SAI
Human Exposure
To Atmospheric Concentrations
Of Selected Chemicals
Volume I
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
SAI
Human Exposure
To Atmospheric Concentrations
Of Selected Chemicals
Volume I
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
CONTENTS
Page
FIGURES iii
TABLES „ iv
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.... 1
2. DATA BASES : 37
Emissions Data 37
Meteorological Data 46
Population Distribution Data Bases 55
Atmospheric Transformations of Toxic Compounds 65
3. EXPOSURE-DOSAGE ESTIMATION APPROACH 94
Major (Specific) Point Sources 94
Prototype Point Source Exposure and Dosage Estimations... 120
Area Source Model ing Approach 144
4. UNCERTAINTIES 203
Uncertainties Involved in Emissions Estimations 203
Uncertainties in Exposure/Dosage Estimations 204
REFERENCES 226
APPENDICES
m
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 List of Chemicals for Human Exposure/Dosage Estimation 6
2 Rank Order Listing of Chemicals by Total Emissions 20
3 Rank Order Listing of the Top Twenty Sites by Total
Emissions With Individual Chemical Contribution 21
4 Studied Chemicals Ranked by Estimated Total U.S. Dosage..... 26
5 Top Twenty Major Point Sources Ranked by Total Dosage 27
6 Location and Recording Period of STAR Stations in the
Reprocessed File 74
7 Location of Six Major Chemical-Emitting Sources 51
8 Location of Selected STAR Station of Specific
Point Sources 82
9 Selected STAR Stations for PCB Incinerators 54
10 Selected STAR Stations Representing Various
Climatological Conditions 56
11 Distribution of ED/BGs With Population Centroids
Located Outside Their Corresponding Counties 63
12 Decay Rate Estimation Categories for 25 Chemicals 69
13 Photochemical Reactivities of Selected Chemicals 73
14 Pasquill-Gifford Stability Classes Used in Point
Sources Analysis 104
15 Sequence of Input Data Cards for Program Gauss 110
16 Chloroprene Concentration Pattern Around the Denka
Plant at Houston 116
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number
17 Nationwide Trichloroethylene Emissions from Solvent
Degreasers 121
18 1970 Population Density and Number of Trichloroethylene-
Using Degreasers in the Nine Geographic Regions 124
19 Major Parameters and Concentration-Dosage Results of
Uniform Emissions Approach 125
20 Emissions Parameters for Generic Point Sources of
Tri chl oroethyl ene 127
*
21 Thrichloroethylene Concentration Pattern Around a Model
Open Top Vapor Degreaser in New England Region 128
22 Land Areas for Specified Concentration Centers 129
23 Population Exposure to Trichloroethylene Emitted from
a Model Degreaser 132
24 Trichloroethylene Dosage Resulting from a Model
Degreaser Emissions 135
25 Nationwide Trichloroethylene Exposure Resulting from
Emissions from Degreasing Operations 140
26 Nationwide Trichloroethylene Dosage Resulting from
Emissions from Degreasing Operations 141
27 Nationwide Trichloroethylene Exposures and Dosages
Resulting from Emissions from Different Types of
Degreasing Facilities 142
28 Exposure/Dosage Analysis Data Base for Type I City
Areas Sources 180
29 Exposure/Dosage Analysis Data Base for Type II City
Area Sources 192
30 Exposure/Dosage Analysis Data Base for Type III City
Area Sources 199
31 Major State Statistics Related to Area Source Emissions
Distribution 151
32 Major Parameters for Estimating Exposure/Dosage Result-
Ing from Area Source Emissions of Beryllium 155
-------
TABLES (Concluded)
Number Page
33 Beryllium Exposure and Dosage Resulting from Area
Source Emissions in Type I Cities 156
34 Beryllium Exposure and Dosage Resulting from Area
Source Emissions in Type II Cities 168
35 Beryllium Exposure and Dosage Resulting from Area Source
Emissions in Type III Cities 175
36 Summary of Beryllium Exposure and Dosage Resulting From
Area Source Emissions • 179
37 Definition of Uncertainty Levels in Chemical Source
Locations and Emissions Estimations 206
38 Levels of Uncertainty for Assessed Chemicals 207
39 Percentage of Change in Dosage from Base Case
Resulting From Location Shift 224
40 Percentage of Change in Exposure from Base Case
Resulting From Location Shift 224
-------
SECTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Recent federal legislation has responded to the increased public
awareness of and concern about the public health danger of man-made chemi-
cals in the environment. These laws have, in turn, placed more responsi-
bility on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess the need for
regulatory control over the sources of these chemicals. Assessment of the
need for additional control requires information about the chemicals,
their interaction with the environment, and their health impacts on the
human population. As part of a continuing effort by the EPA to fulfill
this information need, the Strategies and Air Standards Division of the
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards has commissioned the
study of human exposures to atmospheric concentrations of selected chemi-
cals that is reported here.
Chemicals such as those analyzed in this program are subject to con-
trol through several different legal and regulatory mechanisms. However,
regardless of the regulatory approach that is utilized, issues pertaining
to the health effects of the chemicals indicate the need for development
of the following information:
> Quantities of pollutants emitted
> Population at risk
> Chemical and physical properties of the chemicals
> Danger to public health.
-------
Thus, In support of the primary goal of estimating human exposure to
the qiven chemicals, it was necessary to quantify emissions of the chemi-
cals and to estimate the chemical and physical properties of the sub-
stances.
This study of human exposure to certain chemicals is one element of a
health risk assessment. Health risk depends on:
> The effect on human health of exposure to a pollutant
> The patterns of pollutant concentration
> The human population exposed to the pollutant patterns.
Since this program does not address the development or use of a health
effects model, it is not known what population factors (e.g., age, sex,
occupation, racial background), environmental factors (e.g., climate,
diet, chemical reactions), and exposure factors (e.g., duration and dosage
of exposure, concentration threshold, concentration level) are impor-
tant. Accordingly, the methodologies developed for use in our study are
designed to accommodate the quantification of such effects in future
studies.
