United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/3-78-042a
May 1978
Air
Emission Inventory/
Factor Workshop
Volume 1
-------
EPA-450/3-78-042a
Emission
Inventory / Factor Workshop
Volume 1
Moderator
James H. Southerland
OAQPS.
Monitoring Data and Analysis Division
Co-Moderators
Richard Burr
OAQPS,
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
Dale Denny
ORD,
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Charles Masser
OAQPS,
Monitoring Data and Analysis Division
September 13-15, 1977
Raleigh, NC
Co-Sponsored by
Air Pollution Training Institute and Air Management Technology Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
May 1978
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to
report technical data of interest to a limited number of readers.
Copies are available free of charge to Federal employees, current
contractors and grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited
quantities - from the Library Services Office (MD-35), U. S. Envir-
onmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
USEPA
This is not an official policy and standards docu-
ment. The opinions, findings, and conclusions are
those of the authors and not necessarily those of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Any
mention of products, or organizations, does not consti-
tute endorsement by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
Emission inventories and emission factors are major components
of an air pollution control program. The inventory is perhaps
one of the most important planning tools available to an air
pollution control agency. Emphasis on these inventories and fac-
tors, the procedures used, and the use of the information has often
been lacking, however. On September 13-15, 1977, the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards hosted a workshop with both prepared
topics and open discussion in Raleigh, N. C. to focus attention to
some of the aspects of such emission inventory and factor activi-
ties particularly as related to the timely aspect of organic
emissions. This document constitutes the proceedings of that
workshop and will be distributed to the approximately 130 attendees.
Additional copies are available from EPA Library Services Office.
Papers prepared for and presented at the workshop have been
finalized by the authors and are included with no additional
editorial or technical modifications. Papers presented do not
necessarily represent policies of the Agency but may provide a
basis for development or discussion of such policies. The workshop
also provided a forum for various criticism which may appear to be
unanswered but hopefully helped to create an open atmosphere
conducive to constructive change.
The discussions during and following the papers were condensed
and edited to the extent possible. Many important discussions may
have been left out due to inadequate clarity of the recording and
ill
-------
transcription. Some of the topics of discussion may also have been
more clearly addressed by the authors when the final manuscripts *
were prepared. It was felt, however, to be worthwhile to include
the condensed discussions to indicate where the attendees felt
emphasis or clarification were needed.
Following this workshop the Air Pollution Control Association's
(APCA) newly formed committee; TP-7; Emission Factors and Inven-
tories, developed plans for an APCA Specialty meeting on Inventories
and Factors which will be held in Anaheim California the week of
November 13, 1978, and hosted by the West Coast, APCA Section. Pa*tici-
pants at this workshop are especially invited to submit papers for
possible presentation at the meeting in California and/or be present
to participate in the discussion. It has been suggested that the
concept of a forum for this general topic become an annual under-
taking of EPA and/or APCA. Discussion of this point and general
comments on the content of this document or the need for an annual
conference of some sort can be addressed to the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711. More detail on specific
papers would best be obtained by directly contacting the author(s).
As prime moderator of the workshop, I would like to express
my thanks to the Air Pollution Training Institute and their
contractor Northrop Services, Inc. who provided the arrangements,
taping, transcription, and related work that made the workshop
iv
-------
possible. Especially, I would like to thank the authors, co-
moderators and attendees for their hard work and participation
which made the workshop, I feel, to be a success.
James H. Southerland, Moderator.
-------
Table of Contents
Emission Inventory/Factor Workshop
Volume 1
Foreword iii
Organic Emission Inventory 1-1
Considerations and Purposes to
C.P. Bartosh, W.J. Moltz, and B.P. Cerepaka 1-14
Analysis of Data for Hydrocarbon 2-1
Sources in Non-Attainment Areas to
in Louisiana 2-40
B.C. McCoy and K.J. Guinaw
Documentation of Emission Inventories 3-1
in Region IX to
D.C. Henderson 3-14
Methodologies and Problems Encountered 4-1
in a Level 3 Multi-State/County Hydrocarbon to
Area Source Emissions Inventory 4-26
T.A. Trapasso and W.K. Duval
Air Force Emission Inventories 5-1 to
B.C. Grems 5-14
A Format for the Storage of Area 6-1
Source Emission Data to
S.R. Tate, N.L. Matthews, D.J. Ames 6-35
R.A. Bradley
Maryland Special Factors and 7-1
Inventory Techniques to
E.L. Carter and J.W. Paisie 7-22
Panel Discussion of Inventory 8-1
Methodology Procedures and Applications to
to Oxidant Control 8-26
vii
-------
9 Hydrocarbon Emissions from Households 9-1
in New York and New Jersey to
E.Z. Finfer 9-20
10 Hydrocarbon Carrier Emissions 10-1
from Atmospheric Dye Becks to
R. Hawks 10-25
11 Air Quality and Energy Conservation 11-1
Benefits From Using Emulsions to to
Replace Asphalt Cutbacks in Certain 11-21
Paving Operations
F.M. Kirwan
12 Commercial Bakeries as a Major 12-1
Source of Reactive Volatile Organic to
Gases 12-18
D.C. Henderson
13 Reactive Organic Gas Emissions 13-1
from Pesticide Use in California to
F.J. Wiens 13-53
Emission Inventory/Factor Workshop
Volume 2
14 Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 14-1
From Architectural Coatings to
R.A. Friesen, R.E. Menebroker, 14-12
D.K. Saito
15 NO Reducations in the Portland Cement 15-1
Industry with Conversion to Coal-Firing to
R.J. Hilovsky 15-26
16 Current API Emission Measurement 16-1
Programs to
J.G. Zabaga 16-26
17 Hydrocarbon Emissions From 17-1
Floating Roof Storage Tanks to
R.L. Russell 17-22
18 Emission Inventory of Petroleum 18-1
Storage and Handling Losses to
(A Case History) 18-29
J.T. Alexander
viii
-------
19 Inventorying Hydrocarbon Emissions 19-1
From Small Gasoline Bulk Plants to
R.L. Norton and R.J. Bryan 19-39
20 An Organic Specie Emission 20-1
Inventory for Stationary Sources to
in the Los Angeles Area - Methodology 20-49
H.J. Taback, T.W. Sonneschen,
N. Brunetz, and J.L. Stredler
21 Highway Motor Vehicle Emission 21-1
Factors to
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers 21-80
Association of the United States, Inc.
22 FTP Emission Factor Development: 22-1
Correction for Non-FTP Conditions to
J. Becker and M. Williams 22-34
23 Land Use Based Emissions Factors 23-1 to
F. Benesh and T. McCurdy 23-27
24 Emission Rates for Biogenic NO 24-1 to
H.C. Ratsch and D.T. Tingey X 24-28
25 Procedures for Conducting Hydrocarbon 25-1
Emission Inventories of Biogenic to
Sources and Some Results of 25-32
Recent Investigations
P. Zimmerman
ix
-------
ORGANIC EMISSION INVENTORY
CONSIDERATIONS AND PURPOSES
Presented at the 1977
Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Inventory/Factor Workshop
Raleigh, North Carolina - September 13-15, 1977
By
C.P. Bartosh, W.J. Moltz, and B.P. Cerepaka
Radian Corporation
8500 Shoal Creek Boulevard
Austin, Texas 78766
1-1
-------
Introduction
The evaluation of the causes of ambient levels of ozone and
oxidants and the development of strategies for their control is
one of the most difficult tasks in air pollution control. This
complexity is generated not only by the diversity of the sources,
but also by the varying roles an organic compound may assume in
oxidant formation.
One basic approach to delineating the various factors involved
in this analysis is determing the quantity, location and sources
of hydrocarbon emissions. This is the general goal of a hydro-
carbon emission inventory. The purpose of this paper is to define
the preliminary considerations which an agency must take into
account before beginning such an inventory. These considerations
include a determination of the need for an inventory, the require-
ments of the inventory and the constraints on inventory preparation.
After these factors have been adequately considered, the
mechanics of inventory preparation are complex and amenable to
several approaches. This discussion is not intended to completely
delineate these considerations.
For a complete discussion of the methods of inventory preparation
see: Bartosh, C.P., et al. Guideline Document for the Preparation
of Volatile Organic Pollutant Emission Inventory. Austin, Texas.
Prepared for U.S.E.P.A. Contract No. 68-02-2608. June, 1977.
*
Moderators note: The above document has not been printed in bulk
for general distribution. It, along with other input, was combined
by EPA in EPA Publication EPA-450/2-77-028, "Procedures for the
Preparation of Emission Inventories for Volatile Organic Compounds,
Volume I."
1-2
-------
Need for an Inventory
The first factor to be considered when contemplating the
preparation of an organic emission inventory is why the inventory is
needed or desired. Getting a firm grasp on the objective of the
inventory will not only facilitate preparations of the inventory,
but will also insure that after the inventory is prepared it will
be an adequate and useful tool for the control agencies involved.
The reasons why an inventory may be needed can be broken down
into seven basic categories. These include:
determining overall magnitude of organic emissions,
- determine spatial and temporal distribution of organic
emissions,
- determining reactivity,
- determining emission control potential,
- aiding in regulation development,
- locating ambient air monitoring sites, and
- other agency needs.
The first reason a control agency may choose to conduct an
emission inventory is to determine the overall magnitude of organic
emissions for a given area. Before most oxidant control strategies
can be effectively developed, it is necessary to be aware of the
total quantity of organic emissions being generated by all sources
in the geographic area. Generally, even the most basic inventory
will provide this information.
1-3
-------
The second reason is to determine spatial and temporal distri-
bution of organic emissions. In some cases, an agency may feel that
knowing the total annual emissions within a large geographical area
may not be sufficient. Instead, it may be necessary to know more
accurately where and when the emissions occur. An example of such
resolution would be to determine organic emissions within a square
mile grid on a daily basis. This resolution might be a needed
result of the inventory where the agency feels that the oxidant
problem is localized and should be analyzed carefully for a specific
oxidant season.
A third possible objective of an organic emission inventory is
to determine the reactivity of emissions. Although most organic
compounds which are emitted into the atmosphere ultimately engage
in a photochemical reaction, some compounds are more reactive than
others and have a quicker, more localized impact upon air quality.
The various reactivity schemes which have been developed to quantify
this effect vary from a simple methane/nonmethane classification to
the more complex multiple-class reactivity scheme. By breaking
down organic emissions by reactivity within the inventory, an agency
may be able to develop a more comprehensive and discriminating
oxidant control strategy.
A fourth need which may be satisfied by an organic emission
inventory is the determination of emission control potential. An
inventory can provide this capability by collecting information on
1-4
-------
the degree and type of emissions control currently in use and the
magnitude and location of sources which are amenable to greater
control. This information can be very valuable to an agency in
determining what additional controls would be feasible within the
oxidant strategy. It would also provide this capability for an
agency to superimpose various control scenarios and determine their
affects. A third possible use would be to monitor changes in con-
trol equipment to determine compliance levels.
The fifth possible need which could be met with the inventory
is to provide the necessary emissions data for regulation develop-
ment. Although other considerations, such as economic and social
impacts, must ultimately be evaluated, an inventory can provide
valuable information on which sources could be subjected to control
requirements and what the ultimate effect on air quality the emis-
sion standards would have. The inventory would also be useful in
determining the effect upon air quality of new sources and aid in
the formulation of the required emission standards. In addition,
the inventory data would be useful in the formulation of regulations
not involving specific emission standards such as urban vehicular
traffic control.
A sixth purpose for which the inventory could be used is
locating sites for ambient air monitoring. The emissions data
collected by an inventory can be used along with existing meteoro-
logical data and ambient air measurements to predict suitable sites
1-5
-------
for future monitoring. This capability could be useful both in
ascertaining current violations and as part of future maintenance
activities.
The final needs which may be met by an inventory are the
general localized agency needs. Examples of such needs include
continued monitoring of industry growth and trends through inventory
updates, maintaining current data on existing sources and reporting
obligations to other agencies. In this regard, an organic emissions
inventory design should be flexible to provide whatever additional
information may be desired.
These seven general objectives only give a basic overview of
the needs which can be met through the capabilities of an organic
emissions inventory. If sufficient resources are available, the
information supplied by a well conducted inventory can be very
sophisticated and provide invaluable input into the formulation of
a comprehensive oxidant strategy. The inventory objectives arid the
level of resolution, however, must be carefully delineated prior to
inventory designs. They should also be constantly reevaluated in
light of information determined during development.
1-6
-------
Inventory Requirements
After the overall inventory goals have been determined, it is
necessary to develop the basic planning and design of the inventory.
It is at this stage that the general requirements of the inventory
must be delineated and the constraints determined.
The first requirement which must be determined for all inven-
tories is the geographical area to be inventoried. The overall size
of the area to be inventoried can vary from the entire nation to one
small subsection of a city or county. The most important considera-
tion here is not how large an area can feasibly be inventoried, but
instead, how small an area can be inventoried and still provide ade-
quate information.
Another requirement which must be specified in the inventory
design is spatial and temporal resolutions. That is, how much
accuracy is desired with regard to when and where emissions occur.
This resoltuion will generally vary between the large stationary
point sources and the more generalized area sources, but should be
defined sufficiently to insure that adequate data is acquired. The
spatial resolution procedure generally used is to pinpoint the loca-
tion of point sources using UTM coordinates and apportion the area
sources evenly over small grid areas. The temporal resolution
generally used is emissions on an annual basis with some data given
on seasonal variations. There is, however, great flexibility in
the spatial and temporal resolutions of an inventory. For example,
1-7
-------
the resolution can vary from annual totals for a large area to time
of day data from specific point sources. The only requirement is
that the final inventory will satisfy the agency needs.
If is has been determined that the purpose of the inventory
includes the need for a reactivity breakdown of emissions, it is
necessary at this point to define the level of breakdown to be used.
As was mentioned earlier, there are several different reactivity
schemes which can be used. Ideally, an agency could assign every
different organic compound a reactivity index and compile a very
comprehensive reactive hydrocarbon emission inventory. This approach,
however, would generate extremely large amounts of data and would
be quite cumbersome to work with. Instead, the agency should decide
on some limited grouping of hydrocarbons, and thereby develop a
simplified inventory.
Once it has been determined which area will be inventoried and
what general type of data are needed, the agency must consider what
source specific data is required. This type of data includes speci-
fic location of stack, stack parameters, process data, control device
information and many other characteristics of particular sources.
In addition, the accuracy of the desired data must be considered in
order to maximize the accuracy of the resulting inventory. This is
a very critical step in that this type of data will generally come
from the sources themselves, and, therefore, large amounts of data
and contacting may be involved. For example, if twenty questions
1-8
-------
must be asked of 1000 sources, 20,000 pieces of data will be
generated. It must be remembered, therefore, that this type of
data acquisition is very taxing upon resources and must be carefully
considered in light of the overall purpose of the inventory.
Another consideration which should be examined with regard to
the data which will be gathered is the status of any existing in-
ventory. This is a major consideration, especially if the agency
is faced with limited resources. It may be possible to merely modi-
fy or update an existing inventory for use in the oxidant control
program since there will be no need to reobtain good data. At the
very least, an existing inventory may provide a good starting point
for the preparation of a new inventory. No specific guidance can be
offered here as each existing inventory and agency needs will vary,
but these considerations generally involve a balancing of what the
agency has, what the agency wants and the resources available.
After it has been determined just what data is needed and what
the scope of the inventory is to be for the oxidant control program,
the agency should determine what other needs it has which could be
met simultaneously or made compatible with the organics inventory.
An example of such a simultaneous program would be a corresponding
nitrogen oxides inventory. Since, along with organics, nitrogen
oxides are a precursor to photochemical oxidants it may be desirable
to have a current NOX inventory as input to the oxidant control
program. The NO inventory can be conducted most effectively by
1-9
-------
including it with the organics inventory. Another such factor which
should be considered is the possibility of designing the inventory
to serve as input to, or interface with, other existing systems such
as photochemical simulation models, compliance systems and EPA's
National Emissions Data System. It should be remembered when plan-
ning these interfaces that designing the inventory to provide data
which is consistent both in content and units will facilitate any
interaction.
At this point the agency should have specified all the basic
purposes, needs and interfaces of the inventory. The next step is
to define the means by which the data will be handled. The two
basic approaches to data handling and retrieval are manual and
computer. The considerations which go into the determination of
which approach to use are availability of a computer, volume and
complexity of data handling, availability of personnel, and time
constraints. The methods of data handling and retrieval should
generally be selected early in the inventory design to insure that
methods and data format are compatible with the system to be used.
Inventory Constraints
The third and final major consideration which must be evaluated
in the development of an organic emission inventory are the con-
straints and the available resources. These factors include time,
manpower, facilities and funds. Each of these factors must be
1-10
-------
carefully examined to ensure that they are consistent with the
requirements of the inventory which have been developed.
In summary, before beginning the compilation of a comprehensive
organics emission inventory it is first necessary to outline the
basic agency needs and goals in light of the agencies oxidant con-
trol program or other data needs. The second step is to outline
the specific requirements of the resulting inventory and insure that
all requirements will be met by the acquired data. The third step
is to insure that the goals and the methods chosen are feasible
within the constraints upon the inventory preparation. In addition,
as work progresses these factors must be continually reviewed to
guarantee that all of the program's objectives are met within the
program's constraints. If these criteria are carefully monitored
and adhered to, the resulting organics emissions inventory should
be a very useful tool in the development of a comprehensive oxidant
strategy or other agency programs.
1-11
-------
Question:
Moderator:
Question:
Bartosh:
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
I would like to ask the moderator what EPA plans
as far as distribution of the hydrocarbons guide-
line document mentioned?
We are currently editing and revising the docu-
ment and will circulate it to various people in
the regions and other offices and we intend to
publish it before the end of the year. I hope
that the document will be ready for distribution
sometime in October or early in November, but
this depends on review comments, etc.
I wonder if Mr. Bartosh would take a minute to
elaborate on any feelings on reactivity and how
far one should go at definition of reactivity
in an emission inventory. I think you gave a
fairly general feeling that it generally would
be satisfactory to stay with nonmethane. Should
one try and be more specific?
I think I should defer that question to Mr. Ed
Lillis or the moderator since I think that speaks
more of a policy issue which I am not prepared
to respond to on behalf of the EPA.
1-12
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION (CON'T)
Moderator: I think it's best policy and common sense to
collect no more information than you need and
are going to use. Also, when you are doing an
emissions inventory you need to consider the
effect on the sources of soliciting various
kinds of information, and the extent of your
own (agency's) resources and this kind of thing.
I think a general statement would be that if you
are going to use a model which requires reactivity
then it is worthwhile to break the inventory up
into the various classes and these classes should
be dictated by the specific model that you choose.
I think for most situations that will arise for
some time, adherence to the nonmethane distinc-
tion will be sufficient for the need, however.
Ed Lillis: I tend to agree with that. We are getting basi-
cally into EPA's thinking with respect to the
reactivity of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
rather than just the general procedural techni-
ques. I would add one more thing. Probably in
two to four years from now, there will be greater
use of atmospheric photochemical oxidant models
than there is right now. At that time, the use
1-13
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION (CON'T)
Ed Li His: (con't) of reactivity information will be more useful
and necessary. Some thinking and planning has
begun in the area of ways to select basic in-
formation on reactivity and some ways of sorting
and using the information after you get it. But
at the present time, I would think, in general,
that Jim suggesting the use of a nonmethane
breakdown or including other compounds that do
not react should be adequate.
Question: How does this advice relate to the published re-
activity guides of EPA and how do you relate to
those two pieces of guidance.
Moderator: I guess I should probably have been a little more
specific in my terminology of nonmethane. I
more or less included the other five compounds
in the nonmethane terminology without being
specific to clarify that. The compounds as
listed in the July 8th Federal Register announce-
ment constitute the formal definition between
reactive and nonreactive.
It is my understanding there is recent guidance
that came out of the regional offices saying
that potentially toxic but nonreactive compounds
should be excluded from the base line and not
considered for control purposes.
1-14
Audience Comment:
-------
ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR HYDROCARBON SOURCES IN
NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS IN LOUISIANA
Presented at the 1977
Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Inventory/Factor Workshop
Raleigh, North Carolina - September 13-15, 1977
Presented by William Piske
AUTHORS: B. C. McCOY* and K. J. GUINAW**
Environmental Engineering Division
Energy Systems Group of TRW, Inc.
Present Address:
**
Present Address:
Radian Corporation
Suite 125, Grant Building
1651 Old Meadow Road
McLean, Virginia 22101
Department of Urban Planning
Rutgers University
Livingston College
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
2-1
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This paper is based on work performed for the U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Region VI, under Contract No. 68-01-3152,
T. 0. No. 10. The authors wish to recognize Messrs. Oscar Cabra, Jr.
and Robert Clark of Region VI for their support and guidance in
completing the study. The successful completion of the work reported
in the paper is due in large part to the excellent cooperation
extended by the Louisiana Air Control Commission staff, including
Messrs. Gustave Von Bodungen, Atley, Brasher, and Orey Tanner.
Special thanks go to Mr. W. E. Piske of TRW, who was called on at
the last minute to present the paper due to a schedule conflict.
2-2
-------
ABSTRACT
Photochemical oxidant (0 ) air quality data obtained during
1975 in the Louisiana portion of the Southern Louisiana-Southeast
Texas Interstate AQCR (No. 106) indicated a possible need for
revisions to the hydrocarbon control strategy portion of the approved
Louisiana State Implementation Plan. This paper summarizes the
methodologies and results of a comprehensive review of the adequacy
of the control strategy. The analysis included; (1) preparation
of detailed emission inventories for both total hydrocarbons (THC)
and non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) and projections of these
inventories to future years; (2) a thorough evaluation of the status
of compliance of existing stationary hydrocarbon sources with
applicable Louisiana regulations; (3) projection of 0 air quality
to future years; and (4) recommendations for control strategy
revisions, if such are called for. The present paper emphasizes
task (1), the emission inventory compilation and projection aspects
of the overall study.
Primarily because of exemptions granted for several classes
of organic compounds by the State regulations, the hydrocarbon con-
trol strategy was found to be inadequate. Alternative strategy
revisions recommended for further study include: (1) revocation
or partial revocation of the emission exemptions; (2) ship and
barge loading evaporative controls; and (3) installation of Stage
II vapor recovery controls at retail gasoline outlets.
2-3
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Clean Air Act requires that State Implementation Plans
(SIP's) provide for revisions on the basis of: (1) revisions of the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) or the availability
of improved control measures; or (2) a finding by the Administrator
that a plan is substantially inadequate to achieve the NAAQS for
which it applies. The present study was an immediate consequence of
the latter requirement.
The control strategy portion of the Louisiana SIP for photo-
chemical oxidants (0 ) and hydrocarbons (HC) in the Louisiana
X
Portion of the Southern Louisiana-Southeast Texas Air Quality Con-
trol Region (AQCR 106) was approved in July, 1973. However, in 1975,
two events having special significance with regard to the AQCR 106
oxidant issue, occurred:
• Photochemical oxidant levels in 1975 were
found to be even higher than those observed
in 1973, in spite of decreases in hydrocar-
bon emissions from many large sources in
the years 1973, 1974 and 1975.
0 Recent data available to EPA indicated that
virtually all organic compounds are photo-
chemically reactive and can react to form
photochemical oxidants.
These occurrences resulted in a need for a revaluation of the
Louisiana SIP for photochemical oxidants/hydrocarbons. TRW Environ-
mental Engineering Division was retained by the EPA Region VI Office
2-4
-------
to perform the reevaluation, which is summarized in this paper and
presented in detail in reference 1.
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK
The study region is defined to include those portions of AQCR
106 in southern Louisiana which are not attaining the NAAQS for
photochemical oxidants. It is divided into three analysis areas--
Baton Rouge, Lake Charles and New Orleans—and is comprised of
eleven parishes as shown in Figure 1. The selection of these par-
2
ticular parishes was based on a previous TRW study of AQCR 106.
The significance of these areas in the functioning of the state's
economy is indicated by the concentrations of population and indus-
trial activities. Over half of the state's population is contained
within these eleven parishes, as well as the heart of its industrial
base—petroleum refining, petrochemical and chemical operations.
The Scope of Work for this investigation included the follow-
ing substasks:
• Sub-Task 1--Preparation of detailed total
hydrocarbon (THC) and non-methane hydrocar-
bon (NMHC) emissions inventories for the
year 1975, for each of the three analysis
areas defined in Figure 1, and projection
of these inventories to the years 1976,
1977, 1978, 1980 and 1985.
• Sub-Task 2—Evaluation of the status of
compliance of existing regulated hydro-
carbon sources with applicable Louisiana
Air Control Commission regulations.
2-5
-------
VD
I
CN
ANALYSIS AREAS:
Parishes :
BATON ROUGE
1 Ascension
2 East Baton Rouge
3 Iberville
4 St. James
5 St. John the Baptist
6 West Baton Rouge
LAKE CHARLES
7 Calcasieu
9
10
11
NEW ORLEANS
Jefferson
Orleans
St. Bernard
St. Charles
FIGURE 1
SOUTHERN LOUISIANA—SOUTHEAST TEXAS INTERSTATE AQCR (106)
-------
• Sub-Task 3--Project1on of photochemical
oxidant air quality levels to the years
1976, 1977, 1978, 1980 and 1985.
• Sub-Task 4--Determination, on the basis of
the previous sub-tasks, of the need for
revisions to the Louisiana hydrocarbon
control strategy and, if revisions are
needed, the provision of alternative
strategy revisions.
This paper is based primarily on Sub-Task 1, the preparation and
projection of emission inventories.
2-7
-------
2.0 EMISSION INVENTORY AND PROJECTION TECHNIQUES
2.1 GENERAL APPROACH
The purpose of this Section is to discuss the methodologies
and assumptions used to develop 1975 baseline and projected future
emissions inventories of both total hydrocarbons (THC) and non-meth-
ane hydrocarbons (NMHC) in each of the three analysis areas. The
baseline emissions inventories were developed by making use of two
basic approaches:
1. For major sources, industrial and commer-
cial point sources, the comprehensive
Louisiana Air Control Commission (LACC)
files provided explicit emissions data
via the Emission Inventory Questionnaire
(EIQ) required by law from each source.
2. For other sources, such as transportation
and area sources, it was necessary to
estimate emissions by multiplying an
activity factor by an emission factor,
which is a measure of the quantity of
emission per unit of activity. Activity
factors used in the present study are
listed in Table 1.
Once the baseline emissions inventory was developed, it was
necessary to project the emissions to the later years of interest.
Here, there were three basic approaches:
2-8
-------
TABLE 1
TYPES OF DATA USED FOR ESTIMATING AND PROJECTING HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
IxJ
VO
Source Category
I. Area
A. Drycleaning
B. Solvents
C. Space Heating
II. Point
A. Chemical
B. Electricity
Generation
C. Petroleum Refining
D.
Ship & Barge
Loading
III.Transportati on
A. Motor Vehicles
B. Off-Highway Fuel
C. Aircraft
D. Railroads
E. Vessels
F. Gasoline Marketing
Activity Factor
Tons of dry cleaning
Population
Fuel Consumption
None. Based on EIQ's
Fuel usage from EIQ's
None. Based on EIQ's
Liquid organic commodities
traffic
Vehicle miles of travel
Gasoline sales & outboard
motor registrations
Landing/takeoff cycles
Fuel use
Fuel use
Gasoline sales
Projection Factor
Extrapolation of historical industry growth rate
Population
Population
Permit applications to 1977. Projected earnings
afterwards.
Population
Permit applications to 1977. Projected earnings
afterwards.3
Projected earnings of involved industries
Extrapolation of historical trends
Extrapolation of historical trends
Extrapolation of historical trends
Projected earnings in the railroad industry.
Trend extrapolation of waterborne commerce
Extrapolation of historical trends
a The Baton Rouge Analysis Area is an exception; in this AA, EIQ's from permit applications were used for
all petroleum refining projections.
-------
1. The EIQ's which must accompany permit
applications for new or modified sources
were used for industrial point sources so
far as possible.
2. In some cases, historical growth trends
were used to project emissions.
3. In other cases, the emissions were assumed
to be proportional to some economic or demo-
graphic variable for which projections were
available. Projected constant dollar earn-
ings were the variables of choice, since
they correct for both inflation and produc-
tivity changes in most cases.
The methods used to project each of the source categories of this
study are also given in Table 1. The remainder of this Section
discusses the emissions estimation and projection methodology for
each source category in detail. Categories for which everyday tech-
niques were used are only briefly described, and most of the empha-
sis is placed on those categories having some novel or uncommon
features.
2.2 AREA SOURCES
Three types of hydrocarbon area sources are present in the
three analysis areas:
• Dry cleaning plants
• Other solvent consumption
2-io
-------
• Commercial and residential space heating
The methodology for each source follows, in the above order.
2.2.1 Dry Cleaning Plants
The approach used in estimating emissions from these sources
was as follows:
1. An estimate of the total 1975 volume of
dry cleaning performed in Louisiana was
made by multiplying the number of commer-
cial and industrial plants by typical
annual cleaning volumes for each plant
type. The data required were taken from
a recently completed study of the
3
industry.
2. In accordance with opinions expressed by
several industry representatives, it was
assumed that about fifty percent of the
total cleaning volume was handled using
petroleum solvent and that fifty percent
was handled using perchloroethylene.
3. Emission factors from reference 3 were
used to estimate the emissions from each
plant type, because they were the most
current factors available.
4. The statewide emissions of each solvent
were apportioned to the three analysis
areas by using 1975 county population
2-11
-------
data available from a recently completed
4
study by the University of New Orleans.
5. Emissions were then projected to later
years using commercial plant and industrial
plant growth rates, respectively, for
perchloroethylene and petroleum solvent
emissions.* Growth rates from reference 3
were used.
2.2.2 Other Solvent Losses
This category includes solvent evaporation from vapor degreas-
ing, cold cleaning, surface coating and other miscellaneous opera-
tions. The approach was that provided by EPA in the emissions
inventory guide. This method entails only the multiplication of
county populations by emission factors, which are themselves func-
tions of population. Both 1975 and projected population data were
based on a recent University of New Orleans study,5 and are believed
to be the most representative data available. In accordance with
LACC regulation 22.9, emissions from these sources were reduced by
90 percent after making the gross estimates.**
2.2.3 Commercial and Residential Fuel Use
Residential and commercial fuel consumption data from a
recently completed study covering all of Louisiana were provided
Most industrial cleaning utilizes petroleum solvent and most
commercial cleaning utilizes perchloroethylene.
**
This regulation requires a 90% emissions reduction for uncontrolled
solvent users emitting more than 15 pounds per day.
2-12
-------
by Dr. Paul H. McGinnis, Jr., of the Louisiana Department of Conser-
vation. Fuel use was categorized by type—natural gas, distillate
oil, and liquified petroleum gas (LPG)--for twelve consumption
sectors covering the state. Only one of these sectors (Lake Charles)
coincided with the analysis areas used in the present study. The
following approach was used to disaggregate and reapportion the
emissions from the consumption sectors into the appropriate analysis
areas:
1. First of all, the total emissions were
calculated for each consumption sector
which contained one or more parishes
belonging to an analysis area. AP-42
emission factors were used.
2. It was then assumed that these emissions
were proportional to population. The 1975
baseline parish population data were used
to "select" those emissions which "belonged"
to each analysis area.
3. The "selected" emissions for each analysis
area were then totaled to approximate the
1974 emissions expected in each analysis
area.
Projections to 1975 and later years were made on the basis of popu-
lation growth rates.* The non-methane content of these emissions
was assumed to be zero, as a result of combustion test results from
a petroleum refinery.
This implicitly assumes that the relative rates of energy
consumption between sectors do not change, as well.
2-13
-------
2.3 POINT SOURCES
The point sources of importance in Southern Louisiana include:
(1) chemical plants, principally petrochemical operations; (2)
electricity generation; (3) petroleum refining operations; and (4)
ship and barge loading. There were some sources, such as combustion
sources, shipyards, and other miscellaneous sources, which were too
small and diverse to justify separate categories. Such sources were
placed in the "Chemical/Manufacturing" category.
With one exception, the emissions from all point sources were
obtained from the Emission Inventory Questionnaires (EIQ's) in the
LACC files. There were insufficient data on hand for the "Ship &
Barge Loading" category to be handled in this way, and these emis-
sions were estimated using an area source approach. However, from
a control standpoint, these sources should be considered point
sources, because the emissions appear to be significant.
2.3.1 Chemical and Manufacturing Industries
As noted previously, the 1975 baseline emissions for this
group of sources were obtained from the EIQ's, and in most cases,
the chemical plants provided estimates of both total and non-methane
hydrocarbon emissions. Some sources were contacted by LACC personnel
to obtain additional data, but, for the most part, the EIQ's pro-
vided adequate information.
It was assumed that the non-methane content of the emissions
from combustion sources was zero, on the basis of information
obtained from burner tests at a refinery. Prior to obtaining this
information, the Monitoring and Data Analysis Division of EPA was
contacted to determine whether any data on the methane content of
2-14
-------
any AP-42 emission factors were available from EPA, but the reply
was negative.
For sources which were not in compliance with the Louisiana
hydrocarbon regulations, it was necessary to determine when they
would come into compliance, and what the schedule was for reducing
emissions to the required level. This information was needed for
projection purposes. In some cases, a projected EIQ was available
for this purpose, but in others, it was necessary to peruse the
entire Compliance Schedule (CS) file to obtain the compliance status
and the emissions levels expected.* Most sources were legally in
compliance, but numerous sources had made use of either specific
exemptions written into the regulations or had obtained variances
from the Commission after public hearings, and specific note of the
nature and magnitudes of the variances were made in the study.
Prior to either starting a new source or increasing the emis-
sions from an existing source, the operator must submit a permit
application to LACC and obtain approval to operate. Such an applica-
tion must be accompanied by a new or revised EIQ. These applications
are made some time before the change is to take place, so it was
assumed that all growth through 1977 would be covered by the EIQ's
accompanying permit applications.
LACC operates a compliance data system (CDS) which is useful for
determining the overall compliance of sources, but it had two short-
comings for the present purpose: (1) the CDS evaluation was for
31 March 1976, and many sources had reduced their emissions in late
1975 or early 1976, so they were out of compliance during most of
1975, the baseline year; and (2) if a source was out of compliance,
a pollutant other than hydrocarbon might be responsible. Such
problems could only be resolved by a thorough search of the compli-
ance files.
2-15
-------
For growth after 1977, it was assumed that emissions were
proportional to projected earnings in the chemical and allied pro-
ducts industry. The data were obtained from the 1972 OBERS projec-
ts
tions, and were the only such data found during the study. Examples
of the formats developed for indicating overall hydrocarbon emissions
and compliance status (Table 2) and the effects of exemptions and
variances (Table 3) are shown.
2.3.2 Electricity Generation
Emissions from power plants were estimated by the use of AP-
42 emission factors and the fuel use data provided on the EIQ's.
NMHC was assumed to be zero, for reasons discussed previously.
No permit applications were found for power plants in any of
the three analysis areas, so it was necessary to use growth factors
for projection purposes. It was assumed that the growth in electri-
cal demand would parallel population, and population projections
were obtained from the recently completed study by the University
of New Orleans. An additional assumption was that all additional
power generation would be by means of fuel oil to add some conserva-
tism to the projections.
2.3.3 Petroleum Refining
Emissions from refineries were obtained directly from the
EIQ's. However, most refineries based their estimates on AP-42
emission factors, which yield THC, and it was necessary to contact
many of these sources to obtain estimates of the methane content of
the total hydrocarbon emissions. In cases where the refinery person-
nel did not know the methane content, the data below—provided by
Shell Oil Company—were used:
2-16
-------
tSJ
TABLE 2
POINT SOURCE HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND COMPLIANCE STATUS3 - BATON ROUGE ANALYSIS AREA
Parish/Source
ASCENSION
BASF Wyandotte
Geismar Works
Borden Chemical
VCM & Organics
CF Industries
Dona! dsonvi lie Complex
Evan Hall Sugar Coop.
Melamine Chemicals Inc.
Monochem, Inc.
Rubicon Chemicals
Shell Chemical Company
Geismar Plant
Shell Oil Company
Tebone Plant
Triad Chemical
Uniroyal Chemical Division
Vulcan Chemicals
Geismar Plant
1975 Emissions(t./yr. )
THC
590
1,389
1,873
1
2
472
71
1,038
282
85
1,995
4,865
NMHC
572
1,362
1,848
0
0
455
70
559
280
64
1,995
4,863
Expected Emissions(t./yr. )b
Year
n.a.
1976
RFC
1977
1976
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
1976
n.a.
THC
n.a.
836
619
5,284
1
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
1,570
n.a.
NMHC
n.a.
819
591
5,058
0
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
1,570
n.a.
Compl i ance
Status
In compliance
Post attainment date
problems
In compliance
In compliance
In compliance
In compliance
In compliance
In compliance
In compliance
In compliance
In compliance
In compliance
a Abbreviations: THC=total hydrocarbon; NWC=nornnethane hydrocarbon.
b "Expected emissions" are emission projections provided by the source via the E.I.Q. When unavailable, such 1s
indicated by "n.a." (not available).
-------
TABLE 3
EXEMPTED HYDROCARBON SOURCE SUMMARY - BATON ROUGE ANALYSIS AREA
K3
I
00
PARISH/ Company /Source
ASCENSION
BASF Wyandotte
Geismar Works
- Glycol Concentrator
- 3 CC>2 Strippers
- Weighing & Reactor
Systems
Borden Chemical
VCM & Organ ics
- VCM Vent Scrubber*
- EDC Storage Tanks
- VnAc Storage & Loading
CF Industries
Donaldsonvil le Complex
- 5 NH3 Plant Vents
Monochem, Inc.
Acetylene Cooling
Tower
Rubicon Chemicals
- Sulfuric Acid Stack
Shell Chemical Company
Geismar Plant
- C02 Vent
- Cooling Tower
- Vent & Stack
- Vents 8-71 & 9-71
SOURCE
CATEGORY
Vent
Vent
Vent
Vent
Tank
Tank
Vent
Fugitive
Vent
Vent
Fugitive
Vent
Vent
1975 EXISTING
EMISSIONS (TPY)
44
438
53
796
88
164
1,848
455
70
420
362
75
42
POSSIBLE REDUCTION
%
90
95
90
50
90
90
95
50
90
95
50
90
90
TPY
40
416
48
398
79
148
1,756
228
63
399
181
68
38
REMAINING
EMISSIONS (TPY)
4
22
5
398
9
16
92
227
7
21
181
7
4
* This source already has some controls in place, v;hich is reflected in an adjustment to the possible
reduction.
*~': The possible reductions for these sources are based on existing compliance agreements or other
infcreation provided by the particular source or another similar source.
-------
• Total Refinery Emissions—A.5% methane
• Crude Handling Emissions--4% methane
• Combustion Emissions--100% methane
Compliance data were obtained from the LACC files, exactly as
described for chemical plants.
Projections to 1977 and earlier years were based on the EIQ's
accompanying permit applications. In the Baton Rouge Analysis Area,
permits have been approved for two large new refineries, only one of
which is presently under construction. Hence, all growth in this
area was assumed to be accounted for by these two sources.
In the other two analysis areas, no explicit emissions pro-
jections were available after 1977, so it was necessary to use
growth factors for later years. Projected constant dollar earnings
for the petroleum industry were used to make the projections. The
o
data came from 1972 OBERS Projections.
2.3.4 Ship and Barge Loading
The loading of organic liquids from chemical plants and
petroleum refineries may result in significant hydrocarbon emissions
if not controlled properly. The first step in the process of
estimating hydrocarbon emissions from ship and barge loading opera-
tions is to quantify the amount of organic liquids shipped in each
analysis area. Data on the amount of organic liquid commodities
handled on the waterways within each analysis area were available
g
from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for 1974. In cases where
the boundaries of a waterway segment, for which shipping data were
supplied, did not correspond to or fall within the boundaries of
2-19
-------
the analysis area, traffic was apportioned by the length of the
segment located within the analysis area boundaries. The amounts of
organic commodities shipped in 1975 and future years were projected
using estimates of future earnings in the chemical and petroleum
Q
industries made by the 1972 OBERS Projections.
The second step in estimating emissions from ship and barge
loading is to multiply the commodities loaded by an emission factor.
The organic commodities loaded in each analysis area were aggregated
into two groups, those related to chemical plants and those related
to petroleum refineries. Alcohols (SIC 2813), benzene and toluene
(SIC 2817) were grouped as chemical plant products, and all other
commodities were considered petroleum refinery products. Emission
factors developed for all products loaded from petroleum refineries
(2.01 lb/103 gal) and for all products loaded from chemical plants
(1.2 lb/103 gal) in the oxidant control strategy for Texas were
utilized.10 These emission factors, which were assumed to be typical
of petroleum refinery and chemical plant loading operations in Texas,
are assumed to be representative of the same operations in Louisiana.
2.3 TRANSPORTATION SOURCES
Hydrocarbon emissions from transportation-related activities
are divided into the following six source categories:
• Motor vehicles
» Off-highway fuel use
• Aircraft
• Railroads
2-20
-------
• Vessels
• Gasoline evaporation
The methodology for the transportation sector is based primarily on
5 11
that given in two references ' so the following discussions are
relatively brief, except for certain areas of special interest.
2.3.1 Motor Vehicles
Vehicle Miles of Travel - VMT data were available from the
Louisiana Department of Highways for roadways comprising the State
12
highway system during the years 1972 to 1974 by parish. The data,
which will be referred to here as "State VMT", were categorized into
urban and rural classifications by the following road types:
t Interstate
t State Primary
• State Secondary
• State Farm-to-Market
In terms of functional classifications, interstate miles of
roadway are considered limited access highways, and State primary
and secondary are considered major and minor arterials, respectively.
