediate 5 4
Aerosols 5 4
Solvent 5 4
Xylenes (o-. m-, and p- isomers) 4.0* 3.5*
Production
Catalytic reformate 1 2
Pyrolysis gasoline 1 1
Coal-derived 1 4
Styrene by-product 2 4
Use
p-Xyler.e isomer 1 2
o-Xylene Isomer 1 4
m-Xylene Isomer 1 2
Ethyl benzene 1 4
Solvent 5 4
* Composite level of uncertainty based on weighted average of
total emissions.
214
-------
TABLE 38 (Concluded)
Source Emissions
Chemical Location Estimates
Xylenes (Continued)
Use
Phthalic anhydride 1 3
Terephthalic acid 1 3
Dimethyl terephthalate 1 1
I-sophthalic acid 1 1
Incidental
Gasoline marketing 3 3
Gasoline evaporation - automobiles 3
Gasoline exhaust - automobiles 3
~>
* Composite level of uncertainty based on weighted average of
total emissions.
215
-------
where
nL(t) - (x I c(x,t) > L)
Certain statistics, such as maxima, minima, quantiles, and means could
then be derived over a time period from the functions D(t) and EL(t).
There are various ways in which the estimates obtained in the Human
Exposure Project may differ from this idealized computation. Although
many of the error components can be analyzed quantitatively, such analysis
requires gathering extensive statistics on the population and concentra-
tion patterns, a task that is well beyond the resources available to us In
this project. The discussion 1s therefore mostly qualitative. Below, we
Identify the major error sources.
Sources of Error
Population Count Errors--
The population distribution data base used for the exposure computa-
tions is derived from 1970 census counts. These counts are carefully pre-
pared by the Bureau of the Census, but at best are only very accurate
estimates. The Bureau has admitted suspicions that in some areas of the
country the counts may be too low by significant amounts. However, no
comprehensive analysis exists on the degree and distribution of under-
counting over the entire United States.
216
-------
Apart from these suspected undercounts, M1n1max found discrepancies
between counts 1n different census data sets. The net difference over the
United States Is extremely small (0.017 percent) and 1s probably neg-
ligible compared to the undercountlng errors. The effect of these popula-
tion count errors 1s that exposure and dosage estimates for some regions
are too low.
Concentration Pattern Errors--
The concentration patterns used 1n the exposure computations are
obtained through atmospheric dispersion modeling based on known source
characteristics and weather patterns at nearby stations. Naturally, any
deviations 1n these estimates from the true pattern directly affect the
exposure results.
Additional considerations pertain to concentration pattern estimates
for sources not analyzed individually. No statistical data are available
on the geographical distribution of sources analyzed by prototype. It is,
therefore, very difficult to estimate the exact concentration levels for
populations exposed to emissions from more than one such source. The
exposure data derived from prototype modeling were based on the assump-
tions that all sources modeled are Isolated sources and that the popula-
tion 1n the urban areas exposed to emissions from one source would not be
exposed to those from other sources. This assumption 1s obviously not
true everywhere. For example, the total nubmer of trlchloroethylene-uslng
open top vapor degreasers 1n the United States was estimated by HI to be
6,110, and the total land area 1n urbanized areas 1s 100,190 km2, on the
average. Therefore, most of the urban population Is likely to be exposed
to emissions from multiple degreasers; thus, the computations may over-
estimate the number of people exposed to some concentration but under-
estimate the dosage received by some Individuals. However, for a popula-
tion 1n the vicinity of a "major" source (an OTVD or a CVD), the Impacts
from other sources would be Insignificant compared to that from the nearby
217
-------
major source. One might conclude that the exposure estimates are conser-
vative estimates and that the exposure data for the higher concentration
levies are more accurate than those for the lower concentration levels.
However, the total dosage estimates would not be Influenced by the geo-
graphical distribution of sources.
Uncertainties in exposure-dosage estimates made with the box model
method for area sources Include uncertainties of the emissions estimates
described 1n Hi's final report, the census population uncertainties as
described In Mlnimax's final report, and uncertainties directly attri-
butable to this method. The last-mentioned uncertainties Include the fol-
lowing:
> Dispersion factors.
- Representativeness of mean annual wind for the state to
each city.
- Representativeness of neutral atmospheric stability as
a long-term mean condition.
> Time factors.
- The use of annual average emissions and meteorology.
- The estimation of 1978 population vehicle totals from
data of earlier years.
> Spatial factors.
- The use of the Hanna-Gifford model that provides no
spatial resolution of concentration patterns.
- The assumption that population and vehicle density pat-
terns did not change from data base years to 1978.
The effect of each of these factors is to reduce a spectrum of con-
centration or emissions values (i.e., a set of values ranging from maximum
to minimum) to a single, mean value for each city. This may not affect
total dosages, but 1t will lead to underestimation of exposure at high
concentrations and overestimatlon of low concentration exposures.
218
-------
If the concentration patterns are congruous with the source patterns,
time variations of emissions or meteorology would have little effect,
because the annual average doses or exposures would average out high and
low concentrations in the same proportion at every station. There will,
however, be locations where people receive higher or lower exposure-dosage
than the mean, even on an annual average basis. Thus, spatial variability
appears to be a more significant factor than time variability. The study
team explored the possibility of developing a population spectrum as a
function of exposure level within Individual cities, based on the census
population data and land area of all census tracts of a set of representa-
tive cities.
Discretizlng Errors
Certain errors are Introduced Into the exposure calculations because
each concentration pattern Is described by an array of concentrations at
only 160 points In the vicinity of the source Instead of a continuous
function. Similarly, the population distribution 1s described by a series
of "point masses" located at the population centroids of all 1970 census
ED/BG. Particularly 1n less densely populated regions, 1n which ED/BGs
cover relatively large areas, the latter practice may Introduce population
displacements over sizable distances. Thus, the fractional error is most
likely to be large where exposure-dosages are small because of low popula-
tion density.
We have grouped both of these error sources under the heading of
"Discretlzing Errors," because both results from replacing continuous
functions with discrete approximations for the purpose of reducing the
associated computational burden.
219
-------
Interpolation Error--
Unfortunately, the discrete patterns generated for concentrations and
populations generally do not coincide. The exposure program uses Inter-
polation techniques for either of two purposes:
> Compute a concentration value at each ED/BG centroid.
> Apportion the population of each ED/BG among several con-
centration grid points.
The first technique 1s used far from the source, where centrolds are more
densely concentrated than grid points. The second technique 1s applied
near the source, where grid points are more dense than centrolds.
Both methods introduce interpolation errors, the severity of which
depends on the degree of variability 1n the concentration and population
patterns.
Location Errors--
The relationships between concentrations and populations depend on
the accuracy with which the source and ED/BG centroid coordinates are
known. Source coordinates are supplied 1n degrees, minutes, and
seconds. For a source 1n Houston, Texas, for example, a second of longi-
tude represents about 27 meters and a second of latitude represents about
31 meters. ED/BG coordinates are given 1n degrees to four decimal
places. At Houston, .0001 degree of lontHude represents about
11 meters. These figures represent lower bounds on the locatlonal errors,
based solely on the precision of the numbers.
We have little Information on the actual measurement error 1n these
coordinates. The census documentation we received contained no mention of
measurement errors.
220
-------
In the MED-X validation work, an attempt was made to estimate ED/BG
location accuracy by testing whether each ED/BG fell within Its corres-
ponding county boundary. About 5.6 percent of the ED/BGs failed the test;
only 0.42 percent fell more than 2 km from their county boundaries. Most
of these failures are probably due to causes other than centrold location
errors, such as concavities 1n ED/BG boundaries, digitizing errors in the
county boundaries, and county boundary changes since 1970. The large
amount of "noise" present precluded drawing more definite quantitative
estimates from the validation study.
Commuting Pattern Errors--
There are also time-dependent aspects of the exposure problem. The
exposure program uses a time-averaged concentration pattern for each
source, so that the time dimension 1s Ignored in the computations. If the
population distribution were essentially constant over the averaging time
period, the resulting estimates would be true averages. However, popula-
tion distributions are constantly changing as people commute to work, go
shopping, and take longer trips. Particularly 1n urban Industrial cen-
ters, the shifts In populations and concentrations throughout the day may
be highly correlated; thus, the actual exposure may differ considerably
from the value obtained by matching time-averaged concentrations with
population distributions based on census addresses. Whether the exposure
1s over- or underestimated depends on whether populations 1n the vicinity
of a source are drained (e.g., because people leave residences near the
source for work 1n an urban center) or are augmented (e.g., because of
employment near the source).
A quantitative estimate of this source of error would require a
detailed study of commuting patterns for each major SMSA.
221
-------
Population Growth and Migration Errors--
The final source of error considered here arises from the age of the
population estimates, which are based on the 1970 census. Migration and
suburban development since April 1970 have affected population distribu-
tions around certain sources. The Human Exposure Program does take Into
account county-level changes In population from 1970 to 1978, but other-
wise 1t leaves the 1ntra-county distributions unaffected. As 1n the case
of commuting patterns, errors arising from migration patterns can be quan-
tified only through detailed studies of the affected regions.
A Simple Model of the D1scretiz1ng Error--
Although a full characterization of the uncertainties 1n the exposure
estimates Is a very complex Job, certain Important properties of some of
these error sources can be derived from simplified mathematical models.
To analyze the dlscretlzlng error with a simple one-dimensional,
time-Independent model, let c(x) be the concentration and p(x) the popu-
lation density per unit length. Dosage Is given by
c(x)p(x) dx . (33)
The dlscretlzlng error Involves replacing the concentration c(x) with
the constant C(XQ) over some ED/BG with centrold at XQ. The Taylor
formula for c(x) about XQ 1s
c(x) - C(XQ) + C'(XQ) (x-x0) + l/2c"(tx) U-xQ)2 , (34)
222
-------
where t¥ Is between x and x0 and depends on x. Then, for this ED/BG,
= I cU)p(x) dx = c(xQ)P + c'(xo) I
D = I c(x)p(x) dx = c(xJP + c'(xj / (x-xQ)p(x) dx
+ 1/2 f c"(tj (x-xj2 p(x) dx . (35)
X 0
where P 1s the total ED/BG population. The second term 1s zero, by the
definition of x0 as the population centrold. The third term 1s the dis-
cretlzlng error 1n dosage made by computing dosage as the product of the
concentration at the centroid and the total population. For a typical
concentration pattern, c"(x) 1s negative along a radial direction near the
source and positive farther away. The error term changes sign 1n the same
fashion. This suggests that "discretlzing" the concentration pattern
leads to a systematic underestimation of dosages at low concentrations and
overestimating dosages at high concentrations. The size of the error
depends on the value of c"(x) and Is, therefore, dependent on the relative
locations of sources and ED/BG centrolds.
Sensitivity Analysis of Location Errors--
To assess the effect of location errors on exposures and dosages, we
reran the computations for Denka Chemical Corporation 1n Houston, Texas,
for the eight possible shifts 1n the source location obtained by changing
the source location by one minute of latitude, longitude, or both, in
either direction (N/S or E/W, respectively). Selected results from these
runs are shown 1n Tables 39 and 40. Note that a minute of latitude repre-
sents about 1.9 km and a minute of longitude represents about 1.6 km at
223
-------
ly
TABLE 39. PERCENTAGE OF CHANGE IN DOSAGE FROM BASE CASE
RESULTING FROM LOCATION SHIFT
Changes
Latitude Shift
Longitude Shift
+1'
0
-I1
0
0
+r
0
-I1
+11
+ 11
+r
-I1
-I1
+ 1'
-r
-r
Concentration Level
ppb
Source:
10
1
0.1
.0
.001
0
Minima* Research
TABLE 40. PERCENTAGE
RESULTING
-54
-44
-27
-15
-11
-11
-92
-6
20
11
7
7
Corporation
210
1B9
65
40
33
33
172
144
30
17
12
12
71
23
7
12
10
10
-71
-75
-51
-31
-26
-26
50
97
48
29
22
22
107
119
45
23
15
15
computations.
OF CHANGE IN EXPOSURE FROM
FROM LOCATION SHIFT
BASE CASE
Changes
Latitude Shift
Longi
tude Shift
+ 1'
0
-I1
0
0
•H1
0
-r
+ 1'
+r
+r
-1'
-r
+1'
-r
-r
Concentration Level
ppb
10
1
0.1
0.01
.001
0
-60
-35
-7
4
3
3
-90
42
9
4
-4
-4
200
178
34
12
6
6
170
127
-20
-6
-7
-7
70
7
16
21
9
9
-70
-78
-64
-3
-4
-4
50
114
27
12
1
2
100
132
11
-4
-12
-12
Source: Minimax Research Corporation computations.
224
-------
Houston. These shifts produce very large variations 1n exposures and
dosages estimated for high concentrations. At low concentrations, the
dosage variations are stm farlly large, but exposure counts are rela-
tively stable.
Summary
We have described seven sources of error that can affect the accuracy
of the exposure results. Available Information was Insufficient to sup-
port any numerical estimates. Further Insight has been gained by studying
analytical models and carrying out sensitivity tests, but 1t Is difficult
to generalize such results to an entire group of sources.
A fruitful approach 1n future projects would be to select a small
number of sources representing a variety of demographic settings and then
to carry out detailed quantitative error analyses for each of these
sources, based on Information about local conditions. Such a study should
provide a better understanding of the error components 1n human exposure
estimates.
225
-------
REFERENCES
Anderson, G. E., et al. (1977), "Air Quality in the Denver Metropolitan
Reqion: 1974-2000," EPA-908/1-77-002, prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Reqion VIII, Denver, Colorado, by
Systems Applications, Incorporated, San Rafael, California.
Brigqs, G. A. (1975), "Lectures on Air Pollutions and Environmental Impact
Analyses," American Meteorological Society, Boston, Massachusetts.
Bngqs, G. A. (1973), "Diffusion Estimation for Small Emissions," Air
Resources Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Laboratory, National
Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Oak Ridqe, Tennessee.
Bnqqs, G. A. (1970), "Some Recent Analyses of Plume Rise Observations,"
. Proc. of International Air Pollution Conference, December 1970,
Washington, D.C.
Brigqs, G. A. (1969), "Plume Rise," USAEC Critical Review Series, TID-
25075, Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical
Information.
Burt, E. W. (1977), "Valley Model User's Guide," EPA 450/2-77-018, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina.
Busse, A. D., and J. R. Zimmerman (1973), "User's Guide for the
Climatological Dispersion Model," NTIS PB-227346, National Oceanic
Atmospheric Association (NOAA), Rockville, Maryland.
CEQ (1977), "Environmental Quality: The Eighth Annual Report of the
Council on Environmental Quality," Washington, D.C.
Calvert, J. G., et al. (1975), "Spectroscopic Studies of Photochemical
Smog Trace Pollutant Detection," Ohio State University, Columbus,
Ohio.
226
-------
EOF (1977), "Environmental Defense Fund Petition for the Initiation of
Rulemaking Proceedings to Establish a Policy Governing the
Classification and Regulation of Carcinogenic Air Pollutants Under
the Clean Air Act," transmitted by letter to EPA Administrator
Costle from Robert Rauch, Staff Attorney, Environmental Defense Fund,
Washington, D.C.
EPA (1978), "Administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act: First
Annual Report--1977," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA (1978b), Federal Register, Section 5565, 9 February 1978.
EPA (1977), "User's Manual for Single Source (CRSTER) Model," U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIS
PB-271360.
EPA (1976), "Report to U.S. EPA Specialists Conference on the EPA Modeling
Guideline," Conference report organized by Argon Laboratory, 22-21
February 1977, Chicago, Illinois.
Gay, B. W., et al. (1976), "Atmospheric Oxidation of Chlorinated
Ethylenes," Environ. Sci. Techno!., Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 58.
Gifford, F. A., Jr., (1968), "An Outline of Theories of Diffusion in the
Lower Layers of the Atmosphere," David H. Slade, ed., Meteorology and
Atomic Energy.
Hanna, S. R. (1978), "Diurnal Variation of the Stability Factor in the
Simple ATDL Urban Dispersion Model," J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc..
Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 147-150.
Hanna, S. R., and F. A. Gifford (1973), "Modeling Urban Air Pollution,"
Atmos. Environ., Vol. 7, pp. 131-136.
Hanna, S. R. (1973), "A Simple Dispersion Model for the Analysis of
Chemically Reactive Pollutants," Atmos. Environ., Vol. 7, pp. 803-
817.
Hanna, S. R. (1971), "A Simple Method of Calculating Dispersion from Urban
Area Sources," J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., Vol. 21, No. 12, pp.
774-777.
Hanst, P. L., J. W. Spence, and M. Miller (1977), "Atmospheric Chemistry
of N-Nitroso Dimethylamine," Environ. Sci. Techno!.. Vol. 11, No. 4,
p. 403.
227
-------
Killus, J. P., et al. (1977), "Continued Research in Mesoscale Air
Pollution Simulation Modeling: Volume V--Refinements in Numerical
Analysis, Transport, Chemistry, and Pollutant Removal," EF77-142,
Systems Applications, Incorporated, San Rafael, California;
Lucas, H. J. (1933), Organic Chemistry, (American Book Company, New York,
New York).
Mara, S. J., and S. S. Lee (1978), "Human Exposures to Atmospheric
Benzene," EPA-450/3-78-031 Report to the Environmental Protection
Agency, Contract 68-01-4314, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park,
California.
Martin, D. 0., and J. A. Tikvart (1968), "A General Atmospheric Diffusion
Model for Estimating the Effects on Air Quality of One or More
Sources," APCA Paper, presented at the 61st annual APCA meeting, June
1968, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Mitre (1976), "Scoring Organic Air .Pollutants," Technical Report 2248.
National Climatic Center (1979), "STAR Tabulations Master List,"
Asheville, North Carolina.
Pasquill, F. (1971), "Atmospheric Dispersion of Pollution," 0. J. R.
Meteorol. Soc.. Vol. 97, pp. 369-395.
Pasquill, F. (1970), "The Prediction of Diffusion over an Urban Area,"
Proc. of the Symposium on Multiple-Source Urban Diffusion. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina.
Pasquill, F. (1961), "The Estimation of the Dispersion of Windborne
Material," Met. Mag.. Vol. 90, pp 33-49.
Tesche, T. W., and C. S. Burton (1978), "Simulated Impact of Alternative
Emissions Control Strategies on Photochemical Oxidants in Los
Angeles," EF78-22R, Systems Applications, Incorporated, San Rafael,
California.
Turner, D. B. (1970), Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates, Office
of Air Programs, Publication No. AP-26, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
228
-------
Turner, D. B. (1964), "A Diffusion Model for an Urban Area, Atmospheric
Dispersion Estimates," 6th Printing Rev., Government Printing Office,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Publ.
No. AP-26, Washington, D.C.
Turner. D. B., and J. H. Novak (1978), "User's Guide for RAM," EPA-600/8-
78-016a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina.
U.S. Bureau of Census (1979). Statistical Abstract of the United States.
1976 (Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.).
U.S. Bureau of Census (197B), County and City Data Book, 1977, (Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.).
U.S. Bureau of Census (1973). County and City Data Book, 1972. (Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.).
U.S. Federal Highway Administration (1978), "Motor Vehicle Registration,"
(Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.).
U.S. Federal Highway Administration (1974), "Motor Vehicle Registrations
by Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas," (Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.).
Wang, C. C., et al. (1975), "Hydroxyl Radical Concentrations Measured in
Ambient Air," Science. Vol. 189, p. 797.
229
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A-l Acetaldehyde
APPENDIX A-2 Acrolein
APPENDIX A-3 Allyl Chloride
APPENDIX A-4 Benzyl Chloride
APPENDIX A-5 Beryllium
APPENDIX A-6 Carbon Tetrachloride
APPENDIX A-7 Chlorobenzene (p-Dichlorobenzene
and o-Dichlorobenzene)
APPENDIX A-8 Chloroform
APPENDIX A-9 Chloroprene
APPENDIX A-10 Cresol
APPENDIX A-ll Dimethylnitrosamine
APPENDIX A-12 ----- Dioxin
APPENDIX A-13 Epichlorohydrin
APPENDIX A-14 Ethylene Oxide
APPENDIX A-15 Formaldehyde
i
APPENDIX A-16 Hexachlorocylopentadiene
APPENDIX A-17 Manganese
APPENDIX A-18 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl Chloroform)
APPENDIX A-19 Methylene Chloride
APPENDIX A-20 Nitrosomorpholine
APPENDIX A-21 Nickel
APPENDIX A-22 Nitrobenzene
-------
APPENDIX A-23 PCB
APPENDIX A-24 Phenol
APPENDIX A-25 Phosgene
APPENDIX A-26 Propylene Oxide
APPENDIX A-27 Toluene
APPENDIX A-28 Trichloroethylene
APPENDIX A-29 Xylene
The following three pages were located at the beginning of each
appendix. In order to reduce the reproduction cost, all duplications
of these pages have been removed. Thus, each appendix will begin on
page four.
3.31
-------
Each chemical was studied as one of a set pf 35 chemicals. A com-
plete description of the program 1s given 1n the parent document to this
attachment. The table of contents of the parent report 1s presented as
Figure 1 here. Specific questions that the reader may have about pre-
sentations 1n this attachment are most probably addressed In the relevant
section or sections as described 1n Figure 1.
This attachment consists of the following elements:
> A table of physical and chemical properties of the chemi-
cal.
> A summary of emission sources, modes, and rates.
> A map showing major, specific point sources.
> Input parameters for dispersion calculations.
> Exposure/dosage tables for each type of source analyzed
and a summary for all sources.
> A reference 11st for the emissions study.
A few def1n1t1ons--descr1bed more completely 1n the main text--are
presented here as an aid to the reader.
> EXPOSURE - The number of people 1n the United States esti-
mated to experience annual average atmospheric concentra-
tions equal to or greater than the stated level.
> DOSAGE - The sum over the population of the product of con-
centration (vgm/m ), times number of people exposed at that
concentration. This 1s a potential concentration, and
does not represent material actually Ingested or absorbed
Into body tissues.
> EMISSIONS ANALYSIS - A review by one or more of various
methods Including surveys of literature or state and
federal data, communication with, or visits to, staff of
the operator of the sources to determine sources and
source locations, and to estimate
- emission rates-adjusted to 1978
-------
- type of source (e.g. chimney, vent, open surface, etc).
> DISPERSION ANALYSIS - Use of a computer program to compute
annual average concentration patterns given wind, turbu-
lence and emissions data.
> POPULATION ANALYSIS - Use of a computer program to extract
site-specific population patterns at the finest resolution
available from U.S. Census Bureau 1970 census files.
Populations are scaled to 1978 levels.
> SOURCE TYPE - Three source types are defined:
- Major, specific point sources, each emitting a signifi-
cant fraction of the total emissions of a studied
chemical. These sources are treated using parameters
appropriate to each specific source.
- General point sources - other point sources warranting
a detailed dispersion analysis but which are members of
a group of sources too numerous to treat
Individually. For such sources, a prototype analysis
is done, and results are multiplied by the estimated
number of sources.
- Area Sources - sources which are so small and numerous
that their concentration patterns are inseparable. Such
sources are treated as emissions per unit area over
Identified areas.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
FIGURES iii
TABLES iv
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
«
2. DATA BASES 37
Emissions Data 37
Meteorological Data 46
Population Distribution Data Bases 55
Atmospheric Transformations of Toxic Compounds 65
3. EXPOSURE-DOSAGE ESTIMATION APPROACH 94
Major (Specific) Point Sources 94
Prototype °oint Source Exposure and Dosage Estimations••• 120
Area Source Mode 1 ing Approach 144
4. UNCERTAINTIES 203
Uncertainties Involved in Emissions Estimations 203
Uncertainties In Exposure/Dosage Estimations 204
REFERENCES 226
APPENDICES
2.9,4-
111
-------
APPENDIX A-l ..... Acetaldehyde
ACETALDEHYDE CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 75-07-0
Synonyms: Acetic Aldehyde; Ethyl Aldehyde; Ethanal
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 44.05
Molecular Formula: C^O,
Molecular Structure:
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Liquid - flammable, pungent odor
Boiling Point: 20.8°C at 760mn
Melting Point: -i:i°C
Density: 0.7834 at 18°C/4°C
Vapor Pressure: 923 Torrs at 25°C
Vapor Density: 1.52
Solubility: Infinite (hot H20)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H20) : 0.43
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products: Peroxyacetyl Nitrate; Formaldehyde
Reactivity Toward OH-: 4 x Butane
Reactivity Toward 03: No reaction
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: w 0.5 x Formaldehyde
Major Atmospheric Precursors: Hydrocarbons (C3 +)
Formation Reactivity: EaulUbrlum concentration ^51 NMHC
-------
1-5
I. SOURCES
A. PRODUCTION
Acetaldehyde (C2H40) is produced by ethylere oxidation processes, such as the
Wacker process, or by vapor phase oxidation and dehydrogenation of ethanol.
The latter method has declined rapidly since the ethylene oxidation facilities
have come on-stream. Publicker is the only company that uses the ethanol process.1
In the ethanol process, ethanol vapors and preheated air are mixed. The exit
gases, containing ethanol and acetaldehyde, are scrubbed and the solution is
rectified in a column to produce acetaldehyde. In the direct oxidation of ethylene,
air or oxygen can be used. A water solution of cupric chloride and a small
amount of palladium chloride is generally used as a catalyst. -The gaseous reaction
mixture containing steam and unreacted ethylene in addition to reaction product
gases goes to a water scrubber, where acetaldehyde is removed in solution.1
There are currently four companies at five locations that produce acetaldehyde
in the United States. The locations of the plants and the 1978 estimated capacity
and production levels for each site are shown in Table 1-1.' An estimated
1000 million Ib of acetaldehyde was produced in 1978.l'2
8. USES
Acetaldehyde is used exclusively as a chemical intermediate to produce other
chemicals. The largest end-use is in acetic acid manufacture, which accounts
for an estimated 690 million Ib of production. The second largest end-use is
for peracetic acid production, which consumed en estimated 100 million Ib in
1978. Other uses of acetaldehyde include pentaerythritol (80 million Ib),
pyridines (40 million Ib), glyoxal (40 million Ib), 1,3-butylene glycol (20 million
Ib), and miscellaneous uses (remaining 30 million Ib). There were no reported
exports of acetaldehyde in 1978. Acetaldehyde end-uses.are summarized in
Table 1-2. »•*
•
Acetic acid is produced by two companies at three locations by the catalytic
oxidation of acetaldehyde. Source locations are shown in Table 1-3.
-------
Table 1-1. Acetaldehyde Producers
Company
Location
1978
Capacity
(106 Ib/yr)
1976
Production0
Ib/yr)
(10b
Geographical Location
Latitude/Longitude
Celanese
Texas Eastman
Publicker Industries
Shell Chemical
Total
Bay City, TX
Clear Lake, TX
Longviev, TX
Philadelphia, PA
Norco, LA
300
600
500
65
5
]470
204
408
3<10
44
4
1000
28 51 45/96 01 00
29 37 17/95 03 51
32 25 55/94 41 06
39 53 30/75 12 18
30 00 11/90 23 42
See refs. 1 and 2.
b
Union Carbide shut down 200 million Ib of capacity at Institute and S. Charleston, WV, in the
first quarter of 1978.
Total production distributed over individual sites based on site capacity compared to total
industry capacity.
-------
1-7
Table 1-2. 1978 Acetaldehyde End-Use Distribution*
End-Use
Acetic acid
Peracetic acid
Pentaerythritol
Pyridenes
Glyoxal
1,3-Butylene glycol
Miscellaneous
Total
Usage
69
10
8
4
4
2
3
100
Acetaldehyde Use
(million Ib/yr)
690
100
80
40
40
20
30
1000
*See refs. 1 and 2.
-------
Table 1-3. Acetic Acid Producers'
Company
Cclanese
Tennessee Eastman
Total
Location
Bay City, TX
Clear Lake, TX
Kinqsport, TN
1978
Acetic Acid
Capacity
(106 Ib/yr)
110
600
400
1110
1978
Acet aldehyde
Usage
(106 Ib/yr)
f>B
373
249
690
Geographical Location
Loti t ude /Longi tudc
28 51 45/96 01 00
29 37 17/95 03 51
36 31 27/88 32 29
See refs. 3 and 4.
Total acetaldehyde usage distributed over all three sites based on acetic acid capacity.
)J
CD
-------
1-9
Peracetic acid is manufactured by the liquid-phase catalytic oxidation of
acetaldehyde at three sites in the United States. Source locations are
shown in Table 1 -4.
Pentaerythritol is produced by the aldol condensation of acetaldehyde and for-
maldehyde in the presence of lime or caustic at ambient temperature and pressure.
The four manufacturing sites are shown in Table 1-5.3'5
Synthetic pyridenes are produced as a co-product with beta-picoline by the vapor
phase reaction of acetaldehyde, ammonia, and formaldehyde by two companies in
the United States. Source locations are shown in Table 1-6.3'6
Glyoxal is produced by two companies by the nitric acid oxidation of acetaldehyde
in an autoclave at two locations as shown in Table 1-7.3
1,3-Butylene glycol is produced by the catalytic hydrogenation of acetaldol which
is made by the liquid-phase condensation of acetaldehyde. The three companies
at three sites which produce 1,3-butylene glycol are shown in Table 1-8.3
II. EMISSION ESTIMATES
PRODUCTION
Acetaldehyde emissions from production sites are presented in Table l-Q.7'8' 'l '1
Total estimated emissions from these sites for 1978 were 270,000 Ib. Emission
factors, derived from state files, used to develop process, storage, and fugitive
emission estimates are shown in Table 1-9. Process vent emissions originate pri-
marily from the off-air absorber vents. Other associated emissions vould include
ethylene and ethane. Storage emissions represent the losses from both working
and final product storage tanks. Fugitive emissions are those which result
from plant equipment leaks. For the purpose of this report, the emissions of
acetaldehyde from the ethanol process used by Publicker were assumed to be the
same (emission factor) since no data were available from that site.
Vent parameter data for the production sites11 as well as the end-users are
shown in Table 1-10.
-------
Table 1-4. Peracetic Acid Producers
-F-
Coopany
FMC
High Point Chemical
Union Carbide
Total
Location
Buffalo, NY
High Point, NC
Taft, LA
1978
Peracetic
Acid Capacity
(million Ib)
NA°
NA
NA
NA
1978
Acetaldehyde
Used
(million Ib)
33.33
33.33
33.33
100.00
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude /Longitude
42 59 10/7B 50 30
35 59 10/80 00 30
29 58 00/90 27 00
See ref. 3.
Total acetaldehyde used distributed evenly over all three sites in the absence of capacity data.
:Not available.
i
o
-------
Table 1-5. Pentaerythritol Producers
v>
-f-
V
Company
Celanese
Hercules
IMC (CSC)
Perstorp AB
Total
Location
Bishop, TX
Louisiana, MO
Seiple, PA
Toledo, OH
1978
Pentaerythritol
Capacity
(106 Ib/yr)
75
47
25
35
182
1978
Ace t aldehyde
Usedb
UO6 Ib/yr)
33
21
11
15
80
Geographical Location
Latitude /Longitude
27 34 06/97 49 27
39 26 24/91 03 37
40 38 12/75 31 58
41 43 10/83 31 28
See refs. 3 and 5.
b
Total acetaldehyde usage distributed over all four sites based on pentaerythritol capacity.
-------
Table 1-6. Pyridenes Producers'
>J
Company
Nepara Chemical
Reilly Tar R
Chemical
Total
See refs. 3 and 6.
b
Capacity includes
1970 Pyridenc
Capacity^
Location (10G Ib/yr)
llarriman, NY >25
Indianapolis, IN 35
>60
pyridenes , picolines , and pyridene
1978
Production
OOG Ib/yr)
17
23
40
derivatives .
Geographical Location
Latitude /Longitude
41 16 45/74 08 24
39 42 00/86 14 00
"Total acetaldehyde usage distributed over both sites based on pyridenes1 capacity.
I
ro
-------
-p-
Tab'le 1-7. Glyoxal Producers
Company Location
American Cyanamide Charlotte, NC
Union Carbide Taft,'-LA
Total
197B Glyoxal
CapacJ ty
(million Ib)
NAC
NA
NA
1978
Estimated
Acctaldehyde
Usc(Jb
(millj on Ib)
20
20
40
Geographic Coordinates
T.iiti tudo/IXDngitude
35 12 JG/BO 50 32
29 58 00/97 27 00
See ref. 3.
Total acetaldehyde used distributed equally over both sites in the absence of capacity data.
Not available.
-------
1-14
Table 1-8. 1,3-Butylene Glycol Producers*
Company
Celanese
Eastman
Mallinckrodt
Total
Location
Bishop, TX
Rochester, NY
Lodi, NJ
1978
1, 3-Butylene
Glycol Capacity
(million Ib)
NAC
NA
NA
NA
1978
Acetaldehyde
Used
(million Ib)
6.67
6.67
6.67
20.00
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude /Longitude
27 34 06/97 49 27
43 12 01/77 37 58
40 52 56/74 05 46
See ret. 3.
Total actaldehyde used distributed evenly over all three sites in the absence of
capacity data.
Not available.
-------
Table 1-9. Acetaldehyde Emissions from Production Sites
Emissions (Ib/yr)
Company
Celanese
Tennessee Eastman
Publicker Industries
Shell Chemical
Total
Location
Day City, TX
Clear Lake, TX
Longview, TX
Philadelphia, PA
Norco, LA
Process
46,510
93,025
77,520
10,030
910
228,000
Storaqc
5,915
11,830
9,860
1,275
115
29,000
Fugitive
2,650
5,305
4,420
570
50
13,000
Total Emissions
db/yr)
55,080
110,160
91,800
11,880
1,080
270,000
(g/sec)b
0.79
1.59
1.32
0.17
0.02
Based on the following emission factors (Ib acetaldehyde emitted per Ib produced). See refs. 7, 8,
9, 10, and 11.