The results of this study are expressed in terms of both the human
population exposed to different concentration levels of each substance and
tt3 dosage potential (here called dosage) for the exposed population. As
used in this program, exposure is the number of people whose breathing
space contains the qiven pollutant at a specified concentration. Dosage
is not the quantity absorbed by human bodies, but for this proqram merely
the potential dosage measured by a concentration multiplied by the number
of people exposed. Both exposure and dosage are presented in annual
terms.
-------
THE STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY TEAM
The study of human exposure and dosage to atmospheric concentrations
of the selected chemicals involves three major aspects, which may be for-
mulated in terms of "what, where, and who" questions:
> What material is released to the atmosphere?
> Where does the material qo?
> Who receives the material at the places it reaches?
Each of these three proqram elements was addressed by a specific study
group:
> Systems Applications, Incorporated (SAI)--SAI manaqed the
proqram and developed and carried out all transport and
dispersion analyses (where); defined and executed the
exposure/dosaqe computations (who); and undertook all
auxiliary studies, such as the species monoqraphs,
reactivity studies, etc.
> Hydroscience, Incorporated (HI)--HI performed all emis-
sions work (what), determining the locations, processes,
emission characteristics, and emission rates of all
sources of the studied pollutants.
> Minimax Research Corporation (MRC)--MRC created the popu-
lation data file (who) and the computer program used to
interpolate population concentration data and calculate
exposure-dosage.
The Principal Investigator of the proqram was Gerald Anderson of SAI,
and the SAI program associate manager was Chung Liu. Hoi-Ying Holman
(SAI) carried out the programming of the "matrix modeling." The associate
manager for emissions studies was Dwight Erickson of HI, and the associate
manager for exposure/dosaqe software was Dr. Carlos Puig of MRC.
-------
Until September, 1979, the project manager for the EPA's Strategies
and Standards Division (SASD) was Richard Johnson; after a reorganization
of SASD, project management was the responsibility of Dr. Nancy Pate.
STUDIED CHEMICALS
Early In the program study period, the EPA presented a 11st of 41
chemicals to be assessed In this study. Subsequently, the following six
chemicals were deleted from the list under EPA instructions:
> Acetylene tetrachloride
> Bischloromethyl ether (BCME)
> Chloromethyl methyl ether (CMME)
> Methyl iodide
> 1-naphthylamine
> 2-nitropropane.
Acetylene tetrachloride and 1-naphthylamine were deleted from the
list because preliminary review of available information Indicated that
neither chemical is any longer produced or used in the United States.
CMME is an intermediate created and consumed captively in the manufacture
of ion exchange resins. BCME is an impurity also created with CMME.
Available information indicated that BCME and CMME are totally consumed
when the reaction to form ion exchange resin is completed. The only
potential emissions source of either of these chemicals Is through, an
emergency vent of the reactor at some time when one or both of the
chemicals is present. Methyl iodide is an extremely small-volume
specialty chemical with an estimated annual production of 50,000 pounds.
Emissions from production and use as a reagent would be negligible. The
IMC Corporation plant, located at Sterlington, Lousiana, 1s the only
chemical plant that produces 2-nitropropane. This chemical 1s another
small-volume specialty chemical. State air emissions files Indicate that
no 2-nitropropane emissions results from its production.
-------
Table 1 is a complete list of the remaining 35 chemicals. Emissions
data were estimated for all of them, with the exceptions of dimethylnitro-
samine and nitrosomorpholine. These two nitroso compounds are formed in
the atmosphere as the result of reaction between nitrous acid and amines
(Hanst et al., 1977), so emissions data for their corresponding precur-
sors, dimethylamine and mor.pholine, were estimated instead.
HEALTH RISK ANALYSIS
The human exposure analysis conducted in this study is part of a
health risk analysis for atmospheric pollutants. The latter is based on
the concept that adverse physiological changes may be produced in human
tissue that has contacted or absorbed some airborne material. The change
might depend—at least statistically--on some characteristic of the indi-
vidual (e.g., age, sex, occupation, racial background), on the complete
time pattern of the pollutant received (amount of dosage received over
exposed time), and on any measure of that pattern. Pollutant patterns
can be measured in several ways:
> Total dosage.
> Dosage in a given time.
> Exposure at or above a given dose rate.
> Linear or nonlinear and continuous or noncontinuous func-
tions of any of the above measures.
Exposure is the occurrence of contact between human and pollutants.
Dose is the total amount of material received. In this report, the
concentration to which a person is exposed on an average annual basis
is a measure of the potential dose he may receive. This quantity,
summed over all exposed persons, is referred to here as dosage.
-------
TABLE 1. LIST OF CHEMICALS FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE/DOSAGE ESTIMATION
No. Chemical
1 Acetaldehyde
2 Acrolein
3 • Ally! chloride
4 Benzyl chloride
5 Beryllium
6 Carbon tetrachloride
7 Chlorobenzene (mono)
8 Chloroform
9 Chloroprene
10 m-Cresol
11 o-Cresol
12 p-Cresol
13 o-Dichlorobenzene
14 p-Dichlorobenzene
15 Dimethylnitrosamine
16 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin)
17 Epichlorohydrin
18 Ethylene oxide
19 Formaldehyde
20 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
21 Manganese
22 Methylene chloride
23 Nitrosomorpholine
24 Nickel
25 Nitrobenzene
26 PCBs
27 Phenol
28 Phosgene
29 Propylene oxide
30 Toluene
31 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
32 Trichloroethylene
33 m-Xylene
34 o-Xylene
35 p-Xylene
-------
Determining the health risk of a person requires knowledge of the
coefficients of dependence on factors such as those listed above. Pro-
viding the inputs required for a health risk analysis, then, must include
identification of the following:
> A health effect as a function of characteristics of the
exposed person and of a pattern of exposure to an airborne
chemical.
> Emissions sources and emissions rates of the chemical.
> The dispersive environment of the source.
> The chemical and physical properties of the chemical in
the ambient air.
> The population distribution patterns, stratified by iden-
tifying characteristics, that are subject to the influence
of the sources.
Three general tasks are required to convert these inputs to a health
risk assessment:
> Estimation of concentration patterns of the pollutant in
time and space.
