United Stete®       Environmontal Rtonitoring end Support
Envirormemal Protection   Laboratory
Agency         Research Triangle Park NC 27711
                         EPA-600/4-79-029
                         April 1979
     Davalopmswi
Monitoring of
Ambient Levels of
Ethylene Dichloride
(EDC) in the
Vicinity  of EDC
Production and User
Facilities

-------
                RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology  Elimination  of traditional grouping was  consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:

      1   Environmental  Health Effects Research
      2   Environmental  Protection Technology
      3   Ecological Research
      4   Environmental  Monitoring
      5.  Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
      6.  Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
      7   Interagency  Energy-Environment Research and Development
      8.  "Special" Reports
      9   Miscellaneous Reports

This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING series.
This series describes research conducted to develop new or improved methods
and  instrumentation for the identification and  quantification of environmental
pollutants at the lowest conceivably significant concentrations. It also includes
studies to determine the ambient concentrations of pollutants in the environment
and/or the variance of pollutants as a function of time or meteorological factors.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                                   March 1979
      MONITORING OF AMBIENT LEVELS OF EDC
      NEAR PRODUCTION AND USER FACILITIES

                      by

           PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
              11499 Chester Road
            Cincinnati/ Ohio  45246
            Contract No. 68-02-2722
                Project Officer

              Seymour Hochheiser
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SUPPORT LABORATORY
      OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
     U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA  27711

-------
                                  DISCLAIMER
     This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

-------
                                   FOREWORD
     Measurement and monitoring research efforts are designed to anticipate
potential environmental problems, to support regulatory actions by develop-
ing an in-depth understanding of the nature and processes that impact health
and the ecology, to provide innovative means of monitoring compliance with
regulations and to evaluate the effectiveness of health and environmental
protection efforts through the monitoring of long-term trends.  The Environ-
mental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, is responsible for development of:  environmental monitoring tech-
nology and systems; agency-wide quality assurance programs for air pollution
measurement systems; and technical support to EPA's Office of Air, Noise and
Radiation, Office of Toxic Substances, and Office of Enforcement.

     This study was conducted at the request of the Office of Air, Noise and
Radiation for use in health risk assessment.  A system for measurement of
ethylene dichloride in ambient air was developed and evaluated.   Field moni-
toring was conducted and data on ethylene dichloride concentrations in ambient
air reported for three geographic areas.  Precision and accuracy of the re-
ported data were characterized through implementation of a quality assurance
program.
                                       Thomas R.  Hauser
                                       Director
                                       Environmental Monitoring and
                                         Support Laboratory
                                       Office of Research and Development

-------
                                   ABSTRACT
     A study was conducted near ethylene dichloride  (EDC) production and user
facilities to determine ambient EDC levels.  The results will be used in health
risk assessment studies now in progress.  Three geographical study areas were
selected, and a 10-day monitoring program was conducted at each.  Integrated
sampling was conducted over a 24-h period at 12 locations within each study
area.  Meteorological measurements, consisting of wind speed, wind direction,
temperature, relative humidity, and rainfall were also made.  The EDC in the
ambient air was collected on charcoal sorption tubes, eluted with an organic
solvent, and quantitated by gas chromatographic (GC) separation and mass spec-
trographic  (MS) detection techniques.  Ambient levels of EDC at some locations
were found to be in excess of 500 yg/m3  (125 ppb).  These high levels occurred
during atmospheric conditions of calm or low wind speeds.

     The field monitoring activities, laboratory analyses, quality assurance
program, and EDC levels obtained are presented in this report.

     This report was submitted in fulfillment of Assignment No. 8 of Contract
No. 68-02-2722 by PEDCo Environmental, Inc., under the sponsorship of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  This report covers the period August 1978
to February 1979, and work was completed as of March 23, 1979.
                                      IV

-------
                              CONTENTS
Foreword	    iii
Abstract	     iv
Figures	     vi
Tables	     ix
Acknowledgment 	    xii

    1.  Introduction 	      1
    2.  Conclusions	      2
    3.  Sampling Protocol	      3
    4.  Data Presentation	     20
    5.  Quality Assurance Program	     60

References	     79
Appendices

    A.  Tentative method for determining atmospheric EDC by 24-h
          integrated sampling	     80
    B.  Meteorological data from Calvert City, Kentucky, study .  .     92
    C.  Meteorological data from Lake Charles, Louisiana, study.  .    107
    D.  Meteorological data from New Orleans, Louisiana, study .  .    121

-------
FIGURES
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

9

10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18


Map of Calvert City, Kentucky, study area 	
Map of Lake Charles, Louisiana, study area 	
Map of New Orleans, Louisiana, study area 	

Sketch of the 24-hour integrated sampler for EDC monitoring. . .


Results of preliminary EDC study, Calvert City, Kentucky,
for 8/26/78 to 8/27/78 	
Results of preliminary EDC study, Calvert City, Kentucky,
for 8/27/78 to 8/28/78 	 	 	
Results of preliminary EDC study, Calvert City, Kentucky,
for 8/28/78 to 8/29/78 	
Results of EDC study, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/9/78 	
Results of EDC study, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/10/78 	
Results of EDC study, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/11/78 	
Results of EDC study, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/12/78 	
Results of EDC study, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/13/78 	
Results of EDC study, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/14/78 	
Results of EDC study, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/15/78 	
Results of EDC study, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/16/78 	
(continued)
Page
5
7
10
13
14
16
17

23

24

25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

  VI

-------
                              FIGURES (continued)






Number                                                                    Page




 19    Results of EDC study,  Calvert City,  Kentucky,  9/17/78	    34




 20    Results of EDC study,  Calvert City,  Kentucky,  9/18/78	    35




 21    Results of EDC study,  Lake Charles,  Louisiana, 9/24/78 	    37




 22    Results of EDC study,  Lake Charles,  Louisiana, 9/25/78 	    38




 23    Results of EDC study,  Lake Charles,  Louisiana, 9/26/78 	    39




 24    Results of EDC study,  Lake Charles,  Louisiana, 9/27/78 	    40




 25    Results of EDC study,  Lake Charles,  Louisiana, 9/28/78 	    41




 26    Results of EDC study,  Lake Charles,  Louisiana, 9/29/78 	    42




 27    Results of EDC study,  Lake Charles,  Louisiana, 9/30/78 	    43




 28    Re-suits of EDC study,  Lake Charles,  Louisiana, 10/1/78	    44




 29    Results of EDC study,  Lake Charles,  Louisiana, 10/2/78 	    45




 30    Results of EDC study,  Lake Charles,  Louisiana, 10/3/78 	    46




 31    Results of EDC study,  Lake Charles,  Louisiana, 10/4/78 	    47




 32    Results of EDC study,  Lake Charles,  Louisiana, 10/5/78 	    48




 33    Results of EDC study,  New Orleans,  Louisiana,  10/10/78 	    50




 34    Results of EDC study,  New Orleans,  Louisiana,  10/11/78 	    51




 35    Results of EDC study,  New Orleans,  Louisiana,  10/12/78 	    52




 36    Results of EDC study,  New Orleans,  Louisiana,  10/13/78 	    53




 37    Results of EDC study,  New Orleans,  Louisiana,  10/14/78 	    54




 38    Results of EDC study,  New Orleans,  Louisiana,  10/15/78 	    55




 39    Results of EDC study,  New Orleans,  Louisiana,  10/16/78 	    56




 40    Results of EDC study,  New Orleans,  Louisiana,  10/17/78 	    57




 41    Results of EDC study,  New Orleans,  Louisiana,  10/18/78 	    58




                                  (continued)




                                      vii

-------
                              FIGURES (continued)


Number                                                                    Page

 42    Results of EDC study, New Orleans, Louisiana, 10/19/78 	     59

 43    Diagram of a 150-mg charcoal tube	   62

 44    Standard deviation and arithmetic mean concentration
         of EDC for collocated samples	   68

 45    Standard deviation and mean concentration of EDC
         for duplicate analyses of selected samples 	   72

 46    Apparatus for generator and sampling gas mixtures
         of EDC on charcoal tubes	   77

 A-l   Diagram of tandem charcoal tubes	   81

 A-2   Sketch of 24-hour integrated EDC sampler  	   85
                                      viii

-------
                                    TABLES
Number                                                                    Page

  1    Data Summary of EDC Levels in Calvert City,  Kentucky,
         Study Area	      22

  2    Data Summary of EDC Levels in Lake Charles,  Louisiana,
         Study Area	      36

  3    Data Summary of EDC Levels in New Orleans,  Louisiana,
         Study Area	      49

  4    Analysis of Backup Tubes from High Level EDC Sampling	      63

  5    Analyses of Collocated Samples from Calvert City,  Kentucky,
         Study Area	      65

  6    Analyses of Collocated Samples from Lake Charles,  Louisiana,
         Study Area	      66

  7    Analyses of Collocated Samples from New Orleans, Louisiana,
         Study Area	      67

  8    Duplicate Analysis of Desorbed Samples from the
         Calvert City, Kentucky, Study Area 	      69

  9    Duplicate Analysis of Desorbed Samples from the
         Lake Charles, Louisiana, Study Area	      70

 10    Duplicate Analysis of Desorbed Samples from the
         New Orleans,  Louisiana, Study Area 	      71

 11    Analyses of Unknown External Standard Solutions of EDC 	      74

 12    FDC Found in EPA Quality Assurance Samples	      75

 13    EDC Found in the Eight PEDCo Quality Assurance Samples 	      78

 B-l   Meteorological Data, Calvert City, Kentucky, 8/26/78 	      93

 B-2   Meteorological Data, Calvert City, Kentucky, 8/27/78 	      94

                                   (continued)


                                      ix

-------
                              TABLES  (continued)






Number                                                                    page




 B-3    Meteorological Data, Calvert City, Kentucky, 8/28/78 	    95




 B-4    Meteorological Data, Calvert City, Kentucky, 8/29/78 	    96




 B-5    Meteorological Data, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/9/78	    97




 B-6    Meteorological Data, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/10/78 	    98




 B-7    Meteorological Data, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/11/78 	    99




 B-8    Meteorological Data, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/12/78 	   100




 B-9    Meteorological Data, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/13/78 	   101




 B-10   Meteorological Data, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/14/78 	   102




 B-ll   Meteorological Data, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/15/78 	   103




 B-12   Meteorological Data, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/16/78 	   104




 B-13   Meteorological' Data, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/17/78 	   105




 B-14   Meteorological Data, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/18/78 	   106




 C-l    Meteorological Data, Lake Charles, Louisiana, 9/24/78	   108




 C-2    Meteorological Data, Lake Charles, Louisiana, 9/25/78	   109




 C-3    Meteorological Data, Lake Charles, Louisiana, 9/26/78	   110




 C-4    Meteorological Data, Lake Charles, Louisiana, 9/27/78	   Ill




 C-5    Meteorological Data, Lake Charles, Louisiana, 9/28/78	   112




 C-6    Meteorological Data, Lake Charles, Louisiana, 9/29/78	   113




 C-7    Meteorological Data, Lake Charles, Louisiana, 9/30/78	   114




 C-8    Meteorological Data, Lake Charles, Louisiana, 10/1/78	   115




 C-9    Meteorological Data, Lake Charles, Louisiana, 10/2/78	   116




 C-10   Meteorological Data, Lake Charles, Louisiana, 10/3/78	   117




 C-ll   Meteorological Data, Lake Charles, Louisiana, 10/4/78	   118




                                  (continued)

-------
                              TABLES (continued)






Number                                                                    Page




 C-12   Meteorological Data,  Lake Charles,  Louisiana,  10/5/78 	     119




 D-l    Meteorological Data,  New Orleans,  Louisiana,  10/10/78 	     122




 D-2    Meteorological Data,  New Orleans,  Louisiana,  10/11/78 	     123




 D-3    Meteorological Data,  New Orleans,  Louisiana,  10/12/78 	     124




 D-4    Meteorological Data,  New Orleans,  Louisiana,  10/13/78 	     125




 D-5    Meteorological Data,  New Orleans,  Louisiana,  10/14/78 	     126




 D-6    Meteorological Data,  New Orleans,  Louisiana,  10/15/78 	     127




 D-7    Meteorological Data,  New Orleans,  Louisiana,  10/16/78 	     128




 D-8    Meteorological Data,  New Orleans,  Louisiana,  10/17/78 	     129




 D-9    Meteorological Data,  New Orleans,  Louisiana,  10/18/78 	     130




 D-10   Meteorological Data,  New Orleans,  Louisiana,  10/19/78 	     131
                                      xi

-------
                                ACKNOWLEDGMENT
     This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
by PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio.  Mr. Lawrence Elfers was the
PEDCo Project Director.  Principal authors of this report were Messrs. Elfers,
Wisbith, Pusaro, and Khalifa.

     The authors appreciate the many contributions made to this study by Messrs.
Baumgardner, Bumgarner, Evans, Finkelstein, Greer, Hartlage, Knoll, Martin,
Sauls, Smith, Truppi, Youngblood, and Wahl of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.  In addition, we appreciate
the cooperation and assistance of the many individuals who allowed us to place
monitors at their homes and businesses.
                                      xii

-------
                                   SECTION 1

                                 INTRODUCTION


     Ambient air quality data giving the levels of ethylene dichloride (EDC)
in populous areas near EDC production and user facilities are needed for health
risk assessment studies now under way by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Acency (EPA). Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.  The EPA Environ-
mental Monitoring and Support Laboratory (EMSL), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, of the Office of Research and Development, was selected to sponsor
this project.

     To obtain the data, a method was developed and laboratory tested for the
measurement of ambient levels of EDC in the range of yg/m3 (ppb).  The method
involves sampling for 24-h (with a charcoal tube as the collection medium), de-
sorbing the charcoal in an organic solvent, and measuring the EDC levels by
separation and detection through GC/MS.  The method was laboratory-tested at
various temperature, humidity, and EDC levels; and proved to be an analytical
technique with an overall EDC recovery of 80 to 90 percent (1-5).