The farm-to-market category includes all other highways in the State
highway system.
VMT data on roads which are not part of the State highway
system, which will be referred to as "local VMT", consist of miles
of travel on non-State roads including freeways, arterials,
collectors and city streets. The Louisiana Department of Highways
2-21
-------
provided estimates of VMT on local rural roads by parish for various
years, ranging from 1969 to 1975. Adjustments were made to the base
year using local rural VMT data from an earlier TRW study, Hydrocar-
1 *3
bon Control Requirements for Southern Louisiana. Estimates of
local urban VMT for 1973 were also obtained from this study.
Once VMT data were compiled, they were projected to 1975,
1976, 1977, 1978, 1980 and 1985. State and local VMT were projected
using growth factors based upon growth in VMT between 1972 and 1974
on the urban portion of the State highway system. Growth factors
based upon the change in VMT on the urban portion of the State high-
way system and those based upon the change in total VMT on the State
highway system did not differ significantly except for one case. In
Lake Charles, total VMT in the analysis area declined during the 1972
to 1974 period which would yield a negative growth factor. This was
not considered a very good indicator of growth to 1985, especially
in light of population projections for the area. The decrease of
total State VMT in the Lake Charles analysis area seems to be
attributable to a decrease in rural State VMT since urban State VMT
actually increased during the same period. The manner in which the
statistics are compiled does not allow for more than conjecture as
to how VMT is actually changing. Growth factors based upon changes
in urban State VMT were assumed to be more representative of VMT
growth taking place in the analysis areas.
Emission Factors - Emission factors for motor vehicles were
calculated according to procedures specified in Supplement 5 of
AP-42. Exhaust, evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emissions
were estimated for light duty vehicles (LDV), light duty trucks
2-22
-------
(LOT), heavy duty gasoline powered trucks (HDT-Gas) and heavy duty
diesel powered trucks (HOT-Diesel).*
Vehicle registration data by model year were obtained from
the Motor Statistical Division of the R. L. Polk Company. Average
speed (38.99 mph) was calculated by weighting average speeds assumed
for each road type by the percentage of total VMT traveled on each.
The overall vehicle mix was assumed to be 90 percent light duty
vehicles and 10 percent trucks. The national average weighted
annual travel for heavy duty vehicles (including light duty trucks)
was assumed. The vehicle mix for trucks alone was estimated for
Louisiana using the nationwide vehicle mix; LOT = 60.20%, HDT-Gas =
23.47%, and HDT-Diesel = 16.33%.**
2.3.2 Off-Highway Fuel Use
Off-highway hydrocarbon emissions sources are categorized
into outboard vessels and other off-highway sources.
Outboard Vessels—In order to estimate emissions from outboard
vessels, motorboat registration data by parish were obtained from the
15
Louisiana Wildlife and Fishery Commission for the years 1970-1975.
Procedures specified in AP-42 assuming the nationwide average values
*
On the basis of information from the California Air Resources
Board, the methane content of motor vehicle exhaust was assumed
to be 10 percent.14 For lack of any better data, this same
assumption was made for all 1C engines.
**
In other words, 10 percent of total VMT is attributable to
trucks; of that 10 percent, 60.2 percent is due to LOT, 23.5
percent is due to HDT-Gas, and 16.3 percent is due to HDT-
Diesel .
2-23
-------
of horsepower output and annual hours of use were utilized. Future
motorboat registrations were projected by extrapolating historical
growth trends.
Other Off-Highway Sources—Hydrocarbon emissions generated by
other off-highway engines were estimated from the amount of non-
taxable gasoline sold by parish obtained for the years 1970-1975
from the Louisiana Department of Revenue. Historical growth
trends were extrapolated to project future sales and the emission
factor from the National Emissions Data System (NEDS) area source
program was applied.
2.3.3 Aircraft
Total hydrocarbon emissions resulting from aircraft operations
are estimated as a function of landing and take-off (LTO) cycles, and
fleet mix. Procedures given in reference 5 were followed. The num-
ber of LTO cycles recorded at Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
controlled airports in 1974 in each analysis area were obtained
from the FAA publication Air Traffic Activity 1974.17 LTO cycles
at non-FAA controlled airports were estimated by assuming that the
total number of eligible aircraft in each parish was approximately
equal to the number of daily LTO cycles performed by Civil Aircraft.
The number of eligible aircraft was available from the Census of
1 Q
U. S. Civil Aircraft. There
within the defined study areas.
Q
U. S. Civil Aircraft. There are no military airports located
The 1975 air .fleet mix and emission factors were obtained
13
from a previous TRW study. Growth factors for projecting future
LTO cycles were obtained from Aviation Forecast—Fiscal Years 1970-
1981.19
2-24
-------
2.3.4 Railroads
Total hydrocarbon emissions resulting from railroad fuel
combustion were calculated based on fuel use data available from
20
the Bureau of Mines, and AP-42 average locomotive emission factors.
Nineteen seventy-four (1974) fuel use data for the State of Louisiana
were allocated to the three analysis areas according to manufacturing
employment, which was assumed to be an indicator of the distribution
of railroad activities throughout the state. An estimation of the
total miles of track within each analysis area yielded a comparable
distribution.* Estimates of 1975 and future emissions were cal-
culated using growth factors based upon projections of future earn-
ings in the railroad transportation industry obtained from the 1972
OBERS Projections.21
2.3.5 Vessels
Data on the number of vessels entering the ports of New
Orleans and Baton Rouge were obtained from Waterborne Commerce of
Q
the United States. Fuel consumption data were obtained from the
20 5
Bureau of Mines. Procedures presented in the NEDS guide were
followed, using these data and AP-42 emission factors. Briefly,
estimating in-port emissions entailed estimating the amount of
residual and distillate fuel oil burned while a vessel was in port
and applying the appropriate emission factor. Once the in-port use
of distillate fuel oil was calculated, it was subtracted from the
total distillate fuel oil used by vessels to estimate fuel burned
underway. It was assumed that the majority of vessels underway
Miles of track = 47.2% of state total; manufacturing employment =
46.6% of state total.
2-25
-------
would be burning distillate fuel oil. Underway emissions were
allocated to each port on the basis of the amount of freight handled.
Average annual growth factors based upon historical growth in freight
traffic between 1965 and 1974 were used to project future port
activity.
2.3.6 Gasoline Evaporation
Evaporative losses from the handling of gasoline were esti-
mated for three operations: the loading and unloading of tank cars
and trucks (assuming submerged loading), the loading of underground
storage tanks (assuming uncontrolled submerged loading), and the
filling of motor vehicle tanks (assumed to be uncontrolled). Data
on the amount of gasoline sold in each analysis area were obtained
from the Louisiana Department of Revenue for the years 1970 to
1975. EPA emission factors were employed and historical growth
trends in sales were extrapolated to project future gasoline
marketing activities.
2-26
-------
3.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
3.1 EMISSIONS SUMMARIES
The emissions inventories are given in Tables 4a and 4b, for
Baton Rouge; Tables 5a and 5b for Lake Charles; and Tables 6a and 6b
for New Orleans. In all of the analysis areas, point sources are by
far the major emissions sources, unlike many areas where transporta-
tion sources are the most prominent sources. The petroleum refining
and chemical manufacturing categories are the principal emitters.
3.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the emissions analysis and the results from
the other subtasks comprising the overall study, the following con-
trol measures were recommended for further study and possible
implementation in AQCR 106, in order to meet the NAAQS for photo~
chemical oxidants:
1. A tightening of the variance procedures and
the exemptions for certain organic materials
in the Louisiana Hydrocarbon Regulations.
2. Controls on ship and barge loading of organic
materials.
3. Controls on retail gasoline tank filling
operations.
The State is currently incorporating items 1 and 3 into the regula-
tions. Based on the use of the modified rollback model, these
revisions should bring all three analysis areas into essential
compliance with the national oxidant standard.
2-27
-------
TABLE 4a
TOTAL HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS - BATON ROUGE ANALYSIS AREA3
SOURCE CATEGORY
I. Stationary Area Sources
A. Drycleaning/Solvents
B. Fuel Combustion
C. Total Area Sources
II. Point Sources
A. Chemical/Manufacturing
B. Electricity Generation
C. Petroleum Refining
D. Ship & Barge Loading
E. Total Point Sources
III. Transportation Sources
A. Motor Vehicles-Total
1. Automobiles
2. Trucks
B. Off-Highway Fuel
C. Aircraft
D. Railroads
E. Vessels
F. Gasoline Handling
G. Total Transportation
IV. Grand Total
% Stationary Area Sources
% Point Sources
% Transportation
(% Automobiles)
Required Reduction
Allowable Emissions
Emissions Deficit
1975 1976
1977 1978 1980 1985
1,178
82
1,260
53,910
709
25,289
5,305
85,213
18,735
15,804
2,931
1,532
241
729
1,271
2,784
25,292
111,765
1.1
76.3
22.6
(14.1)
1,199
83
1,282
47,600
786
30,867
5,426
84,679
17,539
14,612
2,927
1,643
261
724
1,364
2,923
24,454
110,415
1.2
76.7
22.1
(13.2)
1,222
85
1,307
46,061
865
30,867
5,550
83,343
17,328
14,411
2,917
1,770
275
719
1,464
3,070
24,626
109,276
1.2
76.3
22.5
(13.2)
1,246
86
1,332
48,461
945
30,867
5,677
85,950
16,677
13,721
2,956
1,911
285
714
1,571
3,230
24,388
111,670
1.2
77.0
21.8
(12.3)
1,297
87
1,384
53,763
1,056
35,835
5,942
96,596
14,403
11,728
2,675
2,245
301
704
1,808
3,563
23,024
121,004
1.1
79.9
19.0
(9.7)
1,456
95
1,551
69,703
1,456
35,835
6,661
113,655
9,598
7,297
2,301
3,494
371
680
2,573
4,538
21,254
136,460
1.1
83.3
15.6
(5.3)
60,353
51,412 51,412 51,412 51,412 51,412 51,412
60,353 59,003 57,864 60,258 69,592 85,048
Tons per year.
2-28
-------
TABLE 4b
NON-METHANE HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS - BATON ROUGE ANALYSIS AREA0
SOURCE CATEGORY
I. Stationary Area Sources
A. Drycleaning/Solvents
B. Fuel Combustion
C. Total Area Sources
II. Point Sources
A. Chemical/Manufacturing
B. Electricity Generation
C. Petroleum Refining
D. Ship & Barge Loading
E. Total Point Sources
III. Transportation Sources
A. Motor Vehicles-Total
1. Automobiles
2. Trucks
B. Off-Highway Fuel
C. Aircraft
D. Railroads
E. Vessels
F. Gasoline Handling
G. Total Transportation
IV. Grand Total
% Stationary Area Sources
% Point Sources
% Transportation Sources
(% Automobiles)
Required Reduction
Allowable Emissions
Emissions Deficit
1975 1976 1977 1978 1980 1985
1,178
0
1,178
46,988
0
24,176
5,305
76,469
16,861
14,223
2,638
1,379
217
656
1,144
2,784
23,041
100,688
1.2
75.9
22.9
(14.1)
1,199
0
1,199
40,662
0
29,503
5,426
75,591
15,785
13,151
2,634
1,479
235
652
1,228
2,923
22,302
99,092
1.2
76.3
22.5
(13.3)
1,222
0
1,222
38,912
0
29,503
5.550
73,965
15,595
12,970
2,625
1,593
247
647
1,318
3.070
22,470
97,657
1.3
75.7
23.0
(13.3)
1,246
0
1,246
40,931
0
29,503
5,677
76,111
15,009
12,349
2,660
1,720
257
643
1.414
3,230
22,273
99,630
1.3
76.4
22.3
(12.4)
1,297
0
1,297
45,409
0
34,247
5.942
85,598
12,963
10,555
2,408
2,021
271
634
1,627
3,563
21 ,079
107,974
1.2
79.3
19.5
(9.8)
1,456
0
1,456
58,873
0
34,247
6.661
99,781
8,638
6,567
2,071
3,145
334
612
2,316
4,538
19,583
120.820
1.2
82.6
16.2
(5.4)
54,372
46,316 46,316 46,316 46,316
54,372 52,776 51,341 53,314
46,316 46.316
61.658 74,504
Tons per year.
2-29
-------
TABLE 5a
TOTAL HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS - LAKE CHARLES ANALYSIS AREA9
SOURCE CATEGORY
I. Stationary Area Sources
A. Drycleaning/Solvents
B. Fuel Combustion
C. Total Area Sources
II. Point Sources
A. Chemical/Manufacturing
B. Electricity Generation
C. Petroleum Refining
D. Ship and Barge Loading
E. Total Point Sources
III. Transportation Sources
A. Motor Vehicles-Total
1. Automobiles
2. Trucks
B. Off-Highway Fuel
C. Aircraft
D. Railroads
E. Vessels
F. Gasoline Handling
G. Total Transportation
IV. Grand Total
% Stationary Area Sources
% Point Sources
% Transportation Sources
(% Automobiles)
Required Reduction
Allowable Emissions
Emissions Deficit
1975
1976
1977
1978
1980
1985
25
22
48
8
6
1
1
10
58
(1
409
26
435
,441
254
,129
499
,323
,049
,790
,259
599
141
350
0
,009
,148
,906
0.7
82.1
17.2
1.5)
20
21
42
7
6
1
1
10
53
415
26
441
,227
267
,797
513
,804
,803
,501
,302
652
152
345
0
,070
,022
,267
0.8
80.4
18.8
(12.2)
17
21
40
7
6
1
1
10
50
(1
423
26
449
,441
280
,797
528
,046
,989
,644
,345
710
160
340
0
,134
,333
,828
0.9
78.8
20.3
3.1)
15
22
38
7
6
1
1
10
49
431
27
458
,440
293
,405
542
,680
,969
,557
,412
775
166
335
0
,201
,446
,584
0.9
78.0
21.1
(13.2)
17
23
41
7
5
1
1
9
51
(1
448
27
475
,023
316
,674
574
,588
,129
,805
,324
924
176
325
0
,362
,916
,979
0.9
80.0
19.1
1-2)
21
27
49
5
4
1
1
1
9
60
500
28
528
,726
380
,166
660
,932
,878
,469
,409
.471
216
301
0
,807
,673
,133
0.9
83.0
16.1
(7.4)
32,398
26,508 26,508 26,508 26,508 26,508 26,508
32,398 26,759 24,320 23,076 25,471 33,625
Tons per year.
2-30
-------
TABLE 5b
NON-METHANE HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS - LAKE CHARLES ANALYSIS AREA2
SOURCE CATEGORY
I. Stationary Area Sources
A. Drycleaning/Solvents
B. Fuel Combustion
C. Total Area Sources
II. Point Sources
A. Chemical/Manufacturing
B. Electricity Generation
C. Petroleum Refining
D. Ship & Barge Loading
E. Total Point Sources
III. Transportation Sources
A. Motor Vehicles-Total
1. Automobiles
2. Trucks
B. Off-Highway Fuel
C. Aircraft
D. Railroads
E. Vessels
F. Gasoline Handling
G. Total Transportation
IV. Grand Total
% Stationary Area Sources
% Point Sources
% Transportation
(% Automobiles)
Required Reduction
Allowable Emissions
Emissions Deficit
1975 1976 1977 1978 1980 1985
409
0
409
23,357
0
20,996
499
44,852
7,244
6,111
1,133
539
127
315
0
1,009
9,234
54,495
0.8
82.3
16.9
(11.2)
415
0
415
18,061
0
20,664
513
39,238
7,023
5,851
1,172
587
137
311
0
1,070
9,128
48,781
0.9
80.4
18.7
(12.0)
423
0
423
16,020
0
20,664
528
37,212
7,190
5,980
1,210
639
144
306
0
1,134
9,413
47,048
0.9
79.1
20.0
(12.7)
431
0
431
14,019
0
21,241
542
35,802
7,172
5,901
1,271
697
149
301
0
1.201
9,520
45,753
0.9
78.3
20.8
(12.9)
448
0
448
15,456
0
22,443
574
38,473
6,416
5,224
1,192
832
158
293
0
1,362
9,061
47,982
0.9
80.2
18.9
(10.9)
500
0
500
19,726
0
25,754
660
46,140
5,290
4,022
1,268
1,324
194
271
0
1,807
8,886
55,526
0.9
83.1
16.0
(7.2)
29,972 -----
24,523 24,523 24,523 24,523 24,523 24,523
29,972 24,258 22,525 21,230 23,459 31,003
Tons per year.
2-31
-------
TABLE 6a
TOTAL HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS - NEW ORLEANS ANALYSIS AREA3
SOURCE CATEGORY
I. Stationary Area Sources
A. Drycleaning/Solvents
B. Fuel Combustion
C. Total Area Sources
II. Point Sources
A. Chemical/Manufacturing
B. Electricity Generation
C. Petroleum Refining
D. Ship & Barge Loading
E. Total Point Sources
III. Transportation Sources
A. Motor Vehicles-Total
1. Automobiles
2. Trucks
B. Off-Highway Fuel
C. Aircraft
D. Railroads
E. Vessels
F. Gasoline Handling
G. Total Transportation
IV. Grand Total
% Stationary Area Sources
% Point Sources
% Transportation Sources
(% Automobiles)
Required Reduction
Allowable Emissions
Emissions Deficit
1975 1976
1977 1978 1980 1985
3,149
237
3,386
42,740
1,092
32,076
9,876
85,784
24,911
21,013
3,898
2,812
1,628
1,836
3,973
4,876
40,036
129,206
2.6
66.4
31.0
(16.3)
3,203
240
3,443
28,536
1,176
28,766
10,096
68,574
22,831
19,021
3,810
2,852
1,760
1,820
4,195
5,119
38,577
110,594
3.1
62.0
34.9
(17.2)
3,259
242
3,501
29,070
1,263
29,866
10,319
70,518
22,084
18,367
3,717
2,904
1,853
1,803
4,430
5,478
38,552
112,571
3.1
62.7
34.2
(16.3)
3,319
245
3,564
30,619
1,355
30,514
10,548
73,036
20,811
17,123
3,688
2,967
1,923
1,786
4,678
5,656
37,821
114,421
3.1
63.8
33.1
(15.0)
3,449
251
3,700
33,969
1,527
31 ,852
11,022
78,370
18,161
14,788
3,373.
3,129
2,032
1,755
5,217
6,241
36,535
118,605
3.1
66.1
30.8
(12.5)
3,844
267
4,111
44,041
2,046
35,463
12,305
93,855
10,337
7,859
2,478
3,735
2,503
1,677
6,851
7,947
33,050
131,016
3.1
71.7
25.2
(6.0)
19,381
109,825 109,825 109,825 109,825 109,825 109,825
19,381 769 2,746 4,596 8,780 21,191
Tons per year.
2-32
-------
TABLE 6b
NON-METHANE HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS - NEW ORLEANS ANALYSIS AREA*
SOURCE CATEGORY
I. Stationary Area Sources
A. Drycleaning/Solvents
B. Fuel Combustion
C. Total Area Sources
II. Point Sources
A. Chemical/Manufacturing
B. Electricity Generation
C. Petroleum Refining
D. Ship & Barge Loading
E. Total Point Sources
III. Transportation Sources
A. Motor Vehicles-Total
1. Automobiles
2. Trucks
B. Off-Highway Fuel
C. Aircraft
D. Railroads
E. Vessels
F. Gasoline Handling
G. Total Transportation
IV. Grand Total
% Stationary Area Sources
% Point Sources
% Transportation Sources
(% Automobiles)
Required Reduction
Allowable Emissions
Emissions Deficit
1975 1976 1977 1978 1980
1985
3,149 3,203 3,259 3,319 3,449 3,844
0 0 0 0 0 0
3,149 3,203 3,259 3.319 3,449 3,844
39,953 25,724 26,106 27,497 30,505 39,550
000000
30,508 27,198 28,248 28,861 30,126 33,542
9,876 10.096 10.319 10,548 11,022 12,305
80,337 63,018 64,673 66,906 71,653 85,397
22,420 20,548 19,876 18,730 16,345 9,303
18,912 17,119 16,530 15,411 13,309 7,073
3,508 3,429 3,346 3,319 3,036 2,230
2,531 2,567 2,614 2,670 2,816 3,361
1,465 1,584 1,668 1,731 1,829 2,253
1,652 1,638 1,623 1,607 1,579 1,509
3,576 3,775 3,987 4,210 4,695 6,166
4.876 5,119 5.478 5.656 6,241 7.947
36,520 35,231 35,246 34,604 33.505 30,539
120,006 101,452 103,178 104,829 108,607 119,780
2.6
67.0
30.4
3.2
62.1
34.7
3.2
62.6
34.2
3.2
63.8
33.0
3.2 3.2
66.0 71.3
30.8 25.5
(12.3) (5.9)
(15.8) (16.9) (16.0) (14.7)
18,001
102,005 102,005 102,005 102,005 102,005 102,005
18,001 -553 1,173 2,824 6,602 17,775
Tons per year.
2-33
-------
REFERENCES
1. McCoy, B. C. and K. J. Guinaw. "Analysis of Data for Hydro-
carbon Sources in Non-Attainment Areas in Louisiana," Final
Report Contract No. 68-01-3152, Task No. 10. Prepared for
II. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI. Prepared
by TRW Environmental Engineering Division, 12 November 1976.
2. "Hydrocarbon Control Requirements for Southern Louisiana, Phase
II," Final Report Contract No. 68-02-1385, Task Order 10.
Prepared for U. S. E. P. A., Region VI. Prepared by TRW
Environmental Engineering Division, October 1975.
3. McCoy, B. C., "Study to Support New Source Performance Standards
for the Dry Cleaning Industry," Final Report, Contract No.
68-02-1412, Task Order No. 4. Prepared for U. S. E. P. A.,
Emission Standards and Engineering Division. Prepared by TRW
Environmental Engineering Division, 7 May 1976.
4. "Projections to the Year 2000 of Louisiana Populations and
Households," The Division of Business and Economic Research,
University of New Orleans, 1976.
5. "Guide for Compiling a Comprehensive Emission Inventory,"
(Revised), APTD-1135, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, March 1973.
6. "Louisiana Energy Data Base (1974)," Jack Faucett Associates,
Inc., January 1976.
7. Discussion in LACC offices, with Mr. H. A. LeBlanc, Jr.,
Manager Environmental Conservation, Norco Refinery, Shell Oil
Company, 30 April 1976.
8. "1972 OBERS Projections," Volume 2, BEA Economic Areas, U. S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Research and U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, April
1974.
9. "Waterborne Commerce of the United States," Part 2, Waterways
and Harbors, Gulf Coast, Mississippi River System and Antilles,
U. S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 1974.
10. "Hydrocarbon/Photochemical Oxidant Control Strategy for the
State of Texas," EPA 906/9-76-001, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, January 1976.
2-34
-------
REFERENCES (Concluded)
11. "Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis--
Volume 7: Projecting County Emissions," Second Edition,
EPA-450/4-74-008, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
January 1975.
12. "1972, 1973, 1974 Annual Report—Louisiana Highway Traffic,"
Louisiana Department of Highways, Traffic and Planning Section.
13. "Hydrocarbon Control Requirements for Southern Louisiana," TRW
Environmental Engineering Division, December 1974.
14. Henry Mayrsohn, California Air Resources Board, El Monte,
California, private communication, November 1974.
15. "Motorboat Registration by Parish 1970-1975," Louisiana Wildlife
and Fishery Commission, and Communication with Jack Grove.
16. "Gallons of Gasoline Sold by Parish," Louisiana Department of
Revenue.
17. "FAA Air Traffic Activity—Calendar Year 1974," Department of
Transportation, FAA, March 1975.
18. "Census of U. S. Civil Aircraft—Calendar Year 1974," Department
of Transportation, FAA, 1974.
19. "Aviation Forecast-Fiscal Years 1970-1981," Department of
Transportation, FAA, 1971.
20. "Mineral Industry Surveys-Sales of Fuel Oil and Kerosene in
1974," U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1974.
21. "1972 OBERS Projections," Volume 5, Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Economic Research, and U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service, April 1974.
2-35
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Question:
Piske:
Question:
Piske:
Question to
Moderator
You said you did a total hydrocarbon and a non-
methane hydrocarbon inventory. Where did you
get the factors for nonmethane hydrocarbons?
Most of the factors in AP-42 are for total hydro-
carbon.
For the point sources, they came out from the
emission inventory questionnaires. Various
sources were used for other data needed.
What did you do with the sources for which there
were no emission factors in AP-42? Did you go
back and try to collect more specific information
process information or use some other approach?
What generally happens if there is no emission
factor?
Well, if you are talking about specific point
sources or process, we worked with the State who
went right to the point source and tried to get
the information the best we could. Some of
them had to be estimates, for some companies just
don't have the information.
How do you determine an emission factor starting
from scratch?
2-36
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Moderator: It varies completely across the board. As you
are probably aware, there is great difference in
quality of various existing emission factors. I
guess you would call it a difference, not necess-
arily in reliability, but in the reference inte-
grity or depth for these factors. The emission
factors range from a few example situations
where a recognized expert in a given area or
industry may have utilized his best engineering
judgement based on past experiences and material
balance information to provide a general estimate
or rule of thumb, such as "approximately 1/2%
loss" or something of that nature. On the
other end of the spectrum, we have other emission
factors which literally have hundreds of test
points which are used with exhaustive statistical
analysis. Usually, though, it's difficult to
apply rigid statistical approaches to the develop-
ment of emission factors because there is usually
some "quirk" in the data someplace. You have to
develop an understanding that particular industry
and some of these characteristics or quirks,
and subsequently try to apply best engineering
judgement possible.
2-37
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Question: What are the requirements now regarding what
models to use for oxidant strategy development?
Ed Lillis: Your question is with respect to what model or
what method you can use to relate emissions and
air quality. Over the past year and a half or
so, we have been attempting to develop a replace-
ment for Appendix J. Appendix J was promulgated
as a technique which was specified in State
Implementation Plan regulations. As new methods
are developed and used, we will be better able
to relate emissions and reduction in organic
emissions to ambient oxidant concentrations.
By using such a model, you are able to say that
if I have a present oxidant concentration, and if
I reduce my organic emissions so much, I would
get a quantifiable improvement in air quality.
About two years ago, the Appendix J method was
criticized for a number of different reasons and
since that time there has been a working group
at EPA attempting to look at other methodologies
for relating emissions to oxidant concentrations.
At the present time a document is being prepared
2-38
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Ed Lillis: (con't) which discusses the advantages and disadvantages
of each of four methods. There are the Appendix J
and the linear roll back methodologies, statisti-
cal techniques, atmospheric difussion modeling
and a fifth method called the Empirical Kinetic
Modeling Approach, which is a new technique that
has been developed on the basis of smog chamber
data. At the present time the agency is not
recommending or requiring the use of one techni-
que over another technique. The document that
is being prepared has fully described each of
these five techniques, the advantages and dis-
advantages of each and neither makes decisions nor
recommendations for using one model versus another
one.
Question: So it is up to the States?
Ed Lillis: At the present time. In order to implement the
Clean Air Act, there may be a decision made with-
in the next few months, which would say to use
one versus another or that you may not use one
or another of these methods.
Question: In making your recommendation of ship and barge
loading, do you take into consideration not only
2-39
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Question: (con't) the emission inventory, but also the direction
in which the hydrocarbon is going, in other words,
the wind direction?
Piske: No, we didn't make any account for meteorology
in this particular study at all. This was done
utilizing linear roll back which basically says
all the ambient values are proportional to your
total emissions in a given area. That's all we
did, we didn't consider any meteorology.
2-40
-------
DOOME3SITATICN OF EMISSION INVENTORIES IN REGION IX
Presented at the 1977
Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Inventory/Factor Workshop
Raleigh, North Carolina - September 13-15, 1977
By
David C. Henderson, Chemical Engineer
Air Section, Air & Hazardous Materials Branch
Environmental Protection Agency Region IX
San Francisco, California 94105
3-1
-------
Documentation of Emission Inventories
In the past, emission inventories generally have not been used
by regulatory agencies for control program planning. Instead, they
were primarily used by the control agencies for public relations
purposes. Thus, little effort was put into developing accurate
and complete emission inventories and the task of compiling the
inventories were assigned to the junior staff members. While
recently emission inventories have been an important tool in
developing SIPs, an accurate emission inventory has acquired added
importance as a result of the New Source Review and Air Quality
lyfeintenance Planning Programs.
In addition, the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act require
an SIP submission by January, 1979 and one of the criteria specif-
ied in the act for an acceptable SIP, is "an accurate comprehensive
and current emission inventory."
In order to insure that the emission inventories currently
being developed are prepared using the most current emission
factors and have a completely documented data base, Region IX
has instituted a program for providing inventory guidance to the
State and local agencies and for evaluating the accuracy and
completeness of the inventories developed by the agencies.
3-2
-------
During the past year eight State or local agency emission
inventories were evaluated by Region IX. Since several of the
initial inventories submitted to the Regional Office were a summary
of the emissions rather than a complete and documented inventory
report, it was necessary to interview the appropriate staff at the
air pollution control agencies in order to determine the accuracy
and completeness of the inventories.
The review of inventories indicated that most of the procedures
used in compiling the inventories were not sufficiently documented
to provide for an independent analysis of the inventory. As a
result of these evaluations, the Regional Office developed the
minimum criteria for documenting the data base of an inventory.
The guideline was subsequently incorporated as an appendix to an
emission inventory objective that is a part of the EPA 105 program
grant allocated to the local and State agencies. A copy of the
Supporting Documentation Guideline is attached. The intent of the
guideline is to insure that the agency compiling an inventory in
the future, will be aware of what information must be collected to
support the accuracy and completeness of the inventory.
The interviews that were initiated to evaluate the inventories
were conducted over a one or two day period in the office of the
air pollution control agency. Also many additional followup tele-
phone calls were necessary to obtain the needed information.
3-3
-------
Discussions with agencies personnel revealed that most of the
emission inventories had been developed as a "crash effort" to meet
a deadline.
Temporary employees were hired and placed under the super-
vision of a senior staff member. Generally, the temporary employees
were college students with a background in the physical sciences but
no experience in air pollution control. As a result, errors were
found in the inventories which were the result of a lack of exper-
ience by the temporary employees. For example, in one inventory it
was found that the same emission factors were used for gasoline
service stations as was used for bulk plants. The temporary
employees did not know there was a difference between bulk plants
and service stations. Unfortunately, the temporary employees were
not available when it became necessary to locate them to obtain
information on how the inventories were developed.
The guidelines reconmend that the documentation include in-
formation on the reasons the inventory was compiled and how it
differed from previous inventories. During the review of one of
the inventories, in one case it was found that the air pollution
control agency had traditionally compiled its emission inventory
by assigning each source category to a senior engineer. One person
would be responsible for maintaining an estimate of emissions from
all industrial boilers while another person would be responsible
for inventorying emissions from chemical processes. It was found
3-4
-------
that the persons preparing these yearly emission updates were not
contacting each source to obtain process change information but
would apply a correction factor to last years estimate. There was
no consistency among the correction factors applied by the staff.
A past years emission estimate would arbitrarily be reduced by 5%
since the opinion of the individual making the estimate was that
there was a general economic downturn last year of this magnitude.
The origins of the original estimates were unknown to many of the
persons making the yearly corrections, having been in use for up to
twenty years.
The background information on the purpose for compiling the
inventory will often give an indication as to which sources the
agency concentrated its efforts.
Sources of data should be described. These would include:
permit applications, inspection reports, source tests, questionnaires,
and permits. In one inventory it was found that the estimates were
derived from the permit applications in which the companies estimated
their own emissions. An oil refinery which listed its hydrocarbon
emissions as 3 tons/year on its permit application was found to have
emissions of 150 tons/year when the agency personnel made their own
estimates.
A copy of each questionnaire which was used in the inventory is
required to be included in the documentation for two reasons:
3-5
-------
1. So that a determination can be made as to whether suffi-
cient information is being collected on the survey for the agency
to accurately estimate emissions.
2. So that copies of all questionnaires are made available
to other agencies to assist them in preparing their own questionnaires.
The agency must also present the number of questionnaires that
were sent out, the percent response, and the method used to ex-
trapolate the data. It is not unusual for ,an agency to only receive
a 35% response to the questionnaires and then assume that the other
65% not responding either had no emissions or emissions proportional
to the 35% who did respond.
Emission factors used for each source category calculation
should be presented for each emission factor used. In the cases
where there was no documentation, it was necessary in seme instances
to determine the emission factor by back calculating. In some cases,
it is still not known how the emission factor was derived.
Although the calculation procedures contained in 2P-42 appear
to be straight-forward they are frequently mis-used. Some examples
of the incorrect use of emission factors include:
a. Breathing loss emission factors are multiplied times the
storage tanks throughput rather than its capacity.
b. Withdrawal losses are not included in the calculation of
floating roof storage tank losses.
3-6
-------
c. The estimates can be off by a factor of 42, 365, or 12 due
to the person carpiling the inventory neglecting to include in the
calcualtion a conversion for 42 gal/tofol, 365 days/year, or 12 months/
year.
d. Anticipating that additional controls will be applied by a
certain date. When the controls are not applied by the expected
date, the agency neglects to amend the inventory.
e. Assuming that all storage tanks have Phase I vapor control
equipment. Actually only tanks over 2,000 gallons capacity were
required to have Phase I controls.
f. Applying refinery fugitive emission factors to oil field
operations.
g. Using the agricultural tilling emission factors as though
they were annual average estimates. When actually the emission
factors must be multiplied times the number of times the acreage is
tilled per year.
A comparison is normally made of each listed emission factor
against the current AP-42. In one case it was found that an agency
was still using Supplements 1-4 of AP-42, believing these were
current. Copies of Supplements 5, 6, 7, & 8 had been sent to the
agency but were received by another person who neatly stacked them
in his book case. Old AP-42 supplements should not be discarded
as they can be useful in identifying the origin of obsolete
3-7
-------
emission factors.
All categories listed in the required format must be completed.
There can only be blanks in the inventory when it is clearly stated
that the category was not inventoried. If the category was inven-
toried and found to have no emissions then a "O" is entered. If
emissions were found to be negligible then "neg" is entered.
The documentation should be in sufficient detail so that every
assumption is described explicitly. Examples of assumptions which
were found to be inaccurately included in emission inventories are:
1. Assuming that all boats launched in a recreational lake
are motor boats when actually 1/2 are sail boats.
2. Assuming that only 3 axle trucks are heavy duty, when
actually many 2 axle trucks are heavy duty.
3. Assuming that all the fuel transferred by a railroad in
the county was consumed in the county. The county turned out to be
the major refueling depot for the railroads entire west coast
operations.
The emission inventory reporsents the agencies best effort given
the information and resources available to it at the time. The
amount of new information on emission factors currently being
developed by EPA, the States, and private industry is overwhelming.
One air pollution control agency within California is currently per-
forming 200 to 300 source tests per year and generates its own
3-8
-------
emission factors from this data. Examples of on-going efforts to
develop improved emission factors are:
1. A.P.I. studies to develop new correlations for fixed and
floating roof emission factors.
2. The State of California programs to develop emission
factors for steam stimulated crude oil production and pesticide
emissions.
3. The State of Arizona's and Pima County's projects to
develop localized fugitive dust emission factors.
4. EPA's study to update cotton ginning emission factors.
5. A.P.I.'s current study on fugitive emissions from onshore
and offshore oil production.
An area of emission estimates which we have found lacking in
current data is hydrocarbon speciation. In order to apply the
hydrocarbon emission estimates to atmospheric diffusion models it
is not only necessary to know the total hydrocarbon but the per-
centage of each hydrocarbon species. Very little recent work has
been done on determination of hydrocarbon species identification
from mobile, stationary, and area sources of hydrocarbon species is
the amount of methane present in external combustion devices'
exhaust. At the present time EPA and the California ATB are assum-
ing that 45% of the exhaust gas is methane, regardless if the
external combustion device is gas or oil fired. EPA's Industrial
3-9
-------
Environmental Research Laboratory was contacted and a staff member
advised that no work had been done on identifying the percent
methane, but his personal estimate was that the exhaust gas from
a gas fired external combustion device would be 90% methane.
Similar examples can be cited for most other emission source
categories.
3-10
-------
Supporting Documentation
Sufficient documentation is required to support the accuracy of the
inventory and to allow for a complete analysis of the inventory.
A. Background information on reasons for the inventory being
compiled, its future use, how it evolved and significant changes
from the emissions of previous years should be presented.
B. The geographic area covered by the inventory should be
specified. This may be the County, the air basin or the 7QMA.
C. The Enission Inventory should be presented in a table format.
The required format is included as Appendix C.
1. All source categories listed in the sample format should be
included in the Emission Inventory.
2. Source categories for which the emissions are negligible
should be listed as "Neg."
3. Source categories for which there are not emissions in the
County should be listed as "0."
D. A narrative must also be presented for each category of the
inventory. The narrative must contain at least the following:
1. Procedures used to collect the data - Complete procedures
should be presented which describe how the data was collected
and analyzed.
3-11
-------
2. Sources of the data - A corrplete description of the types
of sources accessed in the course of compiling the inventory should
be presented. These sources would include for example, permit files,
inspection reports, source test data, actual company inquiries,
Departments if Agriculture of Highways, local fire departments, etc.
A statement should be included assessing the completeness of the data
collected.
3. Copies of questionnaires - Sample copies of questionnaires
mailed to various sources for the collection of data should be in-
cluded as part of the inventory document.
4. Questionnaire statistics - Statistics regarding the
questionnaires or other letters of inquiry sould be presented. This
information shall include:
a. the number of questionnaires sent
b. the number for which response was received
c. the method of extrapolating available information for
non-respondants
d. any assumptions made regarding the data received or
not received.
5. Emission factor citation - Emission factors used for the
calculation of emissions should be clearly stated. Factors other
than AP-42 may be utilized, however, a one-sentence rationale for
the use of non-AP-42 factors is required. Source test data should
be used in preference over emission factors.
3-12
-------
6. Method of calculation - Sample calculations for each type
of computation should be presented. The purpose of this
is to allow for an independent varification of the com-
putations. (Petroleum handling factors are frequently
misused.)
7. Assumptions - Any assumptions made in any part of the
procedures should be clearly stated.
8. Items not included - Any source of emissions which
contributes to air quality of the County being inventoried
but which were not included in the inventory should be
itemized in the narrative. A statement as to why these
sources were not included should be presented. Possible
reasons for non-inclusion include:
a. The emissions from these sources are negligible.
b. No emission factors exist and no source test data
is available to allow computation of these emissions.
9. A list of references should be included as a final section
of the narrative.
3-13
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Question:
Henderson:
A few years back we heard something about air-
craft dumping fuel prior to landing. What's
happened to that? I haven't seen much in the
news like that lately?
I understand that the commercial aircraft don't
do it and we haven't been able to get any
information from the military on it.
3-14
-------
METHODOLOGIES AND PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN A LEVEL 3
MULTI-STATE/COUNTY HYDROCARBON AREA
SOURCE EMISSIONS INVENTORY
Presented at the 1977
Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Inventory/Factor Workshop
Raleigh, North Carolina - September 13-15, 1977
By
J. A. Trapasso and W. K. Duval
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.
1930 14th Street
Santa Monica, California 90404
4-1
-------
ABSTRACT
This paper is directed to the assessment of methodologies and
major problems encountered in multi-state/county Level 3 hydrocarbon
area source emissions inventories. Time constraints and cost con-
siderations do not easily allow Level 3 efforts to be fulfilled as
shown in the case study discussed in this paper
The study discussed encompassed 47 counties in seven states and
two EPA regions. Area source categories included in the study con-
sisted of residential fuel, commercial and institutional fuel, indus-
trial fuel, onsite incineration, open burning, off-highway gasoline
fuel, off-highway and rail locomotive diesel fuel, aircraft, vessels,
and evaporation sources. Methodologies employed to these categories
consisted of a mixture of the three levels of analysis and various
other techniques developed subject to specific parameters such as
state and local air pollution control agency participation, funding,
availability and timeliness of the receipt of requested data, and the
availability of time to complete the study.
Problems encountered in the study which are discussed in this
paper include (1) planning considerations, as related to area source
publications, cost and time factors; (2) surveying methodology prob-
lems such as composite source list development, questionnaire print-
ing, and drycleaning solvent supplier inventory; (3) railroad method-
ology; and (4) agency participation.
4-2
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible
for ensuring the attainment and maintenance of National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for photochemical oxidants. The control
strategies that must be developed to meet these standards involve
gathering information on hydrocarbon emissions, through an emissions
inventory, from point and area sources. Large sources of air pollu-
tion are considered point sources and are usually well surveyed and
documented by means of air pollution permit programs and field in-
vestigations. Emissions from sources too small or too difficult to
be surveyed individually are reported collectively as area sources.
Each small source may emit only a minimal amount of air pollutants,
but, because of the vast number of these small sources, their collec-
tive impact can be significant.
To determine emissions attributed to hydrocarbon area sources,
the Air Programs Branch of EPA, Region V, contracted Pacific Environ-
mental Services, Inc. (PES) to develop an extensive and comprehensive
Level 3 nonhighway hydrocarbon area source emissions inventory. This
inventory will be used in making subsequent revisions to State Im-
plementation Plans (SIPs) allowable oxidant levels.
The intent of this paper is to provide the reader with an
understanding of some of the problems encountered in applying Level 3
analysis to a multi-state/county emissions inventory. Level 3 is
defined [in EPA document Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance and
Analysis. Volume 7; Projecting County Emissions, OAQPS No. 1.2-026]
4-3
-------
(Guidelines) as a method which provides the highest degree of accu-
racy in an inventory and relies on extensive contact or interviewing
with organizations responsible for the major pollution sources to
determine emissions. Although Level 3 inventories usually provide
excellent quality data, the methodology guidelines set forth in
various governmental publications are not oriented toward large-scale
studies, providing for some unique problems.