> Computation of the appropriate measure of the concentra-
tion patterns.
> Summation of the product of the concentration pattern
measure, the health effect coefficients, and the popula-
tion in each class over space and time.
The limitation of the focus of this study to human exposure rather
than health risk eliminates the necessity of having to identify a health
effect function. However, appropriate methods of exposure analysis depend
on the form of the health effect function. The function must be presumed
to depend on some function of the time history of concentration to which a
person is exposed. Even statistical bases for identifying health effects
-------
functions are usually weak; therefore, the health effect functions used in
practice typically are based on the simplest possible measures of a con-
centration pattern. The two simplest measures are exposure and dosage.
Exposure is generally related to a given concentration level. This
type of model is applicable to reversible health effects. That is, below
the "standard" concentration, the body can repair damage rapidly enough to
suppress symptoms. As the standard is exceeded, the human body becomes
less capable of repairing damage at a satisfactory rate. Thus, damage
symptoms appear in more and more people. All of the so-called criteria
pollutants subject to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are
presumed to produce reversible effects at NAAQS levels. The NAAQS them-
selves are exposure types of standards. Of course, sufficiently high
exposure to such pollutants can produce irreversible organ damage or
death.
Some pollutants can produce irreversible cell or genetic damage or
irreversible cancerous consequences at very low concentrations. Because
of the irreversibility of such effects, the total damage to the body can
depend on the accumulation of such events and thus on the pollutant dosage
that the body receives. If such damage is sustained at very low levels,
it may well be generally undetectable, yet its cumulative or randomly
critical nature may create an unacceptable health risk to the total popu-
lation. Some bodily damage may be reversible or inconsequential at low
levels of exposure or dosage but irreversible at higher levels. Such
behavior is referred to as "threshold" variation.
It is presumed that the effect of carcinogenic materials is to pro-
duce critical cell damage. Thus, carcinogenic health effects models
generally are dose (i.e., integrated exposure) models, not exposure
models. The lack of firm statistical bases often leads to the adoption of
nonthreshold, linear models, even though thresholds and nonlinear effects
might be expected.
-------
If linear (dose) models without thresholds are to be used for car-
cinogen (or other) risk assessment, estimation of exposure at specified
levels becomes irrelevant or, at least, nonintuitive. For example, a car-
cinogen risk analysis may be based on a linear, nonthreshold health
effects model. The total health risk would thus be proportional to the
long-term exposure summed for all affected people for the identified
period. Exposure of many people at low concentrations would be equivalent
to exposure of a few to high concentrations. The atmospheric dispersion
that reduces concentrations would also lead to exposure of more people;
therefore, increments to population risk would not necessarily diminish
with increasing dispersion time or distance. Limits to human risk would
exist only if the concentration or population patterns were bounded.
Since the model does not exclude background concentrations from global
transport, bounding of the concentration patterns by either chemical decay
or scavenging by such phenomena as precipitation and respiration would be
necessary for legitimate analysis by a linear, nonthreshold model.
However, arbitrary boundary limits (e.g., 20 km for specific point
sources) were set for this purpose.
In spite of this argument, a linear health effects model was assumed
in this study. It is not practical to determine the time history of expo-
sure for a single person or for all the population as a whole in this
study, so the annual average exposure levels were estimated. Population
exposure was defined in this study as the number of people exposed to
annual average concentrations of ambient chemical no less than certain
exposure levels. Dosage was defined as the product of population and con-
centration (at no less than certain levels) to which they would be
exposed. Therefore, both exposure and dosage are functions of exposure
level.
A time factor has been built into both"exposure and dosage. Since
the health risk is proportional to the long-term exposed concentration
under the linear assumption, annual population exposure should be a good
-------
estimate of the number of people with a given level of health risk, and
dosage should be a good indication of risk involved at a given level of
ambient concentration.
SOURCES AND EMISSIONS
The list of chemicals presented in Table 1 contains materials of
quite disparate character. Distinctive characteristics include the fol-
lowing:
> Phase—Solids, liquids, and gases (at ambient conditions)
are represented.
> Chemical Reactivity—Some are nonreactive; some decay by
atmospheric chemical processes; and some are created by
such processes.
> Ubiquity—Some are widely distributed; others are found in
isolated locations, isolated times, or both.
> Mode of emission—In general, when a pollutant is exposed
to the atmosphere some fraction is lost to the atmos-
phere. Since each material is handled differently, it
enters the air by a different mode. Some identified modes
are
- Evaporation from open surface.
- Emission through a stack.
- Emission through a vent (a vent is not designed to ele-
vate the emitted material; a stack is).
- Leaks in plumbing or storage containers.
- Wind-blown dust.
> Emission rate—Rates range from minute to massive.
> Proximity to people—Materials are emitted from sites of
varying remoteness.
10
-------
Because of the number of characteristics that must be addressed,
three different methods were used for estimating concentration patterns,
one method for each of three categories of sources. The three source
categories are
> Major, specific point sources—These consist of indivi-
dually identified sources, usually a manufacturing
plant. Such sources have known locations and modes and
rates of emission. Each accounts for a significant frac-
tion of the national emissions of some species.
> Other point sources—Sources that are too numerous, small,
or of uncertain location, and yet produce isolated pat-
terns of significant concentration, are not treated speci-
fically. Rather, a prototype of such sources is defined,
and the results of prototype analysis are multiplied by
estimated numbers of sources that the prototype repre-
sents. Degreasers are an example of sources that were
treated by prototype.
> Area Source—Sources that are so numerous and emit so lit-
tle that patterns of concentration are analyzed only "en
masse." Such sources include both stationary (e.g., home
chimneys) and mobile (e.g., automobiles) types. Emission
rates per unit area are estimated; emission modes are not
addressed.
Emission rates, modes, locations, and times were described for each
species studied. The emission work was done by Hydroscience, Incorporated
(HI), of Knoxville, Tennessee. Emissions characterization involved review
of trade literature, files of the various states, EPA reports and data,
and site visits and correspondence with staff of specific sources.