     This method was used to measure ambient EDC levels around three production
and user facilities.  In each study, 24-h integrated samples were collected at
12 locations for each of 10 days.  Meteorological conditions were also monitored.
Based on the prevailing meteorological conditions, samples were selected for
analysis for each 24-h period.  This selectivity reduced the number of samples
to be analyzed, but at no loss of data:  samples taken upwind of the emission
source were expected to show only background EDC levels; therefore, fewer sam-
ples from these areas were analyzed.  About 70 percent of all samples collected
were analyzed.

     Sampling was conducted at the following locations:

     •   Calvert City, Kentucky:  B.F. Goodrich facility

     •   Lake Charles, Louisiana:  Conoco facility

     •   New Orleans, Louisiana:  Shell and Union Carbide facilities

     The results of these field sampling activities and subsequent analyses are
presented in detail.

-------
                                   SECTION 2

                                  CONCLUSIONS
     Ethylene dichloride was found to be present in the ambient air at all
three geographical areas studied.

     The highest levels recorded in the Calvert City, Kentucky, study area were
about 170 yg/m3  (18 ppb).  The EDC levels in the New Orleans study area peaked
on two occasions at 170 yg/m3  (42 ppb) at a site near an EDC handling operation.
Levels at other sites in this study area were about 10 yg/m3 (2.5 ppb).  The
highest levels of ambient EDC were recorded in the Lake Charles, Louisiana,
study area.  Concentrations of EDC were found to be in the range of 200 to
500 yg/m3  (49 to 125 ppb) at several sites throughout the 10-day study.

     Ambient EDC levels are a product of the plant production rate, extent of
emission control, and meteorological and topographical features.  These elements,
which are beyond the scope of this report, must be considered when using these
data in health risk assessment.

     The precision of the analytical method, based on statistical analysis
(relative standard deviation) of replicate standard solutions, was determined
to be 3 percent.  The precision of both the analytical and sampling methods,
based on statistical analysis  (relative standard deviation) of replicate samples,
was determined to be 6 percent.  Standard check samples prepared by EPA and by
PEDCo were used to determine the accuracy of the analytical method.  The EPA
check samples yielded an average recovery of 72 percent, and the PEDCo samples,
an average recovery of 97 percent.  In an attempt to find the reason for this
discrepancy, a statistical evaluation was made of the possibility of EDC decay
on the tube between the times of preparation and analysis; but no biases were
observed.  Because the reason for the discrepancy could not be ascertained, the
accuracy of the analytical method can only be estimated as between 72 and 97
percent.

-------
                                   SECTION 3

                               SAMPLING PROTOCOL


     Field studies were conducted in the vicinity of three EDC production and
user facilities selected by the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Stan-
dards.  In each study, 24-h integrated samples were collected daily at 12
locations for a 10-day period.  Duplicate samples were collected at each site.
The activated charcoal tubes were kept sealed until they were placed on the
sampling unit, and they were resealed with plastic caps after sampling.  The
tubes were stored in the dark at 0°C until analysis.  The average time between
sampling and analysis was 15 days.

     Field study design was coordinated with EPA in the following technical
areas:

     •   Statistical design

     •   Field study equipment

     •   Field study techniques

     •   Data interpretation

     •   Quality assurance

     •   Analytical procedures

SITE SELECTION

     The three study areas selected by EPA were:

     •   Calvert City, Kentucky:  Location of the B.F. Goodrich facility

     •   Lake Charles, Louisiana:  Location of the Conoco and PPG facilities

     •   New Orleans, Louisiana:  Location of the Shell Oil and Union Carbide
         facilities.

     PEDCo, with the assistance of an EPA meteorologist, selected 1 meteoro-
logical and 12 sampling sites at each study area.  Each site is described
below in detail.

-------
Location of Calvert City, Kentucky, EDC Study Sites

     A map of the study area is presented in Figure 1.  The location of the
main EDC emission source is 37°3I5"N, 88°19'36"W.  Elevation at stack exit
is 150.88 m; stack height is 45.72 m.  The study area is  located in the lands
on both sides of the Tennessee River near Calvert City, Kentucky.  B.F. Good-
rich's chemical plant is located on the flat land south of the river.  Sites
1 through 4 were placed near the plant; site 5 was located on the river east
of the plant; and sites 6 through 12 were located in low, partially wooded
hills north of the river.

Site 1—
     This site was located within the fenced area of the Warren Petroleum Co.,
Calvert City terminal, 800 m and 130° southeast of the B.F. Goodrich plant.
Propane gas  (only) is stored at this site.  Elevation was 105 m.  A meteo-
rological system and an EDC sampler were at this location.  Exposure was
excellent.

Site 2—
     This site was located on Highway 282 in Calvert City in the front yard of
the Roy Springer residence, 1280 m and 217° southwest of the B.F. Goodrich
plant.  Elevation was 107° m.  The area between the B.F. Goodrich plant and
the site was open, with scattered trees.  A small woods was situated south of
the site.

Site 3—
     This site was located on Highway 282 in Calvert City atop a small building
next to the Carl Deekes residence, 1260 m and 197° south-southwest of the B.F.
Goodrich plant.  Ground elevation was 107 m, with the roof 3 m above the ground.
Exposure was excellent; the area between the site and the plant was open, with
scattered trees.

Site 4—
     This site was located at Routes 282 and 1523 in Calvert City in the front
yard of the James Stowe residence, 1960 m and 153° south-southeast of the B.F.
Goodrich plant.  Elevation was 107 m.  The area between the site and the plant
had scattered woods.  Exposure was good.

Site 5—
     This site was located on the floating boat dock a* the Guinn Fish Camp,
in Gilbertsville, 3440 m and 120° east-southeast of the B.F. Goodrich plant.
Elevation was 91 m.  The dock floated in the Tennessee River, 10 m from shore-
line, and exposure to emissions channeled up the river valley was excellent.

Site 6—
     This site was located behind a tool shed on the Gerald Devine pig farm,
3200 m and 89° east of the B.F. Goodrich plant.  The sampler was set on a
small grassy knoll at a 119-m elevation, with excellent exposure in all direc-
tions .

-------
Figure 1.  Map of Calvert City, Kentucky, study area.

-------
Site 7—
     This site was located on the Willard Jones pig farm in Grand River, 2860
m and 70° east-northeast of the B.F. Goodrich plant.  The farm was situated
on the side of a small valley running down to the Tennessee River.  The sampler
was placed atop a small wellhouse.  Ground elevation at this site was 122
m, with the wellhouse roof 2 m above the ground.

Site 8—
     This site was located in the backyard of the Charles Johnson residence,
in Grand River 3700 m and 44° northeast of the B.F. Goodrich plant.  Open
pasture land lay in the area between this site and the banks of the Tennessee
River.  Exposure was excellent.  Elevation at this site was 128 m.

Site 9—
     This site was located in the front yard of the Ed Gillum residence in
Grand River, 2680 m and 35° northeast of the B.F. Goodrich plant.  Elevation
was 113 m.  The area between this site and the B.F. Goodrich plant was open
farmland.

Site 10—
     This site was located in an open area behind the Pinks Barbeque Stand
in Smithland, 3000 m and 8° north of the B.F. Goodrich plant.  Elevation was
110 m.  Because it was in a heavily wooded valley, this did not appear to be
a very good site, but local residents stated that smells from the plants located
across the Tennessee River always seemed worse in this valley.

Site 11—
     This site was located in a large open area near the barn on the Ralph
Bloodworth farm in Smithland.  Distance from the B.F. Goodrich plant was 2350 m;
direction from the plant was 355° north; elevation was 119 m.  The area between
the site and the plant was open farmland.

Site 12—
     This site was located in the large backyard of the Preston Bloodworth
residence in Smithland, 2750 m and 329° north-northwest of the B.F. Goodrich
plant at a 107-m elevation.  The area between this site and the plant was open
farmland.  Exposure was excellent.

Location of Lake Charles, Louisiana, EDC Study Sites

     A map of this study area is presented in Figure 2.  The location of the
principal EDC emission source is 30°15'9"N/ 93°17'5"W.  Elevation at stack exit
is 49.68 m; stack height is 45.11 m.  The study area is in the flat coastal
plains of southern Louisiana, west of the junction of the Calcasieu River with
Lake St. Charles.  The town of Westlake, in which the Conoco plant is located,
consists of residential and industrial areas.  All Westlake samplers, except
as indicated in individual site descriptions, were located on the ground at an
elevation of 5 to 10 m above sea level.

Site 1—
     This site was located in the front yard of the John C. Dyson residence
(Route 2, Box 1145), about 1200 m and 178° south of the main vent stack of

-------

                                                                     .,,;„> in ESS*
                                                                     H*UV-—-=«!.« •&'*•<
                                    i rv t  f^_»   (T * 4^yf*f.g'^vj^x.f.^


                                    ^^S^..-g^-.»-JWDtf^rQ •'
                                             PITTSBURGH
                                            PIATE  GLASS
Figure  2.   Map of Lake Charles, Louisiana, study  area.

-------
the Conoco plant.  Trousdale Road, a tree-lined, north-south road in front of
the Dyson residence, terminated at the plant property line just south of the
main vent stack.  When winds were from the north, this road channeled emissions
from the plant to site 1.

     The sampler was located in a large  30- by  30-m section of the  front yard
that was open to Trousdale Road.  The area to the northeast and south was
scattered with trees, the area to the west was  heavily wooded.  An  EDC plant
operated by Pittsburgh Plate Glass  (PPG)  is located approximately 1800 m south
of the site.

Site 2—
     This site was located in the front  yard of the Irene Gray residence
 (Route 2, Box 735), 590 m and 228° southwest of the main vent stack of the
Conoco plant.  The area consisted of tall trees with very little undergrowth.
Streets ran' north-south and east-west.   The neighborhood was an old subdivision
with many vacant lots that had become overgrown.  The eastern side  of the area
bordered the Conoco property.  During periods of little or no wind, emissions
from the plant drifted into the area.  The sampler was located in a front yard
area that had no trees within 10 m.

Site 3—
     This site was located in the front  yard of the Paul Victoria residence
 (Route 2, Box 794 M), 940 m and 275° west of the main vent stack of the Conoco
plant.  Located at the fringe of the residential area described in  site 2, this
location was well exposed, with only a few small trees.  The sampler was locat-
ed for excellent exposure in all directions.

Site 4~
     This site was located in the front  yard of the Oriese Thomas residence
 (Route 2, Box 748), 570 m and 242° southwest of the main vent stack of the
Conoco plant, and in the residential area described for site 2.  The sampler
was located near the corner of two streets and  had good exposure, even though
the area was wooded.  Vehicle traffic in the neighborhood was very  light.

Site 5—
     This site was located on the roof of the Thomas Body Shop (Michigan Avenue
and Old Spanish Trail), 870 m and 219° southwest of the main vent stack of the
Conoco plant.  The roof area, 7 m above  the ground, had good exposure in all
directions.  Work activities at the body shop were confined to a few hours in
the evening, and included no painting, degreasing, or gasoline services.

Site 6—
     This site was located at the Mossville Elementary School (Old  Spanish
Trail), 1140 m and 244° southwest of the main vent stack of the Conoco plant.
The school was in a large open area between Westlake and Mossville.  The sam-
pler was placed on the roof of one of the auxiliary buildings, and  was 4 m
above the ground.
                                       8

-------
Site 7—
     This site was located in the backyard of the Jerry Harding residence
(Evergreen Drive), 2770 m and 297° northwest of the main vent stack of the
Conoco plant.  The area between the plant and this site was open, with a few
trees.

Site 8—
     This site was located in the front yard of the Shirley Bunch residence
(Evergreen Drive), 2570 m and 313° northwest of the main vent stack of the
Conoco plant.  The area between the plant and this site was open, with very few
trees.

Site 9—
     This site was located at the residence of Gerald Bult (Powell Lane), 1800 m
and 323° northwest of the main vent stack of the Conoco plant.  An EDC sampler
and meteorological tower were located in a large open field behind the Bult
residence.  No large obstructions were present within 200 m.   The area between
the plant and the site was open with the exception of a few trees.

Site 10—
     This site was located in the backyard of the John Hyde residence (Route 2,
Box 1586), 1190 m and 343° north of the main vent stack of the Conoco plant.
The area near the sampler was open, with the exception of a few scattered pine
trees.

Site 11—
     This site was located in the backyard of the Herman Dyson residence (2215
Margaret Street), 880 m and 70° east of the main vent stack of the Conoco plant.
A few trees were in the vicinity of the sampler, but the area between this site
and the Conoco plant was open.

Site 12—
     This site was located in the backyard of the Harold Daily residence (913
Carroll Street), 2020 m and 117° southeast of the main vent stack of the Conoco
plant.  This was a residential area, and the site had a large open yard con-
taining only a few small trees.  Exposure was good in all directions.

Location of New Orleans, Louisiana/ EDC Study Sites

     A map of the New Orleans, Louisiana, study area is presented in Figure 3.
The principal EDC emission sources are:

     •   Shell Chemical Plant, Norco, Louisiana, at 3000'15"N,
         90°25'30"W.  Elevation at stack exit is 36.5 m;
         stack height is 33.53 m.

     •   Union Carbide, Hahnville, Louisiana, at 29°59'06' N,
         90°26'15"W.  Elevation at stack exit is 18.29 m;
         stack height is 15.24 m.  The stack is equipped with
         an incinerator.

-------
                   \CANAL NO J
PARADIS  IS 12 km SOUTH  OF
      IIOM CARBIDE PLANT
             Figure 3.  Map of New Orleans, Louisiana, study area.

-------
     The study area is in the flat delta lands on both sides of the Mississippi
River north of New Orleans, Louisiana.  All samplers, except as indicated in
individual site descriptions, were located on the ground at an elevation of
3 to 6 m above sea level.  A levee of 10-m height runs along both sides of
the Mississippi River and along the Bonnet Carre floodway, which connects the
Mississippi River with Lake Pontchartrain.  The study area is residential,
intermingled with chemical plants and oil refineries.  A large swamp area is
located south of the Union Carbide plant.