This paper is organized into seven sections, including this
introduction. Section II provides a brief description of the subject
inventory and all parameters associated with it. Sections III through
VI provide insight into four types of problems encountered in this
project, and PES's approach to solving them. It should be noted that
in a paper of this nature, all of the problems and methodologies
employed cannot be discussed in any great detail, but an attempt has
been made to familiarize the reader with them. The last section sum-
marizes the study and provides conclusions.
4-4
-------
SECTION II
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The intent of the ongoing PES project is to furnish EPA with a
comprehensive nonhighway area source emissions inventory for hydro-
carbons with a base year of 1975. Area sources, as defined by the
Scope of Work for this project, are those sources which have the
potential to emit less than 25 tons of hydrocarbons per year. Hydro-
carbons, for the purposes of this inventory, are defined as total
hydrocarbons (methane and nonmethane)- The geographical study area
encompasses 47 counties in seven states and EPA Regions IV and V.
The study area includes most of the major metropolitan areas of
Region V and accounts for a total population of approximately
23,269,500. Table 1 presents the states, counties, metropolitan
areas, and population of each county contained in the study.
National Emissions Data System (NEDS) hydrocarbon area source
categories contained in the project, as outlined in 40CFR Part 51,
Appendix D, include: residential fuel, commercial and institutional
fuel, industrial fuel, onsite incineration, open burning, off-highway
gasoline fuel, off-highway and rail locomotive diesel fuel, aircraft,
vessels, and evaporative sources. Hydrocarbon emissions from these
sources are being quantified into NEDS area source input format by
the specific NEDS category in each of the 47 counties. Also, PES
is reporting hydrocarbon emissions and solvent consumption for each
of the various evaporative hydrocarbon Standard Industrial Classifi-
cations (SIC). Evaporative hydrocarbon SIC numbers being inven-
toried in the project are presented in Table 2.
4-5
-------
Table 1. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF STUDY AREA
State
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Michigan
Minnesota
EPA
Region
V
V
IV
V
V
County
Cook
DuPage
Kane
Lake
McHenry
Will
Boone
Hamilton
Hancock
Hendricks
Johnson
Lake
Madison
Marion
Morgan
Porter
Shelby
Boone
Campbell
Ken ton
Ma comb
Monroe
Oakland
Wayne
Anoka
Carver
Dakota
Hennepin
Ramsey
Scott
Washington
Population
(est 1975)
5,365,400
542,500
266,800
396,800
124,300
287,100
32,300
68,300
40,000
61,000
70,100
544,600
138,100
789,000
47,900
95,800
38,800
37,100
85,000
130,500
669,600
126,500
967,500
2,536,700
185,400
34,000
174,300
925,800
457,500
40,000
102,700
Metropolitan Areas
Chicago
Hammond- Gary
Indianapolis
Cincinnati
Detroit-Dearborn
Minneapolis-St. Paul
4-6
-------
Table 1. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF STUDY AREA (CONCLUDED)
State
Ohio
Wisconsin
EPA
Region
V
V
County
Butler
Clermont
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Lucas
Mahoning
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Warren
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Racine
Population
(est 1975)
244,100
108,000
1,603,900
866,100
905,000
205,600
479,900
307,100
588,000
384,200
535,300
241,200
87,700
123,100
1,032,900
175,900
Metropolitan Areas
Toledo
Cleveland
Akron-Canton
Columbus
Cincinnati
Dayton
Milwaukee- Rac in e-
Kenosha
4-7
-------
Table 2. PES AREA SOURCE HYDROCARBON EVAPORATIVE
EMISSIONS CATEGORIES
SIC Number
2085
2231, 2261, 2262, 2269, 2295, 2297
2435, 2492
2511, 2514, 2521, 2542
2641, 2643, 2645, 2651, 2653
2711, 2732, 2751, 2752, 2753
2821, 2823, 2842, 2851, 2861, 2895, 2983
2900
3021, 3041, 3069
3111, 3149, 3161, 3172
3221
3357, 3398
3423, 3429, 3451, 3452, 3469, 3471, 3479
3537, 3551
3643, 3674
3711, 3713, 3714, 3715, 3732
3825, 3832
3914, 3915, 3944, 3951, 3953, 3955
5171
5982, 5983, 5984
7535
4-8
-------
Although the project strived to utilize Level 3 methodologies
throughout the study, techniques in Levels 1 and 2 were employed in
the project. These methodologies were developed subject to specific
parameters such as state and local air pollution control agency par-
ticipation, funding, availability and timeliness of the receipt of
requested data, and the availability of time to complete the study.
A very brief description of the emission caterories and method-
ologies employed in the study are presented below.
Stationary Source Fuel Combustion
This category consists of residential, commercial, institu-
tional, and industrial fuel consumption. To determine fuel consump-
tion for these sources, coal, fuel oil, and natural gas fuel sup-
pliers in the 47 subject and neighboring counties (except for coal
suppliers, in which a larger area was employed because of the large
distance coal is transported) were inventoried by questionnaire.
After determining fuel consumption totals, which were received from
the questionnaires and supplemented with data from various state
energy studies and surveys, point source fuel consumption totals
(derived from state emissions inventories) were deleted, leaving
fuel consumption totals attributed to area sources. The fuel totals
were then apportioned into the various NEDS categories as needed.
Solid Waste Disposal
The project was originally scheduled to utilize state and local
incineration and open burning permit files in the development of
hydrocarbon emissions from these sources. Unfortunately, the
4-9
-------
permit files were either incomplete or nonexistent. Therefore, two
solid waste studies were employed and Level 1 techniques, supplemented
with localized solid waste generation factors, were utilized.
Nonhighway Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Consumption
The sources contained in these categories include many very
small sources, such as construction equipment, snowmobiles, farm
equipment, and a larger source, railroads. Railroad methodology is
discussed in detail in Section V.
The primary input of data for these sources was derived from
various published reports and studies. Where possible, localized
data were incorporated to reflect 1975 conditions. For snowmobile
emissions, an elaborate computer program was developed to account
for snowmobile population density and winter weather conditions.
Aircraft and Vessels
These categories are reported together because of their similar
methodologies. Data secured for both categories relied heavily on
published data supplemented by various reports and surveys. Rep-
resentative airports and port authorities were interviewed, but the
quality and completeness of data reported by these sources was
inadequate.
Hydrocarbon Evaporation Sources
This category consists of numerous small solvent consuming
sources such as degreasing, printing, coating, and gasoline marketing
operations and, for purposes of this study, encompasses 65 separate
SIC numbers. Procedures presented in Methodology for Inventorying
4-10
-------
Hydrocarbons (EPA-600/4-76-013) were extensively used for these
sources. The methodology incorporates a very extensive questionnaire
surveying technique which is discussed in detail in Section IV.
4-11
-------
SECTION III
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
An essential step before executing any type of large-scale
inventory is to carefully develop a thorough work plan. Alternate
approaches need to be incorporated into the work plan in the event
any problems arise with the initial approach, such as a limited
questionnaire response, unavailability of data, time constraints,
etc. This section is intended to provide some insight into areas
which require special attention in the advance planning stages based
upon the subject project.
Publications
The availability, accuracy, and timeliness of published docu-
ments, research reports, and studies on transportation, solid waste
disposal, energy demands, etc., need to be thoroughly reviewed to
determine their applicability to a project. For example, energy
studies completed before 1972 are now obsolete due to the energy
crisis. Also, some state and local agencies stated at the onset of
the project that they had or were conducting studies which would be
very useful in the PES study. However, it was realized later in the
project that the agency studies, for the most part, were not adhering
to their time schedules or their reports contained irrelevant ma-
terial; therefore they could not be used in the PES study.
A major problem with Level 3 methodology guidelines set forth
in various governmental publications, is that they are not oriented
toward large-scale inventories. Therefore, many new methodologies
4-12
-------
had to be developed for this project. Also, a considerable amount of
written data referenced in the publications has been outdated by more
recent documents. No periodic government reference updating system
is presently employed for methodology guidelines.
To acquire additional industrial reference data for the project,
PES utilized many sources to better understand the quantities, uses,
and types of solvents. Among the reference sources were EPA li-
braries, EPA publication Reports Bibliography, which is a listing of
EPA reports available from the National Information Service (NTIS),
and an abstract of environmental reports by nongovernment agencies,
available at major public and university libraries, published papers,
and interviews with various trade personnel.
Time Constraints
A major factor in most studies is the time allocated for com-
pletion of the project and of various subtasks. A project needs to
be scheduled so that if there is a minor delay in one segment, work
can be shifted to another segment with a minimal amount of lost time.
Although this approach is easily stated, it sometimes becomes very
difficult, especially when each segment of work is dependent on
another segment. The problem is further compounded in the case of
a major delay. This was the situation in the PES project where
numerous problems delayed the completion of the project schedule.
Major scheduling delays in the project were associated with the
development, approval, and printing of questionnaires. Also, the
slow response of state agencies in providing questionnaire mailing
4-13
-------
materials and completed responses had a rippling effect throughout
the various subtasks.
4-14
-------
SECTION IV
SURVEYING METHODOLOGY
There are two basic approaches that can be employed in obtaining
a high-confidence-level emissions inventory:
• Conduct a survey of all sources in the desired SIC categories.
• Statistically sample the SIC categories and then apply the
results to the entire source population.
The first approach, surveying all sources (which is designated
by EPA as a Level 3 effort for evaporative hydrocarbon and fuel con-
sumption categories) was recommended by EPA for collecting emissions
data for evaporative hydrocarbon and fuel consumption categories,
Although this approach provides the most reliable and accurate data
when implemented to its fullest extent, some problems are encountered
when applying it to a large-scale survey. A brief description of
four main problems which arose in the PES study are presented below,
followed by a more detailed discussion in this section.
• The development of a composite SIC source list was hampered
by the vast number of sources, integrating data from a large
number of references, and multiple SIC listings for a single
source.
• The development and printing of questionnaires was delayed due
to agency revisions and federal government requirements.
• The acquisition of fuel consumption data by surveying fuel
dealers was hampered by a 'low response and poor quality data.
• The acquisition of data regarding drycleaning solvent usage
by surveying suppliers of the solvent proved inadequate.
Composite Source List
One of the most important factors in an emission inventory is to
develop a thorough and accurate source list. All data subsequently
4-15
-------
derived from the project depends, to a large extent, on the number
and categorization of facilities within the source list. Therefore,
PES strived to develop a thorough and complete composite source list
in order to minimize the number of errors that might result from
inadequate data.
PES began compiling the source list by acquiring a list of
sources from National Business Lists, Inc. (NBL) for the subject
counties and SIC numbers. The NBL list was then cross-referenced
against Dun and Bradstreet's Million Dollar Directory and Middle
Market Directory, state manufacturer directories, and trade associa-
tion lists, to provide a complete and accurate composite list. The
use of these references posed two problems: (1) the quality of
data and source listings was poor and incomplete in most cases; and
(2) some sources were listed by a different SIC number in various
reference books, which necessitated a cross-referencing system not
only within specific SIC numbers, but also within the entire com-
posite source list. A solution to minimize this problem is to de-
velop an alphabetized source list based upon NBL data which then
enables one to easily recognize duplicate sources. Also, it is pre-
ferable to computerize the list to easily handle the cross-referenc-
ing system and other listing procedures.
Another problem associated with the composite source list is the
vast number of sources which were found to be contained in the sub-
ject counties and SIC numbers. EPA anticipated at the onset of the
project that there would be approximately 3,000 to 4,000 sources to
survey. The total number of facilities contained in the composite
4-16
-------
source list expanded to approximately 13,000, not including approxi-
mately 7,000 sources in Illinois for which the survey was discon-
tinued. This increase in the number of sources dramatically changed
the scope of work for the project, and increased the cost and time
involved.
A partial solution to the problem of estimating the total num-
ber of sources is to employ data from the Bureau of the Census,
U.S. Department of Commerce. For example, the publication County
Business Patterns 1974, gives the number of sources in various SIC
categories by state and county. Although this might first appear
to be an excellent solution to the problem of acquiring source totals,
care must be taken in computing the total numbers since SIC sources
in the census data are not always catalogued by separate SIC number;
sometimes they are presented as a major group of SIC numbers.
Development and Printing of Questionnaires
PES was instructed by EPA to use and modify, where appropriate,
questionnaires presented in Methodology for Inventorying Hydrocarbons.
PES was responsible for reviewing the questionnaires with various
state and local air pollution control agencies to incorporate their
comments on the forms. The agency responses varied widely; some re-
quested major changes, while others accepted the questionnaires as is.
Since no agreement could be reached regarding the format, EPA de-
cided to employ a detailed questionnaire to obtain as much informa-
tion as possible. Therefore, sources would not need to be surveyed
again in the near future for any additional studies.
4-17
-------
One of the major time-consuming setbacks to the project was
in the printing of the questionnaires. PES was originally scheduled
to reproduce all of the required questionnaires, but when the number
of sources dramatically increased, the number of impressions of
the questionnaire also increased to an amount which exceeded that
allowed for a government contractor to make in any given project
(25,000). EPA then had two alternative approaches in printing the
questionnaires: (1) print the forms themselves or (2) have the ap-
propriate state agencies print the questionnaires. Because of the
magnitude of problems associated with having each state print the
forms, EPA decided to print the questionnaires themselves. Although
this approach appears to be straightforward, many government pro-
cedural problems surfaced which delayed the printing for approximately
4 months.
The most complex problem involved the question of whether ap-
proval from the Office of Management and Budgeting (OMB) was needed
for EPA to print the forms, since all government forms require OMB
numbers. Also questioned was the authority of EPA to use the forms
in a federal contract without OMB approval. After numerous meetings
between various government personnel and attorneys, it was determined
that OMB approval was not necessary since the state agencies were
actually mailing the forms directly to the sources with their own
cover letters. A provision of the OMB agreement was that no ref-
erence of EPA could be contained in the state cover letter accompany-
ing the questionnaires. With this decision in hand, EPA finally
began setting up the procedures for the printing of the forms. An
unfortunate consequence of the decision was that PES had already
4-18
-------
begun processing state cover letters which made reference to EPA.
The state agencies then had to develop new cover letters and PES
reprocessed them.
Fuel Dealer Responses
To achieve reliable estimates of fuel consumed in each state
arid county, a very high fuel dealer response is needed from the
surveying methodology. If several major county fuel suppliers fail
to respond to the questionnaire, the fuel totals for that county can
be significantly low. Also, the response needs to be high to off-set
the overall poor quality of data which is sometimes associated with
fuel dealer responses. These two cases became a problem in this
study where only a 62-percent fuel dealer response was received after
two mailings. Of the responses received, only 30 percent consisted
of good quality data. Extrapolating this data to reflect a 100 per-
cent return proves to be very inaccurate.
PES is presently exploring the possibility of using state energy
surveys conducted in Ohio and Michigan. Data obtained from these
studies will be used in conjunction with such parameters as heating
degree days, housing units, and employment population to estimate
the fuel totals for the other subject counties and appropriate fuel
consumption categories.
Drycleaning Solvent Usage
To acquire Level 3 solvent consumption figures for the dry-
cleaning industry, two approaches can be employed:
• Survey all drycleaning establishments directly.
• Survey all drycleaning solvent suppliers
4-19
-------
The first approach involves a massive questionnaire mailing
when applied to a large study area such as PES's project. The number
of drycleaning establishments contained in an evaporative hydrocarbon
emissions inventory can account for approximately 15 percent of the
total evaporation sources. Although this number is not significant
when applied to a small inventory, it is significant when employed
in a multi-state/county inventory.
The second approach, surveying drycleaning solvent suppliers,
was the method by which EPA directed PES to determine drycleaning
consumption. It was determined to survey SIC number 2842, "Specialty
Cleaning, Polishing, and Sanitation Preparations," which includes
facilities engaged in manufacturing drycleaning preparations. It was
felt that this method, if successful, would greatly reduce the time
and costs associated with quantifying drycleaning solvent consumption
in large-scale studies. Unfortunately, the results of surveying SIC
number 2842 proved inadequate. Most of the respondents indicated
that no drycleaning solvents were being manufactured at the surveyed
facility. Since the results from the questionnaires were received
too late to implement a new survey, Bureau of Census data were used
to develop consumption values. In subsequent projects, PES has em-
ployed either Bureau of Census data or surveyed all drycleaning es-
tablishments, depending on the level of effort of the study.
4-20
-------
SECTION V
RAILROAD METHODOLOGY
Although emissions generated by railroad operations are basic-
ally a minor component in the overall hydrocarbon emission inventory,
this category posed some unique problems in data acquisition for
this project. It required that PES develop alternative data collec-
tion methods to those prescribed by AQMP Guidelines. AQMP Guidelines
contain the following methodology for collecting data in a Level 3
effort.
"Determine the county diesel fuel use of rail operations
from available data in transportation studies or directly
from the railroads. If these data are not available, use
state fuel consumption data from the MIS, and compute
county share by scaling with miles of track in the county
divided by miles of track in the state or approximate by
county population share."
For the most part, there were no rail plans or transportation
studies available that addressed fuel use, rail mileage within
counties, etc. Contact with several rail companies indicated an
unwillingness to provide needed data due to the size of the study
area snd the unavailability of such requested data. The MIS (U.S.
Bureau of Mines, Mineral Industry Survey) data is a lump sum for an
entire state and is not broken down by rail company.
It was discovered during the methodology development phase, that
the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) requires all railroads to
annually submit operating data for the entire system, ranging from
revenues to fuel use and locomotive unit miles for freight, passenger,
and switching operations. Locomotive unit miles (LUM) are the number
of miles traveled by engine units. PES also found that some of the
4-21
-------
states in the study area require the rail companies to submit similar
data, but specific to that state. Therefore, fuel use and LUM were
obtained for all railroads operating in the seven states from ICC and
from the states that require submittal of this similar data. Other
data PES obtained were track mileage and percentage of operation
in each state for each railroad (one state was able to supply track
mileage by county for all railroads) and the railroads operating
in each county.
Where only system-wide data were available, the fuel data for
each of the railroads operating within the study counties were ap-
portioned to each state based upon that railroad's percentage of op-
eration within the state. This fuel consumption and fuel data ob-
tained specific to a few states was then scaled to each county by
county population or track mileage by county, where available. Emis-
sions were calculated for five engine categories (2-stroke super-
charged and 4-stroke switch engines and 2-stroke supercharged,
2-stroke turbocharged and 4-stroke road engines) based on nationwide
use patterns received from ASME publication 74-DGP-3, Locomotive
Exhaust Emissions and Their Impact.
It is felt that the results obtained were fairly accurate
based on the available information. Only one local agency (covering
four counties) had any significant comments on PES's draft data.
PES estimates were then revised to reflect this localized data.
4-22
-------
SECTION VI
AGENCY PARTICIPATION
As can be expected in a project encompassing many state and
local air pollution control geographical areas, problems arise in
synchronizing the activities of the project to conform to the wants
and needs of the various agencies. Also, the varying degrees of
cooperation received from the agencies plays a significant role in
the development of a project.
Task Response
The response to various subtasks of the project by several
agencies was very slow, necessitating many revisions to the project
schedule. As an example, state questionnaire mailing materials
were received up to 2 months late. Also, comments from state agencies
on PES draft subtasks were sometimes received very late, necessitat-
ing changes in the project schedule. It should be noted that the
majority of involved agencies attempted to respond in a timely manner
and for the most part succeeded, but nevertheless a slow response
by one or two agencies can cause serious planning problems.
Another example of slow response to a task by an agency was
exemplified during the questionnaire mailing. As the questionnaires
were being packaged for mailing, one state agency suddenly decided
to allow local agencies to participate in questionnaire mailing. PES
then had to sort and repackage the questionnaires which involved
lost time and costs to the project.
4-23
-------
Agency Contact
Another factor which plays a significant role in a study involv-
ing many agencies is the agency's project contact. This individual
plays a key role in maintaining liaison with EPA and the contractor.
The individual needs to be kept abreast of all parameters associated
with the project to enable the incorporation of pertinent agency data
for use in the project. If the agency contact is transferred to
another position in the agency or leaves the employment of the agency,
as happened in the PES study, serious problems can develop. Prior
verbal commitments, knowledge of the project, and experienced work-
ing relationships can be lost. These problems may appear minor but
can significantly alter various subtasks of the project.
4-24
-------
SECTION VII
CONCLUSIONS
As presented in the text of this paper, a number of methodology
considerations need to be assessed in conducting a Level 3 inventory
for a large study area. Although Level 3 studies are oriented
towards and easily adapted to small inventories, time constraints
and cost considerations hinder their use in large studies. As an
example, when inventorying evaporative hydrocarbon sources the mag-
nitude of sources to be surveyed is directly related to the size of
the study area. As in the case of the PES study, approximately
13,000 sources were surveyed. Minor errors in planning, such as the
printing of questionnaires, and compilation of a composite source
list, are significantly magnified by a large amount of surveyed
sources.
Although many problems were encountered in this project, with
the help of EPA and state and local air pollution control agencies,
the results from the completed subtasks have been reviewed favorably.
Approximately 80 percent of the project has been completed. PES is
presently recontacting fuel and evaporative hydrocarbon sources who
failed to respond to the initial questionnaire mailing.
4-25
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Question:
Trapaso:
Question:
Trapaso:
Is the idea of trying to inventory 47 counties
from a single centralized point realistic, ending
up with 20 thousand questionnaires?
It was thought that there would be only three to
four thousand sources. When you start considering
25 tons per year potential and lower, however,
you run into a lot of sources and this number of
20 thousand sources doesn't even consider dry
cleaning establishments or gasoline stations which
account for a significant amount of emissions,
too.
Do you have any comments on practical ways to
avoid this problem?
In some of them as far as coming up with the total
number of sources in the different SIC categories,
one quick method is to go to the Bureau of Census
data, and from that try to get a ball park figure
of how many sources are actually talked about.
We have done this in subsequent projects and it
has given us a good general figure.
4-26
-------
AIR FORCE EMISSION INVENTORIES
Presented at the 1977
Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Inventory/Factor Workshop
Raleigh, North Carolina - September 13-15, 1977
By
Bradford C. Grems, Major, USAF
Air Quality Research Division
Directorate of Environics
Det 1, HQ Armament Development and Test Center
Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida 32403
5-1
-------
Frequently, the Air Force must develop air pollutant emission
inventories. Emission inventories are required to support environ-
mental impact analyses for proposed weapon systems development and
deployment and significant changes in operations of Air Force
installations. Emissions inventories of Air Force activities are
sometimes required by pollution control agencies for their planning
and policy decisions. The Air Force must also comply with appro-
priate pollution control statutes. The cost of compliance, however,
must be considered a nonproductive investment since it does not
contribute to our defense capability and must compete for funding
within a continually tighter budget. Accurate and complete emis-
sions inventories go a long way toward developing a cost effective
pollution control strategy within current Department of Defense
fiscal constraints.
The Air Force has developed a tool to simplify and standardize
emission inventories. It is called the Air Quality Assessment
Model (AQAM) and actually does far more than emission inventories.
It is a complex dispersion model that combines operational and
meteorological inputs to predict downwind concentrations of five
pollutants from multiple sources of various geometries. One of the
essential elements which in part determines the accuracy of these
predictions is the Source Inventory Program. It has numerous
independent uses in addition to providing the emissions information
for the Long and Short Term Dispersion Models. This discussion will
5-2
-------
be limited to a description of the Source Inventory Program and the
emission factors and data sources developed for it.
One of the unique features of AQAM is its treatement of
military aircraft operations. Military aircraft operations are
significantly different from their civilian counterparts in several
ways. The touch-and-go landing cycle, for instance, is performed
routinely at nearly all Air Force installations, while its use is
very limited at commercial airports. A model of the touch-and-go
cycle was developed for each Air Force aircraft type and included in
AQAM to differentiate these emissions and their locations in three
dimensional space from the standard landing-takeoff (LTD) cycle.
Also, LTD cycles used in AQAM are site specific. That is, the
geometry of each airport's parking areas and taxiways, and individual
aircraft taxi speeds and other operational descriptors are used.
The effort required to attain this increased accuracy is justified
by the relative importance of these emissions. Ground operations con-
stitute a significant fraction of total aircraft emissions and are
even more important to air quality impact because they are not as
dispersed as emissions in flight.
The Air Force operates numerous engines which are significantly
different than those of civil aircraft. Many are equipped with
afterburners. Some are very old designs which are no longer in
commercial service. Since accurate emissions data for these
engines were not available, we undertook a comprehensive emissions
5-3
-------
measurement program to develop emission factors for virtually all
Air Force engines. This included five pollutants in each of three
engine modes (four when afterburners are equipped) for 23 different
engine types. In all, exhaust samples were collected from 103
engines and from three to ten replicates each. These were engine
exhaust plane measurements. A follow-on project is underway to
model the reactions which might take place in the afterburner
exhaust downstream of the tailpipe to better define the pollutants
which finally reach equilibrium in the atmosphere.
The field testing of the AQAM inventorying procedure was ac-
complished during 1975-76. Ten Air Force and three Navy bases were
inventoried and modeled. Field data collection methods were tested
and refined. A revised field data collection manual is currently in
draft form and will be published for potential AQAM users.
The AQAM model has been released for public use and is generally
applicable to any airport environment. At least one consulting and
research organization has already used it in conjunction with
civilian airport development. Although the Air Force has no charter
to develop anything specifically for the civilian community, we are
pleased that DOD research dollars are having civilian spin-off
benefits. We are hopeful that our product will find wide application.
In addition to aircraft, AQAM is capable of handling a wide
variety of stationary sources and surface vehicles of all types.
Emission factors from AP-42 and API publications have been programmed
for most sources and are updated as new data becomes available. Input
5-4
-------
to the emissions inventory consists primarily, then, of operational
data such as throughput, fuel rate, fuel type, vehicle miles, source
type, etc. Although the Source Inventory Program calculates pre-
dicted emissions, the data requirement is still extensive. As a
minimum, a units conversion is usually required to transition from
operational records to computer input. In many cases the data must
also be manually sorted or combined into appropriate time blocks.
Frequently records are available for the total air base, but not
the specific source in question. In those cases engineering estimates
must be used to allocate to each individual source its appropriate
share of natural gas, for example. Most commercial customers consist
of only one source or are individually metered. By contrast, an
entire Air Force base may have only one gas meter, or records of
heating fuel may reflect only total deliveries to the base with no
way to accurately track subsequent disbursements to the locations
where the fuel was actually burned. The data collection phase, which
appeared on the surface to be a simple square filling exercise, in
fact turned out to be very labor intensive. We plan to complete a
sensitivity analysis in the near future to streamline the data
requirements. Hopefully, we can reduce the manhours significantly
by eliminating some of the detail currently required. We do not want
to reduce accuracy which would inevitably result if data were
eliminated. Therefore, other indicators which may be more readily
available will be sought and subroutines developed which will
5-5
-------
transpose these somewhat grosser figures into the detail required
for accurate emission inventories and dispersion modeling. The area
where we may benefit most is motor vehicles. Currently, vehicle
miles travelled on each line or area for each of six vehicle classes
are required. Data in this much detail is seldom, if ever, available.
Consequently, a myriad of records must be combed and correlated to
make even the most perfunctory estimate. Hopefully, other more
readily available figures can be transposed through computer analysis
to provide the required input.
Those sources for which no emission factors exist can also be
modelled by AQAM, but the emissions must be calculated off line and
input to the emission inventory and dispersion models as metric tons
of each pollutant emitted annually. There are no commonly occurring
sources for which we do not have preprogrammed emission factors, but
occasionally a deisel electric generating plant or some other unique
source is encountered. One source common to most Air Force bases
for which a data weakness exists is aircraft ground support equipment,
or "powered AGE." Our best estimates indicate that this is not
usually a significant source, but we would like to better define the
problem.
Based on the data developed from our initial 13 base study, we
intend to develop a general Air Force control strategy to minimize
our air quality impact. There appear to be no statutory constraints
driving these control efforts. In developing control strategies, we
5-6
-------
will consider both structural and non-structural alternatives and
cost effectiveness. For example, changes in aircraft operating
procedures could reduce emissions, while staggering working hours
could reduce temporal peaks from automobile traffic.
The Environmental Management Systems Division of our organiza-
tion is developing a methodology for preparing air base comprehensive
plans. Control and dispersion of air pollutants will be one factor
considered in comprehensive planning. We hope to identify problems
and alternative solutions which will support that phase of the com-
prehensive planning process. Siting of new facilities, modifications
to automobile traffic flow and structural and vegetative influences
on wind flow fields are some of the things to be considered.
Our primary finding to date is that aircraft and automobiles
generate an overwhelming majority of air pollutant emissions at most
Department of Defense air installations. Aircraft at active bases
sometimes emit more total pollutant mass than automobiles, but these
pollutants are well dispersed due to the geometry of aircraft flight
paths. Aircraft and surface vehicles, then, have the greatest
influence of any source category on ambient air quality. This is
understandable when one considers that even at our major aircraft
overhaul facilities there are very few of the traditional "dirty"
industries such as foundaries, smelters, or coal fired generating
plants. The only significant impact most Department of Defense air
installations might have is their contribution to local ambient
5-7
-------
hydrocarbon concentrations. This is attributable in part to transfer,
storage, and consumption of significant quantities of fuels and
solvents. I must point out, however, that these levels are predicted
from modeling, not measurements. Even if the predicted hydrocarbon
concentrations are verified, their relationship to health effects is
not well defined.
In closing, I would like to point out some of the limitations we
are working under and tools or data we have need of. I described
to a limited extent our aircraft turbine engine emissions measure-
ment program. We have noted a rather large standard deviation
among exhaust hydrocarbon samples. This standard deviation was
much greater than that of either carbon monoxide or oxides of
nitrogen and coincides with the findings of other investigators.
We suspect that this may be due to the method of analysis. A flame
ionization detector (FID) is the prescribed method of hydrocarbon
measurement from aircraft exhaust plumes. There may be some unex-
plained variation in the FID response to different hydrocarbon
species. Another possibility is the extractive technique. A
number of discrete samples are taken from different locations
within the plume. The non-homogeneous nature of the plume at the
sampling point could explain the large standard deviations.
We need more data on emission factors for powered aircraft ground
support equipment (AGE)- We are currently using some rather general
emission factors compiled from measurements of similar but not
5-8
-------
identical equipment. Fortunately, AGE emissions appear to have
minimal impact at most locations. As other sources are controlled,
the relative importance of AGE emissions may become significant, and
an effort should be made to better define their emissions. An
emissions measurement program appears to be the only satisfactory
alternative.
An area in which I am pleased to note significant research being
conducted is emissions from storage and handling of petroleum
products. Nearly every Department of Defense airfield handles
relatively large quantities of jet fuel and in some cases gasoline.
Based on our current estimates, processing these fuels may contrib-
ute a significant share of the bases' total hydrocarbon emissions.
Since predicted hydrocarbon concentrations are the only ones that
ever approach ambient standards, we would like to be more confident
in the accuracy of our emissions estimates.
I already mentioned our desire to streamline our motor vehicle
inventorying procedures. We continually update our preprogrammed
emission factors as they are changed in AP-42. Our vehicle algorithm
requires a knowledge of the vehicle age distribution among each of
the vehicle classes, and the vehicle miles of each vehicle class
driven along each vehicle line source or within each vehicle area.
Vehicle age distribution can be ascertained and associated emission
factors are readily available, but vehicle miles are another matter.
What we need is an algorithm that will arrive at vehicle miles
5-9
-------
without expensive traffic surveys and vehicle counts. We would
like to develop an algorithm using airbase vehicle population, size
of work force, number of employees at various work centers, operating
hours of installation activities, etc., to derive vehicle miles for
each source.
The refinements and improvements I have just mentioned are in the
"nice to have" category for the moment. We fully intend to pursue
them, but we already have what I consider a most useful tool in
AQAM which is finding application in the civilian as well as military
community. It has helped define the scope of the Air Force's air
quality impact and identified the significant sources and pollutants
which we will seek to control.
5-10
-------
Question:
Grems:
Question:
Grems:
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Would it be possible to obtain the factors you
developed for jet engine test cells and your
touch and go landing procedure along with the
test data? Is that public information?
Yes, it is. I can't remember the report number
right now, but it's available through NTIS. The
emission factors for the engine test cells that
we are using now are simply the emission factors
developed for the engines themselves. We find
very little, if any, change between the exhaust
plane measurements and the exit plane of the
test cell.
You mentioned that your application included
motor vehicles as well as aircraft emissions.
Are different factors utilized for these sources
on Air Force bases or are the situations the
same as general usage?
I'm not so sure that in the emission factor area,
it's not different. I think we have probably
done the inventory in more detail than is
generally done. We have, as I said, categorized
the vehicles by age distribution, by vehicle
type, and by individual lengths over a very
5-11
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Grems: (con't)
Question:
Grems:
Question:
Grems:
small area, usually a couple of square miles.
And we have a number of lengths within a very
small area. That will probably be the only real
difference.
To whom is the model and supporting data available?
The documentation of the model and how to use it,
etc., is available through NTIS. The model it-
self would have to be obtained through the Air
Force Systems Command channels. They control all
our computer products. So, if you wanted the
computer code itself, you would write to the Air
Force Headquarters Systems Command at Wright
Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. They will
ultimately send that request to us, but it has
to go through channels before I can release it.
What are the plans for using the model at each
of your air bases to come up with their own
inventories? Are there any plans down stream
to do that?
Yes, it's phased over the next two or three
years. As I say, we develop a procedure and we
turn it over to another Air Force agency for
implementation and I haven't followed exactly
what their schedule is. We have about 50
5-12
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Grems: (con't)
Question:
Grems:
Question:
Grems:
air bases, though, with a major flying mission
which we would plan to inventory over the next
couple of years. We have done 10 and that leaves
about 40. Those bases which have already been
done will probably be updated periodically.
Do you have a correlated ambient monitoring
system or do you plan one? Have you validated
your model?
The validation process has just been finished at
Williams Air Force Base in Arizona near Phoenix.
It is about a two year process. I think they have
about a year and a half worth of actual monitored
data. That includes operational information,
meterological and ambient measurements, which
they are now in the process of sorting and
trying to get a validation from.
Has the Air Force spent any efforts with regard
to the rocket emissions at Cape Kennedy and
other places?
I'm not aware of any. I'm sure that the various
space and missle systems offices which wrote
the impact statements for the different missle
deployments have had to address this topic in
5-13
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Grems: (con't)
Question:
Grems:
Comment:
their impact statements to justify the use of
the missle. I don't know what the actual
factors might be, however.
We have a weapons disposal depot in our area that
kind of has an unusual problem. They detonate
about a hundred thousand tons of explosives
three times a week and we have no emission factors
or no possible way of estimating it. Do you know
of any work that has been done in the field or
anything that is planned in that area?
No, I was not aware that we had such a facility
or a requirement for that information.
I don't believe that is an Air Force facility.
Disposal is all they do. They blow up munitions
three times a week, and shake the earth all over.
They obviously have a tremendous particulate
emission, but we don't know what the hydrocarbon
emissions are and have no way of estimating it.
5-14
-------
A FORMAT FOR THE STORAGE OF AREA SOURCE EMISSION DATA
Presented at the 1977
Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Inventory/Factor Workshop
Raleigh, North Carolina - September 13-15, 1977
By
S.R. Tate
N.L. Matthews
D.O. Ames
R.A. Bradley
Emission Inventory Section
Technical Services Division
California Air Resources Board
Sacramento, California 95814
6-1
-------
Abstract
A format is presented for storing area source emission data.
Area sources are small, dispersed sources of air pollution which
individually emit small quantities of pollutants, but in aggregate
may significantly affect air quality. Descriptions of the struc-
ture of the storage format and each data field are presented.
The format was developed to provide a consistent and uniform
statewide area source emission data base for inventory, modeling
and strategy evaluation activities. It will accommodate the
limited data currently available, but has the capability of
storing very detailed source data as future needs develop. The
format includes data fields for information on the spatial and
temporal distribution of area source emissions and provides for
simple documentation of process and emission data.
6-2
-------
Introduction
Emission inventory, modeling and strategy evaluation activities
require a comprehensive and consistent base of point source, area
source and motor vehicle emission data. Regional air quality
models require detailed information on the spatial and temporal
distribution of emissions. Detailed information on emissions from
different emission processes and source types are needed for
strategy evaluation.
For point sources, or individual plants or points which emit
significant quantities of air pollutants, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has developed the Emission Inventory Sub-
system (EIS) to store emission and source data. The EIS data
storage format includes data fields for information on the spatial
location of emissions, the operating schedule or temporal
distribution of emissions, and detailed emission factors and
operating rates for the various emission processes.
Unlike point sources, area sources of air pollution are small,
dispersed sources which individually emit small quantities of
pollutants. Typical area sources are fuel burning in home heaters,
agricultural field burning, and evaporation of solvents used in
architectural coatings. Although area sources are individually
small, in aggregate these sources may significantly affect the
overall air quality. For example, approximately one half of the
organic gas emissions from stationary sources in California in
6-3
-------
1973 resulted from area sources. Thus information on area source
emissions is a vital part of a statewide emission data base.
The EPA has developed the National Emission Data System (NEDS)
area source format and the Computer Assisted Area Source Emissions
Gridding Procedure (CAASE) for storing and gridding area source
data. Although the NEDS area source and CAASE systems calculate,
store and grid emission data, they have the following limitations:
1) Emission estimates are annual averages and do not indicate
the seasonal or diurnal variations in emissions.
2) Emission categories are very general, and the system
lacks detail on emissions from different emission
processes. For example, solvents are considered a single
category even though different kinds of solvent uses
(architectural coatings, dry cleaning, and degreasing)
may have different organic constituents, factors or
control strategies.
3) No provision is made for documenting the basis of
emission estimates, although some space is available for
comments.
4) The standard emission factors are nationwide averages,
not specific to any region; and because categories are
general, many factors are composites For example,
although different emission factors are available for
"military jet," "military transport," and "military
6-4
-------
piston" aircraft operations, the process rate must be
reported as total "military aircraft" operations.
Thus the NEDS system does not adequately provide the detailed
and documented emission inventory data needed for strategy evalua-
tion and air quality modeling in California.
This paper describes a format for storing area source emission
data which provides data fields for information on the spatial and
temporal distribution of emissions and on the emissions from the
various processes. A discussion of design considerations is
followed by a description of the data format structure and a
discussion on applications of the format developed. The data to
be entered into each data field are described in the Appendix.
Design Considerations
The area source data storage format is designed to
1. include the detailed spatial and temporal data needed
for air quality modeling,
2. include process-level data for strategy evaluation,
3. accomodate the wide variety of area source information
available,
4. include simple confidence ratings and documentation for
evaluating data reliability, and
5. accommodate information on organic gas constituents and
particle size distribution as it becomes available.
6-5
-------
Data Format Structure
In the area source data storage format, data are organized
into two levels, an activity level and a process level, as shown in
Figure 1.
A separate entry is made at the activity level for each dif-
ferent major source category and activity (e.g. architectural
surface coatings, non-point industrial and commercial surface
coating, non-point degreasing). Separate entries are also made
for similar activities with different spatial location (e.g. two
different airports in a county).
The process level is subordinate to the activity level and
includes information on the different emission processes associ-
ated with a given emission activity (e.g. different types of air-
craft operations at an airport).
The relationship between the two levels can be seen more
clearly in Figure 1, which shows the different Level I (Activity)
listings that might be created for the emission category of
"aircraft" in a hypothetical county with two airports, "Metro
Airport" and "Air Force Base". In this example, "Metro Airport"
is a commercial airport which has some military and general
traffic. Thus separate (Level I) Activity files are created for
military and general aircraft. The second airport, "Air Force
Base", has only military traffic and a Level I file is required
only for the military operations. Subordinate to each activity
6-6
-------
are one or more process entries related to the different types of
aircraft (e.g. jumbo jet, long range jet, and medium range jet)
associated with the different Level I airport activities.
The data fields which make up each level are organized into
groups, as shown in Table 1. The activity level (Level I) includes
the groups "identification key," "activity identification,"
'spatial distribution" and "temporal distribution." The process
level (Level II) repeats the identification key and includes the
groups "process identification," "process information," "pollutant
information," and "emission estimates". Each group is discussed
below and the data fields are described more completely in the
Appendix.
Identification Key - This appears in both the activity and
process levels and contains codes which identify the inventory
category and activity as well as the state, county, and air
basin* for which the data are collected. The key provides
a basis for sorting emission data into general inventory
~*In California air basins are similar to the federal air quality
control regions, but in some cases have different boundaries.
Some counties lie in two air basins; in this case a separate
set of area source data is maintained for each portion of the
county.
6-7
-------
categories or for segregating emissions on a state, county,
or air basin basis. The key also includes the date the file
was last reviewed and a file number to distinguish between
areas which have the same activities but different spatial or
temporal characteristics.
Activity Identification - These data fields are used to
describe the activity in detail. Specific data fields
included are activity name, file name, associated EIS plant
I.D., and activity comments. A typical activity name would be
"general aircraft emissions." An example of file name would
be "Los Angeles International Airport". The associated EIS
plant I.D. is used if the area source is associated with a
plant included in the EIS system. General comments, warnings,
and limitations may be included in the activity comment field.
Spatial Distribution - This group is used to identify the Air
Quality Control Region, to define the area in Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates and to identify a
population, land use or economic parameter to distribute
emissions over a defined area. There are two options for
defining the area. If the area source has a fairly simple
shape, its boundaries may be described with up to six pairs
of UTM coordinates. If it has a more complex shape a
reference code may be included in the defined area field.