The results of this program include the completion of emissions sum-
maries that identify source locations and estimate the total nationwide
11
-------
emissions of the 35 chemicals. These summaries are included in the
attached species reports. Further description of the emission estimation
process is given in Section 2. Rankings of the studied chemicals and
their sources by emission rate are given at the end of this section on
pages 21 to 32.
DISPERSION MODELING
The estimation of human exposure/dosage to atmospheric concentrations
of the studied chemicals involved three computational tasks:
> Estimation of annual average concentration patterns of
each chemical on the region about each source.
> Estimation of the population pattern over the area of each
computed concentration pattern..
> Computation of sums of products of the concentration and
population patterns to provide exposure/dosage estimates.
Concentration Patterns
The large number of chemicals and sources that were modeled in this
program would consume large computer resources if conventional modeling
systems had been used. To keep computer costs within reasonable bounds
while ensuring that the computing effort would meet program needs, we
developed a combined "reactive prototype" and "matrix" modeling system.
The estimation of concentration patterns was done with a different
approach for each of the three source types described above.
> Specific point sources
> Prototype point sources
> Area sources.
12
-------
Each of these types of sources requires a different modeling
approach. In addition, the concentrations of some of the selected chemi-
cals depend on reactions in large-scale plumes of photoreactive materials
from urban regions or industrial complexes. Although SAI has developed
and used many types of photochemical simulation models, application of
such models to the number and variety of sources studied in the present
program would require large labor and funding resources; hence, these
models were not recommended for this program.
MAJOR (SPECIFIC) POINT SOURCES
Major sources of most of the selected chemicals are specifically
identified chemical manufacturing plants. Concentration patterns due to
unit emissions from such sources depend most strongly on several factors:
> Source elevation above terrain
> Wind vectors (speed and direction)
> Disoersive effects (intensity of atmospheric turbulence).
Long-term average concentrations depend on the time histories of the
meteorological parameters. A useful simplification that greatly reduces
computational requirements is the computation of long-term average concen-
trations by taking climatological weighted sums of concentrations computed
for a set of discrete states of the atmosphere. This approach is used in
the EPA's climatological dispersion models, AQDM and COM; for each state
of the atmosphere, these models compute Gaussian dispersion patterns. The
annual average concentration pattern is then computed as a weighted summa-
tion of the patterns for each atmospheric state. AQDM and COM are
designed for application to urban regional problems with large inventories
of sources. The EPA's point source models, PTMAX, PTDIS, PTMTP, and CRS,
also use a Gaussian kernel, but are designed for estimating short-term
(one-hour to one-day) average concentrations. The approach used to
develop long-term average concentrations in the EPA's benzene exposure
13
-------
study (Mara and Lee, 1978) was to compute one-hour results and to infer
annual averages by using assumed time-averaging period scaling factors.
In the present study, the computations were carried out talcing into
account the following source-specific factors:
> Climatological data from nearest or otherwise most appro-
priate recording station.
> Individual treatment of releases from each identified
process or vent within a plant.
> Release height, speed, and buoyancy.
> Effects of wakes from nearby structures.
> Diurnal variations of emissions.
> Seasonal variations of emissions.
> Urban or rural character of area.
> Atmospheric chemical reaction after release of emissions.
GENERAL POINT SOURCES REPRESENTED BY PROTOTYPE
Some point sources are not treated individually because of their num-
ber and emissions strength; such sources are too numerous, their emissions
are too small to warrant individual modeling, or both. Unlike area
sources, these sources are separated widely enough that their patterns of
pollution impact do not generally overlap. In lieu of the individual
modeling of each such source, a prototype source is defined to
represent each such source; dispersion and exposure/dosage patterns are
computed for the prototype; and results are multiplied by the number of
sources the prototype represents.
Such sources were modeled using the matrix model for unit emissions
rates rather than emissions rates for actual, specifically identified
sources. When appropriate, prototype sources were analyzed for each
region of the country using meteorological data representative of that
14
-------
region. The nine geographic regions in the United States (see Figure 1)
are used here, and a model source would be defined for each generic source
category in each of the nine regions.
AREA SOURCES
Area sources of either a selected chemical or a precursor present a
common problem for modeling. In particular, the rich and complex patterns
of hydrocarbon emissions from general urban and industrial sources either
include or might produce through atmospheric photochemical reactions some
of the species on the analysis list. The treatment of such species in
photochemical airshed modeling is difficult (Anderson et al., 1977; Tesche
and Burton, 1978). The effort required for any one such exercise is sub-
stantial, and the effort required for a comprehensive analysis of all
urban regions relevant to this program would be prohibitive.
We have treated reactive effects through judicious scaling of non-
reactive results by factors developed by photochemical "prototype" defini-
tions. Nonreactive modeling of area sources was carried out by use of a
box model (Hanna, 1973). This type of model can be used to treat general,
undifferentiated source densities in an urban region. Box model results
for each wind speed and stability, weighted by climatological probabili-
ties, were used to compute long-term averages.
Basic box models cannot portray effects of nonuniform source pat-
terns. If, for particular chemical species or particular source classes,
the dependence of emissions on population density or other identifiable
parameters is apparent and significant, we have used modifications to the
box model approach. As an example, it might be assumed in modeling
products of combustion of the lighter fuel oil distillates that source
distribution patterns are proportional to population density patterns,
because most of such fuel is burned in residential furnaces in cold-
weather cities.
15
-------
FIGURE 1. U.S. GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
-------
Where possible, we have addressed dispersion modeling requirements by
using models that
> Are specific to source type
> Are specific to site
> Address relevant physical and chemical phenomena
> Address relevant time and space scales
> Are based on EPA-recommended algorithms
> Are computationally efficient.
More extensive descriptions of the dispersion modeling methods used
are presented in Section 3.
POPULATION' MODELING
Population modeling was also done using different methods for each of
the three types of sources:
> Major, specific point sources
> Prototype point sources
> Area sources.
For major point sources, site-specific population patterns were
extracted from U.S. Census Bureau files using data at the Enumeration
District/Block Group (ED/BG) level. These data provide the finest resolu-
tion of population patterns available. The data were scaled from 1970 to a
base year of 1978. Interpolations of population and concentration pat-
terns were used to develop patterns of exposure/dosage that were then
summed to produce source-specific exposure/dosage totals.