Site 1—
     This site was located in Laplace at the Hopkins Fruit Stand (Highway 61
and Prescott Road), 4000 m and 343° north-northwest of the Shell plant; and
6000 m and 5° north of the Union Carbide plant.  Adjacent to the site is the
Bonnet Carre floodway, a flat, wooded area of 2000-m width running between the
Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain.  Route 61, a four-lane highway with
moderate traffic, passed within 30 m of the site.  The sampler was located on
top of a small cooler next to the fruit stand.  The sampler inlet was 3 m above
the ground.

Site 2—
     This site was located in Laplace at the residence of Neil Madere (195
Evangeline Road), 4050 m and 295° northwest of the Shell plant; and 4200 m and
310° northwest of the Union Carbide plant.  Located in an area of new homes
with large open yards, this site had good exposure in all directions.

Site 3—
     This Laplace site was located in the front yard of the Joseph Calcayvno
residence  (Route 1, Box 731), 3025 m and 275° west of the Shell plant; and
2675 m and 331° northwest of the Union Carbide plant.  The area around the
Calcayvno residence was open for 200 m in all directions, giving excellent
exposure.  The 10-m high Bonnet Carre floodway levee was 250 m to the east.
The Mississippi River levee of the same height was 500 m to the south.

Site 4—
     This site was located in Norco inside the fenced area of the Bonnet Carre
maintenance facilities, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  A meteorological system
and EDC sampler were located here.  The site was 400 m and 299° southwest of
the Shell plant; and 2700 m and 37° northeast of the Union Carbide plant.  The
Bonnet Carre floodway levee was 50 m to the west and the Mississippi River
levee was 300 m to the south.  Under calm wind conditions, emissions from the
Shell plant could be held in the pocket formed by the junction of the two levees.

Site 5—
     This site was located in Norco in the backyard of the R.V. Jacob residence
(524 Alleman Street), 825 m and 32° northeast of the Shell plant; and 3500 m
and 37° northeast of the Union Carbide plant.  Located in a residential area
of the west part of Norco, this site had excellent exposure to the Shell plant.
                                     11

-------
Site 6—
     This site was located in Killona in the front yard of the Corrine Woods
residence, 6050 m and 266° west of the Shell plant; and 4600 m and 289° north-
west of the Union Carbide plant.  Located at the eastern edge of Killona, the
site had excellent exposure to the north, east, and south.

Site 7—
     The sampler at this Hahnville site was located on the roof of Marie's
Cafe (Route 18), at a height of 5 m above the ground.  The site was 2850 m
and 24° southwest of the Shell plant; and 1000 m and 314° northwest of the
Union Carbide plant.  The 10-m-high Mississippi River levee was 40 m north of
the site.  Exposure in all directions was good.

Site 8—
     This site was located in Hahnville in the backyard of the Leona Triche
residence (Route 1, Box 10), 1850 m and 212° southwest of the Shell plant;
and 850 m and 60° northeast of the Union Carbide plant.  Exposure in all direc-
tions was excellent.  The Mississippi River levee was 100 m north of this site.

Site 10—
     This Hahnville site was located in the front yard of the Adolph Lorio
residence (Route 1), 2075 m and 155° southeast of the Shell plant; and 2575 m
and 85° east of the Union Carbide plant.  No trees were in the area of the
sampler.  Exposure was good in all directions.  The Mississippi River levee
was 110 m north of this site.

Site 11—
     This site was located in Hahnville in the backyard of the Sam Alleman
residence (Box 333), 2950 m and 168° southeast of the Shell plant; and 2450 m
and 109° east of the Union Carbide plant.  The area of the yard was open with
excellent exposure.

Site 12—
     This site was located in Paradis in the backyard of the Ray Doucet resi-
dence, 14,450 m and 189° south of the Shell plant; and 12,200 m and 181° south
of the Union Carbide plant.  The area between this site and the Union Carbide
plant was heavily forested swampland.  Residents of the house stated they could
often smell the chemical plant when the wind was from the north.

FIELD SAMPLING

     After the sites were selected, PEDCo contacted the property owners and
made arrangements for placement of the sampling equipment.  These arrangements
were documented in an Agreement to Use Property form (Figure 4).  This document
defined PEDCo's level of liability and removed liability from EPA.

     The following equipment was used in the studies:

     •   Twelve EPA samplers were modified (6) by PEDCo to take duplicate
         samples at a flow rate of 65 cm3/min for 24 h (See Figure 5)
                                      12

-------
                   AGREEMENT TO USE PROPERTY
                     , the Undersigned, for 	dollars.
        (PRINT)

receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and other good and

valuable consideration hereby agrees to the following:

 1.   PEDCo Environmental, Inc.,  (pEDCo)  as  an agent of  the
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) may set
      up and operate an air monitoring station at	
      for the period of 	 to
 2.   PEDCo shall be permitted vehicular access to said station
      as required for its installation,  maintenance,  and removal,

 3.   The undersigned shall supply and pay for all electrical
      energy required to operate the air quality monitors
      located at the station.


PEDCo agrees to the following:

 1.   At the termination of this agreement the air monitoring
      station and all equipment related  thereto will  be re-
      moved and the property restored to its original condi-
      tion at no expense to the Undersigned.
                                         Undersigned
                                   PEDCo  Environmental,  Inc.
        Figure  4.   Property use agreement document.


                              13

-------
                                                            RAIN SHIELD
                                                                    FOUR SAMPLE
                                                                      TUBES
                                                                   HIGH DENSITY
                                                                  POLYPROPYLENE
                                                                      TUBING
                                                            CRITICAL FLOW
                                                               ORIFICES v
                                                5 ft
                                                                         THREE-WAY
                                                                          SOLENOID
                                                                           VALVE
Figure 5.   Sketch of 24-h  integrated sampler for EDC monitoring.
                                    14

-------
     •   One Bendix Aerovane Model 141/120 wind speed/direction
         system with a 10-m tower

     •   One Weather Measure Corporation Model H-311 hygrothermograph
         to measure temperature and relative humidity

     The 12 sampling sites were selected for their position on the perimeter
of the study area, as close as possible to the places where EPA meteorologists
had predicted maximum impact.  The wind system and hygrothermograph were locat-
ed at the sampling site most representative of meteorological conditions in the
study area.

Routine Sampling Activities

     The following step-by-step procedure was followed by the PEDCo field
technician at each sampling site.

     1.  Inspect the sampling site and equipment for possible
         vandalism or anything unusual.  Record findings in the
         study log book.

     2.  Record the adsorption tube number, site location, and
         sampler location on the sample data form (Figure 6).

     3.  Record the vacuum reading, which must be in excess of
         373 mm.  If vacuum is less than 375 mm, check sampler
         for leaks, or replace sampler with the spare supplied.

     4.  Connect two tubes in tandem, as shown in Figure 7.
         Break the adsorption tube ends and connect the tube to
         the sampler.

     5.  Connect the rotameter to the other end of the adsorp-
         tion tube and record the initial flow derived from the
         rotameter calibration curve; record on the sample data
         form and in the operator's log.  The flow rate should
         be 65 +_ 5 cm3/min.  Take remedial action if the rate is
         not within this range.

     6.  Remove the rotameter from the adsorption tube.

     7.  Record the starting date and time on the sample data
         form and in the operator's log.

     8.  Return to the sampling site midway through the sampling
         period; measure and record the flow rate and vacuum.

     9.  Return to the sampling site after 24 h and record
         the date, time, and final vacuum reading.

     10. Connect the rotameter; measure and record the final
         flow as in Step 5.


                                      15

-------
Site Number:




Site Location:




Operator:
         SAMPLE DATA FORM







             Start Date 	




             End Date
           Time




           Time
Tube Numbers




     Front 	




     Back
Running Time Meter




     Final
     Start




     Sample Time






Average Flow Rate






Remarks:
Flow Rate
Start
Mid
Final
Average
cm3/min
cmVmin
cm3/min
cmVmin
             Vacuum in. Hg




             Start
     mm
             Mid




             Final
x Total Sample Time
Sample Volume cm3,
Weather Conditions:
                         Figure 6.  Sample data form.
                                      16

-------
4 mn T
(Id)  1
                              FRONT TUBE


                          7 cm  	


                                     URETHANE FOAM
GLASSTUB_L   FIBERGLASS
       7    —7.	.rr.

                BACK TUBE

             7 cm	
GLASS TUBE   FIBERGLASS    URETHANE  FOAM
                              20-40 MESH ACTIVATED
                               COCONUT CHARCOAL
                                                  TEFLON TUBING
                                                   AWG SIZE »3
                 20-40 MESH ACTIVATED
                  COCONUT CHARCOAL
                                              TO VACUUM
                                              SOURCE
                                                                                            BROKtN END
                                                                                            OF TUBE
  Figure  7.  Diagram  of tandem charcoal  tubes  for EDC  sampling, showing broken  ends.

-------
     11. Disconnect the adsorption tube and place plastic caps
         on each end.

     12. Place the adsorption tube and the record sheet in the
         refrigerated sample custody case.

     13. Store the samples in complete darkness at 0°C during
         transfer to the laboratory and until they are analyzed.

Meteorological Measurements

     The meteorological station was installed at the sampling site where the
most representative meteorological conditions prevailed.  A Bendix Model 120
sensor/transmitter was used in conjunction with a Bendix Model 141 recorder
to measure wind speed and direction.  The sensor/transmitter was located at
the top of a 10-m tower.

     Before and after the 10-day operation period, the system was checked for
proper orientation and bearing wear as described in the manufacturer's manual.
The recorder was calibrated at the same intervals, by putting into the unit
known voltage levels representing the response from the transmitters.

     Wind speed and direction were recorded on dual chart paper, with wind
speed tracing the top portion of the chart and wind direction the lower por-
tion.  The chart paper was premarked to show hourly increments.  Recorder
charts were marked each day with the correct time and date.  At the end of
each 10-day study, the chart was removed and wind data reduced.

     Wind speed was measured in miles per hour.  The data were reduced to find
an average for a specific hour by visually drawing a line  (based on judgment)
through the middle of the wind speed trace, and recording that figure on a
meteorological data record sheet.

     Wind direction was measured in degrees.  A template was placed proportion-
ately between two hourly indicators stamped on the chart, and the prevailing
direction was recorded on the data sheet.

     A wind rose for each 24-h sampling period was then constructed from the
reduced data.

     A Model H-311 hygrothermograph was used to measure temperature and rela-
tive humidity.  This model uses a bimetallic strip for measuring temperature,
and a human hair bundle for measuring relative humidity.  Temperature and
relative humidity were recorded simultaneously on a 18-cm chart mounted on a
clock-driven drum.  Temperature was recorded on the upper half of the chart,
and relative humidity on the lower half.

     The hygrothermograph was housed in a louvered shelter mounted at the
2-m level of the meteorological tower.  The correct time and date were marked
on the recorder charts each day.  At the end of a 10-day study, the chart was
removed, and the temperature and relative humidity data were reduced and re-
corded on the meteorological data form.


                                      18

-------
LABORATORY ANALYSIS

Sample Handling

     All samples collected in the field were stored in the dark at 0°C within
a small refrigerator.  Under these conditions, they were hand-carried to the
PEDCo laboratory.  At the laboratory, they were logged in the sample receipt
record and assigned a laboratory sample code.  Samples were selected for anal-
yses after referring to information about the prevailing meteorological condi-
tions for each 24-h sampling period.  Samples from sites downwind of the emis-
sion source and from background sites were selected for analysis.  Each day,
50 to 70 percent of the exposed tubes were'selected for analysis.  In addition
to the analyses of duplicate field samples, about 10 percent of the desorbed
samples were selected for replicate analysis.  Internal standard solutions and
check samples were also analyzed.

Sample Analyses

     The samples were desorbed in carbon disulfide (€82) and analyzed by GC
separation and MS detection.  An internal standard was added to the CS2 de-
sorbing solution to provide a specific ion abundance, which was used to monitor
the operational characteristics of the mass spectrometer during analyses.  This
internal standard, in conjunction with a series of external standards of EDC in
CS2» was used to identify and measure the amounts of EDC present in the field
samples.  One analytical run consisted of a series of three standards, followed
by ten samples and four to five quality assurance samples.  This analytical
scheme was then repeated.  Details of the method used to analyze EDC in samples
from charcoal adsorption tubes are presented in Appendix A.
                                      19

-------
                                   SECTION 4

                               DATA PRESENTATION
     Ambient levels of EDC and meteorological data for the three study areas
are presented in tabular and graphic form for each 24-h sampling period.

     The precision of the analytical method, based on statistical analysis
(relative standard deviation) of replicate standard solutions, was determined
to be 3 percent.  The precision of both the analytical and sampling methods,
based on statistical analysis  (relative standard deviation) of replicate sam-
ples, was determined to be 6 percent.  Standard check samples prepared by EPA
and by PEDCo were used to determine the accuracy of the analytical method.  The
EPA check samples yielded an average recovery of 72 percent; and the PEDCo
samples, an average recovery of 97 percent.  In an attempt to find the reason
for this discrepancy, a statistical evaluation was made of the possibility of
EDC decay on the tube between the times of preparation and analysis; but no
biases were observed.  Because the reason for the discrepancy could not be
ascertained, the accuracy of the analytical method can only be estimated as
between 72 and 97 percent.

CALVERT CITY, KENTUCKY, STUDY AREA

     A preliminary 3-day field study was conducted to evaluate the sampling
and analytical approach.  This study demonstrated that the sampling approach
and the analytical methodology were capable of meeting the objectives of the
study.  The EDC levels found during the study in Calvert City, Kentucky, are
summarized in Table 1; refer to Section 3, Location of Calvert City, Kentucky,
EDC Study Sites, for site locations.  The EDC levels and prevailing meteorologi-
cal conditions for each day of the study have been plotted on maps of the study
area, and these are presented in Figures 8 through 20.  The reduced meteorologi-
cal data collected during the study period are presented in Appendix B.

LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA, STUDY AREA

     The EDC levels found during the Lake Charles, Louisiana, study are sum-
marized in Table 2; refer to Section 3, Location of Lake Charles, Louisiana,
EDC Study Sites, for site locations.  The EDC levels and prevailing meteorologi-
cal conditions for each day of this study have been plotted on maps of the study
area, and are presented in Figures 21 through 32.  The reduced meteorological
data collected during the study period are presented in Appendix C.
                                      20

-------
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, STUDY AREA

     The EDC levels determined during the New Orleans study are summarized in
Table 3; refer to Section 3, Location of New Orleans, Louisiana, EDC Study
Sites,  for site locations.  The EDC levels and prevailing meteorological condi-
tions for each day during the study have been plotted on maps of the study area,
and are presented in Figures 33 through 42.  The reduced meteorological data
collected during this study period are presented in Appendix D.
                                      21

-------
            TABLE 1.  DATA SUMMARY OF EDC LEVELS  (yg/m3)3 IN CALVERT CITY, KENTUCKY, STUDY AREA
tO
tO
Date sampled
8-26-78b
8-27-78b
b
8-28-78
9-09-78
9-10-78
9-11-78
9-12-78
9-13-78
9-14-78
9-15-78
9-16-78
9-17-78
9-18-78
Site location
12345678
25.5 4.1 1.4
<0.5 18.0

<0.5 14.4 22.4
26.0 72.2 16.8 3.2 <0.5
37.7 37:8 18.0 12.1
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.7
10.8 <0.5 0.6 6.9
<0.5 <0.5 2.5
3.3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 36.3 15.2
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 9.0 <0.5
8.2 <0.5 0.7 <0.5
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

9

54.0

41.3

15.7
6.1
0.7
35.8
21.4
<0.5
<0.5
67.8
24.5

10 11
10.6
12.2

4.8
1.2 3.4
3.5 4.7
24.7 10.7
30.2 <0.5
59.9 55.0

<0.5 <0.5
<0.5 <0.5
12.0
30.0 46.4

12
28.7







<0.5



<0.5
<0.5

      For conversion, 1 yg/m^ is equivalent to 0.247 ppb.

      Sampling on this day was part of a  3-day preliminary study, with sampling conducted from 8 a.m.
      All other study periods were midnight to midnight.

-------
to
u>
                   WIND DIRECTION.

                    X FREQUENCY
                                   100
                                    60 r^i
:•'£
•.-;•
m m
                                                                                 OTHER INDUSTRIES
                                      CALH 1-5 6-1011-20 2l<

                                        MIND SPEED, apt)


                                                   Z9.1
     Figure  8.   Results of preliminary EDC study, Calvert City,  Kentucky for 8/26/78  (8  a.m.) to  8/27/78

                 (8 a.m.).  EDC concentrations  are given in pg/m3.

-------
to
                            •ps
                   WIND DIRECTION,
                    X FREQUENCY
                                  100
                                  BO
                                  60
                                  40

CAIN



6-^011-20 21<
OTHER INDUSTRIES
                                      NINO SPEED, aph
                                                                                                   Ite
    Figure 9.   Results of preliminary  EDC study,  Calvert City,  Kentucky,  for 8/27/78  (8 a.m.) to  8/28/78
                 (8 a.m.).  EDC concentrations are  given in yg/m3.

-------
to
                           430
                         no
                   WIND DIRECTION.
                   X FREQUENCY
 100>

•« 80




I*
!? 20

  0

CAIH
i
j
i ^
b 6-1011-20 ZK
                                                                               OTHER INDUSTRIES
                                      WIND SPEED. Mph
     Figure 10.   Results  of preliminary EDC study, Calvert City, Kentucky, for  8/28/78  (8  a.m.) to  8/29/78
                  (8 a.m.).   EDC concentrations  are given  in

-------
ro
                            f30
                  WIND DIRECTION,
                   X FREQUENCY
                                   100
                                  u. 20-
1
.1
1
p]
w
l;.l ci . L ..
OTHER INDUSTRIES
                                     CALH 1-5 6-10 11-20 ZK
                                       HIM SPEED.
    Figure 11.   Results  of EDC  study, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/9/78.  EDC concentrations are given in  yg/m3.

-------
to
                   MIND DIRECTION.
                    X FREQUENCY
                                   100
                                    40
I
CM.

* 1-5 6-1011-20 21 <
                                                                         I    I OTHER INDUSTRIES
                                        MINO SPEED.
Ita
    Figure 12.   Results  of EDC study, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/10/78.  EDC  concentrations are  given in  ug/m3.

-------
10
00
                              140
                                    100
i
M
IS

                                                                           I     I OTHER INDUSTRIES
CALM 1-5 6-1011-20 21<
  HIM) SPEED
                   WIND DIRECTION,
                    % FREQUENCY
    Figure  13.  Results of EDO study, Calvert City, Kentucky,  9/11/78.   EDC concentrations are given  in ug/m3.

-------
to
lO
                            i35
                  WIND DIRECTION,
                   % FREQUENCY
 100

- 80

s 60
Ul
§ w

PI
ll
CALM
I
•y.
1
-s



6-1011-20 21<
                                                                          I     I OTHER INDUSTRIES
                                       HIND SPEED
      CM.VEM
    Figure  14.  Results of EDC study,  Calvert  City, Kentucky, 9/12/78.   EDC concentrations  are given in yg/m3

-------
U)
o
                                                                           I     I OTHER INDUSTRIES
                                      CALM 1-5 6-1011-20 21<

                                        WIND SPEED. Bptl
                   WIND DIRECTION.
                    X FREQUENCY
   Figure 15.   Results of EDC study,  Calvert City,  Kentucky,  9/13/78.   EDC  concentrations  are given in yg/m3

-------
                          f35
                         f30
                WIND DIRECTION,
                 X FREQUENCY
                                 100
                                * 80
                                C 60
                                g 40
                                u. 20
                                  0
                                          OTHER INDUSTRIES
                                    CALM 1-5 6-1011-20 21<
                                      HIND SPEED,
CAUCRT CITY
                                                               Ita
Figure 16.   Results of EDC study,  Calvert City,  Kentucky 9/14/78.   EDC  concentrations are  given  in yg/m3,

-------
OJ
                            J35
                   WIND DIRECTION,
                   X FREQUENCY
                                                                        |    [ OTHER INDUSTRIES
CM.VUT
                                                            lla
                                                                                               X
    Figure  17.  Results of EDC  study, Calvert City, Kentucky, 9/15/78.  EDC concentrations are given in yg/m3,

-------
OJ
                  MIND DIRECTION,
                   % FREQUENCY
    Figure 18.   Results of EDC study,  Calvert City, Kentucky,  9/16/78.  EDC concentrations are given in yg/m3,

-------
u>
                            f30
                   WIND DIRECTION.
                    % FREQUENCY
                                   100
                                   > 80
                                   j 60
                                   I 40
m
CALH
|
.
pvt
6-1011-20 21<
I     I OTHER INDUSTRIES
                                        KINO SPEED. «ph
    Figure 19.   Results of EDC study, Calvert City, Kentucky,  9/17/78.   EDC concentrations  are given in yg/m3,

-------
U>
U1
                   WIND DIRECTION,
                    X FREQUENCY
                                                                        |     | OTHER INDUSTRIES
CALVUT
    Figure  20.   Results of EDC study,  Calvert City,  Kentucky,  9/18/78.  EDC  concentrations are given in pg/m3,

-------
       TABLE 2.  DATA SUMMARY OF EDC LEVELS  (yg/m3)*  IN LAKE  CHARLES,  LOUISIANA,  STUDY AREA
Site
Date sampled
9-24-78
9-25-78
9-26-78
9-27-78
9-28-78
9-29-78
9-30-78
10-01-78
10-02-78
10-03-78
10-04-78
10-05-78
43
112
32
103
39
1
77
277
76
225
47
269
1
.8
.4
.1
.2
.5
.4
.0
.6
.7
.2
.6
.5
2
107.0
167.0
227.7
152.9
267.4
651.7
193.7
199.9
6.0
147.3
472.5
387.4
3


0.7
<0.5
<0.5
40.0

20.5

52.3
60.3
67.2
4
1.8
64.9
61.6
7.6
18.2
744.8
230.7
87.8
5.1
41.0
274.8
182.2
5
<0.5
114.8
172.5
120.1
88.7
383.3
120.8
122.0
5.8
295.5
280.1
248.4
location
6 7


8
3
3
171
89
42

33
96
96


.6 1.6
.9
.2 <0.5
.6 <0.5
.7
.0 1.9

.6 27.3
.2 21.6
.4

8 9 10 11
<0.5
<0.5 <0.5
<0.5
<0.5 0.8
<0.5 0.5
0.9 <0.5
0.9
0.6 5.7 51.0
10.7 7.1 324.3
32.8 30.2 36.2 581.6
14.9 14.9 3.1
28.5 19.9 15.0


12
<0.
<0.
<0.
2.
3.
0.
0.
9.
19.
497.
39.
24.
5
5
5
2
2
8
9
7
2
8
6
2

For conversion, 1 yg/ra3 is equivalent to 0.247 ppb.

-------
                                                                 I     1 OTHER INDUSTRIES
                   WIND DIRECTION.
                    X FREQUENCY
Figure  21.   Results of EDC study, Lake Charles, Louisiana, 9/24/78.   EDC concentrations are  given in
             Ug/m3.

-------
U)
00
                                                                     I     ]OTHER INDUSTRIES
                       WIND DIRECTION.
                         FREQUENCY
    Figure 22.   Results of  EDC study, Lake Charles, Louisiana, 9/25/78.   EDC concentrations are  given in
                 yg/m3.

-------
U)
VO
                       WIND DIRECTION.
                        X FREQUENCY
    Figure 23.   Results of EDC study,  Lake Charles, Louisiana, 9/26/78.  EDC concentrations  are given in
                 yg/m3.

-------
                  HIND DIRECTION,
                   X FREQUENCY
Figure 24.   Results of EDC study,  Lake Charles, Louisiana,  9/27/78.  EDC concentrations are given  in
             yg/m3.

-------
                  WIND DIRECTION,
                   X FREQUENCY
Figure 25.   Results of EDC study,  Lake Charles, Louisiana,  9/28/78.  EDC concentrations are given  in
             yg/m3.

-------
                  HIND DIRECTION,
                   X FREQUENCY
Figure 26.   Results of EDC study,  Lake Charles, Louisiana,  9/29/78.  EDC concentrations are given  in
             yg/m3.

-------
U)
                       WIND DIRECTION.
                       X FREQUENCY
    Figure  27.   Results of EDC  study,  Lake Charles,  Louisiana, 9/30/78.   EDC concentrations  are given in
                 Vig/m3.

-------
                  WIND DIRECTION.
                   X FREQUENCY
Figure 28.   Results of EDC study,  Lake Charles, Louisiana,  10/1/78.  EDC concentrations are given  in
             yg/m3.

-------
Ul
                                                                     |     | OTHER INDUSTRIES
                       WIND DIRECTION.
                        X FREQUENCY
    Figure 29.  Results of EDC study,  Lake Charles,  Louisiana,  10/2/78.  EDC  concentrations  are given  in
                 yg/m3.

-------
en
                      WIND DIRECTION.
                       X FREQUENCY
    Figure 30.  Results of EDC study,  Lake Charles, Louisiana,  10/3/78.  EDC  concentrations are  given in

-------
                   WIND DIRECTION.
                    % FREQUENCY
Figure 31.   Results of EDC study,  Lake Charles, Louisiana,  10/4/78.  EDC concentrations are given  in
             yg/m3.

-------
00
                       WIND DIRECTION.
                       X FREQUENCY
    Figure 32.  Results of EDC study, Lake Charles, Louisiana,  10/5/78.  EDC concentrations are given in
                wg/m3.

-------
                TABLE 7.  ANALYSIS OF COLLOCATED SAMPLES FROM
                     NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, STUDY AREA

EDC concentration, yg/m3
Date sampled
10-10-78
10-11-78
10-11-78
10-12-78
10-12-78
10-12-78
10-13-78
10-14-78
10-14-78
10-15-78
10-15-78
10-16-78
10-16-78
10-16-78
10-17-78
10-18-78
10-19-78
10-19-78
10-19-78
Site no.
8
2
8
2
7
9
9
4
12
4
8
4
8
11
4
8
4
7
9
Sample A
11.1
0.6
8.9
3.2
25.8
1.2
7.4
0.6
1.2
37.6
14.2
8.5
9.1
3.2
146.9
28.9
32.2
9.8
6.7
Sample B
14.5
0.8
8.4
2.6
22.8
1.8
6.0
17.4
1.1
38.0
13.8
10.3
8.1
3.2
195.8
29.3
30.1
9.6
7.5

X
12.8
0.7
8.65
2.9
24.3
1.5
6.7
17.65
1.15
37.8
14.0
9.4
8.6
3.2
171.35
29.1
30.65
9.7
7.1
b
s
2.4
0.14
0.35
0.42
2.12
0.21
0.99
0.35
0.07
0.28
0.28
1.27
0.71
0
34.58
0.28
1.48
0.14
0.57

a_
x = mean.
s = standard deviation.
                                     67

-------
oo
             0
50
                                                                       y = 0.353 + 0.063x
                                                                       r = 0.82
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
                                        ARITHMETIC MEAN EDC CONCENTRATION,
    Figure 44.   Standard deviation and arithmetic mean concentration of EDC  for  collocated samples.