Process 0.000228 B - (derived from state air emission files) Li
tn
Storage 0.000029 B - (derived from state air emission files)
Fugitive 0.000013 B - (derived from state air emission files)
Total 0.000270
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
Table 1-10. Acetaldehyde Vent Parameters
Source
Production
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Acetic acid
Process
Storage
Fugitive
*£ Peracetic acid
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Pentaerythirtol
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Pyridenes
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Number
of
Stacks
4
3
4
4
1
2
3
2
1
2
Vent
Height
(ft)
36
24
30
24
30
24
140
20
30
16
Vent
Diameter
(ft)
1.0
0.17
1.2
0.17
1.0
0.17
1.5
0.33
0.5
0.17
Discharge
Temperature Velocity
(°F) (ft/sec)
70
80
75 190
80
80 110
80
140 175
70
100 10
60
Distribution
Area
(ft X ft)
400 X 800
300 X 300
300 X 300
100 X 200
100 X 200
-------
Table 1-10. (Continued)
Source
Glyoxal
Process
Storage
Fugitive
1,3-Butylene glycol
Process
Fugitive
Number
of
Stacks
2
2
2
Vent
Height
(ft)
20
16
20
Vent
Diameter
(It)
0.08
0.17
0.08
Discharge
Temperature Velocity
(°F) (ft/sec)
70 5
70
65 44
Distribution
Area
(ft X ft)
100 X 100
100 X 100
Note: building cross-section for production and end-uses - 50 m .
-------
1-18
USES
Emission estimates for the end-users of acetaldehyde in 1978 are summarized in
Table 1-11. They are based on the emission factors tabulated in Table 12.
Acetaldehyde emissions from acetic acid production were estimated to have been
2,801,E>50 Ib. Other associated emissions would include acetic acid and ethyl
acetate.
Acetaldehyde emissions from peracetic acid production were estimated to have
been 450,000 Ib. Other associated emissions would include ethyl acetate and
peracetic acid.
Pentaerythritol production contributed an estimated 688,000 Ib of acetaldehyde.
Other associated emissions would include formaldehyde, ammonia, and pentaerythritol.
Pyridenes manufacture release an estimated 300,000 Ib of acetaldehyde. Other
emission components include picoline, formaldehyde, and pyridene.
Glyoxal production contributed an estimated 180,000 Ib of acetaldehyde. Other
associated emissions besides blyoxal are unknown.
1,3-Butylene glycol manufacture contributed 27,000 Ib of acetaldehyde emissions.
Other associated emissions include ethanol, dioxane, and 1,3-butylene glycol.
Miscellaneous uses of acetaldehyde were estimated to have contributed 153,900 Ib.
These uses are too diverse and numerous to specify or location. Emissions were
estimated by taking a weighted average of all the other acetaldehyde end-uses
and multiplying by the 30 million Ib used.
The total nationwide emissions of acetaldehyde in 1976 were estimated to have
been 4,870,450 Ib. A tabulation of the losses is shown in Table 1-13.
-------
Table 1-11. Acetaldehyde Emissions from End-Users
Emissions (Ib/yr)
Company
Celancse
Eastman
FMC
High Point
Union Carbide
Celanese
Hercules
IMC
Perstorp
Nepara
Reilly
American Cyanamide
Union Carbide
Celanese
Eastman
Mallinckrodt
Total
LocaLion
Bay City, TX
Clear Lake, TX
Kingsport, TN
Buffalo, NY
High Point, NC
Taft, LA
Bishop, TX
Louisiana, MO
Seiple, PA
Toledo, OH
Harriman, NY
Indianapolis, IN
Charlotte, NC
Taft, LA
Bishop, TX
Rochester, NY
Lodi, NJ
End-Use
Acetic acid
Acetic acid
Acetic acid
Peracetic acid
Peracetic acid
Peracetic acid
Pcntaerythritol
Pent aery thritol
Pent aery thri to 1
Pent aery thritol
Pyridenes
Pyridenes
Glyoxal
Glyoxal
1,3-Butylene glycol
1,3-Butylene glycol
1,3-Butylene glycol
Process
180,880
992,180
1,197,690
135,000
135,000
135,000
241,230
153,510
80,410
109,650
108,460
146,740
81,000
81,000
8,135
8,135
8,135
3,802,155
Storage
22,440
123,090
151,890
7,330
7,330
7,330
29,040
18,480
9,680
13,200
10,880
14,720
4,400
4,400
0
0
0
424,210
Fugitive
10,200
55,950
67,230
7,670
7,670
7,670
13,530
8,610
4,510
6,150
8,160
11,040
4,600
4,600
865
865
865
220,185
Total Emissions
(Ib/yr)
213,520
1,171,220
1,416,810
150,000
150,000
150,000
203,800
180,600
94,600
129,000
127,500
172,500
90,000
90,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
4,446,550
(g/sec)
3.07
16,86
20. 40
2.16
2.16
2.16
4.09
2.60
1.36
1.86
1.84
2.48
1.30
1.30
0.13
0.13
0.13
Derived from the emission factors shown in Table 12.
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
Table 1-12. Acetaldehydc End-Use Emission Factors
in
End-Use Process
Acetic acid - Celanese 0.00266
Acetic acid - Eastman 0.00481
Peracetic acid 0.00405
Pentaerythritol 0.00731
Pyridenes 0.00638
Glyoxal 0.00405
1,3-Butylene glycol 0.00122
A - Basis: site visit data
B - Basis: state emission files
C - Basis: published literature
D - Basis: Hydroscience estimate
Derivation3
B
B
B
C
C
D
B
Storage
0.00033
0.00015
0.00022
0.00088
0.00004
0.00022
0
Derivation
B
B
B
C
C
D
B
Fugitive
0.00061
0.00027
0.00023
0.00041
0.00048
0.00023
0.00013
Derivation
B
B
B
C
C
D
B
Total
0.00314b
0.00569°
0.00450d
O.OOB60C
0.00750G
0.00450f
0.000139
i
ro
o
See refs. 7 and B.
*
"See ref. 10.
ref. 12.
'See ref. 13.
Hydroscience estimate.
3See ref. 14.
-------
1-21
Table 1-13. 1978 Acetaldehyde
Nationwide Emissions
Nationwide
Emissions
Source (Ib/yr)
Production 270,000
Acetic acid 2,801,550
Peracetic acid 450,000
Pentaerythritol 688,000
Pyridenes 300,000
Glyoxal 180,000
1,3-Butylene glycol 27,000
Miscellaneous* 137,400
Total 4,853,950
*Based on a weighted average of emission
factors for other user categories.
Factor: 0.00458 Ib lost/lb used.
-------
ro
ro
FIGURE 1-1. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF ACETALDEHYDE EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 1-14. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC
POINT SOURCCS OF ACETALDEHYDE
EMISSIONS (ClfSEC)
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
VJ
r
7
3
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
13
16
17
18
COHPAJ1Y
CELANESE
CELANESE
EASTMAN KODAK
nmncixR
SHELL
EASTTIAN KODAK
FKC
IIIGLTOinT
UIIION CARD IDE
CELANESE
IIERCULES
IMC
1'EnSTORP
FEPARA
RE ILLY TAR
AMER CYANAHi'D
EASTMAN KODAK
rJALLINCKRODT
SITE
DAY CITY. TX
CLEAR LAKE. TX
LONCVIEW. TX
PHILADELPHIA, PA
NORCO.LA
KINCSPORT. TN
BUFFALO. NY
HIGH POINT, NC
TAFT, LA
BISHOP. TX
LOUISIANA, no
SEIPLE. PA
TOLEDO. OH
IIARRINAfl. NY
INDIANAPOLIS. IN
CHARLOTTE, NC
ROCHESTER. NY
LODI. NJ
LATITUDE
28
29
32
39
3O
36
42
35
27
27
39
40
41
41
39
33
43
49
31
37
25
53
00
31
59
59
58
34
26
30
43
16
42
12
12
32
45
17
53
'JO
1 1
41
10
10
00
06
24
21
1O
49
00
16
91
56
LONGITUDE
96
95
94
75
90
O2
70
00
97
97
91
75
03
74
O6
09
77
74
01
03
41
12
23
12
50
09
27
49
93
31
31
00
14
59
37
95
09
51
06
10
42
22
30
37
OO
27
37
30
20
24
90
32
58
46
o i nn
STATION
12923
12906
13972
13739
12950
13077
14747
93007
13979
12925
93989
14737
94830
14757
93BI9
13UOI
14717
94741
ri_./vn i
TYPE
'
1
O
2
0
_ 3
4
4
5
6
7
7
7
0
a
9
10
10
o»»uw_.r,
TYTt;
i
o
1
1
1
3
3
3
6
4
7
4
4
4
3
5
6
7
7
PROCESS
.669744
2.694672
1.339560
14. 2O7:i92
1 . 1 I620U
. 144432
.013104
17.246736
1 .944009
1 .944000
1 .944999
1 . 166490
3.47:1712
. 1 17144
2.219544
1. 157994
1.57O960
1.561024
2. 113056
1 . 166499
. 1 17144
. 1 17144
STORAGE
.065 176
.323 136
179352
1 .77,2496
. I4I9O4
.013369
.091656
2. 187216
. 195552
. 105552
. 195552
.or.H3GO
.4IO176
0.
.2661 12
. 139392
. 1990O9
. 155529
.211968
. 06336O
0.
9.
FUGITIVE
.938169
. 146(189
.O76392
. 1195600
.06364O
.09B200
.009720
.9681 12
. 1 I044B
. 1 19448
. 1 10448
.96G24O
. I94O32
.01:2436
. I239O4
.964944
.088569
. 1 17394
. I3O976
.966249
.912436
.012456
-------
TABLE 1-14 (Concluded)
IS/
cA
\JT
* Plant Types:
Type 1: Plant produces acetaldehyde and
acetic acid
Type 2: Plant produces acetaldehyde
Type 3: Plant produces acetic add
Type 4: Plant procudes peracetlc acid
Type 5: Plant produces peracetic acid
and glyoxal
Type 6: Plant produces pentaerythlrtol
and 1, 3-butylene glycol
Type 7: Plant produces pentaerythlrtol
Type 8: Plant produces pyrldenes
Type 9: Plant produces glyoxal
Type 10: Plant produces 1, 3-butylene glycol
t Source Types:
Type 1: Acetaldehyde production
Type 2: Acetic add production
Type 3: Peracetlc acid production
Type 4: Pentaerythlrtol production
Type 5: Pyr1denes production
Type 6: Glyoxal production
Type 7: 1, 3-butylene glycol
ro
-c*
-------
TABLE 1-15. EMISSIONS PARAMETERS FOR SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF ACETALDEHYDE
Vent Building Cross Vent
Height Section Diameter
Source Type Emissions Category (m) (m?) (m)
Acetaldehyde production
Acetic acid production
Peracetlc acid production
Pentaerythlrtol production
Pyrldenes production
Glyoxal production
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Process
Storage
Fugitive
10.8
7.2
0
9.0
7.2
0
9.0
7.2
0
42
4.8
0
9
4.8
0
6
4.8
0
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
0.3
0.05
--
0.36
0.05
--
0.3
0.05
--
0.45
0.10
—
0.15
0.05
--
0.02
0.05
--
Vent
elocity
(m/sec)
Vent
57
33
52
1.5
I
ro
en
333
311
-------
TABLE 1-15 (Concluded)
Vent Building Cross Vent Vent Vent
Height Section Diameter Velocity Temperature
Source Type Emission Category (m) (m?) (m) (m/secj (°k)
0.02 13
w
1 ,3-Butylene
production
glycol
Process
Fugitive
6
0
50
50
-------
1-27
TABLE 1-16. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF ACETALDEHYDE RESULTING
FROM-SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration Population
Level Exposed Dosage
(ug/m3) (persons) [(ug/m3) • persons]
1.000 2 2,160
500 5 4,650
250 13 7,210
100 28 9,430
50 83 13,200
25 317 21,100
10 1,835 44,600
5 5,579 70,700
2.5 14,296 99,400
1 41,267 140,000
0.5 88,591 173,000
0.25 169,691 201,000
0.1 418.584 239.000
0.05 836,572 268,000
0.25 1,574,194 294,000
0.01 3,170.624 320,000
0.005 4,132,507 327.000
0.0025 ,,* 5,448,040
2.12X10"^ 12,423,341 337,000
*The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
1-28
TABLE 1-17. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF ACETALDEHYDE
Parameter Value
Daytime decay rate (Krf) 7.3 x 10"5 sec"1
Nighttime decay rate (Kj 0
Hanna-Gifford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (EH 0
Nationwide nonheating stationary source emissions (EN) 1.98 gm/sec
Nationwide mobile source emissions (Eu) 0
n
-------
TABLE 1-18. ACETALDEHYDE EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIOiS
EXPO LEVEL
.616666
.«M«M
.662066
.661666
. 666366
. 666236
POPULATION
(PERSOfll
446992
06*146
9149736
30688407
89476782
133836614
138679 133
DOSAGE
(UCx(M)3-
PERSON)
4709.
9263.
37317.
7BI28.
116094.
127481.
131504.
PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTION
HEAT 1 NC
0
7
9
7
3
4
6
O.
6.
6.
6.
6.
0.
O.
STATIONARY
160.6
166.6
166.6
166.6
166.6
100.6
10O. 6
PERCENTAGE OF DISTRIBUTION
HOB ILL CITY TYPE 1 CITY TYPE 2 CITY TYPE 3
0.
6.
6.
6.
0.
e.
6,
166.
166.
166.
166.
97.
94.
92.
0
6
6
6
2
0
4
6.
6.
6.
6.
1.2
2.6
2.8
6.
6.
6.
6.
1.6
3.4
4.B
i
INJ
UD
-------
TABLE 1-19. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUMMARY OF ACETALDEHYDE
Population Exposed
(persons)
Dosage
>J
Concentration
Level
(yq/m3)
1.000
500
256
100
50
25
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0.005
0.0025
0.001
0.0005
0.00025
0 1
Specific
Point
Source
2
5
13
28
83
317
1.835
5.579
14,296
41,267
88,591
169.691
418,584
836,572
1,574,194
3,170,624
4,132,507
5,448,040
--
__
__
2,423,341
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
446,952
505,140
9,149,730
35,008,457
89,470,782
135,836,014
158.679,135
U.S. Total
2
5
13
28
83
317
1,835
5,579
14,296
41,267
88,591
169,691
418,584
836,572
1,514.194
3,617,576
4,637.647
14.597,770
--
. .
--
Specific
Point
Source
2,160
4,650
7,210
9,430
13,200
21,100
44,600
70,700
99,400
140,000
173,000
201,000
239,000
268,000
294.000
320,000
327,000
331,000
--
_ _
_ —
337 ,000
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
0
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,760
5,260
37,300
75,100
110,000
127,000
132,000
U.S. Total
2,160
4,650
7,210
9,430
13,200
21,100
44,600
70,700
99,400
140.000
173,000
201.000
239.000
268.000
294.000
324.760
332.260
368,300
—
--
--
469,000
u>
o
NOTE: The use of -- as an entry Indicates that the incremental E/D is not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry in another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted 1n another column.
-------
1-31
REFERENCES
1. A. K. Rafie and S. L Soder, "Acetaldehyde," Chemical Economics Handbook,
p. 601.5020F, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park", CA (March 1979).
2. "Chemical Products Synopsis on Acetaldehyde," Mannsville Chemical Products,
October 1976.
3. 197B Directory of Chemical Producers, United States, p. 415, Stanford Research
Institute, Menlo Park, CA.
4. A. K. Rafie, S. L. Soder, "Acetic Acid," p. 602.5020E, Chemical Economics
Handbook, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (April 1977).
5. "Chemical Products Synopsis on Pentaerythritol," Hannsville Chemical Products,
(December 1977).
6. "Chemical Products Synopsis on Pyridines Synthetic," Mannsville Chemical Products,
(December 1977).
7. Texas Air Control Board 1975 Emissions Inventory Questionnaire, Celanese
Chemical Co., Bay City, Texas.
8. Texas Air Control Board 1975 Emissions Inventory Questionnaire, Celanese
Chemical Co., Clear Lake, Texas.
9. Texas Air Control Board 1975 Emissions Inventory Questionnaire, Texas Eastman
Co., Longview, Texas.
10. Survey Reports on Atmospheric Emissions from the Petrochemical Industry,
Volume I, prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Water Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, by J. W. Pervier, e_t al. , Houdry
Division, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Marcus Hook, PA, January 1974
EPA-450/3-73-005a.
-------
1-32
11. Emission Control Options for the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry,
Acetaldehyde Abbreviated Product Report, prepared for Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, by R. J. Lovell, Hydroscience, Inc., January 1979.
12. Louisiana Air Board, 1975 Emission Inventory Questionnaire, Union Carbide,
Taft, LA.
13. Special Project Report "Petrochemical Plant Sites" prepared for Industrial
Pollution Control Division, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, by Monsanto Research
Corporation, Dayton, Ohio, April 1976.
14. Texas Air Control Board 1975 Emissions Inventory Questionnaire, Celamese Chemical
Co., Bishop, Texas.
-------
APPENDIX A-2 Acrolein
ACROLEIN CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 107-02-8
Synonyms: 2-Propenal; Acrylic Aldehyde; Allyl Aldehyde;
Acrylaldehyde; Acraldehyde
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 56.06
Molecular Formula: C^H^O
Molecular Structure:
CH2 = C^ ^°
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Liquid - flammable, pungent odor
Boiling Point: 52.5°C
Melting Point: -86.95°C
Density: 0.8410 at 20eC/4°C
Vapor Pressure: 288.2 mm at 25°C
Vapor Density: 1.94
Solubility: very soluble, (400 g/1 of H.,0)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H.O):
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products: Formaldehyde
Reactivity Toward OH-: 1/2 Propylene
Reactivity Toward 0,: 1/2 Propylene
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: ~5 x Formaldehyde
Major Atmospheric Precursors: N/A
Formation Reactivity: N/A
-------
2-5
ACROLEIN
All acrolein is currently produced in the United States by the direct oxidation
of propylene.1 The specific processes vary significantly, depending primarily
on the by-product distribution desired and on the end-use requirements.3'4
Acrolein is currently produced by four companies at four locations in the United
States.1 The plant locations and the 1978 capacity and estimated production
level for each plant are shown in Table 2-1. An estimated 350 million Ib of arcrolein
was produced in 1978.5
The largest end-use of acrolein is as an unisolated intermediate in the produc-
tion of acrylic acid and its derivatives.1 This end-use consumed an estimated
87% of production in 1978 amounting to 308 million lb-5
The end-uses of refined, or isolated, acrolein are small compared to its use as
an unisolated intermediate in acrylic acid production. Synthetic glycerin con-
sumed an estimated 24 million lb (7% of total acrolein production) in 1978.5
Refined acrolein is also used in the manufacture of methionine and methionine
hydroxy analogue (poultry feed supplements) which consumes 20 million lb. Mis-
cellaneous applications consume the remaining 2 M lb and include 1, 2,6-hexanetriol
(a humectant used in flexible polyurethane foam manufacture), glutaraldehyde
(used in leather tanning), and others.1 Total consumption of acrolein in chemical
intermediate applications is estimated to have been 22 million lb (6%) in 1978.
End-uses are summarized in Table 2-2.5
-------
Table 2-1. Production of Allyl Chloride, Epichlorohydrin, and Acrolein1
1978 Estimated Production15 1978 Estimated Capacity
(M Ib) (H )L)
Source
Dov Cliemlc.nl Co.
Shell Chcnlcjl Co.
Shell Chealcal Co.
Union Carbide Corp.
Celancse Corp.
Roh* and Haa» Co.
Union Carbide Corp.
Total
Location
Frcciort. TX
Deer Pjrk, TX
Norco, LA
Tjft, La
Clear Lake. TK
Deer Park, TJ
TaTt. LA
—
Allyl
Chloride -
176
77
77
330
Eplchloro- Allyl
hydrin Acrolein Clilorlde
ir.G 261
73 117
73 24C 117
22C
d
89
.«
146
d
73
312 354 499
Eqichloro-
hyJrln Acrololn
250
110
110 55C
60C
d
167
d
273
d
137°
470 692
Geographic Coordinates
I-Atl tiK)c/Longitu»le
28 59 30/95 23 35
29 42 55/95 07 34
30 00 11/9O 23 42
29 59 00/90 27 OO
29 37 17/95 03 51
29 43 30/95 O6 15
29 58 00/90 27 OO
See rets 1 and 2.
The distribution of production for each producer Is deticrnined by the ratio of total U.S. production to total U.S. capacity aa compared to Indivi-
dual plant capacity.
Isolated acrolaln.
Acrolein produced «3 an unliolated intermediate in the propylene oxidation process for acrylic acid and dsrivitlves.
rv»
Cft
-------
2-7
Table 2-2. 1979 Acrolein Consumption by End-Use
End-Use
b
Acrylic acid and esters
Glycerin
Methionine and methionine
hydroxy analogue
Miscellaneous
Total
Usage
(%)
87
7
6
_>J.
100
End-Use
Consumption
(M Ib)
308
24
20
2
354
See refs. 1 and 2.
Acrolein produced as an unisolated intermediate in
the propylene oxidation process used to produce
acrylic acid and esters.
Includes glutaraldehyde, 1,2,6-hexane triol and
others.
-------
2-8
Estimated production losses are shown in Table 2-3 for each of the four producing
locations. Total emissions of acrolein from production faclities are estimated
to have been 76,300 Ib in 1978. In the production of acrylic acid and derivatives
(three locations) acrolein occurs only as an unisolated intermediate. Refined
acrolein is produced at two locations. (One plant produces both acrylic acid
and refined acrolein.) The emission sources and resulting emissions are signifi-
cantly different for the two types of processes.
The predominant source of acrolein emissions from plants producing acrylic acid
IB the off-gas from the quench-absorber.4 Other associated emission components
include propane, propylene, acrylic acid, ethyl acrylate, acetone, and acetic
acid. Emissions from this source are normally controlled by thermal oxidation.4
With acrolein occurring only as an unisolated intermediate, storage emissions
are negligible.6'7 Fugitive emissions are those which result from plant equip-
ment leaks.
The predominant sources of acrolein emissions from plants producing refined
acrolein are the acrolein absorber vent (Union Carbide Process) and the condenser
vents from the distillation columns. Other associated emission components include
propane, propylene, and acetaldehyde.3 With the use of pressurized tanks for
storage the emissions of acrolein from storage sources are negligible.
Vent stack data for acrolein are shown in Table 2-4. Data for plants producing
refined acrolein are also given in Table 2-4. Both types of production facilities
are usually "open-air" structures without walls and solid floors (i.e.,, steel
grating). Only the control room area is enclosed.
Uses
The acrolein produced by acrylic acid manufacturers (306 million Ib in 1978),
which accounts for 67% of acrolein production, occurs as an unisolated inter-
mediate. End-use emissions are included in production emissions. Similarly,
the emissions of acrolein from the production of glycerin (7% of total acrolein
consumption) are included in the production emissions since the glycerin is
produced in the same plant.
-------
2-9
Table 2-3. 1978 Acrolein Production Emissions
Company
Shell
Union Carbide
Celanese
Rohm and Haas
Union Carbide
Total
Location
Norco, LA
Taft, LA
Clear Lake, TX
Deer Park, TX
Taft, LA
Process
Emissions
(Ib/vr)
26,400
24,200
5,520
9,050
4,530
69,700
Storage
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fugitive
Emissions
db/yr)
2,640
2,420
445
730
365
6,600
Total Emissions
db/yr)
b
29,040
b
26,620
5,965°
c
9,780
4,895°
76,300
(g/sec)
0.418
0.383
0.086
0.141
0.071
Based on 8760 hr/yr operatior.
b
Isolated acrolein emission factor (Ib lost per Ib produced). See ref. 3.
Process 0.00110 A - Derived from site visit data
Storage 0 A - Derived from site visit data
Fugitive 0.00011 A - Derived from site visit data
Total 0.00121
Unisolated acrolein emission factor (Ib lost per Ib acrolein produced). See ref. 4.
Process 0.000062 A - Derived from site visit data
Storage 0 A - Derived from site visit data
Fugitive 0.000005 A - Derived from site visit data
Total O.OOOOG7
-------
2-10
Table 2-4. Acrolein Vent Parameters
Source
Production
(acrylic acid mfgs)
Process
. b,c
Production
(refined acrolein)
Process
End-use , .
(Methionine) '
Process
Number
of
Stacks
1
1
1
Vent
Height
(ft)
50
120
40
Vent
Diameter
(ft)
2.7
0.3
0.6
Discharge
• Temperature
70
70
70
Velocity
(ft/sec)
50
72
5
Individual process vents are collected and fed to a single thermal oxidizer.
Storage emissions are negligible.
Building cross-section 10 m .
d 2
Building cross-section 100 m .
-------
2-11
Emissions resulting from the use of acrolein in the production of methionine
and its derivatives, and in miscellaneous uses, were estimated by using the refined
(isolated) acrolein production emission factor. Specific source locations for
methionine manufacturers are shown in Table 2-5. Acrolein usage was distributed
evenly over all four sites since capacities were not known. Specific locations
for miscellaneous uses could not be identified.
Total nationwide emissions of acrolein in 1978 from all sources are estimated
to have been 102,920 Ib. A tabulation of the losses is shown in Table 2"&-
-------
Table 2-5. 1978 Emissions of Acrolein from Methionine Production
YJ
J
Conpany
Degussa
NAPP
Dupont
Monsanto
Total
Location
Theodore, AL
Lodl, NJ
Beaumont, TX
Nitro, WV
1978 Estimate
Acrolein Used
(M Ibs)
5
5
5
5
20
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Process
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
22,000
Fugitive
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
550
550
550
550
2,200G
Total Emissions '
(Ib/yr)
6,050
6,050
6,050
6,050
24,200
(g/sec)d
0.087
0.087
0.067
0.087
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude /Longitude
30 33
40 52
30 00
38 24
06/88
30/74
51/94
26/81
10 35
06 14
01 40
51 26
See ref. 1.
Based on Isolated acrolein production emission factor.
Storage emissions negilible.
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
Fugitive losses are distributed over a 100 ft X 100 ft area.
rvj
i
-------
2-13
Table 2-6. 1978 Estimated Acrolein Nationwide
Emission Losses
Estimated National
Emissions
Source (Ib/yr)
Production
Acrylic acid intermediate 20,640
Refined acrolein and glycerin 55,660
Chemical intermediate*
Methionine 24,200
Miscellaneous 2,420
Total 102,920
•Based on emission factor of 0.00121 determined for
isolated acrolein production.
-------
-J
-f-
rsT^Tr-
ro
FIGURE 2-1. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF ACROLEIN EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE Z-7. EMISSIONS AND WTEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC
POINT SOURCES OF ACROLEIN
CHI PS lows
no.
1
a
3
4
8
6
7
O
5
COHPAJV
FITELL
UNION C ATM IDE
CELANESE
norniAND HAAS
DECUFfSA
IMPP
Durorrr
HJHSANTO
fllTE
nonco. LA
TAFT. LA
CLEAR LA ICE. TX
DEER PAIUC. TX
THEODOH. AL
LODI. NT
DEAononr. TX
„
LATITUHF.
39 OO 1 1
29 50 00
29 37 17
29 43 39
.14 33 96
49 32 39
39 00 31
30 24 26
LOW7ITODE
099 23 42
O9» 27 W>
•93 93 CM
w9™ Wv 3W
96fl 19 39
674 96 14
994 91 40
en i si 20
r< i nti
STATION
12958
13979
124*6
12996
93699
94741
12917
I3A66
riwin i
TVTE
1
2
a
3
4
4
4
4
TYTF,
1
I
2
2
3
n
3
3
PROCESS
.389169
.348469
.963232
.4794110
. 139329
.979299
. 0394OO
.9792»9
. 979299
RTORACI
9.
9.
9.
«.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
Z FUGITIVE
.930916
.934A48
.•96490
.919912
.997929
. 997929
.997929
. 997929
ro
i
tn
» Plant Types:
Type 1: Plant produces refined acroleln
Type 2: Plant produces refined acroleln and acrylic add
Type 3: Plant produces acrylic acid and acroleln Is the Intermediate
Type 4: Plant produces metMonlne
t Source Types:
Type 1: Refined acroleln production
Type 2: Acrylic acid production
Type 3: Hethlonlne production
-------
2-16
TABLE 2-8. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF ACROLEIN RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration Population
Levfl Exposed Dosage
(persons) [(ug/m3) • persons]
1 129 141
0.5 671 491
0.25 1,985 955
0.1 8,034 1,730
0.05 13,169 2,080
0.025 25.183 2.530
0.01 58,727 3,060
0.005 121.420 3,490
0.0025 287.635 4,060
0.001 813,153 4.860
0.0005 1,256,386 5,190
6.3xlO-13' 6,692,103 5,290
•The lowest annual average concentration occurring wKMn 20 km of the
specific point source.
mi?
-------
2-17
TABLE 2-9. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF ACROLEIN
Parameter ' Value
Daytime decay rate (Kd) 1.6 x 10~4 sec"1
Nighttime decay rate (Kn) 5.0 x 10~6 sec"1
ftanna-Glfford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (E,,) 0
Nationwide nonheatlng stationary source emissions (EJ 0.0348 gro/sec
Nationwide mobile source emissions (Eu) 0
n
-------
TABLE 2-10. ACROLEIN EXPOSURE AM) DOSAGE RESUITIKS FRC^ AREA SOURCE EHISSIGftS
a)
• ^^^^PW
• 96fi9!
1 .90994
CX5 9.
3< nirULJITIUM
i (PERSOfO
tt 990149
Ml 89 < 48787
1C OS204340
S8 127309799
IBB679I30
DOSAGE
PERSOB)
91.9
089.8
925. 3
1443.0
1907.4
2993. O
PERCEHT
DtATJKC
9.
0.
9.
9.
AGE OF CONTRIBUTION
STATIONARY MOBILE
Q99.9 6.
199.9 e.
PERCENTAGE O?
CITY TYPE 1 CITY 1
199. •
97.4
94.2
91.8
DiffTRIBUTIOR
rYPE 3 CITY TYPE 3
9. e.
.9 1.7
2.« 3.2
3.9 B.3
ro
CD
-------
TABLE 2-11. EXPOSURE AMD DOSAGE SUMMARY OF ACROIE1N
1
Concentration Specific
Level
dig/up)
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0.005
0.0025
0.001
0.0005
0.0001
0.00005
0.000025
0.00001
0.000005
0
Point
Source
129
671
1,985
8.034
13.169
25.183
58.727
121,420
287.635
813,153
1.256.386
—
--
--
--
--
6.692.103
Population Exposed
(persons)
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
505.140
9,149,730
20,443.737
55.204,345
127,350,709
158,679.135
U.S. Total
129
671
1.985
8.034
13.169
25.183
58,727
121.420
287.635
813.153
1,256.386
--
--
—
--
--
--
Specific
Point
Source
141
491
955
1.730
2.080
2.530
3,060
3.490
4,060
4.860
5,190
--
--
--
--
--
5,290
Dosage
t ( Mg/*-* ) * PC *"* ons ]
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
91
590
925
1.443
1,987
2,094
1
U.S. Total
141
491
955
1.730
2,080
2.530
3.060
3.490
4.060
4.860
5,190
--
--
--
--
—
7.384
ro
i
NOTE: The use of -- as an entry Indicates that the incremental E/D Is not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry 1n another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted in another column.
-------
2-20
REFERENCES
1. S. L. Soder and K. Ring, "Propylene," pp. 300.5405E—-300.5405L in Chemical Economics
Handbook, Stanford Research Institute, Henlo Park, CA (August 1978).
2. J. L. Blackford, "Epichlorohydrin," pp. 642.3021A—642.3022M in Chemical Economics
Handbook, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (May 1978).
3. C. A. Peterson, Jr., Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for the Synthetic
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Product Report on Glycerin and Its
Intermediates (Ally! Chloride, Epichlorohydrin, Acrolein, and Allyl Alcohol (on
file at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC)(March 1979).
4. J. W. Blackburn, Hydroscience, Inc., Emisson Control Options for the Synthetic
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Acrylic Acid and Esters Product Report
(on file at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC) (July 1978).
5. CEH Manual of Current Indicators Supplementary Data, p. 84 in Chemical Economics
Handbook. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (April 1979).
6. D. B. Dimick, Dow Chemical, Freeport, TX, Texas Air Control Board Emissions
Inventory Questionnaire for 1975, Epichlorohydrin, Glycerin Fo. 1.
7. Dow Chemical Co., Freeport, TX, Texas Air Control Board Emission Inventory
Questionnaire for 1975, Allyl Chloride, Glycerin II.
8. Shell Chemical Co., Deer Park, TX, Texas Air Control Board Emission Inventory
Questionnaire for 1975, Glycerin and Associated Products.
9. Shell Chemical Co., Norco, LA, Louisiana Air Control Commission Emission Inventory
Questionnaire (January 31, 1977).
10. Shell Chemical Co., Deer Park, TX, Texas Air Control Board Emission Inventory
Questionnaire for 1975. Resins Process.
-------
APPENDIX A-3 Ally! Chloride
ALLYL CHLORIDE CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 107-05-1
Synonyms: 3-Chloroprene; AC; Chlorallylene; 3-Chloro-l-propene;
l-Chloro-2-propene; 3-Chloropropylene
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 76.53
Molecular Formula: C^H^Cl
Molecular Structure: CH2 - CH - CH2C1
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Liquid, pungent odor
Boiling Point: 44.6°C
Melting Point: -134.5°C
Density: 0.938 at 20eC/4BC
Vapor Pressure: 359 m at 25°C
Vapor Density: 2.64
Solubility: Soluble (33 g/1 of H20) at 20°
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H20):
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products: 2-Chloroacetaldehyde; Formaldehyde
Reactivity Toward OH-: 2 x Butane
Reactivity Toward 0,: 15? of propylene
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: NAPP
Major Atjriospheric Precursors: N/A
Formation Reactivity:
-------
3-5
A. ALLY.L CHLORIDE
All allyl chloride currently produced in the United States by the chlorination
of propylene is consumed in the production of epichlorohydrin.'/ * Allyl
chloride is first reacted with hypochlorous acid to form dichlorohydrin;
dichlorohydrin is then reacted with sodium hydroxide or calcium hydroxide
to form crude epichlorohydrin.2
Crude epichlorohydrin can be used directly for the production of synthetic
glycerin.2 For other end-uses (primarily expoxy resins) the crude product is
further refined by distillation.2
Allyl chloride and epichlorohydrin are both produced by two companies at three
locations.2 The plant locations and the 1978 capacities and estimated production
levels for each plant are shown in Table 3-I.1'2 The estimated quantities of
allyl chloride and epichlorohydrin produced in 1978 were 330 million Ib and 312
million Ib respectively.2
The primary end-uses of epichlorohydrin are for the manufacture of epoxy resins
and synthetic glycerin. An estimated 53% of epichlorohydrin production amounting
to 165 million Ib was consumed to produce epoxy resins and 25%, or 78 million
Ib, was consumed in the manufacture of synthetic glycerin.1'2
Most of the other applications of epichlorohydrin are relatively minor. Epichloro-
hydrin elastomers consumed an estimated 6 million Ib (2%) in 1978. An esti-
mated 47 million Ib (15%) was used to produce a variety of products in relatively
small volume including glycidol ethers, some types of modified epoxy resins,
wet strength resins for the paper industry, water treatment resins, surfactants,
and ion-exchange resins. Exports of epichlorohydrin are estimated to have been
16 million Ib (5%) in 1978. End-uses are summarized in Table 15-2.I(2 Specific
source locations of the epoxy resin producers are shown in Table 15-3.1'2
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
1. Production
Estimated production losses are shown in Table 3-2 for each of the three producing
locations. Total emissions of allyl chloride and epichlorohydrin from production
facilities are estimated to have been 1,112,100 Ib and 146,640 Ib respectively
in 1978.3 Process emissions originate primarily through the condenser vents
-------
Table 3-1. Production of Allyl Chloride. Epichlorohydrin, and Acrolein*
XJ
Ctf
1978 EatLiuted Production1* 1978
(M Ib)
•ource
Dow Chemical Co.