6-8
-------
This code would provide reference to an external file contain-
ing a digitized boundary description of the defined area.
A distribution parameter code is included for identifying an
appropriate land use or population parameter to distribute
emissions spatially within the county or within the defined
area. A separate file of digitized land use or population
data is used in conjunction with this code.
Temporal Distribution - These data fields describe the typical
operating schedule of the source. The monthly and hourly
throughput, or percentage of yearly throughput in each month
and daily throughput in each hour,are included. Also
included are fields for the hours of operation per day, days
of operation in each week, weeks of operation per year, and
the ratio of maximum daily throughput to average daily
throughput.
Process Identification - This group is used to identify the
process code; to specify units other than the standard units
associated with the process code; to name the process; and to
identify the relevant, EPA-developed Source Classification
Code (SCC). The SCC is used to facilitate reporting to EPA.
The ARE process code is more detailed than the SCC and permits
more precise definition of processes.
6-9
-------
Process Information - This group of data fields contains
further information about the process and its operating rate.
Specific data fields are inventory year, the annual process
rate, the source of the process rate data (e.g. company or
governmental agency), relevant comments on how the process
rate data were developed, a confidence rating, the maximum
hourly process rate, the sulfur, ash, nitrogen and heat
content of fuels burned, and any general comments on the
process.
Pollutant Information - This group contains the SAROAD
pollutant code and information on emission factors. Along
with the emission factor are included fields for the source
of the emission factor, any significant comments on how the
factor was developed, a confidence rating, applicable control
regulations, the percentage of control represented in the
emission factor, the last date the factor was reviewed, and
a field for referencing more detailed information on organic
gas constituents or particle size.
Emission Estimates - Given the information in the other data
fields we expect to use the computer to calculate emission
rates. Average annual emissions and maximum hourly
emissions will be calculated along with an overall confidence
rating for the estimate of emissions from the process.
6-10
-------
Application
We expect to use the format described above as we compile
area source emission data for a 1976 inventory in California. Codes
for specific fields within the format have been developed and are
discussed in a separate report. Some revision to the format and
codes may occur during the next year as the format is implemented.
Summary
A format for the computer storage of area source data was
developed which has advantages over the NEDS area source system.
The format provides for:
1. data fields describing both the spatial and temporal
distribution of emissions;
2. accommodating a wide variety of area source information
from gross emission estimates for major categories to
detailed emission estimates for individual processes; and
3. documenting the source and the reliability of emission
factors and process rates.
' A Format for the Computer Storage of Area Source Emission Data.
Draft Report, California Air Resources Board, Technical Services
Division, July 30, 1977.
6-11
-------
I
M
S3
FIGURE 1
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
AREA SOURCE DATA FORMAT: TWO-LEVEL CONCEPT
METRO AIRPORT
COMMERCIAL
AIRCRAFT
JET AIRCRAFT.
JUMBO JET
JET AIRCRAFT.
LONG RANGE
JET AIRCRAFT,
MEDIUM
RANGE
EXAMPLE - AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS
METRO AIRPORT
MILITARY
AIRCRAFT
JET AIRCRAFT.
NON-SPECIFIC
METRO AIRPORT
GENERAL
AIRCRAFT
JET AIRCRAFT.
BUSINESS JET
PISTON
AIRCRAFT.
NON-SPECIFIC
AIR FORCE
BASE
MILITARY
AIRCRAFT
JET AIRCRAFT.
MILITARY JET
TURBOPROP.
MILITARY
TRANSPORT
PISTON.
MILITARY
LEVEL I
CATEGORY/
ACTIVITY
LEVEL H
PROCESS
-------
TABLE 1
Outline of the Area Source Data Fields
LEVEL I: ACTIVITY
. Identification key
State code
County code
Air basin code
Date
Category/activity code
File number
. Activity identification
Activity name
File name
Associated EIS plant I.D.
Activity comments
. Spatial Distribution
AQCR
UTM-described area*
Defined area*
Distribution parameter
. Temporal distribution
Monthly throughput
Hours per day
Days of the week
Weeks per year
Hourly throughput
Ratio of daily throughput
Either field, not both, will be used
LEVEL II: PROCESS
. Identification key
(same)
. Process identification
Process code
Units
Process name
Source Classification Code
. Process information
Inventory year
Annual process rate
Source of annual process rate
Process rate comments
Confidence rating for annual
process rate
Maximum hourly process rate
% Sulfur
% Ash
% Nitrogen
Heat content
process comments •
. Pollutant information
Pollutant code
Emission factor
Source of emission factor
Emission factor comments
Confidence rating for emission factor
Control regulations
Percent control
Review date
Pollutant-specific data
. Emission estimates
Average annual emissions
Confidence rating
Maximum hourly emissions
6-13
-------
APPENDIX
Description of the Area Source Data Fields
State Code
The two digit state code is identical to the code used in
NEDS/EIS.
County Code
This two digit code is also identical to that used in NEDS/
EIS.
Air Basin Code
This is a three digit field. If a county lies in more than
one air basin then data must be provided for each portion of the
county. This data field in the key differs from the EIS point
source file which specifies the Air Quality Control Region.
Date
This five-digit field is used to record the date on which the
area source data associated with the key was last reviewed or
changed. As in NEDS/EIS, it is expressed as the Julian date:
the first two digits identify the year and the last three digits
indicate the number of the day.
Category/Activity Code
The first two digits of this four-digit code identify the
inventory category into which the emission data will ultimately be
6-14
-------
placed. Within each inventory category are one or more emission-
producing activities with distinct spatial and temporal distribution
characteristics. The last two digits in this field identify the
activity associated with the emission data.
File Number
This two-digit number is used when the same activity occurs
with different spatial or temporal characteristics. For example,
two commercial airports located within a single county are
assigned different file numbers. Files are numbered sequentially.
Activity Name
The activity name or description may be indicated in this 20
space narrative field.
File Name
This 20-space narrative field may be used to name the file
which is numbered in the identification key.
Associated EIS Plant I.D.
This four-digit field may be used to relate emissions from an
area source to a plant (point source) identified in EIS. For
example, an oil refinery is given a plant I.D. number and
inventoried as a point source in EIS with all emissions assigned
to points within the refinery boundaries. However, the refinery
may be the source of additional fugitive emissions which are
6-15
-------
emitted from many points within the refinery area. These fugitive
emissions are spatially distributed over the refinery area and may
be inventoried as an area source, but can still be related to the
plant and to the point source emissions in EIS.
Activity Comments
A sixty-four space field is provided so that comments of
general nature, including warnings, limitations or suggestions
regarding activity information, may be entered.
AQCR
This field contains the three-digit code for the air quality
control region in which the activity lies. If emissions occur in
more than one AQCR, separate activity files will be created for
each AQCR.
UTM Described Area
UTM coordinates are used to describe the distribution area as
a figure with up to six sides. This 57-space field defines the
UTM zone and up to six pairs of UTM coordinates. This field may
also be used to describe a line source. A "0" in the last space
of the field indicates that the first and last points should be
joined to form a closed area, while a "1" in that space indicates
that emissions are distributed along the line described by the UTM
coordinates.
6-16
-------
Defined Area
A three-digit "defined area" code is used instead of UTM area
descriptors when an area is too large or complex in shape to be
described by six coordinates. The code number references other
computer programs which contain digitized boundary information for
the area. For example, it may be defined as the eastern half of a
county or as terrain above a specified altitude.
Distribution Parameter
This field contains a four-digit distribution parameter.
These parameters, such as land use classification, population or
economic activity, will be defined and coded as needed in each
area. The code indicates to which land use classification or
economic activity area the emissions should be allocated within the
"UTM-described area" or the "defined area." As an example of the
application of the spatial distribution method just described,
assume that 20% of all residential wood burning in the SCAB portion
of San Bernardino County is done at homes having an altitude
greater than 3000 feet. The field "defined area" would contain a
code number for the areas above that altitude, and in the field
for "distribution parameters" would be the code indicating
"residential land use."
Monthly Throughput
The percent of the total yearly throughput processed in each
6-17
-------
month is indicated in each of 12 two-digit fields.
Hours Per Day
This two-digit field indicates the number of hours per day the
emitting activity typically operates. In the case of an activity
such as orchard heater burning, which does not occur on a daily
basis, the number of hours per actual operating day is entered here.
Days of the Week
This eight-digit field is used to indicate the days of the
week during which the activity typically occurs. If the days are
random, the number of days per week the activity occurs will be
entered.
Weeks Per Year
This two-digit field is used to indicate the number of weeks
during the year in which the activity takes place.
Hourly Throughput
The percent of the daily throughput processed in each hour of
a typical operating day is indicated in each of the 24 two-digit
fields.
Ratio of Daily Throughput
The ratio of daily throughput data field, consisting of a
three-digit number and a user-specified decimal point, provides
an indication of how much the operating schedule of the activity
6-18
-------
may vary from the average. Many area source emissions occur
Infrequently and for brief periods of time; although the total
annual emissions averaged over the year may indicate a small daily
output, emission levels while the activity is operating are quite
high. The ratio of maximum daily to average daily throughput
(process rate for the inventory year divided by 365 days) gives an
indication of what "worst case" emissions could be. As an example,
the ratio of the maximum tons burned on any day on which a forest
fire occurred to the average number of tons burned per day (total
tons burned in all forest fires in the activity area during the
inventory year, divided by 365) is a proper ratio of throughput.
Process Code
This eight-digit code describes the emission-producing
process. The first two digits of the code provide a general
description of the physical process in or by which emissions are
produced or released. These physical processes are combustion of
fuels, incineration, evaporation, and fugitive loss. Combustion
of fuels is the process of internal or controlled external com-
bustion which occurs during the generation of power, heat or light.
Conversely, incineration is controlled or uncontrolled combustion
in which the resultant energy is not utilized. Thus the burning
of agricultural waste as fuel for a boiler is regarded as com-
bustion of fuels, although the burning of that same waste in a
6-19
-------
field is incineration. Evaporation is simply the loss of vapors to
the atmosphere which occurs during the transfer, storage or use of
organic materials. Fugitive losses include processes other than
evaporation through which emissions enter the air, including the
processes of entrainment of dust and other particulates, and the
pulverization or abrasion of surface materials by mechanical or
natural force.
The next three digits of the code describe the specific
application of the process. Applications include "jumbo jets,"
"utility equipment" and "light duty motor vehicles" under the
physical process of "combustion of fuels," and "vehicle tank
filling" and "cleaning" under the "evaporation" process.
The last three-digit portion of the code indicates the fuel
or product consumed or operated upon in application of the
described process. In the case of "combustion of fuels - utility
equipment," the fuel or product consumed could be gasoline or
diesel fuel.
Units
Associated with Part 3 of each process code are units of
throughput (such as tons or 103 gallons). These units are used to
express the process rates and emission factors for the coded
process. If this field is left blank, it will be assumed that the
emission factor and process rate units correspond to those
6-20
-------
specified with the process code. If the specified units are not
appropriate for the calculation of emissions, alternative units
may be chosen and a corresponding code entered in this two-digit
"Units" field.
For example, the process rate units for aviation gas and jet
fuel are 1C-3 gallons, so the emission factors are expressed in
lb/l()3 gallons. However, aircraft emissions are commonly expressed
in terms of landing-takeoff cycles; consequently, the units of
"landing-takeoff cycles" would be used for the process rate (both
yearly and maximum hourly) and the emission factors. The code
corresponding to "landing-takeoff cycles" would be entered in this
two-digit field.
Process Name
This data field is used to describe the process when a general
or non-specific process code is used.
Source Classification Code (SCC)
The eight-digit SCC is an EPA developed code which is related
to both activity and process. The appropriate area source SCC is
entered so that>if necessary, area source emissions can be sorted
according to those classifications and reported to EPA in NEDS
(National Emissions Data System) format.
Inventory Year
The two digits in this field indicate the year for which the
6-21
-------
process information is applicable.
Annual Process Rate
Up to nine digits may be placed in this field to indicate the
throughput during the inventory year of the fuel or material
described in the process code. The decimal point must be specified.
The process rate must be expressed in units which correspond to
either the process code or those specified in the Units field.
Source of Annual Process Rate
This twenty-six space field consists of two parts. The first
space contains a one-letter code which indicates the type of
source from which the rate information was received, such as a
utility company or a state or federal agency. The remaining
twenty-five space narrative field contains the name of the source
company or agency and/or the person supplying the data.
Process Rate Comments
Occasionally, process rate data are received from the source
in a different form than the number which is presented in the
Annual Process Rate field. For example, architectural surface
coating usage data may be available from the source as a state-
wide total, and distribution to counties is made on the basis of
population. Thus the data that go into the Process Rate field are
based on, but not identical to, the data received from the source.
6-22
-------
In this case, a summary of the procedure by which the input data
was derived will be placed in this 20-space narrative field.
Confidence Rating for Annual Process Rate
This one-digit code is an evaluation of the reliability of the
process rate information.
Maximum Hourly Process Rate
The maximum hourly process rate is an estimate of the maximum
throughput that can occur in any hour. Nine digits may be placed
in the ten-space field, the decimal point must be specified, and
units must be consistent with those of the process.
%Sulfur
Two digits and a decimal point in this field indicate the
sulfur content of the fuel processed. If this information is not
applicable to the process, the field will be left blank.
%Ash
Two digits and a decimal point in this field indicate the ash
content of the fuel processed. As above, the field will be left
blank if the information is not applicable.
^Nitrogen
The quantity of nitrogen in the fuel is indicated to three
decimal places in this field. The decimal point is fixed.
6-23
-------
Heat Content
The gross heating value, in ID"* BTUs per process code units,
is entered to four significant figures in this field. The decimal
point must be specified.
Process Comments
This 20-space narrative field may be used for general comments
regarding assumptions, process data limitations or concerns
regarding the use of the process data.
Pollutant Code
This five-digit SAROAD code identifies the pollutant (e.g.
carbon monoxide or total organic gas) produced in the specified
process.
Emission Factor
The emission factor indicates the quantity of pollutants
generated for each unit of throughput (controlled emission factor).
This nine-space field contains an eight-digit emission factor and
a user-specified decimal point. Because emissions will be
calculated directly using this input, the emission factor must
be expressed in units which correspond to either those of the
process code ^r. those specified in the Units field.
Source of Emission Factor
The first space of this two part, 26-space field contains a
6-24
-------
one-digit code number indicating the type of source; the remainder
of the field contains the name of the person, company, agency or
publication which provided the factor.
Emission Factor Comments
If the emission factor received from the source differs from
the figure placed in the Emission Factor field, the method of con-
version must be summarized in this 20-space narrative field.
Confidence Rating for Emission Factor
A code is used in this one-digit data field to rate the
reliability of the emission factor.
Control Regulations
In these twelve spaces, control regulations are included in a
narrative form to indicate what, if any, controls (devices or legal
limitations) are in effect or are anticipated which affect the
process or its emissions.
Percent Control
This two-digit field is used to indicate the percent control
represented by the emission factor. A blank indicates the percent
of control is unknown and a zero indicates an uncontrolled emission
factor.
6-25
-------
Review Date
The month and year in which the emission factor was last
reviewed and determined to be the best currently available are
indicated in this four-digit field,
Pollutant-Specific Data
This nine digit field is used to provide supplementary infor-
mation for each pollutant. For instance, this field will eventually
contain particulate size range information for total suspended
particulate emissions (e.g. it may show the percent of total
emitted particulates with average diameter less than 2y, less than
7viand less than 10v). In the case of organic gas emissions, this
field may contain a code number referencing typical organic con-
stituents for the process.
Average Annual Emissions
Total emissions of each pollutant from each process are
calculated from the process rate and the emission factor, and are
stored and reported in tons per year.
Confidence Rating
The confidence rating for the process rate and the emission
factor are used by the computer to calculate a confidence rating
for the estimate of yearly emissions.
6-26
-------
Maximum Hourly Emissions
These emissions are calculated by the computer using the
maximum hourly process rate, and are stored and reported in pounds
per hour.
6-27
-------
Question:
Bradley:
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Could you relate your procedures more specifically?
Let's say you've got a three pump gasoline
service station. Are you going to pump all the
data for this one gas station or are you going
to punch all the data for a square mile or a
half square mile of downtown Los Angeles?
We have two ways of handling gasoline stations in
California. One is to include them in as a
separate point source in the EIS data system.
That system can now accomodate sources down to
those emitting one ton per year of any one
pollutant. The systems that EPA has distributed
can only handle the resolution down to one ton,
although it is possible to go into decimal
figures, if you really want to. The split
between point and area sources can be separated
dependent upon how much resources you have. We
are actually going to break down a number of
the area sources, for example, the architectural
coatings. You will hear later in the conference
about a State wide emission estimate that has
been developed for architectural surface coatings
emissions. This information will be broken down
6-28
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Bradley: (con't)
Question:
Bradley:
to each county. Within each county, these emissions
will be distributed using a population parameter.
Information that is available on various categories
will be utilized to develop the temporal infor-
mation on the emissions and their patterns. The
special element can be provided for within the
system by going to the subcounty level and de-
fining the major urban area boundaries by using
the distribution parameter to population and
utilizing a separate coded file which is similar
to the way the EPA's NEDS area and gridding
systems work.
You are going to have single gas stations as
point sources?
In some cases. The local districts have been
involved in trying to separately treat the gas
stations because of vapor recovery requirements.
They have them on permits and so on. Where that
information exists already, they can be treated
as point sources. Where this information does
not exist, and there are a number of air basins
in California where the vapor recovery regulations
are not in effect the problems may not be
6-29
-------
Bradley: (con't)
Comment:
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
significant enough that they will be implemented
there; then, they will be treated as area
sources. So, the split is partially a local
district option at this point.
The reason I bring this up, I think, is quite
important. We have found out in Northern
Virginia, where I come from, that even in view
of the very small piece of geography, that there
are somewhere around 600 gas stations and these
are bought and sold monthly. Trying to keep up
a point source of inventory on gasoline service
stations is a big job. I don't think you can
punch these things out as point sources and look
at it once a year and have an up-to-date file.
It isn't going to be updated. There's going to
be something like a 10% turnover. It would be
quite a job keeping the file up to data as it
is with any point source. Remember, you are
dealing with a lot of them. I've got 500 of
them in one little third of a city. Think what
you've got in Los Angeles!
6-30
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Bradley:
Question:
Bradley:
Well, the way things have operated in California,
in consistence with the EPA requirements, it
has been mandatory that data on sources greater
than 25 tons per year of any single pollutant be
put into the EIS system, and then there have been
options below the 25 tons per year. The area
sources are generally below that and then it's
an option. There is an inner range in there
where some sources could be thrown either way
dependent upon the effort that is involved with
the district needs. Where a district has gone
to the effort of getting the detailed information
and doing it on a point basis we are very happy
to include that in the data base.
The emissions booklet you referred to seems
facinating. I would like to know how often you
would update this. Is this monthly, yearly, or
is it updated when needed?
The system is set up so it could handle information
on an inventory year basis, so we would plan to
update it more than once a year. Our goal is
to update it every year or at least every other
year. Whether or not we can achieve that, I'm
not sure.
6-31
-------
Question:
Bradley:
Question:
Bradley:
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Do you know right now how many level one segments
and level two segments you have?
No, we don't. We have somewhere around 55-60
major categories. However, not all of these
are utilized in every county and we have 58
counties in California, so we are expecting to
develop quite a bit of information.
Has anyone made any manpower estimates on the
number of engineers, technicians, planners,
programmers, and keypunchers you need for this
system?
We normally set aside about 4 1/2 people at the
State level to cover about half of the source
categories. We expect that the major effort
will be in the first year in getting the in-
formation into the system. In future years,
it becomes more of a maintenance and you don't
have to recreate the file. You can work with
the changes. Simultaneously, we have a data
processing feasibility study underway. We will
be shaking the system down this year and have
a better idea at the end of the year on these
refinements.
6-32
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Question:
Bradley:
Is it clear in your mind, now, how you will
go about obtaining information year after year?
Is it likely you will use questionnaires, field
surveys, inventory just a sample of the total
source category population, or what?
I think it will depend on the source category
itself in what is appropriate. I expect that
if it becomes necessary to do surveys, the
surveys will not necessarily be done every year.
It depends on how likely the information it to
change by a significant amount from one year to
the next. In some cases, there are already
reporting mechanisms in place. For example;
there are existing records of pesticide usage
in California. There is some question as to
how much of the pesticides are covered, but
there is already a reporting mechanism set
up within the department of agriculture in
California to handle pesticide application.
As we are going through each of the source
categories, we are looking for similar ongoing
reporting systems which could be utilized.
6-33
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Question:
Bradley:
Question:
Bradley:
This confidence rating that you are going to
give the emission factors—could you elaborate
on that and where it is going to come from?
I think as a start, we wanted to get some kind
of representation of confidence rating. We
will probably use something like the old EPA
(AP-42). It is a five class code right now.
As we get a chance to get some experience
with the information, we hope to be able to
have a more refined method of handling confidence,
in say two to three years from now.
Do you have other groups who will support this
system at a local level?
Yes, the requests have already gone out to each
of the local air pollution control districts for
about hald of the categories. We have asked
them to be working up information in a general
form. Some of our State staff will be involved
in taking the information we get from the
districts and fitting it into the data system.
It is a little unclear how much local effort
will be involved. It could be on the order of
three or four person years per district, possibly
6-34
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Bradley: (con't) one. We are talking about a fairly big State
in California with a lot of sources. In the
EIS point source system, we now have about
30,000 entries, that process level entries, in
the EIS system covering the whole State.
6-35
-------
MARYLAND SPECIAL FACTORS AND INVENTORY TECHNIQUES
Presented at the 1977
Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Inventory/Factor Workshop
Raleigh, North Carolina - September 13-15, 1977
By
Edward L. Carter and Joseph W. Paisie
Division of Program Planning and Analysis
Bureau of Air Quality and Noise Control
Environmental Health Administration
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
201 West Preston Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
7-1
-------
^Introduction
The compilation of any emission inventory requires that the
scope of the inventory be determined, the data sources ascertained
and contacted, and the results verified and reported. Since the
manpower requirements and peripheral expenses for any inventory
are directly proportional to the scope, accuracy and timeliness
desired, an initial workplan delineating these points should be
laid out before work begins.
Each of the three major classes of sources, (natural, mobile
and stationary) has its own problems and requirements for quanti-
fication; the inclusion or exclusion of any source class or sub-
class must then be carefully examined. Inclusion of a source class
with minimal definition as to quantifiable emissions may "cost"
significantly more than the maximum contribution to the total in-
ventory is worth.
A second factor which will determine total effort and expense
is the possible repetition of the inventory and/or its inclusion
into other such reports. If an inventory is to be updated periodi-
cally or used as the basis for further inventories/reports, the
possibility and expense of computerized operations should be care-
fully examined. Continuing inventories, unless of a very general
nature, are usually best computerized. Special interest inventories
such as fugitive dust sources, vapor recovery on service station
facilities, toxic and hazardous materials, or photochemically
7-2
-------
reactive organics may be hand compiled, but usually are more easily
used if stored in some type of electronic data process facility.
Maryland's Emission Inventory System
The Maryland Emission Inventory System consists primarily of
a Master Tape file of registered sources, backed by several filing
cabinets of data input forms. The Master Tape contains data on
individual equipment capable of emitting any criteria pollutant.
Each record of the nearly 15,000 on file is individually identified
and coded for its specific county, premise, type of equipment,
fuels used and emissions rates. Each of the 194 characters on each
record may be used in combination with others to produce requested
reports.
This Master Tape is updated semi-annually in January and July.
Some fifteen standard reports are produced routinely with each up-
date; non-standard or special reports are produced upon request
at a contract facility. Copies of these reports, both in standard
and special formats, are sent to all local jurisdictions and to
each Division of the Bureau of Air Quality and Noise Control for
review and use.
The Registration Survey System (RSS), the formal title for
these standard reports, was developed over a three year period
from 1969 to 1971; changes in format and content occur at regular
intervals as needs and requirements change. The RSS began as a
7-3
-------
registration file on those stationary sources above certain minimum
sizes or of specified equipment types. Maryland's system required
all incinerators, process and manufacturing equipment (unless spec-
ifically exempted) and fuel burning equipment above home heating
input sizes to register on forms provided by the Bureau. Initial
efforts to have the owners of all affected sources obtain and com-
plete the forms were partially successful; most major emitters,
once contacted, completed the forms within a year.
As the number of completed forms increased, some type of com-
puterization became necessary; the forms were initially modified to
be used directly as keypunch sheets as well as data input forms
and a year's effort in programming was initiated. After two full
revisions, the system became operational in 1971; those who have
taken the EPA course on registration and inventories in the early
1970"s at Research Triangle Park have seen the second modification
to the keypunch forms.
In order to maintain the Master Tape in a current condition,
changes to the file due to additional construction, equipment
modification or replacement, or the cessation of operations, are
routinely included. The construction of any registerable sources
without an approved Permit to Construct is a violation of the Air
Quality Control Regulations and subjects a violator to possible
civil penalties. At the present time, each of the building permit
offices in each of the local jurisdictions requires that the local
7-4
-------
air quality control agency sign off on any construction permit be-
fore an applicant can obtain a building permit. Applicants for such
permits must complete a Permit to Construct application and obtain
an approval from the central office prior to the local agency's ap-
proval of the building permit application. A minimum number of
small pieces of equipment evade this system through error or over-
sight.
When a piece of equipment is eliminated or a business ceases
operation, a local agency inspector completes and sends to the
central office a notice of this occurrence. A standardized format
computer card is made which can delete either an individual piece
of equipment or an entire premise.
Modifications to existing equipment or changes in fuels con-
sumption, control equipment, etc., which outdate an existing re-
gistration, require that the owner or operator re-register with the
Bureau. This source initiated re-registration is theoretically the
most efficient method for keeping the file current. In practice,
most "modified" sources are re-registered due to field or premise
inspections performed by State or local personnel for other pur-
poses.
These other purposes include the required annual inspections
for a Permit to Operate required for major emission points. Speci-
fic types or sizes of various process, incineration and fuel burn-
ing equipment are required to obtain an initial Permit to Operate
7-5
-------
and an annual renewal. Such a Permit to Operate cannot be granted
until a detailed field inspection and registration file verifica-
tion for that piece of equipment have been completed.
In spite of a determined effort to obtain complete initial
coverage in the late 1960's-early 1970"s, some equipment was over-
looked, erroneously exempted, or incorrectly registered. Some
equipment was built, modified, switched fuels or eliminated without
proper notification. In order to cover these omissions and errors,
a program was initiated to check all registration data on a minimum
of every three years. As each "error" is discovered, new records
are created replacing the existing file. This new Master Tape
file then becomes the source of data for the standard reports,
while the old version is stored for possible comparison purposes.
This program of verification has been aided to a great degree
by other compliance activities such as the rotary cup burner phase-
out (Regulation 10.03.38, .39.06) and the fugitive dust source de-
termination. These programs used the RSS printout as the basis
for initially selecting locations. As each location was examined
for its particular project needs, concurrent review of the exist-
ing registration file was conducted; missed or erroneous register-
able equipment was noted and changes were sent through the system
as regular alterations to the RSS file.
The soon-to-be-formalized Compliance Data System will also
generate some changes to the RSS file in that field inspections
7-6
-------
for complaints, regular compliance activity inspections, etc., will
generate some changes in the RSS. The changes will modify the
Master Tape file as needed and be used to as a portion of the re-
gistration verification/compliance assurance program.
The RSS system, then, is represented by the algorithym shown
in Figure 1. As noted, a new tape file is created at the time each
group of reports are produced. This tape is used for all special
request listings, printouts, etc., for such programs as the rotary
cup operation, compliance assurance operation, etc.
None of the special inventory results are included in the
Master Tape file; the file format is not broad enough to encompass
these special emission values. All particulate matter, for in-
stance, is labeled and grouped as particulate, whether it is a
metal, mineral, liquid emission, etc. Hydrocarbons are grouped as
total hydrocarbons, including methane, non-reactive material and
those of most interest in photochemical smog investigations.
Special Inventory of Photochemically Reactive Organic Materials
The special inventory of photochemically reactive organic
materials was conducted by the Division of Program Planning and
Analysis as part of an effort to more accurately characterize the
Baltimore region's "smog" problem. A total inventory of organic
emissions for the region would include those components from natural,
mobile and stationary sources.
Natural sources include plants, primarily trees. Emission
7-7
-------
"factors" are available for certain types and densities of tree
grov/th; in rural, heavily forested areas, this emission source can
be the major source of reactive organic emissions. Estimates for
the Baltimore AQCR indicate that natural emissions are only about
77o of the total hydrocarbon emissions in the region, and are loca-
ted primarily in the rural portions of the AQCR. The degree of
uncertainties regarding the emission factors is so great that in-
clusion in the inventory was considered to be unwise. As better
factors are developed, natural emissions will be included.
Mobile emissions are those from automobiles, trucks, buses,
trains, planes, ships, snowmobiles, mopeds, etc. Those familiar
with the compilation of inventories know the difficulties inherent
in attempting to locate, quantify and verify the emissions from
such sources. Individual units contribute such small amounts that
these "sources" must be handled on a group basis spread over an
area of concern.
Several possibilities exist for such source classes including
complex traffic counting and computer modelling, wide-area surveys,
countywide estimation, and national average estimates. The pre-
vious efforts to quantify hydrocarbon emissions for the State Im-
plementation Plan required little detail; total hydrocarbon emis-
sion from the mobile and stationary sources was estimated from
available data with little additional effort used to further expand
or improve the inventory. Since the "Appendix J" methodology was
7-8
-------
concerned only with the total non-methane hydrocarbon emissions,
little effort was expended to obtain a species breakdown of the
emissions. Since the SIP work was aimed at percentage reductions,
this amount of detail was more than sufficient.
Mobile source modelling data are also available for the urban-
ized portions of the Baltimore region from the Baltimore Regional
Planning Council. RPC has conducted a detailed work trip-home lo-
cation survey, coupled with traffic counts over long periods of
time. Efforts to define peak period or peak hour emissions, work-
day versus weekend rates, etc., were less than successful. Average
daily workday emission values were subsequently used for RPC model-
ling purposes with factors applied for other periods. While ex-
cellent for the intended purpose, the RPC model could not adequately
handle the diurnal variations of organic emissions and will probably
best be used for carbon monoxide modelling where photochemical con-
version of the emission is not a factor.
The remaining sources of mobile emission data are those of fuel
sales/use and registered vehicles. Fuel use figures are readily
available in a statewide, all uses basis. By combining registered
vehicles data and EPA emission factors with Maryland vehicle age-
use information,, the average vehicle and its expected annual emission
rate can be determined. Cross-checking these expected Maryland
emissions with annual average national data on mileage/usage/emis-
sions usually yields figures of comparable magnitude. Based upon
7-9
-------
these estimates, it is possible to breakdown the mass emission rates
into organic class. The paucity of gas chromatographic analysis of
exhaust from a wide variety of automobiles and other mobile sources
requires that estimated quantities be used. Some published reports
which yield significant information concerning the species specific
emissions from these sources are available, primarily those of
1 2
Black and Lonneman .
Two potentially significant sources exist which do not fall
neatly into either mobile or stationary source classes. These are
natural gas transmission lines and asphalt cut-back solvents.
Natural gas contains a small amount of reactive hydrocarbons; leak-
age at joints, etc., and the "lost" footage not known to have been
used allows this component to be released directly into the atmos-
phere. The utility maintains accurate records on the estimated
volume of this gas and, when contacted for the general inventory,
provides the value used for the "evaporative natural gas" component
of the inventory. Using the average composition of natural gas, it
is possible to estimate the class breakdown of this emission.
Asphalt cut-back solvents are those volatile materials used
in paving operations to maintain the asphalt in a fluid condition
during application. The existence of this large "stationary" but
moving source was "discovered" only recently. A new project was
developed to determine the potential for control of emissions from
this non-specific major source. The results of this project were
7-10
-------
added to the inventory, providing the mass amount of solvent used.
However, neither the time breakdown or usage and composition of the
emission have been determined. This will require a considerable
effort and plans are presently being developed to handle this task.
The last group of sources of interest is stationary sources.
Such sources range from individual home heating units to massive
sheet metal coating process lines. As previously indicated, the
scope and timeliness of any inventory are directly relateable to the
manpower expended. Since small fuel burning sources, open burning
or incineration, and small process operations such as drycleaning
.contribute little on an individual unit basis, these are usually
handled on a class/group basis.
Census estimates of home heating, refuse generation and dry-
cleaning requirements are usually sufficient. The total hydrocarbon
emission estimated for each group is obtained, the organic class
breakdown was determined where possible, and results added to the
inventory as small stationary sources. Large municipal incinerators,
utility power plants, or large process boilers emit significant
amounts of organic emissions. For those of 25 tons per year or
more total organic emissions, an individually calculated value of
organic class breakdown was determined and added to the inventory.
These figures were calculated from existing registration data and
AP-42 emission factors without source contact. Literature informa-
tion on the organic class breakdown was used to determine the species
7-11
-------
information.
Once incineration and fuel burning components have been de-
termined, the only remaining stationary component lies in the process
equipment area. As mentioned small units such as drycleaners, paint
spray booths, etc., are most easily handled as classes with little
or no loss in accuracy. Sources of 25 tons per year or more, how-
ever, need individual attention due to their size and varied species
of emission.
Fuel storage or transfer sites (gasoline terminals) were in-
ventoried on the basis of on-file data.' Gallons handled, control
equipment and its efficiency, and storage container variables were
factored into the determinations made and the resulting organic
emissions added to the inventory. The source of information for
the organic class analysis was a report of gas chromatographic
sampling of a gasoline terminal. While gasoline is extremely varied
in composition, the bulk of the emission is the same for all brands
of gasoline. The use of these test data were deemed representative
of all emissions from the gasoline terminals.
The remaining large sources, those of 25 tons per year or more
hydrocarbon emission were individually contacted by questionnaires
and the results added to the inventory as each was determined.
This size range was chosen since it represented the bulk of the
registered sources of organic emissions and did not place an un-
reasonable burden on the existing resources available to complete
7-12
-------
the project.
The first step was to develop a List of the sources which
would be affected by this inventory from the existing RSS printout.
The sources which were of prime concern were processing sources,
since the compositional variation within this category could be
expected to be the greatest. This list of sources was then used
for the second step of the process, developing a special inventory
form which could be sent to the affected sources where the appro-
priate information could be supplied.
This special form solicited information regarding the operation
schedule of the source and the composition of the emissions. The
specific questions regarding operating schedule were number of
shifts per day, number of operating days per week, number of op-
erating days per year and the percent of yearly operating hours
by month.
Other information regarding operating schedules included per-
cent of weekly emissions by day of the week. This information
was requested in order to obtain as much information as possible
regarding operational characteristics of the source. The second
set of questions were about the composition of the organic emissions,
including the average hourly emissions of aldehydes, aliphatics,
aromatics and olefins for the base year 1975. An additional ques-
tion, relating to process emissions of oxides of nitrogen was added
since oxides of nitrogen are also an important part of the
7-13
-------
photochemical oxidant formation process.
These questionnaires were sent to the RSS list sources to-
gether with a cover letter requesting that the sources complete and
return the enclosed form within 60 days. The letter also informed
sources that they would be contacted by the Bureau engineer respon-
sible for their premise to aid them in completing the form. An
individual was also named in the letter and the source informed that
this person would be available at any time to answer any questions
regarding the type of information requested.
The initial response from the affected sources was usually in
the form of a telephone call requesting more details concerning the
questionnaires. It also became obvious that many sources were not
sure of the chemical composition of their emissions. It was, there-
fore, necessary to provide guidance to the sources concerning the
composition of their emissions. Since the EPA emission factors pro-
vide estimates of the mass emission rate from sources but little or
no information concerning composition, it was necessary to use
other data sources such as the laboratories or technical centers
of the affected sources, or the OSHA Material Safety Data Sheet.
These sheets provide valuable composition information concerning
the materials used in industrial plants. If neither of these
sources is available, the use of professional judgement is necessary.
The completed forms were returned to the Bureau for analysis,
checked for completeness and the total mass amount of emissions in
7-14
-------
the four categories compared to the total organic emission calcu-
lated using the EPA emission factors. This check was used to ver-
i
ify the reasonableness of the calculations made by the industrial
sources. In many cases, the sources were unable to complete the
form due to a lack of knowledge of organic chemistry. Bureau per-
sonnel were supplied with the OSHA data sheets and the operating
schedule for the sources. Using this information in conjunction
with the emission calculations made by Bureau engineers, it was
possible to develop an organic class breakdown of the emissions
from the industrial sources for the total list of sources. In
case of questions regarding the data, return calls or meetings were
held with the sources in order to correct the emissions estimates.
Following the review of the questionnaires, it was possible
to compile the special emissions inventory for the major sources.
This information was added to information already available for
the other source categories, completing the special inventory.
Application to State Implementation Plan
The main purpose of the Maryland special organic emissions
inventory was to improve the existing modelling techniques avail-
able to project future levels of photochemical oxidants and co.r-
responding control requirements. The past model used in State
Implementation Plan development for photochemical oxidants was
"Appendix J", a simplified technique which stated that oxidant was
7-15
-------
strictly a function of total non-methane hydrocarbon emissions.
Since the promulgation of this technique, many questions have been
raised concerning this approach. It now appears that "Appendix J"
methodology is not valid for projecting photochemical oxidant con-
trol requirements. A number of alternatives have been proposed to
the "Appendix J" approach, including the smog chamber diagram ap-
3 4
proach outlined by Dimitriades and Dodge . The Bureau considers
this approach to be a reasonable alternative to either the expensive
and resource intensive photochemical air quality simulation models
and/or the overly simplistic linear rollback approach, and is pre-
paring the inputs necessary to utilize this approach.
One approach in which the Bureau has invested time and re-
sources is the Hect, Seinfeld and Dodge chemical kinetic model.
This is a 37 step lumped chemical kinetic model which simulates
the production of photochemical smog. The lumping involves the
use of four organic classes of compounds rather than specific species,
including aldehydes, aliphatics, aromatics and olefins. This mech-
anism can then be used to generate a smog chamber diagram. The
usefulness of the Bureau's special organic emission inventory is
in the development of the smog chamber diagram which would simulate
the behavior of a smog chamber which had been charged with organic
compounds with the composition of the Baltimore atmosphere. To
this end, the University of Maryland, Department of Chemical En-
gineering has completed work on the computer program to solve the
7-16
-------
kinetic equations. Additional work includes two smog chamber dia-
grams developed using this mechanism. The basic data on the organic
composition i.e., class breakdown, came from an ambient monitoring
study completed in 1976 for Washington, D.C. Although the study
did not do a complete organic analysis, the data did give the Bureau
an idea of what to expect from an organic class breakdown. The
Bureau's special organic inventory will be used to develop a variety
of diagrams for Baltimore.
The second use the inventory will have is related to the special
summer study involving species specific organic compound monitoring
which is being conducted this summer in Baltimore by consultants to
the Bureau. The monitoring will be attempting to characterize the
organic composition of the Baltimore atmosphere in the C_ to C.._
range, based upon 6-9 a.m. time period. The purpose of the moni-
toring program is to give the Bureau a reliable measure of the
total organic concentration in the ambient atmosphere and the ratio
of organic material to NOx. Since species specific monitoring is
the only method presently available to deliver this type of informa-
tion, it is being utilized. The information gained from this am-
bient program can be compared to the information generated by the
special organic emissions inventory and the quality of the emissions
inventory can be evaluated/compared to the actual monitored data.
Hopefully, the data will confirm the inventory information.
This attempt at developing an organic class specific inventory
7-17
-------
is the Bureau's first attempt at generating this type of information.
Some of the problems encountered have been successfully solved,
while others have not been satisfactorily answered. The biggest,
basic problem encounterd is the lack of information regarding the
composition of emissions from major classes of sources. Estimates
have been necessary for many of the categories. Additionally, ques-
tions regarding the reliability of EPA emission factor estimator
are still open to question. However, the need for species specific
information will assume greater importance in the future as photo-
chemical oxidant modelling techniques become more sophisticated.
The effort that is being expended at the present time will be use-
ful in the future. The Bureau feels that the sooner the effort is
expended to develop this type of information, the sooner the inven-
tory will become reliable.
7-18
-------
METROPOLITAN BALTIMORE SPECIAL INVENTORY*
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS ACCORDING TO ORGANIC CLASS
(in pounds per hour 6-9 a.m.**)
Aldehydes Aliphatics Aromatics Olefins
Electrical
Utility
Heating
Industrial
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Process
Mobile Sources
Autos
All Others
Refuse Disposal
Gasoline Storage
& Handling
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
36
0
0
0
133
2,164
736
9
0
23
3,101
53
0
0
0
2,071
20,396
5,412
7
2,003
224
30,166
0
0
0
0
3,022
6,738
1,645
0
38
86
11,529
0
0
0
0
448
9,010
2,569
6
489
94
12,616
*Preliminary draft subject to verification.
**Average weekday in summer.
7-19
-------
HYDROCARBONS - TONS/YEAR
COUNTY
Electric
Utility
Industry
Process
Heating
Comfort
Heating
Residential
Commercial
Institution-
al
Mobile Sources
Autos
All Others
Refuse
Disposal
Gasoline
Storage
Handling
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
EMISSIONS
Anne
Arundel
369
6,370
11
169
3
33
16,580
8,447
1,470
235
33,687
Balti-
more Carroll Harford
776 --- 83
16,634 206 269
788 21 3
141 107 78
6
30 7 15
34,641 3,876 6,203
8,869 2,314 2,542
2,321 1,043 643
440 84 140
64,646 7,658 9,976
Balto.