The same dispersion procedures were used for modeling of other point
sources, but, since only prototype sources were addressed, population data
were required only for prototypical conditions in each geographic
17
-------
region. Prototypical population was represented by the average population
density in the urbanized areas of each region.
For area sources, only city-average population density and area were
used for each city so modeled.
Extensive descriptions of these techniques are presented in
Section 3. Further description of the population data bases is given in
Section 2.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine reports are presented as attachments to this report.
Each report summarizes, for a single species, the following:
> Emissions sources, including number, identification, and
location of sources of each type.
> Emission and rate modes.
> A table of physical and chemical data.
> Tables of concentration, exposure, and dosage for each
source and source type, and total exposure and dosage.
The emissions study identified and provided computations of the con-
centration, exposure, and dosage patterns for the following:
> There were 311 major chemical manufacturing or consuming
plants covered in this study. Because some major chemical
plants were involved in more than one chemical, specific
point source modeling was applied for 538 plants. Since
there may be more than one source type in a plant, dis-
persion-dosage modeling was conducted for a total of 1819
Individual point sources in this study.
18
-------
> There were 62 source categories involved in the prototype
modeling, each with nine regions. Hence, the prototype
point source modeling was conducted for a total of 558
prototype sources.
> Gaussian dispersion model computations were made for all
"Urbanized Areas" (248) for each of the 77 area source
categories, for a total of 19,096 runs.
> Gaussian dispersion model computations were made for all
other cities (243) with a population over 25,000 for each
of the 77 area source categories, for a total of 18,711
runs.
> Box model computations were made for 150 cities with popu-
lations between 2,500 and 25,000 for each of the 77 area
source categories, for a total of 11,550 runs.
In total, emission estimates and dispersion, population, and
exposure/dosage computations were made for 51,734 cases.
In Table 2 the 35 chemicals are ranked by their 1978 nationwide emis-
sions. Table 3 lists the 20 sites that emitted the greatest quantitites
of the 35 chemicals in 1978. A detailed breakdown of emissions from these
20 chemical plants is also given. Figure 2 displays sources that emit
more than 10,000 pounds per year of these chemicals; a complete list of
specific point sources of these 35 chemicals is included in Attachment A.
Similar rankings of the 35 chemicals by their dosage potential to the
national total population are presented in Table 4, and the 20 sites pro-
ducing the greatest dosage potential of all studied chemicals combined are
presented in Table 5.
An extensive review of the uncertainties associated with these esti-
mates is presented in Section 4.
19
-------
TABLE 2. RANK ORDER LISTING OF STUDIED CHEMICALS BY TOTAL EMISSIONS
*
Chemical Abstract Total Emissions
Rank Chemical Service Registry No. (Ib/yr)
1 Toluene 108-88-3 2,235,842,590
2 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 538,730,000
3 m-Xylene 108-38-3 453,533,940
4 Methylene chloride 75-09-2 407,700,000
5 o-Xylene 45-47-6 268,497,360
6 Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 240,700,000
7 p-Xylene 106-42-3 239,270,414
8 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 175,376,130
9 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 65,030,000
10 p-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 49,900,950
11 Manganese 7439-96-5 35,000,000
12 Formaldehyde 50-00-0 33,000,000
13 Chloroform 67-66-3 24,040,000
14 Nickel 7440-02-0 22,573,640
15 o-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 15,269,450
16 Nitrobenzene 98-95-2 13,040,000
17 m-Cresol1" 108-39-4 10,960,000
18 Morpholine 110-91-8 10,028,000
19 p-Cresol 106-44-5 9,124,941
20 Phenol 108-95-2 6,924,360
21 Acetaldehyde 75-07-0 4,853,950
22 o-Cresol 95-48-7 4,504,150
23 Chloroprene 126-99-8 3,523,092
24 Ethylene oxide 75-21-8 1,991,000
25 Propylene oxide 75-56-9 1,346,160
26 Allyl chloride 107-05-1 1,110,000
27 Epichlorohydrin 106-89-8 479,000
28 Beryllium 744-04-17 357,035
29 Phosgene 75-44-5 253,176
30 Dimethyl amine§ 124-40-3 215,400
31 Acrolein 107-02-8 102,920
32 Benzyl chloride 100-44-7 100,271
33 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 59,500
34 PCBs 11097-69-1; 30,020
11096-82-5
35 2,3,7,8 TCDD-(dioxin) 828-00-2 84
* Actual emissions estimated as of 1978. See attached species reports.
* Emitted precursor to atmospheric formation of nitrosomorpholine.
§ Emitted precursor to atmospheric formation of dimethylnitrosoamine.
Source: Species emissions summaries by Hydroscience, Incorporated, Knoxville,
Tennessee included in attached species reports.