Che 11 Chnlcal Co.
Shell Chemical Co.
Union Carbide Corp.
Celineia Corp.
Ftoh» and Haaa Co.
Union Carbide Corp.
Total
Location Chloride •
Preeport, TX 176
Deer Park. TX 77
MOTCO. LA 77
Taft. La
Clear Lake, TX
Drer Park, TX
Tart, LA
330
Cplchloro-
hydrln
166
73
73
312
JUlyl
Acroleln Chloride
265
117
24° 117
22C
73d
354 499
Estimated Capacity
(H Ib)
Eqichloro-
hydrln
250
110
110
470
Geographic Coordlnatea
Acroleln Latitude/LoiwjltutJe
26 59 30/95 23 35
29 42 55/95 07 34
S5C 30 00 11/90 23 42
60° 29 58 00/90 27 OO
167d 29 37 17/95 03 51
273d 29 43 30/95 0« 15
137d 29 SB 00/90 27 00
692 ui
•
See raft 1 and 2.
The distribution of production for each producer le d«ternlne<] by the ratio of total U.S. production to total O.S. capacity aa compared to Indivi-
dual plant capacity.
Isolated acroleln.
Acroleln produced at an unlsolated Intermediate in the propylene oxidation proceai for acrylic acid and derlvltlvea.
-------
Table 3-2. 1978 Allyl Chloride and Epichlorohydrin Production Emissions
Co-pany
Dow
Shell
Total
Location
Frceport. TX
Deer Park, TX
Korco, LA
Process
Allyl
Chloride
(Ib/yr)
515.680
225,610
225.610
966. 90O
Emission*
Eplchloro-
hydrln
db/yr)
69,720
30,660
30,660
131,040
Storage
Allyl
Chloride
tlb/yr)
24,640
10.780
10,780
46,200
Emissions
Eplchloro-
hydrin
(Ib/yr)
1,660
730
730
. 3,120
Fugitive
Allyl
Chloride
(Ib/yr)
52,800
23,100
23,100
99,000
Emissions
Eplchloro-
hydrin
db/yr)
6,640
2,920
2,920
12,400
Total Enlnilona
Allyl Chloride"
Ilb/yr)
593,120
259,490
259,490
1,112.100
(q/3cc)c
6.54
3.74
3.74
EplchlorohydrJnb
(Ib/yr)
78,020
34,310
34,310
146,640
(g/sec)c
1.12
0.49
0.49
o£ Baled on allyl chloride emission factor (Ib lost/lb produced). See refs. 7—9.
-f"" ProceiB 0.00293 B - From state files
Storage O.OOO14 B - Fron state files
Fugitive 0.OOP30 D - Engineering estimate
Total 0.00337
Baaed on eplchlorohydrln emission factor lib lost/lb produced). See refs. 6, 8, and 9.
Process O.OOO42 B - Fron state files
Storage O.OOO01 B - From state files
Fugitive O.OO004 D - Engineering estimate
Total O.OOO47
Based on 9760 hr/yr operation.
UJ
-------
3-8
from the distillation columns.3 Other associated emissions include C3 hydro-
carbons and other C^ chlorinated hydrocarbons.3 Storage emissions, which repre-
sent total losses from storage tanks and loading and handling, are generally
controlled by the use of pressurized tanks and/or refrigerated vent condensers
and account for less than 5% of allyl chloride losses and less than 3% of epi-
chlorohydrin losses.4'7 Fugitive emissions are those which result from plant
equipment leaks.
Vent stack data are shown in Table 3-3. Typically, there are four process vents
that emit allyl chloride and three process vents that emit epichlorohydrin.
Bnissions from banks of storage tanks are normally collected and discharged
from common vent stacks. Usually allyl chloride/epichlorohydrin production
facilities are "open-air" structures without walls and solid floors (i.e., steel
grating). Only the control room area J s enclosed.
2. Uses
For the purpose of this report, emissions resulting from the export of epichloro-
hydrin ire assumed to be negligible.
Since the only significant end-use for ally! chloride is in the production of
epichlorohydrin, allyl chloride end-use emissions are included in the allyl
chloride/epichlorohydrin production emissions.
More than half (53%) of the epichlorohydrin produced is used in the production
of epoxy resins. The current domestic producers of epoxy resins, plant locations,
and estimated emissions of epichlorohydrin *re given in Table 15-6. Vent parameter
data relative to epichlorohydrin emissions from epoxy resin production are shown
in Table 3-3.
Emissions of epichlorohydrin resulting from the production of glycerin, the
next largest end-use of epichlorohydrin (25%), are included in the listed epi-
chlorohydrin production emissions. (Glycerin and the required epichlorohydrin
•re produced at the came location.) Emissions resulting froo the use of epi-
chlorohydrin in the production of miscellaneous products were estimated by using
the epoxy resin (epichlorohydrin use) emission factor. Specific source locations
for Miscellaneous chemical intermediate use could not be identified.
Total nationwide emission* of allyl chloride and epichlorohydrin in 1978 from
•11 sources are estimated to have been 1.11 Billion Ib and 0.479 Billion Ib
respectively. A tabulation of the losses is shown in Table 3-4.
-------
3-9
Table 3-3.
Chloride and Epichlorohydrin Vent Parameters
1
Source
Production
Process vents
Allyl chloride
Epichlorohydrin
Storage vents
Allyl chloride
Epichlorohydrin
UseC'd
Number
of
Stacks
2
2
3
2
2
Vent
Height
(ft)
85
40
50
15 - 20
15 - 20
Vent
Diameter
(ft)
0.6
0.167
0.34
0.6
0.6
Discharge
T'emperature
80
226
90
86
80
Velocity
(fps)
Intermittent
5.5
13.6
Epoxy resins, elas-
tomers and misc.
products
Process
Column vent
Recovery vents
Storage
1
3
7
50
135
20
0.33
0.83
0.17
115
110
60
5.3
10.0
Building cross-section 5 m .
Fugitive emissions distributed over a 300 ft X 300 ft area.
Building cross-section 100 m .
d
Fugitive emissions distributed over a 100 ft X 200 ft area.
3.3(0
-------
3-10
Table 3-4.
197B Estimated JQlyl Chloride and Epichlorohydxin
Nationwide Emission Losses
Estimated National Emissions
Source
Ally! Chloride
(M Ib/yr)
Epichlorohydrin
(M lb/yr)
Production (allyl chloride,
epichlorohydrin, and glycerin)
Unmodified epoxy resins - use
Chemical intermediate - use
Export
Total
1.11
0.147
_0
1.11
•Based on emission factor of 0.00152 Ib lost per Ib used derived
for tpoxy resin manufacture.
-------
FIGURE 3-1. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF ALLYL CHLORIDE EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 3-5. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC
POINT SOURCES OF ALLYL CHLORIDE
W. COfTAJrf RITE
i DOW rnKEPonr. TX
2 P1TELL DEER PAHK. TK
3 flITRLL HOnCO. LA
LAI
20
29
30
rm
09
42
0»
7DE
3ft
99
II
LOW
•99
O99
09P
:in
23
rr
23
1TC 1
30
34
42
niiui ruiKT
BTATIOM TYPF.
12923 1
129*6 1
12936 1
BUVnUE —
TYPK r
1 7
1 3
1 3
MK.THH
.429792
.34B7B4
.240704
(TTOIUCE
.39461*
. 199232
. 199232
mciTivc
.74*32*
.332*4*
.332*4*
*A11 ally! chloride currently produced 1n the United States Is consumed In the production of
eplchlorohydrln. Therefore, the only emissions sources are the allyl chloride production facilities.
CO
I
-------
3-13
TABLE 3-6. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF ALLYL CHLORIDE RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration Population
Level Exposed Dosage
(ug/m3) (persons) [(ug/m3) • persons]
25 9 285
10 59 1,060
5 137 1,620
2.5 298 2.220
1 937 3,160
0.5 3,009 4,540
0.25 4,744 5.130
0.1 17,436 6,800
0.05 33,654 7.860
0.025 62,662 9.020
0.01 75,858 9,240
1.61x10-** 940.365 9,770
*The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
3-14
REFERENCES
1. S. L. Soder end K. Ring, "Propylene." pp. 300.S405E—300.S405L in Chemical Economics
Handbook, Stanford Research Institute. Henlo Park, CA (August 1978).
2. J- L. Blackford, "Epichlorohydrin," pp. M2.3021A—642.3022M in Chemical Economics
Handbook. Stanford Research Institute, Henlo Park. CA (Kay 1978).
3. C. A. Ptterson, Jr., Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for the Synthetic
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Product Report on Glycerin and Its
Intermediates (Allyl Chloride. Epichlorohydrin. Acrolein, and Allyl Alcohol (on
file at KPA, ESED, Rtsaarch Triangle Park, NC)(March 1979).
4. J. W. Blackburn, Hydroscience, Inc., Emiason Control Options for the Synthetic
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Acrylic Acid and fitters Product Report
(en file at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC) (July 1978).
5. CEH Hanual of Current Indicators Supplementary Data, p. 84 in Chemical Economics
Handbook. Stanford Research Institute, Henlo Park, CA (April 1979).
6. D. B. Diaick, Dow Chemical, Praaport, TX, Texas Air Control Board Emissions
Inventory Questionnaire for 1975, Epichlorohydrin, Glycerin No. 1.
7. Dov Chemical Co., Fraeport, TX. Texas Air Control Board Emission Inventory
Questionnaire for 1975. Allyl Chloride, Glycerin II.
B. Shell Chemical Co., Deer Park, TX, Texas Air Control Board Emission Inventory
Questionnaire for 1975. Glycerin and Associated Products.
9. Shell Chemical Co., Norco, LA, Louisiana Air Control Commission Emission Inventory
Questionnaire (January 31, 1977).
10. Shell Chemical Co., Deer Park, TX, Texas Air Control Board Emission Inventory
Questionnaire for 1975. Resins Process.
-------
APPENDIX A-4 Benzyl Chloride
BENZYL CHLORIDE CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 100-44-7
Synonyms: a-Tolylchloride, Chloromethylbenzene; a-Chlorotoluene
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 126.5
Molecular Formula: ^H^Cl
Molecular Structure:
r~\
-CH,C1
Cnemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Liquid - very refractive, irritating odor
Boiling Point: 179°C at 760 mm
Melting Point: -39°C
Density: 1.1026 at 18°C/4°C
Vapor Pressure: 1.4 mm at 25°C
Vapor Density: 4.36
Solubility: Insoluble (H?0)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H20):
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products:
Reactivity Toward OH-: 2 x Butane
Reactivity Toward 03: No reaction
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: No photochemical degradation
Major Atmospheric Precursors:
Formation Reactivity:
-------
4-5
I. SOURCES
A. PRODUCTION
Benzyl chloride (C6H5CH2C1) is currently produced in -the United States by the
direct chlorination of boiling toluene. In this process, boiling toluene is
chlorinated in the absence of light until the proper weight increase is achieved.
The reaction mixture is then agitated with mild alkali and distilled. Benzyl
chloride and benzotrichloride are formed as by-products. Other processes for
producing benzyl chloride which are not in use in the U.S. today include chlori-
nation of toluene using sulfuryl chloride and the chloromethylation of benzene
using formaldehyde and hydrpgen chloride.
There are currently three producers of benzyl chloride at four locations in the
United States. The site locations of the plants and the 1978 capacity and esti-
mated production levels for each plant are shown in Table 4-1.' In 1978 an esti-
mated 115 million Ib of benzyl chloride was produced.
6. USES
The major use of benzyl chloride is for the production of butyl benzyl phthalate,
a plasticizer used in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) for floor
coverings. An estimated 75% (86.25 million Ib) of benzyl chloride production
was consumed for this end-use. Butyl benzyl phthalate is produced by reacting
butyl alcohol, benzyl chloride, and phthalic anhydride in the presence of an
acid catalyst. The site locations of the butyl benzyl phthalate producers are
shown in Table 4-2.2
Quaternary ammonium compounds are the second largest outlet for benzyl chloride.
They are formed by reacting benzyl chloride with dimethyl alkyl amines and are
used primarily as germicides. Approximately 10% (11.5 million Ib) was consumed
for this end-use. Source locations of the major quaternary ammonium compound
manufactures are shown in Table 4-3.J
Benzyl alcohol production consumed 7% of benzyl chloride production (8.0 million
Ib). Benzyl alcohol is made by the hydrolysis of benzyl chloride with an alkali.
Benzyl alcohol is used primarily as a textile dye assistant. Source locations
of benzyl alcohol producers are shown in Table 4-4.3
-------
Table 4-1. Benzyl Chloride Producers3
NJ
J^
Company
Honsanto
Stauffer
UOP, Inc.
Total
See ref. 1.
Location
Bridgeport, NJ
Sauget, IL
Edison, NJ
East Rutherford, NJ
1978
Capacity
(106 Ib/yr)
80
80
12
3
175
1978b
Production
(106 Ib/yr)
52.5
52.5
8.0
2.0
115.0
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude/Longitude
39 47 33/75 23 45
38 35 31/90 10 11
40 29 23/74 23 03
40 49 46/74 05 30
Based on ratio of production to capacity of 66%
ref. 1) .
-------
Table 4-2. Butyl Benzyl Phthalate Producers'
w
Company
Location
1970
Butyl Benzyl
Phathalate
Capacity
(106 Ib/yr)
1976
Benzyl Chloride
Used
(106 Ib/yr)
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude/Longitude
Monsanto
Total
Bridgeport, NJ
Sauget, IL
NAC 43
NA 43
86
.125
.125
.25
39 47 33/75
38 35 31/90
23 45
10 11
See ref. 2.
DTotal benzyl chloride use of 06.25 million Ib was distributed evenly over both sites since capacity
data were not available.
"Not available.
-------
Table 4-3. Quaternary Ammonium Compounds Producers
Company
Akzona
Lonza
llcxcel
Witco
Ashland
Gulf Oil
Rohm & Haas
Sterling
National Starch
Total
Location
McCook, IL
Morris, IL
Maple ton, IL
Lodi, NJ
Houston, TX
Janesville, WI
Jersey City, NJ
Philadelphia, PA
Cincinnati, OH
Salisbury, NC
Quaternary
Ammonium Comjxiund
Capacity (Ib/yi)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Benzyl Chloride
Used (Ib/yr)
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude/Longitude
92,500
92,500
92.500
92,500
92,500
92,500
92,500
92,500
92,500
92,500
9,250,000
41 40 17/87 49 41
41 24 24/88 18 10
40 34 00/89 43 01
40 52 00/74 06 50
29 34 45/95 26 00
42 41 56/89 00 10
40 43 02/74 06 14
39 54 50/75 11 30
39 05 15/84 33 09
35 43 36/80 28 19
oo
See ref. 2.
Total benzyl chloride usage distributed evenly over all 10 sites.
"Not available.
-------
Table 4-4. Benzyl Alcohol Producers
Company
Location
1978
Capacity
Benzyl Alcohol
(1Q6 Ib/yr)
1978
Benzyl Chloride
Use
(106 Ib/yr)
Geographic Coordinates
La titude/Longi tude
Stauffer Chemical
UOP, Inc.
Velsicol
Orbis
Norda
Total
Edison, NJ
E. Rutherford, NJ
Chattanooga, TN
Newark, NJ
Boon ton, NJ
5
2
5
1.5
1.5
15
2.7
1.0
2.7
0.8
0.8
8.0
40 29 23/74 23 07
40 49 46/74 05 30
30 36 31/85 16 36
40 41 16/74 12 17
40 54 13/7^ 24 44
See ref. 3.
Based on 7% of benzyl chloride that is used to make benzyl alcohol (sse ref. 1).
t)A capacity
Benzyl alcohol used = 15 X 0.07 (115 X 106 Ib/yr benzyl chloride produced).
-------
4-10
The remaining benzyl chloride production (8%) representing 9.25 million Ib was
used in a variety of small diverse chemical intermediate end-uses. Benzyl
chloride end-uses are summarized in Table 4-5.'
II. EMISSION ESTIMATES
A. PRODUCTION
Benzyl chloride emissions from production sites are presented in Table 4-6.
Total estimated emissions from these sites for 1976 were 58,860 Lb. Emission
factors derived from state files4'5 included both benzyl chloride production
emissions and benzyl alcohol consumption emissions. They apply only to Stauffer
at Edison, NJ and UOP at E. Rutherford, NJ. Emission factors used to develop
process, storage, and fugitive emissions from Monsanto1s two facilities were
taken from published data.6 Both factors are shown in Table 4-7. Process emissions
originate primarily from scrubber vents and vacuum jets. Other associated
emission components would include toluene, hydrochloric acid, and chlorine.
Storage emissions represent the losses from both working and final product
storage as well as loading and handling losses. Fugitive emissions are those
that are result from plant equipment leaks.
Vent parameter data are reported in Table 4-8 for both producers and end-users.
B. USES
Emission estimates for end-users of benzyl chloride are summarized along with
production emissions in Table 4-6. They are based on the emission factors
tabulated in Table 4-7.
Benzyl chloride emissions from butyl benzene phthalate production are estimated
to have been 27,168 Ib. Other associated emissions would include phthalic
anhydride and butanol.
Benzyl chloride emissions from benzyl alcohol production are estimated to have
been 2150 Ib. However the emissions from benzyl alcohol manufactured at Stuaffer
and UOP are already included in the benzyl chloride production emission losses.
-------
4-11
Table 4-5. Benzyl Chloride End-Uses 1978*
Usage Usage
_ Use _ (106 Ib/yr) _ (%)
Butyl benzyl 86.25 75
phthalate
Benzyl alcohol B.O 7
Quaternary aj^inonium 11.5 10
compounds
Miscellaneous 9.25 6
Total 115 100
*See ref. 1.
-------
Table 4-6. Benzyl Chloride Emissions from Producers and Users
Emissions (Ib/yr)
Comoanv
Monsanto
Stauffer
UOP
Monsanto
Velsicol
Orbis
Norda
Q Akzona
0
Lonza
llexcel
Witco
Ashland
Gulf Oil
Rohm & Haas
Sterling
National Starch
Total
Location
Bridgeport, NJ
Sauget, IL
Edison, NJ
E. Rutherford, NJ
Bridgeport, NJ
Sauget, IL
Chattanooga, TN
Newark. MJ
Boon ton, NJ
McCook, IL
Morris, IL
Mapelton, IL
Lodi, NJ
Houston, TX
Janesville, WI
Jersey City, NJ
Philadelphia, PA
Cincinnati, OH
Salisbury, NC
Source
Production
Production
Production
Production
BBP
BBP
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl alcohol
QAC
QAC
QAC
QAC
QAC
QAC
QAC
QAC
QAC
QAC
Process
20,633
20,633
4,000
1,000
10.178
10,176
945
280
2 HO
322
322
322
322
322
322
322
322
322
322
71,347
Storage
1785
1785
344
86
1078
1078
108
32
32
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
6788
Fugitive
3833
3833
744
186
2329
2329
297
88
88
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
14,647
Total Emissions
(Ib/yr)
26,250
26,250
5,088
1,272
13,584
13,584
1,350
400
400
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
92,778
(g/sec)
0.378
0.378
0.073
0.018
0.196
0.196
0.019
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
rsj
Based on emission factors shown in Table 7.
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
Table 4-7. Benzyl Chloride Emission Factors
Emission Factor (Ib lost/lb produced) (used)
Source
Benzyl chloride production
(Monsanto sites)
•
Benzyl chloride production
(Stauffer/UOP)
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Benzyl alcohol
Quaternary ammonium compounds
Process Derivation' Storage Derivation Fugitive Derivation
0
0
0
0
0
.000393 C
.000500 B
.000236 C
.000350 C
.0002BO D
0.000034 C
0. 000043 H
0.000025 C
0.000040 C
0.000040 D
0
0
0
0
0
.000073 C
.000093 B
.000054 C
.000110 C
.000080 D
0
0
0
0
0
Total
.000500°
d
.000636
c
.000315
c
.000500
.0004006
A - basis site visit data
B - basis state emission files
C - basis published data
D - basis Hydroscience estimate
Emission factor represents benzyl chloride production and benzyl alcohol use loss.
~See ref. 6.
See refs. 4 and 5.
a
Mydroscience estimate.
-------
Table 4-8. Benzyl Chloride Vent Paremetera
Number Vent Vent Discharge
of Height Diameter Temp.
Stacks (ft) (ft) (°F)
Production
Process 2 38 1.0 78
Storage 6 24 0.17 70
Fugitive
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Process 1 36 0.6 90
Storage 4 24 0.33 80
;y Fugitive
^ Quaternary NH^ compounds
Process 1 20 0.33 75
Storage 1 8 0.17 70
Fugitive
Benzyl alcohol
Process 2 36 0.33 80
Storage 2 20 0.17 70
Fugitive
Velocity Distribution
(ft/sec) Area
0.02
0.02
300 X 300
5
200 X 300
14
100 X 100
10
300 X 300
Building cross-section for all sources - 50 m .
-------
Quaternary ammonium compounds manufacture contributed an estimated 4600 Ib
of benzyl chloride emissions. Other emission components would likely be
amines. Miscellaneous uses of benzyl chloride were estimated to have contrib-
uted 7493 Ib of emissions. These uses are extremely small and too diverse and
numerous to locate and specify individual emission quantities. Emissions were
estimated by taking a weighted average of the other benzyl chloride end-uses and
multiplying by the 9.25 million Ib used.
The total nationwide emissions of benzyl chloride in 1978 were estimated to have
been 100,271 Ib. A tabulation of the losses is shown in Table 4-9.
30-3
-------
4-16
Table 4-9. Benzyl Chloride Nationwide Emissions
Nationwide
Emissions
Source (Ib/yr)
Production 58,860
Butyl benzyl phthalate 27,168
Quaternary ammonium compounds 4,600
Benzyl alcohol 2,ISO3
Miscellaneous 7,493
Total 100,271
Emissions from the use of 3.7 million Ib of benzyl
chloride to produce benzyl alcohol are included in
production.
Based on a weighted average emission factor for all
benzyl chloride uses of 0.000405 Ib lost/lb used.
-------
Ui
a
\
\.
/
jei)
>.-*"
/> I* I
" \ 1
V'^u^V Jr
,—ftf l \ h^Sri
—s-
^
•>~ir
3.
H
\ X
^/
y
^(x
FIGURE 4-1. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF BENZYL CHLORIDE EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 4-10.
wo.
COMPANY
EMISSIONS AND KETEOROLOG1CAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC
POINT SOURCES OF BENZYL CHLORIDE
LATITUHF. r-OHCITUUr.
SI Ml
SrATIUM
PLANT
TVI'K
SOURCE
I YI'l.
EMISSIONS Ll.ri i ,\. PA
CINCINNATI, Oil
SALISBURY. NC
39 47 33 075 23 45 13739 I
3B 33 31 O90 l« II 13994 I
-vo 2') j:; or4 2:1 «•:. l;-.~>\ \
•/O '•.•') 1» OV4 O5 3O '>4V4 I
35 02 .11 on;* K, :u. i;i;;iJ2 :i
•;o >i i«> 074 12 rr V47 <>474I 3
41 411 17 OO7 4«> 41 ')4U4«. 4
41 21 24 oun 111 10 Kitr.r, 4
40 34 00 089 43 01 I4B42 4
40 52 00 074 06 50 94741 4
29 34 45 093 26 40 12906 4
42 41 36 089 00 10 14839 4
40 43 02 074 06 14 94741 4
-"<<•' ,.; ',>•! o?;i ii :ic, r.,-. ;\t
:7^;~ 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
.2971 15
. I4b5fa:i
.297 I 15
. O;:;G
-------
TABLE 4-10. (Concluded)
* Plant Types:
Type 1: Plant produces benzyl chloride and butylenzyl phthal^te
Type 2: Plant produces benr 1 chloride
Type 3: Plant procudes benzyl alcohol
Type 4: Plant produces quaternary annon1urn compounds
t Source Types:
Type 1: Benzyl chloride production
Type 2: Butylbenzyl phthalate production
-C.
<•» Type 3: Benzyl alcohol production L.
0 UD
—! Type 4: Quaternary arrmonlum compounds production
-------
4-20
TABLE 4-11. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF BENZYL CHLORIDE RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration
Level
fug/in3)
18.5
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0.005
0.0025
0.001
0.0005
0.00025
0.0001
3.74X10'11'
Population
Exposed
(persons)
1
7
26
44
209
858
3.312
10,606
19,356
39,471
102.126
216,455
449,991
1,229.667
2,265,842
4,270,619
11,982,073
33,270,545
Dosage
[fug/m3) . persons]
13.2
101
227
286
521
963
1,810
2,990
3,
4,
5,
6,
6,
,620
,340
,320
,110
,900
8,110
8,840
9,530
IT,704
11,600
30?
*The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
4-21
TABLE 4-12. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF BENZYL CHLORIDE
Parameter Value
Daytime decay rate (Kd) 2.B x 10 sec
Nighttime decay rate (K^) 0
Hanna-Gifford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (EH) 0
Nationwide nonheating stationary source emissions (EN) 0.108 gm/sec
Nationwide mobile source emissions (EM) 0
n
-------
TABLE 4-13. BENZYL CHLORIDE EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
1)09 ACE
PF.nCEWTACE OF COHTHInUTlOW
PERCENTAGE OF DISTRIBUTION
mnrv i*e>Tr/Li
.000800
.000280
. 004100
.000080
.000028
.00O0I0
oJ ••
6
rvruLJii i vn
(PERSON)
446992
808140
17991646
3B996B68
9OOJ5-J33
I4O6O70II
I3O679I33
i u\fS\ ni u-
PERSOII) 1
261.
289.
307B.
4881.
6617.
7511.
7577.
9
4
7
n
n
7
II:ATIN<: SIATIORAIIY
o. i»o.o
0. 100.0
0. 100.0
o. iee.0
o. loo.e
0. IOO.O
O. IOO.O
NOOILE CITY TYPE 1 CITY TYPE 2 CITY TYPE 3
e.
0.
0.
0.
e.
e.
0.
100.
100.
100.
99.
97.
93.
92.
0 0.
0 0.
e 0.
2 . 1
0 1.4
4 1>.6
7 -2.7
0.
0.
0.
.7
!.B
4.0
4.6
-Ck
1
ro
ro
-------
TABLE 4-14. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUMMARY OF BENZYL CHLORIDE
Concentration
Level
18.5
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
>) 0.01
' 0.005
0.0025
0.001
0.0005
0.00025
0.0001
0.00005
0.000025
0.00001
0.0
1
1
Specific
Point
Source
1
7
26
44
209
858
3,312
10,606
19,356
39.471
102,126
216,455
449,991
1,229,667
2,265,842
4.270.619
11,982,073
--
_. .
--
33,270,545
Population Exposed
(persons)
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
446,952
505.140
17,551,646
38,996,868
98,835,255
148,607,011
158,679,135
U.S. Total
1
7
26
44
209
858
3,312
10,606
19,356
39,471
102,126
216,455
449.991
1.229,667
2,712,794
4,775,759
29,533,719
--
—
--
--
Specific
Point
Source
• •>
13
101
227
286
521
963
1,810
2,990
3,620
4.340
5,320
6,110
6,900
8,110
8,840
9.530
10,704
11,600
q
T
Genera
Wnt
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dosage
persons!
Area Source U.S. Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
261
289
3,080
4,550
6,620
7.510
7.580
1
13
101
227
286
521
963
.810
2,990
3,620
4,340
5,320
6.110
6.900
8,110
9.101
9,819
13.784
19,1§0
ro
NOTE: The use of -- as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D Is not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry In another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted in another column.
-------
4-24
REFERENCES
1. "Chemical Product Synopsis on Benzyl Chloride," Mannsvilie Chemical Products,
Hannsville, NY (July 1978).
2. 1979 Directory of Chemical Producers, United States, Stanford Research Institute,
Menlo Park, CA.
3. "Chemical Product Synopsis on Benzyl Alcohol," Mannsville Chemical Products.
Mannsville, NY (July 1978).
4. State of Ntw Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Pollution
Control, files on Universal Oil Products, E. Rutherford, New Jersey.
5. State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air
Pollution Control, files on Stauffer Chemical Company, Edison, New Jersey.
6. Special Project Report, "Petrochemical Plant Sites," prepared for Industrial
Pollution Control Division, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, by Monsanto Research Corporation,
Dayton, OH (April 1976).
-------
APPENDIX A-5 Beryllium
BERYLLIUM CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 744.04-17
Synonyms: Glucinium
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight; 9.012 (atomic)
Molecular Formula: Be - atomic number: 4
Molecular Structure: Gray metal, close-packed hexagonal structure,
anisotropic
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: hard, non-corrosible gray metal
Boiling Point: 2970°C at 5 mm
Melting Point: 127B°C
Density: 1.848 at 20eC/4°C
Vapor Pressure: N/A
Vapor Density. N/A
'Solubility: Insoluble
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H20): N/A
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products: (depend upon aerosol size range and growth char-
acteristics) Metal resistant to attack by acid due to the formation of a thin
Reactivity Toward OH-:
Reactivity Toward 0^: unreactive
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: ,
Major Atmospheric Precursors: N/A
Formation Reactivity:
oxide film.
-------
5-5
I. SOURCES
A. PRODUCTION
Bertrandite ore is the major source for beryllium mineral produced in the United
States. Production data for beryllium have not been reported in recent years
in order to avoid disclosing individual company confidential data.1
Only one site, Brush Wellman, Inc., in Millard County, Utah, processes bertrandite
ore and converts it to beryllium hydroxide. Brush Wellman processes both domestic
bertrandite ore, mined at its delta facility, and imported beryl ore for
Kawecki-Berylco- The beryllium hydroxide resulting from the processing of the
imported beryl ore is then upgraded by Kawecki-Berylco at its plants in Hazelton
and Reading, Pennsylvania.1'2 Small quantities of beryl ore have reportedly been
mined in South Dakota and Arizona.
In 1976, the last year for which data are available, 7.5 million Ib of beryllium
was used in the United States. Of this quantity, approximately 2.1 million Ib
was imported from other countries, and the" remaining 5.4 million Ib was obtained
from stockpiles and production.2
6. USES
The primary end-use of beryllium is in the manufacture of beryllium-copper alloys.
An estimated 75% (5.6 million Ib) is consumed for this end-use. Beryllium metal
production consumed an estimated 18% (1.35 million Ib), and beryllium oxide con-
sumed the remaining 7% (0.55 million Ib). Uses are summarized in Table 5-1.2 There
have been no reported exports of beryllium since 1964. Source locations for the
major beryllium metal and alloy sites are shown in Table 5-2.3«4 Total beryllium
use in metal and alloy manufacture was allocated based on the number of employees
at each site.
C. INCIDENTAL SOURCES
Incidental sources of beryllium emissions include coal- and oil-fired boilers,
coke ovens, and the gray iron foundry industry. The boilers include industrial,
power plant, commercial, and residential types. Beryllium emissions originate
as impurities from oil and coal when they are burned in the boilers or in coke
ovens or as diesel fuel. Table 5-3 shows the estimated consumption of oil and coal
in 1978 by category. Table 5-4 indicates, by region, the percent of coal and oil
used by power plants.
-------
5-6
Table 5-1. Beryllium End-Use 1978
Use
Beryllium-copper alloys
Beryllium metal
Beryllium-oxide ceramics
Total
Usage
(106 Lb/yr)-
5.6
1.35
0.55
7.5
Usage
(*)
75
16
7
100
£ee ref. 2.
-------
Table 5-2. Beryllium Metal and Alloy Producers
Company
Brush Wellman
Kawecki Berylco Industries
Total
Beryllium Metal/ Beryllium
AUoy Capacity Used
location (Ib/yi) Ub/yr)
Elmore, OH NA
Reading, PA NA
Hampton, NJ NA
llazelton, PA NA
Reading, PA NA
2
0
0
2
1
G
.39
.57
.28
.16
.55
.95
Geographical Location
La titude/Longi tude
41
40
40
40
40
28
46
42
21
47
OG/83
45/73
32/74
28/75
32/73
16
11
57
57
11
37
10
41
10
50
See refs. 3 and 4.
Total beryllium usage distributed over the sites based on the number of people employed.
LTI
i
-------
5-8
Table 5-3. 1978 United States Oil and Coal Consumption*
User
Electrical utilities
Industry
Coke ovens
Residential commercial
Diesel fuel
Total
Coal Consumption
(million tons)
460
55
75
B
-
618
Oil Consumption
(million bbls)
646
671
-
707
327
2351
*See refs 5 and 6.
-------
Table 5-4. Electrical Utility Power Plant Locations and
Usage of Coal and Oil by Geographic Region*
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Number of
Sites
9
51
156
111
61
44
3
38
1
Percentage of
Total U.S. Coal Number of
Consumption Sites
0
11
33
9
19
16
1
6
0
.7
.3
.9
.4
.6
.3
.3
.8
.7
35
70
110
85
97
26
100
44
33
Percentage of
Total U.S. Oil
Consumption
9
27
5
0
31
2
4
2
15
.4
.9
.9
.7
.4 '
.0
.8
.2
.7
Total
474
100.0
600
100.0
'See ref. 7.