-------
               TABLE 8.  DUPLICATE ANALYSIS OF DESORBED SAMPLES
                    FROM CALVERT CITY, KENTUCKY, STUDY AREA

EDC, yg/m3
Date sampled
9-09-78
9-10-78
9-12-78
9-13-78
9-14-78
9-15-78
9-16-78
9-16-78
9-17-78
Site no.
10
1
10
11
7
7
9
2
10
Run 1
NDC
38.4
28.3
55.8
39.0
9.0
ND
8.2
13.0
Run 2 x" s"

37.0 37.7 0.99
30.2 29.3 1.34
54.3 55.1 1.06
37.1 38.05 1.34
8.6 8.8 0.28
ND
8.2 8.2 0
13.6 13.3 0.42

a_
x = mean.
 s  = standard deviation.
•^
'ND = not detected.
                                      69

-------
              TABLE 9.  DUPLICATE ANALYSIS OF DESORBED SAMPLES
                  FROM LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA, STUDY AREA

EDC, yg/m3
Date sampled
9-24-78
9-25-78
9-27-78
9-28-78
9-29-78
10-3-78
10-4-78
10-5-78
10-5-78
Site no.
1
4
5
1
6
12
2
4
10
Run 1
43.6
66.4
121.6
37.0
164.8
503.3
504.2
185.2
19.7
Run 2
45.4
63.1
119.3
38.8
178.4
493.4
471.9
179.5
19.9

X
44.5
64.8
120.5
37.9
171.6
498.4
488.1
182.4
19.8
b
s
1.3
2.33
1.62
1.3
9.6
7.0
22.9
4.0
0.14

a_
x = mean.
s = standard deviation.
                                     70

-------
               TABLE 10.  DUPLICATE ANALYSIS OF DESORBED SAMPLES

                    FROM NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, STUDY AREA

Date sampled
10-10-78
10-10-78
10-12-78
10-12-78
10-13-78
10-14-78
10-15-78
10-16-78
10-17-78
10-17-78
10-18-78
10-19-78
Site no.
4
12
4
9
9
12
11
8
6
7
8
10

Run 1
ND°
6.5
7.6
1.5
6.0
1.1
4.0
8.1
ND
5.8
29.2
4.2
EDC, yg
Run 2
ND
6.1
7.2
2.2
6.1
0.7
4.7
8.0
ND
4.9
28.6
3.5

X

6.3
7.4
1.85
6.05
0.9
4.35
8.05

5.35
28.9
3.85
b
s

0.28
0.28
0.49
0.07
0.28
0.49
0.07

0.63
0.42
0.49

a_
x = mean.
 s = standard deviation.

c
 ND = not detected.
                                      71

-------
to
en


 »
oo
LU
CO
                o.

                o
                Q
                Of.
                t/)
                      20
                      15
     10
                        0
                                                                            y = 0.085 + 0.030x
                                                                            r = 0.85
                       50
100
150
200
250
                                         ARITHMETIC MEAN - DUPLICATE ANALYSES , ug(m3)


   Figure  45.   Standard deviation and mean concentration of EDC for duplicate analyses of  selected samples.

-------
stock solution of EDC, and submit it to the analyst.  The data from this quali-
ty control check on the working standard solutions are presented in Table 11.

     To develop a relationship between the amount of EDC in the standard solu-
tion and that found by the PEDCo analyst, PEDCo analyzed these results by re-
gression analysis.  The precision of the amount of EDC added was assumed to be
substantially better than the precision of the amount determined by the GC/MS
analysis.

     The relationship between the quantity of EDC determined by the GC/MS anal-
ysis and that in the prepared standard solution can be expressed as:

                               y = 0.12 + 0.97x

where y = ng/yl EDC determined by the GC/MS

      x = ng/yl EDC in the standard solution

Based upon this relationship, the recovery of EDC in the standard solution by
the GC/MS procedure varies from 109 percent at 1 ng/yl to 98 percent at 12
ng/yl.

EVALUATION OF QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SAMPLES

     Two sets of quality control check samples, with known levels, were pre-
pared by EMSL at EPA and by the PEDCo Laboratory.  Anaylsis of these samples
was performed along with the routine analysis of samples collected in the field.

Check Samples Prepared by EPA

     The EPA provided 48 samples having known amounts of EDC ranging from 1.18
to 8.26 yg.  These samples were prepared by using an EDC permeation tube, which
was gravimetrically calibrated, and a dilution system.  Each charcoal tube was
charged with EDC by sampling at a known flow rate of about 65 cm3/min from the
dilution system.  By varying the sampling time for each tube produced, the
analyst was able to calculate the content of EDC adsorbed on the tube.

     Table 12 presents the results of the PEDCo analysis (by GC/MS) of the 48
EPA check samples.  The quantity of EDC found by PEDCo was significantly less
than that reported by EPA.  In 9 EPA samples reported to contain 1.18 yg EDC,
for example, PEDCo found an average of 0.81 yg, for a recovery rate of only 69
percent.  In 17 samples reported to contain 5.90 yg EDC, PEDCo found an average
of 4.64 yg, for a recovery rate of 79 percent.

     Table 12 also shows the standard deviation for the replicate analysis for
each of the levels of EDC added by EPA to its check samples.  It is apparent
that the standard deviation increases as the level of EDC is increased.  Over
the range of EDC levels added by EPA, the relative standard deviation varies
from 20 to 25 percent.
                                       73

-------
              TABLE  11.   ANALYSES OF UNKNOWN EXTERNAL STANDARD
                              SOLUTIONS OF EDC

EDC concentration, ng/vi£
Date analyzed
10-19-78
10-20-78
10-20-78
10-20-78
10-23-78
10-23-78
10-24-78
10-24-78
10-24-78
10-26-78
10-31-78
11-10-78
11-13-78
11-13-78
11-14-78
11-15-78
11-16-78
11-17-78
11-28-78
11-29-78
11-30-78
Added
1.25
1.43
5.04
3.67
6.25
6.25
1.58
1.58
6.25
3.13
2.60
0.78
0.65
12.43
6.28
3.26
4.96
2.71
6.94
3.49
3.14
Found"
1.50
1.44
5.03
4.40
5.71
5.83
1.69
1.68
6.22
3.26
2.64
0.89
0.50
12.33
6.78
3.21
4.67
2.67
6.65
3.53
3.10

An average 101.3 percent + a 9.6 was recovered.
                                     74

-------
                          TABLE 12.  EDC  (yg) FOUND  IN EPA  QUALITY  ASSURANCE  SAMPLES
cn


1.18
EDC
Sample found
C 0.53
G 0.66
J 0.89
22 0.89

25 0.64
26 1.05
27 0.95
31 0.99
33 0.65










2.36
EDC
Sample found
D 1.37
H 1.27
I 1.50
N 1.13

R 2.07
T 1.31
X 1.68
10 0.94
13 1.76
14 1.11
15 2.14
17 1.95
20 1.84





EDC added by EPA (yg)
3.54 5
EDC
Sample found Sample
A 2.62 E
L
M
P

V
W
11
12
16
18
19
21
23
24
28
29
30
32

.90
EDC
found
5.45
4.67
4.84
3.56

7.47
3.89
4.14
2.72
1.27*
6.83
4.90
2.56
4.86
4.85
4.13
4.70
4.51
4.79

8.26
EDC
t e
Sample found
B 4.47
F 6.75
K 6.07
0 7.49.
f
Q 0.45
U 6.64
Y 4.81












Mean = 0.81 yg,
= 23.00 percent.
Mean = 1.54 yg,
= 25.00 percent.
CMean = 2.62 yg,
= 0 percent.
Mean - 4.64 yg,
= 26.00 percent.
Mean = 6.04 yg,
= 20.00 percent.
standard deviation =

standard deviation =

standard deviation =

standard deviation =

standard deviation =

0.19 yg, recovery = 69.00 percent,

0.39 yg, recovery = 65.00 percent,

relative

relative

standard deviation

standard deviation

0 yg, recovery = 74.00 percent, relative standard deviation

1.22 yg, recovery = 79.00 percent,

1.18 yg, recovery = 73.00 percent,


relative

relative


standard deviation

standard deviation

     Value was deleted from analysis due to gross error.

-------
Check Samples Prepared by PEDCo

     PEDCo prepared a set of 16 quality assurance samples, 8 having an EDC
level of 4.51 yg, and 8 at a level of 9.02 yg.  The samples were prepared by
using a standard gas mixture of EDC  (contained under pressure in a cylinder),
and a dilution system.  Figure 46 is a diagram of this system, with which the
two series of check samples were prepared simultaneously.  Critical flow ori-
fices were selected to provide a sampling rate of 65 +_ 1 cm3/min.  An excess
flow of the EDC gas mixture was established through the eight-port glass sam-
pling manifold.  Eight tubes were connected to the critical flow orifices.  Sam-
pling was conducted for 15.0 min to produce the low-level check samples, and
30.0 min to produce the high-level ones.  The amount of EDC adsorbed on each
tube was then calculated from the concentration of EDC, as assayed by the sup-
plier, and derived from the sampling rate and time period.

     Table 13 presents the results of PEDCo's analysis (by GC/MS) of these
quality assurance samples.  For the eight samples prepared at the level of
4.51 yg, the average amount of EDC found was 4.45, or a recovery rate of 99
percent.  For the eight samples prepared at the level of 9.02 yg, the average
amount of EDC found was 8.61 yg, or a recovery rate of 95 percent.  The stan-
dard deviations were 0.30 yg and 0.27 yg for the 4.51- and the 9.02-yg EDC
levels, respectively.  The standard deviation did not change significantly for
the two levels of EDC considered in this analysis.

Comparison of Analyses of EPA and PEDCo Check Samples

     Analytical results from the two sets of quality assurance samples dif-
fered considerably.  The EDC recovery rates for the samples prepared by EPA
were between 65 and 79 percent; but the rates for the samples prepared by PEDCo
were 95 and 99 percent.  Further, the standard deviation for the EPA samples
increased as the EDC level increased:  from 0.19 yg at the 1.18-yg level, to
1.18 yg at the 8.26-yg level.  Because the analytical methods were identical
for both sets of samples, the difference in the results cannot be explained
without further investigation.
                                      76

-------




VACUUM
TIMER AND TIME METER GAUGE „.„„,„ UAUTcni n






Q-4p ^
01 mill
• —•— «-






xJ^-v NEEDLE
^
















•^

>->. Q> WITH CRITICAL ORIFICES
=£±5
VACUUM
PUMP
21 in. Hg


\" '
\
VALVE MASS
•/..,

CHARCOAL TUBES v
>^
/^7~"V





I i





i 1





1 1





1 i





I i





I (





i i
_i



Fvrccc ATD
• TSSAIR
^ 	 ' GAS MIXTI1BF X*^i IJ
FLOW GAS MIXING DISTRIBUTION
METER

11 1
BULB MANIFOLD '! >
0-5 Hter/min jj £









STANDARD
GAS
IN
NITROGEN







































II "
II f
M
It
II
II
II
M
W
ACTIVATED
CHARCOAL
COLUMN


                                                                               EXHAUST
                                                                                AIR
                                                                                       0-6
                                                                                      Hter/min
                                                                                ROTAMETER
                                                                                0-lOHter/m1n
                                                                          VACUUM
                                                                           PUMP
Figure  46.   Apparatus for generator and sampling gas mixtures of EDC on charcoal tubes.

-------
          TABLE 13.  EDC (yg) FOUND
IN THE EIGHT PEDCo QUALITY ASSURANCE SAMPLES

           EDC added by PEDCo (yg)
   4.51                              9.02

EDC found                         EDC found

   4.67                              8.29

   4.27                              8.83

   4.12                              8.31

   4.63                              8.72

   4.86                              8.88

   4.71                              8.65

   4.31                              8.28

   4.05                              8.91
 Mean = 4.45 yg, standard deviation = 0.30 yg,
 recovery = 99.00 percent, relative standard
 deviation = 6.7 percent.
b
 Mean = 8.61 yg, standard deviation = 0.27 yg,
 recovery = 95.00 percent, relative standard
 deviation = 3.1 percent.
                     78

-------
                                  REFERENCES
1.   PEDCo Environmental, Inc.  Monitoring System for the Collection and
     Analyses of Ambient Levels of Ethylene Dichloride in Urban Atmosphere.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract No. 68-02-2722, Tasks No. 7
     and 12.  Cincinnati, February 1979.

2.   NIOSH Method S 122 for the Determination of Ethylene Dichloride.  NIOSH
     Manual of Analytical Methods, Part II.  2nd edition.  DHEW Publication
     No. 77-157-B, April 1977.

3.   Gulf Science and Technology Company.  Method for the Determination of
     Benzene in Ambient Air (Integrated Sampling).  American Petroleum
     Institute, Pittsburgh, July 1977.

4.   PEDCo Environmental, Inc.  Monitoring System for the Collection and
     Analyses of Ambient Levels of Benzene in Urban Atmosphere.  Contract No.
     68-02-2722, Task No. 7.  January 1979.

5.   Yasuda, S. K., and E. D.  Lounghron.  Air Sampling Methods for Tetra-
     chloroethane and Other Related Chlorinated Hydrocarbons.  J. Chromatog.
     137(2)-.283-292, 1977.

6.   Lodge, J. P., Jr., J. B.  Pate, B. E. Ammons, and G. A. Swanson.  The Use
     of Hypodermic Needles as Critical Orifice in Air Sampling.  J. Air Pollut.
     Control Assn., 16(4):197-200, 1966.
                                       79

-------
                                  APPENDIX A

                               TENTATIVE METHOD
                        FOR DETERMINING ATMOSPHERIC EDC
                        BY 24-HOUR INTEGRATED SAMPLING
     This method has been drafted from available information, as presented in
the bibliography, and from laboratory and limited field evaluation.  It is still
under investigation and is subject to revision.

PRINCIPLES OF THE METHOD

     •   A known volume of air is drawn through a charcoal tube
         for a period of 24 h to trap the vapors present.

     •   The charcoal in the tube is transferred to a small/
         stoppered sample container, where it is desorbed with
         a solvent mixture of CS2 and an internal standard compound
         (1-bromohexane).*

     •   An aliquot of the desorbed sample is injected into a
         GC instrument that uses an MS detector.

     •   The ratio of the EDC peak area to the 1-bromohexane peak
         area is determined; this ratio is compared with the ratio
         of peak areas obtained from a standard.in order to ascertain
         the amount of EDC present in the sample.

RANGE AND SENSITIVITY

     The limit of detection is approximately 0.5 yg/m3 (0.13 ppb).  The maximum
of the range is approximately 500 yg/m3 (125 ppb); it may be increased by dilut-
ing the sample after extraction.