Howard City
229
187 16,151
10 195
24 133
27
24
5,238 25,443
1,563 7,675
281
370 5,338
103 867
7,495 56,363
Area
III
1,457
39,817
1,028
652
36
109
91,981
31,410
281
11,185
1,869
179,825
7-20
-------
FIGURE 1
Initial Regis-
tration Program
New Construction
Building Permit
Office
Local Inspection
for Complaint,
Etc.
Bureau
Inspection
Compliance
Assurance
Program
RRS Coord-
ination
Forms Coded/
Corrected
Keypunch
Edit List
Produced
Errors Noted
6-Month
Update
Cards
Stored
Errors Cor-
rected, Re-
submitted
Master
File
New Master
File Updated
Old Master
File Stored
Reports
Produced,Sent
to Local Div-
isions
7-21
-------
REFERENCES
1. Black, F., "The Impact of Emissions Control Technology on
Passenger Car Hydrocarbon Emission Rates and Patterns",
EPA-600/3-77-0016, January, 1977, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
2. Lonneman, W. A., Kopczynski, S. L. Darleyf P. E. and
Sutterfield, F. D., "Hydrocarbon Composition of Urban
Air Pollution", Environmental Science and Technology
8, 229 (1974).
3. Dimitriades, B., "An Alternative to the Appendix-J Method
for Calculating Oxidant-and N0?-Related Control Require-
ments", EPA-600/3-77-0016, January, 1977, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711.
4. Dodge, M. C., "Combined Use of Modeling Techniques and
Smog Chamber Data to Derive Ozone-Precursor Relationships"
EPA-600/3-77-0016, January, 1977, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
5. Hect, T. A. Seinfeld, J. H. snd Dodge, M. C., "Further
Development of Generalized Kinetic Mechanism for Photo-
chemical Smog", Environmental Science and Technology.
8, 827 (1974).
7-22
-------
PANEL DISCUSSION OF INVENTORY METHODOLOGY
PROCEDURES AND APPLICATIONS
TO OXIDANT CONTROL
A panel discussion of various current
problems in emission inventory and factor
technology is condensed on the following
pages. Panel members were James Southerland,
Moderator, Patrich Bartosh, (Radian Corp.)>
Bradley Grem (U.S. Air Force), Lew Hickman,
(EPA Region II), William Piske (TRW Inc.),
Ed Carter (State of Maryland), Rich Bradley
(California Air Resources Board), David
Henderson (EPA Region IX) and Lloyd Hedgepeth
(EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards).
8-1
-------
Question:
Carter:
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
I wonder if the panel members might want
to discuss their feelings about the need
for some sort of a general emission in-
ventory handbook on the order of the rapid
survey technique but more current? I have
found in trying to discuss with people
in our region, how to go about doing an
emission inventory. I haven't really
been able to give them a document that
is fairly simple and up-to-date.
My experience has been that there is really
no cut and dry method for doing an emission
inventory. The rapid survey technique
pretty well says it. It is mostly a mat-
ter of finding out who to contact. Once
you find out who the guy is who just hap-
pens to know what all the information you
are looking for is, it is a matter of writ-
ing it down. It may take you several weeks
to finally get a hold of him but its just
a matter of dog work getting hold of the
right location.
8-2
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Moderator: I would say also from my point of view,
that as Pat Bartosh mentioned this morning
in the document that we have in preparation
for organics; when we sent this out for
review comments with the regions and so
forth, one of the comments that we kept
getting over and over was the document
is asking for guidance in itself. In
otherwords, the comment was it is begging
for a decision for what you do in various
situations. They way we addressed the
situation was that we did not feel we
could identify what you should do under
unique situations in all cases and we
tried to develop a decision tree route.
We try to point out that these are the
routes you can take in various areas and
under various situations. We try to
point out the kinds of things you need
to consider in order to develop your own
plan and your own set of alternatives for
8-3
-------
Moderator:(Con't)
Question:
Hedgepeth:
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
the emission inventory. I think this is
the same kind of comment that Ed Carter
had here. In many cases people are asking
"what do we do exactly". There are cases
where we can't be aware of all the circum-
stances that would be required to be con-
sidered. What we would say in one set of
circumstances may not apply in another.
So it has to be pretty much individually
worked out to meet the unique local situa-
tion.
What are the prospects for modification
of EIS to handle reactive hydrocarbons?
From EIS point of view, as far as the num-
ber of pollutants, the way this system is
designed it will handle right now up to
16 different pollutants. If you want to
include various hydrocarbons, fine. You
just give them an ID and include them.
It is not limited to the five criteria
pollutants. We designed it so it would
handle as delivered up to 16. If you want
8-4
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Hedgepeth;(Con't)
Comment:
to handle more than 16 pollutants, look
at the documentation that goes with the
system. We tell you exactly how to ex-
pand that or extend it beyond 16 pollu-
tants if you like. So the inventory or
the EIS emissions inventory permit and
registration system is really not oriented
toward just SO^ or particulates. It's
really oriented toward any emissions data
for any pollutant that you would like.
We have not gotten acceptable output for
our use from the system in our state.
Let's get specific. Take a bulk terminal.
Now you've got a whole series of different
types of emissions and you've got float-
ing roof factors. You've got fixed roof
factors. You've got through put for var-
ious products, etc. The basic data hasn't
been punched to give you the full spread.
In some cases, the data cards the state
has show nothing, but name. You don't
have anything on the loading factors.
I'm not trying to critize the system. I'm
8-5
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Comment: (Con't)
Hedgepeth:
just suggesting that its a tremendous
job trying to get the data all spread
out and get the sheets all laid out, etc.
for pure hydrocarbon sources and that they
simply have not gotten around to this.
It's been used principally as a particulate
and SOL system which is pretty good for
handling fuel products. What you have
primarily is fuel burning. When you get
into a whole raft of different emissions
factors and running different sheets for
each emission point in a purely hydro-
carbon type source, it's pretty complex.
Our system hasn't been straightened out
enough to make it useful. Therefore, we
are in a panic situation right now. Also
this looks to be the only thing we are
going to be able to use for the next year
or so.
What you are saying, then is that the
basic problem is your inventory itself.
It is not up-to-date. It needs to be
8-6
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Hedgepeth; (Con't)
Comment:
Hedgepeth;
Comment:
Hedgepeth:
Question:
expanded beyond what it is to incorporate
hydrocarbons or get more specific on the
particular given installation.
The point source data sheets have all got
to be redone from a hydrocarbons point of
view. This is my point.
You are really saying though that your
emissions inventory file that you have
needs to be upgraded from the view point
of hydrocarbons.
Right.
And as far as the emissions inventory
system itself goes, it can handle it.
The large problems in any data handling
system are actually building the initial
file, and in keeping that file up-to-date.
That is where a lot of manpower and hard
work comes; building that file initially
and keeping it up-to-date.
We have heard a lot of discussions on
different types of emissions inventories,
area sources and point sources, I would
like to know what this panel would think
about further defining what a point source
8-7
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Question: (Con't) would be in terms of "type" of source
and what an area source would be in terms
of "type" of source instead of an emissions
cutoff say at 25 tons? How should we go
in the future? We may go below 25 tons -
we may go down to 10 tons. How you define
what a point is or what a facility is may
predetermine how you are going to categorize
that source, how you are going to update
that inventory and how you are going to
classify it. Any comments?
Bradley: We have been trying to maintain a little
flexibility in California on that. Maybe
part of the answer depends on how much
resources you have to put into a parti-
cular source category. Some areas in
California have inventoried each gas
station as a point source. We've not
prevented that from happening. In other
areas they are inventoried as area source.
8-8
-------
Bradley: (Con't)
Moderator:
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Part of the distinction between the two
areas is that one area was a non attain-
ment area. There is a much greater need
for the information and for doing some
photochemical modeling. The other areas
are very rural and don't have the same air
pollution problems. To come out with a
hard and fast rule, I think, always poses
a problem. I'm not sure I have a better
definition for you. I think the experience
of the staffs working at trying to assess
the emissions for the source category pro-
vide the best basis to make the decision
on what is appropriate way to handle
it. That, is in a way, passing the buck.
Basically, in kind of an academic sense,
you could eliminate area sources entirely
if you looked at each individual source
of air pollution individually. Then these
would become point sources by the academic
definition. It all becomes a matter of
what you are going to do and how much is
8-9
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Moderator: (Con't)
Comment:
it going to cost and how much you have to
do the job with. The resource restraint
is generally a big item and the reporting
requirements for instance may be what de-
termines the practical or used definition
of a point source. It varies from one
situation to another. In one local area
you may have ten-one-thousand ton emiters
and practically no small emiters. In
another case you may have 90% of your
emissions from area sources and have no
large sources. It takes an analysis of
your own situation to see what it is that
it takes to define where does it all come
from?"
I'd like to amplify that if I may. I agree
with what you have said and I think it
goes a little bit further than just trying
to think of writing a standard rule saying
all gas stations will be area or point, or
that all dry cleaning plants will be area
sources. It really depends on such things
8-10
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Comment: (Con't) as you may wish to address about. For
example number one is how fast do the
sources change ownership? How fast
do they come in and out of your files?
I mentioned earlier this afternoon, we
found that gas stations are coming in and
out at a furious rate. If they are in a
point source file , we are unlikely to
keep the point source file up-to-date.
That's the argument of not putting
them into the point source file. The
way you get the true information may
dictate that it be dealt with as an area
source rather than a point source. My
answer to the question would be that you
examine each source locally because there
are great differences around the country
and examine which is the most practical,
simple, economical more efficient way to
do it - make a decision rather than using
some arbitury method. I think generally
speaking the one ton, ten ton, twenty five
8-11
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Comment: (Con't)
Question:
Henderson:
Question:
Henderson:
ton or hundred ton whatever cut off may
have been developed for one purpose but
may be applied across the board just be-
cause that is what everybody else does.
What I am trying to say is that there may
or may not be reason in an individual case
for the using the same specific cutoff.
I have a question for Dave. I think
Dave you indicated - correct me if I'm
wrong - that you use 85% evaporation for
waste lubricating oil.
Yes, for weed oil applied on agricultural
fields.
I wonder if that is a valid assumption.
What's your basis for that if I may ask?
We have done some limited testing. We
feel that if you take a sample to the
laboratory for a research time period,
come back and determine how much it
evaporates, then you can assume that a
similar situation exists in the field.
The condition that was given to me by the
8-12
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Henderson: (Con't)
Comment:
Henderson:
Question:
Moderator:
person at the air pollution control district
was that it has to go somewhere.
Well the soil bacteria will eat these oils
up. That's one means of disposal of solid
waste.
That may be true but we can't quantify
it right now.
Are there some additional questions?
One problem I see we run into all the time
is confidentialty. Companies like to keep
some information confidential. It's dif-
ficult for the public to ascertain what
you have done and it is difficult for
another person to reconstruct years later
and with confidential data. I would like
to know what the panel has found out about
this in their activities and their studies
and if anything what they are doing about
it?
Maybe I could get a comment from state and
from regional representative on this.
8-13
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Comment: Our Attorney General indicated that emis-
sions data is not confidential so we can
use at any stage we want. Process in-
formation which may lead to disclosing
trade secrets etc., has to be kept con-
fidential. We have only run into two cases
where there was any real difficulity and
one of them went to court and they found
that they did have to give us the informa-
tion. I agree that if you try to redo a
study three years later and the informa-
tion the fellow used is not available,
you have to use your own information and
you can get a wide variation from the
same companies. It's something you just
try to work around as much as you can.
It doesn't help much; we all run into
the same problem.
Comment: I know that Texas Air Control Board had
some problems in this area when they first
sent out their questionaires a few years
back. One thing they had on the questionaire
8-14
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Comment; (Con't)
Bradley;
was it said "mark this box if you want to
keep your data confidential". Well every-
body marked the box. So the next time they
did it they said if you want to keep your
data confidential send us a letter or some
information telling why and there was a
tremendous difference. Then they had the
board to review these letters to determine
whether or not they could really keep this
information confidential or if it was a
trade secret type agreement. Even with
the tremendous number of sources you have
in the sate of Texas they have fairly well
eliminated that problem to the best of
my knowledge by making people actually
come forth and prove that they need to
keep it secret. So this is the only way
I know you can get around this problem other
than where someone has made a legal ruling
on it.
California emission data are not con-
fidential but process rate data may be con-
fidential . At the present time there is
a procedure set up where a company can
8-15
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
claim it is confidential information and
put a supporting letter in the files either
at the district level or the state level.
Generally we have had cooperation from
the companies in providing the process in-
formation. Recently EPA has proposed to
change the classification to confidentiality
as I understand and process rate would be-
come non-confidential and considered
emission data under the proposal that was
in the Federal Registar around June or
July of this year. And as I understand
the field that was being considered as
confidential is percent space heat which
didn't make any sense when we read it.
I'd be interested in some comments from
EPA if anybody knows something about the
basis behind that proposal or whether or
not that proposal is actually likely to
be implemented.
Moderator: Here is Chuck Mann, I think he can com-
ment on this.
8-16
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Mann: I am with the National Data Branch of EPA
at Research Triangle Park here. The notice
that I believe you were referring to was
the July 1, 1977 Federal Register which
was issued by the Office of General Council
in Washington, D. C. and what they proposed
to do was to say that all items in NEDS
were emissions data. They wanted to make
a blanket determination as to whether or
not all the items NEDS point source form
were confidential or were not confidential.
What they did was, by a process of deduc-
tion, go through and list all of the items
in NEDS and say that these were all
basically emissions data. They did de-
fine the annual process rate as part of
the emissions data on the grounds that the
information is needed in order to calculate
annual emission estimates. I realize that
there are various state laws that conflict
with that general provision. Some sort
of resolution will have to be made with
regard to that point. Basically, there
are only three items in the NEDS file
8-17
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Mann: (Con't) that General Council was asking for comments
on as to whether or not they could be
confidential. These are items they say are
not emissions data or not generally available
from other references or administrative
codes. Those three items are the boiler
capacities, the maximum design rate for
processes and the percent space heat.
I would agree that for percent space heat,
it is hard to believe how that could be
confidential, but the reason that it is
considered in that group is that that
information is simply not available ap-
parently from any other source. So the
current status of this is that, they allowed
to August 15th for comments on this issue
and I am not aware as to exactly what com-
ments were received and what the eventual
resolution will be but that should be
forthcoming.
Moderator: The first time I was ever involved
8-18
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Moderator:(Con't)
Question:
with emission inventory activity several
years ago the standard somewhat numerous
line was that when you went to a source
and they wouldn't give you any data you
would say "well I'll have to estimate your
emissions and I estimate high". But maybe
with the current developments in trade
off and that kind of thing, sources would
welcome this sort of thing. This issue
of confidentiality has always been a kind
of a nemesis It's always been one of those
sticky situations. In addition to the
Federal REgistar notice of July, there
was one of last October which had many,
many pages which went into EPA's full
philosophy and procedure detail on what
is confidential and what has to be done
with the data, etc., but many of these
things do apply just to data that comes
directly from the source to EPA.
A related question to confidentiality is
public assess to information. As the
systems become more computerized, it
8-19
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Question:(Con't)
Moderator:
would obviously be easier to provide in-
formation to anybody. Anyone can find out
how his competitors are doing. Does the
Federal Government or does anyone have
any ideas how you limit the providing of
such information? We do it in our State
as just a matter of policy to provide
information to only those who need it
with regards ,to emissions, with regards
to environmental impact statements, with
regards to special studies involving
environment etc., and not so much for
information on activities of competitors
and things like that.
Well according to the Freedom of Information
Act and I'm not a lawyer so I'm not speak-
ing in a legal sense, if data is not con-
fidential anybody can ask for anything
whether they need it or not. So the
confidentiality again, has to be a basis
for that and if the person requesting
the information feels that the data has
8-20
-------
Moderator:(Con't)
Comment:
Moderator:
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
been denied him he can bring a suit
to get that information. I guess, you
know, there has been a lot of cases in
other agencies where these kinds of
data have been filed for and eventually
gotten. I am not aware of any with EPA.
We have the tendenancy to use the
policy that a regularly published report
is available free of charge. If that
is not sufficient we have files of data
forms that you can look at. This
usually satisfies most people.
Under the Freedom of Information Act
Federal agencies are to charge for
the cost of filing requests. Accord-
ing to the Freedom of Information Act
this can not be used as a way around
filling such requests, but it generally
is a deterient to anybody asking for a
lot of information you know that they woud
just like to have for some super ficial
reason. It kind of narrows the informa-
tion requests down to the people who feel
8-21
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Moderator: (con't)
Henderson:
that they have good use for the data which
I guess is sort of the basis for the
Freedom of Information Act.
From my point of view, one of the major
short comings of the emissions inventory
in our region is the lack of hydrocarbon
specie data. We've got lots of information
on total hydrocarbons. Here today Mr.
Carter said that he needs that data and
uses that data and the gentlemen from the
Air Force says he needs that data and uses
that data. When you start checking into
it however, you find that you can't get
even a good estimate of the exhaust gas
analysis from automobiles. It is changing
every year. What is the percent methane
in automobile exhaust gas from year to
year due to additional catalyst converter
equipped cars being on the highway? When
you look for composition of gasoline from
floating storage tanks, you find it just
8-22
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Henderson: (con't)
Comment:
doesn't exist. The major oil companies
don't have it because they have never
needed it. They never had a need for it,
so they just never generated it. Diffusion
models have anywhere from 15 to 37 chemical
reactions and you have to know the com-
position of the emissions and the chemical
reaction rate to put them in your diffusion
model to correlate emissions to ambient
air quality. If you are not doing diffusion
models, I don't see a need for it. But,
there is a need for this application and
thus far the data.
Our requirement is for greater resolution
than methane is non methane or reactive
use non-reactive. We would want to know
your number of C3 hydrocarbons, number
of aeromatics, number of C4, C5, C6 etc.
for the modelers to put into their diffu-
sion model.
8-23
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Moderator: I would like to comment on the comments. I
think that we are in agreement that there is
a lot of information that is needed. We
are pretty ignorant when it comes right down
to it on many of these areas. The one thing
I would like to just point out from the
standpoint of AP-42, is that it is a"
compilation of data that is available or
developed primarily by someone else for
various purposes. In a lot of aspects our
group ends up being one which collects these
concerns or these needs for information and
makes a case for them and goes to somebody
else and say we need the information or
research. It is very time consuming in
terms of getting information out to the
people who are actually using it on a day to
day basis. For example, the data that the
EPA automotive groups in Ann Arbor develops
on in use vehicles necessarily has to be on
vehicles that have been made and are in
operation. The Office of Mobile Sources
Pollution Control is very sensitive to our
8-24
-------
Moderator: (con't)
Question:
Moderator:
needs and as I understand it, they are
developing some plan to expand the nonmethane
data base from the automobiles. The data
itself is reduced in Ann Arbor and then goes
to the Office of Transportation Land Use
Policy in Washington who is responsible for
the preparation of the motor vehicle or
highway vehicle emission factor documentation
and guidance. It is then shipped down to
OAQPS for our review and incorporation in
the AP-42. I am only mentioning this to
say how sometimes these things are not as
timely as one might imagine to be possible.
It's generally a communication situation
in a lot of cases as to what is available
and what isn't available.
Didn't they have to determine reactivity
for the RAPS study? So in terms of St.
Louis weren't emission factors broken down
by class or reactivity?
Yes, as a matter of fact. The responsibility
was in our office. There is some information
that you would say is new data. The RAPS
emission inventory is basically an hourly
8-25
-------
Moderator: (con't)
Question:
Moderator:
emission inventory with species and temporal
distribution, etc. Initially in the RAPS,
however, the primary concerns were for SCL
and particulate. So the major part of the
resources were devoted to 302 anc' Particu~
late. There were some source tests done
for hydrocarbon sources and some species
data. A lot of the species data was either
taken from the Trijonas work in Los Angeles
and some other similar references.
Do you feel that the factors you use in the
AP-42 are good enough to use for litigation?
I get the feeling they are not all that good
for this purpose.
I think you are probably true in a lot of
cases. A lot of factors are really good
and some are not so good. They do need
work done on them but they are generally
the best available as far as we can determine.
We are trying to make the effort to get
anything that's better in the document.
The litigation question is one I can't
really respond to. I think what you are
asking is really a legal question which I
am not qualified to answer.
8-26
-------
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM HOUSEHOLDS IN
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY
Presented at the 1977
Environmental Protection Agency
Emissions Inventory/Fa.ctor Workshop
Raleigh, North Carolina - September 13-15, 1977
By
Edward Z. Finfer, P. E.
Senior Plan Advisor
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
Impact Assessment Section, Air Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
9-1
-------
Abstract:
An attempt was made to quantify the various gaseous hydro-
carbon emissions from household sources in the States of New York
and New Jersey. The summaries show that household hydrocarbon
emissions may be as high as those from industrial sources. These
hydrocarbon emissions may also have toxic effects, affecting per-
sons in the household as well as those outdoors.
Many sources have been covered. These are: aerosol propel-
lants (fluorocarbons), fluorocarbon refrigerants, organic com-
pounds and trade name solvents, household (trade) paints and thin-
ners, household and restaurant cooking, domestic fuel combustion,
and cigarette smoking.
The hydrocarbon emissions from household products are, for
the most part, directly related to the amounts of products used.
Product use data for New York and New Jersey was derived from
retail sales data.
Emissions are on a tons per year (TPY) basis and are outlined
as follows: Fluorocarbon aerosol emissions are about 20,000 TPY
for New York, and about 8,000 TPY for New Jersey. Trade name
solvents emissions are about 32, 000 TPY for New York and about
13,000 TPY for New Jersey. Total estimated emissions are
120, 000 TPY for New York and 50, 000 TPY for New Jersey.
Other organic compounds emitted in relative large quantities
are propane, iso-butane, methylene chloride, ethanol, acetone,
9-2
-------
1, 1, I - trichloroethane, isopropyl alcohol and paradichlorobenzene.
Introduction:
The purpose of this study by the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is to estimate the amounts of gaseous hydrocarbons
released from household sources in New York and New Jersey.
These area sources might be compa.red with industrial and mobile
sources as to tonnages and toxicity. This study was done in con-
junction with another hydrocarbon emissions study.
I define household sources as items used or consumed in the
household. Hydrocarbon emissions from fuel combustion and res-
taurant sources have also been included, however.
Hydroca.rbon emissions are from evaporative, propellant gas,
and thermal decomposition sources. These emissions might have
toxic effects as well as possibly being reactive with atmospheric
ozone. Thermal decomposition sources are those involving heating
or combustion, while evaporative sources are those where there is
vaporization of a hydrocarbon, i. e. , paint thinner. Propellant
gases a.re from aerosol items.
Relatively high are emissions from a.erosol items. These in-
clude shave creams, hair sprays, insecticides, etc. Emissions
from the many "regular" packaged products; lotions, medicinals
adhesives, floor polishes, etc., are in this same category. Evap-
oratives from household (trade) paints and thinners, and fluoro-
9-3
-------
carbons from refrigerator units as well as hydrocarbons from fuel
combustion and household cooking are also emitted in large tonnages.
What follows are the derived factors for estimating the hydro-
carbon emissions. Data for household product hydrocarbons was
obtained for the U. S. A. en toto, for 1976, or for a recent year. The
amounts of household hydrocarbons used in New York and New
Jersey were estimated from the State's percent retail sales in vari-
ous sales categories, the State's percent population, and other data.
Emissions data was derived from the product use data and is on a
tons per year (TPY) basis.
Percentages of National Emissions from Evaporative and Propel-
lant Sources
For aerosol propellants, trade name hydrocarbon solvents, and
specific organic compounds, except for the organics in trade paints
and thinners, the following percentages of national emissions are
ascribed to New York and New Jersey:
New York - 7. 6%
New Jersey - 3. 0%
The above percentages are based on the States' 1972 percent of
nationwide sales for drug stores, proprietary stores, and hard-
ware stores. It was assumed that a significant percent of these
items are sold at these sales outlets, Except for fluorocarbons
which are difficult to incinerate, emissions for New York State
were reduced by 2% due to incineration of discarded containers.
9-4
-------
Hydrocarbons remaining in unincinerated containers are assumed,
in time, to be released to the ambient. Annual emissions, vary
somewhat due to changes in item consumption and later date release
of unused material.
For fluorocarbon emissions from refrigerator units, the follow-
ing percentages of nationwide emissions are derived:
New York - 9. 8%
New Jersey - 4. 6%
The percentages are based on the States' 1972 percent of nation-
O
wide sales for household appliance stores.
The above percentages should not change significantly from 1972
to 1976.
For trade paints and thinners the following percentages of
national emissions were calculated:
New York - 6.4%
New Jersey - 2. 6%
These percentages are based on population and the percent of
national trade paint sales for New York, New Jersey and Pennsyl-
vania (13. 2%), New York State emissions were reduced by 2% due to
incineration of discards.
Emissions Derivation, Thermal Decomposition Sources
Emissions from restaurant and household cooking are based on
emissions per unit source and the number of restaurants and house-
4
holds in New York and New Jersey.
9-5
-------
Emissions data were obtained from the South Coast Air Qual-
ity Management District (Cal.), and the Kansas City (Mo.) Air Pol-
lution Control Office. Emissions from cigarette smoking are in this
category and are in relatively small tonnages. They may be signifi-
cant with regard to indoor inhalation of toxic substances.
Hydrocarbon emissions from domestic fuels combustion are in-
cluded because of the large amounts of fuels used and poor combus-
tion efficiencies. Definitive hydrocarbon compounds, both saturat-
ed and unsaturated, are not specified but are believed to be mainly
in the C?-C/ range. Emissions data are based on the EPA reports;
"Field Emissions from Combustion Equipment for Space Heating",
and "Particulate Emissions from Apartment House Boilers and In-
cinerators". The amounts of fuels used are based on the Mineral
Industries Surveys, U.S. Department of Interior, 1975 and the per-
cent of these fuels used for domestic sources is based on a survey
made by the City of New York. Anthracite coal combustion is based
on U. S. and New York State consumption data. All kerosine used
for fuel in New York and New Jersey is assumed to be for domestic
use.
National Production, Consumption and Emissions
Emissions for New York and New Jersey in Table I are in tons
per year (TPY), along with latest year the data was available.
The sources are calssified as follows:
9-6
-------
1 - Aerosol Propellants; Hydrocarbon, Fluorocarbon and Methy-
lene Chloride, and Fluorocarbon Refrigerants.
2 - Orga.nic Compounds.
3 - Trade Name Hydrocarbon Solvents?
4 - Trade Paint and Thinner Volatiles.
5 - Cooking, Restaurant and Household; and Cigarette Smoking.
6 - Fuel Combustion.
(1) Aerosols:
(a) Hydrocarbon Propellants:
•7
Applicable hydrocarbon production of propellants for 1976
was 40 x 10 gal. Three hydrocarbons are used, and in the fol-
lowing percentages:
Propane 30%
Isobutane 63%
n-Butane 7%
Usage and emissions are increasing at about 19% per year.
(b) Fluorocarbons:
Nationwide fluorocarbon° production in 1976 was 910 x 10
lbs./yr. Fifty-eight percent (5R%) was for aerosol use and
forty-two percent (42%) was for refrigerant use.
Aerosol production is as follows:
Fluorocarbon 11 - 244 x 10° lbs./yr., Emissions are 100% of
production.
* i. e. , Mineral Spirits.
9-7
-------
Fluorocarbon 12 - 265 x 106 Ibs./yr. , Emissions are 100% of
production.
Fluorocarbon 114 - 21 x 10" Ibs./yr. , Emissions are 100% of
production.
Q
Refrigerant production is as follows:
Fluorocarbon 11 - 15 x 10 Ibs. /yr. , Emissions are 45% of pro-
duction.
Fluorocarbon 12 - 226 x 10 Ibs. /yr. , Emissions are 51% of
production.
Fluorocarbon 22 - 137 x 10 Ibs. /yr. , Emissions are 51% of
production.
Fluorocarbon 114 - 2 x 10 Ibs. /yr. , Emissions are 51% of pro-
duction.
Refrigerant fluorocarbon emissions are based on 1976 produc-
tion and 1972 production and emissions.
The trend in fluorocarbon aerosol emissions is an estimated de-
crease of 1. 8% per year, and the trend in fluorocarbon refrigerant
emissions is an estimated increase of 11. 3% per year.
(c) Methylene Chloride;
The use of methylene chloride as an aerosol propellant was
estimated to be 62 x 106 Ibs. /yr. (1976). Data from the Dow
Chemical Co. was averaged with Faith, Keyes and Clark
data.
(2) Organic Compounds
Noted below are the organic compounds used in large quantities
in pharmaceuticals, toiletries, insecticides, floor cleaners, etc.
9-8
-------
National production data for these compounds, and the percentage
used for household items are based on Faith, Keyes and darks',
Industrial Chemicals. Emissions are listed in Table I. Except for
the two percent incineration "loss" for New York State, emissions
are assumed to be equal to the amounts used.
(a) Naphthalene:
Production in 1973 was 250 x 10 Ibs. /yr. Emissions are
based on the 2% of production used for mothproofing.
(b) Paradichlorobenzene:
Production in 1973 was 75 x 10 Ibs. /yr. Emissions are
based on the 50% of production used as a space odorant and
the 40% of production used for moth control.
(c) Isopropanol
Production in 1974 was 1.9 x 10 " Ibs. /yr. Emissions are
based on the 5% of production used in drugs, cosmetics,
toiletries, etc.
(d) Acetone:
Q
Production in 1973 was 2 x 10 Ibs. /yr. Emissions are
based on the 6% used in pharmaceuticals. Acetone is used
in household products including trade paints.
(e) 1, 1, 1 - Trichlorethane
Production in 1974 was 590 x 10 Ibs. /yr. Emissions are
based on the 15% used as an aerosol propellant, adhesive
9-9
-------
solvent, dry cleaner, etc.
(f) Ethanol:
Production in 1974 was 1. 74 x 10 Ibs. /yr. Emissions are
based on the 20% of production used in cosmetics and toilet-
ries.
(3) Trade Name Hydrocarbon Solvents:
Many trade name hydrocarbon solvents are used in household
cleaner type items; i. e. floor polishes, furniture polishes and rug
and upholstry cleaners. These solvents are known as naphthas,
Stoddard Solvent, petroleum distillates, etc. They are mixtures of
alkanes, olefins, naphthenes and aromatics. Trade paints and thin-
ners also contain these solvents.
The Shell Chemical Co}2 has developed overall numbers of 1975
consumption of these solvents; 40 x 10 gal. /yr. Consumption is
increasing at about 4% per year.
The total amount of trade name solvents used would include
trade name solvents used in trade paints and thinners. These are
discussed below.
(4) Trade Paint and Thinner Volatiles:
National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA) data for hydro-
carbon solvents used nationwide in 1975 in household and traffic
paints* was 609 x 10° Ibs. /yr. Percent solvent composition was
^Traffic paint is about 6% of the total.
9-10
-------
also supplied by the NPCA, and emissions of most of these solvents
are listed in Table I.
Referring to Table I, please note that acetone, isopropyl alco-
hol and ethyl alcohol used in trade paints are added to the amounts
listed under "Organic Compounds". Trade name solvents are also
summed.
(a) Thinner Volatiles:
From data supplied by the NPCA it was estimated that 370 x
10 Ibs. of solvent thinners were used in the U. S. A. in 1975.
Most of the thinners are a mineral spirits type solvents, and
emissions are based on 80% of the above being mineral spirits.
(5) Cooking, Restaurant and Household; and Cigarette Smoking:
It was estimated that 0. 0033 Ibs. of hydrocarbons are emitted
per hour of cooking. About 40% of these emissions are aldehydes.
Cooking means boiling, frying, baking, etc. The 0.0033 Ibs. /hr.
emission factor is a geometric mean of two values.
It is assumed that cooking is done in households for one com-
posite hour per day, 300 days/yea.r, and restaurants operate an
average of five hours/day, 300 days/year.
The number of restaurants in New York a.nd New Jersey in 1973
was obtained from data in the Statistical Abstract of the U. S. A.
(1975):
Restaurants, New York - 24,400
Restaurants, New Jersey - 8, 570
9-11
-------
The number of households in 1973 was also denoted in the Statis-
tical Abstract of the U. S. A. (1975):
New York - 6, 198,000
New Jersey - 2,375,000
The numbers of restaurants and households are assumed to be
nearly the same for 1976 and emissions are calculated on that basis.
Gaseous hydrocarbon emissions from cigarette smoking are
listed in Table I. Particulate hydrocarbons are also released dur-
ing smoking. These have not been tabulated since these are solids
and they would tend to settle or adhere to indoor surfaces. Such
particulates are "tar", nicotine, cresols, phenol, pyridine and hy-
droquinone. The gaseous hydrocarbons released in significant
amounts are acetaldehyde, acetone, and hydrogen cyanide. The
acetone from cigarettes is totaled with the acetone under "Organic
Compounds".
(6) Fuel Combustion:
Gaseous hydrocarbon emissions from domestic fuels combus-
tion are also listed in Table I. Listings are made for each of the
major fuels used; natural gas, distillate and residual oils, anthra-
cite coal and kerosene.
For fuel oil and kerosene the hydrocarbon emission factor was
set at 5 Ibs. /I, 000 gal. , which is close to the boiler "as is" factor
of 5. 7 Ibs. /I, 000 gal. given in aforementioned EPA report,
R2-73-084a. In addition, from calculations based on the aforemen-
9-12
-------
tioned report on particulate emissions from apartment house burn-
ers" a higher emission factor is indicated that the 1 Ib. /I, 000 gal.
factor denoted in the EPA report, AP-42:
For natural gas and anthracite coal the emission factors were
from EPA report AP-42.
Conclusions:
The 120, 000 ton per year (TPY) hydrocarbon emission for New
York and the 50,000 TPY hydrocarbon emission for New Jersey
appear to be a. significant fraction of total hydrocarbon emissions.
For example, hydrocarbon emissions from industrial sources in
New York City and Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester and Rockland
Counties, for 1975 were calculated to be 89,000 TPY*5
The emissions data in this report may be of use in a toxic sub-
stances study.
9-13
-------
TABLE I
EMISSIONS HOUSEHOLD SOURCES
TONS PER YEAR (TPY) I
Aerosol Propellants and Fluoro-
carbon Refrigerants
Hydrocarbon Propellants
Propane
n-Butane
iso-Butane
Total
New
Jersey
880
210
1,890
2,980
New
York
Year
2, 190 1976
520 1976
4, 690 1976
7,400
Fluorocarbons
Fluorocarbon 11
Aerosol
Refrigerant
Total
3,660 9,270 1976
160 330 1976
3,820 9,600
Fluorocarbon 12
Aerosol
Refrigerant
Total
3,980 10,100 1976
2,650 5,650 1976
6,630 15.750
Fluorocarbon 22
Refrigerant (Total)
1, 610
3,420 1976
1-One, two and three significant figures.
9-14
-------
TABLE I (continued)
Fluoroicarbons (continued)
Fluorocarbon 114
Aerosol
Refrigerant
Total
New
Jersey
320
12
332
New
York
800
20
820
Year
1976
1976
Total Fluorocarbons
Methylene Chloride (Aerosol)
12,400 29,600
930
2, 310
1976
Organic Compounds
Napthalene
Paradichlorobenzene
Isopropyl Alcohol
Acetone
I, I, 1-Trichloroethane'
Ethanol
75
1, 010
1.480
1, 880
1, 330
5, 280
190
2, 510
3, 660
4, 670
3, 300
13, 100
1973
1973
1974
1973
1974
1974
Trade Name Hydrocarbon Solvents"
4,500 11,200 1976
Components, Trade Paint Volatiles
Aliphatic hydro carbons
Xylene
Toluene
Acetone
Methyl- Ethyl-Ketone
Ethyl Acetate
4, 760
590
285
80
160
190
11, 800 1975
1,430 1975
690 1975
190 1975
380 1975
460 1975
2-Also used as an aerosol propellant.
3-Excluding trade paint aliphatic hydrocarbon and trade paint thin-
ners.
4-Essentia.lly trade name solvents.
9-15
-------
TABLE I (continued)
Components, Trade Paint Volatiles
(continued)
Butyl Acetate
Ethylene Glycol
Propylene Glycol
n- Butyl Alcohol
Ethyl Alcohol5
' r
Isopropyl Alcohol
Methyl Iso- Butyl Ketone
Propyl Acetate
New
Jersey
140
430
285
55
55
50
15
65
New
York
345
1,030
690
130
130
115
40
150
Year
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
Total Trade Paint Volatiles
Trade Paint Thinners (Min. Spirits)
Total Trade Name Solvents
Restaurant Cooking
Aldehydes
Total
Household Cooking
Aldehydes
Total
7,910 19,100
3,850 9,290
13,100 32,300
19
24
60
710 1, 800
1,200 3,100
1975
1976est
1976est
I976est
I976est
5-These amounts are added to "Organic Compounds".
6-Includes unlisted organics.
9-16
-------
TABLE I (Continued)
New
Cigarette Smoking Jersey York Year
Acetaldehyde 6 15 1972
Acetone5 3 7 1972
Hydrogen Cyanide 5 12 1972
Total 23 56
Fuel Combustion
Natural Gas 540 1, 360 1975
Distillate Oils (Nos. 1, 2 and 4) 3,770 7,980 1975
Residual Oils (Nos. 5 and 6) 840 3, 970 1975
Anthracite Coal 250 370 1975
Kerosine 125 525 1975
Total 5,530 19,200
Grand Total 50,219 123,304
9-17
-------
Bibliography
1. Heckman, L,, A Comprehensive Stationary Source Hydrocarbons
Emission Inventory for the States of New York and New Jersey,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, 1977.
2. 197Z Census of Retail Trade, U. S. Department of Commerce,
Social and Economic Statistics Administration, Bureau of Cen-
sus; U.S.A. RC72-A-52, 7/75; New York, RC72-A-33, 12/74,
and New Jersey RC72-A-31, 12/74.
3. EPA Report 600/4-76-013, Methodology for Inventorying Hydro-
carbons, Table 14, p. 52.
4. Statistical Abstract of the U. S. A. , 1975, U. S. Department of
Commerce.
5. Barrett, R. E. , et al. , Field Investigation of Emissions of Com-
bustion Equipment for Space Heating, Battelle Columbus Labora-
tories, EPA Report R2-73-084a.
6. Soffian, G., Westlin, R, Particulate Emissions form Apartment
House Boilers and Incinerators, 1974, EPA 902/74-256.
7. Brock, G. , Aeropres Corp. , Shreveport, La. , Personal com-
munication, and article, Brock, G. , "Hydrocarbons Gain in
Market Share, " Aerosol Age, 7/76, p. 22.
8. "Fluorocarbon Consumption by Application, " Aerosol Age,
10/76, p. 27.
9. EPA Report 560/2-75-003, 9/75, Environmental Hazard Asses-
9-18
-------
ment of One and Two Carbon Fluorocarbons, Table XII, p. 20.
10. Ditto, Table XV, p. 26, and Table XVIII, p. 42.
11. Lowenheim, F. A. , Moran, M. K. , Fourth Edition of Faith,
Keyes, and Clark's Industrial Chemicals, Wiley, 1975.
12. Shell Chemical Co. , Houston, Texas.
13. The Health Consequences of Smoking, A Reference Edition,
Selected Chapters from 1971 through 1975 Reports; Department
of Health, Education and Welfare, PHS, Center for Disease
Control, Altanta, Ga. , 30333.
14. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, EPA, AP-42,
Sec. 1. 3-1, April, 1976.
15. New York City Metropolitan Area Air Quality Implementation
Plan, New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion, Revised May, 1972.
9-19
-------
Question:
Finfer:
Question:
Finfer:
Question:
Finfer:
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Could you clarify your numbers a little bit?
Were you talking about all of New York State
or all of New Jersey or are you just talking
about New York and New Jersey AQCR?
This was all of New York State and New
Jersey. The numbers I gave. The 130,000
and 50,000.
Do you have any comparison since you did the
entire state in this area. Do you have a
percentage comparison of how these emissions
would compare with all of New York State
industrial hydrocarbon as a percentage?
Not as yet. We are developing an industrial
inventory. Then I will be able to compare it.
You mentioned that the AP-42 emission factor
for the oil burners was one fifth of what
you used. What was the basis for the
difference do you feel?
Well, I think it was because of maintenance.
I don't know whether AP-42 values were devel-
oped with full cognizance of the poor maint-
enance that exists in a lot of New York
domestic fuel combustion. A lot of boilers
are operated with clogged nozzels, etc.
9-20
-------
HYDROCARBON CARRIER EMISSIONS FROM
ATMOSPHERIC DYE BECKS
Presented at the 1977
Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Inventory/Factory Workshop
Raleigh, North Carolina - September 13-15, 1977
By
Ronald Hawks
Environmental Engineer
N. C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Air Quality Section
Raleigh, NC 27611
10-1
-------
Abstract
This study was performed to determine the manner and amount of
organic carrier emitted to the atmosphere during the dyeing of
polyester fabric in atmosphere dye becks. The information obtained
was used as supportive data in an over-all investigation of
vegetative damage surrounding the source of emissions. The data
obtained indicates that the carrier, biphenyl, is emitted at a
rate equal to 42-56% of the initial charge during the dye cycle.
This data was used to model the emission with time and extend
the model to other carriers commonly used.