-------
5-10
II. EMISSION ESTIMATES
A. PRODUCTION
The primary source of emission data for this summary Was the Survey of Emissions
and Controls for Hazardous and Other Pollutants prepared for the Environmental
Protection Agency by the Mitre Corp.8 In this report, it ii estimated that
emissions resulting from ore mining and processing, use as beryllium oxide, and
use in beryllium metal fabrication are negligible due to control techniques.
The only significant sources of beryllium emissions are in beryllium alloy and
compound manufacture and from the incidental sources noted in Section I.
B. USES
Beryllium emissions from beryllium metal and alloy manufacture are shown in
TablC 5-5.J'4'' Total emissions were derived by multiplying tha emission factor
of O.OU07B5 lb beryllium lost per Ib used from the Mitre report8 times the beryllium
used. Total beryllium emissions from this end-use are estimated to have been
S455 lb.
C. INCIDENTAL
Beryllium emissions resulting from gray iron foundry operations are shown in
Table 5-6 by geographic region. They totaled 8,000 lb. Emissions were estimated
by multiplying the emission factor 0.000444 lh/ton8 times the estimated pro-
duction of IB,000,000 tons of metal. The total emissions were then distributed
by region based on the total number of employees in gray iron foundry operations
in each region.0
Beryllium emissions resulting from electrical utility power plants are shown
for coal-fired operations in Table 5-7 and for oil-fired operations in Table 5-8.
Coal-fired plants had emissions of 240,000 lb, and oil-fired plants had emissions
of 9500 lb.
These emissions were calculated by multiplying the emission factors shown in
Tables 5-7 and 5-8 by the coal and oil used shown in Table 5-3. The emissions were
distributed by region according to the usage percentages shown in Table 5-4.
-------
Table 5-5. Beryllium Emissions from Beryllium Metal and Allyol Production
o
Company
Brush Wellman
Kawecki- Beryl co
Total
Location
Elmore, Oil
Reading, PA
Hampton, NJ
Hazelton, PA
Reading, PA
Beryllium Used
(lb/yr)b
2 .
0,
0.
2.
1.
6.
39
57
28
16
55
95
Beryllium Emissionsc
(Ib/yr)
1875
450
220
1695
1215
5455
(g/sec)
-------
5-12
Table 5-6. Beryllium Emissions from Gray Iron Foundry Operations*
Reqion
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
Nest North' Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
Neat South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total
Number of
Sites
13
42
129
29
22
37
19
5
26
324
... _ . . Average Emissions/Site
Beryllium Emissions a ' r
db/yr) (Ib/yr) (g/sec)
200
735
4170
455
590
944
400
95
408
eoooc
15.4
17.5
32.3
15.7
26.8
25.5
21.0
23.6
14.5
0.0002
0.0003
0.0005
0.0002
0.0004
0.0004
0.0003
0.0003
0.0002
See ref. 9.
t)
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
M
'Baaed on an emission factor of 0.000444 Ib beryllium lost per ton of metal produced.
C - derived from published data. See ref. 8.
-------
5-13
Table 5-7. Beryllium Emissions from Electrical Utilities
Power Plants Coal-fired3
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
.Total
Number of
Sites
9
51
156
111
61
44
3
38
1
474
Beryllium Emissions
db/yr)
1,6BO
27,120
Bl ,360
22,560
47,040
39,120
3,120
16,320
1,680
240,000°
Average Emissions/Site
(lb/yr)
190
530
520
200
770
890
1040
430
1680
506
(g/sec)
0.003
O.OOB
0.007
0.003
0.011
0.013
0.015
0.006
0.024
See ref. 7.
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
"Based on 0.00000025 Ib beryllium emitted per Ib coal burned.
published data. See ref. B.
C - derived from
-------
5-14
Table 5-8. Beryllium Emissions from Electrical Utility
Power Plants Oil-fired3
Region
New England
Kiddle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
Nest South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total
Number of
Sites
35
70
110
85
97
26
100
44
33
600
Beryllium Emission;
(Ib/yr)
893
2650
560
67
2983
190
456
209
1492
9500C
Average Emissions/Site
(Ib/yr)
25.5
37.9
5.1
o.e
30.8
7.3
4.6
4.8
45.2
15. B
(g/sec)b
0.0004
0.0005
nil
nil
0.0004
0.0001
nil
nil
0.0007
See ref. 7.
Baaed on 8760 hr/yr operation.
CB«sed on 0.00000035 Ib beryllium emitted per gallon oil burned.
published data. See ref. 8.
C - derived from
-------
5-15
Beryllium emissions from coke oven operations were estimated to be 37,500 Ib as
shown in Ta±»le 5-9. This estimate is based on the coal emission factor derived
for power plants.8 Total emissions were distributed by the number of sites in
each region.10
The remaining incidental sources of beryllium emissions are from other sources
that burn oil or coal. The emission factors used were the same as for power
plant emission estimates. Emissions from oil- and coal-fired industrial boilers
were estimated to have been 27,500 Ib and 9870 Lb respectively. Emissions from
residential and commercial oil and coal heating were estimated to be 4,000 Ib
and 10,400 Ib respectively. Diesel fuel consumption generated an estimated
4810 Ib of beryllium emissions. Source locations for all these incidental cate-
gories are considered too numerous and too diverse to pinpoint regional distribu-
tions .
Vent parameter data for all beryllium emission sources are shown in Table 5-10.
Table 5-11 presents a summary of beryllium emissions. Total nationwide beryllium
emissions are estimated to have been 357,035 Ib in 1978.
-------
5-16
Table 5-9. Beryllium Emissions from Coke Oven Operations
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total
Number of
Sites
0
15
25
3
4
9
2
2
1
61
Beryllium Emissions
(Ib/yr)
0
9,220
15,370
1,845
2,460
5,530
1,230
1,230
615
37,500b'C
*See ref. 10.
Based on an emission factor of 0.00000025 Ib lost/lb coal
burned. See ref. 8.
CAverage emission per site 615 Ib/yr (0.009 g/sec).
32-5
-------
5-17
Table 5-10. Beryllium Vent Parameters
Source
Power plants
Gray iron foundry
Alloy manufacture
Coke oven
Number of
Stacks
1
1
2
2
Vent Height
(ft)
400
150
40
30
Vent
Diameter
(ft)
16
2
1
1
Discharge
Temperature
(°F)
200
200
140
300
Velocity
(ft/sec)
90
40
10
15
*Building cross-section for all sources - 200 m .
-------
5-18
Table 5-11. 1978 Beryllium Nationwide Emissions
Source
Estimated
Nationwide Emissions
(Ib/yr)
Producers
Beryllium metal, alloys, and compounds
Beryllium fabrication
Beryllium oxide-ceramics
Gray iron foundries
Electrical utility
Power plant boilers
Coal
Oil
Industrial boilers
Coal
Oil
Residential/commercial boilers
Coal
Oil
Coke ovens (coal)
Diesel fuel (oil)
Total
Negligible
5,455
Negligible
Negligible
8,000
240,000
9,500
27,500
9,870
4,000
10,400
37,500
4,810
357,035
-------
\J
FIGURE 5-1. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF BERYLLIUM EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 5-12. EMISSIONS MO METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC
POINT SOI/RCES OF BERRYLLIUM
N
_D
HO.
CORPART
PITT
PA
I nnUSH VELLHAJV KLflQR. OH
2 OnUCIl WELU1AH lOAIM!
3 nnnsii WEINMAN nAnrrort. nj
4 KAHECKI-DEIIVLCO READIR. PA
0 KAVETKI-DEnYLCO nAZELTWI. PA
PLAIT/
LATITUDE LOWC1 TOW. PTATIOB TVl'F. TYIT.
PHOCWW
rtjr.iTiTF.
41 2O •« «On l« 37 94IC1D I
49 4« 49 976 II Iff 14712 I
49 42 H2 O74 37 41 94741 I
4« 47 32 ff76 II 5ff 14712 I
4ff 21 2n 073 07 Iff 14737 I
.*244*fl *.
* All the emissions of berry!Hum are from metal and alloy production sites with the
following emissions parameters:
Vent height - 12 m
Building cross-section * 200 m
Vent diameter « 0.3 m
Vent velocity • 3 m/sec
Vent temperature = 333 °K
tn
i
-------
5-21
TABLE 5-13. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF BERYLLIUM RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration Population
Level Exposed Dosage
(ug/m3) (persons) [(ug/m3) • persons]
0.394 0 .132
0.25 71 18.6
0.1 795 126
0.05 2,387 235
0.025 5,794 346
0.01 23,622 585
0.005 61,062 849
0.0025 117,129 1,050
0.001 275,165 1,300
0.0005 367,850 1,370
0.0025 494.748 1,420
0.0001 619.837 1,440
8.01x10-6* 720,769 1,440
*The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
330
-------
TABLE 5-14. EMISSIONS RATES AND NUMBER OF GENERAL POINT SOURCES OF BERYLLIUN
Cr»» Iron F
NlddU Atlantic
(•it Merth Central
Writ Nortft Central
SMtfej Atlwtlc
f*it Se«th Cvntrtl
Ucit Sorth Central
ouMnr
Hw4wr
toer Pltnt
Plwt <011]
M« Ovm
Pic I Me
0.0007?
0.00075
0.00047
0.00073
0.00039
0.00037
0.00010
0.00034
0.00021
13
4?
129
29
37
19
9
78
[•Isilont/SIU
0.00774
0.00763
0.00749
0.00788
0.0111
0.0178
0.0150
0.006?
0.0074?
' rrtTtM
9
91
ISC
Ml
•1
44
3
38
1
'"'SIS"1*
0.00037
O.OOOS5
0.000073
0.00001?
0.00044
0.00011
0.00006*
0.000069
0.00065
H«4er
Of SltCT
35
70
110
89
97
ti
100
44
33
iBlulons/Sllv
(w/m)
0
O.OOB8S
0.00889
0.00889
0.00889
0.00889
0.00889
0.00889
0.00889
or sun
0
19
?s
3
4
9
t
I
1
I
ro
ro
-------
TABLE 5-15. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM EMISSIONS FROM GENERAL POINT SOURCES OF BERYLLIUM
Population Exposed
(TO3 persons)
Dosage
[lQ3(pg/m3).persons]
^
&
1°
Concentration
Level
(pg/m3)
0.5
0.25
0.10
0.05
0.025
0.010
0.005
0.0025
0.0010
0.0005
0.00025
0
Gray
Iron
Foundry
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
--
--
__
Power
Plant
(Coal)
0
0
0
0
0
27
538
1,800
--
--
--
_ _
Power
Plant
(Oil)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
--
--
_ _
Coke Oven
0.127
4.37
27.5
70.3
181
702
1,620
3,170
--
--
--
_ -
U.S.
Total
0.127
4.37
27.5
70.3
181
729
2,160
4.970
--
--
--
__
Gray
Iron
Foundry
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.04
0.3
1.1
7.4
Power
Plant
(Coal)
0
0
0
0
0
0.4
3.7
8.2
20
29
38
82
Power
Plant
(Oil)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.4
3.2
Coke
Oven
0.08
1.6
5.0
8
11.6
18.8
24.8
30.2
38.5
47.2
56.5
67.4
U.S.
Total
0.08
1.6
5
8
11.6
19.2
28.5
38.4
58. 9
76.5
96.1
160
NOTE: The use of -- as an entry indicates that the incremental E/D is not significant (relative
to last entry or relative to entry in another column at the same row) or that the exposure
of the same population may be counted in another column.
-------
5-24
TABLE 5-16. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF BERYLLIUM
Parameter
Value
Daytlne decay rate (*d)
Nighttime decay rate (Kn)
Nanna-Glfford coefficient (C)
Nationwide heating source trelsslons (E^)
Res1dent1al/cormerc1al coal burning
Residential/conrnerclal oil burning
Nationwide nonheatlng stationary source emissions (EN)
Coal-burning
Oil-burning
Nationwide mobile source emissions (EM)
Ratio of truck emissions to auto emissions
0
0
225
0.203 gm/sec
0.058 gm/sec
0.145 gm/sec
0.538 gm/sec
0.396 gm/sec
0.142 gm/sec
0.0693 gm/sec
3.0
333
-------
TABLE 5-17. BERYLLIUM EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
F OF conrnimmoH
OF
C*ATU L*rjVr>L«
.002300
.001000
.090500
.oorcjo
^\ .000100
r Q-
rvi ITIVI B I IPH
f I'KRSON)
.03,40
9I4973O
206411329
73:131092
l39OG473n
1.10079133
I'K.n-Tirrn in-:rtTir«; STATIOIIAHY
I75fl.
10754.
nor.r.2.
ir,2no.
r,oiv,2.
5.1136.
9
n
o
0
5
n
Id.
30.
2R.
27.
20.
20.
h
n
9
7
9
n
02
66
66
07
07
67
.4
.6
.7
- 2
.4
.4
rtnnn
3.
2.
4.
5.
5.
5.
,F, IMTY TYTF, 1 CITY TYTF. 2 C
«
6
4
1
n
0
l«0.fl A.
• AA a A
1 Wv 'IT V .
100.0 0.
97. n .0
94.2 2.3
92. O 2.6
ITY TYTF. 3
0.
0.
0.
1.3
3.3
4.6
rv>
(Ji
-------
TABLE 5-18. -EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUffMRT Of BERYLLIUM
Population Exposed
Dosage
Concentrate
Level
(uo7*3)
0,5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0.005
, 0.0025
i 0.001
T O.OC05
0.00025
0.0001
0
m Sped f fc
Point
Source
0
71
795
2,387
5,794
23,622
61.062
117.129
275.165
367.850
494.748
619.837
720.769
11
General
Point
Source
127
4.370
27.500
70.300
181.000
729,000
2,160.000
4,970.000
__
__
__
__
--
tersonsj
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
505,140
9.149,730
28,651,329
73.351,092
139.6SS.758
158.679.135
U.S. Total
127
4.441
28.295
72.687
186,794
752.622
2.221.062
5.592.269
~_
._
_.
_.
..
Specific
Point
Source
0
19
126
235
346
585
849
1.050
1.30Q
1.370
1 ,«20
1 ,3*sQ
1,440
Llpq/K-
General
Point
Source
80
600
5.000
8.000
11.600
19.200
28,500
38.400
58,900
7G.5CS
9S.OOO
_.
160.000
1 * DC •* O** * .I
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.759
16.754
30.552
45.257
56.843
58.100
U.S. Total
80
619
5.126
8.235
11.946
19,785
29.349
41.259
76.954
107,052
__
__
219,600
en
i
ro
NOTE: The use of -- as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D Is not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry 1n another column at the sane row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted In another colusn.
-------
5-27
REFERENCES
1. Benjamin Petkof, "Beryllium," Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook, 1976.
2. "Beryllium Minerals—Salient Characteristics," Chemical Economics Handbook,
p. 716.1000A, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (July 1978).
3. 1978 Directory of Chemical Producers, United States, p. 474, Stanford Research
Institute, Menlo Park, CA.
4. 1979 Thomas Register, Thomas Publishing Co., New York, NY.
5. "Bituminous Coal," Chemical Economics Handbook, p. 211.3026, Stanford Research
Institute, Menlo Park, CA (October 1978).
6. "Fuel Oils," Chemical Economics Handbook, p. 229.4350B, Stanford Research
Institute, Menlo Park, CA (February 1979).
7. "Existing Power Plants as of 1974," supplied by Systems Applications, Inc.,
San Rafael, CA, to Hydroscience, Inc., Knoxville, TN.
8. Survey of Emissions and Controls for Hazardous and Other Pollutants, the Mitre
Corp., EPA Contract No. 6B-01-0438, p. 103.
9. Marketing Economics Key Plants 1975-1976, Marketing Economics Institute,
New York, New York.
10. "Coke Oven Plants in the United States," p. 212.2000A—D, Chemical Economics
Handbook, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (October 1978).
-------
APPENDIX A-6 Carbon Tetrachloride
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 56-23-5
Synonyms: Tetrachloromethane; Perchloromethane; Methane Tetrachloride
Necaton'na; Benzinoform
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 153.82
Molecular Formula: CCl^
Molecular Structure:
i
C1-C-C1
I
Cl
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Liquid- colorless, nonflammable
Boiling Point: 76.5fl°C at 76C mm
Melting Point: -22.99°C
Density: 1.5940 at 20DC/4°C
Vapor Pressure: 115.2 mm at 25°C
Vapor Density: 5.32
Solubility: Soluble (0.77g/l of H20)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H^O): 2.64
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products: None - NAPP
Reactivity Toward OH-: Extremely slow
Reactivity Toward 0^: Extremely slow
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: NAPP
Major Atrospherlc Precursors: Chlorinated hydrocarbons
Formation Reactivity:
-------
6-5
I. SOURCES
Four volatile organic compounds methyl chloride, »ethylene chloride, chloro-
form, and carbon tetrachloride coopriie the group of chemicals ccanonly referred
to as the chloroaethanea.
Carbon tetrachloride (CC14) can be produced by a variety of processes including
the chlorination of carbon disulfide, methane, and methyl chloride, or the chlori-
nolysis of mixed hydrocarbons.
In 1978 six companies at ten locations in the U.S. produced an estimated 750 million
Ib of carbon tetrachloride. The locations of the plants, the type of production
process used, and the 1978 capacity and estimated production level for each
plant are shown in Table 6-1.4<8'9
The major end-use for carbon tetrachloride is in the production of the fluoro-
carbon gases trichlorofluoromethane (F-ll) and dichlorodifluoromethane (F-12).
An estimated 55% (412.5 million Ib) of carbon tetrachloride was used to make
F-12 and an estimated 255.0 million Ib was used to make F-ll in 1978.
The remaining carbon tetrachloride production (60.0 million Ib) was used in
solvent applications as an oil, wax, and fat extractant,- in rubber cement; in
shoe and furniture polishes,- in paints and lacquers; in printing ink; in floor
waxes,- in stains; and in pesticide manufacture.
An estimated 3% of the total production amounting to 22.5 million Ib of carbon
tetrachloride was exported. End-uses for carbon tetrachloride are summarized
in Table 6-2.*
II. EMISSION ESTIMATES
PRODUCTION
Estimated emission losses from the production of carbon tetrachloride for each
location is shown in Table 6-3.''2 Total emissions of methylene chloride,
chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride from production facilities are estimated
to have been 1,351,560 Ib, 351,280 Ib, and 4,557,160 Ib respectively in 1978.
These estimates are based on the emission factors generated for each of the
four processes used in the industry.1'2'10 Other associated emission components
include methyl chloride and hydrogen chloride from the methyl chloride and
methane chlorination processes and perchloroethylene, ethylene source locations
-------
TABLE 6-1. Production of Carbon Tetrachloridc
Source
Allied Chemical Corp.
Dow Chemical
Du Pont
FMC Corp.
Stauffer Chemical
tf
W Vulcan Materials Co.
_£>
Total
Location
Moundsville, WV
Freeport, TX
Pittsburg, CA
Plaquemine , LA
Corpus Christi, TX
S. Charleston, WV
LeMoyne, AL
Louisville, KY
Geismar, I ft
Wichita, KS
1978
Estimated
Production
(106 Ih/yr)
4
70
42
65
213
156
104
18
47
31
750
d
Process
A,B°
B
C
C
C
D
D
C
C
C
1978
Estimated
Capacity
(106 Ib/yr)
8
135
80
125
410
300
200
35
90
60
1443
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude /Longitude
39 54 24/80 47 51
28 59 15/95 24 45
37 59 34/121 54 56
30 19 00/91 15 00
27 53 00/97 15 00
38 22 10/81 40 03
30 53 50/87 58 50
38 12 09/85 51 49
30 10 00/90 59 00
37 36 55/97 18 30
See refs. 4, 8,and 9.
FMC Corp. has announced that it is shutting down its 300 million pound per year
September 1979.
Distribution of the 750 million pounds per year for each producing location has
total production/total capacity X plant capacity.
(A) - Methyl chloride chlorination.
(B) - Methane chlorination.
(C) - Chlorinolysis of mixed HC feed with perchlor co-product.
(D) - Carbon disulfide chlorination.
5% methane chlorination, 95\ methyl chloride chlorination.
plant in S. Charleston, WV, in
been made as a direct ratio of
-------
6-7
TABLE 6-2. 1g7g Carbon Tetrachloride Consumption by End Use*
End Use
Percent of Consumption
End Use Total Consumption (H Ib)
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F-12) 55
Trichlorofluoromethane (F-ll) 34
Solvents and miscellaneous 8
Export 3
Total 100
*See ref. 6.
3HO
-------
TABLE 6-3. 1978 Carbon Tetrachloride Production Emissions
Company
location
Allied Chemical Moundsville, HV
Oi
-F
Den* Chemical
Dupont
FHC
Stauf fer
Vulcan
Total
Derived from
b
Based on 8760
Trecport, TX
Plttsburg, CA
Plaqucmlne, LA
Corpus Chrlatl, TX
South Charleston, WV
Lemoyne , AL
Louisville, KY
Olsmar, LA
Wichita, KA
the emission factors shown
hr/yr operation.
Process VET.*.
(Ib/yr)
20
370
350
550
1,790
1,560,000
1,040,000
150
400
260
2,603,890
In Table 10.
: Bais^long Storegc Vent
(g/3ec)b
Nil
0.005
O.C05
0.006
0.026
22.458
14.972
0.002
0.006
0.004
(Ib/yr)
B
70
103
355
530
353
30
78
51
1,508
510
.960
,HO
,550
,710
,40O
,600
,060
,490
,770
,110
Emissions
(q/gcc)b
0.007
0.129
1.010
1.563
5.121
7.636
5.091
0.433
1.130
0.745
Fugitive
(Ib/yr)
290
5,030
20,580
31,850
104,370
93,600
62,400
8,620
23,030
15,190
365,160
Emissions
(g/sec)b
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
004
072
296
459
503
317
898
127
332
219
Total emissions
db/yt)
14
91
140
461
2,184
1,456
39
101
67
4,557
820
,28C
,070
,950
,870
,000
.000
,030
,920
,220
,160
(g/aec)
0.012
0. 206
1.311
2.P29
6.649
31 . 441
20.961
0.562
1.467
0.968
i
CO
-------
6-9
source locations for fluorocarbons 11 and 12 manufacture are shown in Table 6-4.n
Also shown in that table are the production quantities for fluorocarbons 11 and
12 and the corresponding carbon tetrachloride manufacturing requirement.
Emission estimates of carbon tetrachloride from these sites are shown in Table b-5.'4
Total estimated emissions of carbon tetrachloride from fluorocarbon 11 and 12
production sites are estimated to have been 446,200 Ib in 1978. Other associated
emissions from these sites would incude other halocarbons used as feed materials
and the various fluorocarbons produced. Vent parameter data relative to carbon
tetrachloride emissions from fluorocarbons 11 and 12 production are shown in
Table 9-7. Carbon tetrachloride emissions originate from two process distillation
vents and four storage tanks.
The remaining carbon tetrachloride (60.0 million Lb) consumed for solvent appli-
cations is eventually released to the atmosphere. Specific source locations
could not be identified. Emissions from exports were assumed to be negligible.
Total nationwide emissions of carbon tetrachloride in 1978 from all sources are
estimated to have been 65,030,000 Ib. A tabulation of the losses is shown in
Table 6-6.
-------
Table 6-4. Users of Carbon Tetrachlori.de and Chloroform to Produce Pluorocarbona
Allied Ch«*lcal
Baton Rouge, LA
DamrLlU. IL
Elilabcth. HJ
Cl S«q\indo, C*
Du Pont
hntloch. CM
Devpwater, HJ
ItontiTue. HI
Loulivllle. CT
Corpuj Chrlstl,
Pennvalt Corp.
Calvcrt City. K.1
Thororarc. NJ
Union Carbide
Institute and E.
"njinuj" " Estimated 1978 Production
Capacity f-11 F-12 F-22
(106 lb) (10 lb) (106 Ib) (106 lb
Kssmerd ahut down
29.5 40.6
1 310
28.5 40.6 37.8
28.5 40.6 37.8
136.8 52.3
36.8 52.3 48.8
400 36.8 52.3
48.8
.
60 22.1 31.4 19.5
35 Assi^ed •hutc'cwn
Charleston, try Hot listed Aasisned shutdown
Carbon
EitlMted T«tra- CMoro-
— Production chloride form
Totale Uied Uied
1 (106 lb) (10s lb) (106 lb)
87.1
282.9 87.3 55.7
87.3 55.7
1112.6
112.6 71.9
364.9 112.6
71.9
73.0 67.6 28. ۥ
Ooqraphlc Coordinate*
Latitude/Longitude
4O 08 10/87 33 45
40 40 45/74 11 51
33 56 30/118 26 35
37 59 37/121 52 00
39 41 25/75 30 35
43 24 10/66 23 40
39 11 51/85 5« 13
27 53 00/97 15 00
37 03 1B/B8 19 40
EBICM Chenlcal Corp. (Racon)
Wichita. KS
20
Kaiser Mmlnin t Chemical Corp.
Cranercy. LA
Total
BO
925 218 310.1 192.7
720.8 667.5 283.8
cr>
o
•See rel. 11.
-------
6-11
Table 6-5. Emissions from Carbon Tetrachloride and
Chloroform Users for Flurocarbon Production3
F-ll/F-12 Carbon
Tetrachloride
Emissions
F-22 Chloroform
Emissions
Source Location
Allied Danville, IL
Elizabeth, NJ
El Segundo, CA
Du Pont Antioch, CA
Deepwater, NJ
Montague, MI
Louisville, KY
Pennwalt Calvert City, KY
Total
(lb/yr)b (g/sec)d (lb/vr)c (g/sec)d
58,460 0.84 0
58,460 0.84 115,200 1 . S6
58,460 0.84 115,200 1.66
75,420 1.09 0 0
75,420 1.09 148,800 2.14
75,420 1.09 0 0
0 148,800 2.14
45,240 0.65 59,410 0.86
446,200 587,410
See ref. 14.
b
Based on the following emission factor:
Process 0.000449 A -
Storage 0.000442 A -
Fugitive 0.000178 A -
(derived from site visit)
(derived from site visit)
(derived from site visit)
0.001069
c
Based on the following emission factor:
Process 0 A -
Storage 0.00374 A -
Fugitive 0.00075 A -
(derived from site visit)
(derived from site visit)
(derived from site visit)
0.00449
Assumes 8760 hours/year operation.
-------
6-12
Table 6-6. 1978 Estimated Carbon Tetrachloride Nationwide Emission Losses
Estimated National
Source Emission (ii Ib/yr)
Production 4.56
•\
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F-]
0 47
Trichlorofluoromethane J
Solvents, miscellaneous 60.0
Export 0
Total 65.03
-------
en
UJ
FIGURE 6-1. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF CARBON TETRACHLORIDE EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 6-7. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC
POINT SOURCES OF CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
* +
EMISSIONS (CH/8EC)
HO.
1
2
3
4
3
6
7
UJ o
-p 8
10
II
12
13
14
13
16
17
COMPANY
SITE
ALLIED CHEMICAL MOUWDSVILLE. MV
DOW CREniCAL
DOW CHEMICAL
DOW CHEMICAL
DUPONT
STAUFFER
VULCAN
VULCAN
STAUFFlCn.
ALL ICO
ALLIES
ALLIED
DUPONT
DIII'ONT
DUPONT
I'KNNWALT
FRKEPOBT. TX
PITTSBURC. CA
PLAQUEHIHE. LA
conpus CRISTI. TX
LOUISVILLE. VCY
CEISJIAA. LA
WICHITA. KJ\
SO CHARLESTON. WV
LEfJOYflE, AL
DANVILLE, IL
EL!ZAB2Tfi. f»J
EL eECUITOO. CA
DEEPWATER, NJ
lfORTiM.il/. Til
ANTIOCH, CA
CALVERT CITY, KY
LATITUDE LONGITUDE
39
28
37
3O
27
3O
39
37
3O
30
40
40
33
39
13
37
37
34
39
39
19
53
12
!O
36
•10
5U
on
43
36
41
2»
39
0:1
39 0B0
32 095
34 121
Oft 091
OO 0'*7
09 005
GO (J09
S5 997
10 OOI
50 0117
10 007
4ES 674
3@ 1 IB
25 073
10 AL6
;) r 121
111 01W
44 49
23 35
34 B6
15 OO
15 00
51 49
59 6O
m '30
40 03
GU 50
33 40
13 51
26 35
30 35
2:; 40
52 00
19 40
n inn
STATION
13736
12923
23202
13970
12925
93029
I295U
93920
9304 1
14(106
&4739
23129
13739
I4.;i-;o
2:1202
OoilM.
i i*nn i
TYTE
,
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
•1
0
5
5
3
(,
I.
(j
r*VL>iHjt,
1YPE
,
o
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
B
B
3
', t
[>
5
PUOCESS
.000288
.003328
.00B040
. 00792O
. 025776
-OO2I6O
-OO576O
.003744
22.464GOO
14.976000
-353520
. U8352O
.353826
.456192
. ')fi'J04O
.45iil92
. 2736OU
STOHACE
.007344
. 127872
1 .010016
1 .563120
5. 122224
.43-116 4
1 . I3O256
.7454OB
7.63776C
5.091840
. 34U04U
-34S343
. 348048
.448992
.04-S-W2
.'J.4U992
. 2f>92UO
FUGITIVE
.004176
.072432
.2963B2
.45U640
1 . 502928
. I2700B
.331032 0
i
.2 16736 ^
.89UR60
. I396C®
. J956fii
. 139660
. 180864
.lftO)M,4
. IU0B64
. 108432
-------
TABLE 6-7 (Concluded)
* Plant Types:
Type 1: Plant produces carbon tetrachloride by using the methyl chloride
chlorination process
Type 2: Plant produces carbon tetrachloride by using the methane chlorination
process
Type 3: Plant produces carbon tetrachloride by using the chlorlnolysls process
Type 4: Plant produces carbon tetrachloride by using the carbon dlsulflde
chlorination process
Type 5: Plant produces flurocarbons
t Source Types:
Type 1: Methyl chloride chlorination process
Type 2: Methane chlorlnatlon process
Type 3: Chlorlnolysis process
Type 4: Carbon dlsulflde chlorlnatlon processes
Type 5: Flurocarbons production process
-------
6-16
TABLE 6-8. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF CARBON TETRACHLOR1DE RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration Population
Level Exposed Dosage
(ug/m3) (persons) [(ug/m3) . persons]
1.580 15 24.100
1.000 97 127,000
500 475 399.000
250 1.098 627.000
100 3,803 1,020,000
50 7,409 1.270,000
25 18.319 1.650.000
10 36,196 1.930.000
5 61.634 2,110.000
2.5 102,689 2,260,000
1 209,428 2.420,000
0.5 335,559 2,500,000
8.79xlO-5* 7,979,115 2,880,000
•The lowest annual average concentreUon occurring within 20 km of the
tpeclflc point source.
-------
6-17
TABLE 6-9. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
Parameter Value
Daytime decay rate (K^) 0
Nighttime decay rate (K ) 0
Hanna-Gifford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (EH) 0
Nationwide nonheating stationary source emissions (E^) 864 gm/sec
Nationwide mobile source emissions 0
350
-------
TABLE 6-10. CARBON TETRACHLOfUDS EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
PF.RCE?JTA;:P: OP COHTRIBUTIOH
or DISTRIBUTIOH
05
tA
mmm-ir »^>uw rwruut i iwi
(W«D3) (PERSON)
• .•&&£ 1MI40
I.«*SCC? 9I497S*
.t5C««3 33£72a^
.28^3^3 O32 19704
. I0®8C2 I4292C93S
0. I3O679I33
PERSON)
2337990.7
17910784.0
8SlQ4£29.e
BI5282S4.4
6 1 07966 J. 9
G292G2U9.G
DKATIMC
e.
9.
W.
0.
0.
0.
STATIUHAnr HOLILt
!00.0 0.
100.0 0.
100.0 0.
lee.e e.
ieo.0 o.
1 Of 1 M A
CITY TYPE 1
100.0
100.0
100.0
98. 1
94.6
92.9
CITY TYPE 2
..
0.
0.
.7
2.C
2.6
CITY TYPE 3
..
0.
0.
1.2
a.G
4.0
-------
TABLE 6-12. EXPOSURE AND OOSAfiE SUGARY OF CARBON TrniACHLORIDE
i
Concentration Specific
Level
(pq/ro3)
1580
1000
500
250
100
50
25
10
5
M 2.5
cP 1
H 0.5
0.25
0.1
0
Point
Soorc*
15
97
475
1,098
3.803
7.409
18.819
36.196
61.634
102.689
209,428
335.559
—
--
7.979.115
Population Exposed
(persons)
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
505.140
9.149,730
33.072,205
83,219,704
142,928.535
158,679,135
M.S. Total
11
97
475
1,098
3,803
7.409
18,819
36.196
61.634
606.829
9,359.158
33,407.764
--
--
--
Specific
Point
Source
24.100
127.000
399,000
627,000
1.020.000
1.270.000
1.650.000
1,930,000
2.110,000
2,260,000
2.420,000
2,500,000
--
-_
2,880,000
Dosage
[(ug/rn3). persons]
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.327,400
17,913.784
35,194,859
51,528,284
61,879.083
62.926.300
I
U.S. Total
i
24.100
127,000
399,000
627,000
1.020.000
1,270,000
1.650,000
1,930.000
2,110,000
4,587,400
20,333.784
• a
__
__
65,806,200
en
i
NOTE: The use of -- as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D 1s not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry 1n another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted 1n another column.
-------
6-20
REFERENCES
1. F. D. Hobbf and C. W. Stueue, Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for
the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Product Report on Chloro-
iie thanes, Methane Chlorination Process (on file at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle
Park, NC (January 1979).
2. F. D. Hobbs and C. W. Stueue, Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for
the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Product Report on Chloro-
Bethanes, Methanol Hydrochlorination and Methyl Chloride Chlorination Processes
(on file at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC (January 1979).
3. "Chemical Product Synopsis on Methylene Chloride," Mannsville, Chemical Products
(March 1978).
4. T. E. Killilea, "Chlorinated Methanes," Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford
Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (April 1979).
5. "Chemical Profile on Methylene Chloride," Chemical Marketing Reporter
(September 20, 1976).