     This method was evaluated over an EDC range of 2.5 to 348 yg/m3 (0.6 to
86 ppb), at temperatures of 25° and 30°C and relative humidities of 64 and 99+
percent, respectively.  The sampling rate was 65 cm3/min at 760 mm Hg for 24 h.
The charcoal adsorption tube (Figure A-l), which consists of two sections of
 *Warning:  Because EDC is a suspected carcinogen, care must be taken to protect
 operators from breathing fumes.  Carbon disulfide is toxic, and its vapors form
 explosive mixtures with air; therefore, this material should be handled in a
 well-ventilated room with a fume hood.
                                      80

-------
                                           FRONT TUBE
                                                                            BACK TUBE
00
4 mm T   F  6 mm  >
(id) 1   I (o.d.)<
                                       7 cm
                                                                        7 cm
                                     FIBERGLASS   UKTHANE_FOAM
                                                          Gi*55_B'?.E,  FIBERGLASS    URETHANE FOAM
                                                                TEFLON  TUBING
                                                                 AWG SIZE »3
                                           20-40 MESH ACTIVATED
                                            COCONUT CHARCOAL
                                                                            20-40 MESH ACTIVATED
                                                                              COCONUT CHARCOAL
                                                                                                                      TO VACUUM
                                                                                                                       SOURCE
                                Figure A-l.   Diagram of  tandem charcoal tubes for EDC  sampling.

-------
activated charcoal separated by a section of urethane foam, contained 150 mg
charcoal; and each tube was backed with a second tube to determine breakthrough.
Laboratory evaluations were conducted with a single charcoal tube and yielded
an average total method efficiency (i.e., adsorption and desorption) of approxi-
mately 90 percent for EDC levels of 2.5 to 126 yg/m3 (0.6 to 31 ppb).  At con-
centrations of 348 yg/m3 (86 ppb), approximately 10 percent of the EDC was
found on the back portion of the charcoal tube.  At an EDC concentration of
approximately 2.5 pg/m3 (0.6 ppb), the overall method efficiency was approxi-
mately 80 percent.  The backup tube was analyzed, but the amount of EDC it con-
tained could not be measured because of the detection limit of the GC/MS system.

     Although no effect from humidity was observed during the laboratory evalua-
tions at the 65-cm3/min sampling rate, water condensing within the charcoal
tube during field sampling could affect the adsorption efficiency.  Sampling
for 24 h at rates in excess of 65 cm3/min affected the collection efficiency.
Tests were conducted at an EDC concentration equivalent to 139 pg/m3  (34 ppb)
a flow rate of 500 cm3/min, and a relative humidity of 99 percent; the result-
ing overall method efficiency was less than 20 percent.  If a particular atmos-
phere is suspected of containing a high level of EDC and high levels of humidity,
a shorter sampling time should be used.

INTERFERENCES

     It is extremely unlikely that any common pollutants now in the ambient
atmosphere have sufficient concentrations to interfere with the measurement of
EDC.  Several criteria must be met for identification and quantification.  The
retention time, and the specific mass ions of 49, 62, 98, and 100, are moni-
tored simultaneously.  All four of these ions should be presented by a peak of
the same retention time as that for EDC to obtain positive EDC quantification.
The data system of the spectrometer uses the response of mass ion 62 for quanti-
fication.

PRECISION AND ACCURACY

     Replicate GC/MS analyses of standard liquid mixtures and sample aliquots
must not deviate by more than +_ 5 percent.  No information is presently avail-
able on accuracy for the total method.  The precision of the analytical method,
based on statistical analysis (relative standard deviation) of replicate stan-
dard solutions, was determined to be 3 percent.  The precision of both the ana-
lytical and sampling methods, based on statistical analysis (relative standard
deviation) of replicate samples, was determined to be 6 percent.  Standard check
samples prepared by EPA and by PEDCo were used to determine the accuracy of the
analytical method.  The EPA check samples yielded an average recovery of 72
percent; and the PEDCo samples, an average recovery of 97 percent.  To find
the reason for this discrepancy, a statistical evaluation was made of the pos-
sibility of EDC decay on the tube between the times of preparation and analysis;
but no biases were observed.  Because the reason for the discrepancy could not
be ascertained, the accuracy of the analytical method can only be estimated as
between 72 and 97 percent.
                                      82

-------
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE METHOD

     The sampling device is small and portable, and it uses no liquids.  Inter-
ferences are minimal, and most can be eliminated by altering chromatographic
conditions.

     The amount of sample that can be taken, however, is limited by the sampling
rate and by the capacity of the tube.  When the sample value obtained for the
backup tube exceeds 10 percent of that found on the first tube, the possibi-
lity of sample loss exists.

     Although a GC/MS system for separation and detection is more expensive
than an FID detection system, it is the only one readily available that has
the required sensitivity and provides the maximum number of conditions that
must be met before a chromatographic peak is integrated.  Other detection sys-
tems (FID, electrolytic conductivity, and electron capture) were attempted, but
they presented problems that could not be circumvented.

APPARATUS AND MATERIALS

Sample Collection Materials

     •   Pump:  Capable of maintaining an air pressure differential
         greater than 0.5 atmospheres at the desired flow rate

     •   Critical orifice:  30-gauge, 1/2-in. hypodermic needle to
         control flow rate at approximately 65 cm3/min

     •   Filter cartridge:  Disposable 47-iran diameter, 0.45-ym
         filter porosity  (Millipore Filter Corporation, Bedford,
         Massachusetts)

     •   Charcoal adsorption tubes:  150-mg, standard NIOSH type,
          (SKC Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)

     •   Vacuum gauge:  0 to 760 mm Hg

     •   Airflow meter:  Rotameter type 0 to 120 cm3/min,
         calibrated against an NBS traceable bubble meter

Sample Recovery Materials

     •   Muffle furnace:  For operation at 250°C

     •   Syringe:  0 to 1 ml, gastight, with Teflon plunger

     •   Vials  (sample):  2-ml capacity

     •   Caps:  Screw type, with septum hole for 2-ml vials

     •   Serum cap liners:  Teflon-coated rubber, for sealing
         vials and caps


                                      83

-------
     •   Ultrasonic cleaner:  1/2- to 1-gal capacity  (Bronson
         Cleaning Equipment, Sheldon, Connecticut)

Analytical Equipment

     •   Gas chromatograph with mass spectrometer:  Hewlett-Packard
         5992-A or equivalent, with glass jet separator and data system

     •   Chromatographic column:  Nickel, 6.1 m x 2 mm I.D., containing
         10 percent SP 1000 on 80/100 Supelcoport

     •   Microsyringes:  0- to- 10-ul, 0- to-100-yl, and 0- to-500-yl ranges

     •   Vials (sample):  5-ml and 50-ml capacity, with screw caps and
         Teflon-lined serum cap liners

     •   Pipettes:  Volumetric Class A, 50-ml, 5-ml, and 1-ml

Reagents Used

     •   Chromatographic quality CS£

     •   1,2-dichloroethane, reagent grade

     •   1-bromohexane, reagent grade

     •   Purified helium

PROCEDURE

Cleaning of Equipment

     All glassware used for laboratory analysis is washed with detergent,
thoroughly rinsed with tapwater and distilled water, dried, and placed in a
muffle furnace at 350°C for 30 min to remove traces of organic compounds.

Collection of Samples

     Duplicate tandem tubes, consisting of two 150-mg charcoal tubes, are used
for sampling; each is identified as either the front tube or the backup tube.
A 30-gauge, 1/2-in. hypodermic needle is installed for critical orifice flow
control.  The ends from each tube are removed by breaking the glass bead off
with pliers or a small wirecutter.  The two tubes are connected with Teflon
tubing  (5-mm I.D.) so that the large  (100-mg) section of charcoal will be ex-
posed to the sampled air when the tubes are connected to the sampler.  The tubes
are then connected to the sampler, and the pump is activated.  Figure A-2 shows
a diagram of the sampler.

     A record is kept of the initial vacuum, starting time, the adsorption tube
number, and the site location.  The sampling rate is measured by connecting a
rotameter  (which has been calibrated with an NBS traceable bubble meter) to the
inlet of the tandem charcoal sampling tube; the initial flow is then recorded.


                                      84

-------
CD
                                                                                      RAIN  SHIELD
                                                                                              FOUR SAMPLE
                                                                                                TUBES
                                                                                             HIGH DENSITY
                                                                                             POLYPROPYLENE
                                                                                                TUBING
                                                                                      CRITICAL FLOW
                                                                                        ORIFICES v
                                                                                                   THREE-MAY
                                                                                                    SOLENOID
                                                                                                     VALVE
                      Figure A-2.   Sketch of  24-hour integrated  sampler  for EDC monitoring.

-------
The shield to protect from light and  rain  is placed  over  the  adsorption tubes,
and sampling is continued for 24 +_ 0.25 h.  At  the end  of the sampling  period,
the time, final vacuum, and flow rate are  read  and recorded as before.   Samples
are then removed from the sampler,  plastic caps are  placed on the  adsorption
tubes, the tubes are wrapped in aluminum foil,  and they are stored in a freezer
at 0°C or less until laboratory analyses can be performed.  One of every twenty
tubes used for field monitoring is  retained and returned  to the laboratory  as
a blank.

Sample Recovery

     The contents of the 150-mg charcoal tube are transferred into a clean,
2-ml vial, and a Teflon serum cap  liner is placed on the  vial and  secured with
a screw cap.  By use of a 1-ml, gastight syringe, 0.750 ml of a cold (0°C)  mix-
ture of CS£ and 1-bromohexane is injected  through the septum  into  the vial  con-
taining the charcoal.  See Appendix A, Standards, Calibration, and Analyses,
for the preparation of this desorption reagent. The vial is  placed in  an ultra-
sonic cleaner, which contains ice  and water, for 30  minutes.   The  sample, con-
taining the charcoal in contact with  the CS2, is then stored at 0°C or less  until
.GC separation and analyses are performed.

Analyses

Column Preconditioning—
     Before its initial use, the chromatographic column is treated with heat  to
remove impurities.  To do this, a  flow of  20 to 30 ml/min of  pure  helium is
established through the column, and the temperature  of  the column  is raised
from ambient by 2°C/min to 200°C.   This temperature  is  maintained  for 40 h.

GC/MS Conditions—
     The typical operating conditions for  EDC analyses  when specific ion moni-
toring is done on a Hewlett-Packard 5992-A analyzer  are as follows:

     •   Helium:  Vacuum gauge reads  0.45  atmosphere

     •   Injector temperature:  179°C

     •   Oven temperature:  120°C  isothermal

     •   Solvent elution time:  5.3 min

     •   Run time:  12.5 min

     •   Electron multiplier voltage: As  indicated  from  the  autotune

      •   Ion masses for EDC:   62,  49, 98, 100, and  102 amu

      •   Ion masses for 1-bromohexane:  57, 85

      •   Dwell  times:   750.0 ms for ions 62, 49, 57, 85;  and  500.0 ms for
         98,  100,  102
                                      86

-------
     •   Selective ion monitoring window sizes:  0.10 amu

     •   Amount of CS2 injected:  4 ml

     •   Retention time of EDC:  6.4 min

     •   Retention time of 1-bromohexane:  9.0 min

Sample Injection—
     The first step in analysis is to inject the sample into the gas chromato-
graph.  To eliminate difficulties arising from blowback or distillation within
the syringe needle, the solvent flush injection technique should be used A 10-yl
syringe is flushed with solvent several times to wet the barrel and plunger;
then 1 yl of pure CS2 is drawn into the syringe.  The needle is removed from
the solvent, and the plunger is pulled back about 0.5 yl to separate the solvent
flush from the sample; a pocket of air is used as a marker.  The needle is then
immersed in the sample, and a 4-yl aliquot is withdrawn.  The volume of the
needle must be carefully selected, because the sample contained in it will be
completely injected.  After the needle is removed from the sample and before
it is injected into the gas chromatograph, the plunger is pulled back 1 yl to
minimize evaporation of the sample from the tip of the needle.  The sample
occupies 3.9 to 4.0 yl in the barrel of the syringe.  When duplicate injections
of a solution are made, no more than a 3 percent difference in area can be ex-
pected when using the same syringe.

Measurement of Area—
     The areas of the EDC and 1-bromohexane peaks are determined by an elec-
tronic integration system capable of determining the area of all ions monitored
at the same retention time.  A printout of the area, expressed in integration
units, is obtained.  The most predominant ion or base peak in the mass spectrum
of EDC, m/e 62, is selected for quantitation of the EDC.  For 1-bromohexane,
m/e 85 is selected for quantitation; this ion is not the base peak, but it is
less subject to interference from other compounds than the base peak.

STANDARDS, CALIBRATION, AND ANALYSES

Preparation of Desorbing Solution and Standards

Preparation of Desorbing Solution—
     Add 5.0 yl of 1-bromohexane into a 250-ml volumetric flask containing 240
ml CS2, and bring to volume with CS£.  The concentration of the 1-bromohexane
solution is 23.5 ng/yl.

Weekly Preparation of Stock Standard Solution—
     Add 5.0 yl of pure EDC to a 10-ml volumetric flask containing 9.8 ml of
the desorbing solution and bring to volume with the desorbing solution.  This
gives an EDC concentration of 0.628 yg/yl.
                                       87

-------
 Daily  Preparation  of Working  Standard Procedure—
     Place  20  yl of the  stock standard  solution  in  a  5.0-ml  volumetric  flask
 containing  4.8 ml  of the desorbing  solution,  and bring  to  volume  with the
 CS2~n-bromohexane  desorbing solution.   This gives an  EDC concentration  of
 2.512  ng/yl.