20
-------
TABLE 3. RANK ORDER LISTING OF THE TOP TWENTY SITES BY TOTAL EMISSIONS
WITH INDIVIDUAL CHEMICAL CONTRIBUTION
Rank Company/Location
1. Dow/Freeport, TX
Chemical
Propylene oxide
Phenol
o-Dichlorobenzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Mixed xylenes
Allyl chloride
Epichlorohydrin
Phosgene
Toluene
Ethylene oxide
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Individual
Emissions
Contribution
Mb/yr)
577,700
826,720
1,118,010
226,200
30,400
539,120
170,740
18,450
300,560
176,000
185,880
30,230
14,280
184,400
Total
Emissions
(Ib/vr)
4,438,760
2. Amoco/Decatur, AL
p-Xylene
3,896,400
3. Celanese/Bishop, TX
4. Du Pont/Laplace, LA
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Chloroprene
Toluene
292,800
3,294,800
2,541,678
679,294
3,587,600
3,220,972
5. Hercules/Hopewell, VA
6. FMC/S. Charleston, WV
Nitrobenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
2,263,125
2,184,000
21
-------
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Rank Company/Location
7. Dow/Plaquemine, LA
3. Shell/Deer Park, TX
9. BASF Wyandotte/Geismar, LA
Chemical
Nitrobenzene
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Ethylene oxide
Propylene oxide
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Phenol
Mixed xylenes
o-Xylene
p-Xylene
Ally! chloride
Epichlorohydrin
Toluene
Phosgene
Ethylene oxide
o-Dichlorobenzene
Formaldehyde
Propylene oxide
Toluene
Individual
Emissions
Contribution
Ob/yr)
567,375
331,410
73,690
140,950
192,000
174,160
633,400
884,440
59,830
367,200
125,600
259,490
89,030
190,800
8,190
121,000
1,113,010
270,000
5,830
70,400
Total
Emissions
Hb/vr)
2,122,985
1,976,440
1,593,480
22
-------
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Rank Company/Location
10. Mobay/Baytown, TX
11. Tennessee Eastman/
Kingsport, TN
12. Celanese/Clear Lake, TX
Chemical
Phosgene
Toluene
o-Dichlorobenzene
Propylene oxide
Acetaldehyde
p-Xylene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Ethylene oxide
Individual
Emissions
Contribution
(Ib/yr)
35,548
90,880
1,453,416
5,830
1,416,810
57,270
1,201,360
5,965
185,300
Total
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
1,585,724
1,474,080
1,472,625
13. Stauffer/Lemoyne, AL
Carbon tetrachloride
1,456,000
14. Amoco/Texas City, TX
Mixed xylenes
m-Xylene
p-Xylene
Toluene
140,520 '
176,000
1,034,630
19,760
1,370,910
15. Mobay/New Martinsville, WV
Phenol
Phosgene
o-Dichlorobenzene
Propylene oxide
Toluene
23
23,400
35,086
1,113,010
4,660
70,400
1,256,556
-------
TABLE 3 (Concluded)
Rank Company/Location Chemical
16. Olin/Lake Charles, LA Phosgene
o-Dichlorobenzene
Propylene oxide
Toluene
Individual
Emissions
Contribution
(lb/yr)
17,082
1,118,010
1,840
70,400
Total
Emissions
flb/vr)
17. Amoco/Cooper River, SC
18. Du Pont/Deepwater, Nv!
19. Hercules/Louisiana, MO
20. Allied/Moundsville, WV
p-Xylere
Nitrobenzene
Phosgene
Chlorobenzene
Carbon tetrachlorice
Chloroform
Toluene
o-Dichlorobenzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Phosgene
Methyl chloride
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
o-Dichlorobenzene
To!uene
1,275
18,934
68,650
75,/!20
140,300
732,610
399,500
130,600
14,214
89,440
22,640
820
894,410
56,320
1,207,332
1,199,520
1,144,329
1,030,100
1,077,844
Source: Species emissions summaries by Hydroscience, Incorporated, Knoxville,
Tennessee; included in attached species reports.
24
-------
tn
CNI99I0N3 »• I p 000.000 LD/TIt
CHI99I0N9 > 300.000 LD/TR
EHIS5I0N3 > 100.000 LB/YR
EMISSIONS > 50.000 LB/YR
EHISSIiNS > 10.000 LB/YR
V-J
Source: Species emission reports were made by Hydroscience, Incorporated, Knoxville, Tennessee, and
are included in the attached species reports.
FIGURE 2. SPECIFIC CHEMICAL-EMITTING POINT SOURCES
-------
TABLE 4. STUDIED CHEMICALS RANKED BY ESTIMATED
TOTAL U.S. DOSAGE*
Total Dosage
Ranking Chemical [(iq/m3) persons]
1 Toluene 1,748,971,000
2 Methylene chloride 410,800,000
3 m-Xylene 348,852,000
4 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 338,000,000
5 o-Xylene 216,759,000
6 p-Xylene 174,532,800
7 Chlorobenzene (mono) 73,059,100
8 Carbon tetrachloride 68,806,200
9 p-Dichlorobenzene 51,430,000
10 Trichloroethylene 34,523,000
11 Manganese 30,420,000
12 Chloroform 24,729,508
13 Nickel 16,669,800
14 Formaldehyde 16,197,800
15 m-Cresol 11,012,000
16 p-Cresol 9,185,000
17 o-Dichlorobenzene 7,238,000
18 o-Cresol 4,485,000
19 Nitrobenzene 2,774,000
20 Phenol 1,028,300
21 Acetaldehyde 469,000
22 Beryllium 219,600
23 Chloroprene 188,000
24 Epichlorohydrin 177,400
25 Propylene oxide 107,930
26 Ethylene oxide 78,200
27 Phosgene 26,300
28 Benzyl chloride 19,180
29 Hexachloropentadiene 19,100
30 Allyl chloride 9,770
31 PCBs 9,130
32 Acrolein 7,380
33 Nitrosomorpholine 6,900
34 Dimethylnitrosamine ' 620
35 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) 76
* Potential dosage: Exposed persons times annual average
atmospheric concentration to which they are exposed.
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated,
computations.