6. "Chemical Product Synopsis on Chloroform," Elfinnsville Chemical Products
(June 197B).
7. "Chemical Profile on Chloroform," Chemicc] Marketing Reporter (September 27, 1976)
8. "Chemical Product Synopsis on Carbon Tetrachloride," Mannsville Chemical Products
(June 1976).
S. "Chemical Profile on Carbon Tetrachloride," Chemical Marketing Reporter
(April 10, 1978).
10. F. D. Hobbs and C. W. Stuewe, Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for
the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry—-Product Report on Carbon
Tetrachloride and Perchloroethylcne, Hydrocarbon Chlorinolysis Process (on file
at EPA, ESED, Reiearch Triangle Park, NC (March 1979).
-------
6-21
11. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning, EPA-450/2-77-022
(OAQPS No. 1.2-079), Research Triangle Park, NC (November 1977).
12. Solvent Metal Cleaning, Background Information: Proposed Standards (draft)
EPA, NSPS, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC (November 1978).
13. Chemical Research Services, 1979 Directory of Chemical Producers, United States
of America, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA.
14. D. M. Pitts, Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for the Synthetic Organic
Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Product Report on Fluorocarbons, on file at EPA,
ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC (February 1979).
-------
APPENDIX A-7 Chlorobenzene (p-Dichlorobenzene
and o-Dichlorobenzene)
CHLOROBENZENE (MONO) CHEMICAL DATA
nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 108-90-7
Synonyms: Phenyl Chloride; Monochlorobenzene; Chorobenzol; Benzene
Chloride
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 112.56
Molecular Formula: C6H5C1
Molecular Structure:
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical Stete at STP: Liquid-colorless, very refractive
Boiling Point: 131. 7eC at 760 mm
Melting Point: -45.6°C
Density: 1.1053 at 20°C/4°C
Vapor Pressure: 12.14 nm at 25°C
Vapor Density: 3-BB
Solubility: Insoluble (H20)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octonol/rLO) : 2-84
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products:
Reactivity Toward OH- : W3 Butane
Reactivity Toward Cu: No reaction
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: No photochemical degradation
Major Atmospheric Precursors: N/A
Formation Reactivity: -2^
-------
7-5
o-DICHLOROBENZENE CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 95-50-1
Synonyms: DCB; Dichlorobenzol; 1,2-Dichlorobenzene; o-Dichlorobenzol;
ODB; ODCBi Chloroben; Cloroben; Dizene; Dowthern E
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 147.0
Molecular Formula: C&H^C12
Molecular Structure: rj
.Cl
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Liquid - colorless
Boiling Point: 180.5°C at 760 mm
Melting Point: = 17°C
Density: 1.305 at 20°C/4°C
Vapor Pressure: 1.45 at 25°C
Vapor Density: 5.05
Solubility: Slightly soluble (0.145 g/1 of H2
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H20): 3.38
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products:
Reactivity Toward OH-: 1/2 Butane
Reactivity Toward 03: 5% Propylene
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: NAPP
Major Atmospheric Precursors: N/A
Formation Reactivity:
-------
/-D
p-DICHLOROBENZENE CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 95-50-1
Synonyms: DCB; Dichlorobenzol ; Paradichlorobenzene; Parazene; Paramoth;
Di-chloricide; Paracide; Paradi; Paradow; Santochlor
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 147.0
Molecular Formula: CgH^C
Molecular Structure:
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Monocllnic crystals - volatile
Boiling Point: 174.12°C
Melting Point: 53.5°C
Density: 1.288 at 20°C/4°C
Vapor Pressure: 2.26 at 25°C
Vapor Density:
Solubility: Nearly insoluble (0.079 g/1 of H20)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H20) : 3.39
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products:
Reactivity Toward OH- : 1/2 Butane
Reactivity Toward 03: 5% Propylene
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: NAPP
Major Atmospheric Precursors: N/A
R*>*rt 1 vl tv:
-------
7-7
I. SOURCES
A. PRODUCTION
This report summarizes emissions of chlorobenzenes including monochlorobenzene
and the two dichlorobenzene isomers (o-dichlorobenzene and p-dichlorobenzene).
Monochlorobenzene is produced by the direct chlorination of benzene using iron
as a catalyst. When only monochlorobenzene is desired, the temperature is
kept near the lower end of a 40 to 60°C range, and only 60% of the theoretical
amount of chlorine is added to lessen the formation of dichlorobenzenes. When
dichlorobenzenes are desired, higher chlorine quantities and temperatures are
used. The chlorinated benzene is neutralized with aqueous caustic soda, allowed
to separate, and the dichlorobenzene-rich sludge that forms is removed. The
chlorobenzene layer is then distilled to obtain a fraction containing unreacted
benzene and some monochlorobenzene, which is recycled, and chlorobenzene. The
higher chlorinated fractions and residues from a number of batches are combined
and then distilled to recover para-dichlorobenzene in the distillate and ortho-
dichlorobenzene residues which are then purified.
There are currently 6 monochlorobenzene producers in the United States. The
locations of the plants and the 1976 capacity and estimated production for each
plant are shown in Table 7-1.' 2 3 In 1978, an estimated 355 million Ib of mono-
chlorobenzene was produced.
Table 7-2 3 * 3 presents the producers of o-dichlorobenzene in the United States.
There are currently 7 sites which produced an estimated 59 million Ib of
o-dichlorobenzene in 1978.
Table 7-3 3 * 6 presents the producers of p-dichlorobenzene in the United Spates.
There are currently 7 sites which produced an estimated 55 million Ib of
p-dichlorobenzene in 1978.
B. USES
Table 7-4 summaries the chlorobenzene end-use distribution. The various uses,
quantities, and percent usage of monochlorobenzene, o-dichlorobenzene, and
p-dichlorobenzene are shown. Approximately 49% of the monochloobenzene pro-
duced is used in solvents and 30% is used in nitrochlorobenzenes. Other uses
-------
Table 7-1. Honochlorobenzene Producers
Source
Dow
ICC
Monsanto
Montrose
PPGb
Standard Chlorine
Total
Location
Midland, MI
Niagra Falls, NY
Sauget, IL
Henderson, NV
New Martinsville, WV
Delaware City, DE
1978
Estimated
Production
(106 Ib/yr)
101
5
69
32
79
69
355
1978
Estimated
Capacity
(106 Ib/yr)
220
10
150
70
172
150
772
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude /Longitude
43 35 28/84 13 08
43 03 33/79 00 55
38 35 31/90 10 11
36 03 32/114 58 34
39 47 22/80 51 27
39 33 54/75 38 47
a
See refs. 1, 2, and 3.
b
Total production was distributed per site based on site capacity.
CD
-------
Table 7-2. o-Dichlorobenrene Producers3
Source
Location
1978
Estimated
Production*3
(10° Ib/yr)
1978
Estimated
Capacity
(106 Ib/yr)
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude/Longitude
Dow
Monsanto
PPG
Standard Chlorine
Specialty Organicsc
Hontrose
ICC
Total
Midland, MI
Sauget, IL
New Martinsville, WV
Delaware City, DE
Irwindale, CA
Henderson, NV
Niagara Falls, NY
12
6
15
19
1
3
3
59
30
16
38
50
2
7
8
151
43 35 28/84 13 08
38 35 31/90 10 11
39 47 22/80 51 27
39 33 54/75 38 47
34 06 30/117 55 48
36 03 32/114 58 34
43 03 33/79 00 55
See refs. 3, 4, and 5.
bTotal production was distributed per site based on capacity.
CProcesses dichlorobenzenes from Montrose.
-------
Table 7-3. p-Dichlorobenzene Producers'
1978
EstJ mated
Pioduct
Source
location
(10° Ib/yr)
1978
Estimated
Capacity
(JOG Ib/yr)
Geographic Coordinates
La ti t\idc /Longitude
Dow
Monsanto
PPG
Standard Chlorine
Specialty Organics
Hontrose
ICC
Total
Midland, MI
Sauget, IL
New Martinsville, WV
Delaware City, DE
Irwindale, CA
Henderson, NV
Niagara Falls, NY
9
4
13
24
1
2
_2
55
30
12
40
75
2
7
B
174
43 35 28/94 13 08
38 35 31/90 10 11
39 47 22/80 51 27
39 33 54/75 38 47
34 06 30/117 55 40
36 03 32/114 58 34
43 03 33/79 00 55
See refs. 3, 4, and 6.
Total production was distributed per site based on capacity.
"Processes dichlorobenzenes from Montrose.
-------
7-11
Table 7-4. Chlorobenzenes End-Use Distribution 19783
Source
Monochlorobenzene
Pesticide/degreasing solvents
Nitrochlorobenzene
DDT
Diphenyl oxide
Miscellaneous, others
o-Dichlorobenzene
3,4 dichloroaniline
Toluene diisocyanate solvent
Miscellaneous solvents (paint
removers, engine cleaners, etc.)
Dye manufacturing
Pesticide intermediate
p-Dichlorobenzene
Space deodorant
Moth control
Pesticide intermediate
Usage
(million Lb/yr)
355
174
107
25
28
21
59
38
9
6
3
3
55
27.5
22
5.5
Usage
(%)
100
49
30
7
8
6
100
65
15
10
5
5
100
50
40
10
See ref. 3.
-------
7-12
of monochlorobenzene include DDT and diphenyl oxide. Approximately 65% of the
o-dichlorobenzene produced is used for dichloroaniline manufacture, which is
then used as an intermediate in pesticide manufacture. Other uses include solvents,
dyes, and as a pesticide intermediate. Approximately. 50% of the p-dichlorobenzene
is used in the manufacture of space odorants and 40% is used in moth control.
Pesticide manufacture, as a chemical intermediate, accounts for 10% of the
p-dichlorobenzene usage.
Specific identified source locations of monochlorobenzene users are shown in
Table 7-5. 7 They include nitrochlorobenzene, DDT, and diphenyl oxide producers.
Honchlorobenzene usage was distributed based on the individual plant's produc-
tion capacity. In the case of diphenyloxide , capacity numbers were not available
so the usage was distributed evenly between both sites.
Specific identified source locations of o-dichlorobenzene users are shown in
Tables 7-6 and 7-7. They include TDI production sites where o-dichlorobenzene is
used as a solvent (Table 7-67) and dichloroaniline sites where it is used as an
intermediate (Table 7-7 7). Total o-dichlorobenzene usage was distributed over the
TDI aites based on TDI site capacity.
o-Dichlorobenzene usage for dichloroaniline manufacture was divided evenly over
the four sites in the absence of capacity figures.
other uses of chlorobenzenes are presented by a geographic region distribution
in the emissions Section II of this report.
II. EMISSION ESTIMATES
PRODUCTION
Table 7-8 shows the roonochlorobenzene emissions from production sites. Total
estimated emissions from the 6 sites were 1,136,000 Ib in 1978. Emission factors
used to develop process, storage, and fugitive emission estimates are shown in
Table 7-8. Process vent emissions originate primarily from distillation processes.
Storage emissions represent losses from both working and final product storage
tanks as well as loading and unloading losses. The number of tanks at a facility
34,3
-------
Table 7-5. Monochlorobenzene End-Users
Monochloro-
End-Use Capacity benzene Used
Company Location (million Ib/yr) (million Ib/yr)
Nitrochlorobenzene Producers
Du Pont Deepwater, NJ 45 34
Monsanto Sauget, IL 90 73
Total 140 107
DDT Producer
Montrose Torrance , CA 60 25
Diphenyl Oxide Producers
Dow .„ Midland, MI NAb 14
Monsanto Chocolate Bayou, TX NA 14
Total 28
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude /Longitude
39 41 25/75 30 35
38 35 31/90 10 11
33 46 58/118 22 06
43 35 28/84 13 08
29 14 55/95 12 45
See ref. 7.
Not available.
-------
Table 7-6. o-Dichlorobenzene Solvent Users
(Manufacturers of Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI)|
Company
Allied Chemical
BASF Wyandotte
Dow Chemical
Du Pont
Hobay Chem. Corp.
Olin Corp.
Rubicon Chems. Inc.
Union Carbide
Total
Location
1978
TDI
Capacity
(106 Ib/yr)
1978 o-Dichloro-
benzene Use
(Ib/yr)
Moundsville, WV
Geismar. LA
Freeport, TX
Deepwater, NJ
Baytown, TX
New Martinsvilie, WV
Ashtabula, OH
Lake Charles, LA
Geismar, LA
S. Charleston, WV
80
100
100
70
130
100
30
100
40
55
805
894,410
1,118,010
1,118,010
782,610
1,453,416
1,118,010
335,405
1,118,010
447,205
614,905
9,000,000
Geographic Location
Latitude/Longitude
39 54 39/80 44 49
30 11 34/91 00 42
28 59 12/95 24 05
39 41 25/75 30 35
29 45 30/94 54 25
39 44 50/80 50 50
41 53 07/80 45 50
30 13 55/93 15 57
30 12 00/91 11 30
38 19 35/81 40 29
See ref. 7.
DTotal o-dichlorobenzene use is distributed per site based on TDI capacity.
I
•c*
-------
7-15
Table 7-7. o-Dichlorobenzene Chemical Intermediate User Locations*
Source
Location
Geographic Coordinates
(lati t ude/longitude)
2, 4-Dichloroaniline
Eastman Kodak Company
2 , 4-Dichloroaniline
Blue Spruce Company
Du Pont
Monsanto
Rochester, NY
Bound Brook, NJ
Deepwater, NY
Luling, LA
43 12 01/77 37 58
40 32 10/74 29 18
39 41 25/75 30 35
29 55 10/90 22 30
See ref. 7.
-------
Table 7-8. Monochlorobenzene Emissions from Production Sites
01
J
Emissions (Ib/yr)
Company
Dow
ICC
Monsanto
Mont rose
PPG
Standard Chlorine
Total
Based on the following
Process 0.00206
Storage 0.00045
Fugitive 0.00069
Location
Midland, Ml
Niagara Falls, NY
Sauget, IL
Henderson, NV
New Martinsville, WV
Delaware City, DE
emission factors (Ib
A - (derived from
A - (derived from
A - (derived from
Process
208,060
10.300
142,140
65,920
162,740
142,140
731,300
Storage
45,450
2,250
31,050
14,400
35,550
31,050
159,750
emitted per Ib produced).
site visit
site visit
site visit
data)
data)
data)
Fugitive
69,690
3,450
47,610
22,080
54,510
47,610
244,950
See re f . 8 .
a
Total Emissions ,_
(Ib/yr)
323,200
16,000
220,800
102,400
252.800
220,800
1,136.000
(g/sec)"
4.65
0.23
3.18
1.47
3.64
3.18
b
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
ot
-------
7-17
are a function of the production and tank sizes. Fugitive emissions are those
that result from plant equipment leaks. Emission estimates are based on a plant
operation schedule of 24 hr/day, 7 days/week, 52 weeks/yr.
Table 7-9 shows the o-dichlorobenzene emissions from production sites. Total
estimated emissions from the 7 sites were 209,450 Ib in 1978. Emission factors
used to develop the process, storage, and fugitive emissions are shown in Table 9.
Table 7-10 shows the p-dichlorobenzene emissions from production sites. Total
estimated emissions from the 8 sites were 398,200 Ib in 1978. Emission factors
used to develop the process, storage, and fugitive emissions are shown in Table 7-10.
USES
Monochlorobenzene
It was estimated that 75% of the chlorobenzene used as solvent was consumed in
cold cleaning operations. Total emissions of 130,500,000 Ib were derived by
assuming that all chlorobenzene consumed was lost. The total number of cleaners
in service and the average emission rate per unit are shown in Table 7-n. Distri-
bution of the cold cleaners by geographic region is shown in Table 7-12.
The remaining chlorobenzene was used as a solvent in pesticide manufacture.
The entire amount used (43,500,000 Ib) was assumed to be lost. The total emis-
sions that are shown in Table 7-13 by geographic region were distributed by the
number of sites in each region.
Emissions from chlorobenzenes used as chemical intermediates sre summarized in
Table 7-14. They were derived from the emission factors shown in Table 7-15. Emis-
sions from nitrochlorobenzene, DDT, and diphenyl oxide were estimated to be
171.200 Ib, 12,500 Ib, and 28,500 Ib respectively.
Miscellaneous uses of chlorobenzene were estimated by using an average emission
factor derived for all other chlorobenzene uses of 0.00133 Ib lost/lb used times
the usage. Emissions from miscellaneous uses were estimated to have been 27,930 Ib.
Source locations could not be identified for regional distribution.
-------
Table 7-9. o-Dichlorobenzene Emissions from Production Sites
Emissions (lb/vr)
Company
Dow
Monsanto
PPG
Standard Chlorine
Specialty Organics
Montrose
ICC
Total
a
Based on the following
Process 0.00232
Storage 0.00047
Fugitive 0.00076
Location
Midland, MI
Sauget, IL
New Martinsville, WV
Delaware City, DE
Irwindale, CA
Henderson, NV
Niagara Falls, NY
emission factors (Ib
A - (derived from
A - (derived from
A - (derived from
Process
27
13
34
44
2
6
6
136
,840
,920
,800
.080
.320
.960
,960
,880
emitted per Ib
Storage
5
2
7
8
1
1
27
,640
,820
,050
,930
470
,410
,410
,730
produced).
Fugitive
9
4
11
14
2
2
44
See
,120
,560
,400
,440
760
,280
,280
,840
ref. 8.
3
Total Emissions
(Ib/yr)
42
21
53
67
3
10
10
209
,600
.300
,250
,450
,550
,650
,650
,450
(g/sec)"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.61
.31
.77
.97
.05
.15
.15
site visit data)
site visit data)
site visit data)
i
CD
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
Table 7-10. p-Dichlorobenzene Emissions from Production Sites
0
Emissions (Ib/yr)
Company
Dow
Monsanto
PPG
Standard Chlorine
Specialty Organics
Mont rose
ICC
Total
a
Based on the following
Process 0.005B1
Storage 0.00041
Fugitive 0.00102
Location
Midland, MI
Sauget, IL
New Martinsville, WV
Delaware City, DE
Irwindale, CA
Henderson, NV
Niagara Falls, NY
emission factors (Ib
A - (derived from
A - (derived from
A - (derived from
Process
52,290
23,240
75,530
139,440
5,810
11,620
11,620
319,550
emitted per
site visit
site visit
site visit
Storage
3,690
1,640
5,330
9,840
410
820
820
22,550
Ib produced).
data)
data)
data)
Fugitive
9,180
4,080
13,260
24,480
1,020
2,040
2,040
56,100
See ref. 8.
a
Total Emissions
(Ib/yr)
65,160
28,960
94,120
173,760
7,240
14,480
14,480
398,200
(g/sec)"
0.94
0.42
1.35
2.50
0.10
0. 21
0.21
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
7-20
Table 7-11. Chlorobenzene Emissions from Solvent Degreasers
Type Degreaser
Cold cleaners
Estimated
National
Emission,
(M Ib/yr)
130.5
Estimated
Number of
Units, in
Service
197,428
Average
Rate
(Ib/yr)
661
Emission
per Unit
(q/sec)C
0.04
See refs. 3 and 9.
b
Assumes all chlorobenzene used in cold cleaners is lost.
Cfiased on 2250 hr/yr operation.
-------
Table 7-12. Estimated Number of Degreasers Using Chlorobenzene in 1978 by Geographic Location*
East West East West
North Mid North North South South South
Degreaser Type East Atlantic Central Central Atlantic Central Central Mountain Pacific Total
Cold cleaners 11,869 30,780 52,272 17,309 23,817 11,678 19,166 7,164 23,374 197,428
*See ref. 10.
•vj
!
f\J
-------
Table 7-13. 1979 Chlorobenzene Emission Estimates from Pesticide Manufacturers'
w
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total
Number of
Sites per
Region
4
37
19
15
17
14
15
5
13
139
Monoch lorobcnzenc
Emissions as Solvent
( Ib/yr) b
1,251.800
11,579,135
5,946,045
4,694,245
5,320,145
4,3B1,295
4,694,245
1,564,750
4,068,345
43,500,000
o-Dichlorobenzena
Emissions
(lb/yr)c
43
400
205
160
185
150
160
55
140
1500
p-Dichlorobenzene
Emissions
(lb/yr)d
80
730
375
295
335
275
295
100 vj
255 K
2750
See ref. 10.
Average per site 312,950 Ib/yr (4.51 g/sec)
"Average per site 10.8 Ib/yr (0.0002 g/sec).
Average per site 19.8 Ib/yr (0.0003 g/sec).
-------
Table 7-14. Emissions from Chlorobenzene End-Users (Chemical Intermediate)
JP-
Emissions
Company
Monoch lorobenzene
Du Pont
Monsanto
Mont rose
Dow
Monsanto
o-Di chlorobenzene
Eastman
Blue Spruce
Du Pont
Monsanto
Location
Deepwater, NJ
Sauget, IL
Torrance , CA
Midland, MI
Chocolate Bayou, TX
Rochester, NY
Bound Brook, NJ
Deepwater, NY
Luling, LA
Process
db/yr)
37
80
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
,400
,300
,000
,800
,800
,975
,975
,975
,975
Storage
(lb/yr)
6
14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
,800
,600
,250
,400
,400
,425
,425
,425
,425
Fugitive
(lb/yr)
10
21
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
,200
,900
,250
,800
,800
,850
,850
,850
,850
Total
lb/yr
54
116
12
14
14
14
14
14
14
,400
,800
,500
,000
,000
,250
,250
,250
,250
L
g/sec"
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.78
.68
. 18
. 20
.20
.21
.21
.21
.21
Based on emission factors shown in table.
b
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
ro
CO
-------
7-24
Table 7-15. Chlorobenzenes End-User Emission Factors
End-User
Monochlorobenzene
DDT
Nitrochlorobenzene
Diphenyloxide
o-Dichlorobenzene
4-Dichloroani line
Dye manufacturing
Pesticide intermed.
p-Dichlorobenzene
Pesticide intermed.
Emission
Process
0.0004
0.0011
0.0007
0.00105
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
Factor
Storage
0.00005
0.00020
0.00010
0.00015
0.00005
0.00005
0.00005
(Ib lost/lb used)
Fugitive
0.00005
0.00030
0.00020
0.00030
0.00005
0.00005
0.00005
Total
0.00050
0.00160
0.00100
0.00150
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
a
Derivation
b
C
cb
BC
b
C
D
D
D
a
B - Basis: state air files
C - Basis: published data
D - Basis; Hydroscience estimate
bSee ref. 11.
CSee ref. 12.
-------
7-25
2. o-Dichlorobenzene
Emissions resulting from the use of o-dichlorobenzene as a solvent in TDI manu-
facture were estimated to be 9,000,000 Ib by assuming that all usage is lost.
Table 7-16 summarizes TDI o-dichlorobenzene emissions which were distributed based
on TDI capacity.
Emissions from chemical intermediate use of o-dichlorobenzene are shown in Table 7-14
for dichloroaniline manufacture (57,000 Ib). Total emissions were distributed
evenly per site since capacity data were not available. Emission factors used
to derive o-dichlorobenzene emissions are shown in Table 7-15.
Pesticide intermediate uses of o-dichlorobenzene were estimated to have been
1500 Ib and were distributed by region in Table 7-13. Dye manufacturing losses
were also estimated to be 1500 Ib, but locations by region could not be identi-
fied.
Miscellaneous solvents primarily consumer types, (i.e., paint cleaners, engine
cleaners, etc.) contributed 6,000,000 Ib of o-dichlorobenzene emissions. Losses
were considered too widespread to model.
p-Dichlorobenzene emissions from its use as a space deodorant were estimated as
27,500,000 Ib and as 22,000,000 Ib for moth control by assuming that total
usage is lost. Losses were considered too widespread to model.
Emissions from p-dichlorobenzene used as a chemical intermediate in pesticide
manufacture (2,750 Ib) are shown in Table 13 by geographic region. Emissions
were derived from the emission factors shown in Table 7-15 and distributed by the
number of sites in each region.
Vent parameter data for producers and users of chlorobenzenes are shown in Table
Total emissions of all three chlorobenzenes are summarized in Table 7-18. Total
nationwide emissions of chlorobenzene, o-dichlorobenzene, and p-dichlorobenzene
were 175.376,130 Ib, 15,269,240 Ib, and 49,900.950 Ib respectively in 1976.
Total emissions of all chlorobenzenes were estimated to have been 240,546,530 Ib.
-------
7-26
Table 7-16. o-Dichlorobenzene Emissions from Solvent Use in TDI Production
a
Total Emissions
Company
Allied Chemical
BASF Wyandotte
Dow
Du Pont
Mobay
Olin
Rubicon
Union Carbide
Total
Location
Mounds vi lie, WV
Geismar, LA
Freeport, TX
Deepwater, NJ
Bay town, TX
New Martinsville, WV
Ashtabula, OH
Lake Charles, LA
Geismar, LA
S. Charleston, WV
db/yr)
694,410
1,118,010
1,118,010
782,610
1,453,416
1,118,010
335,405
1,118,010
447,205
614,905
9,000,000
(g/sec)b
12.88
16.10
16.10
11.27
20.92
16.10
4.83
16.10
6.44
8.85
Based on total o-dichlorobenzene used as solvent lost as process emission.
b
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
Table 7-17. Chlorobenzenes Vent Parameters
J
Production
Process m,o,p
P
Storage m
o
P
Fugitive
Degreasing
b
End-Uses
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Pesticide/DDT
Process
Storage
Fugitive
TDI
Process
Number
of
Stacks
3
5
5
8
5
1
1
2
1
2
1
Vent
Height
(ft)
60
30
36
12
16
15
20
20
30
20
i
90
Vent
Diameter
(ft)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.125
.80
.33
.33
.33
.5
.17
.17
.17
.17
.9
Discharge
Temp. Velocity Distribution Area
(°F) (ft/sec) (ft x ft)
104 20
120 12
80
170
80
300 x 600
70 0.6
140 12
80
100 x 100
100 15
80
300 x 300
110 40
Building cross-section Production - 50m
Degreasing - 50m
End-uses - 100m
Pesticide - 100m'
TDI
- 200m
ro
--j
'includes dichloroaniline, nitro chlorobenzene, diphenyl oxide.
-------
7-28
Table 7-18. 1978 Nationwide Emissions of Chlorobenzenes
Source
Nationwide
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
Monochlorobenzene
Production
Pesticide/degreasing solvents
Nitrochlorobenzene
DDT
Diphenyl oxide
Miscellaneous, other
Sub-total
o-Dichlorobenzene
Production
3,4-Dichloroaniline
Toluene diisocynnate solvent
Miscellaneous solvents
Dye manufacturing
Pesticide intermediate
Sub-total
p-Dichlorobenzene
Production
Space deodorant
Moth control
Pesticide intermediate
Sub-total
Total - all chlorobenzenes
1,136,000
174,000,000
171,200
12,500
28,500
27,930
175,376,130
209,450
57,000
9,000,000
6,000,000
1,500
1,500
15,269,450
398,200
27,500,000
22,000,000
2,750
49,900,950
240,546,530
Based on an emission factor of 0.00133 Ib lost/lb used derived
from weighted average of all other monochlorobenzene uses.
31°\
-------
o
sj
FIGURE 7-1. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF CHLORCBENZENE(MONO) EMISSIONS
-------
ATT
cc
a HDM9AHTO
0 ICC
4
0 PTC
« BTAH3
7 DOPOKT
6 HDfrfDOSE
9
TABLE 7-19.
9 nc
EMISSIONS MO PCTEOWLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC
POIHT SOURCES OF CHLOAOBENZENE(NMO)
STAB PLAfcT
LATlTDDe LOHGITUPe STATION TYPE
iiaoiovo <
TTTt
. HI
0AOCET. IL
OIACARA PALLS, HT
•••••^MteALH^B •>*•
BUUUUJON. nv
REV HAflTlRSVILLJE.I
03LAVABE CITY, D£
MEFVATEH, HJ
TDKMrC. CA
CHOCOLATE BATOTJ. T
48 30 38 084 18 *8 I484B I
88 30 31 *9* I* II 13994 a
43 *3 83 *79 •• 06 14747 3
U M 33 114 M 54 90119 I
39 47 23 ea* si a? 13734 3
39 33 04 CTB 88 47 94741 3
39 4i as era so rj 13799 «
33 46 88 138 22 9S> 23129 0
29 14 88 C*3 12 45 129Q6 «
1
4
I
a
8
4
a
•
9.*4*8I« .4471
I.IB632*
01004*
.444246
9.0434O4 .011920
.44712*
.OI740J
i
UJ
o
.I44C3O
.14112*
.910069
.01*300
-------
TABLE 7-19 (Concluded)
* Plant Types:
Type 1: Plant produces chlorobenzene(rono) and dlphenyl oxide
Type 2: Plant produces chlorobenzene(mono) and nltro
chlorobenzene
Type 3: Plant produces chlorobenzene(mono)
Type 4: Plant produces nltro chlorobenzene
Type 5: Plant produces DDT
Type 6: Plant produces dlphenyl oxide
t Source Types:
^ Type 1: Chlorobenzene(mono) production
H
Type 2: Nltro chlorobenzene production
Type 3: DDT production
Type 4: Dlphenyl oxide production
-------
7-32
TABLE 7-20.
EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF CHLOROBENZENE(MONO) RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration
Level
100
50
25
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0
0
0
25
1
05
0.025
0.000432*
Population
Exposed
(persons)
12
48
22B
BOB
627
12,867
53,490
155.559
353,475
841,655
421,298
909,743
1,
5,
1,
1,
4.065,B9B
Dosage
[(ug/in3) • persons]
1,450
3,910
10.010
33,200
58,500
83,600
142,000
212,000
282.000
356,000
397,000
415,000
430,000
32.
•The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
TABLE 7-21. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM EMISSIONS FROM GENERAL
POINT SOURCES OF CHLOROBENZENE (MONO)
Population Exposed
d>
bviiv^'ivi aiiiHi
Level
(ug/rn3)
100
50
25
10
5
2.5
1.5
0.5
0.25
0.10
0.05
0.025
0.010
0
Degrees Ing
Operation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
--
--
--
--
__
Pesticide
Production
1.1
11
46
213
394
913
2.640
5.700
--
—
—
--
--
__
U.S. Total
1.1
11
46
213
394
913
2.640
5,700
--
--
—
--
--
__
Degreaslng
Operation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.06
5.5
9.4
13.0
19.9
55.3
Pesticide
Production
0.14
0.81
2.0
4.81
5.26
7.01
9.62
11.8
12.6
14.5
15.3
15.9
16.7
17.4
U.S. Total
0.14
0.81
2.0
4.81
5.26
7.01
9.62
11.8
13.7
20.0
24.7
29.0
36.6
72.6
NOTE: The use of — as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D 1s not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry In another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted in another column.
-------
7-34
TABLE 7-22. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF CHLOROBENZENE (MONO)
Parameter Value
Daytime decay rate (Kd) 4.67 x 10~6 sec"1
Nighttime decay rate (K^) 0
Hann»-G1fford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (EH) 0
Nationwide nonheatlng stationary source emissions (E^) 0.402 gm/sec
Nationwide mobile source emissions (Eu) 0
H
-------
TABLE 7-23. CHLOROBENZENE (MONO) EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
r,arn I^VIM,
.O0I000
.000900
. 000290
.000100
.00OO5O
O.
rui IILJII IMH
f !'!• 11 .•(»(!>
303 140
9149730
27010234
95n^l57
140090202
isno79ins
\ »n,x« iiJ-.i-
ioni.9
0201. 1
14972. 1
2'~> lliil.H
2JMG9.2
2909 1 . -*
in;/vnm: <
0.
0.
0.
o.
o.
o.
100.
100.
100.
100.
IOO.
ion.
IARV
0
0
0
o
o
0
NIIIIII.K
0.
0.
0.
O.
O.
0.
CIFV TYI1
100.
100.
IOO.
•»7.
94.
92.
F. 1
0
0
n
:«
-
9
riTV TVTF. 2
0.
0.
0.
1 .2
2.r.
2.6
rnv TYI-K n
0.
0.
m.
i.r.
:i.n
4.5
-------
TABLE 7-24. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUMMARY OF CHLOROBEHZEnt(rWNO)
Population Exposed
(persons)
Dosage
[("P./*3)- persons ]
Concentration SpecTfTc
Level Point
(uG/mJ)
100
50
25
10
5
2.5
1
0.3
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
C>J 0.001
°°. 0.0005
0.00025
0.0001
0.00005
0
Source
12
48
228
1,803
5,627
12,857
53,490
155.559
353.475
641.655
1,421.296
1.903.743
._
— _
__
--
--
--
4.065.898
General
Point
Source
1.100
11,000
46,000
213,000
39*9 gO^O
013. ooo
--
5,70iJjOOU
--
--
„_
--
._
— —
._
--
--
--
--
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
505,140
9,149.730
27.819,254
95,892,857
140.098.202
158,679.135
3J.S. Total
1.112
11,048
46,223
£74,308
399,627
925,867
5, £35, 555
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Specific
Point
Source
1,450
3,910
10.010
32,200
58,500
83,600
152,000
2"i2,000
2R2.000
35&.000
397,000
415,000
430.000
_ _
--
--
--
—
430,000
General
Point
Source
140.000
810.000
2.000.000
4.810,OCrU
5.260,003
7. 01 U. 000
11 ,cC€,C;~Z;
13,700,0:^
20.030, 0^3
24,7tX,CJD
ZS.O'jti.CJO
36,600.000
__
--
--
--
—
72.600,000
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.082
8.281
14.972
25.169
28,469
29,100
U.S. Totel
141.450
813,910
2,010.010
4,842,200
5,318,509
7,830,600
12.012.FjJ
13,§cV,QOy
20,355,000
25,097,000
29,^15,003
--
__
--
--
--
--
73.039,1(3)
NOTE: The use of -- as an entry Indicates that the IncreiTental E/0 1s not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry In another column at the sane row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted 1n another column.
-------
oO
I
UJ
FIGURE 7-2. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF 0-DICHLOROBEN2ENE EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 7-25.
EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF O-DICHIOROBENZENE
EH IRS IWW
HO.