10-2
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction
Description of Process
Sampling Methods
Discussion and Results
Conclusion
List of Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Atmospheric Dye Beck
Temperature Function
Burlington Industries, Stack Sampling Train
Functional Carrier Emission Profile
Air Quality Stack Sampling Train
Curve fit adjusted to test data
Curve fit extended to 1.5 hr/boil
Curve fit extended to 5 minute boil
Percent Biphenyl Loss vs. Boil Time
List of Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Normal Dye Beck Cycle
Test Data
Properties of Biphenyl
Comparative Emission Losses of Carrier Bases
10-3
-------
Introduction
This report discusses the results of source testing conducted
on a 20-foot atmospheric dye beck by personnel of Burlington
Industries, Bi-Chem Division and personnel of the Air Quality
Section of the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development. The testing was conducted as a segment
of an overall study to determine emissions into the atmosphere
in an area surrounding the Mallinckrodt Chemical Plant and
Burlington Industries, Wake Finishing Plant. The intent of the
study was to determine an emission profile and rate of emissions
from a representative dye beck, and by modeling extend the results
as an emission factor to other dye becks using different carriers.
This study concerned itself with the emission of the organic
carrier used in the dyeing of polyester fabric, specifically
biphenyl.
Description of Process
The dyeing of polyester fabric with disperse dyes in
atmospheric pressure units at room temperature is a very slow if
not an impossible process. To overcome this problem and make
commercial dyeing both feasible and economical, a system of
organic carrier dyeing is used. The process involves the exhaustion
of an insoluble disperse dye in water solution on to polyester
fabric under the action of a dyeing assistant termed a carrier.
10-4
-------
In this case, an aromatic hydrocarbon, biphenyl, is emmulsified
and added to the dye bath when the system is at approximately
160 F. The bath is then brought to a boil and the fabric is
worked in the liquor until the dye has been exhausted to the
required depth of color or shade.
The beck during the dye cycle is closed but not sealed. The
beck is maintained at 212 F and the vapor space is kept at a
slight vacumn by an exhaust fan which removes the evolved steam.
The venting of the vessel results in a process of steam
distillation of the carrier which is present in the bath. The
emissions is an aerosol and was sampled in accordance with
modified EPA method five techniques.
The beck (figure 1) is approximately twenty feet long and
nine feet wide. The liquor volume is approximately 6400 gallons.
The fabric weight is 3600 Ib/cycle and the biphenyl charge is
at 3.40 gram/liter or 170 Ib per beck cycle. The beck is loaded
with fabric and raised to a boil and maintained for 1.5 to 2.0
hours. The beck is then cooled and the dye shade is matched.
The bath may then be dropped or re-run as required to adjust
depth of dyeing. A normal temperature profile is provided in
figure 2.
Sampling Methods
Stack sampling was conducted by Burlington Industries, Bi-
Chem Division using an impinger train followed by a critical
10-5
-------
FIGURE 1 ATMOSPHERIC DYE BECK
10-6
-------
220n
20CH
180-
u. 160-
o
at
140-
Qt
Ul
2: 120H
100-
80-
60-
r
2
i
3
4 5
TIME HOURS
I T
7
I I
8
Figure 2 Temperature Profile of a Normal Dyeing Cycle
-------
Table 1
Typical Procedure for Atmospheric Dyeing of Polyester Fabric
Accumulated
lenient Temp- F Time-hr.
1) Load Beck
2) Dye in, a
3) Heat Beck
4) Add Carrier
5) Heat Beck
8) Run at Boil
9) Cool Beck
Element
k
add salt
k
ier
:k
Bath
boil
ioil
•k
: (Work)
leek Reheat
10 w/take off Bath
:ime
>m Delays
ils Clean Misc.
Temp-°F
110
110
110-160
160
160-170
170
170-212
212
212-180
180
60-80
80
80
80
110
212
60
Time-hr .
0.8
1.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.9
1.5
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.4
Time
0.8
2.0
2.9
3.2
3.4
3.6
4.5
6.0
6.2
7.0
7.2
7.6
8.3
8.9
9.0
9.2
9.5
13) Unload
14) Riding Time
15) Drug Roc
16) Tangles
17) Wrap Reels Clean Misc. 60
"9.5
10-8
-------
orifice on July 31, 1974. The sampling train is presented in
figure 3. The testing was conducted in two runs at different
sampling rates. The first at 0.91 liter/minute, the other at
1.92 liter/minute, based on the total stack flow, however, it
appears that neither of these rates were isokinetic but the 1.92
liter/minute rate is approximately correct.
Extractions taken from cloth samples after dyeing on previous
samples were used as verification of the emission rate. A mass
balance was conducted based on fabric carrier retention and the
carrier remaining in the bath.
Stack sampling was conducted on two occasions by the stack
test team of the Air Quality Section. The first test was to
determine the relative rates of emission over the dye cycle as
a function of time. Carbon packed tubes were inserted into the
stack and a 200 mililiter volume was taken using a Bendix hand
sampler. The samples were taken for 6 minutes, at 10 minute
intervals over the entire portion of the dye cycle. These tubes
were extracted with carbon disulfide and analysis was conducted
by gas chromatograph. The samples were not isokinetic, but
because of the aerosol nature of the emissions, they were considered
proportional. The condensed biphenyl 'aerosol was assumed to have
a very narrow particle distribution and because of the submicron
nature could be treated as a gas. This data was used to determine
the peak emission period during the dye cycle. The relative
10-9
-------
o
ANEMOTHERM
AIR METER
DRY ICE TRAPS
CARBON ABSORPTION
COLUMNS'
FILTER
AND
TEMPERATURE
INDICATOR
FIGURE 3 BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES SAMPLING TRAIN
-------
concentration of the samples Is presented in figure 4.
The stack test team conducted an isokinetic sample for a
period of 4 hours on the beck using EPA method 5 techniques.
The train consisted of nine (9) glass impingers immersed in a
salt-water/ice bath. The ninth impinger contained silica-gel.
The biphenyl collected was removed from the impingers by carbon
disulfide and an analysis conducted by gas chromatograph. The
system was maintained at isokinetic conditions by measuring the
wet bulb-dry bulb temperatures at each point and adjustment made
for percent moisture continuously during the sample period. The
train used is shown in figure 5.
Discussion and Results
Large rates of emission of organic carrier was suspected as
a contributor in vegetative damage in the area surrounding
Mallinckrodt Chemical and Burlington Industries in North Wake
County. In that a good emission factor was not available and no
data was available giving the influence of dye cycle variables on
emission rates, a joint study was performed by Burlington
Industries, Bi-Chem Division and the N. C. Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development, Air Quality Section.
An overall program was established to determine the variables
which influence the emission rate and the mechanism by which the
organic was released. Initial data was obtained by Burlington
Industries by solvent extraction of the polyester fabric and
10-11
-------
THERMOMETER
S-TYPE
PITOT
TUBE
PITOT
MANOMETER
THERMOMETERS
VACUUM
BY-PASS VALVE GAUGE
MAIN VALVE
ORIFICE
MANOMETER
DRY
GAS
METER
FIGURE 5 AIR QUALITY SAMPLING TRAIN
-------
5-
x
0)
4-
g M
1 -
60
120
180
240
Figure 4 Emissions rate of Biphenyl as of function of time
220n
200-
IX
3
180-
160
60 120
TIME MINUTES
180
240
Figure 4A Temperature of dye beck during emission test represented in figure 4.
10-13
-------
waste dye bath water after dyeing. This mass balance revealed
a significant emission of carrier to the atmosphere. This data
was characteristic of a dye cycle with a boil period of 1.5 hours
with the normal pre-boil and post-boil sequence as indicated in
Table 1. Observation of the beck cycle and the exhaust revealed
that the major portion of the emissions were released during the
boil period and the other portions of the cycle were of less
significance.
The nature of the carrier is such that the atmospheric losses
were caused by steam distallation of the biphenyl and exhaustion
of the aerosol from the beck with the steam. Burlington performed
a number of tests to confirm the losses indicated by the mass
balance. The tests were conducted at various sampling rates and
the data was inconclusive in determining the true emission rate.
One test however, was sufficiently isokinetic to be acceptable.
This test indicated an emission rate of 40% of the charge rate.
This was in agreement with a 43% loss given by mass balance.
The Air Quality Staff conducted two types of tests on the
beck to determine the emission rate as a function of time and the
integrated total emission during the cycle. The emission function
was determined by the collection of biphenyl on activated carbon
at regular intervals during the dye cycle. The carbon was analyzed
on a gas chromatograph and the relative emission rate plotted as a
function of time. The samples were taken in such a manner as to
10-14
-------
give a relative emission concentration which was adjusted by a
constant value based on an isokinetic source test of the beck at
identical conditions. The profile generated by use of the carbon
tubes was integrated and the relative values of each sample
adjusted to allow for efficiency of collection and desorption.
The profile of the emissions is shown in figure 4. The results of
the source test indicated a 58% loss for a two hour boil cycle.
The emission rate function was used to generate total emission
data at other boil periods. The conditions are shown in figures
6, 7 and 8. The abort condition was considered the minimum
emission rate when the beck was not able to reach a boil because
of mechanical failure and cooled at the specified rate. The
results of the analysis and the test data is presented as function
of boil time in figure 9.
The corresponding concentration of biphenyl in the beck waste
water is presented in figure 9A. It may be seen that the concen-
tration of biphenyl approaches zero at a two hour boil period. The
emission rate to the atmosphere will decrease as the boil is
continued in that there is less available carrier in the bath.
Continued boiling will not reduce the absorbed biphenyl in the
fabric as it acts as a plasticizer in polyester. The absorbed
biphenyl may be removed by solvent extraction or sublimation in
a tenter frame or dryer.
Extractions were made on dyed polyester cloth before and after
10-15
-------
2.0 HOUR BOIL
TIME MINUTES
Figure 6 Emission rate of Biphenyl as a function of time adjusted
for collection efficiency and desorption efficiency.
10-16
-------
CO
2
>
0)
ui
^
at
Z
t/t
1.5 HOUR BOIL
60
120
TIME MINUTES
I
180
Figure 7 Emission rate of biphenyl as a function of time
at one and one half hour boil period.
CO
0)
Z
03-J
NO BOIL
60
120
TIME MINUTES
180
Figure 8 Emission rate of biphenyl as a function of time at no boil period.
10-17
-------
Table 2
Mass Balance and Test Results
Beck - Number
Sample Time - minutes
Boil Time - hours
Biphenyl Emissions - pounds
Biphenyl Charged - pounds
Stack Test Emission Rate,
Percent of Charge
Mass Balance Loss, Percent of Charge
Absorbed by Cloth, Percent of Charge
Biphenyl Present in Bath at Exhaustion,
Percent of Charge
Emission Rate lb/100 Ib. Cloth
Burlington
Test
12
180
1.5
66.3
170
39.0%
42.0%
43.0%
15.0%
1.84
Air Quality
Test
10
240
2
99.6
170
58.6%
57.0%
43.0%
0%
2.77
Cloth Weight
Cloth Construction
Cloth Weight
3600 Ib. 3600 Ib.
Polyester/Rayon Polyester/Rayon
90 Ib/cYd 101 Ib/cYd
10-18
-------
80
x 60
ISt
O
s
40
o
__]
CX
LU
C£
a.
<
u
20
O MASS BALANCE
• SOURCE TEST
D EMISSION CURVE
BOIL TIME-HOURS
Figure 9 Biphenyl emissions as a function of boil time.
10-19
-------
80
60
40
z
C£
tu
CU
a? 20 _
O MASS BALANCE
• SOURCE TEST
D EMISSION CURVE
BOIL TIME-HOURS
Figure 9A Biphenyl in dye bath water as a function of boil time,
10-20
-------
drying in a loop dryer. A mass balance indicated that approximately
60% of biphenyl abosrbed by the cloth during dyeing is evolved.
Stack test conducted on the frame exhaust indicated that a 95%
of the biphenyl was destroyed in the tenter frame firing system.
Further study is needed to derermine the variables influencing
the emission rate.
This data may be extended to other carrier systems by
correspondence of vapor pressure, heat of vaporization and
solubility. Table 4 indicates the comparative loss factors for
other carrier systems operated under similar conditions, the
analysis assumes the loss factor of 50% for biphenyl at the
dyeing conditions.
Conclusions
It is concluded that a significant emission of hydrocarbon
carrier is emitted from atmospheric dyeing of polyester fabric.
The major variable affecting total emissions is length of boil
during the dye cycle. The emission rate is 1.84 lb/100 Ib cloth
at 1.5 hr boil and 2.77 lb/100 Ib cloth at 2.0 hr boil. The
close agreement between the mass balance and stack test results
indicates that a modified EPA method five is an acceptable method
for testing these sources.
10-21
-------
Table 3
Properties of Biphenyl
Molecular Weight
Flash Point
Explosive Limits
Solubility
Melting Point
Boiling Point
Vapor Pressure
Odor Threshold
At 25° C and 760 mmHg
154.20
235°F. Closed cup
Lower 0.6% at 232°F.
Upper 5.8% at 311°F.
Near Insoluble in Water
(7.7 mg/1 at 25o c)
Slightly Soluble in Ethonol
Soluble in Hydrocarbons
70.5° C.
256.1° C.
mm Hg 0.001 0.005 0.008
o.
20.4
3
'C 6.2
0.06 to 0.29 mg/nf
Saturated air 66 mg/nf
1 ppm = 0.0063 mg/1
1 mg/1 = 158 ppm
25
0.010 .050
27.0 43.5
10-22
-------
Table 4
Comparative Emission Losses
of Common Carrier Bases During
Atmospheric Dyeing*
Emission From Dye-
Carrier Base Boiling Point °C Bath Percent of Charge
Biphenyl 255 50
Methyl Cresotinate 81
Methyl Biphenyl 263 47
Methyl Napthalene 243 70
Diphenyl Oxide 258 33
1 *
Dibenzal Ether 295 12
Methyl Benzoate 199 100
Trichlorobenzene 213 100
*'Burlington Industries, Bi-Chem Division
10-23
-------
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Question:
Hawks:
Could you elaborate on the variations in
emissions rates that you mentioned?
Because of the variables involved in the
dying operation there are different fabric
constructions and different procedures for
dying. These vary from company to company
and beck to beck in each operation. Where
this particular operation occurred the condi-
tions were such that 30,000 gallons of water
were present in the becks and 3600 Ibs. of
cloth were present and that the charge rate
was 4.72 Ibs. per 100 Ibs. of cloth. Differ-
ent companies use different charge rates.
For this reason the emission factor stated
would only be good for the particular condi-
tions for which the beck was being operated.
So in general, if one needs to know the
emission rate, instead of running a stack
test, the mass balance seems to be very
accurate. It is also noted that when one
company was aksed the emissions from these
operations they indicated 2,000 Ibs per year.
10-24
-------
Hawks: (con't) They operate 38 becks varying from 2 feet
in length to 20 feet in length. When we
did out stack tests and computed our
emissions for a year, we found 1.5 million
Ibs. emitted. So, there is quite a spread
on what is thought to be emitted from these
and what are actually emitted.
10-25
-------
Air Quality and Energy Conservation Benefits
From Using Emulsions to Replace Asphalt Cutbacks in
Certain Paving Operations
Prepared By
Francis M. Kirwan
Environmental Protection Specialist
and
Clarence Maday
Consultant
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Strategies and Air Standards Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
November 1977
11-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary ii
I. Purpose of Study 1
II. Asphalt Paving-General 1
III. Previous Efforts to Encourage Emulsified 4
Asphalt Use
IV. Air Quality Considerations 6
V. Energy Conservation Considerations 9
VI. Eight-State Survey of Paving Practices 10
and Economic Considerations
VII. Summary and Conclusions 11
References 14
11-2
-------
Executive Summary
This paper examines the air quality and energy conservation
aspects of asphalt paving practices using liquefied asphalt. There
are two basic types of liquefied asphalt: (1) asphalts liquefied
with petroleum distillates such as kerosene or heavy naphtha, called
cutback asphalts, and (2) asphalts liquefied using water and an
emulsifying agent, called emulsified asphalts. One type of
emulsified asphalt (cationic) is "cured" through an electrochemical
process. All other types of liquefied asphalt are "cured" through
the evaporation of the liquefying constituent. Cutbacks emit
reactive hydrocarbons during the curing process; emulsions emit
almost no air pollutants.
In 1975 cutbacks accounted for 2.3% of estimated national
hydrocarbon emissions. In some states the cutbacks accounted for
more than 15% of the state's estimated total hydrocarbon emissions.
Some states, e.g., Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and West Virginia, have significant air stagnation
problems and require regulatory control of hydrocarbon emissions
to attain and maintain oxidant air quality standards. These states
also have had significant hydrocarbon emissions attributable to
paving with cutbacks. Since asphalt paving operations occur
predominantly during warm-weather months, when formation of
11-3
-------
oxidants from photochemical synthesis of hydrocarbon emissions is
most prevalent, the decreased use of cutback asphalt could provide
major assistance in oxidant attainment and maintenance strategies.
It is estimated that in 1975 more than 10 million barrels of
petroleum distillates were used nationally to liquefy asphalt for
paving purposes. These distillates represent fuels which were
evaporated to the atmosphere or were retained in the pavement. The
total energy associated with laying one gallon of cutback asphalt
as pavement is about 50,200 Btu, while the total energy associated
with a gallon of emulsified asphalt is about 2,830 Btu. For these
reasons, the use of emulsified asphalt as a replacement for asphalt
cutback has energy benefits.
Some paving operators claim three instances when emulsions
cannot be substituted for cutbacks: (1) when long-life stockpiles
are required, (2) for some emulsions when ambient temperatures fall
below about 50°F, and (3) possibly when used as a penetrating prime
coat. Others claim that these are not deterrents and that they
have had success in using emulsions to replace cutbacks in all
applications.
The price difference between the two types of liquefied asphalt
was found to be not significant at this time.
11-4
-------
Air Quality and Energy Conservation Benefits
From Using Emulsions to Replace Asphalt Cutbacks in
Certain Paving Operations
I. Purpose of Study
The purpose of this paper is to examine potential reductions
in hydrocarbon emissions which may be achieved through substituting
one kind of liquefied asphalt for another in certain paving
operations. The paper reviews (1) the differences in asphalts
liquefied with petroleum distillates (cutback asphalts), and (2)
asphalts liquefied using water and an emulsifying agent (emulsified
asphalts). Amounts of reactive hydrocarbons emitted when using
cutback asphalts are discussed, as well as the substitutability of
emulsified asphalts in place of cutback asphalts. Energy conserva-
tion considerations are presented, and the results of an eight-
state telephone survey of highway paving practices are summarized.
II. Asphalt Paving - General
Asphalt is a by-product of petroleum distillation (natural or
manmade) which man has put to use in many different ways. In
ancient times he used it in its natural form to caulk boats and
ships, as mortar in masonry construction, and as a cement for
mending stone tools. Now we use it for roofing, weatherproofing,
11-5
-------
floor tile, insulating materials, molded electrical equipment,
papers, shingles, coatings, and many other applications. One of
its better known uses is for pavements. Because of its durability
and weather resistant qualities we use it in many different paving
applications. These pavement uses can range from a thin layer
sprayed on a dirt road to keep down dust, to a heavy duty pavement
of thick layers of asphalt mixed with aggregate (crushed rock,
gravel, slag or sand) placed on a well prepared base and designed
to carry heavy traffic. In between these two extremes, asphalt
pavement may be of a wide variety of thicknesses and strengths,
depending on the traffic it will have to carry.
Asphalt surfaces and pavements are composed of compacted
aggregate and asphalt. Aggregate materials are produced from
rock quarries as manufactured stone or obtained from natural gravel
or soil deposits. Metal ore refining processes produce artificial
aggregates as a byproduct. The aggregate performs three functions.
It transmits the load from the surface to the base course, takes
the abrasive wear of traffic, and provides a nonskid surface. The
asphalt binder holds the aggregate together, preventing displacement
and loss of aggregate, and provides a waterproof cover for the base.
Asphalts take the form of asphalt cement (the residue of the
distillation of crude oils), and liquefied asphalts. Liquefied
asphalts are: (1) asphalt cutbacks (asphalt cement thinned, or
"cut back" with volatile petroleum distillates such as naphtha,
11-6
-------
kerosene etc.), and (2) asphalt emulsions (nonflammable liquid,
produced by combining asphalt and water with an emulsifying agent
such as soap). Asphalt cement, which is semi-solid, must be heated
to convert it to a useable liquid. Asphalt cutbacks and asphalt
emulsions are produced in a wide variety of types and grades
related to intended use, curing time and structural design require-
ments.
Emulsified asphalts are used widely in the construction and
maintenance of pavements ranging from high-traffic-volume high-
ways and airports to low-volume rural roads and city streets.
Although emulsions have been available since 1903 and used
extensively since the 1930s, recent energy and environmental
problems have focused attention on increased use of these materials.
The use of emulsions can reduce energy requirements by reducing or
eliminating petroleum distillates that are used in liquefied
asphalts and by lowering heating requirements, especially in
heating aggregates to dry them. The elimination of petroleum
distillates also reduces air pollution by eliminating emissions of
hydrocarbons evaporated during the curing process.
Asphalt paving is a seasonal operation, with cold temperatures
and rainy weather severely limiting construction and maintenance
operations. Winter-time paving is usually limited to emergency
repairs, although some states have claimed good results even during
periods of low air temperature. Some emulsified asphalts (nonionic
11-7
-------
and anionic) usually are not used when rain is anticipated or when
air temperatures fall below 50°F. With cationic emulsions these
deterrents are not critical since "curing" depends on the electro-
chemical action of the positively charged emulsion bonding with the
negatively charged aggregate surface. Generally speaking, emulsified
asphalt can substitute for cutbacks in almost any application. Some
believe that emulsions are not good for priming purposes, others
believe that proper soil preparation is the answer, and still
others question the very need for priming. Some states have had
no success with long-term stockpiling (more than 3-4 weeks) while
others, using heated tanks or using mixes with a relatively small
amount of fuel included, have had excellent results in stockpiling
for a year or more. The same construction equipment used for cutbacks
can be used for emulsions. A moderate amount of training (one or
two days) is recommended before first using emulsions. This
training is readily available from members of the Asphalt Emulsion
Manufacturers Association. Local policies which encourage the use
of cutbacks are the only known institutional constraints that
inhibit the use of emulsified asphalt.
Ill. Previous Efforts to Encourage Emulsified Asphalt Use
Some of the organizations concerned with energy problems
affecting the supply and use of asphalt road paving materials are:
Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Highway Administration
11-8
-------
(FHWA), Federal Energy Administration (FEA), U. S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Transportation Research Board (TRB), National Asphalt
Pavement Association (NAPA), The Asphalt Institute (AI), Asphalt
Emulsion Manufacturers Association (AEMA), American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM), American Road Builders Association
(AREA), American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), and state and local highway agencies.
In December 1973 and again in January 1974, FHWA issued notices
concerning fuel conservation in federally funded highway construction
programs. These notices encouraged state officials to minimize the
use of cutback asphalts by substituting emulsions and to reduce
mixing temperatures. They also provided guidelines on conserving
fuel and presented analyses which demonstrated the large quantity of
petroleum distillates which could be saved by substituting emulsified
asphalts for cutbacks. FEA and EPA studies resulted in the
conclusion that increasing fuel prices had already established a
trend of increased use of emulsions. To accelerate this trend, FEA
contracted with the National Research Council's Transportation
2
Research Board to produce a synthesis report on the use of asphalt
emulsions for pavements. This report was widely publicized by
DOT and various trade associations. FEA alone distributed 4,700
copies to city and county engineers in December 1975. In October
1975, EPA informed its regional offices by letter of the
11-9
-------
advantages of emulsified asphalts over cutbacks and advised the
regional offices to encourage the use of emulsions to save energy
and reduce emissions of hydrocarbons.
Other agencies and organizations have been at work on the
3
problem. For example, NAPA has published a paper on energy
conservation in highway paving, AEMA has been making extensive
efforts throughout its membership to encourage the use of asphalt
emulsions, and USDA Forest Service has published a report on its
experience in using asphalt emulsions, as has the Navajo Area Bureau
4
of Indian Affairs. However, only very recently has there been
any indication of a trend toward switching from cutbacks to
emulsions.
IV. Air Quality Considerations
The volatiles in cutback asphalts release hydrocarbons into
the atmosphere in amounts that vary according to the type of cutback.
Cutback asphalts fall into three broad categories: Slow Cure
(SC) (sometimes referred to as Road Oil), Medium Cure (MC) and
Rapid Cure (RC). Cutback content averages 35% diluents (hydro-
3
carbons). SCs are a fairly heavy residual oil in the Bunker
C range. MCs are diluted with a kerosene-type solvent. RCs are
diluted with a heavy naphtha or a gasoline-type solvent. For the
purposes of calculating hydrocarbon emissions estimates in this
document the average value of 35% hydrocarbons is used to demonstrate
11-10
-------
order of magnitude.
Table 1 is a summary of estimated hydrocarbon emissions
resulting from the use of cutback asphalts for paving purposes.
The emission calculations are based on the 35% volatiles contained
in the cutbacks and on the following estimated evaporation amounts:
SC - 20%-30% evaporated (average: 25%), MC - 60%-80% evaporated
(average 70%), and RC - 70%-90% evaporated (average: 80%). Results
of evaporation rate testing now being done for EPA by Midwest
Research Institute form the basis for these estimated evaporation
amounts. Most of the loss is believed to take place early during
paving operations. Continuing amounts are lost to the atmosphere
as time goes by but at an ever decreasing rate.
Table 1. SUMMARY OF NATIONAL HYDROCARBON EMISSION
ESTIMATES FROM THE USE OF CUTBACK ASPHALT
PAVING PRODUCTS
Volatiles, HC emissions,
tons/year tons/year
1971 1,916,857 1,146,915
1972 1,830,724 1,112,932
1973 1,975,451 1,210,233
1974 1,613,454 973,516
1975 1,434,895 886,348
It is important to remember that paving operations are sea-
sonal and that the paving season occurs during the warm weather
months when formation of oxidants from photochemical synthesis of
li-ll
-------
hydrocarbon emissions is most prevalent. Attempting to arrive at
specific answers to questions about photochemical reactivity of the
hydrocarbons emitted by cutbacks is complicated by the fact that
there are so many cutbacks of varying chemical compositions. The
situation is further complicated by the variables of solar radiation,
cloud cover, air mass stagnation, hydrocarbon concentrations, and
oxidant formation. However, cutbacks can be classified as moderately
to highly reactive as far as oxidant formation is concerned.
Emulsified asphalts, on the other hand, consist of asphalt
liquefied with water containing an emulsifier. Emulsions are re-
latively pollution-free with few volatiles to evaporate into the
atmosphere. FHWA has pointed out that there may be some distillates
in some formulations of emulsified asphalt.
Table 2 indicates the relationship of hydrocarbon emissions
from cutback asphalts used in paving, to national hydrocarbon
emissions. (Asphalt paving operations are not now included as a
source of HC emissions in the national summary).
Table 2. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM CUTBACK ASPHALT
AS A PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL HC EMISSIONS
Summary of Relationship of
national HC cutback asphalt
emissions, HC emissions to
106 tons/year national HC emissions %
3.4
3.2
3.5
1971
1972
1973
33.3
34.1
34.0
11-12
-------
1974
1975
32.9
30.9
2.9
2.8
Table 3 shows a breakdown of national hydrocarbon emissions
for mobile and stationary sources and displays the emissions from
cutbacks in context with the two other sources.
Table 3. U.S. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY
(106 tons/year)
7
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
Mobile
sources
13.7
14.0
13.7
12.5
11.7
Stationary
sources
19.6
20.1
20.3
20.4
19.2
Cutback
sources
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.0
0.9
It is further noted that some states experience frequent
air mass stagnation and have oxidant air quality problems. Some
of these states, e.g., Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Penn-
sylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, require regulatory control of
HC emissions for attainment and maintenance of oxidant ambient air
quality standards. Most of these states also have significant
quantities of hydrocarbon emissions attributable to paving with
cutback asphalts.
V. Energy Conservation Considerations
In 1975, 10,249,250 barrels of petroleum diluents were used
11-13
-------
to liquefy asphalt for road paving operations. This amount of cut-
back is equivalent to 464,906,000 gallons of gasoline, enough to
fuel almost 558,000 automobiles for a single year in the United
States. Rather than powering automobiles, airplanes, or industry,
however, energy in the form of diluents was poured onto road sur-
faces, where some evaporated and some remains. The energy impact of
using cutback asphalts is just as striking when viewed in terms of
the energy expended per gallon of paving material. The total energy
associated with manufacturing, processing, and laying one gallon
of cutback asphalt is about 50,200 Btu. On the other hand, analysis
of emulsified asphalts shows that about 98% of the petroleum
diluents is replaced with water with the result that only about
2,830 Btu is associated with each gallon of paving material.
VI. Eight-State Survey of Paving Practices and Economic
Considerations
State highway maintenance divisions in eight states were con-
tacted for information, opinions, and experiences regarding the use
of emulsified asphalt paving materials. The states selected for
this survey were the larger users of asphalt. Since each state is
responsible for some fraction (which may differ for each state) of
the roads within its boundaries, this survey addresses only those
asphalt paving operations for which the state is directly responsible.
In general, the survey showed that there has been an increased
11-14
-------
use of emulsified asphalts. This increased use, which varies with
each state contacted, has been brought about primarily through fuel
conservation measures and economic considerations. Relatively little
consideration is given to HC emission from paving operations. For
example, in Allegheny County, Pa., the Pennsylvania DOT uses emul-
sified asphalts almost exclusively for county road paving operations
because of conservation and economics. In areas where such consider-
ations do not exist, the choice of emulsified asphalt or cutback
asphalt depends largely upon user preference as well as experience
in specific materials and suppliers.
Individual responses ranged from general acceptance of emulsified
asphalts for paving to indifference and skepticism about emulsions.
Pennsylvania has changed from 30% emulsions/70% cutbacks in 1973 to
70% emulsions/30% cutbacks today. New York State uses 97% emulsions/
3% cutbacks.
New York and Pennsylvania have initiated training programs to
instruct their personnel and contractor personnel in the correct use
of emulsions.
VII. Summary and Conclusions
The air quality and energy conservation aspects of the use of
liquefied asphalt for paving operations have been analyzed to deter-
mine the potentials for energy savings and reduced emissions. Cut-
back asphalts are liquefied with hydrocarbon distillates such as
11-15
-------
kerosene or naphtha; these reactive hydrocarbons are emitted during
the curing process. Emulsified asphalts use water and an emulsifying
agent for liquefaction; virtually no pollutants are emitted during
the curing of emulsions. Some suppliers of emulsified asphalt in-
clude small amounts of distillates in their emulsions. In such cases
the amount of hydrocarbons emitted would be a function of the amount
of distillates used.
Overall, more than 10,000,000 barrels of distillates are used
annually for paving purposes. Most of this is evaporated into the
atmosphere; the remainder is retained in the pavement. Use of emul-
sions would save much of those 10,000,000 barrels of distillates for
use as or conversion to fuels.
In some states the curing of cutback asphalts accounted for a
significant amount of the state's total annual hydrocarbon emissions.
This problem is made more serious by the fact that asphalt paving
operations take place primarily during warm weather when oxidant
formation from the photochemical synthesis of hydrocarbon emissions
is most likely. Reduced use of cutback asphalts could decrease
materially the oxidant problem in these states.
It is anticipated that a minimal amount of cutback asphalt will
continue to be used at air temperatures lower than 50°F and for dusty
surfaces. Also, some cutbacks will be used where portable plants are
not available, because the stockpile life of emulsions is a problem
for some operators. Other concerns can usually be met through
11-16
-------
good management.
Significant energy savings and air quality improvements can be
realized from the increased use of emulsified asphalts.
11-17
-------
REFERENCES
1. The Asphalt Institute, "Magic Carpet, The Story of Asphalt",
1975.
2. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis of
Highway Practice 30, "Bituminous Emulsions for Highway Pavements",
1975.
3. Special National Asphalt Pavement Association Report "Fuel
Conservation", by Charles R. Foster and Fred Kloiber.
4. "Asphalt Emulsion Construction on the Navajo Reservation",
VI. R. Meier, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Gallup, N.M., April, 1976.
5. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Mineral
Industry Surveys, "Sales of Asphalt in 1975", prepared
July 19, 1976.
6. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation,
Bureau of Materials, Testing and Research Informational Report,
"Lets Get Acquainted with Asphalt Emulsions", April 1974.
Prithvi S. Kandhal, P.E.
7. "National Air Pollution Emission Estimates, 1970-1975", undated,
MDAD, OAQPS.
11-18
-------
Question:
Kirwan:
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
Comparing the asphalt cement to emulsions,
nothing was said about the quality of the
surface. What's the binding action of
emulsions as compared to hot mix?
My remarks were addressed solely to the
liquid asphalts or cutbacks. There is a
great deal of controversy about the relative
structural efficiencies of these asphalt
mixes and the basic paving material concern-
ed. And a very strong school of thought in
the asphalt industry says that you need a
ratio of about 1.4 to 1. In other words
that you need almost 1% times as much
emulsified asphalt for these basic pavement
mixes. One school of thought says that this
is not true; that you can use these mixes
equally and they hold up perfectly well.
Our opinion is that it is largely dependent
upon the experience of the people that are
using the materials. As far as the liquified
asphalt is concerned, we have been able to
detect no difference as far as the structural
efficiency and the wear qualities.
11-19
-------
Question:
Ki rwan:
Question:
Kirwan:
Do you find that there are any hydrocarbon
emissions after the asphalt is put into
place, during the life of it? In other
words, is evaporation of binder why people
have to renew their driveways?
Generally speaking, yes. There is also an
oxidizing process that goes on and over a
period of time asphalt just deteriorates
and needs to be replaced or resurfaced.
MRI is now testing emissions and weight loss
to determine the amount of hydrocarbons
emitted and also trying to get a fix on the
rate of emissions. Emissions are very rapid
at first but it goes on for a fairly long
period of time. In the south in particular,
I am sure any of us who have traveled in the
summer can recollect driving over asphalt
roads, particularly out in the country and
getting that very strong hydrocarbon odor on
a road that has been paved maybe last year
or the year before.
Is there any difference in labor cost in
putting down the two types of liquidified
asphalt?
There is no difference.
11-20
-------
Question:
Ki rwan:
Have the petroleum companies been consulted
as to how they would reprogram their refin-
eries to using the oils that are now being
used as cutback? In other words they may
not be up to the grade that would be used
for fuel oil and other uses.
No. However, using experts from the Asphalt
Institute and asphalt chemists from industry
as well as our own in-house people who are
refinery experts, we feel confident that the
petrochemical industry would readily utilize
any of this material that is released.
11-21
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
SURVEILLANCE & ANALYSIS DIVISION
Title: Commercial Bakeries as a Major Source of
Reactive Volatile Organic Gases
Prepared By: David C. Henderson
Environmental Engineer
Air Section, Air & Hazardous Materials Branch
Surveillance & Analysis Division, EPA Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco CA 94105
(415) 556-8047
Date: December, 1977
12-1
-------
Summary:
The baking industry appears to represent a major source of
photochemically reactive volatile organic gases in the form of
ethyl alcohol and other gases. Yeast fermentation of bread
baking doughs produces pyruvic acid and acetaldehyde as inter-
mediate products and about equal molar amounts of ethyl alcohol
and carbon dioxide gas (COp) as final products. Recent source
tests performed by an EPA contractor have validated theoretical
estimates of the magnitude of the emissions. Emission factors
are presented in this paper on a per capita and production rate
basis. Large bakeries can emit up to 168 tons/year of ethyl
alcohol.
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to provide information on
volatile organic gas emissions from the baking industry in order
that emission estimates can be included in emission inventories
currently being developed in EPA, Region IX.
Background:
The art of bread baking has changed little in the 2,000
years since the Egyptians discoverd the leavening of bread.
The basic ingredients of bread are flour, water, salt, sugar,
and yeast. Other ingredients are added to enhance the flavor or
texture of the desired product.
12-2
-------
The role of the yeast in bread baking is to produce carbon
dioxide gas. The evolving CCL raises or "leavens" the bread
dough to a desired volume. Yeast produces the COp by anaero-
bically decomposing the sugar in the natural metabolic process
known as alcoholic fermentation. Alcoholic fermentation of
sugar by yeast produces equal amounts of C02 gas and ethyl
alcohol, with pyruvic acid and acetaldehyde also produced as
intermediaries.
In a commercial bakery, bread dough is allowed to ferment
from two to four hours prior to baking at an oven temperature of
450°F- The temperature inside the bread does not exceed 212°F-
The ovens used in commercial bread bakeries are predominately
fired by natural gas and are direct fired. In direct fired
ovens, any vapors driven off the bread and any combustion product
gases are removed throught the same exhaust vent. The aroma
associated with fresh baked bread, in the locale of a bakery, is
actually fermentation of alcohols, aldehydes, and possibly other
organics being emitted to the atmosphere.
It is believed that alcohol is produced as a liquid within
the bread dough during the fermentation period. Part of the
alcohol is driven off the bread during oven baking. Since the
oven is operating at 450°F, it may be possible that the alcohol
is undergoing a chemical reaction, such as dehydrogenation to
form aldehydes or esters, before it is exhausted from the oven.
12-3
-------
Also since a carboxylic acid (pyruvic) and acetaldehyde are
produced as intermediaries, these substances too could be under-
going some type of chemical reaction prior to being exhausted
from the oven.
Bakery products can be divided into two groups; products
that are yeast leavened, and products which are chemically
leavened by baking powder. This review is only concerned with
yeast leavened bakery products. Yeast leavened bakery products
include most breads, sweet rolls, sweet yeast goods, ordinary
crackers, pretzels, and doughnuts excepting cake doughnuts.
Chemically leavened bakery products include cakes, cookies, cake
doughnuts, and quick breads such as corn bread or baking powder
(2)
bisquits. '
STOICHIOMETRY AND MECHANISM OF ALCOHOLIC FERMENTATION BY YEAST:
The following chemical reactions occur during yeast fermentation
of sucrose:
C12H12°11 H
(sucrose)
2CfiHiA
i- HOH
yeast
enzymes
• CgH1?06 + CgH1?Ofi
f VJ.Lt.VJ \J ± C. \J
(fructose)+(glucose)
. 4CH^COCOOH
4CH3COCOOH
(pyruvic acid)
yeast
enzymes , 4CH3CHO + 4C02
(acetaldehyde)
12-4
-------
yeast
4CH3CHO enzymes y 4CH3CH2OH
(ethyl alcohol)
CALCULATION OF ETHYL ALCOHOL PRODUCED PER TON OF SUCROSE
CONSUMED:
For each mole of sucrose consumed four moles of ethyl
alcohol are produced.
Molecular weight of sucrose =
C12 = 12 X 12 = 144
H22 = 22 X 1 = 22
O = 16 X 11 = 176
342 Ib./lb. mole
The number of pound moles of sucrose in 1 ton =
1b. moles _ 2000 1b. 1 Ib. mole _ 5.8
ton sucrose ~ ton 342 Ib.
Since for each mole of sucrose consumed four moles of
alcohol are produced, therefore, for each ton of sucrose con-
sumed there are 23.4 Ib. moles of alcohol produced.
23.4 Ib. moles
5.8 Ib. moles sucrose 4 Ib. moles alcohol _ alcohol
ton sucrose
Molecular weight of ethyl alcohol =
C2 = 12 X 2 = 24
H6 = 6X1= 6
0 = 16 X 1 = 16
46 Ib./lb. mole
12-5
-------
Pounds of ethyl alcohol produced per ton of sucrose con-
sumed is =
1b. ethyl alcohol _ 23.4 1b. moles alcohol 46 Ib.
ton sucrose ~ ton sucrose Ib. mole alcohol
1076 Ib. ethyl alcohol produced
ton sucrose consumed
or, _ .54 Ib. ethyl alcohol produced
Ib. sucrose consumed
However, it is not necessary for sucrose or any other
sweetener to be added to the bread for alcohol to be evolved.
In the absence of a carbohydrate sweetener, the yeast will
reduce carbohydrates in the wheat to maltose and ultimately to
ethyl alcohol and carbon dioxide. A good example of a bread
made without an added sugar is some of the San Francisco sour
dough breads.
Therefore, the amount of ethyl alcohol could be greater
than the value calculated for each pound of sucrose consumed.
ESTIMATION OF BAKERY EMISSIONS BASED ON BREAD PRODUCTION RATES:
The nation's largest bread baker, Continental ITr ' and
the major manufacturer of commercial baking ovens, Baker-Perkin^ '
were contacted to determine if any studies had been conducted or
tests performed to establish volatile organic gas emissions from
the fermentation process in commercial bakeries. It was learned
that there is no reliable information available to estimate
emissions from the baking industry. A source test was performed
12-6
-------
by Baker-Perkin's contractor, Clayton Environmental, during
August, 1974, on a direct fired commercial bakery oven. The
hydrocarbon emission rate from this test was determined to be
1 Ib. HC/1000 Ib. bread. However, according to Continental ITT,
this test only measured hydrocarbons (i.e. compounds containing
only hydrogen and carbon). Ethyl alcohol, acetaldehyde, and
pyruvic acid are not strictly hydrocarbons as they contain oxygen
in addition to hydrogen and carbon. Also, the test was considered
to be unreliable and not reproducible by Continental ITT observers
on the scene.
Continental ITT is the largest baker in the country, pro-
ducing Wonder Bread, Hostess Cupcakes, Hostess Twinkies, and
many other name brand baked goods. At the request of the EPA
Regional Office, Continental ITT's Research Department developed
an estimated emission factor of:
8.0 Ib. ethyl alchohol emitted
1000 Ib. bread baked
The emission factor estimated by Continental ITT is based
on the following assumptions:
(1). 8-10% of bread's dough weight is sugar
(2). 10-15% of sweet rolls' dough weight is sugar
(3). Only 2-3% of the bread or seeet rolls' dough weight is
consumed and attributable to alcoholic fermentation
12-7
-------
(4). 50% of the dough weight loss is converted to alcohol
(Note - this correlates well with the weight of alcohol
produced per pound of sugar consumed, which was
calculated as 54% earlier in this report.)