26
-------
TABLE 5. TOP TWENTY MAJOR POINT SOURCES RANKED BY TOTAL DOSAGE* TO EXPOSED POPULATIONS
FROM ALL STUDIED CHEMICALS EMITTED FROM EACH SOURCE
ro
Individual
Chemical Dosage Total Dosage
Ranking Company Location Chemical
1 FMC South Charleston, WV Carbon tetrachloride
2 ARCO Houston, TX Toluene
m-Xylene
• o-Xylene
p-Xylene
3 Amoco Decatur, AL p-Xylene
4 Allied Moundsville, WV Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
o-Dichlorobenzene
Methylene chloride
Phosgene
Toluene
[(vg/md) persons] [(
12,500
9,870
371,000
302,000
725
18,900
382,000
70,600
6,190
8,290
yg/nr) persons]
2,310,000
695,370
558,000
486,700
-------
TABLE 5 (Continued)
Ranking Company
5 Amoco
6 Monsanto
Vulcan
Location
Wichita, KA
Chemical
Copper River, SC
Sauget, IL
p-Xylene
Benzyl chloride
Chiorobenzene
o-D1chlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Methylene chloride
Individual
Chemical Dosage
[{i- '^3) • persons]
1,580
282,000
15,200
24,400
1.6
960
36,400
44,700
0.73
161,000
Total Dosage
[(ug/m3) • persons]
381,000
324,142
242,100
-------
TABLE 5 (Continued)
Ranking Company
8 Dow
Location
Freeport, TX
rsj
vo
Chemical
Du Pont
Parkersburg, WV
Allyl chloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
o-DIchlorobenzene
Eplchlorohydrln
Ethylene oxide
Methylene chloride
Phenol
Phosgene
Propylene oxide
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
m-Xylene
o-Xylene
p-Xylene
Formaldehyde
Individual
Chemical Dosage Total Dosage
• persons] [(pg/m3) • persons]
4,950
1,780
3,830
67,400
19,100
6,310
21,100
8,320
1,110
22,700
11,200
71,600
1,550
180
100
84
241,320
199,000
-------
TABLE 5 (Continued)
Individual
Chemical Dosage Total Dosage
11
12
Hercul es
Shell
13
Du Pont
South Charleston, WV
Hopewell, VA
Dear Park, TX
Deepwater, NJ
o-D1chlorobenzene
Phosgene
Propylene oxide
Tol uene
Nitrobenzene
Allyl chloride
Ep1chlorohydr1n
Phenol
Tol uene
m-Xyl ene
o-Xyl ene
p-Xyl ene
Carbon tetrachlorlde
Chi orobenzene
Chloroform
o-D1 chl orobenzene
Nitrobenzene
Phosgene
Tol uene
145,000
4,460
3,050
5,560
2,610
40,300
1,570
7,520
647
45,200
15,700
25,000
13,900
33,300
48,800
330
3,500
6.740
158,070
158,000
143,550
131,570
-------
TABLE 5 (Continued)
Ranking Company
Location
Chemical
Individual
Chemical Dosage Total Dosage
[(ug/m3) • persons] [(yg/m3) • persons]
14 Mobay Bay town, TX o-01chlorobenzene
Phosgene
Propylene oxide
Tol uene
15 Dow Plaquemine, LA Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylene oxide
Methyl ene chloride
Nitrobenzene
Propylene oxide
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
16 Du Pont Laplace, LA Chloroprene
Tol uene
17 Union Carbide Institute, WV Nitrobenzene
Propylene oxide
116,000
2,080
123
4,520
14,900
8,440
10,500
34,800
13,200
4,430
30,300
90,200
25,400
109,000
4,130
122,270
116,570
115,600
113,130
-------
Location
TABLE 5 (Concluded)
Chemical
Individual
Chemical Dosage Total Dosage
[(yg/m3) • persons] [(ug/m3) • persons]
18 011 n Lake Charles, LA o-Dlchlorobenzene
Phosgene
Propylene oxide
Tol uene
19 Celanese Bishop, TX Acetaldehyde
Formal dehyde
-.
20 Perstorp Toledo, OH Acetaldehyde
Formal dehyde'
104,000
1,320
57
4,240
4,910
99,100
12,11
75,700
109,620
104,010
87,800
* Potential dosage: Exposed persons times annual average atomospherlc concentration to which they are exposed.
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated computations.
-------
CAVEATS
The program goals can be technically met at different levels of rigor
and detail. The rigor and detail possible in applying program results to
health risk analyses depend not only on the quality of this program's
results, but also on the validity of the health effects function used and
its consistency with the results of this program and with practical con-
straints of an economic, social, or political nature.
The program team has sought to produce results that are as broad and
flexible in scope and as rigorous and detailed as possible given con-
straints such as those identified below.
> Dispersed sources such as vehicle emissions and small
industrial and commercial users have been linked to popu-
lation, heating (degree-days) or other surrogates wherever
possible. Thus, only coefficients of emissions per unit
surrogate as a function of time (where appropriate) were
developed for this source class.
> Site-specific exposure and dosage calculations were termi-
nated at 20 kilometers. To avoid double counting of expo-
sures at low concentrations, generic source exposure tabu-
lations were terminated at distances corresponding to
estimated typical source separations (dosages were not so
terminated).
> Reactive production or decay rates of studied chemicals
were developed only for prototype species. Reactive
effects for each species were estimated using rates
related to rates for the most appropriate reactive proto-
typical species. No attempt was made to model chemical
reactions downwind of each source, and reactive effects
were addressed by assuming constant rates.
33
-------
> Diurnal shifts of population from residential to employ-
ment areas were not computed. Nationally comprehensive,
disaggregated employment data are not available for this
purpose. The methodology developed would, however, pro-
vide for this computation when specific site applications
in future programs warrant assembly of a data base.
> Certain existing data that would support more detailed
city specific fuel usage estimates were not collected
because of resource limitations. For example, it is known
that distillate fuel usage for space heating is not dis-
tributed solely by heating degree-day patterns; such use
also depends on patterns of availability of alternative
fuels or on the local cost of electricity, or both.
> Diurnal emissions patterns were not estimated. This is
valid for continuously operated industrial sources, but it
is not valid for most area or generic point sources or
some specific point sources. For example, it is clear
that some gas stations, dry cleaners, and businesses using
degreasers close at night.
> Because diurnal emissions patterns were seldom estimated,
correlations between meteorology and emissions parameters
were not addressed. That is, night shutdowns were not
correlated with slow, stable winds, nor with possibly pre-
ferred directions.
> The issue of the effect of world-wide exposures at vanish-
ingly small concentrations was not addressed in the analy-
sis (this issue is discussed, however, in Section 3).
> The issue of preferred spatial distributions of area or
generic point sources was not resolved (e.g., four gas
stations at a single intersection is a common deviation
from a uniform density of stations).
> The atmospheric production of some species studied (e.g.,
formaldehyde) from other anthropogenic precursors (e.g.,
34
-------
gasoline fumes) was not addressed. Such a study would
require photochemical modeling of the entire country. The
capability of modeling individual hydrocarbon species on
such a scale is not now available.
> Natural sources of the selected species (e.g., the metals)
were not considered.
> Computation of pollutant dispersion by building wakes does
not address details of building shape.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that several features of the analysis and of the com-
puter programs be addressed or improved in the course of their future
use. Specifically, we recommend the following:
> Certain options (e.g., urban/rural choice of dispersion
parameters) were suppressed in the final computer programs
because implementing data were not available. We recom-
mend some additional programming to permit more flexi-
bility in the use of program options.