1
3
3
4
0
6
7
B
9
10
II
12
13
14
13
16
17
10
19
20
COflPAHY
now
FIONSAJ1TO
PIT,
STAND COLOR INE
SPECIALTY ORGAN
mtninoyE
ICC
oupoirr
ALLIED
DWF WYAnDOTTE
DOM
TODAY
HORAY
OLIN
OLIN
nun icon
UNION C API) IDE
EASTMAN
I1LUE SPRUCE
MONSAJTTO
SITE
niDLANI). HI
SAUCET. IL
REW tlARTinSVILLE.W
DELAWARE CITY, DE
inWINDALE, CA
HENDERSON . NY
NIACARA. BY
DEEPWATEH. HJ
PtOUNDSVILLE, HV
CEISIFAR. LA
FnEEPonr. TX
DAYTOHn. TX
NEW HARTINSVILLE.WV
Asin-AnuLA. on
LAKE CIIARLF.S, LA
CEI8MAR. LA
g. CHARLESTON. HV
ROCOESTER. NY
DOUND onootc. ru
LULinC. LA
LATITUOE
43
3O
39
39
34
36
43
39
39
30
20
29
39
41
3O
30
30
43
40
29
33 2J)
37 31
47 22
33 04
06 30
O3 32
«3 33
41 23
34 39
1 ! 34
39 3O
43 30
44 30
53 O7
13 53
12 00
19 33
12 91
32 10
33 10
LONCITHDF.
OC4 13
999 10
000 01
073 30
IB? 35
1 ! :• 3O
O"9 O«
073 IB
££•7 4*3
091 IK)
0**3 23
O94 34
OCR OO
Af>A 4f|
vCrTF ^ J
093 19
091 II
001 4*
O77 37
074 29
090 22
oa
II
27
47
40
34
G5
60
49
42
33
25
39
00
C7
30
29
50
10
3O
rri«n
STATION
I4O4S
13994
13736
94741
23213
23112
I47«7
13739
13735
1397*
12923
1290*
13736
I4O43
•3937
12958
I3O66
14771
14737
13930
rtJini
TYI'F.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
TYVE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
O
2
3
3
3
process
. 4^WW6
.20044O
.SO 112*
.634732
.933400
. IOO224
. 193224
1 1 . 2A93G4
. 143640
12.079334
16.999344
16.699344
2*. 92919*
16.999344
4.O29B32
16. 999344
6.439702
O.W14632
. 14364*
. 143649
. I4364O
STORACE FUGITIVE
.9OI2I9 .131320
.04*6*0 .0*3*64
.101029 .1641*9
. I2O392 .2*7936
.00*760 .* 1*944
.9203O4 .O32O32
. 920394 . 932832
0. 9.
.92*32* .041*49
*. 9.
0. *-
4
O. 0.
9. 9.
9. 9.
9. 9.
0. 9.
0. 9.
ft. 9.
.92002* .94194*
.020320 .94194*
.92092* .041*49
CD
-------
TABLE 7-25 (Concluded)
* Plant Types:
Type 1: Plant produces o-D1chlorobenzene
Type 2: Plant produces Toluene dUsocyanate and 3,4-Dlchloroanlllne
Type 3: Plant produces Toluene dUsocyanate
Type 4: Plant produces 3,4-D1chloroan1Hne
t Source Types:
Type 1: o-Dlchlorobenzene production
Type 2: Toluene dUsocyanate production
Type 3: 3,4-D1cnloroan1l1ne production
(JL>
-------
7-40
TABLE 7-26. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF o-DICHLORO BENZENE
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration
Level
(ug/m3)
100
50
25
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.000198*
Population
Exposed
(persons)
2
3B
4,258
16.315
25.406
57.100
159.047
352.618
655.976
955.490
1.210.194
6.402,161
Dosage
[(ug/m3) . persons]
2,
147,
175
,520
.000
349.000
407.000
509.000
658.000
790.000
697,000
952.000
968,000
1,010.000
•The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 lun of the
specific point source.
-------
TABLE 7-27. EXPOSURE ANO DOSAGE RESULTING PROPS EMISSIONS FROM GENERAL p0iJfT SOURCES
OF o-DICHLOROOENZENE (PESTICIDE PRODUCTION)
Concentration
Level Population Exposed Dosage
(ug/m3) (103 persons) [103(ug/m3)-pepsofisl
0.010 O.Z 0.002
0.0050 4 0.03
0.0025 25 0.10
U 0.0010 -- 0.23
"jj 0.00050 -- 0.34
0.00025 — 0.47
0 -- 2.02
NOTE: The use of — as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D Is not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry 1n another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted in another column.
-------
7-42
TABLE 7-28. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF o-DICHLOROBENZENE
Parameter Value __
Daytime decay rate (Kd) 7.5 x 10"6 sec"1
Nighttime decay rate (Kn) 5.0 x io"7 sec"1
Hanna-Gifford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (EH) 0
Nationwide nonheatlng stationary source emissions (E.,) 66.42 gm/sec
Dye production 0.02 gm/sec
Miscellaneous solvents B6.4 gm/sec
Nationwide mobile source emissions (Eu) 0
n
-------
TABLE 7-29. O-DICKIOROBEHZEKE EXPOSURE AND DOS&E RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
(O!V(H>e>
ffEBSOK)
-D
-P
BI73964B
14292B339
IBB679I38
DOGACE
FEBBOH)
PERCENTAGE OF CONTniRUTIOn PERCENTAGE OF DISTRIBUTIOF?
HKATIHC (TTAI'IOHAJIY NOOILE CITY TYPE 1 CITY TYPE 2 CITY TYPE B
8479771.a
6O364OI.O
6121131.0
6228594.7
e.
0.
0.
o.
e.
IM.O
1*9.•
ioo.e
loe.e
ioo.e
0.
e.
190. •
98.0
94.0
92.9
6.
.7
e.
1.2
3.C
4.5
i
-p.
-------
TABLE 7-30. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUMMARY Of 0-DICW.OROBENZEflE
Population Exposed
(persons)
Dosage
Concentration Specific
Level
(uq/in3)
100
SO
25
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0
Point
Source
2
38
4,258
16,315
25.406
57,100
159,047
352,618
655,976
955,490
1,210.194
— —
^ —
6.442.161
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.000
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
505,140
9,149,730
33,072.205
81.759,648
142.928,535
158,679,135
H.S. Total
2
38
4,258
16.315
26,406
57,100
159,047
352,618
1.161.116
10,105,220
34,282,399
--
--
--
Specific
Point
Source
175
2,520
147.000
349,000
407,000
509,000
658.000
790.000
897,000
952.000
968.000
--
--
1.010,000
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2.020
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
232,451
1,772,052
3,479,775
5. 056. 481
6.1Z1.131
6.225.594
U.S. Total
175
2.520
147.000
349.000
407,000
509.000
658.000
790.000
1,129,451
2,724,052
4,447.775
--
--
7,238,000
NOTE:
The use of -- as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D Is not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry In another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted 1n another column.
-------
FIGURE 7-3. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF p-DICHLOROBENZENE EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 7-31. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF p-OICHLOROBENZENE
missions
no.
i
2
3
4
0
•
7
COriPAKT
DOM
HOH9A.HTO
PPC
*TAND cnuiRii
SPECIALTY om
norrrnosF.
ICC
SITF,
mnLAwn. m
flAucrr. IL
RTW KArrTIRSVILLe.W
IE nF.Lr.wAnr CITY. HF.
:AW iiw in DALE. CA
HEnnEnson. nv
HIACARA FALLS. HY
LATmillF.
43 nn
3B 3d
39 47
39 33
36 06
36 03
43 03
2(1
31
22
f>4
30
32
33
r> I nit i iJAn i
LOHCITOOF. PTATIon TVI'V.
OIV4
•9«
•B«
07 3
117
114
O79
13 OR
!• II
01 27
3R 47
55 4(1
9(1 34
00 55
14(143
13994
13736
94741
232 IS
23112
14747
1
i
1
1
1
1
I
1VTF. PnOTF^S
1 .752976
< . 334496
1 I.«B7632
1 2 . «M>793*
1 .W13604
1 . 167320
1 . IA732O
PTOIVACF.
.4*33136
.4*23616
.4*76792
. 14 1694V
.O05904
.•IIOOO
.•MBOB
FIICITIW
. 132192
.Meroa
. 194*944
.3B28I2
.•14* on
.•29376
.4*29376
I
J>
en
-------
7-47
TABLE 7-32- BRMg SUMS""RESULTING
Concentration Population
(ua/m3 Exposed Dosage
—^ (pers°ns) [("9/m3) . ;er50ns1
100 ~
50 £ 239
25 30 662
10 ™ 1.-360
5 JJ| 2.780
2.5 , ,„ 4,380
1 J'f" 7,360
0.5 I'JJJ 11.300
0.25 ll'^ 15.000
0.1 JJ'JJO 18,900
0.05 2|J'J« 29,500
0.025 gf'pj 40,400
0.01 , f"*"5 51.200
°-005 1 fiUnfin 60'600
0.000482 234?1??? 64'300
Zl341'103 66,000
-------
TABLE 7-33. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM EMISSIONS FROM GENERAL POINT SOURCES
OF p-OICHLOROBENZENE (PESTICIDE PRODUCTION)
/
Concentration
Level Population Exposed Dosage
(ug/*H) (IP3 persons) [1Q3(l)g/nt3)-persons]
U3
0.010
0.0050
0.0025
0.0010
0.00025
0
2
21
58
--
--
__
0.03
0.15
0.29
0.54
0.77
3.36
NOTE: The use of -- as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/0 1s not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry In another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted 1n another column.
-------
7-49
TABLE 7-34. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF p-DICHLOROBENZENE
Parameter Value
Daytime decay rate (Kd) 7.5 x 10~6 sec"1
Nighttime decay rate (Kn) 5.0 x 10~7 sec"1
Hanna-Gifford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (EH) 0
Nationwide nonheatlng stationary source emissions (EJ 713 gm/sec
Space deodorant 396 gm/sec
Moth control 317 gm/sec
Nationwide mobile source emissions (Eu) 0
n
-------
COO^f
1 •
. I
TABLE 7-35. P-OICHIOMBENZE« EIPOSU* ANO DOSAGE RESllTIW FMM AJKA SOURCE OHSSKMS
D08ACE PETtCEITTACE Of COHTRIBOTION
LEVEL POPULATION flNV(H)3-
H>3> pejisoN) fit.vriNi; STATIORAIIV HOCILK
••••* 0*414* 1*17817.8 *. I**.* *.
**••• 9I447M 14*2*149.2 *. I**.* *.
••••• M974292 344399I8.4 0. I**.* *.
1*90*
-------
TABtE 7-36. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUW1ARY OF p-DICHLOTOBEHZENE
i
I
Concentration Specific
Level
(yg/RH)
100
50
25
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
j: 0.005
a o
Point
Source
2
8
30
125
342
1,233
3,747
9,714
18,980
94,145
259,561
552.574
1,151,587
1,663,080
2,341,103
Population Exposed
(persons)
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
21,000
--
--
--
--
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
505,140
9,149,730
26,976,292
61.583.693
133,037.356
--
—
--
— -
158,679.135
U.S. Total
2
8
30
125
342
505.373
9.153.477
26,986,006
61,682,673
133,639,503
--
--
--
--
--
Specific
Point
Source
239
662
1,360
2,780
4,380
7,360
11.300
15,000
18,900
29,500
40,400
51 ,200
60,600
64,300
66,000
Dosage >
[( q/H^)- per sons]
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
150
—
--
--
3,360
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
1,917,818
14,620.149
26,029,918
37.167.988
49,590,816
--
--
--
--
51.363.678
U.S. Total
239
662
1.360
2.780
4.380
1.925,178
14.631,449
26,041,918
37.186.888
49,620,346
--
--
--
—
51,430,000
I
en
NOTE: The use of -- as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D Is not significant
(relative to last entry or relative tc entry in another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted In another column.
-------
7-52
REFERENCES
1. "Chemical Product Synopsis on Monochlorobenzene," Mannsville Chemical Products,
July 1977.
2. "Chemical Profile on Monochlorobenzene," Oct. 31, 1977, Chemical Marketing
Reporter.
3. E. M. Klapproth. "Chlorobenzenes," p. 633.5030A—I, Chemical Economics Handbook,
Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (July 1977).
4. "Chemical Product Synopsis on Dichlorobenzene," Mannsville Chemical Products,
June 197B.
5. "Chemical Profile on o-Dichlorobenzene," Sept. 6, 1976, Chemical Marketing
Reporter.
6. "Chemical Profile on p-Dichlorobenzene," Mar. 15, 1976, Chemical Marketing
Reporter.
7. 197B Directory of Chemical Producers, United States, Stanford Research Institute,
Menlo Park, CA.
8. S. W. Dylewsi, Emissions Control Options for the Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industry, Chlorobenzenes Product Report, Hydroscience, Inc.,
Knoxville, TN, August 1978.
9. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning, EPA-450/
2-77-022 (OAQP5 No. 1.2-079), Research Triangle Park, NC (November 1977).
10. Solvent Metal Cleaning, Background Information.- Proposed Standards (draft),
EPA, NSP5, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC (November 197B).
11. Special Project Report, "Petrochemical Plant Sites," prepared for Industrial
Pollution Control Division, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, by Monsanto Research Corp.,
Dayton, OH (April 1976).
12. Monsanto Corp., Chocolate Bayou, TX, Diphenyl Oxide Process, Tesas Air Control
Board emission inventory questionnaire for 1975.
-------
APPENDIX A-8 Chloroform
CHLOROFORM CHEMICAL DATA
Nomencl a lure
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 67-66-3
Synonyns: Trie hi orome thane ; Methenyl Chloride, Trichloroform; Methenyl
Trichloride; Formyl Trichloride, Methyl Trichloride
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 119.39
Molecular Formula: CHC1,
Molecular Structure:
Cl
i
Cl-C-H
i
Cl
Cher.ical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Liquid - highly refractive, nonflammable, heavy,
very volatile
Boiling Point: 61.25°C
Melting Point: -63.5°C
Density: 1.49845 at 158C
Vapor Pressure: 200 mm at 25.9°C
Vapor Density: 4.12
Solubility: Soluble (8.15 g/1 of H20)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H-D) : 1.17
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products: Easily hydrolyred by aqueous alkali to formic acid.
When exposed to air and light, breaks down to phosgene, HC1 , and chlorine.
Reactivity Toward OH- : same as methane, 1/4^ Butane
Reactivity Toward Oy. No reaction
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: No photochemical degradation
Major Atmospheric Precursors:
Formation Reactivity:
-------
8-5
I. SOURCES
Four volatile organic compounds methyl chloride, methylene chloride, chloro-
form, and carbon tetrachloride comprise the group of chemicals commonly referred
to as the chloromethanes. Emission losses for all except methyl chloride are
assessed in this summary.
CHLOROFORM
Chloroform (CHC13) is a clear, water-white, heavy, volatile, nonflammable liquid
at ambient conditions and is manufactured by the chlorination of either methyl
chloride or methane. The chlorination of methane is the predominant route for
the manufacture of chloroform.
In 1978 five companies were operating plants at seven locations in the U.S.
The locations of the plants, the type of production process used, and the 1978
capacity and estimated production level for each plant are shown in Table 8-1.4'6'7
An estimated 330 million Ib of chloroform was produced in 1978.
The largest end-use for chloroform is in the manufacture of chlorodifluoromethane,
commonly referred to as fluorocarbon 22 or F-22. Fluorocarbon 22 is used primarily
as a refrigerant with an estimated 61% of the chloroform production (201.3 million
Lb) consumed for this application. In addition an estimated 82 5 million Ib of
chloroform was consumed to produce fluorocarbon 22 that was subsequently used
as a chemical intermediate to produce fluorocarbon resins.
The remaining 1978 chloroform production was either exported (23.1 million Ib)
or used as an industrial solvent to produce Pharmaceuticals or pesticides
(23.1 million Lb). End-uses of chloroform are summarized in Table 8-2.
For the purpose of this report emissions resulting from the export of chloroform
are assumed to be negligible The remaining chloroform produced (23.1 million
Ib) is used as a solvent in a variety of end-use applications and is eventually
released to the atmosphere. Individual source locations could not be identified
for this broad category. Estimated emissions losses for each producing location
are shown in Table 8-3.
Total nationwide emissions of chloroform in 1978 from all sources are estimated
to have been 24,040,000 Ib. A tabulation of the losses is shown in Table 8-4.
-------
8-6
The most significant end-use for chloroform is as a chemical intermediate in
the production of fluorocarbon 22. Identified source locations for fluorocarbon 22
manufacture are shown in Table 8-5.l3 Also shown In thac table are the 1973
fluorocarbon 22 production and the corresponding chloroform requirement for its
manufacture.
Emission estimates of chlorofrora from these sites are shown in Table 8-6.l*
Total estimated emissions of chloroform from fluorocarbon 22 production sites
are estimated to have been 587,000 Lb in 1978. Additional associatad emissions
from these sites would include other halocarbons used and the various fluoro-
carbons produced. Vent parameter data relative to chloroform emissions from
fluorocarbon production are shown in Table 8-7. It is estimated thac an average
of five tanks per site contribute chloroform storage emissions. Process emissions
were reported as negligible.14
-------
Table E-l . Production of Chloroform
Source
Allied Chemical Corp.
Diamond Shamrock
Dow Chemical
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Vulcan Materials Co.
Total
Location
Moundsville, WV
Belle, WV
Freeport, TX
Plaquemine, LA
Louisville, KY
Geismar, LA
Wichita, KS
1978
Estimated^
D
Production
(10G Ib/yr)
19
26
64
64
49
38
70
330
c
Process
d
A,B
A
B
A
A
A
A,B6
1978
Estimated
Capacity
(ICP Ib/yr)
30
40
100
100
75
60
110
515
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude /Longitude
39 54 24/80 47 51
38 14 09/81 32 38
28 59 15/45 24 45
30 19 00/91 15 00
38 12 09/85 51 49
30 10 00/90 59 00
37 36 55/97 18 30
See refs. 4, 6, and 7.
Distribution of the 330 million pounds per year for each producing location has been made as a direct ratio of
total production/total capacity X individual plant capacity.
"(A) - Hethanol hydrochlorination process or methyl chloride chlorination process.
(B) - Methane chlorination process.
51 methane chlorination 95% methyl chloride chlorination.
a
"10% methane chlorination 90 % methyl chloride chlorination.
CD
-------
8-8
Table 8-2. 1973 Chloroform Consumption by End Use*
End Use
Chlorodifluorome thane (F-22)
refrigerants
Chlorodifluorome thane (F-22)
resin intermediates
Export
Solvent /miscellaneous
Total
Percent of-
Total Consumption
61
25
7
7
100
End Use
Consumption
(N lb)
201.3
82.5
23.1
23.1
330.0
*See refs. 6 and 1.
-------
Table 8-3. 1978 Chloroform Production Emissions
Company Location
Allied Houndsville, WV
Chemical
Diamond Belle, WV
Shamrock
Dow Freeport, TX
Chemical
Plaquemine, LA
Stauffer Louisville, KY
Vulcan Geismar, LA
Wichita, KA
Total
Process Vent SLorage Vent
Emissions Emissions
(Ib/yr) (g/sec)b (Ib/yr) (g/bec)b
140 0.002 17,870 0.257
200 0.003 25,350 0.365
260 0.004 18,470 0.266
480 0.007 62,400 0.898
370 0.005 47,790 0.688
29O 0.004 37,050 0.533
500 0.007 63,450 0.913
2,240 272,370
Fugitive
Emissions Total Emissions
(Ib/yr) (g/sec)b (Ib/yr) (g/sec)b
4,630 0.067 22,640 0.326
6,420 0.092 31.970 0.460
11,500 0.166 30,230 0.435
15,810 0.22B 78,690 1.133
12,100 0.174 60,250 0.867
9,390 0.135 46,730 0.673
16,820 0.242 80,770 1.163
76,670 351,280
a
Derived from, the emission factors shown in Table 10.
b
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
JI
O
_D
-------
8-10
Table 8-4. 1973 Estimated Chloroform Nationwide Emission Losses
Estimated National
Source Emission (H lb/yrl
Production 0.35
Chlorodifluoromethane (F-22)|
(refrigerants) I
Chlorodifluoromethane (F-22)| °'59
resin intermediates J
Solvent, miscellaneous 23.1
Export _0
Total 24.04
-------
Table 8-5. Users of Carbon Tetrachloride and Chloroform to Produce Fluorocarbona
riurorocarbon
Carbon
Estlauted Tetra- Chloro-
Eatluted 1978 Production
Capacity r-11 T-12 T-22 Tot.ll Uaed Used
(106 Ib) (10 lb> HO6 »b| (106 Ib) (LO& ]b) (106 Ib) UO6 Ib)
Allied CKnlcal
• •ton Rouqa, LA
Dinvllla, IL
) 310
Clliabath. NJ
El Saqundo, CA
Ou Pont
Antloch, CA "\
D«epwat«r, NJ
Montagu*. HI \ 40O
/
Louil»lll., KT I
Corpu* Chrlitl, TX 1
tsavA*ed §hut down
2B.5 40.6 1 87.3
28.5 40 6 17 B) 282.9 97.3 55.7
28. S 40.6 37. el 87.3 55.7
36.0 52.3 "| 112.6
36. a 52.3 48.6 112.6 71.9
36.8 52.3 ) 164.9 112.6
48.6 71.9
Geographic Coordinate
Latitude /Longitude
40
40
13
37
39
43
IB
27
08 30/87 31 45
40 45/74 11 51
56 30/118 26 35
59 37/121 52 00
41 25/75 30 35
24 10/66 21 40
11 51/BS 54 11
51 00/97 15 00
Pcniwalt Corp.
Calvtrt City, KT BO
Thorofarc, NJ 35
Union Carbide
Initltut* an] S. Charleston, WV Hot lifted
E35CM Cheslcal Corp. (Racon)
Wichlla, K5 20
Kslaet Alvailnvn fc ChenLcal Corp.
Cra^etcy, LA 9O
Total 925
22.1
31.4
ghutdovn
ahucdown
218
310.1
19.5
192.7
71.0
720.8
67.6
667.5
2B.6
263.6
03 ie/ee 19
-------
8-12
Table 8-6. Baissions from Carbon Tatrachloride and
Chloroform Daars for Flurocarbon Production*
Source Location
Allied Danville, XL
Elizabeth, NJ
El S*gundo, CA
Du Pont Antioch, CA
Daapwater, NJ
Montagus, HI
Louisville, KY
P*nnwalt Calvert City, KY
Total
F-ll/T-12 Carbon
Tetrachlorida P-22 Chloroform
Emission* Dnissiona
(lb/vr)b (q/sac)d (lb/vr)c (q/«ec)d
58,460 0.84 0
38,460 0.84 115,200 1.66
58,460 0.84 115,200 1.66
75,420 1.09 0 0
75,420 1.09 148,800 2.14
75,420 1.09 0 0
0 148,800 2.14
45,240 0.65 59,410 0.86
446,200 587,410
*S«a raf. 14.
Based on the following emission factor:
Process 0.000449 A -
Storage 0.000442 A -
Fugitive 0.000178 A -
(derived from site visit)
(derived from site visit)
(derived from site visit)
0.001069
Baaed on the following emission factor:
Process 0 A -
Storage 0.00374 A -
Fugitive 0.00075 A -
(derived from site vLait)
(derived from iit* visit)
(derived from sita visit)
0.00449
AaotDMs 8760 hours /vear ooexation.
-------
3-13
Table 8-7. Chloromethane Vent Parameters
Source
' b
f-1 chloride chlo-
juon
procass
Storage
roa« chlorination
Process
Storage
c« disulfide and
v*r chlorination
Txesses
Process
Storage
-. we chloride end-useC
Cold cleaner
Tipor degreaser
.-orbons 11/12
froctss
Storage
-•irbon 22d
Jrocejs*
Jtowg,
Nuiober
of
Vents
3
10
2
10
2
7
1
1
2
4
0
2
Vent
Height
(ft)
35
20
35
20
45
20
15
15
30
20
0
20
Vent
Diaaeter
(ft)
O.OB
0.17
O.OQ
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.5
0.5
0.33
0.17
0
0.17
Discharge
Temperature
CF).
95
80
100
80
100
so
70
150
SO
eo
0
BO
Velocity
(fps)
5.0
270
9.0
0.6
0
*'•*• 1, 2, 10, and 14.
-19 cross-section -5m
-aq cross-section - 50 m
:-r-9 cross-section - 20 m
we no process vent losses of chloroform from f-22 manufacfure.
-------
CD
-£»
FIGURE 8-1. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF CHLOROFORM EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 8-8. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC
POINT SOURCES OF CHLOROFORM
no.
i
2
3
4
0
»
7
a
9
!0
II
12
COrTPAHY
ALLIED CIIKHICAL
DIAK1D SHAfmoCK
DOH
STAl'FFEFl
VULCAH
VULCAH
now
ALLIED
ALL 1 ED
DUPONT
DUI'OHT
PENHWALT
HITF.
tWUNDPVILLE. WV
OELLE. WV
PLAQUEHIHE. LA
LGUISVEU/r-.. KY
CEIPHAn. LA
WICHITA. KA
Frtssponr. TN
ELIZABETH. UT
EL SECunno. CA
DF.EPWATER. PJ
LOUISVILLE. KY
CALVEITT CITY. KY
LATITUDE LonnminF,
39 54
30 14
30 19
30 12
38 10
37 36
28 09
4» 40
33 06
39 41
30 1
37 63
39
09
GO
09
63
33
SO
43
30
25
01
19
eon
001
0<»l
oo.t
990
097
990
•74
lie
070
003
ooa
44
32
15
31
09
IB
23
13
26
38
04
19
49
nn
en
4?
09
30
30
01
30
33
13
40
4
PTAJl PLANT
STATION TYI'K
33736 1
83H66 1
13970 1
93Q2» 1
I293B 1
61928 1
12923 i
04739 3
23129 3
13739 3
13007 3
•3016 3
SOURCE
TYI'F.
1
1
1
1
1
1
2*
2
2
2
2
2
t missions (cnf
PI\OCF.SS PTOIXACE
.002016 -23732S
.fi»2nO© .363946
.086912 . R9P,3tS
.003320 .600932
.004176 .033026
.•97209 .9I36RC
.$d$744 .260960
0. .661624
0. I.3RIR24
0. 1.704736
0. 1.704736
•. .7I2O00
rrci
FUGITIVE
.^5672
.B9244J1
.227664
. 174249
. 130216
. 242200
.160664
.277006
. 277006
.307984
.307984
- 14206*
00
-------
TABLE 8-9. (Concluded)
• Plant Type:
Type 1: Plant produces chloroform by using the nethylchloride chlorlnatlon
process
Type 2: Plant produces chloroform by using the methan chlorlnatlon process
Type 3: Plant produces flurocarbon 22
t Source Type:
Type 1: Methyl chloride chlorlnatlon process
--L Type 2: Methane chlorlnatlon process
•\>
Type 3: Flurocarbon 22 production
CD
I
-------
8-17
TABLE 8-10. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF CHLOROFORM RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration Population
Level Exposed Dosage
(jg/m3) (persons) [(ug/m3) • persons]
67.6 1 34.7
50 2 87.6
25 21 736
10 111 2,110
5 224 2,910
2.5 679 4,430
1 2,513 6,850
0.5 4,684 8.370
0.25 13,630 11,500
0.1 68,319 19,000
0.05 217,703 29,200
0.025 447,556 37,400
0.01 826,081 43,400
0.00719* 866,290 43,600
*The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
8-10
TABLE 8-11. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF CHLOROFORM
Parameter Value
Daytime decay rate (Krf) 0
Nighttime decay rate (KR) 0
Hanne-Gifford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (EH) 0
Nationwide nonheating stationary source emissions (EN) 332.6 gm/sec
Nationwide mobile source emissions (EM) 0
-------
TABLE B-12. CHLOftOFOFiM EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
?O LEYSL POPULA?5O3
l.tec*) e^
.•«*•«« 9149769
. M999O 3IE39&S3
. 164009 7U6G9307
.909069 I29499O3O
i. 100679130
DOSAGE
(UCx(MJ3-
PEBSOSI
B9B92U.3
*a*0977.0
I19I9I93.3
I0384fl6^.-*
33221696. 1
24223700.2
PEFJCEHTACE OF CONTniDUTIOH
U-J1T1KU
I.
e.
0.
0.
0.
0.
S TAT ION All Y HOUILE
.••.« •-
1 AA A A
1 W > V V •
199.6 9.
«ee.e e.
teo.e 9.
ieo.6 9.
PERCENTAGE OP
CITY TYPE 1 CITY
I94.9
199. «
i9e. e
90. 1
9G.2
92.9
DIBTRIBTTIGR
TYPE 2 CITY
».
9.
9.
.7
2.3
2.6
TYPE 3
e.
e.
e.
1.2
2.0
4.0
CD
I
-------
TABLE 8-13. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUWARY OF CHLOWOW
Concentration
Level
(pq/«3)
50
25
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
_£- 0.025
S 0.01
0.005
0
Specific
Point
Source
2
21
HI
224
679
2.513
4,684
13.630
68,319
217.703
447.556
826. OBI
--
866.290
Genera 1
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
505,140
9.149,730
21.839,303
78.609.557
129,499,835
--
--
--
158,679,135
U.S. Total
2
21
111
224
679
507.65J
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Rfl
716
2.110
2.910
4.430
6.R50
B.370
11.500
19.000
29.200
37.400
43,400
43.ROO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
895.925
6.895.977
11.010.193
19.384.869
23.221.696
--
_.
-_
24.223.708
88
736
2,110
2.910
4.430
902.775
6.904.347
11.021,693
19.403.869
23,250.896
--
__
_ _
24.267.S08
CD
rvi
o
NOTE: The use of -- as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/0 Is not significant
(relative) to last entry or relative to entry In another column at the sane row)
or that the exposure of the same population nay be counted In another column.
-------
8-21
REFERENCES
1. F. D. Hobbs and C. W. Stuewe, Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for
the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Product Report on Chloro-
methanes, Methane Chlorination Process (on file at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle
Park, NC (January 1979).
2. F. D. Hobbs and C W. Stuewe, Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for
the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Product Report on Chloro-
methanes, Methanol Hydrochlorination and Methyl Chloride Chlorination Processes
(on file at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC (January 1979).
3. "Chemical Product Synopsis on Methylene Chloride," Hannsville Chemical Products
(March 1978).
4. T. E. Killilea, "Chlorinated Methanes," Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford
Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (April 1979).
5. "Chemical Profile on Methylene Chloride," Chemical Marketing Reporter
(September 20, 1976)
6. "Chemical Product Synopsis on Chloroform," Mannsville Chemical Products
(June 1978)
7. "Chemical Profile on Chloroform," Chemical Marketing Reporter (September 27, 1976)
8. "Chemical Product Synopsis on Carbon Tetrachloride," Mannsville Chemical Products
(June 1978).
9. "Chemical Profile on Carbon Tetrachloride," Chemical Marketing Reporter
(April 10, 1978).
10. F. D. Hobbs and C. W. Stuewe, Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for
the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Product Report on Carbon
Tetrachloride and Perchloroethylene, Hydrocarbon Chlorinolysis Process (on file
• t EPA, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC (March 1979).
-------
8-22
Ol. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning, EPA-450/2-77-022
(OAO.PS No. 1.2-079), Research Triangle Park, NC (November 1977).
12. Solvent Metal Cleaning, Background Information: Proposed Standards (draft)
EPA, NSPS, ESED. Research Triangle Park, NC (November 1978).
\3. Chemical Research Services, 1979 Directory of Chemical Producers, United States
of Aacrica, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, Ca.
14. D. M. Pitts, Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for the Synthetic Organic
Chemicals Manufacturing Industry-—Product Report on Fluorocarbons, on file at EPA,
ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC (February 1979).
-------
APPENDIX A-9 CHoroprene
CHLOROPRENE CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 126-99-8
Synonyms: 2-Chlorobutadiene-l.3; B-Chloroprene; Chloroprene;
2-Chloro-l,3-Butadiene
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 88.54
Molecular Formula: C.H5C1,
Molecular Structure:
Cl
CH2-C-CH-CH2
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Liquid-colorless, flammable, pungent ethereal odor
Boiling Point: 59.4°C at 760 mm
Melting Point:
Density: 0.9583 at 20°C/fl°C
Vapor Pressure: 215.4 mn Bt 25°C
Vapor Density: 3.0
Solubility: Slightly soluble (<10.0 g/1 of H20)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octflnol/H20):
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products: 2-Chloroacrolein, Chloroacrolein
Reactivity Toward OH-: 4 x Butane
Reactivity Toward 0,: 2 x Propylene
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: NAPP
-------
9-5
I. SOURCES
Chloroprene is currently produced in the United States by chlorination, isomeri-
zation, and caustic dehydrochlorination from butadiene. Until the late 1960s,
chloroprene was also produced from acetylene, but that process has been discon-
tinued because the cost of acetylene is much higher than that of butadiene.
Only two companies at three locations currently produce chloroprene in the United
States. Dupont shut down its Louisville, KY, chloroprene facility and expanded
its Laplace, LA, facility. Dupont's Victoria, TX, facility has also begun produc-
tion of chloroprene. The locations of the plants and the 1978 capacity and
estimated production for each site are shown in Table 9-1. An estimated 277.2 million
Lb of chloroprene was produced in 1978.1>2
All chloroprene produced is captively consumed to manufacture polychloroprene
(neoprene) synthetic rubber by polymerization of the chloroprene- Neoprene is
used in wire and cable covers, gaskets, automobile parts, caulks, and other
applications requiring chemical, oil, and weather resistance.
II. EMISSION ESTIMATES
Emission estimates for the three sites listed in Table 9-1 include the total emis-
sions of chloroprene, and toluene from the Dupont sites, for both the production
of chloroprene and its captive use to make neoprene.
Emission factors used to calculate the emissions of chloroprene and toluene are
shown in Table 9-2, along with vent parameter data.
Total emissions of chloroprene from its production and use are estimated to
have been 3,523,090 Ib, and those of toluene are estimated to have been
895,433 Ib. There were no identified toluene emissions associated with chloro-
prene or neoprene manufacture at the Denka facility. Total emissions are shown
in Table 9-3 by site location.
-------
9-6
Table 9-1. Chloroprene Producers and Captive Users'
Company
Du Pont
Denka
Total
Location
Laplace, LA
Victoria, TXC
Houston, TX
1978
Capacity
(M Ib)
190
60
60
310
1978
Production
(M lb)b
169. 4
53.9
13.9
277.2
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude /Longitude
30 04 00/90 32 00
28 40 29/96 57 21
29 41 31/95 15 12
See refs. 1 and 2.