 Calibration of the GC/MS System

     The  GC/MS system  is set  up according  to  the conditions  described above
 in  this Appendix under Procedure, Analyses.   Before being  used, the  instrument
 is  autotuned in the manner described in the manufacturer's operations manual.
 A 4-yl aliquot of  the  working standard  is  injected  onto the  GC column and
 analyzed.   A response  ratio,  based  on the  area obtained from the  EDC peak
 (ion 62)  and divided by  the area obtained  from the  1-bromohexane  peak (ion 85),
 is  calculated  and  used to find the  concentration of EDC in real samples.  The
 following equation indicates  how the response ratio is  obtained:

                                         .     Al
                            Response ratio =  —  = R
                                              A2
 where  A   =  area of the EDC ion in integration units

       A   =  area of the 1-bromohexane ion in the  integration  units

 Since  R is  a ratio instead of an absolute  area,  variations among  injections in
 the amount  of  sample or  the detector response will  not  affect its value.  The
 average response ratio is determined, and any  single response ratio must not
 deviate from the average by more than +_ 5  percent.  If  a response ratio is be-
 yond this limit, an error has occurred  in  the injection of the sample or in the
 preparation of the working standard, or an instrument problem must be corrected.

 Analyses  of Samples

     A 4-yl aliquot is withdrawn from the  desorbed  sample, containing the con-
 tents  of  the charcoal  tube and the  750  yl  of  CS2~l~bromohexane used  as  the
 eluting reagent.   The  areas of the  mass 62 ions  from  EDC and mass 85 ions from
 1-bromohexane  are  recorded.   An injection  of  4 yl of  a  standard,  which  is in
 the range of the samples being analyzed, is made into every  tenth sample.  The
 response  ratio is  calculated  and compared  with the  original  calibration, as in
 the above Calibration  of the  GC/MS  System.  A blank tube,  prepared as described
 in Procedure,  Collection of Samples, is analyzed in th^ same manner.  Any area
 resulting from the specific ion of mass 62 is recorded.

 CALCULATIONS

 Uncorrected Sample Volume

     The volume of air sample  is not corrected to Standard Temperature  and
Pressure because of the  uncertainty associated with 24-h average  temperature
and atmospheric pressure changes during sampling.   The  air sample volume taken
for analysis is determined as  follows:
                                      88

-------
                                F  + F           «-
                                 1    2         -6
                           V  =	 x T x 10
                            m      2

where V  = volume of gas sampled (uncorrected), m3

      F^ = measured flow rate before sampling, ml/min

      F2 = measured flow rate after sampling, ml/min

       T = sampling time, min

EDC Concentration

Calculation of the EDC collected on the adsorption tube—
     From the integrated areas for ion masses 62 and 85, as discussed above
(Standards, Calibration, and Analyses, Analyses of Samples), the EDC content
collected on the charcoal tube and corrected for the blank is calculated as
follows:

                                 (Rspl - Rblk)
                          WEDC = —R-	 X C X V
                                     std

where W    = weight EDC, ng
       EDC

      _           area EDC       _        ,
      R  , = 	—	r	  from sample
       spl   area 1-bromohexane

      _           area EDC       c    ,.  ,
      R. ,,  = 	r-rr	r	  from blank
       oik   area 1-bromohexane

                  area EDC
      R ., = 	T—r	r	  from standard
       std   area 1-bromohexane

         C = concentration of standard, ng/yl

         V = volume of CS2 and 1-bromohexane desorbing solution mixture used
             to desorb the charcoal tube (this volume is 750 yl under normal
             conditions)

Calculation of EDC concentration*—
     The concentration of EDC as yg/m3 in the sampled ambient air is calculated
as follows:
                                              _3
                              CEDC
* The overall method efficiency has been determined to be 90 +_ 10 percent.  A
  correction factor of 1.1 can be used if desired.  C  c is multiplied by 1.1
  to obtain the concentration corrected for method efficiency.  For levels in
  excess of 10 yg/m3, the backup adsorption tube can be analyzed and the con-
  centration added to the results from the first adsorption tube.  In this case,
  no correction factor is recommended.

                                      89

-------
      C                                                           o
       EDC = concentration of EDC in the ambient air sampled, yg/m3

      W    = weight of EDC, corrected for the blank, ng
       EDC

        Vm = volume of air sampled under sampling conditions, m3

If desired, the concentration of EDC may be calculated as parts per billion
EDC; ppb = yg/m3 x 0.247.

EFFECTS OF STORAGE

     Few data are available on the storage of charcoal tubes containing adsorbed
EDC; however, some evidence indicates that compounds with similar chemical
characteristics are adversely affected by strong sunlight and heat.  Tubes
should be stored in a dark place and at a low temperature.  Carbon disulfide-
1-bromohexane solutions of EDC in the yg/m3 range are stable for at least 1
month if they are refrigerated in a sealed serum bottle with minimum head space.
No information is available on the storage of samples containing other active
substances commonly found in ambient air.
                                     90

-------
                          BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR APPENDIX A


Gulf Science and Technology Company.  Method for the Determination of Benzene
     in Ambient Air (Integrated Sampling).  American Petroleum Institute,
     Pittsburgh, July 1977.

Levadie, B., and S. MacAskill.  Analysis of Organic Solvents Taken on Charcoal.
     Tube Samples by a Simplified Technique.  Anal. Chem. 48(1):76. 1976.

Lodge, J. P., Jr., J.  B. Pate, B. E. Ammons, and G. A. Swanson.  The Use of
     Hypodermic Needles as Critical Orifice in Air Sampling.  J. Air Pollut.
     Control Assn., 16(4):197-200, 1966.

NIOSH Method S 122 for the Determination of Ethylene Dichloride.  NIOSH Manual
     of Analytical Methods, Part II.  2nd edition.  DHEW Publication No.
     77-157-B, April 1977.

PEDCo Environmental, Inc.  Monitoring System for the Collection and Analyses
     of Ambient Levels of Benzene in Urban Atmosphere.  EPA Contract No.
     68-02-2722, Task No. 7.  January 1979.

PEDCo Environmental, Inc.  Sampling and Analyses for Ethylene Dichloride in
     Ambient Air.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-2722, Task No. 8.  December 1978.

Vinyl Chloride Monitoring Near the B.F. Goodrich Chemical Company in Louisville,
     Kentucky.  Region IV, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Surveillance
     and Analysis Division, Athens, Georgia.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-1375,
     Task No. 20.  June 24, 1974.

Yasuda, S. K., and E.  D. Lounghron.  Air Sampling Methods for Tetrachloroethane
     and Other Related Chlorinated Hydrocarbons.  J. Chromatog. 137(2):
     283-292, 1977.
                                      91

-------
            APPENDIX B
        METEOROLOGICAL DATA
FROM CALVERT CITY, KENTUCKY, STUDY
                92

-------
TABLE B-l.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
CALVERT CITY, KENTUCKY, 8/26/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed Direction

-------
                      TABLE B-2.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
                       CALVERT CITY, KENTUCKY, 8/27/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
3
3
4
6
5
6
5
3
2
1
1
2
2
Direction
(°)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
180
200
220
210
210
240
220
220
220
220
230
250
-
-
190
180
Temperature
(°F)
73
73
72
72
72
72
72
73
76
80
84
87
88
90
90
90
90
89
87
83
81
79
78
76
Relative
Humidity
(%)
95
93
94
93
94
94
94
91
85
76
65
61
57
54
52
51
52
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* Recorder malfunction.
                                       94

-------
                       TABLE B-3.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
                        CALVERT CITY, KENTUCKY, 8/28/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
2
0
0
0
2
4
4
4
6
6
6
7
7
6
10
1
1
2
6
8
1
1
2
2
Direction
(°)
180
-
-
-
190
210
210
220
220
240
230
220
220
230
290
-
-
230
280
290
-
-
250
260
Temperature
(°p)
76
73
72
71
72
73
72
74
76
79
82
84
85
87
84
79
83
84
82
77
74
73
72
71
Relative
Humidity
(%)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
76
71
67
63
60
59
76
82
72
66
71
80
87
1
95
* Recorder malfunction.
                                       95

-------
TABLE B-4.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
 CALVERT CITY, KENTUCKY, 8/29/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed Direction
(mph) (°)
2 270
1
1
0
0
1
2 210
2 210
2 210















Temperature
(°F)
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70















Relative
Humidity
(%)
95
96
97
97
97
97
97
96
96















                96

-------
TABLE B-5.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
CALVERT CITY, KENTUCKY, 9/9/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed Direction
(mph) (0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 110
2 120
2 130
2 130
1
1
1
6 080
3 080
0
0
0
0
Temperature
(°P)
69
69
68
67
66
66
66
66
67
68
69
69
69
70
74
75
78
79
80
78
74
72
71
69
Relative
Humidity
(%)
93
90
90
90
93
95
95
95
94
93
93
92
88
86
84
82
81
78
74
75
76
75
79
84
               97

-------
TABLE B-6.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
 CALVERT CITY, KENTUCKY, 9/10/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed Direction
(mph) (0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2 120
3 110
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Temperature
(°F)
69
68
67
67
66
65
65
66
68
72
78
80
83
84
85
85
85
84
82
79
73
72
69
69
Relative
Humidity
(%)
87
88
91
91
91
90
88
86
80
76
73
70
63
61
59
56
51
52
59
67
84
90
94
95
                98

-------
TABLE B-7.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
 CALVERT CITY, KENTUCKY, 9/11/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(raph)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
2
3
3
5
4
7
7
7
6
4
3
1
3
1
Direction
(°)
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
210
200
170
160
160
150
200
230
230
230
240
240
260
200
200
190
Temperature
(°p)
67
67
66
65
65
65
64
64
67
70
75
78
80
80
82
83
82
79
74
69
69
69
68
67
Relative
Humidity
(%)
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
94
89
83
76
67
60
59
56
51
56
67
83
95
94
94
94
                99

-------
TABLE B-8.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
 CALVERT CITY, KENTUCKY, 9/12/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
5
5
5
3
1
0
1
2
2
1
0
Direction
(°)
^
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
220
210
210
220
220
210
-
-
-
190
190
-
-
Temperature
(°F)
66
66
66
66
67
67
67
67
68
68
69
70
71
73
77
79
80
80
78
77
75
75
73
72
Relative
Humidity
(%)
95
95
94
94
94
93
94
95
94
93
91
93
87
88
78
71
70
69
73
80
87
89
88
92
               100

-------
TABLE B-9.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
CALVERT CITY, KENTUCKY, 9/13/78*

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
* Rainfall of
Speed
(mph)
9
7
7
4
6
7
6
7
3
4
5
5
4
4
5
6
3
3
1
4
4
5
8
10
0.75 in
Wind
Direction
(°)
200
200
200
200
220
230
230
230
200
210
210
250
230
230
240
220
200
180
-
180
180
190
200
180
. occurred from 2000 to
Temperature
(°F)
70
70
69
69
68
67
67
68
70
73
76
78
79
76
77
79
78
77
77
75
74
73
72
72
2400 hours.
Relative
Humidity
(%)
95
95
94
94
96
96
96
96
94
91
85
78
73
71
82
80
73
73
75
76
80
77
79
85

                101

-------
TABLE B-10.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
 CALVERT CITY, KENTUCKY, 9/14/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
*Rainfall of

Speed
(mph)
9
7
7
4
7
8
7
7
6
8
9
6
4
7
6
5
6
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
2.3 in.

Wind
Direction
<°)
200
200
210
210
220
230
230
230
240
250
250
250
220
240
270
260
270
280
280
-
-
-
-
-
occurred from 0000 to
102
Temperature
(°F)
71
71
70
69
69
69
70
70
71
72
74
75
77
77
78
78
79
81
81
80
76
73
70
68
0300 hours.

Relative
Humidity
(%)
88
89
91
92
91
91
91
91
91
90
87
84
80
79
78
77
77
72
67
64
74
85
94
96



-------
TABLE B-ll.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
 CALVERT CITY, KENTUCKY, 9/15/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed Direction
(mph) (0)
0
0
0
0
0
2 190
0
0
0
1
2 180
2 180
2 200
2 210
1
2 290
3 280
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Temperature
67
67
67
66
65
64
64
64
65
66
70
71
76
78
79
80
81
82
81
76
70
69
67
66
Relative
Humidity
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
94
91
84
76
74
74
71
63
63
64
85
93
95
95
               103

-------
TABLE B-12.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
CALVERT CITY, KENTUCKY, 9/16/78*

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
*Rainfall
Wind
Speed
(mph)
2
2
3
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
3
5
5
6
2
0
0
0
2
2
occurred with 0.
Relative
Direction Temperature Humidity
230
230
220
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
240
270
270
250
260
240
-
-
-
190
210
01 in. accumulation.
               104

-------
TABLE B-13.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
 CALVERT CITY, KENTUCKY, 9/17/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
3
3
3
2
1
0
0
0
3
5
4
5
5
5
6
5
5
4
3
1
1
1
3
3
Direction
(°)
220
210
210
190
-
-
-
-
230
230
230
240
240
240
230
230
210
200
200
-
-
-
200
210
Temperature
(°F)
69
68
67
67
66
65
65
65
68
72
76
81
83
84
85
86
86
85
83
81
77
75
75
75
Relative
Humidity
(%)
94
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
91
82
73
65
56
49
47
47
53
59
63
69
74
82
82
               105

-------
TABLE B-14.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
 CALVERT CITY, KENTUCKY, 9/18/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
10
10
7
5
7
8
10
13
10
13
9
12
10
10
10
12
8
4
5
5
4
4
0
5
Direction
(°)
180
190
180
180
170
170
180
200
200
200
210
210
210
210
230
220
220
200
180
170
160
160
-
170
Temperature
(°F)
75
75
75
74
73
72
71
71
74
76
80
81
84
85
86
87
87
87
85
82
78
74
73
72
Relative
Humidity
(%)
84
86
88
89
89
91
94
94
93
90
83
78
69
64
67
63
58
57
55
58
65
77
89
88
               106

-------
            APPENDIX C
        METEOROLOGICAL DATA
FROM LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA, STUDY
                107