(5). Some of the alcohol remains in the bread
(Note - Continental ITT is estimating that between 25%
and 53% of the alcohol produced remains in the
bread.)
Based on the information provided by ITT Continental, it
was calculated that a large commercial bakery could emit over
100 tons/year of volatile organic gases.
In order to develop an accurate estimate of emissions from
this source, EPA contracted with Midwest Research Institute
(MRI), Kansas City, Missouri, to perform source tests. The
first test was conducted during August, 1977. Two loaves of
bread, each weighing approximately 1.6 pounds were baked in the
laboratory. A straight dough mix was used with a sugar concen-
tration of 5.3% by dough weight. Plastic tents were constructed
over the areas where the bread was mixed, kneaded, and allowed
to rise. Sampling probes were placed in the oven during baking.
A gas chromatograph (G.C.) sampling pump continuously with-
drew samples for analysis from within the plastic tent. The
emission rates of the hydrocarbons were obtained by knowing the
12-8
-------
flow rate of the G.C. sampling pump and obtaining the concentra-
tion on the flow stream from the G.C. An overall emission
factor of about .8 Ib. ethyl alcohol per pound of bread produced
was calculated from this test data. However, this test was not
considered valid for the following reasons:
1. The bread mix was straight dough and not a commercial
sponge dough process. Home baked breads are normally
straight dough mixes while commercial breads are
normally sponge dough mixes.
2. The sugar concentration in the straight dough mix was
only 5.3%. Sponge dough mixes would contain approxi-
mately 10% sugar.
3. The testing was discontinued when the bread was removed
from the oven which is at the peak of its ethyl alcohol
emissions.
4. The yeast used was not a commercial grade yeast.
A second laboratory test was conducted in November, 1977,
by MRI. In this test, a sponge dough mix was used and the yeast
was a commercial grade obtained from the local Wonderbread
bakery. However, the sweetener concentration in the dough was
only 5%.
In this test, the cumulative emission factor for the entire
baking process was approximately 3.0 Ib. of ethyl alcohol emis-
12-9
-------
sions per 1000 pounds of bread produced. Almost the entire
amount of this emission is evolved during the baking phase.
Based on these two tests, there appears to be a linear
relationship between sweetner concentration and emissions. If
this assumption is correct, then ethyl alcohol emissions of
approximately 8.0 Ib./lOOO Ib. of bread would be expected from
a commercial dough mix with a sweetener concentration of 10%.
During January, 1978, it is expected that M.R.I, will com-
plete a third experiment, using a sweetner concentration of 10%.
A final report, including all test data, should be available from
M.R.I, after this test is completed.
CALCULATION OF EMISSIONS FOR A LARGE COMMERCIAL BAKERY
Using this emission factor, a calculation was made for a
large commercial bakery.
Assuming that a large commercial bakery:
(1) produces 12,000 Ib. bread/hr.;
(2) operates 14 hr./day;
(3) operates 250 day/year,
the calculated emissions for this bakery using the Continental
ITT emission factor would be:
, . , _ 1 ton 12,000 Ib. bread 8.0 Ib. alcohol 14 hr. 250 days
" 2000 Ib.hour1000 Ib. bread3ayyear
ethyl alcohol emitted = 168 tons
year year
12-10
-------
This estimate represents the worst case situation, as it is an
example of a very large commerical bakery. A small commercial
bread bakery may produce only 2,000 Ib./hr and only operate 8
hours per day.
ESTIMATION OF BAKERY EMISSIONS ON A PER CAPITA BASIS:
The following table lists annual yeast leavened baked goods
production, excluding retail single-shop bakeries:
PRODUCTS THOUSAND POUNDS/YEAR
White bread 8,861,343
White hearth bread 426,998
Whole wheat and other dark wheat breads 643,216
Rye breads 509,545
Raisin and other speciality breads 419,506
Rolls-bread type 2,063,124
Sweet yeast goods 875,053
Crackers 1,369,194
Pretzels 139,380
Total 15,307,359
The source of this information is the U.S. Census Bureau for the
year 1966. However, it is reported that these figures have not
(2)
changed appreciably in recent years. Although single retail
bake shops are not included in this listing, they are not con-
sidered to be a major factor in the baking industry.
12-11
-------
The population of the United States for 1976 was 213.6
million.(6)
1b. yeast leavened bake goods consumed _
person-year
15,307.359,000 1b. bake goods
213,600,000 person-year
71 7 ,. yeast leavened bake goods consumed
" /i*/ ID* person-year
Using the emission factor of 8.0 Ib. ethyl alcohol emitted/
1000 Ib. baked goods, the ethyl alcohol per person per year
would be:
_ 8.0 Ib. ethyl alcohol emitted 71.7 Ib. bake goods
1000 Ib. bake goodsperson-year
_ .57 Ib. ethyl alcohol emitted
person-year
It should be noted that this estimate includes emissions from
cracker and pretzel baking which comprise less than 10% of the
total production of yeast leavened bake goods. The emission
factor of 8.0 Ib. alcohol emitted per 1000 Ib. bread baked,
estimated by Continental ITT, does not apply to crackers and
pretzels, as these products are not manufactured by this
company. However, lacking any additional information, the
Continental ITT emission factor was also applied to cracker and
pretzel baking.
12-12
-------
ESTIMATE OF BAKERY EMISSIONS IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN:
For illustrative purposes, an estimate of bakery emissions
for the approximately 11 million people residing in California's
South Coast Air Basin (greater metropolitan Los Angeles area)
would be:
= .57 1b. alcohol emitted 11.000.000 persons
person-year
= 6,270,000 1b. ethyl alcohol emitted
year
n _ 6,270.000 1b. 1 ton
' year2,000 Ib.
_ 3,135 tons 1 year
year365 days
_ 8.6 tons
Say
The total stationary source emissions on non-methane
organics in the South Coast Air Basin for 1974 are estimated
at 651 ton/day. The percentage of emissions from station-
ary sources in the South Coast Air Basin due to bakeries is:
8.6 ton 100
day
651 ton
day
= 1.3%
The following table compares emissions from commercial
bakeries in the South Coast Air Basin to other major source
categories; for Non-Methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC) for 1974:* '
12-13
-------
% Total
Stationary Source Category NMHC Emissions
Miscellaneous Organic Solvent Usage 26.8
Surface Coating (Painting, etc.) 25.5
Petroleum Marketing 24.0
Petroleum Refining 7.3
Solvent Degreasing 5.8
Dry Cleaning 4.4
Structural Fires 4.2
Utility Equipment (lawn mowers, etc.) 3.1
Wild Fires 2.3
Pesticides 1.4
Commercial Bakeries 1.3
Power Generating Plants 1.3
Petroleum Refining-Fuel Combustion .8
Orchard Heaters .6
Industrial Fuel Combustion .5
Petroleum Production .4
Metallurgical Processing .4
According to this estimate, commercial bakeries would be
the llth largest NMHC emission category, within the South Coast
Air Basin, according to this system of classifying sources.
12-14
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1) Private commmunication, Mr. Robert Mantsch, Red Star Yeast
Company, Universal Foods Corporation, Milwaukee, WI
(414) 271-6755, May, 1977.
(2) McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, 1971,
Volume 5, page 445.
(3) Private communication, Mr. Peter Tobiason, ITT Continental
Baking Co., Inc., Rye, New York, (914) 967-4747, May, 1977.
(4) Private communication, Mr. Petri, Baker-Perkin Corp.,
Saginaw, Michigan, (517) 752-4121, May, 1977.
(5) Statistical Abstracts of the U.S., 1976, U.S. Bureau of
the Census.
(6) Preliminary Emissions Inventory .and Air Quality Forecast
1974-1994, Final Report, Air Quality Maintenance Planning
Task Force, South Coast-Southeast Desert Air Quality
Maintenance Areas, Final Report, May, 1976.
(7) Preliminary Test Results, conducted on August 4, 1977 and
November 15, 1977, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,
Missouri. Mr. Ralph Keller, Project Officer, (816)753-7600.
12-15
-------
Question:
Keller:
(MRI)
Question:
Keller:
Question:
CONDENSED DISCUSSION
What type was the oven and how did you sample
the emissions from it?
Our oven was an electric heating oven. We
had three holes in the top of the oven and
we had glassware coming out of the holes and
hooked into our GC. We had flow rate
measured out the top. We thus knew the con-
centration and the flow rate coming out the
top. We also believe because of our reali-
tively high flow rate coming out of the oven,
we did not have any organics turning back
onto the electric heaters on the bottom
of the oven.
How did you measure flow from the first of
the operation?
The GC unit has a sampling rate of 2.8 cubic
feet per minute. The holes were stuck into
a bag that had an inlet that was just open to
clean air so that the GC pulled out 2.8
and supposedly clean air came in at 2.8.
How do you feel about the statistical sig-
nificance of only using two loaves for de-
veloping emissions factor? You only did two
loaves - you are going to do two more.
12-16
-------
Keller:
Question:
Henderson:
Keller:
Question:
Yes, 1500 grams.
Why not make 20 or 30 continuously so you
identify the different variances?
Well we are not baking 20 or 30 because of
money constraints. It took six man days to
do the analysis and baking of just two loaves
of bread. This is quite a lot of money.
I believe that the two or four loaves we
make will provide fairly representative
emission factors. We will be using a
process similar to what bakers use and we
are making sure our bread and dough is
homogenious and that it is representative
of the "standard" loaf of bread.
Again, this was a first look to see how close
we came to the theorical values. If we
come out the second time and we find we are
far off then we may discuss with the project
officer to see if we should load up our
equipment, contact a baker and go out to
get field samples.
What were the other species that you
measured besides ethyl alcohol? Was there
anything else picked up in the GC?
12-17
-------
Keller: We found the ethyl alcohol was 95% of the
hydrocarbons coming out. There was no
methane. The other 5% of hydrocarbons had a
boiling point similar to ethanol. As we
pointed out there are a couple other organic
species that could be coming out, but we did
not sample to see what they were. We also
did not sample the water emission rate.
12-18
-------
Report No. PD-77-002
REACTIVE ORGANIC GAS EMISSIONS
FROM PESTICIDE USE IN CALIFORNIA
Report
By
F. J. Wiens*
Methods Development & Analysis Section
Air Quality Maintenance Planning Branch
Planning Division
California Air Resources Board
December 1977
(This report has been reviewed by the California Air Resources Board and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Air Resources Board3
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.)
*
Due to travel limitation Mr. Wiens was not able to attend the workshop
but his paper is included for informational purposes.
13-1
-------
ABSTRACT
This report identifies pesticide use as a major source of reactive
organic gas emissions in agricultural areas of California. Inventories
using existing assessment methodology show pesticide emissions to be too
low to be of significant interest. Although data sufficient to develop
a reliable emission assessment were not found, the information found
does indicate pesticide emissions nearly ten times larger than found in
existing inventories.
The Pesticide Use Report, published by the California Department of
Food and Agriculture, includes only 14% of the nonsynthetic organic
materials actually applied, and 52% of the synthetic organics. The
petroleum products used as or with pesticides are estimated to be 90%
volatile instead of 10% as found in existing assessment methodology.
California pesticide use in 1975 resulted in an estimated 339 tons/day
of reactive organic gas emissions. This is 7.9 times the amount in the
1973 published inventory and if included, is 16% of the 1973 total
stationary source reactive emissions.
13-2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables Hi
List of Figures iv
I. Introduction 1
II. Conclusions 4
III. Recommendations 5
IV. Pesticides 6
V. Emission Assessment 10
VI. Data Search 11
VII. Methodology Development 16
VIII. Work in Progress 28
IX. References 29
Appendix I 1975 Mill-tax Analysis 33
Appendix II Suggested Emission Assessment Procedure 37
Appendix III Application of Methodologies to Kern County .. 40
13-3
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1 1974 Agricultural Statistics 14
2 1975 Pesticide Spray Oil Use 18
3 Compilation of Pesticide Use 19
4 1975 PUR Inorganic Pesticides 21
5 1975 PUR Organic Pesticides 22
6 ARB Reactivity Classification or Organic Compounds ... 25
7 1975 PUR County Total s 26
13-4
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Ti tle Page
1 Pesticide Sources and Fates* 7
2 Pesticide Use Reporting Form 9
* Destination in the environment.
13-5
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The Clean Air Act of 1970 mandated establishment, attainment, and
maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The
United States Environmental Protection Agency, formed in response to
the mandate and charged to fulfill the requirements of the Act,
adopted various air quality standards designed to protect public
health and property, and aesthetic values of our environment. The
Air Resources Board (ARB) identified areas not meeting the standards
and initiated development of State Implementation Plans, which utilize
regulatory actions to meet the standards. When it became evident that
existing plans would not bring some areas into compliance with the
NAAQS by 1985, these areas were designated Air Quality Maintenance
Areas (AQMAs) and a strengthened Air Quality Maintenance Planning
(AQMP) process was initiated.
In California, the major urban areas (the Los Angeles basin, San Deigo,
and the San Francisco Bay Area) and the Central Valley (the San Joaquin
and Sacramento Valleys) were given AQMA designation in 1974. The air
quality in portions of all of California's AQMAs exceeds or is pro-
jected to exceed the 1 hour oxidant standard of 0.08 ppm. [31]
Oxidant is therefore a major concern in California. The formation
of oxidants in atmospheric photochemical reactions requires quantities
of reactive organic gas (ROG), often referred to as hydrocarbon.
One of the early steps which makes possible the formulation of a viable
air quality management plan as part of the AQMP process is development
of a baseline inventory of all emission sources in each AQMA. Dr.
James N. Pitts, Director of the Statewide Air Pollution Research
Center at U.C. Riverside, has stated:
"A comprehensive, detailed, and accurate emissions inventory
is the crucial input into any oxidant control strategy. These
emissions inventories must be consistent among the interacting
local, state, and national control agencies. Otherwise, serious
errors may arise in estimating both the absolute and the
relative contributions of various sources in a given air basin,
and lead to faulty oxidant control strategies." [1]
Motor vehicles and heavy industrial activities are recognized as the
major sources of ROG emissions in the urban areas. The ARB and
urban air pollution control districts have developed reliable emission
factors for these sources. However, these sources are not present
in California's Central Valley AQMAs in sufficient quantities to cause
the observed oxidant problems. Therefore, the local agencies, charged
in the AQMP process to develop the emission inventories, asked the
ARB to provide guidance on methodology for assessing ROG emissions
from sources such as pesticides. This paper is a response to these
requests.
13-6
-------
Background knowledge development was necessary to better understand both
the emission inventorying process and the pesticide field in general.
This background development made it apparent to the author that large
quantities of pesticide materials are applied in California for the
control of various pests in agricultural, industrial, and home-and-
garden situations. Much of this pesticide material is organic, vola-
tile, and reactive. It became apparent that existing emission assess-
ment techniques do not adequately recognize these factors and thus lead
to underestimation of reactive organic gas emissions from pesticide use.
An investigation was made into available information on various aspects
of pesticide emissions. The goal was to obtain factual data to sub-
stantiate and quantify the actual emissions. Information was found that
illuminates portions of this area of concern, but comprehensive data
were not found. Even the factor that seems the firmest, the high
volatility of the petroleum oils, is not backed up with specific,
accepted, methodical research data.
Several objectives were identified during the course of this study. The
overall objective is to improve the methodology for quantifying ROG
emissions from pesticide use. Specific objectives include delineating
existing methodology, presenting available information, drawing attention
to the inadequacies of both the present methodology and available
information as well as to the potential magnitude of the actual emis-
sions, developing a preliminary improved assessment technique, and
recommending future actions. Within the objectives stated above, the
factors to be considered in quantifying reactive organic gas emissions
from pesticide usage are separated into three basic categories:
1) Amounts - The amounts of pesticide materials applied have
previously been estimated from information presented in
the Department of Food and Agriculture's Pesticide Use
Report (PUR). [20,21] The PUR, however, reflects only
the portions of certain reported applications which are
listed in registration applications as being "active in-
gredients." An "active ingredient" is defined in the
Environmental Pesticide Act of 1972 as being "an ingredient
which will prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate insects,
nematodes, fungi, rodents, weeds or other pests; or
accelerate or retard the rate of growth or rate of matura-
tion or otherwise alter the behavior of ornamental or
crop plants or the produce thereof." [22] The PUR does not
adequately report the amounts of many materials which pro-
duce ROG emissions, including those amounts classified as
"inert" (not active).
2) Volatility - In the context of organic gas emissions from
pesticide use, volatility needs to be defined as the por-
tion, by weight, of the organic material applied that even-
tually gets into the atmosphere. This includes both the
original chemical constituents and all organic chemical
13-7
-------
or biological breakdown products, and this also implies a
timeframe of up to several years. Petroleum oils are widely
utilized in pesticide applications and are categorized both
as "active" and as "inert" ingredients. In bulk liquid
form these oils have a low volatility. However, after
pesticidal application, these oils exist as small airborn
droplets and as thin film deposits on plant and soil sur-
faces. The large surface areas thus presented enhance the
volatilization of the petroleum oils. [2,3] In fact, signi-
ficant residues are not found to remain a long time after
application. [30]
3) Reactivity - The reactivity of an organic compound refers
here to its ability to participate in photochemical oxidant
formation processes. Experts on reactivity seem to be
adopting the position that given sufficient time and the
right meteorology, all non-methane hydrocarbons (including
alcohols, amines, aldehydes, ketones, ethers, glycols, and
halogenated hydrocarbons excluding certain perhalogenated
compounds) can contribute to photochemical oxidant produc-
tion. [1,14,28]
This report will consider daily pesticide emissions to be on an annual
average basis although it should be recognized that the pesticide
materials that they emanate from are not applied on any uniform basis
throughout the year. The availability of data on the temporal and
spatial disaggregation of pesticide applications will be presented
and discussed. Toxicological problems arising from pesticide use are
the subjects of concern in other forums and will not be discussed in
this report.
13-8
-------
II. CONCLUSIONS
1. Pesticides constitute a major source of reactive organic gas
emissions. Recommended emission factors make pesticides the
largest uncontrolled source of reactive organic gas emissions
in agricultural areas.
2. Existing methodology for assessing reactive organic gas emissions
from pesticides has underestimated these emissions by a factor
of ten or more.
3. Existing data sources provide inadequate information on which
to base a reliable assessment of reactive organic gas emissions
from pesticides.
4. Methods for assessing reactive organic gas emissions from pesti-
cides which utilize Pesticide Use Report data must adjust for
amounts not included in that report.
5. The volatility of substantial amounts of pesticide materials is
higher than that used in existing assessment methodology.
6. California pesticide use in 1975 resulted in an estimated 339
tons/day of reactive organic gas emissions. This is 7.9 times the
amount in the 1973 published inventory, and if included, is 16% of
the total 1973 stationary source reactive organic gas emissions.
7. Considerable additional information on amounts, volatility, and
reactivity of pesticides is required in order to generate
emission factors with adequate confidence levels.
13-9
-------
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Air Resources Board develop, collect, and evaluate information
on amount, volatility, and reactivity of pesticide materials;
incorporate the results into revised emission factors; and
disseminate.
2. The Air Resources Board and the Department of Food and Agriculture
review and incorporate into the existing Pesticide Use Report
data processing system available DFA and EPA registration infor-
mation on "inert" organic constituents.
3. The Department of Food and Agriculture develop appropriate ways
to reconcile the mi 11-tax collection system and the pesticide
use reporting system or develop another method to facilitate
the generation of a useful, comprehensive and detailed inventory
of California's pesticide use.
4. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency initiate actions to
require pesticide manufacturers and formulators to include
specifications of "inert" organic ingredients in all registration
applications.
5. The Department of Food and Agriculture insure that all applica-
tions of pesticides are reported and inventoried.
6. The Air Resources Board utilize information available in the
Pesticide Data Bank, Food Protection and Toxicology Center,
University of California, Davis, and other sources, to ascertain
and evaluate situations where spatial or temporal concentrations
of pesticide applications may have significant impacts on air
quality.
13~io
-------
IV. PESTICIDES
We all have some idea of what pesticides are. Most of us are familiar
with the common home insecticide spray can. However, a comprehensive
definition seems useful at this point. "A pesticide may be defined
as any substance or mixture of substances intended for eliminating
or reducing local populations of, or for preventing or decreasing
nuisance from, any insect, rodent, fungus, weed, or other form of
plant or animal life or viruses, except viruses, micro-organisms, or
other parasites on or in living man or animals; and any substance
or mixture intended for use as a regulator of plant growth or develop-
ment, a defoliant or a desiccant, but not materials intended pri-
marily for use as plant nutrients, trace elements, nutritional chemi-
cals, plant inoculants and soil amendments." [27]
Every product intended for use as a pesticide must be registered with
the EPA Administrator. Pesticides, determined by the Administrator
to present a toxic hazard to the applicator or cause adverse effects
on the environment, are classified for restricted use only. Restricted
pesticides shall be applied only by or under the direct supervision
of a certified applicator, or subject to such other restrictions as
the Administrator may provide by regulation. [22] Similarly,
California maintains its own list of various restricted pesticides
and requires a permit for their possession or use. [23]
Pesticides and pesticide formulations may consist of materials from
three basic categories: synthetics, nonsynthetics (petroleum products),
and inorganics. The inorganics are not of concern here. Formulations
(mixtures) of synthetic pesticides with petroleum products are made
by pesticide manufacturers, pesticide formulators, and lastly pesti-
cides dealers. Nonsynthetic organic materials (petroleum products)
are used in pesticide mixtures as synergists, inhibitors, solvents,
emulsifiers, wetting agents, spreaders, stickers, diluents, carriers,
perfumes, and adjuvants. [27] Petroleum products are also applied
directly for the control of insects and mites on fruit trees (dormant
and summer oils), weeds (weed oils), and fungus on produce (light
mineral oils). [30]
Organic pesticides come in many forms and are applied in a variety
of ways. The forms include dusts, granules, wettable powders,
aerosols, emulsifiable concentrates, and oil solutions. Application
methods include aircraft spraying, ground-level spraying, and sub-soil
incorporation. All forms and all application methods have some
potential for volatile emissions.
Once the pesticide materials have been applied, various processes and
factors determine their ultimate fate in the environment. The second
law of ecology states: "Everything goes somewhere." A proper
analysis of organic emissions from pesticide applications must con-
sider all of the pathways. Figure 1 shows the various types of
13-11
-------
Figure 1
PESTICIDE SOURCES AND FATES
ATMOSPHERE
AIRCRAFT
SPRAY
GROUND
LEVEL
SPRAY
SUB-SOIL
INCORPORATION'
TARGET
ENVIRONMENT
1
WATER
SOLUBLE
03
»—i
z:
OL
CO
AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCT
AGRICULTURAL
WASTE
BIOLOGICAL
OR
CHEMICAL
BREAK-
DOWN
PERMANENT
SOIL
INCORPORATION
GROUND-WATER
ENVIRONMENT
13-12
-------
applications and fates of pesticide materials. The fates which
affect the ambient air environment include evaporation before and
after reaching the target environment, co-evaporation with water
evapo-transpiration, volatilization of biological and chemical break-
down products, and evaporation from and burning of agricultural
waste.
Nearly all studies of pesticides have been focused either on effec-
tiveness in dealing with a target pest or on potential adverse toxic
effects on other receptors, human in particular. The organic emis-
sions from pesticide use, however, have not previously been identified
as being of significant interest, and thus have not been the subject
of specific research. The most comprehensive sources of information
on pesticide use in California are reports compiled by the California
Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA). The DFA administers a
system which requires that possession or use of restricted pesticide
materials be reported.
Pesticide use reports covering all pesticides are submitted, using
the form shown in Figure 2, by licensed Agricultural Pest Control
Operators, licensed Structure Pest Control Operators, California
Division of Highways, California Department of Water Resources, vector
control agencies, State and County Agricultural Departments, Univer-
sity of California, County Road Departments, Irrigation Districts,
U.S. Government Agencies, Reclamation Districts, City and County
Parks, and various school districts. Reports are also submitted by
growers covering injurious materials and injurious herbicides
(restricted) that require a permit for use. [20,21] Common names of
chemicals are used wherever possible and registered brand names
(followed by a capital R) when necessary. This report will use the
names of the various chemicals as found in the Pesticide Use Report
(PUR).
Information from the individual use reports and ingredient statements
in registration files is compiled quarterly and annually, by the DFA,
and put into the statewide PUR, which is published and made avail-
able for distribution. The County Agriculture Commissions receive
monthly, quarterly, and annual summaries for their respective
counties. This information is the basis that counties and the ARE
use in generating pesticide emission inventories.
13-13
-------
Figure 2
PESTICIDE USE REPORT FORM
READ THE LABELS
00*0*1 o» UUD rfinoM CONTAINIIS AND sumus rttTiaofi^iAHtr.
PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT n
STATE Of CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AOfiiCUlTUHE - PESTICIDE USE BfPOHT
Counry Ho S«<1«• a»
A
B
c
0
1 5"3"6'3"67
1) l^.inat.oA N«-«b»f
... 1 ... I.I. .
.. 1 .... 1 . 1 ....
.... 1 .... 1 . 1 ....
.... 1 .... 1 . 1 ....
.... 1 . . 1 1 .
•4
m« P*f A«.. *-j— 1 ^-|_l) (»-)-3j
N 73 73 1 H 34 V^£»X JiVjLx
I
O*M*f O *JT 1
STATE Of CAllftMNIA OEPAHTMENT Of FOOD AND ACHICUlTUdE - PESTICIDE USE HEPOIT
N
1 1 3 '
4 W » ft
"""0* •". *»'••"•»• '•-" »— 1» « U">« "—^ »•>'-
Ol^•'
1 • 10
1 } ^r«
-------
V. EMISSION ASSESSMENT
A draft statewide inventory of all 1972 air pollution emissions was
compiled by the Air Resources Board (ARB) during fiscal year 1972-73.
Pesticide Use Report (PUR) data on reported amounts of active ingre-
dients applied in each county are the basis for the assessment of
pesticide emissions in this inventory. It divides the organic materi-
als found in the PUR into two groups. The first group consists of
petroleum distillates, petroleum hydrocarbons, petroleum oil unclas-
sified, and mineral oil. This group is considered to be 10% volatile.
The second group consists of aromatic petroleum solvents, xylene, xylene
range and all other liquid or gaseous organics (at 70° F.) (including
D-D mixture, DBCP, Telone-R, Phorate, Chloropicrin, Methyl Bromide,
Malathion, Parathion, Ordram-R and Diazinon). This group is consid-
ered to be 90% volatile. The amounts found in the first group,
multiplied by 0.1, and the amounts found in the second group, multi-
plied by 0.9, are added together and reported as total hydrocarbons
(HC). This HC figure is multiplied by .8 (an assumed reactivity
factor) and the result is reported as high reactive (HR). [4]
The ARB subsequently made an inventory for the year 1973 which has
been published. [5] In this inventory, the 1972 total HC figure
for each county is multiplied by the ratio of total 1973 pesticide
applications to total 1972 pesticide applications (from the 1972 and
1973 county PUR data). The result is reported as 1973 total organic
gas (TOG). [5] The same number is reported as reactive organic gas
(ROG) in light of the then recent ARB reactivity classification
scheme. (See Table 6.) In equation form, the pesticide emissions
correction from calendar 1972 to 1973 is:
1972 HC X = 1973 TOG = 1973 ROG
In short, the methodologies used in generating the 1972 and 1973
statewide emission inventories differ only in their assessment of
reactivities. A shortcut was employed in arriving at the numbers
reported in the 1973 inventory, but the underlying perception of
what was being inventoried remained the same. These methodologies
and this perception comprise the existing ARB assessment of reactive
organic gas emissions from pesticides.
13-15
-------
VI. DATA SEARCH
In the course of evaluating the existing emission assessment method-
ology, the author noted that the Pesticide Use Report (PUR) reflects
only the amounts of active ingredients contained in reported applica-
tions. This raised two questions: What are the "inactive ingredients"
and are all applications reported? These questions lead to the
Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA) so there they were raised.
The answer to the first question was found in the file of registration
applications. Many ingredient-statements list substantial amounts
of nonsynthetic organic materials, including xylene and other petro-
leum products, as "inerts." The amounts of "inert" organic materials
associated with applications of these formulations do not get into
the PUR and thus are not reflected in existing ARB emission inventor-
ies.
The answer to the second question, "are all applications reported?",
was that the DFA feels that the PUR reflects 80% of the amounts of
applications which require reporting. The missing 20% is felt to
consist of a combination of two factors; 1) applications required to
be reported but not, and 2) applications for which the reported
numbers are rejected by the computer due to transposed digits or some
other procedural error. No substantiation for the 80% figure has been
offered. [6]
The results of the initial investigation did not build up confidence
in existing ARB pesticide emission assessment methodology. Substan-
tial amounts of organic materials are not getting into the inventory.
It was apparent that more investigation would be required. It was
not apparent what results of the investigation would be.
A series of telephone calls was initiated to those who might be able
to lend expertise to the search for information. It was, of course,
necessary to describe the particular area of interest of the investi-
gation—emissions of reactive organic gas--as well as what had already
been discovered. The information found in the preliminary investiga-
tion, both on existing ARB emission assessment methodology and the
PUR, was shared and questions were asked. Findings common to all
such conversations were that the aspect of concern in the investiga-
tion had not previously been significantly raised, there was a feeling
of welcoming this concern, and nearly all of the contacts had some
useful information to share.
Dr. Crosby, at U.C. Davis, soon focused on one facet of the existing
ARB methodology: the volatility of the petroleum oils. [44] The
existing ARB methodology assigns these materials a 10% volatility
factor. Dr. Crosby questioned this low volatility and suggested
that it be examined very carefully. He considers the petroleum oils
to be highly volatile in pesticidal applications. An example of a
13-16
-------
similar material was offered: jet fuel, a petroleum product similar
to kerosene which is ordinarily considered to have a low volatility,
is frequently dumped in flight by military aircraft. None of the jet
fuel reaches the ground. The liquid organic material breaks up into
fine droplets which increases volatility. Petroleum products exist,
during and after pesticidal application, as droplets or thin films.
The resultant high surface area causes an increase in volatility.
Petroleum products constitute nearly 50% of the organic materials
in the PUR. Recognizing the high volatility of the petroleum products
signifies a large change in any assessment of pesticide emissions.
Considerable further research was now seen to be necessary with the
potential impact being a substantial increase in inventoried ROG
emissions from pesticides.
The PUR system is the only available source of data on actual pesti-
cide applications in California. The availability of data for each
county is particularly useful. The requirements for grower reporting
of restricted materials and governmental agencies reporting of all
materials, which provide input into the PUR, are described in Section
IV.
Exemptions, which relieve the applicator of the reporting burden,
include: home, structural, industrial, and institutional uses of
certain specific materials; certain dilute formulations; and certain
small package sizes of other specified materials. [23] In addition,
unlicensed individuals are not required to report applications of
unrestricted materials. The unrestricted category includes weed
oils: both materials sold and labeled as weed oil, and other mater-
ials utilized as weed controls. The applications covered by the
reporting exemptions and thus not reported, the misreporting and
non-reporting of applications requiring reporting, and the deletion
of "inert" materials in the compilation of the PUR combine to result
in the PUR showing only a fraction of the amounts of organic materials
actually applied.
The DFA collects an assessment on all California pesticide sales. The
assessment (referred to as the mill-tax) is 0.8<£ (8 mill) per dollar,
based on the price charged in the final sale by the registrant. 1975
mill-tax revenues were collected on sales of $326,000,000. [32]
Unfortunately, the DFA monitors neither prices nor sales quantities.
The author has put together the analysis in Appendix I, assigning
price estimates to various pesticide categories and varying the
distribution of amounts in the categories to obtain an estimate of
the amounts of pesticides sold. The analysis shows the amounts of
organic pesticide materials sold in California to be several times
those found in the PUR.
13-17
-------
The EPA Region IX Producer Establishment File shows weed oil produc-
tion in California in 1975 to be 75,700,000 Ib. [41] Nearly all of
this was for sale in California. Application of this material is
seldom reported to the DFA and thus the 75 million Ib. must be added
to the 34.5 million Ib. of nonsynthetic organics listed in the 1975
PUR.
The U.S. International Trade Commission reports 1975 U.S. synthetic
organic pesticide sales of 1,328,360,000 Ib. [7] This does not
include nonsynthetic organics such as petroleum oils, petroleum hydro-
carbons, petroleum distillates, aromatic petroleum solvents, xylene
and weed oil. Pesticide use in California has been estimated as 20%
of national use, but there is no direct information to verify this
estimate. Statistics shown in Table 1 indicate that California
accounts for 11.39% of U.S. agricultural crop production in 1974.
Assuming pesticide use in proportion to agricultural production,
California's portion of U.S. 1975 synthetic organic pesticide sales
would be 133 million Ib. This is 3.4 times the 39.5 million Ib. of
synthetic organic pesticides shown in the PUR. Actually the California
and U.S. agricultural statistics show more intensive agricultural pro-
duction in California - 11.39% of U.S. crop production from 2.4% of
U.S. crop acreage. More intensive production may imply more inten-
sive pesticide use.
Specific information on the volatility of either the synthetic or
nonsynthetic organic pesticides was not found. The nonsynthetic
materials do not leave significant residues and thus seem to be
highly volatile. The Petroleum Processing Handbook, describing the
historical development of pesticides, implicity recognizes the high
volatility of petroleum oils in the following description of the
action of residual spray: "This consisted of a solution of a stable
active toxic chemical in a petroleum-base oil. When the oil evapor-
ates [emphasis added], a film of insecticide remains..." [30] A
typical residual spray formulation contains 5% DDT, 15% aromatic
petroleum solvent and 80% deodorized kerosene. [30] There is no
reason to expect other combinations of toxicants and petroleum oils
to not evaporate in similar fashion.
The synthetic organic pesticides are subject to chemical and biologi-
cal breakdown. They are, however, rapidly volatilized if they pos-
sess significant vapor pressures and are not held to foliage surfaces
by leaf waxes or pores. [33]
The reactivity of the nonsynthetic organics can be confidently
assigned to the moderate and high reactivity categories (ARB classes
II and III). Specifications of unsaturation and aromatic composition
are required for more accurate differentiation between classes II
and III. (See Table 6.) Results of specific research on photochemi-
cal reactivity were found on only a few of the synthetic organic
pesticides. [14-16] While similar materials may be concluded to
have similar reactivities, the reactivity classification of many
13-18
-------
Table 1
1974 Agricultural Statistics
[3W9J
U.S. California Cal %
Farm acres 1,021,025,063 33,385,619 3.28
Crop acres 437,823,936 10,579,277* 2.42
Value of agricultural product $80,425,896,000 7,399,623,000 9.16
sold Including livestock and
forest products
Value of crops Including $41,221,500,000 4,730,855,000 11.39
nursery and hay
preliminary
13-19
-------
synthetic organic pesticides can only be inferred. The synthetic
organic pesticides tend to be very large molecules; and the reacti-
vity of many families tends to increase with size. Classifying
these pesticides by family grouping seems to be a conservative
approach.
The results of the data search show larger amounts of pesticide
material than presently inventoried by the ARB. The results also
show a much higher volatility for the largest category, the nonsyn-
thetics, which includes the large amounts not being inventoried.
Reactivity information is less crucial, but is needed for provision
of an inventory of the highest accuracy.
Emission inventories commonly report emissions in tons per day,
calculated by dividing annual emissions by 365. The reporting of a
daily emission figure should not be assumed to imply uniform temporal
or spatial distribution of emissions. In reality the emissions may
occur at various times and are seldom uniformly distributed. Pesti-
cide applications are concentrated in certain areas, at certain times
of the day, and during certain seasons. Some of the applications
may indeed be random, but they will never be uniform. The PUR
system records the specific time and place of application. (See
Figure 2.) The PUR data base will thus be useful in cases where
knowledge of temporal or spatial disaggregation is desired.
13-20
-------
VII. METHODOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
Observed discrepancies between existing emission inventories and the
information presented here indicate a need for development of better
pesticide use data and emission factors. The current need for base-
line emission inventories for AQMP consideration requires development
of interim factors reflecting the best available information. Addi-
tional information on local pesticide use, volatility, or reactivity
will be carefully considered by ARB staff.
Despite it's shortcomings, the Pesticide Use Report (PUR) is still
the most useful source of pesticide use data. Correction factors
are necessary to adjust reported use rates to reflect unreported
pesticide use. These correction factors are obtained by considering
several data and estimates. While any one of these data or estimates
may be challenged, the general agreement between them and the absence
of contradictory information leads to their use at this time. The
amounts of both synthetic and nonsynthetic organic pesticides called
for in the following estimates are compiled in Table 3.
1. The State Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA) indicates
that the PUR reflects 80% of the active ingredients from pesti-
cide applications requiring reporting. [6]
2. Confidential information was obtained from a major producer on
their inert organic ingredient output. This amount divided by
their reported active organics is 25%. A Kern County agricul-
tural expert estimates that 75% of the organic pesticide
applications are emulsifiable concentrates at 45-50% average
inert organic concentration. This estimate (.75 X .45 = .34)
indicates that 25% is conservative. Pesticide formulators and
dealers commonly dilute the product (add inert ingredients)
for safety and convenience. Knowledge of this situation adds
confidence to the conservatism of using the 25% concentration
figure.
3. Applications of weed oils or similar materials such as diesel
oil or kerosene are seldom reported. Licensed applicators and
government agencies which would report such use, instead use
more economically-effective synthetic herbicides. Private
individuals, however, do not need a permit to apply weed oils;
so these applications are not reflected in any use report.
Materials sold as weed oil amount to 9,832,380 gallons
(75,700,000 lb.). [41]
4. Establishments are known to sell nonspecific organics which are
used as weed oils. Substantial additional amounts of petroleum
products are used as insecticides. These uses include summer
oils, dormant oils, and carrot oils. In addition, cresote, a
coal tar product, is used to prevent insects from attacking
wood. Most of the use of these nonsynthetic organics is not
13-21
-------
reported to either the DFA or the EPA. A compilation of
California fruit and nut acreage, with dormant oil application
rates suggested by University of California and county Agricul-
ture Commission experts, shows 66 million pounds of dormant oil
applied in 1975. (See Table 2.) If the crankcase drainings
from 5% of California's automobile population are applied to
control weeds; this would amount to 4.5 million pounds (assuming
four quarts drained twice per year). Approximately 85 million
pounds of cresote were used in 1972 in California, Nevada,
Arizona, and New Mexico for preserving wood from attack by
fungi, marine borers, and insects. [25] If 10% of California's
portion (58 million pounds) is eventually volatilized, this
amount to nearly 6 million pounds. These estimates add up to
approximately 76 million pounds which is used in this analysis.
5. Pesticides and associated inerts used for home-and-garden and
many commercial and industrial applications are not covered by
the PUR. Estimates of nonagricultural use range from 20-50%
of total applications. The EPA estimated in 1974 that 41% of
the active-ingredient pesticides in the U.S. are used in non-
agricultural situations. [25] An estimate of 35% is used here.
6. Dr. Jarad Abell, head of the Formulation Research Group at
Chevron Chemical in Richmond, California suggested an average
active ingredient concentration of 1% be used for home-and-
garden pesticide aerosol cans. He also suggested an average
inert organic concentration of 20% be used (20 times the active
ingredient amount). [35] USDA statistics give 1974 U.S. produc-
tion of pesticide presurized spray containers of 125,411,000.
[37] Assuming sales on a per capita basis and assuming
California's population to be 10% of the U.S. population results
in an estimate of 12.5 million cans in California in 1975.
Dan Hogan, national marketing manager for Chevron Chemical,
stated that the average aerosol spray can contains 14 oz. of
product. He also stated that 11.7% of their home-and-garden
business (by units) was the aerosol spray can (assumed to be
indicative of the industry average). [36]
7. The remaining 88.3% of the home-and-garden as well as additional
industrial-commercial products are assumed to have average con-
centrations of 25% active ingredients and 25% inert organics
(suggested by both Dr. Abel! and Mr. Hogan). [35,36]
Table 3 shows the amounts of both synthetic and nonsynthetic pesti-
cides called for in the above estimates. The total amounts in both
categories are divided by the totals reported in the 1975 PUR to
obtain suitable multiples or correction factors.
13-22
-------
Table 2
1975 INSECTICIDE SPRAY OIL USE - ONE ANNUAL APPLICATION ON TOTAL ACREAGE
CROP
Almonds (So. SJQV)
Apples
Apricots
Avocados
Cherries
F1gs
Grapes
Grapefruit
Lemons (So. Cal.)
Limes (So. Cal.)
Nectarines (So. Cal.)
Oranges (So. Cal.)
Peaches
Pears
Persimmons (76)
Pistachios
Plums
Pomegranates (76)
Prunes
Tangelos (So. Cal.)
Tangerines (so. Cal.)
Tangors (So. Cal.)
* [46]
** [47]
*** [48]
ACRES [45]
163,518 (76)
26,807
31,117
40,588
13,980
18,754
248,850
25,998
51,226 (76)
463 (76)
18,230 (76)
65,453
88,738
41,612
570
29,727
31 ,203
2,958
87,018
2,081 (76)
3,138 (76)
907 (76)
RATE (Ib./acre)
45*
45*
45*
45*
45*
45*
7**
175***
350***
(2 appHc.)
1 75***
175***
175***
45*
45*
45*
45*
45*
45*
45*
175***
175***
• 175***
AMOUNT (Ib.)