Total production distributed over all sites based on capacity.
"Total capacity and estimated production have been determined by the difference
in overall U.S. capacity and overall U.S. demand for neoprene.
-------
9-7
Table 9-2. chloroprene/Toluene Emission Factors and Vent Parameter Data
Source
Chemical
Emission Factor Ib Lost per Ib Produced/Used
Process Storage Fugitive Total
Du Pont sites Chloroprene
Toluene
Denka site Chloroprene
Emission Factors
0.014000
0.00347*
0.0022001
0.000004
0.000043
0.0000041
0.001000
0.00050°
o.ooioooc
0.015004
0.00401
0.003204
Vent Parameter Data
Source
d
All sites
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Number
of
Vents
6
4
Vent
Height
(ft)
56
16
Vent
Diameter
(ft)
1.25
0.33
Vent
Discharge
Temperature
(°F)
100
75
Vent
Velocity
(ft/sec)
85
Discharge
Area
(ft X ft)
400 X 600
See ref. 3.
See ref. 4.
'Hydroscience estimate.
Building cross section all sites - 100 m'
1
-------
9-8
Table 9-3. chloroprene and Toluene Emissions from Chloroprene Production and Use
Emissions (Ib/yr)
Company
Location
Process Storage
Fugitive
a
Total Emissions
(Ib/yr)
(g/sec)b
Chloroprene Emissions
Du Pont Laplace, LA ' 2,371,600 678 169,400 2,541,678 36.59
Victoria, TX 754,600 216 53,900 808,716 11.64
ttonka Houston, TX 118,580 216 53,900 172,696 2.49
Total 3,244,780 1,110 277,200 3,523,090
Pont
Laplace, LA
Victoria, TX
Total
Toluene Emissions
587,818 6,776 84,700
187,033 2,156 26,950
774,851 8,932 111,650
679,294
216,139
895,433
9.78
3.11
B*eed on emission factors shown in Table 2.
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
9-9
Process emissions originate from the chloroprene reactor vent scrubber, the
neoprene strippers, and the neoprene dryer exhausts. Storage emissions repre-
sent the losses from both working and final product storage as well as loading
and handling losses. Fugitive emissions as those that result from plant equip-
ment leaks.
-------
so
o
FIGURE 9-V. SPECIFIC POIMT SOURCES OF CHtOROPRENE EHISSIOKS
-------
TABLE 9-4. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF CHLOROPRENE
missions
no.
i
2
3
COMPANY
DIJTOnT
Duponr
DF.nKA
SITF.
LAPLACE.
VICTORIA
nousron,
LATITUDE
I.A
. TX
TX
no
20
29
O4 00
•>0 29
41 '.II
LOnCITUPF. SPATIOn IVI'K TYI'K PROCFSS
093
096
095
20 Ol 29T.O 1
57 21 12923 1
t?t 12 I29O6 1
1 34. I3I04O
1 IA.D6624O
1 l.7»7r,52
PTORAnK FIH7ITIVK
.IHW763 2.439360
.00:1110 .7
.003110 .7
T
t
616*
6160
-------
TUBLE 9-5. EWSSIOfC PAWWETF.RS FDR SPECIFIC P01HT SOUHCES OF CMLOROPREHE
Tent Building Cross Vent fent Tent
Height Section Dlaneter Telocity
Source Tjp€ ' Emissions Category (m) (m?) (n)
Process 17 100 0.38 Z6 3H
Storage 5 100
Fugitive 0 100
NOTE: The use of -- as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D 1s not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry In another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted 1n another column.
VO
I
-------
9-13
TABLE 9-6. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF CHLOROPRENE RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration
Level
96.6
50
25
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0.005
0.00331*
Population
Exposed
(persons)
1
55
292
2,038
5,170
9,136
29.573
48,326
92,173
227,457
454,997
989,679
1,369,545
1,411,458
1.414.691.
Dosage
[(vg/m3) . persons]
3,.
11
75.
,340
.000
34,200
54,600
60,300
100,000
121,000
126,000
146,000
162,000
181,000
188,000
188,000
188,000
'The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
2.
-------
9-14
REFERENCES
J. Sara L. Soder, "Butadiene Marketing Research Report," Chemical Economics Handbook,
Stanford Research Institute, June 1977.
•
2. Chemical Marketing Reporter, Chemical Profiles Neoprene, August 16, 1976.
3. D. D. Wild, Louisiana Air Control Commission, Emission Inventory Questionnaire
for Dupont Chemical, March 3, 1977.
4. M. Z. Woskow, Texas Air Control Board Emissions Inventory Questionnaire for
PetroteH Chemical, Aug. 26, 1976.
-------
APPENDIX A-10 ----- Cresol
m-CRESOL CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 10B-39-4
Synonyms: 3-Methyl phenol ; m- Hydroxyl toluene
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 108.1
Molecular Formula: C,H 0
/ o
Molecular Structure: OH
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Liquid - colorless or yellowish, phenolic odor
Boiling Point: 202. 8°C
Melting Point: 12°C
Density: 1.034 at 20°C/4°C
Vapor Pressure: 1 mm at 52.0°C
Vapor Density: 3.72
Solubility: Slightly soluble (H20)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H.O) : 2.37
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products:
Reactivity Toward OH- : 12 x Butane
Reactivity Toward 03: 10% Propylene
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: NAPP
Major AUrospheric Precursors: Toluene
Formation Reactivity: Small formation pathway (<10J from all cresols)
from toluene decay • i
-------
10-5
o-CRESOL CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 95-48-7
Synonyms: o-Cresylic Acid; o-Hydroxyltoluene; 2-Methylphenol
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 108.1
Molecular Formula: CyHgO
Molecular Structure: ru
J3
O~OH
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Solid crystals - non volatile phenolic odor
Boiling Point: 190.B°C
Melting Point: 30.9°C
Density: 1.047 at 20°C/4°C
Vapor Pressure: 1 mm at 38.2°C
Vapor Density: 3.72
Solubility: Soluble (31 g/1 of H20)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H^O): 3.40
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products: Reacts with oxidizing materials to yield quinones and
benzenes (<1 day in air, <10 days in water). Methyl quinone, methyldihydroxyl
Reactivity Toward OH-: 10 x Butane benzenes
Reactivity Toward 0.,: 10% Propylene
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: N/A
Major Atmospheric Precursors: Toluene
Formation Reactivity: See m-Cresol
-------
10-6
p-CRESOL CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 106-44-5
Synonyms: 4-Cresol; 4-Methylphenol; p-Hydroxyltoluene
Chemical Formula
Molecular Height: 108.1
Molecular Formula: C^HgO
Molecular Structure:
* )-CH-
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Solid crystals - phenolic odor
Boiling Point: 201.B°C
Melting Point: 35.26°C
Density: 1.0341 at 20°C/4°C
Vapor Pressure: 1 mm at 53.0°C
Vapor Density: 3.72
Solubility: Slightly soluble (H20)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H20): 2.35
i
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products:
Reactivity Toward OH-: 10 x Butane
Reactivity Toward 03: 10% Propylene
Reactivity Toward Photolysis:
Major Atmospheric Precursors: Toluene \j.^(p
Formation Reactivity: See m-Cresol
-------
10-7
I . SOURCES
A. PRODUCTION
The cresol isomers include para-cresol, ortho-cresol, and meta-cresol. Produc-
tion and capacity information is normally expressed in terms of total cresols
and cresylic acid rather than the individual cresol isomers. Cresols typically
occur as mixture of Che cresol isomers and are defined as the compounds in the
mixture with boiling points below 204°C. Cresylic acids are the compounds with
boiling points above 204°C. Cresols and cresylic acid are produced as by-products
of either coal tar distillation or petroleum naphtha cracking.
As a by-product of coal tar distillation, cresols and cresylic acids are obtained
from the middle light oil cut of the distillation and from the filtrate remaining
after crystallization of the naphthalene, which is also present in the middle
light oil. Extraction of the filtrate with sodium hydroxide removes phenols,
cresols, and xylenols. After separation in an aqueous layer, the phenols are
acidifed to yield an organic layer which is then distilled to yield natural
phenol, cresols, and xylenols. The crude cresol cut is further purified by
fractional distillation to yield ortho-cresol and a mixture consisting of meta-
and para-cresol In the thermal cracking of naphtha and gas oil fractions,
petroleum acids are obtained which can be processed by methods similar to the
cresol recovery processes used by the coal tar distillation.1
p-Cresol is also produced synthetically by methylation of phenol.
There are currently six producers of mixed cresols. The locations of the plants
and the 1978 capacity and estimated production level for each plant are shown
in Table 10-1 .l In 1978 an estimated 32 million lb of mixed cresols was produced.
The average composition of the three isomers in the mixed cresols produced is
estimated to have been 26% p-cresol, 31% o-cresol, and 43% m-cresol.2'3
There are also currently eight producers of cresylic acid. The locations of the
plants and the 1978 capacity and estimated production of each are shown in Table 10-1.
In 1978 an estimated 52 million lb of cresylic acid was produced- The average
composition of the three isomers in the cresylic acid produced is estimated to
U 31
-------
Table 1O-1. Mixed Cresolg and Crcgylic Acid Producers
00
Company
Continental Oil
Fallck
Ferro
Koppers
Merichem
Stimson
Total
Continental Oil
Crowley Tar
Products
Fallek
Ferro
Koppe rs
Merichem
Mobil Oil
Stimson
Total
Location
Newark, NJ
Tuscaloosa, AL
Sante Fe Springs,
Oil City, PA
Houston, TX
Anacartes , WA
Newark, NJ
Houston, TX
Tuscaloosa, AL
Sante Fe Springs,
Follansbee, WV
Houston, TX
Beaumont, TX
Anacortes, VJA
Cresols or
Tar Acids Cresylic Acid
Capacity Produced
(million Ib/yr) (million Ib/yr)
Mixed Cresols Producers
50
20
CA 30
35
100
30
2G5
Cresylic Acid Producers
50
30b
20
CA 30
35
100
10
30
305
6
2
4
4
12
4
32
9
5
3
5
6
17
2
5
52
Geographic Coordinates
(Latitude/Longitude)
40
33
33
41
29
48
40
29
33
33
40
29
34
48
43
11
56
29
45
28
43
43
11
56
23
45
04
28
34/74
00/87
07 26
34 50
30/118 04 18
30/79
36/95
31/122
34/74
50/95
00/87
30/118
10/80
36/95
14/94
31/122
43 20
10 48
32 48
07 26
14 20
34 50
04 18
35 07
10 48
03 40
32 48
o
CD
See ref. 1.
Hydroscience estimate.
-------
10-9
have been 35% p-cresol, 3% o-cresol, and 34% m-cresol. The remaining 28% of
cresylic acid is made up primarily of xylenols.1
Some of the cresols/cresylic acid manufacturers also produce individual isomers,
with o- and m-cresols removed by extraction and distillation of the coal tars
and petroleum fractions p-Cresol isomer is produced synthetically.
There are currently six producers of o-cresol isomer in the United States. The
locations of the plants and the 1978 capacity and production levels are shown
in Table 10-2.1 An estimated 30 million Ib of o-cresol was produced in 1978.
Sherwin Williams at its Chicago, Illinois, plant produced an estimated 21 million
Ib of p-cresol synthetically in 1978 The plant location is shown in Table 10-2.
There were two m-cresol isomer producers in 1978 that manufactured an estimated
1.5 million Lb. Source locations are shown in Tab]* 10-2.
A summary of the estimated cresol isomer composition of mixed cresoJs, cresylic
acids, and a mixture of the two as used in 1978 is given in Table 1U-3.1'2'3
USES
Table 10-41'4 shows the end-use distribution of the individual cresol isomers, the
mixed cresols, and cresylic acid.
The manufactaure of 2,6-ditert butyl-p-cresol (BHT), which is used as a food
preservative, consumed half of the o-cresol isomer production (15 million Ib).
Antioxidant manufacture consumed an estimated 10 million Ib with the remainder
being exported (5 million Ib).
The majority of the p-cresol isomer produced was exported. Estimated exports
in 1978 were 10.5 million Ib, representing 50% of production. An estimated
5.5 million Ib was consumed in phenolic resin manufacture, and 5.0 million Ib
was used to produce pesticides.
m-Cresol isomer production was used exclusively in the manufacture of pyrethroid
pesticides (1.5 million Ib).
>V3°l
-------
Table 10-2. Cresol.Isomer Producers'
Company
Location
Crc«;ol Isomor
Capacity
(mi 1 lion Ib/yr)
Cresol Isomer
Traduced
(million Ih/yr)
o-Crosol
Continental Oil
Fallek Chemical
Ferro Corp.
Koppers
Me richem
St imson
Total
Newark, NJ
Tuscaloosa, AL
Sante Fe Springs, CA
Oil City, PA
Houston, TX
Anacortes , WA
7
9
4
5
15
4
4ft
Producers
. 7
.6
.5
.4
.1
.5
.8
5.0
6.0
3.0
3.0
10.0
3.0
30.0
JP
S-
c
Shcrwin Williams Chicago, IL
p-Cresol Producer
b
NA
Geographic Coordinates
_(_L_a_bi 11ido/Longi tudr)
40 43 34/74 07 26
33 11 00/R7 34 50
33 56 30/119 04 18
41 29 30/79 43 20
29 45 36/95 10 48
48 28 31/122 32 48
o
i
o
21.0
41 43 04/87 36 30
See ref. 1.
m-Cresol Producers
Koppers
Merichem
Total
Oil City, PA
Houston, TX
b
NA 0.75
b
NA 0.75
1.50
41 29 30/79 43 20
29 45 36/95 10 48
Not available.
-------
lu-il
Table 10-3. Cresol Isomer Compositions*
In mixed cresol 3 (both product and emissions)
26'° p-cresol
31'i o-cresol
_4 31 m-cresol
100%
In cresylic acid (both product and emissions)
35% p-cresol
3% o-cresol
3JCL= m-cresol
28% otners, mainly xylenols
In mixed cresol/cresylic acid end-use (combined) and emissions
31.6* p-ciesol
i:.7% o-crescl
37 . ^!no r,-cresol
17.3% otrers (mainly x^ler.ols)
*See refs. 1, 2 and 3.
-------
10-12
Table 10-4. 1978 End Use Distribution of Cresol Isomers, Cresols
and Cresylic Acid*
Isomer, Cresols, or Cresylic Acid Used
_ End-Use _ (million Ib/yr) _ (%)
o-Cresol Isomer
2,6-ditert butyl-p-Cresol (BHT) 15.0 50 "
Antioxidants 10.0 33
Export 5.0 17
Total 30.0 100
p-Cresol Isomer
Phe.-.olic resirs 5.5 26
Pesticides 5.0 24
Export 10.5 50
Total 21.0 100
m-Cresol Isomer
Pyrethroid pesticides 1 . 5 100
Total 1.5 100
Mixed Cresols/Cresylic Acids
Tricresyl phosphate (TCP) N
31.0 32
Cresyl diphenol phosphate (CDP) j
Phenolic resins 20.0 21
Wire cnajnel solvent 20.0 21
Pesticides 8.0 8
Disinfectants/cleaning compound 3.0 3
Ore flotation 3-0 3
Miscellaneous other 7.0 7
Export 5.0 5
Total 97.0 i 100
See refs. 1 and 4 .
-------
10-13
The only available data on the end-uses of mixed cresols and cresylic acid are
in combined form. Total consumption of both mixed cresols and cresylic acid
was 97 million Ib with the difference between production (84 million Ib) and
use resulting from imports (13 million Ib).
The largest end-use5 of mixed cresols/cresylic acid was in tricresyl phosphate
(plasticizer) manufacture (31 million Ib), phenolic resins (20 million Ib), and
wire enamel solvent (20 million Ib). Pesticide manufacture consumed 8 million
Ib; use in cleaning compounds and disinfectants for consumer use consumed 3 million
Ib; and use as an ore flotation agent consumed 3 million Ib.
Other miscellaneous uses consumed 7 million Lb, and exports accounted for 5 million
Ib
Specific user locations for BHT producers, pyrethroid pesticide producers, and
tricresyl phosphate producers are shown in Table 10-5.
C. INCIDENTAL SOURCES
The major incidental source of cresol isomer emissions is coke ovens. Coal
tars from coke ovens contain tar acids of 1.04% cresols.
Table 10-66 presents a list of coke oven plants in the U.S. Data to assign capacity
and production to each site were not available. The total estimated coke pro-
duction from these plants in 1978 was 107 billion lb.
II. EMISSION ESTIMATES
PRODUCTION
Emission factors used to develop production and end-use emission estimates for
the isomers, mixed cresols, and cresylic acid are shown in Table 10-7.
Emissions from the production of mixed cresols and cresylic acid are shown in
Table 10-8. Total cresol emissions frore mixed cresol production were estimated to
have been 80,000 Ib in 1978. Of this total 24,800 Ib were o-cresol, 20,800 Ib
were p-cresol, and 34,400 Ib were m-cresol.
-------
Table 10-5. Identified Source Locations of Cresols End-Users
Company
Location
Production
Capacity
Uh/yjr)
2,6 di-tcrt-buty-p-crcsol (tlHT) Producers
Ashland Fords, NJ
Koppcrs Oil City, PA
Shell Martinez, C7\
Uniroyal Geismar, LA
Total
o-Crc^ol Isomcr
12
9
10
_5^
36
Cresol
Usacjc
Ub/yr)
5
4
4
2
Geographic Coordinates
(Latitude/Longi tudo)
10 31 20/74 20 50
41 29 30/79 43 20
33 00 05/122 06 40
30 13 30/91 00 15
m-Cresol Isomer
Pyrcthroid Pesticide Producers
CPC International Lyndhurst, NJ
FMC Baltimore, MD
Vertac West Helena, AR
Total
NA
NA
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
40 47 30/74 04 34
39 14 50/76 35 30
34 36 10/90 33 45
Mixed Cresols/Cresylic Acid
Tricresyl Phosphate/Cresyl Diphenyphosphate Producers
FMC Nitro, WV 60
Stauffer Gallipolis Ferry, WV 35
Total 95
20
U.
31
38 25 33/81 50 05
38 46 40/02 10 54
See ref. 5.
Not available.
-------
10-15
Table 10-6. Coke-Oven Plants in the United States*
Company
Location
Alabama By-Products Corporation
Alan Wood Steel Company
Allied Chemical Corporation
Semet-Solvay Division
Arrcco Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Chattanooga Coke & Chemical Co. Inc.
Citizens Gas L Coke Utility
Colorado Fuel i> Iron Steel Corporation
Colt Industries Inc.
Crucible Stainless Steel and Alloy
Division
Cyclops Corporation
Empire-Detroit Steel Division
Donner-Hanna Coke Corporation
(jointly owned by Republic Steel
Corporation and Hanna Furnace Corpo-
ration, a subsidiary of National
Steel Corporation)
Eastern Gas and Fuel Associates
Eastern Associated Coal Corp., subsidiary
Empire'Coke Company
Ford Motor Company
Steel Division
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
Missouri Coke and Chemical Division
Indiana Gas & Chemical Corporation
Inland Steel Company
Interlake, Inc.
Tarrant, Alabama
Swedeland, Pennsylvania
Ashland, Kentucky
Detroit, Michigan
Hamilton, Ohio
Houston, Texas
Middletovm, Ohio
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Burns Harbor, Indiana
Johnstown, Pennsylvania
Lackawana, New York
Sparrows Point, Maryland
Alton Park, Tennessee
Indianapolis, Indiana
Pueblo, Colorado
Midland, Pennsylvania
Portsmouth, Ohio
Buffalo, New York
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Holt, Alabama
Rouge, Michigan
St. Louis, Missouri
Terre Haute, Indiana
Indiana Harbor, Indiana
South Chicago, Illinois
Toledo, Ohio
-------
10-16
Table 10-6 (Continued)
Company
Location
International Harvester Company
Wisconsin Steel Division
Jones & Laughlin Industries, Inc.
(owned by the LTV Corporation)
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., subsidiary
Kaiser Steel Corporation
Koppers Company, Inc.
Organic Material Division
Lykes Corporation
Youngstovn Sheet and Tube Company,
subsidiary
McClouth Steel Corporation*
Milwaukee Solvay Coke Company
(affiliated with Pickands Mather &
Co., subsidiary of Moore and McCormick
Co., Inc.)
National Steel Corporation
Granite City Steel Division
Great Lakes Steel Division
B. F. Division
Weirton Steel Division
Northwest Industries, Inc.
Lone Star Steel Company, subsidiary
NVF Company
Sharon Steel Corporation, subsidiary
Republic Steel Corporation
Iron and Chemical Division
South Chicago, Illinois
Aliquippa, Pennsylvania
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Fontana, California
Erie, Pennsylvania
St. Paul, Minnesota
Woodward, Alabama
Campbell, Ohio
Indiana Harbor,
Ironton, Ohio
Indiana
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Granite City, Illinois
Zug Island, Michigan
Weirton, West Virginia
Daingerfield, Texas
Fairmont, West Virginia
Chicago, Illinois
Cleveland, Ohio
Gadsdcn, Alabama
Massillon, Ohio
Thomas, Alabama
Warren, Ohio
Youngstown, Ohio
*McClouth Steel Corporation purchased only the coking operations of Allied
Chemical Corporation's Ironton, Ohio, facility in 1977. By-products are
still manufactured by Allied.
-------
10-17
Table 10-6 (Continued)
Company
Location
Shenango Incorporated
(owned by The Shenango Furnace Company)
Tonauanda Coke Corporation
United States Steel Corporation
USS Agri-Chemicals Division and
USS Chemicals Division
Jim Walter Corporation
Jim Walter Resources, Inc.. subsidiary
Chemical Division
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation
Neville Island, Pennsylvania
Buffalo, New York
Clairton, Pennsylvania
Duluth, Minnesota
Fairfield, Alabama
Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania
Gary, Indiana
Geneva, Utah
Lorain, Ohio
Birmingham, Alabama
East Steubenville, West
Virginia
Monessen, Pennsylvania
•See ref. 6.
-------
10-18
10-7. Cresols Production
Source
Mixed cresol production
Cresylic acid production
p-Cresol production
BHT/antioxidants
Phenolic resins
Pesticides
.Pyrethroid pesticides
TCP production
Miscellaneous, other
Process
0.00190
0.00190
0.0039
0.0008
0.00400
0.00040
0.00040
0.00035
Lost per Ib
Storage^
0.00020
0.00020
0.00030
0.0001
0.0005
0.00005
0.00005
0.00005
""Basis: A - site visit data
B - state files
C - published data
D - Hydroscience estimate
bSee ref. 1.
CSee ref. B.
d
Based on a weighted average of all of
Produced (Used)
Fugitive Total
0.00040 0.00250
0.00040 0.00250
0.00080 0.00500
0.0001 0.001
0.0005 0.00500
0.00005 0.00050
0.00005 0.00050
0.00010 0.0005
o.ooid
Derivation8
B1
BL
D
D
D
cc
D
cb
crescl uses.
-------
Table 10-8. Cresol Emissions from Mixed Cresol, Cresylic Acid Producers
Emissions (Ib/yr)
Company
Continental Oil
Fallek
Ferro
Koppers
Merichem
Stimson
.£. Total
*£>
Continental Oil
Crowley Tar Products
Fallek
Ferro
Koppers
Merichem
Mobil Oil
Stimson Lumber
Total
Location
Newark, NJ
Tuscaloosa, AL
Santa Fe Springs,
Oil City, PA
Houston, TX
Anacortes , WA
Newark, NJ
Houston, TX
Tuscaloosa, AL
Santa Fe Springs,
Follansbee, WV
Houston, TX
Beaumont, TX
Anacortes , WA
Process
Mixed Cresols
11,400
3,000
CA 7,600
7,600
22,800
7,600
60,800
Cresylic Acid
17,100
9,500
5,700
CA 9,500
11,400
32,300
3,800
9,500
98,800
Storage
Producers
6,400
400
800
800
2,400
800
6,400
Producers
1,600
1,000
600
1,000
1,200
3,400
400
1,000
10,400
Fugitive
2,400
800
1,600
1,600
4,800
1,600
12,800
3,600
2,000
1,200
2,000
2,400
6,800
800
2,000
20,800
Total Cresol
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
15,000
5,000
10,000
10,000
30,000
10,000
80,000
22,500
12,500
7,500
12,500
15,000
42,500
5,000
12,500
130,000
(g/sec)*
0. 22
0.07
0.14
0.14
0.43
0.14
0.32
0.18
0.11
0.18
0.22
0.61
0.07
0.18
o
I
*Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
10-20
Total cresylic acid production emissions were estimated to have been 130,000 Ib.
Of this total 3,900 lit were o-cresol, 45,500 Ib were p-cresol, and 44,200 U> were
m-cresol.
Since both mixed cresols and cresylic acid share common producing sites, and in
the absence of other emission data, the same emission factor of 0.00250 was
used to estimate emissions for both. It was assumed that the cresol isomer
composition in the emissions was the sajne as in the product mixtures" shown in
Table iO-3.
Process vent emissions originate primarily from distillation and neutralizaton
processes. Storage emissions represent the losses from both working and final
product storage as well as loading and handling. Fugitive emissions are those
which result from plant equipment leaks.
Emissions from the individual isomer production are shown in Table 10-9. The emis-
sion factor used for m- and o-cresol production losses is the same that was
used for mixed cresols. The p-cresol emission factor used was 0.005 Ib/lb since
it is synthetically manufactured.
Emissions from o-cresol, p-cresol, and m-cresol individual isomer production
were estimated to have been 75,000 Ib, 105,000 Ib, and 3,750 Ib respectively.
B. USES
The emissions from specific end-user locations are shown in Table 10-10 for p-cresol
isomer used in BHT production, m-cresol isomer used in pyrethroid pesticide
production, and mixed cresols/cresylic acid used in TCP production Emission
estimates were developed using the emission factors shown in Table 10-7.
o-Cresol emissions from BHT production were 15,000 Ib. Emissions resulting
from its use in antioxidant manufacture were estimated to be 10,000 Ib. Specific
manufactures and locations for regional distribution of antioxidant emissions
were not available.
Emissions from m-cresol use were estimated to have been 750 Ib. Emissions were
distributed evenly over all three sites in the absence of capacity data.
-------
Table 10-9. Cresol Isomer Emissions from Cresol Isomer Producers
Lft
Emissions (Ib/yr)
Company
Continental Oil
Fallek
Ferro
Koppers
Merichem
Stimson
Total
Sherwin-Williams
Total
Koppers
Merichem
Total
Location Process Storage
o-Cresol
Newark, NJ 9,500
Tuscaloosa, AL 11,400
Santa Fe Springs, CA 5,700
Oil City, PA 5,700
Houston, TX 19,000
Anacortes, WA 5,700
57,000
p-Cresol
Chicago, IL 81,900
81,900
m-Cresol
Oil City, PA 1,425
Houston, TX 1,425
2,850
Producers
1,000
1,200
600
600
2,000
600
6,000
Producer
6,300
6,300
Producers
150
150
300
Fugitive
2,000
2,400
1,200
1,200
4,000
1,200
12,000
16,800
16,800
300
300
600
Total Emissions
(Ib/yr)
12,500
15,000
7,500
7,500
25,000
7,500
75,000
105,000
105,000
1,875
l,87r,
3,750
(g/sec)*
0.18
0.22
0.11
0.11
0.36
0.11
1.51
0.03
0.03
o
I
•Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
Table 10-10. Cresol Emissions from Cresol Users
tJT
Emissions Hb/yr)
Company
2 ,6-Di-tert-buty-p-cresol
(BUT) producers
Ashland
Koppers
Shell
Uniroyal
Total
Pyrethroid pesticide
producers
CPC International
FMC
Vertac
Total
Tricresyl phosphate/cresyl
diphenylphosphate producers
FMC
Stauffer
Total
Location Process
o-Creso] Isomer
Fords, NJ 4,000
Oil City, PA 3,200
Martinez, CA 3,200
Geismar, LA 1,600
12,000
m-Cresol Isomer
Lyndhurst, NJ 200
Baltimore, MD 200
West Helena, AR 200
600
Mixed Cresols/Cresylic
Nitro, WV 7,000
Gallipolis Ferry, WV 5,500
12,500
Storage
500
400
400
200
1,500
25
25
25
75
Acid
1,000
5 SO
1,550
Fugitive
500
400
400
200
1,500
25
25
75
2,000
1,100
3,100
Total Emissions
(Ib/yr) (g/sec)*
5,000 0.07
4,000 0.06
4,000 0.06
2,000 0.03
15,000
250 0.004
250 0.004
250 0.004
750
10,000 0.14
5,500 O.OB
15,500
o
I
ro
ro
•Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
10-23
Emissions from the use of cresols/cresylic acid to manufacture TCP were estimated
to have been 15,500 Ib. Of that total 2120 Ib were o-cresol, 4900 Ib were p-cresol,
and 5800 Ib were m-cresol.
Other sources of cresol emissions had to be handled on a regional basis because
of their widespread use.
Emissions of p-cresol isomer and cresol/cresylic acid used to produce phenolic
resins are summarized in Table 10-11 by geographic region. Emissions from this
end-use were estimated to have been 13,700 Ib o-cresol, 37,400 Ib m-cresol, and
31,600 Ib p-cresol. In addition, 27,500 Ib of p-cresol was lost when used as
an individual isomer for phenolic resins production. Total emissions of all
isomers were distributed based on the number of sites in each region.
The emissions of p-cresol isomer and cresol/cresylic acid used to produce pesti-
cides are shown in Tabid 10-12 by geographic region. Emissions from this end-use
were estimated to have been 1265 Ib p-cresol, 550 Ib o-cresol, and 2185 Ib m-cresol
from cresol/cresylic acid use. In addition, 2500 Ib p-cresol was lost from its
use as an individual isomer in pesticide production. Total emissions were distri-
buted by the number of sites in each region.
The emissions of cresols in wire enamel solvents are shown in Table 10-13. Emissions
were developed by assuming that all cresols used in this solvent application
are lost and that the emission composition of cresol isomers is the same as the
end-use production shown in Table 10-3. Emissions were estimated to have been
2,740,000 Ib o-cresol, 6,320,000 pcresol, and 7,480,000 m-cresol. Emissions
were distributed over the number of paint and lacquer sites in the U.S. in the
absence on any other distributable data.
Emissions from cresols/cresylic acid used in ore flotation were estimated to
have been 411,000 Ib o-cresol, 1,122,000 Ib m-cresol, and 948,000 p-cresol in
1978. Emissions are summarized and distributed in Table 10-1$ by the number of
mining sites in the U.S.
Emissions from coke ovens were estimated to have been 796,080 Ib o-cresol,
1,104,240 Ib m-cresol, and 667,680 Ib p-cresol in 1978. Emissions were
-------
10-24
Table 10-11. Cresol Isomer Emissions from Phenolic Resin Producers by Region*
p-Cresol Emissions
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total
See ref. 9.
Average 110 Ib/yr per
"Average 220 Ib/yr per
Average 250 Ib/yr per
"Average 300 Ib/yr per
Number
of
Sites
6
26
31
5
15
6
11
1
24
125
site.
site.
site.
site.
o-Cresol
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
660
2,860
3,410
550
1,650
660
1,210
110
2,640
13,700b
From
Isomer
(Ib/yr)
1,320
5,720
6,820
1,100
3,300
1,320
2,420
220
5.280
27,500C
From Cresols/
Cresylic Acid
(Ib/yr)
1,500
6,500
7,750
1,250
3,750
1,500
2,750
250
6,000
31,600d
m-Cresol
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
1,800
7,800
9,300
1,500
4,500
1,800
3,300
300
7,200
37,4006
-------
10-25
Table 10-12. 1978 Cresol Isomer Emission Estimates from Pesticide Manufacturers'
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total
Number
of
Sites
4
37
19
15
17
14
15
5
13
139
As Isomer
db/yr)
72
666
342
270
306
250
270
90
234
2500b
p-Cresol
In Mixed Cresols/
Cresylic Acid
(lb/yr)
36
337
173
137
155
127
137
46
118
1265°
o-Cresol
in Mixed
Cresols/
Cresylic
Acid
(lb/yr)
16
14B
76
60
6B
56
60
20
52
550d
m-Cresol
in Mixed
Cresols/
Cresylic
Acid
(lb/yr)
63
581
298
236
267
220
236
79
204
21856
See ref. 10.
b
Average IB Ib/yr per site.
^
Average 9.1 Lb/yr per site.
Average 4.0 lb/yr per site.
Average 15.7 lb/yr per site.
-------
10-26
Table 10-13.
Cresol Isomer Emissions from Mixed Cresols/Cresylic Acid
Used as Wire Enamel Solvent3
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total
See ref. 11.
b
Average 173B.6 Ib/yr
CAverage 4010.2 Ib/yr
Average 4746.2 Ib/yr
Number
of
Sites
46
339
370
64
174
44
87
258
174
1,576
per site.
per site.
per site.
o-Cresol
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
79,975
5B9,3BO
642,275
146,040
302,510
76,500
151,255
448,555
302,510
2,740,000
p-Cresol
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
164,465
1,359,440
1,463,755
336, B55
697,765
176,445
348,885
1,034,620
697,765
6,320,000
m-Cresol
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
218,325
1,608,960
1,756,090
398,680
825,835
208,830
412,920
1,224,520
825,840
7,480,000
-------
10-27
Table 10-14. Cresol Isomer Emissions from Mixed Cresol/Cresylic Acid
Used as an Ore Flotation Agent3
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total
Number
of
(Mining)
Sites
6
38
85
145
62
40
21
144
22
563
o-Cresol
Emissions
db/yr)
4,382
27,750
62,075
105,890
45,275
29,211
15,336
105,161
16,066
411,000b
m-Cresol
Emissions
db/yr)
11,957
75,729
169,392
288,964
123,557
79,714
41,850
286,971
43,843
1,122,000°
p-Cresol
Emissions
(Ub/yr)
10,103
63,987
143,128
244,159
104,399
67,354
35,361
242,475
37,045
984,000
See ref. 12.
Average 730 Ib/yr per site
Average 1993 Ib/yr per site.
Average 1684 Ib/yr per site.