-------
TABLE C-l.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA, 9/24/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
4
3
4
5
6
5
7
7
4
7
7
7
4
5
5
7
6
3
3
3
5
5
4
6
Direction
(°)
010
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
030
030
030
030
030
020
030
030
010
330
340
010
020
Temperature
(°F)
73
72
71
69
69
68
67
67
72
76
80
82
83
82
82
83
83
81
77
74
70
71
70
70
Relative
Humidity
(%)
81
78
78
80
72
71
71
68
50
39
32
31
32
37
35
35
35
39
49
58
73
66
65
65
               108

-------
TABLE C-2.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA, 9/25/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
5
3
5
5
5
4
5
6
4
7
5
4
6
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
5
4
3
5
Direction
(°)
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
010
020
020
030
040
040
030
040
030
030
040
030
010
330
360
020
020
Temperature
(°F)
69
67
66
66
65
64
63
64
67
68
74
78
82
82
82
83
84
82
78
73
71
72
74
73
Relative
Humidity
(%)
64
68
67
67
66
66
65
62
50
51
45
43
41
37
37
35
28
35
47
67
74
70
62
67
               109

-------
TABLE C-3.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA, 9/26/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
4
4
5
4
4
4
5
6
4
4
6
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
0
0
3
5
5
4
Direction
(°)
020
020
010
020
010
020
020
020
020
020
050
040
050
090
030
020
030
010
-
-
020
020
020
020
Temperature
(°p)
73
71
71
68
67
67
67
67
69
74
78
81
83
84
85
85
85
83
79
77
76
77
76
75
Relative
Humidity
(%)
67
60
60
64
68
68
68
68
64
55
57
52
50
48
43
40
43
50
60
68
71
68
71
70
               110

-------
TABLE C-4.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA, 9/27/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
3
1
2
2
3
0
3
5
1
6
7
7
10
7
7
8
8
5
7
6
6
7
7
5
Direction
(°)
010
360
010
340
020
-
010
350
010
010
020
010
020
030
020
350
350
350
350
340
340
350
360
010
Temperature
(°P)
74
73
69
69
69
70
69
69
72
74
77
81
81
81
81
81
80
79
77
74
73
72
72
72
Relative
Humidity
(%)
62
61
76
76
76
73
76
76
66
62
64
56
56
56
56
56
54
50
55
59
54
58
58
58
               111

-------
                      TABLE C-5.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
                      LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA,  9/28/78*

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
5
6
6
6
5
7
5
7
11
9
10
11
12
9
9
8
6
5
4
3
4
3
5
6
Direction
(°)
360
340
350
360
340
010
010
010
360
020
030
030
030
030
020
020
020
020
020
020
030
010
030
040
Temperature
(°F)
72
71
71
70
70
70
70
70
72
73
74
75
75
73
72
70
70
69
68
67
67
67
67
67
Relative
Humidity
(%)
58
66
66
70
70
70
73
78
70
67
66
60
55
70
62
73
80
85
80
85
85
85
85
85
*Rainfall of 0.02 in.  occurred from 0400 to 0600 hours.

                                      112

-------
TABLE C-6.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA, 9/29/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
5
4
4
5
5
6
5
7
7
7
8
7
8
6
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Direction
(°)
030
010
020
020
020
010
010
020
020
030
050
100
100
110
090
090
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Temperature
(°p)
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
69
73
76
78
80
80
81
81
81
80
75
71
70
69
69
69
Relative
Humidity
(%)
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
80
72
63
53
50
45
39
37
40
40
41
55
68
72
76
76
80
               113

-------
TABLE C-7.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA, 9/30/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
5
5
5
6
5
2
2
3
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Direction
(°)
—
-
-
-
-
020
-
020
020
020
040
030
030
030
360
030
030
030
-
-
-
-
-
-
Temperature
(°F)
68
68
70
70
70
69
68
67
72
75
79
81
83
84
84
85
85
84
78
74
72
69
69
68
Relative
Humidity
(%)
87
87
78
78
78
80
87
85
67
55
43
44
39
37
32
29
29
30
46
59
73
80
85
87
               114

-------
TABLE C-8.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA, 10/1/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed Direction
(mph) (°)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3 360
2 020
2 010
2 060
2 070
3 100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Temperature
(Op)
68
67
65
65
64
64
64
65
70
77
79
82
84
86
85
87
86
83
77
74
74
72
70
70
Relative
Humidity
87
85
90
90
90
90
90
85
80
64
50
40
33
29
28
25
26
31
64
74
74
83
90
90
                115

-------
TABLE C-9.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
 LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA, 10/2/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(rnph)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
2
1
2
2
4
4
3
2
2
0
0
0
0
Direction
(°)
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
340
240
-
160
160
170
190
200
170
180
-
-
-
-
Temperature
(°F)
69
69
67
67
67
67
67
67
70
76
81
82
83
85
85
85
83
80
76
72
71
70
70
69
Relative
Humidity
(%)
94
90
95
95
90
90
90
85
86
63
52
50
44
36
34
34
41
55
68
83
85
90
86
90
               116

-------
TABLE C-10.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
LAKE CHARLKES, LOUISIANA, 10/3/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed Direction
(mph) (Q)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2 140
1
0
3 170
0
0
0
0
0
0
Temperature
(°F)
68
67
67
67
66
67
67
68
71
73
78
80
82
83
84
82
78
77
74
72
72
71
69
68
Relative
Humidity
(%)
90
90
90
90
90
85
85
87
88
82
68
55
43
43
36
46
60
64
74
80
78
86
85
90
                117

-------
TABLE Oil.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA, 10/4/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
0
3
0
0
3
2
3
3
4
6
5
5
2
4
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Direction
(°)
—
340
-
-
020
020
030
030
060
050
050
050
090
100
-
090
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Temperature
(°F)
68
68
68
67
66
67
67
66
67
72
74
77
80
82
83
84
84
83
78
76
74
72
71
69
Relative
Humidity
(%)
90
87
87
90
90
90
85
90
85
61
55
44
41
40
40
39
36
34
52
68
74
83
88
90
               118

-------
TABLE C-12.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
 LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA, 10/5/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed Direction
(mph) (°)
0
0
0
1
2 340
1
1
0
2 350
3 030
1
2 130
4 060
1
2 320
3 180
1
1
1
2 250
0
0
0
0
Temperature
69
68
67
67
67
67
67
67
70
76
81
82
84
84
87
87
84
82
77
75
75
73
72
72
Relative
Humidity
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
85
86
70
55
50
39
36
30
30
41
49
70
79
79
86
86
86
               119

-------
            APPENDIX D
        METEOROLOGICAL DATA
FROM NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, STUDY
                 121

-------
TABLE D-l.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
 NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, 10/10/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
3
0
5
5
6
6
8
4
6
7
8
7
5
7
8
8
8
7
3
2
2
0
0
0
Direction
(°)
080
-
360
020
020
020
020
010
030
030
030
040
020
030
030
030
060
110
110
120
120
-
-
-
Temperature
(°F)
64
63
62
62
63
63
65
65
68
69
71
73
75
77
78
78
77
76
74
73
71
70
69
69
Relative
Humidity
(%)
83
80
74
67
63
59
64
49
46
45
48
51
56
59
65
67
72
75
78
80
83
85
87
88
               122

-------
TABLE D-2.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, 10/11/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
3
7
6
6
6
6
5
5
4
5
5
5
4
4
3
2
Direction
(°)
_
-
-
-
-
360
-
-
030
030
030
030
030
030
040
010
110
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Temperature
(°P>
68
68
67
66
66
66
66
67
68
68
68
75
85
87
88
88
87
86
83
82
80
79
78
78
Relative
Humidity
(%)
88
89
89
89
89
89
89
88
87
86
84
81
76
72
66
64
66
69
75
81
83
84
85
86
               123

-------
TABLE D-3.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, 10/12/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
7
8
5
8
8
4
7
8
4
4
4
3
2
2
Direction
(°)
120
120
120
110
100
100
100
100
100
130
120
130
140
360
360
050
120
110
120
120
120
120
120
120
Temperature
(°p)
78
77
77
76
76
76
76
77
77
80
86
89
90
91
87
87
89
89
87
81
80
79
79
78
Relative
Humidity
(%)
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
83
74
61
53
51
56
66
68
70
69
74
80
84
85
86
86
               124

-------
TABLE D-4.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, 10/13/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
2
3
5
3
5
7
5
3
0
0
0
0
0
10
13
Direction
(°)
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
020
030
100
360
360
360
020
360
330
320
-
-
-
-
-
350
350
Temperature
(°p)
77
77
75
75
73
72
71
71
74
78
83
85
87
88
89
90
87
85
80
76
73
72
72
72
Relative
Humidity
(%)
86
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
84
75
69
64
57
54
48
48
60
72
73
76
78
78
76
                125

-------
TABLE D-5.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, 10/14/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
14
13
15
15
14
16
16
16
17
20
19
17
14
14
16
15
15
15
12
9
7
7
12
13
Direction
(°)
350
350
350
360
360
010
010
010
010
010
010
010
010
360
360
350
350
350
360
350
340
350
010
010
Temperature
(°P)
68
67
64
62
62
61
61
61
61
62
65
64
65
66
66
66
64
60
57
53
53
54
54
54
Relative
Humidity
(%)
74
74
75
70
63
61
57
53
52
50
47
38
36
28
28
27
26
30
38
45
60
63
60
54
               126

-------
TABLE D-6.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, 10/15/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
13
12
9
6
2
2
4
4
0
7
9
7
7
5
4
2
0
0
0
1
2
2
4
4
Direction
(°)
010
010
010
020
310
320
330
330
-
030
040
060
060
050
030
330
-
-
-
-
200
240
250
240
Temperature
(°P)
53
53
52
48
43
42
44
48
58
61
63
64
65
66
67
67
67
62
57
55
55
55
55
54
Relative
Humidity
(%)
55
57
59
60
80
94
95
98
70
46
35
33
30
30
29
27
27
32
48
59
70
73
78
82
                127

-------
TABLE D-7.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
 NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 10/16/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
9
9
7
8
9
9
8
6
7
3
3
4
7
12
13
12
Direction
(°)
220
250
240
-
-
-
-
-
290
290
310
270
290
290
290
300
320
330
330
340
350
360
010
010
Temperature
<°F)
53
52
51
49
48
48
49
52
60
63
70
72
75
77
78
78
77
74
66
61
61
61
60
58
Relative
Humidity
(%)
87
89
93
95
97
97
97
96
92
80
57
44
33
27
27
28
29
35
57
70
75
64
50
52
               128

-------
TABLE D-8.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, 10/17/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
11
12
11
11
11
10
10
10
11
11
11
10
10
10
8
8
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
Direction
(°)
010
020
030
030
040
040
050
060
060
050
050
050
030
040
050
040
350
310
-
-
-
-
-
-
Temperature
(°P)
56
56
57
57
56
55
54
55
57
58
59
61
63
63
64
64
64
62
58
56
55
54
52
51
Relative
Humidity
(%)
55
57
58
57
57
59
62
64
62
60
57
56
52
47
43
43
42
45
59
65
87
96
99
99
               129

-------
TABLE D-9.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, 10/18/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
1
0
1
5
6
5
5
6
6
8
8
8
9
9
8
9
8
6
4
3
0
0
1
1
Direction
(°)
_
-
-
020
010
010
020
010
020
030
040
030
040
040
050
060
070
100
110
120
-
-
-
-
Temperature
(°F)
50
52
50
53
57
55
54
55
56
60
65
67
69
71
74
75
75
75
75
74
71
70
68
67
Relative
Humidity
(%)
100
94
93
95
89
79
87
85
88
81
72
69
68
67
65
65
68
66
65
67
71
75
80
85
               130

-------
TABLE D-10.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA,
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, 10/19/78

Hour
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wind
Speed
(mph)
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
3
5
B
1
8
7
5
8
7
3
1
2
0
1
1
1
0
Direction
(°)
010
010
010
350
350
330
360
360
010
020
010
010
360
360
350
340
340
-
280
-
-
-
-
-
Temperature
(°p)
65
64
64
66
66
66
67
67
69
70
73
75
76
77
78
79
79
77
70
66
63
61
60
59
Relative
Humidity
(%)
94
98
96
92
95
98
99
99
99
99
98
55
46
46
46
43
43
49
70
81
94
93
95
95
               131

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
  EPA 600/4-79-029
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION'NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
  Monitoring of Ambient Levels of Ethylene  Dichloride
  (EDC) in the Vicinity of EDC Production and
  User Facilities
                                                           5. REPORT DATE

                                                             April 1Q79
                                                           6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
  Lawrence A.  Elfers, et. al.
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
  11499 Chester Road
  Cincinnati,  Ohio  45246
                                                           10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                                                              1AD606
                                                           11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

                                                              68-02-2722
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
  Environmental  Protection Agency
  Environmental  Monitoring and Support Laboratory
  Research Triangle  Park, North Carolina  27711
                                                           13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                                               Final
                                                           14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                                               EPA/600/08
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
           A  study was conducted near  ethylene dichloride  (EDC)  production and
      user facilities to determine ambient EDC levels.  The results  will  be used
      in  health risk assessment studies  now in progress.   Three  geographical study
      areas were selected, and a 10-day  monitoring program was conducted at each.
      Integrated sampling was conducted  over a 24-hour period at 12  locations
      within  each study area.  Meteorological measurements, consisting of wind
      speed,  wind direction, temperature,  relative humidity, and rainfall were
      also made.   The EDC in the ambient air was collected on charcoal sorption
      tubes,  eluted with an organic solvent, and quantitated by  gas  chromatographic
      separation and mass spectrographic detection techniques.   Ambient levels of
      EDC at  some locations were found to  be in excess of  500 yg/m^  (125 ppb).
      These high levels occurred during  atmospheric conditions of calm or low
      wind speeds.

           The  field monitoring activities, laboratory analyses, quality assurance
      program,  and EDC levels obtained are presented in this report.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C.  COSATI Field/Group
      air  pollution
      toxic  substances
      chlorinated hydrocarbons
                                              field studies
                                              ethylene dichloride
68 A
43 F
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

      Release  to  Public
                                              19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
                                                                         21. NO. OF PAGES
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
                                                Unclassified
                                                                         22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (»-7J)

-------