7,358,310
1,206,315
1 ,400,265
1,826,460
629,100
843,930
1 ,741 ,950
4,549,650
17,929,100
81 ,025
3,190,250
11,454,275
3,993,210
1,872,540
25,650
1,337,715
1,404.135
133,110
3,915,810
364,175
549,150
158,725
65.964,850
13-23
-------
Table 3
COMPILATION OF 1975 PESTICIDE USE
Synthetics Nonsynthetics
1975 PUR 39,070,838 lt>. 34,547,690 lb.
1. Reporting Errors (^|§-= .25) » 9,767,71015. 8,636,923 lb.
2. Inerts (+25% of 75 PUR organlcs) = 18,404,633 lb.
3. Specific Weed 011s • 75,700,000 lb.
4. Nonspecific Organics - __ _ 76.000.000 Ib.
Subtotal 48,838,548 lb. 213,304,356 lb.
5. Nonagricultural : (35%)
Home and Garden:
6. Aerosol Cans - (12.5 X 106)(14oz X .01) = 109,375 lb.
(X .20) = 2,187,500 Ib.
7. Other (12.5 X 106 X X .25) =» 23,575,000 lb. = 23,575,000 lb.
Industrial & Commercial: 2,613,305 lb. 2,613,305 lb.
(remainder of 35%) _ _ _
TOTAL 75,136,228 lb. 241,680,161 lb.
75 PUR multiple—correction factors:
- LS2
^synthetics:
13-24
-------
Table 4 shows the amounts of inorganic pesticides found in the 1975
PUR. This list may be useful in identifying the major inorganics for
those compiling emission inventories.
Table 5 shows the amounts of both nonsynthetic and synthetic organic
pesticides found in the 1975 PUR. Table 5 also contains preliminary
assignments of volatility and reactivity to assist those compiling
emission inventories. The assignments for the nonsynthetics are
reasonably conclusive with the exception that amounts of unsaturation
and aromatic content in the petroleum products will be class III.
(See Table 6.) The volatility and reactivity of the synthetics are
highly conjectural and are presented only in the lack of better in-
formation.
The application of the correction factors from Table 3 and the
volatility and reactivity factors from Table 5 to the 1975 PUR data
results in an estimate of 1975 statewide pesticide organic emissions
of 347 tons/day. Of this, 339 tons/day are reactive. This latter
figure is 7.9 times the amount in the 1973 published inventory and
if included, is 16% of the total 1973 stationary source R06 emissions.
[5]
It must be emphasized that the correction factors in Table 3 are
based on statewide information. Use caution when applying these
factors to areas with urban and agricultural distributions signifi-
cantly different from the statewide distribution.
13-25
-------
Table 4
1975 PUR Inorganic Pesticides
Pesticides > 100,000 Ib. Statewide Applications
Blue vitriol 430,777 Ib.
Copper hydroxide 186,446 Ib.
Copper oxychlorlde sulfate 362,153 Ib.
Copper sulfate (basic) 421,167 Ib.
Copper-zinc sulfate complex 176,377 Ib.
Cryolite 548,206 Ib.
D1sod1um octaborate tetrahydrate 376,976 Ib.
Magnesium Chloride 360,344 Ib.
Sodium Chlorate 1,824,229 Ib.
Sulfur 25,612,672 Ib.
Sulfuric add 112,090 Ib.
V1kane-R 133,002 Ib.
TOTAL 30,544,439 Ib.
% of 75 PUR total 28.98%
13-26
-------
Table 5
1975 PUR Organic Pesticides
Statewide Reported
Active Ingredient
Pesticides > 100.000 1b. Applications % of Organlcs Volatility Reactivity
Aldlcarb
Amltrole
* Aromatic Petroleum So1vents3
Atrazlne
Azodr1n-R
Benomyl
Captan
Carbaryl 1
Carbofuran
Chlordane
Chlorop1cr1n 1
Chlorothalonll
2, 4-D
2, 4-D, Alkanolamlne salts
(Ethanol and Isopropanol
amines)
2, 4-D, Dimethyl ami ne Salt
2. 4-D,
Propyl eneglycol butyl ether
ester
Dacthal-R
Dalapon. Sodium Salt
DBCP & other related
194,218 Lb.
109.820
,226.856
120.840
220,711
100.468
207.710
.002.351
123,748
697,244
,902,148
227,642
169,582
352.589
426,748
805,281
307,943
276,767
634,237
D-D mixture 3,176.866
.26*
.15
4.38
.16
.30
.14
.28
1.36
.17
.95
2.58
.31
.23
.48
.58
1.09
.42
.38
.86
4.32
90*
10%
10«
905
30%
10%
90X
90X
102
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
I
III
Non-synthetics
13-27
-------
OEF
D1az1non
D1fo1atan-R
Dimethoate
D1phenam1d
Dt-syston-R
D1 thane
Dluron
DNBP
Dylox-R
Endosulfan
Ethlon
Ethyl ene D1 bromide
Fundal-R
Guth1on-R
IPC (Isopropyl CarbanHate)
Kelthane-R
MalatMon
Malelc Hydrazlde,
Diethanolamine Salt
Maneb
MCPA, D1metham1ne Salt
Methomyl
Methyl Bromide
Table 5
Cont,
426,754
309,413
564,549
473,685
144,910
432,626
189,982
235,992
1,742,021
137,566
471,080
196,398
407,250
144,965
316,305
240,539
508,939
455,209
151.581
230,539
382,612
854,402
7,164,325
.58 90*
.42 90*
.77
.64 90%
.20
.59
.26
.32
2.37 50*
.19
.64
.27
.55 5*
.20
.43
.33 90%
.69 10*
.62 90*
.21
.31
.52
1.16 90*
(acres) 20%
9.73 (Other) 75*
III
III [33]
III
I [24]
III
III [34]
III [34]
III [34]
I [24]
13-28
-------
Methyl Parathlon
* Mineral 011
Naled
Omlte-R
Ordram-R
Paraquat D1chlor1de
Parathlon
* Petroleum Distillates
* Petroleum Distillate,
Aromatic
* Petroleum Hydrocarbons
* Petroleum 011 ,
unclassified
Phorate
Table
Cont.
494,305
1.996.425
238,978
641.988
962,323
393,403
912,517
2,063.457
146,999
9.115,721
16,426.963
548,012
Phosdr1n-R & other related 272,294
S1maz1ne
Sodium Cacodylate
Telone-R
TOK-25-R
Toxaphene
THfluralln
* Xylene
* Xylene Range
Zlram
TOTAL
PUR total
-1norgan1cs>lOOO 1b.
PUR organic total
252.509
207,033
1,365,512
178,466
1.004.444
151.059
1.177,534
393.735
145.888
69,554. 976lb.
104.163,06715.
30,544,4391b.
73,618,52816.
5
.67
2.71
.32
.87
1.31
,53
1.24
2.80
.20
12.38
22.31
.74
.37
.34
.28
1.85
.24
1.36
.21
1.60
.53
.20
94.482
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
10%
50%
902
90%
90%
III [10,34]
II
III [34]
III
III [10]
II
III
II
II
III [29,33,34]
III
III
III [10]
III
III
13-29
-------
Table 6
Class I
(Low Reactivity)
Ci-C2 Paraffins
Acetylene
Benzene
Bensaldeh/de
Acetone
Methanol
Tert-alkyl alcohols
Phenyl acetate
Methyl benzoate
Ethyl Amines
Dimethyl formamlde
Perhalogenated
Hydrocarbons
Partially halogenated
paraffins
PhthalIc Anhydride**
PhthalIc Acids**
Acetonltrlle*
Acetic Acid
Aromatic Amines
Hydroxyl Amines
Naphthalene*
Chlorobenzenes*
Ni trobenzenes*
Phenol*
AR8
REACTIVITY CUSS IFl CAT I ON OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Class II
(Moderate Reactivity)
Mono-tert-alkyI-benzenes
Cyclte Ketones
Alky) acetates
2-Nttropropane
03+ Paraffins
CycloparaffIns
N-alkyl Ketones
N-methyl pyrrolIdone
N,N-d!methy! acetamlde
Alkyl Phenols*
Methyl phthalates**
Class III
(High Reactivity)
All other aromatic hydro-
carbons
All Oleflnlc hydrocarbons
(Including partially halo-
genated)
Al Iphatlc aldehydes
Branch alkyl Ketones
Cellosolve acetate
Unsaturated Ketones
Primary & secondary C2+
alcohols
DI acetone alcohol
Ethers
Cellosolves
Glycols*
C2+ Alkyl phthalates**
Other Esters**
Alcohol Amines**
C3+ Organic acids + dl acid**
C3+ dl acid anhydrides**
Formin**
(Hexa methylene-tetramine)
Terpenlc hydrocarbons
Olefln oxides**
* Reactivity data are either non-existent or Inconclusive, but conclusive data from similar
compounds are available; therefore, rating Is uncertain but reasonable.
** Reactivity data are uncertain
13-30
-------
Table 7
Annual 1975
PESTICIDE
USE
APRS,
C.RANO TOTAL 443,263
P. E P c K T COUNTY TOTALS
POUNDS ACRES
104,1*3,067.20 26,290,I4f.e0
ACTUAL APPLICATIONS-AGRICULTURAL
STRUCTURAL
GOVERNMENTAL
TOTAL
ACTUAL ACRES TREATED- A!R
GROUND
OTHER
COUNTY
ALAMSDA
ALPINE
AMAOOR
BUTTE
CALAVERAS
CfLUSA
CONTRA COSTA
DEL NORTE
£L DORADO
FhESNC
&LENN
HUMBOLDT
IMPERIAL
1NYO
KHRN
KINGS
LAKE
LASSF.N
LOS ANC.F-LtS
MADFRA
MARIN
MAR7POSA
230*626
93,306,636.36
9fll,244.<,0
6,168,716.1'.
16,04?,f-73 .4*.
230,828 102,47fr,&V6.«i'0 16,OA2,873 .
MERCED
MONO
Pf'NTEREY
NAPA
NEVADA
CIRANGF
PLACEP
PLUMAS
RIVERSIDE
SACRAMfMTC
<>,206,096.1!)
2^6,075. *>t.
729
A
59
3,64V
62
1,471
31
156
22,563
2,447
21
25,638
5
12.934
5,839
772
73
1,003
4,458
16
9
«94
7,317
801
6
812
40
1.193
473
5
V,264
2.59C
517,159.76
3,048.93
19,322.09
1,209,386.55
17,545.94
1,103, 990. 3P
554,113.52
3,200.31
44,356.30
6,631,635.41
814,135.01
30,194.11
7,251 ,129.79
1,785.47
6,886,300.26
2,046,905.76
159,161.24
13,305.91
1 ,f>33,672.bti
4,057,147.76
826,954.37
3,106.87
249,193.14
6,5t5,339.9«
76,579.33
2,976.63
7,250,616.46
479, 257. 4S
23,757.26
1 ,126,669.32
103,061.51
l,70t.45
2,920,71t..5C
1,248,571.31
16,916.85
690.00
2,335.00
32°, 472. 58
1,420.20
467,943.90
57,518.90
1,132.00
1,785.44
1,910,301.41
295,004.16
1,937.00
2,010,159.76
821 .00
1,375,476.1 1
678,413.90
24,920.60
6,035.00
63,430.61
349,735.40
3,922.31
110.55
29,841.10
471 ,313.49
52,862.90
7fl3.23
737,995.51
39,342.16
1 ,459.00
34,058.43
30,460.60
423.50
50*9,736.69
231,528.4V
13-31
-------
Table 7 cont.
Annual 1975 PESTICIDE USE
APPS,
COUNTY
SAN BENITO
SAN 6ERNARD1NC
SAN DIEGO
SAN FP.ANCISCC
SiN JCAOUIN
SAN LUIS 06ISPC
SAN M4TEO
SANTA PAkEARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CKUZ
SHASTA
SIERRA
SISKI YOU
SOLANO
SONOMA
STANISLAUS
SUT1FR
TEHAMA
TPINITY
TULARE
VENTURA
YOLC
TUPA
REPORT
POUNDS
ACRES
2,355
2,269
2,456
4
12,741
A, 55V
405
9S*>53'
1 ,677
3,288
175
3
680
3,114
1,656
8»877
5,253
719
2,414
12,974
126
11 ,574
5,850
1,223
538,296.12
1,153,116.08
1,231,241.55
33,606.74
9,546,006.73
802,224.62
140,929.40
2,450,162.73
760,270.05
1 ,448,099.83
219,627.14
2,228.07
78,960.17
1,551 ,356.63
468,577.77
8,840, 352. «5
1,836,737.91
409,318 .36
11,822.39
2,831,110.81
8,160.84
8,542,765.02
2,709,573.16
667,731 .66
77,199.76
60,95) .61
67,773.47
177.00
611 , 759.96
126,378.55
6,379.16
198,208.26
^5,670.79
67,931 .30
8,038.47
659.00
f>5,998.06
221,442.40
57,255.86
433,598.16
460,985 .23
<•* , 6^-8.33
541 ,968.45
1 ,626,1 74. P6
A, 897. 00
276,0°6.43
571,971 .10
104,171.19
TOTAL
230,628 102,476,596.90 16,042,873.44
13-32
-------
VIII. WORK IN PROGRESS
1. Eureka Laboratories is studying emissions from pesticide applica-
tions in Fresno County and is expected to submit a final report
to the ARB and EPA by June 1978,
2. Work is being undertaken by KVB, in the South Coast Air Basin,
to obtain data on nonagricultural applications (home-and-garden
and industrial).
3. The DFA Environmental Assessment Team is in the process of re-
searching and compiling information on pesticide use and the
resultant impact, primarily aimed at toxicological concerns.
The results of this significant effort, in combination with the
ARB's emission inventory work, can be expected to focus consid-
erable attention on the various environmental impacts of pesti-
cide use.
4. A major revision of the ARB Emission and Air Quality Assessment
report is being undertaken which will include an updating of
the pesticide emission assessment methodology and data.
13-33
-------
IX. REFERENCES
1. "Keys to photochemical smog control," by James N. Pitts, Jr.,
Statewide Air Pollution Research Center, U.C. Riverside, in
Environmental Science and Tech, Vol. II, No. 5, 5-19-77.
2. Personal Communications, Dr. Walter J. Farmer, Department of
Soil and Environmental Sciences, U.C. Riverside, 1977.
3. Personal Communications, Kenneth W. Moilanen, Department of
Environmental Toxicology, U.C. Davis, 1977.
4. Draft Emission Inventory, 1972, California Air Resources Board,
November 1973.
5. Emission Inventory, 1973, California Air Resources Board,
August 1976, (with corrections).
6. Personal Communications, Robert G. Rollins, supervisor of pesti-
cide registration, California Department of Food & Agriculture,
1977.
7. "Synthetic Organic Chemicals, U.S. Production and Sales, 1975,"
U.S. International Trade Commission. U.S. ITC Publication 804.
8. "Pesticide Photo-oxidation in the atmosphere" by K.W. Moilanen,
D.G. Crosby, Department of Environmental Toxicology, U.C. Davis,
undated.
9. 1976 NSF Grant renewal and progress report, by K.W. Moilanen,
Department of Environmental Toxicology, U.C. Davis.
10. "Dynamic Aspects of Pesticide Photocomposition," by D.G. Crosby,
K.W. Moilanen, C.J. Sonderquist, and A.S. Wong (1974) paper
no. 4, Division of Pesticide Chemistry, 137th meeting,
American Chemical Society, Los Angeles, California in Environ-
mental Dynamics of Pesticides, by R. Hague and V.H. Freed,
Plenum Press, New York, 1975.
11. "Volatility of DDT and Related Compounds" by William F. Spencer
and Mark M. Cliath in Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemicals,
Vol. 20, No. 3, 1972.
12. "Evaporation of Pesticides," G.S. Hartley, Fisons Pest Control
Ltd., Chesterford Park Research Station, near Saffron Walden,
Essex, England, in Pesticidal Formulations Research, Advances
in Chemistry Series 86, American Chemical Society Washington,
D.C., 1969.
13-34
-------
REFERENCES (Cont.)
13. "Photolysis of Methyl Bromide," a Progress Report by Kenneth W.
Moilanen and Donald G. Crosby, Department of Environmental
Toxicology, U.C. Davis, undated,
14. "EPA Policy on Photochemical Reactivity of Volatile Organic
Compounds," March 25, 1977.
15. "Utility of Reactivity Criteria in Organic Emission Control
Strategies for Los Angeles," by J.C. Trijonis and K.W. Arledge,
TRk Environmental Services, Redondo Beach, California, for
Basil Dimitriades, U.S. E.P.A., Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, December 1975.
16. "Hydrocarbon Reactivity and the role of Hydrocarbons, Oxides
of Nitrogen, and Aged Smog in the Production of Photochemical
Oxidants," by James N. Pitts, Jr., Arthur M. Winer, Karen R.
Darnall, Alan C. Lloyd, and George J. Doyle. Statewide Air
Pollution Research Center, U.C. Riverside, Paper No. 14-2,
presented at the International Conference on Photochemical
Oxidant Pollution and Us Control, Raleigh, North Carolina,
September 13-17, 1976.
17. Information supplied by the Pesticide Data Bank, Food Protection
and Toxicology Center, University of California, Davis, based
on data extracted from the Pesticide Use Report records furnish-
ed by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, 1977.
18. "1,3 - Dichloropropene and 1,2 Dibromoethane compounds: I- l"bve-
ment and Fate as affected be various conditions in several soils,"
by M.V. McKenry and I.J. Thomason, in "Hilgardia, A Journal of
Agricultural Science," published by the California Agricultural
Experiment station U.C. Division of Agricultural Sciences,
Vol. 42, No. II, May 1974.
19. Personal Communications, Michael V. McKenry, University of
California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, San Joaquin
Valley, Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 1977.
20. "Pesticide Use Report" Annual 1975, Department of Food and
Agriculture, Agricultural Chemicals and Food.
21. "Pesticide Use Report" Annual 1976, Department of Food and
Agriculture, Agricultural Chemicals and Food.
22. Public law P.L. 92-516 (86 stat 973) "the Federal Environmental
Pesticides Act of 1972" (Amends the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, Rodenticide Act) in U.S. Code Congressional and
Administrative News, Oct. 6 - Oct. 21, 1972.
13-35
-------
REFERENCES (Cont.)
23. "Restricted Materials," California Department of Food and
Agriculture, AFC 510-013 (Rev 7-76).
24. Letter dated December 15, 1976, to Mr. Wayne Morgan, Stanislaus
County Air Pollution Control District, from Michael V. McKenry,
University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences,
San Joaquin Valley, Agricultural Research and Extension center.
25. "Production, Distribution, Use and Environmental Impact Potential
of Selected Pesticides," R. von Rumker, E.W. Lawless, A.F. Meiners,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA
540/1-74-001, (1974).
26. "Insecticide Solvents: Interference with Insecticidal Action,"
Science Vol. 196 Page 1211, June 10, 1977.
27. "Environmental Engineering and Sanitation," second edition, by
Joseph A. Salvato, Jr., Wiley-Interscience, a division of John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1972.
28. "Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA 450/2-76-028, November 1976.
29. "The Pesticide Scoreboard," by Jerome B. Weber, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, in Environmental
Science and Technology, Vol. II, No. 8, August 1977.
30. "Petroleum Processing Handbook," co-editors William F. Bland
and Robert L. Davidson, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1967.
31. "The State of California Implementation Plan for Achieving and
Maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards,"
Revision 5, The California Air Resources Board, June 13, 1974.
32. Memorandum on "Value of Pesticides Sold in California," from
Sherman M. Nash, State Department of Food and Agriculture,
Agricultural Chemicals and Feed, July 28, 1977.
33. "Transport, Detoxification, Fate, and Effects of Pesticides in
Soil and Water Environments," by R. A. Leonard, G. W. Bailey,
and R. R. Swank, Jr., Southern Piedmont Conservation Research
Center, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Watkinsville, Georgia, in cooperation with the
University of Georgia Experiment stations and the Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Athens, Georgia, in Land Application of Waste Materials, the
Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Ohio, 1976.
13-36
-------
REFERENCES (Cont.)
34. "",gricultural Chemicals," by W. T. Thomson, Thomson Publications,
Fresno, California, 1977.
35. Personal Communications; Dr. Jarad Abell, Formulation Research
Group, Chevron Chemical, Richmond, California, November 1977.
36. Personal Communication, Dan Hogan, National Marketing Manager,
Chevron Chemical, San Francisco, California, November 1977.
37. "The Pesticide Review 1975," U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C., 1976.
38. "1974 Census of Agriculture," Vol. I, Part 5, California State
and County Data; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, Washington, D.C., April 1977.
39. "1974 Census of Agriculture," preliminary report, October 1976.
40. Personal Communication, Ivan Smith, General Manager, Western
Agricultural Chemicals Association, Sacramento, California, 1977.
41. "Producer Establishment File," U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX, San Francisco, California, 1975.
42. Draft 1975 Kern County Emissions Inventory (corrected).
43. "Chemical Marketing Reporter," Vol. 208, No. 1, July 7, 1975.
44. Personal Communication, Dr. Donald G. Crosby, Department of
Environmental Toxicology, U.C. Davis, 1977.
45. "1976 California Fruit and Nut Acreage," California Crop and
Livestock Reporting Service, Sacramento, California, June 1977.
46. Personal Communication, Richard Rice, Research Entomologist,
University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences,
San Joaquin Valley, Agricultural Research and Extension center,
1977.
47. Personal Communications, Larry Peterson, Fresno County Agricul-
ture Commission, Fresno, California, 1977.
48. Personal Communications, Dr. Louis A. Riehl, Department of
Entomology, University of California, Riverside, 1977.
13-37
-------
APPENDIX I
1975 Mi 11-Tax Analysis
The State Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA) collected an assess-
ment on total 1975 California pesticide sales of $326 million. This
seems to be most comprehensive source of sales information since all
pesticide sales are assessed. The DFA does not monitor either prices
or quantities sold so the total sales figure is not useful directly.
If pricing can be obtained, the total quantities sold can be calcu-
lated. To do this, it is necessary to divide pesticides into synthe-
tic, nonsynthetic, and inorganic categories as these categories have
radically different price structures.
The aggregate wholesale price of the synthetic organics sold nationally
in 1975 was $1.78 per Ib. [7] Ivan Smith of the Western Agricultural
Chemicals Association says the typical mark-up in the pesticide indus-
try is 10 percent. [40] Since there are usually two levels of price
increase (a double 10 percent mark-up), $2.15 Ib. is chosen for this
analysis.
Consulting the July 7, 1975 Chemical Marketing Reporter and retail
outlets leads to assigning an aggregate retail price of 10 cents per
Ib. (77 cents per gallon) to the nonsynthetic category (petroleum
products) and 15 cents per Ib. to the inorganic category (mostly
sulfur).
Calculating the total sales quantity, using the proportions found in
the Pesticide Use Report (PUR) for the three categories, results in
a total of 365 million Ib. The synthetic and nonsynthetic PUR multi-
ple correction factors would both be 3.5.
The PUR system is primarily designed to report the use of restricted
materials which are composed largely of the synthetics. It seems
reasonable to postulate, therefore, that the synthetics are more
heavily represented in the PUR than in actual sales. Developing this
insight, the following analysis varies the percentage assigned to the
synthetic category and shows the resulting quantities of all three
categories. The relative amounts of the nonsynthetics and inorganics
are fixed at the proportions found in the PUR to avoid having excess
unknowns. The higher price of the synthetics results in much larger
totals for smaller synthetic percentages.
The mill-tax is not collected on the petroleum products not specified
or sold as pesticides. Therefore, this analysis does not reflect
the amounts of nonspecific organics used as pesticides. (See Section
VII, Item 4.)
The results of this analysis are shown in the following tables and
graph. The estimates in Section VII and Table I are consistent with
the mil1-tax analysis.
13-38
-------
Chemical Commodity Prices from July 7, 1975 Chemical Marketing Reporter
(Quotation of 11st prices)
Sulfur, crude
Sulfur, flour, light
Sodium metaborate, octahydrate
Sodium metaborate, tetrahydrate
Cryolite
Copper Sulfate (basic)
Sulfurlc Acid (West Coast)
Magnesium chloride, anhydrous
Magnesium chloride, hydrous
Petroleum Xylene
$53-58.5/1ong ton
$11.25/100 Ib.
$140/ton
$196.5/ton
$510-550/ton
$70.60/100 Ib.
$50-55/ton
$.1275/lb.
$120/ton
$.565-.57/gal.
$/lb.
.03
.11
.07
.10
.27
•?1
.0275
.1275
.06
.079
13-39
-------
1975 Mill-Tax Calculations
$326 x 106 total 1975 pesticide sales [32]
Assumptions:
75 PUR Proportions
X
X
X
X
X
X
$2.15/lb
.10/lb
J5/lb
1-^3303 = 1
z 72895
Total =
Synthetics
= .3799 .
1.39 x 108lb
= .3250
1.35 x 108lb
• -30
1.34 x 10°lb
= .25 a
1.29 x 10°lb
* '20 8
1.23 x 108lb
= .15
1.14 x 1081b
synthetics )
nonsynthetics (77
-------
TOT4L.
5-4i.es
xft
20*
100
39
1975 MILL-TAX ANALYSIS
pe/tcc^r
13-41
-------
APPENDIX II
Suggested Emission Assessment Procedure
1. Obtain a printout of DFA PUR for the county and year being in-
ventoried from the County Agriculture Commission. [17]
2. Total the major inorganic pesticide chemicals (found in Table 2)
from the County PUR. This should amount to approximately 30
percent of the total pesticide chemicals. Subtract this inorgan-
ic total from the total pesticide chemicals.
3. The above results (total organic pesticides) times the appropri-
ate factor to account for unreported chemicals, multiplied by
90 percent volatility, may be used to give a preliminary indica-
tion of the magnitude of the total pesticide organic emissions.
4. For a more detailed inventory, use the volatility and reactivity
classification data found in Table 5. The chemicals listed
account for about 95 percent of the reported statewide usage in
1975. Construct a table similar to the table in this appendix.
5. List the nonsynthetics found in step 1. Multiply the reported
pounds of each by the assigned volatility, and place the result
in the assigned reactivity column.
6. Total columns II and III. (There will not likely be anything
in column I). Multiply each by 7 and place the results in
boxes (1) and (2).
7. Total the reported pounds, subtract from total organics, and list
as total synthetics.
8. List the synthetics found in step 1. Multiply the reported
pounds of each by the assigned volatility and place the result
in the assigned reactivity column.
9. Total the reported pounds of listed synthetics, divide by the
total synthetics found in step 7, multiply by 100 and list as
percent of synthetics (under the volatility column).
10. Total the three reactivity columns (for synthetics), multiply
each by 192, divide by the percent of synthetics found in step
9 and place the results in boxes 3, 4, and 5.
11. Add boxes (1) and (4) and place the result in box (6).
12. Add boxes (2) and (5) and place the result in box (7).
13-42
-------
13. Add boxes (6) and (7), divide by 2000 and 365 and report the
result in tons/day as ROG.
14. Add boxes (3), (6), and (7), divide by 2000 and 365 and report
the result in tons/day as TOG.
13-43
-------
[Suggested Form for Pesticides Organic Gas Emission Inventory]
County Organic Pesticide Emissions 19
Total Pesticides
- Inorganics
Total Organlcs
Ibs.
Ibs.
Ibs.
Reactivity Classification
Chemical (>1%)
Ibs.
Volatility I
II
III
Non-Synthetics
Total
Total Organlcs
- Non-Synthet1cs_
Total Synthetics
Synthetics
X 7
(1)
(2)
Total
Total
ROG =
TOG =
Synthetl
Organlcs
(2000)
(3H6
(2000)
XX. XX V
of synthetics
» 1-92 _ (3)
•xxxx (3)
7) _
*'•--• - Tons/Day
(365)
\ + (n_ - r /n
^355)- - Tons/Day
(4) (5)
(6) (7)
13-44
-------
APPENDIX III
Application of Methodologies to Kern County (San Joaquin Valley Portion)
Existing ARB Methodology: HC T/D HR T/D
72 Kern County: Pesticides [4] 1.7 1.4
Stationary Sources Total 112.5 (1.5%) 17.5 (8%)
Light Duty Vehicle Exhaust 28.8 21.6
All Source Total 169.9 (1%) 60.0 (2.33%)
TOG T/D ROG T/D
73 Kern County: Pesticides [5] 2.5 2.5
Stationary Sources Total 220 (1.1%) 135 (1.9%)
Light Duty Vehicle Exhaust 15.8 14
All Sources Total 262 (1%) 173 (1.4%)
Proposed Methodology:
75 Kern County: Pesticides 23.87 23.63
72 Kern County: Pesticides 28 26
Other 75 Kern County Inventory Data [42]:
Stationary Sources Total 245 170 (13.9%)
Light Duty Vehicle Exhaust 11.1 9.8
All Sources Total 273 194 (12.2%)
Comparison:
Proposed vs. existing methodologies, both applied to 1972 PUR data:
26
TT4"
Proposed methodology applied to 1975 PUR data vs. 1973 published (corrected);
23.63 .
13-45
-------
PESTICIDE OSG REPORT DATA
COU/VTY TOTfiL-.
TitEAreO BY A IK.
OIL
"DEF
-ft.
a M + rrTC
Lfe.
/97Z_
ACRES
92
a, /9 3 07.
\, 1,2 7"rtlCM.o
III
2*7
4-H
c ?
SI
37^ 1'
7^7
/7 7
/ 3 7.
.2 * 3
. 71
r°
11» v
t
• ir r-
(Dt c
01 ,i-
30 9
, i / 7.7 r
.,917. ro
.. 10
. 0
-------
.S/3N/
1972 PESTICIDE EMISSIONS
"L.c .
COUNTY
-rorai.
TONS/Cwr/
o.e
FRESNO
. 5"
i. r
30
0.3
3.5-
^.8
3.0
1 DOK
13.8
3.1
3.3
0.3
1.4-
.4
4.4-
03
O. 1
0-3,
0.4-
0.3
6.2
3.6
0.2
I.ST
1.4-
1.6
1.3
to
I
8.\
TO
2.
O.2.
.3.2.
3.4-
2.7
S". 3
1.0
s.q
3-S"
4-.S"
3.6
8.4
42.
0.4-
. 4-
13
1.1
/.-f
7.0
,12. -1
O
. c?
18
I
1.7
.
(M)
-------
TOP 100 PESTICIDES 3Y TOTAL LBS APPLIED
IN 1975 IN KERN COUNTY [17]
RANK CHEM TOTAL LBS
ACRES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
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
3a
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
45
49
50
00560
00765
00401
00763
00536
00385
00478
00136
00445
00473
00752
00179
00622
00211
00459
00344
00238
00216
00597
00198
00230
00105
00052
01673
00293
00442
00190
00575
00130
01726
00193
00231
00239
01601
00367
00292
00534
00333
0031 A
00786
00106
00135
00369
01095
00418
00161
00531
0010*
00264
00356
1806136,51
1084484, 1 9
47Q945, 10
434711,63
345306,25
325785,35
235277,93
234912.02
177236,66
172087,25
i2l546.16
113211,61
95816,34
94687,60
94186,33
88593.03
88290,26
87548,99
85037.96
72074,53
71496,53
68972,94
67676,90
66573,53
62256,21
61616,38
53413.08
51343,40
51064,47
43246.65
42673,30
00831.40
^0712,66
35324,95
35004.52
32278,16
28691,06
2-8238,94
25500.08
25357,40
22237. 39>
20905.95
18891 ,20
17357,56
17267,04
16909,56
16076,99
15832,70
15156,40
14387,34
78056.00
35481*78
16677*00
26184.50-
89792i50
838961,01
101294.70
838713,41
78733*07
24483*00
102190*82
18629.00
79328.50
57146.50
75763*80
63393.10
43660*78
69625*20
73814,42
84848*90
6390] .24
14098*83
32579.75
128813.50
46254.30
1033.00
42633*50
39007.46
12472*50
11200.30
2123*00
15803*00
5152.50
130462*51
573J.50
21234,00
1986.00
64414*40
30060*80
26962.00
26506«50
0*00
11526.00
434?, 00
15291,50
433*00
9440*66
5229*00
5476,00
850»00
SULFUR
PETROLEUM OIL* UNCLASSIFIED
MINERAL OIL
PETROLEUM DISTILLATES
SODIUM CHLORATE
METHYL BROMIDE
PHORATE
CHLOROPICRIN
OMITE-R
PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
AROMATIC PETROLEUM SOLVENTS
DACTHAL-R
XYLENE - --
DITHANE
PARATHJON
KELTHANE-R__
ONBP
DIHETHOATE
TRIFLURALIN _
DIAZINQN
DI-SYSTON-R
CARBARYL _ _ _ _
AZQDRIN-R
SODIUM CACODYLATE
FOLEX-R
SULFURIC ACID .
DEF
ALDICARB
CHLORDANE
2-(ALPHA-NAPHTHOXY)-N,N-DIETHY
OBCP _
DIUROW
DNBP* AMINE SALTS
PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE
HALATHION
DIFOLATAN-R
SODIUM ARSENITE
METHOMYL
GUTHION-R
HCPA, DIVETHYLAMINE SALT
CAR80FURAN
CHLORONE8
MANEB
2*4-0* N-OLEYL-1»3-PROPYLENEOI
NALED
BLUE VITRIOL
SIMAZINE
CAPTAN
EPTAM-R
LIHE-SULFUR
13-48
-------
RANK CHEN TOTAL LBS
ACRES
51 00464
52 OJ166
53 00334
54 016A9
55 00335
56 00394
57 00778
56 00032
59 00806
60 00490
61 008"!
62 00164
63 01814
64 00480
65 01154
66 00566
67 01826
68 00259
69 00151
70 01081
71 00226
72 00162
73 00576
74 00449
75 00361
76 01697
77 00158
78 00088
79 00083
80 90480
81 00300
82 00834
83 00339
84 00194
85 00592
86 01768
87 00677
88 00173
89 00636
90 00714
91 00675
92 00809
93 00268
94 00748
95 00155
96 90293
97 00111
98 00502
99 00240
100 00862
13716,44
13056,40
13162.53
12942.06
12632.50
11743.75
11594,44
11412*67
10890,90
10050.56
9820,68
8941,82
8842,06
8835.87
8755,27
8294,64
7975.43
7761.19
7427,44
7367,69
7324,59
7064,74
6999,00
6889,09
6833,00
6523.31
6449,09
6196.89
5683,00
5882.64
5fl67,10
5780,91
5621.34
5569,90
5544,00
5520.19
5378,75
5329,92
5117,92
5026.06
4978,87
4773,02
4588,82
3885,04
3552,00
3322.66
3260.02
3226.60
2917.05
2706,27
15104,30
6946,00
}6242«00
12880.00
11076,00
30676*00
1907tOO
128313,50
14099,00
6702,00
9750*25
1055*00
24164,90
29187*50
847*00
20423.67
2400,00
7571,00
1393*00
1556,00
1243,50
1945*00
4711,00
2556.00
6047*50
7659*50
2361,00
6566*50
581*00
• 29187*50
7220*00
7070*00
1609*00
0*00
1226*00
2030*50
3977*00
694.00
6596*00
2270*00
3314*60
7620*00
, 2261.00
6907*00
1870*00
46254,30
2036*00
1815*00
4677*00
4113*00
PCNB
FLUOHETURON
HETHOXYCHLOR
SUPRACIDE-R
IHIDAN-R
METHYL PARATH10N
HALEIC HYORAZIOE, DIETHAhflt ixl
CACOOYLIC ACID «UU*»«I
2*4-0» OIMETHYLAMINE SALT
PLANAVIN-R
2*4-D» ALXANOLAMINE- SALTS
COPPER-ZINC SULFATE COMPLEX
PETROLEUM DISTILLATE* AROMATIC
PHOSDRIN-R
-ALPHA»(PARA-NONYLPHENYL)-OMCCA
DEMETON
COPPER HYDROXIDE-TRIETHANOLAMI
ENOOSULFAN
COPPER HYDROXIDE
DALAPON* SODIUM SALT
DIPHENAMID
COPPER SULFATE (BASIC)
CHLOROXURON
ORDRAH-R
LINURON
MONITOR-R
COPPER OXYCHLORIOE SULFATE
DYLOX-R
BROMACIL" " :
PHOSORIN-R* OTHER RELATED
FUNOAL-R
BROMOXYNIL OCTANOATE
IPC
OEXON-R
"TOK-25-R
LIGNIN SULFONIC ACIO CZINC SAL
CHLOROTHALONIL _
CRYOLITE
2*4-0
COPPER
PHENMEDIPHAN
2»4-D» ISOOCTYL ESTER
ETHION
ALKYLARYLPOLY/OXYETHYLENE/GLYC
COPPER SALTS OF FATTY AND ROSI
FOLEX-R* OTHER RELATED
FORMETANATE HYDROCHLORIOE
PROHETRYNT-R
DN8P* AMMONIUM SALT
XYLENE RANGE AROMATIC SOLVENT
13-49
-------
Kern
County Organic Pesticide Emissions 1972
Total
Total
^sticides 10,105,825 Ibs.
Inorganics 4,802,068 Ibs.
Organics 5,303,757 its.
Reactivity Classification
Chemical Ibs. Volatility I n ni
Nonsynthetics
Petroleum Oil, Unclassified 1,099,550
Petroleum Hydrocarbons 731,133
Mineral 011 580,414
Petroleum Aromatic Solvents 111,279
Petroleum Distillates 13,688
Xylene 51,592
Xylene Range 52,094
TOTAL
2,639,750
Total Organlcs 5,303,757
- Nonsynthetics 2,639,750
Total
Synthetics 2,664,007
90% 989,595
90% 658,020
90% 522,373
90% 100,151
90% 12,319
90% 46,433
90% 46,885
2,182,307 193,469
X 7 = 15,297,869 1,356,214
Synthetics
DEF
213,822
90% 192,440
D1kar-R (130,168) ?
Kelthane-R 143,573
Malathlon 121,722
PCP
(122,996)
Phorate 137,042
1,1,2
TOTAL
Total
Trlchloroethane 413,600
1,029,759 (
of s
Synthetics 2,664,007
10% 14,357
90% 109,550
?
90% 123,338
90% 372,240
38.65%) 372,240 439,685
ynthetlcs
1.93 11.858 ,792 2,195,324
tOfC ' • —
13-50
-------
Total Organtcs
1 ,858,792
15,297,869
3,551,538
Rnr,
IMJU
15.297.869+3.551.538 _
(2000)(365)
TOG « 1.858.792 +15.297.869 » 3.551.538 ,
12000)^365)
13-51
-------
Kern County Organic Pesticide Emissions 1975
Total Pesticides 6,886,390
- Inorganics 2,313,486
Total Organics 4,572,904
Chemical (>68,000 Ibs.)
Nonsynthetics:
* Petroleum oil. unclasslfiedl,
* Mineral oil
* Petroleum Distillates
* Petroleum Hydrocarbons
* Aromatic Petroleum Solvents
" Xylene
TOTAL 2,
Total Organics 4,
- Nonsynthetics 2f
Total Synthetics 2,
Synthetics:
Methyl Bromide (acres)
(other)
Phorate
Chloropicrin
Om1te-R
Dacthal-R
Dlthane
Parathion
Kelthane-R
DNBP
Ibs.
Ibs.
Ibs.
Ibs.
Reactivity Classification
Volatility I II
III
084,484 90% 976,036
490,945 90% 423,891
434,712 90* 391,241
172,087 902 154,878
121,546 90%
95,816 902
379,590 1,946,006
572,904
379,590
193,314
X 7 * [13,622,042
109,391
86,234
195,625
1, 369,275)
333,960 20% 66,792
1,644 75% 1,233
235,278 90%
234,912
177,237
113,212
94,688
94,186
88,593
88,290
90%
90%
20%
10%
90%
10%
50%
211,750
211,421
159,513
22,642
9,469
84,767
8,859
44,145
13-52
-------
Reactivity Classification
chemical (>68,000 Ibs.J
Synthetics cont.
Dlmethoate
Dlazlnon
Carbaryl
TOTAL
Total Synthetics
ibs. Volatility
87.549 90*
72,075 90%
68.973 10%
1,690,597 77.08X 68,
(of synthetics)
(2,193,314) X 1-gZs = T7T,
I II III
78,794
64,868
6,897
025 903,1*5
327 12,261 ,32fr|
Total Organlcs [170.327 [ 13, 622. 042^ 3. 630. 703 1
onr , 13.622.042 + 3.630.703
ROG -- - (i600)(365)
TOG
13.622.042 + 3.630.703 + 170.327
(2000)(365)
23.87 Tons/Day
13-53
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-78-042a
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
». TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Emission Inventory/Factor Workshop. Volume I
5. REPORT DATE
May 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Various
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
ADDRESS
jte
9. P-EflFOBMJUG PPGANiZATJON NAMf ANQ ADI
Air Pollution Training institul
Air Management Technology Branch
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Same
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Proceedings
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Moderator: James Southerland
16. ABSTRACT
This report in two volumes presents the written form and summarized discussions
of "presentations" made at the Emission Inventory and Factor Workshop in Raleigh, N.C,
September 13-15, 1977. A total of twenty-five "papers" on emission inventory and
factor experiences and other information with emphasis on organics (hydrocarbons)
were presented. Authors represented EPA, state air pollution control agencies and
private industry.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Emission inventory
Emission factors
Volatile organic compounds
Oxides of nitrogen
Natural organic emissions
State implementation plans
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Held/Group
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMEN1
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unrestricted
21. MO. OF PAGES
338
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unrestricted
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
14-1
------- |