-------
10-28
estimated by assuming that for 107 billion Lb coke produced, 0.000024 Ib of
cresols would be lost per pound of coke produced. Composition of the cresols
is the same as the mixed cresols product romposition shown in Table 10-3. Emissions
are summarized and distributed in Table 10-15 by the number of coke oven sites in
each region.
Emissions from the solvent use of cresols/cresylic acid as a disinfectant/cleaning
compound were estimated to have been 411,000 Ib o-cresol, 948,000 Ib p-cresol,
and 1,122,000 m-cresol. Emissions are considered widespread in proportion
with population.
Miscellaneous uses as a chemical intermediate are too widespread to allow for
regional distribution. Emission estimates were made by using a weighted average
emission factor of 0.001 Ib lost/lb use derived from all other isomers, mixed
cresols, and cresylic acid end-users. Emissions from miscellaneous uses were
estimated to have been 1000 Ib o-cresol, 2200 Ib p-cresol, and 2600 Ib m-cresol.
Vent parameter data for both production and end-uses of cresols are summarized
in Table 10-16.
The total nationwide emissions of o-cresol, p-cresol, and m-cresol are estimated
to have been 4,504,150 Ib, 9,124,9*5 Ib. end 10 959,325 Ib respectively. Total
emissions are summarized in Tables 10-17, 10-18, and 10-19 for o-cresol, p-cresol and
m-cresol, respectively.
-------
10-29
Table 10-15. Cresol Isomer Emissions from Coke Oven Operations '
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total
Number
of
Sites
0
15
25
3
4
9
2
2
1
61
o-Cresol
Emissions
db/yr)
0
195,750
326,250
39,150
52,200
117,450
26,100
26,100
13,050
796,080°
m-Cresol
Emissions
(lb/yr)
0
271,500
452,500
54,300
72,400
162,900
36,200
36,200
18,100
l,104,240d
p-Cresol
Emissions
(lb/yr)
0
164,175
273,625
32,835
43,780
98,505
21,890
21,890
10, 945
667,680e
Total
Cresol
Emissions
(lb/yr)
0
631,500
1,052,500
126,300
168,400
378,900
84,200
84,200
42,100
2,568,000
See ref. 6.
b
Basis; 107 billion Ib coke produced; 0.000024 Ib cresols emitted/lb coke produced;
cresol composition - 26% p-cresol, 31% o-cresol, and 43% m-cresol in mixed cresols
emitted.
Average 13,050 lb/yr per site.
Average 18,100 lb/yr per site.
»
"Average 10,945 lb/yr per site.
-------
Table 10-16. Cresol Vent Parameters
Source
Production (all types)
Process
Storage
Fugitive
BHT/TCP production
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Phenolic resins
€~ Process
a
Storage
Fugitive
Pesticides /pyre throids
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Wire enamel solvent
Process
Ore flotation
Process
Number
of
Stacks
2
8
1
4
1
1
1
2
.1
1
Vent
Height
(ft)
30
24
60
16
60
16
30
20
40
20
Vent
Diameter
(ft)
1
0.17
0.5
0.17
0.33
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.25
0.25
Discharge
Temperature
(°F)
208
BO
150
80
150
80
100
80
120
120
Discharge
Velocity Area
(ft/sec) (ft X ft)
75
300 X 600
35
100 X 100
20
100 X 100
15
100 X 100
10
10
OJ
o
? "y
Building cross-section: Production - 200 m ,• BHT/TCP - 100 mz; Phenolic Resins - 50 m ;
Pesticides - 100 m2; Wire Enamel Solvent 0 200 m2; Ore Flotation - 50 m2.
-------
10-31
Table "10-17. 197$ Nationwide o-Cresol Emissions
at i
Source
Nationwide
Emissions
.
o-Cresol production
^ " n ^ •"
Mixed "cresol production
^<- T 31
Cresylic acid production
BHT production
Antioxidants production
Tricresyl phosphate production
Phenolic resins
Wire enamel solvent
Pesticides
Disinfectants/cleaning compounds
Ore flotation agent
Miscellaneous, other
Coke ovens
Total
75,000
24,800
3,900
15,000
10,000
13,700
. : 3 j .1
2,740,000
i^as1
550
411,000
noi.Jfi.JoIi
to ,.
•411,000
. 1 , 000
fsvo •-(Jo
-796,080
4304,150
-------
10-32
Table 10-18. 1978 Nationwide p-Cre»ol Eml8«ion«
Nationwide
Bid. at ions
Source
p-Cresol production 105,000
Mixed cresol production 20,800
Cresylic acid production 45,500
Phenolic resins production (isomer) 27,500
Pesticides production 2,500
Tricresyl phosphate 4,900
Phenolic resins 31,600
Wire enamel solvent 6,320,000
Pesticides 1,265
Disinfectants/cleaning compounds 948,000
Ore flotation agent 948,000
Miscellaneous, other -2,200
Coke ovens 667,680
Total 9,124,945
-------
10-33
Table 10-19. 1978 Nationwide Emissions m-Cresol
Nationwide
Emissions
Source
-------
o
I
FIGURE 10-1. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF m-CRESOl EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 10-20. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF m-CRESOL
EMISSIONS (CM/SEC)
NO.
•
2
3
-£- 4
JT
Jl
3
6
7
a
4
10
ii
12
13
14
COMPANY
KOPPER3
HEKICI1EM
CONTI ,I.NTAL OIL
FALLF.K
FEiino
STTMSON
CROWLEY TAR
nou i L OIL
koppEhs
CPC
FHC
VKRTAC
Fnc
STAUFFER
S 1 IT.
OIL CITY, PA
HOUSTON. TX
NEWARK, NJ
TUSCAI.OOSA. AL
SANTA FK S, CA
ANACOnTES, WA
HOUSTON, TX
MEAUMONT. TX
FOLLANSBEE, W
LYHDHUHST. NJ
DALTinoRE. rm
WKij 1 IILLIr.NA , All
HITRO. WV
CALL 1 POL IS FY, WV
!•> 1 All II, All 1
LATITUDE LONGITUDE STA 1 1 ON 1 'VI' I-'.
41 29 30 079 43 20 I4UG0 1
29 45 36 095 10 40 12906 2
•tO 43 3-1 O74 O7 11 ii 'M7s 1 3
33 1 1 OO O1J7 34 SO v:ill(/ti 3
33 no Jo i in 04 u; 9:1106 ;i
4JI 20 31 .22 32 411 24217 3
29 ->3 5O 095 14 20 12906 <>
3O 04 1-1 O94 O3 4O 129)7 4
40 23 19 080 33 07 14762 4
40 47 30 O74 04 34 94741 5
39 14 50 076 35 30 93721 5
3-1 'Jo 10 vivo :;:; 4;* i;r>:/> L»
311 2T> 33 OIJI 50 05 13U(p(. O
JU 46 X) OU2 10 54 13(160 0
'IYI'1, PROCESS
1 .020520
2 .04708O
1 .020520
2 . 14 1 120
3 . I5UM2
:> .OU3664
2 -O23''V2
'.I . O27936
i: . MlVOilll
3 .027930
3 .040512
3 .O405I2
3 . lolll 12
3 .055872
4 . 0028O0
4 . 002SOO
-> .002^.1
5 .0-.I772U
I, .02'>t,04
STORAGE
.002100
.004896
.002160
.0141131:
. 0 I67O4
0.19GOO
. ((OJ44I1
. 002UU0
. OIKH90
-002O4J0
.004U96
. 004396
.«• IG7O4
.005904
.000360
.000360
. <>•*«:;<. u
.00532U
OU290G
FUGITIVE
O04320
.009936
,004320
.O3J264
.«/ I4U32
. OI7568
OIK (196
.009792
.M.-.792
. I>,rj264
.0M8«d
.000369
. 000360
.om.juo
.OIUB00
OUoVO*
-------
TABLE 10-20. (Concluded)
• Plant Types:
Type 1: Plant produces Isolated m-cresol and mixed cresols
Type 2: Plant produces Isolated m-cresol, mixed cresols i and cresyllc acid
Type 3: Plant produces mixed cresols and cresyllc acid
Type 4: Plant produces cresyllc acid
Type 5: Plant produces pyrethrold pesticide
Type 6: Plant produces tHcresyl phosphate (TCP) and cresyl dlphenyl
phosphate (CDP)
t Source Types:
Type 1: Isolated *-creso1 production
Type 2: Mixed cresols production
Type 3: Cresyllc acid production
Type 4: Pyrethrold pesticide production
Type 5: THeresyl phosphate (TCP) and cresyl dlphenyl phosphate (COP) production
-------
10-37
TABLE 10-21. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF m-CRESOL RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration Population
Level Exposed Dosage
(ng/m3) (persons) [(ug/m3) • persons]
5 2 10.6
2.5 43 143
1 240 459
0.5 947 979
0.25 3,243 1.760
0.1 17.464 3,850
0.05 40,501 5,460
0.025 111,091 7,840
0.01 508.466 13,800
0.005 1,273,154 19.000
0.0025 3.370,507 26,200
0.001 8,666,629 39,900
0.0005 11,188.566 36,800
3.12xlO'6* 21,040,904 37,800
*The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
TABLE 10-22. EMISSIONS RATES AND NUMBER OF GENERAL POINT SOURCES OF m-CRESOL
Beitm Production
Reqlon
New England
Middle Atlantic
Can North Central
Uett North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
y«l South Central
Mountain
Pacific
llBililonY Silt
l?«/iec)
0.00431
0.00431
0.00431
0.004]!
0.00431
0.004)1
0.00431
0.00411
0.00431
Hurtwr
Of SU«
6
76
31
S
IS
6
11
1
74
Hire Enaavl
Solvent
Pesticide Production
Eplilloni/Slte Hui*j«r EwliilonVSlte
l<^/4'c]
0.06B3
0.0683
0.0603
0.0683
0.06B3
0.0683
0.06H3
0.06B3
0.06B3
of SUM
46
339
370
84
174
44
87
7S6
174
(9B/itc)
0.000155
0.000155
0.000155
0.0001 55
0.000155
0.000155
0.000154
0.000155
0.000155
Niv**r
of Sllei
4
37
19
15
17
14
15
5
13
Or* Flotation
frill lonVS III
(Wiec)
0 0787
0.0787
0.0787
0.0787
0.0787
0.0787
0.0787
0.0787
0.0787
> m*i4>er
of Sllei
6
38
85
14S
67
40
71
144
77
Cote Oven
WiiionVSUi
(9>/>ec)
0
0.7*1
0.761
0.7*1
0.781
0.761
0.761
O.?«l
0.761
• Nurtwr
of SUei
0
15
75
3
4
9
7
7
1
o
LJ
CD
-------
TABLE 10-23. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM EMISSIONS FROM
GENERAL POINT SOURCES OF m-CPESOL
Population Eipmetf
(10J
Concentration
Level
(nq/*3!
5.0
X- 2.5
^ i-o
0.5
0.25
0.10
0.05
0.025
0.01
0
Wire
•eilni Cnavl Peitlcloe
Production Solvent Production
0
0
0
0
0
--
--
«
--
..
0
31
287
815
1.960
--
--
-.
--
..
0
0
0
0
0
--
--
--
--
..
Ore Coke
Floatation Oven
0 8.0
0 23
4 73
26 199
101 449
..
..
..
-.
..
U.S.
Total
8.0
54
364
1.064
2.510
--
--
--
--
..
R*»tM
Production
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.002
O.OTJi
0.007
0.04
Hire
Solvent
0
0.10
0.46
0.83
1.23
1.86
2.70
3.32
4.36
8.2
Production
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o.oor
Or* Colt
Floatation Oven
0
0
0.004
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.11
0.14
0.20
0.56
0.06
0.10
0.19
0.27
0.35
0.52
0.62
0.74
0.91
1.22
U.I.
Total
O.M
0.20
O.M
1.12
l.M
2.4S
3.43
4.M
5.48
10.0
NOTE: The use of -- as an entry Indicates that the incremental E/D Is not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry in another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted 1n another column.
o
UJ
-------
10-40
TAfltE 10-24. HAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM ARIA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF m-CRESOL
Parameter Value
Daytime decay rate (Kd) 1.6B x 10~4 sec"1
Nighttime decay rate (*n) 1.0 x 10~6 sec"1
Hanna-Gifford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (EH) 0
Nationwide nonheatlng stationary source emissions (EN) 16.20 gm/sec
Cleaning solvent 16.16 gm/sec
Miscellaneous 0.04 gm/sec
Nationwide mobile source emissions (E.J 0
-------
TABLE 10-25. m-CRESOL EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
_J
ipo lewl
050000
025000
010000
005000
002500
Population
505140
9149730
23637585
51757583
123305988
158679135
Dosage
person)
•2338.5
274137 2
464245.9
654161 0
914669.0
973892 7
Percentage of Contrl but ton
Heating
0
0 '
0
0.
0
0
Stationary
100 0
100 0
100 0
100 0
100 0
100 0
tobilt
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percentage of Distribution
C 1 tjr^lype 1
100 0
100 0
100 0
97 8
94 5
91 8
CJtj_Jlpe 2
0
0
0
7
2 5
3.0
C'lj Type 3
0
0
0
1.5
2 9
5 3
o
-C*
-------
TABLE 10-26. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUW1ARY OF w-CRESOl
Population Eiposed
(persons)
Oosage
persons!
Concentration Specific
"Level Point
"(uq/rn3)
"&•
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0.005
0.0025
0.001
0.0005
0
Source
2
43
240
947
3,243
17,464
40^464
111.091
508.466
1,273.154
3.370.507
8.666.629
11,188.566
21.040.904
General
Point
Source
8.000
54.000
364.000
1.064,000
2,510,000
-_
__
._
._
._
__
..
__
--
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
505,140
9,149.730
23.637.585
51,757,583
123.305,988
._
__
158,679,135
U.S. Total
8.000
54,043
364,240
1,064,947
2.513.242
• —
--
-"
--
--
--
- —
— -
™ —
Specific
Point
Source
11
143
459
979
1,760
3,850
5,460
7,840
13,800
19.000
26.200
34.900
36.800
37,800
General
Point
Source Area Source
60.000
200,000
650.000
1,120.000
1.620.000
2.450.000
3.430.000
4.200.000
5.480.000
--
--
--
--
10,000,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
42,339
274,137
464.246
654.161
914.669
--
--
973.900
U.S. Total
60,000
200.100
650.500
1.121.000
1 .622 .000
2.454.000
3.477.000
4.482.000
5,958.000
— _
11.012,000
o
-Ck
INJ
NOTE: The use of -• as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D Is not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry In another column at the saoe row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted 1n another colum.
H
-------
o
UJ
FIGURE 10-2. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF o-CRESOL EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 10-27. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF o-CRESOL
TO.
1
a
3
/'4
- 9
'
7-
8
9
19,
II
•a
13
14
COFIPAHT
COHTIHEHTAL OIL
FALLEK
FEIUIO
riEniciiEH
PT.r*™
KOPPEOS
COOWLEY TAH
KOPPEIW
ITODIL OIL
ASITLAIID
POELL
unmoYAL
FfKT : ^
BTAUFFETl
PITT
RCVARK, HJ
TUSCALOOSA. AL
RAITTE FE RPHinr«J,CA
HOUSTON. TX
AMAComrs. WA
OIL CITY. PA
noUSTOW. TX
FOLLAHPDER, WV
DEAFfOirr. TX
FORDS, nj
HARTIITCZ, CA
CEISHAIl, LA
"RITHO. KV
C ALL 1 POL 10 FY, WV
LATminr. LonciTtmr.
««.
33 II
33 06
29 43
4O 2O
41 20
29 43
49 23
39 94
49 31
3O 90
39 13
30 29
3O 46
34 974
OO 007
30 MO
36 993
HI 122
30 079
50 93
IO QO9
14 994
22 974
03 122
39 991
33 901
49 OO2
97 26
34 no
94 IO
19 40
32 4O
43 2O
14 29
33 97
93 49
29 09
96 49
99 10
99 90
19 04
M7»H runwT
PTATIOO TYTF.
94741
93O06
9319ft
1299ft
24217
I4O69
12996
14762
12917
94739
23292
12908
13866
13041
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
0
0
TVTF.
1
2
3
1
2
~\
1
2
3
1
2
ii
i
2
3
1
2
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
0
0
rnocrro
. 136899
.9K9II32
.907:144
. 164169
.916992
.992440
. 9.1:1904
.9*40:12
.2736**
. I9IHOO
.93:i9O4
.9949-J2
. 982*89
.IK139O4
.9469O9
.9*4*32
.994O96
.9*1084
.9976*9
.946909
.92394*
.913824
.919899
HTORACE
.9144*9
.920312
.OOO729
.917209
.09 17 JO
:SSJJ
.9288*9
.9196:16
.999449
9*864*
.99.1436
.9*04:12
.9«:i436
.9*3769
.9*9864
.9*9976
.9*9144
.9*7299
.9*9769
.992889
.9*2916
.9*1989
FOCITIVE
. 93889*
.919606
.OAIin4
. 934969
. 000176
.917289
.99720*
.99769*
.0^160*
.O92IUI9
.91728*
.0*7 209
.9001164
.91728*
.0«72«*
.999769
.99*432
.991998
.99*288
.•97299
.99976*
. 9*2809
.993808
.992169
-------
TABLE 10-27 (Concluded)
• Plant Types:
Type 1: Plant produces Isolated o-cresol, nixed cresols, and cresyllc acid
Type 2: Plant produces Isolated o-cresol. mixed cresols, and 2,6-d1(t-buty1)-p-
cresol (BUT)
Type 3: Plant produces cresyllc add
Type 4: Plant produces 2.6-d1(t-butyl)-p-creso1 (BHT)
Type 5: Plant produces trlcresyl phosphate (TCP) and cresyl dlphenyl phosphate (CDP)
t Source Types:
Type 1: o-Cresol production
Type 2: Mixed cresols production
Type 3: Cresyllc acid production
Type 4: 2,6-D1(t-butyl)-p-cresol (BKT) production
Type 5: Trlcresyl phosphate (TCP) and cresyl dlphonyl phosphate (CDP) production
-------
10-46
TABLE 10-28. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF o-CRESOL RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration Population
Level Exposed Dosage
(ug/m3) (persons) [(jjg/m3) • persons]
0.05 70 4.55
0.025 215 9.47
0.01 1,318 26.3
0.005 4,166 51.5
0.0025 7,461 62.6
0.001 25.599 89.3
0.0005 48.734 106
0.00025 116.611 129
0.0001 - 421.797 176
0.00005 907,944 210
6.96xlO-6* 1,336.543 225
'The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
TABLE 10-29. EMISSIONS RATES AND NUMBER OF GENERAL POINT SOURCES OF o-CRESOL
Production
Production
Or*
Region
Nn England
•Iddlt Atlantic
Eait North Central
Veil North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
Utit Swth Central
Mountain
Pacific
EiUsioni/SUe
I?«/IM)
0.00158
0.00158
0.00158
0.00158
0.00158
0.00158
0.00158
0.00158
0.00158
Hurfxr
or sites
6
26
31
5
15
6
11
1
24
Dilsilonv'Slte
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
or Sltei
46
339
370
84
174
44
87
258
174
jilsifonVSIl
(g^sec)
0.000057
0.000057
0.000057
0.000057
0.000057
0.000057
0.000057
0.000057
0.000057
or Site!
4
37
19
15
17
14
15
5
13
Eaisiionysite
lo»/»*c)
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
or SUM
6
38
85
145
62
40
21
144
22
MimonVSlie
(o»/!ec)
0.188
0.188
0.188
0.188
0.188
0.188
0.188
0.188
0.188
HUfcer-
or Sltei
0
15
25
3
4
9
2
2
1
-------
TABLE 10-30. EXPOSURE AND DOSflGE RESULTING FTOW EWISSIOHS
GENERAL POINT SOURCES OF o-CRESOL
Population
Concentration
Level
5.0
2.5
1.0
0.50
0.25
0.10
0.050
0.075
0.010
0.005
0
Wire
•Mini (nml Peitlcloe
Production Solvent Production
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.6
..
..
..
_ .
0
0
17
147
Ml
1.750
4.400
.-
--
--
. _
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
--
..
..
Ore Coke
Floatation Ov*n
0
0
0
0.3
12
95
234
--
--
-.
..
3
14
48
119
302
1.040
1.990
--
--
--
..
U.S. Rejlni
Total Production
3
14
65
266
854
2.890
6.630
--
--
--
..
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0.6
1.4
2
13.5
Hire
Solvent
0
0
22
no
245
430
612
830
1.160
1.480
3,000
Production
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.6
Or*
Floatation
0
0
0
0.2
4
16
26
37
53
72
214
Coke
Oven
21
59
111
160
275
336
402
so;
601
692
881
U.S.
Total
21
59
133
270
474
713
1.040
1.370
1.830
2.240
4.110
NOTE: The use of -- as an entry indicates that the incremental E/D 1§ not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry 1n another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted 1n another column.
o
I
CD
-------
10-49
TABLE 10-31. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF o-CRESOL
Parameter Value
-4-1
Daytime decay rate (K^) 1.41 x 10 sec
Nighttime decay rate (^) 1.0 x 10"6 sec"1
Hanna-Glfford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (E.,) 0
Nationwide nonheating stationary source emissions (EN) 6.076 gm/sec
Cleaning solvent 5.918 gm/sec
Antioxidants production 0.144 gm/sec
Miscellaneous 0.014 gm/sec
National mobile source emissions 0
-------
TABLE 10-32. 0-OKSOL EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
DO8ACE
PERCENTAGE OP CONTRIBOTION
PERCENTAGE Of
^•rv Ld.vu.
.MO**.
.*10**0
o >>lflti
.00100*
. 000B00
«.
ruruLJti iv*
(PERSON)
8*9140
91 4»7»*
I7MI04*
M9BO6M4
IB 1304806
130679139
» WfS » n» •»-
PERSON)
I89B9.3
1*0708. 3
182*43.0
aamaa. i
34O5C4.l>
37230O.C
3747B9 . O
BtftTING
O.
0-
0.
0.
o.
0.
fffATIONAnV
100.0
100.0
10*.*
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
MOBILE
0.
0.
*. '
0.
0.
0.
O.
CITY TYPE 1
1*0.0
1*0.0
1*0.0
99.*
94.7
92.4
91.9
CITY TYPE 2
*.
0.
0.
.2
2.4
2.9
2.9
CITY TYPE 3
0.
0.
0.
.B
2.9
4.7
8.2
0
o
-------
TABLE 10-33. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUMMARY OF o-CRESOL
Population Exposed
(persons)
Concentration Specific
Level
(pq/rn^)
5
2.5
1
± 0.5
oo 0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0.005
0
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
215
1.318
4,166
1,336.543
General
Point
Source
3,000
14,000
65,000
266,000
854,000
2,890,000
6,630,000
--
--
--
--
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
505.140
9.149.730
17,551,646
158.679.135
U.S. Total
3,000
14,000
65,000
266,000
854,000
2,890.000
6.630.070
--
--
--
--
Specific
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
9
26
52
225
Dosage
[(ug/«3) vpersonsj
General
Point
Source
21,000
59,000
133,000
270,000
474,000
783.000
1.040,000
1.370,000
1.830,000
2.240.000
4.110.000
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15.955
105,758
152,043
374,759
U.S. Total
21,000
59,000
133,000
270,000
474,000
783,000
1,040.005
1,385,964
1,935,784
2,392,095
4.485.000
o
I
en
NOTE: The use of -- as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D 1s not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry in another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted in another column.
-------
s-
eft
\ r
tn
ro
^\
\J
FIGURE 10-3. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF p-CRESOL EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 10-34. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF p-CRESOL
EMISSIONS (CM/SEC)
X
oO
IP
no.
i
2
3
4
3
6
7
8
9
16
II
12
COfTTANV
SIIF.HHIN-NILLI API
CONTINENTAL OIL
KALLEK
F KIU10
MEiii<;m:n
STIMSOH
KOPPERS
CROWLEY TAR
KOPPERS
I10DIL OIL
KNC
STMJKFISII
S 1 TF,
CHICAGO. IL
NEWARK, NJ
TUSCAI.OOSA, AL
SANTA FL S, CA
HOUSTON, TX
ANACOnTEX. WA
OIL CITY. PA
HOUSTON. TX
FOLLAMSDEE. WV
lltAUMOIJHI , TX
NITRO. WV
CALl.irOl.IS FY. WV
^ i /it i i i ,/in i
LATiTijm. i.oNCiTunr. SIWMWI MIT.
41 43 oj mi? :;o :io M4ii4 l>47'; 1 2
;I3 '. 1 OO Olt7 34 50 'XHlitd 2
33 50 .Ml 1 111 04 111 '>:) !(,(» 2
29 45 Uii 0'>5 10 4L, I29OO LI
48 2O 31 122 32 41J 24217 2
41 29 36 679 43 20 14866 3
29 43 56 693 14 26 12906 4
40 23 10 086 35 07 14702 4
30 O4 14 004 Oi: 40 12917 4
30 23 3.1 O!ll 5O 05 I311(>O 5
3O 46 40 0112 10 54 I'.IUOO 5
IVI'l. I'llOTI-SS
1 1 179360
- 04:.<.-4
:i .0111, 2bo
;. .014250
:i .02UUOO
2 . 02IJ5 1 2
',\ .040360
:• on:,:i'J2
:l . 1 62726
i: .oji;^i2
3 .O4630U
2 .62Q5I2
3 .647U6U
3 .057456
;, .0,.>l^2
4 .031 U24
.025050
STOIUCL:
.0,0720
oj:i'»«»4
. OO9O72
. OO I44O
. 00,1024
. OO3O24
.005040
oo;;<>2n
017 136
.Ol).l<«24
.065040
.063624
.065646
.00604O
. OO2OIO
0O46OU
.00244U
FUCITI Vt
24,920
. OOI19JU
.OI.1I44
.oo::«24
.OOfi04O
. (MX. 048
.OIO086
. O ICOOO
034272
.i-o;)456
. OU5H40
.606648
. 0 1 06O9
. O 1 1-096
.004032
.009072
.005040
-------
TABLE 10^34. (Concluded)
* Plant Types:
Type 1: Plant produces Isolated p-cresol
Type 2: Plant produces mixed cresols and cresyllc acid
Type 3: Plant produces mixed cresols
Type 4: Plant produces cresyllc acid
Type 5: Plant produces trlcresyl phosphate (TCP) and cresyl dlphenyl
phosphate (CDP)
-P
& t Source Types:
Type 1: p-cresol production
Type 2: Nixed cresols production
Type 3: Cresyllc acid production
Type 4: Trlcresyl phosphate (TCP) and cresyl dlphenyl phosphate
(CDP) production
o
I
tn
-------
10-55
TABLE 10-35. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF p-CRESOL RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration Population
Level Exposed Dosage
(yg/m3) (persons) [(ug/m3) • persons]
5 227 1,460
2.5 1.116 4,450
1 5,358 10,500
0.5 16,508 18,500
0.25 40,620 26,700
0.1 170,926 46,300
0.05 419,077 63.100
0.025 891,820 79,500
0.01 1,795,513 93.600
0.005 3,029,719 102,000
0.0025 5,046,244 109,000
0.001 10,304,456 118,000
3.67K10'5* 14.974,476 121,000
*The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
TABLE 10-36. EMISSIONS RATES AND NUMBER OF GENERAL POINT SOURCES OF p-CRESOL
00
•Mint Production
of Sltei
Mire (f»Ml SoltMt Ptitlcl* Production 0*v
tfJVm) ef-SlUt
Hfti (n^liWIv
Nlddlt Atlantic
Cut Kortli Central
Unt Horth Cmtral
5owlli Atlantic
Catl Sovth Ctwtrtl
uctt Sovtk CMtral
PKWItllH
Pacific
O.OOMI
O.OOMI
O.OOMI
O.OOMI
O.OOMI
O.OOMI
O.OOMI
O.OOMI
O.OOMI
e
2C
31
5
15
6
11
1
24
0.0577
0.0577
0.0577
0.0577
0.0577
0.0577
0.0577
0.0577
0.0577
*6
339
370
04
174
44
07
2S0
174
0.00039
0.00039
0.00039
0.00039
0.00039
0.00039
0.00039
0.00039
0.00039
4
37
19
15
17
14
15
5
13
0.0242
0.0242
0.0242
0.0242
0.0242
0.0242
0.0242
0.0242
0.0242
» -"-• _ — ••
38
05
145
•2
40
fl
144
22
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
O.IS0
0.15*
0.1S0
0.150
0
IS
25
1
o
I
in
tr«
-------
TABLE 10-37. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM EMISSIONS FROM
GENERAL POINT SOURCES OF p-CRESOL
Population CiMncd
( IflJ persons) [1
Concentration
(nq/"^l
5.0
2.5
1.0
0.50
0.25
0.10
0.050
0.025
0.010
0
(•flint
Production
0
0
0
0
1.3
10
--
--
--
..
•Mre
Solvent
0
15
195
688
1.660
5.040
--
--
--
..
Peitlcldt
Production
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
--
--
..
Ore
Floatation
0
0
2
19
77
280
--
--
--
..
Coat
Oven
I
11
40
99
237
94?
--
--
--
..
U.S.
Total
t
n
737
807
1.970
6.780
--
--
--
..
Retlni
Production
0
0
0
0
0.4
3
6
8
13
50
Hire
[ntnvl
Solvent
0
44
306
643
971
1.4BO
2.060
7.640
3.590
6.9)0
o'tpi/iTpe
Production
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
4
riOWlJ
Or*
Floatation
0
0
7
13
33
65
81
120
173
493
Cokt
Oir«n
12
43
86
126
173
273
32«
406
483
740
U.I.
Total
12
87
394
782
1.100
1.030
2.400
3.100
4.260
8.230
NOTE: The use of -- as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/0 Is not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry in another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted 1n another column.
o
en
-------
10-58
TABLE 10-38. HAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF p-CRESOL
Parameter Value
Daytime decay rate (*d) 1.41 x 10~4 sec"1
Nighttime decay rate (Kfl) 1.0 x 10"6 sec"1
Hanna-G1fford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (EH) 0
Nationwide nonheatlng stationary source emissions (EN) 13.6B3 gro/sec
Cleaning solvent 13.651-^m/sec
Miscellaneous 0.032 pi/sec
National mobile source emissions (Eu) 0
M
-------
TABLE 10-39. p-CRESOL EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
EXPO LEVEL POPULATION
(WV (I'KHSON)
.000009 305 I4O
.039999 090149
.•19999 1*799749
.098Mi 44443179
.002300 1 1 1931566
.001000 IOI902O34
0. I5O670I33
DOSACF,
C UC/( fl) 3-
PtltSGH) 1
35030.
30930.
366437 .
033043.
7*6fiO.
0306 1 <1 .
O430-19 .
0
9
1
4
•>
J
7
PFRCEHTftCE OF CONTRIBUTION
LUC/YTINU STATIONARY
o. ioe.0
9m 1 W - O
el ^^A A
• 1 ^^W • V
rj • 1 ww • 9
0. 100. U
O. IOO.O
o. ieo.0
PEHCEHTACE OF D 1 STR 1 BUT I ON
HOUILL CITY TYPE 1 CITY TYPE 2 CITY TYPE 3
0.
0.
0.
0.
e.
0.
o.
100.
100.
100.
98.
95.
02.
01 .
0 0.
0 0.
0 0.
0 .4
3 2.2
a 2.0
0 2.0
O.
0.
0.
1.6
2.0
4.O
G.2
O
i
CJ1
UD
-------
TABLE 10-40. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUMMARY Of p-CRESOl
Population Eiposed
(persons)
Concentration Specific
Level
(pq/nrJ)
5
2,5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0.005
0.0025
-£ o.ooi
r- 0
Point
Source
227
1.116
5.358
16,508
40.620
170,926
419,077
891 .820
1.795.513
3.029.719
5.029.719
10.304.456
14,974.476
General
Point
Source
2.000
26,000
237,000
807.000
1,970,000
6.280,000
--
--
• m
--
--
--
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
505.140
505,140
19.790,740
44,443,179
111,931.566
151,902,934
158,679,135
U.S. Total
2.227
27.116
242.358
223,508
2,010,620
6,450,926
--
-.
--
--
--
--
Specific
Point
Source
1.460
4,450
10.500
18,500
26.700
46,300
63.100
79.500
93.800
102,000
109,000
118,000
121,000
General
Point
Source
12.000
87.000
394,000
782,000
1.180.000
1.830.000
2.480.000
3.180.000
4,260.000
--
--
--
8,230.000
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
35.931
35.931
366,437
533.543
766.691
839.614
843.950
U.S. Total
13.460
91.450
404,500
800.500
1.206.700
1.876,300
--
--
--
--
--
—
9.185.000
o
I
NOTE: The use of -- as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/0 Is not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry 1n another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted 1n another column.
-------
10-61
REFERENCES
1. "Cresols and Cresylic Acid," p. 637.5030A—K, Chemical Economics Handbook,
Stanford Research Institute, Henlo Park, CA (May 1979).
2. Kirk-Othmer, Volume 6, 2d ed., pp. 440—442.
3. J. Gosdar, "Air Pollution Assessment of Cresols," Mitre Corp., Report. No. HTR--7227,
June 1976.
4. "Chemical Products Synopsis on Cresols and Cresylic Acids," Mannsville Chemical
Products, Mannsville, New York, August 1977.
5. The 1976 Directory of Chemical Producers, United States, Stanford Research
Institute, Menlo Park, CA.
6. "Coke-Oven Plants in the United States," Coal and Coke Products, Chemical Economics
Handbook, p 212.2000A, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (October 1978).
7. New Jersey State Air Files, Continental Oil Co., Newark, NJy March 31, 1977.
8. Special Project Report "Petrochemical Plant Sites" prepared for Industrial
Pollution Control Division, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, by Monsanto Research
Corporation, Dayton, Ohio, April 1976.
9. "Phenolic Resins," p. 580.0933, Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford Research
Institute, Menlo Park, CA (May 1978).
10. Source Assessment, Pesticide Manufacturing Air Emissions Overview and Priori-
tization. Environmental Protection Agency Technology Series, EPA 600/2-78-0049,
March 1978.
H. U.S. Bureau of Census, Standard Industrial Code 2851, Paints and Allied Products,
1972.
12. "Industrial Explosives," p. 530.2000B, Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford
Research Institute, llenlo Park, CA (May 1976).
-------
|