> An effort be made to determine and address space heating
fuel use patterns.
> Available data on background concentrations of species of
interest be reviewed for possible consideration in
validating or supplementing dispersion studies, or both.
> Atmospheric production and associated ambient concentra-
tion estimates be made for species for which this is
important.
> We recommend that detailed dispersion-exposure estimation
modeling techniques be developed and applied for a small
set of chemical-emitting specific sources. This would
incorporate detailed plant emission characteristics, a
complete decay/removal package, and population exposure
characteristics.
35
-------
We recommend that a detailed urban areawide concentration-
dosaqe modelinq approach be developed. A typical metro-
politan area may be selected as an example to determine
the concentration-dosage patterns for certain chemicals of
concern.
We recommend that population distribution patterns and
diurnal variations be examined for urbanized areas. This
is of prime importance to the estimation of exposure--
dosaqe of chemicals emitted from area sources.
We recommend that the method of estimating the exposure-
dosage be related to the current methods of estimating
health effects of chemical exposure; that is, the implica-
tion of any choice of health effects model should be
explicitly recognized in carrying out exposure/dosage
estimations. This should provide basic information for
focusing the modeling efforts on the critical threshold
levels and time and dosage patterns of chemical exposure.
36
-------
SECTION 2
DATA BASES
Four major types of data are essential for assessing exposures to and
dosages of atmospheric chemicals:
> Emissions inventories of chemicals
> Atmospheric reactivities of chemicals
> Meteorological data
> Population distributions.
The acquisition, processing, and preparation of these data bases are
delineated in this section.
EMISSIONS DATA
The development of emissions inventories for the 35 chemicals was
conducted by Hydroscience, Incorporated (HI), under subcontract to SAI.
HI has an extensive background in determining emission levels and control-
ling the release of pollutants from various manufacturing processes. HI
is the prime contractor to the Emission Standards and Engineering Division
(ESED), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental
Protection Agency, for the project entitled Emissions Control Options for
the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry, Contract No. 68-
02-2577. The term of the contract is March 1977 to March 1980. The cur-
rent estimated total cost is approximately $2.9 million. The primary
objective is to gather sufficient information to allow ESED to fulfill its
responsibility to establish new source performance standards and asso-
37
-------
elated guideline documents for the synthetic organic chemical manu-
facturing industry. HI acquired the data necessary to identify emissions
of chemicals that would provide a basis for dispersion model studies for
human exposure assessment. Emissions were identified for each chemical
for both production sites and user locations, and emissions characteris-
tics such as quantity, rate, composition, and stack parameters were
defined.
It was apparent that individual chemical emissions assessments could
best be completed in a combined summary, especially in cases of common
producer and user locations or where products are co-produced at the same
location. Chemicals such as o-, m-, and p-cresols were summarized in one
report. A total of 25 emissions summaries that cover the 35 chemicals
were completed. All 25 summaries are included in Attachment A. The
methodology used to identify chemical emissions is discussed here together
with summarized emissions results and uncertainties involved in developing
the emissions inventories.
Source Identification
In this study we identified three distinct categories of sources;
each source category presents different data-gathering problems.
Specific Point Sources--
Specific point sources are defined as known locations identifiable by
geographic coordinates for which the emissions of a specific chemical can
be estimated and assigned. Specific point source locations were deter-
mined from a variety of published sources:
> 1978 Directory of Chemical Producers and Chemical
Economics Handbook, published by Stanford Research
Institute.
38
-------
> "Chemical Marketing Reporter."
> U.S. Government publications, such as the U.S. Tariff Com-
mission's "1977 Synthetic Organic Chemical Production and
Sales."
> Reference guides, such as the "1977 Kline Guide to the
Chemical Industry."
> Other sources, such as trade associations, trade journals
and periodicals, and technical journals and periodicals.
Once the point source locations (including company name, city, and
state) were determined, geographic coordinates were assigned. Most of the
geographic coordinate information was obtained via personal communication
with various state air agencies or, in some cases, from EPA regional
offices. Information also was obtained from emissions inventory files; in
some cases, HI determined coordinates by using United States Geological
Survey maps. Some of the geographic coordinates obtained were in
Universal Transverse Mercator units (UTMs), which were converted by use of
a computer program to geodetic coordinates (latitude/longitude) by SAI.
After the locations were identified, the total quantity of the spec-
ific chemical produced or used at each of the sites was estimated. Total
chemical production and use quantities were obtained from published
sources. Three methods were used to determine individual site production
and use quantities. When possible, total capacity and individual plant
capacity figures were obtained. Total production and industry use was
then distributed over each site based on the ratio of the site capacity to
the total industry capacity. This was done because the total industry
capacity is a much more accurate estimate than is the individual site
capacity. In a second method, used in a few cases, average site capac-
ities were estimated because only ranges of site capacities were known.
In such cases, production and use quantities were then distributed by
ratioing the average site capacity to the total industry capacity. Using
the third method in cases for which individual site capacity figures were
39
-------
not available, the total quantity of production or use was distributed
evenly over all sites in the industry or apportioned on the basis of num-
ber of employees at each site.
Prototype Point Sources—
Prototypes were defined and analyzed for some point sources because
the sources are too numerous or unknown to allow identification of
specific locations with geographic coordinates. Prototype model sources
were defined for different regions and were modeled in the same fashion as
specific point sources. The results were then scaled to represent all
sources of the same nature. Examples of this type of source are power
plants, refineries, and gas stations. Prototype point sources were used
to analyze some specific chemical uses and most incidental sources of the
chemicals assessed in this program.
To enable a regional analysis of exposure from sources analyzed by
prototype, the prototype model source had to be defined and the number of
sources in each of the geographic regions had to be determined. Total
usage was then distributed over each of the regions by assuming an average
quantity per site or by apportioning the use based on the number of
employees in each region involved in the use of that specific chemical.
Incidental source locations were distributed in the same manner.
Area Sources--
Area sources are those sources of chemical use or incidental emis-
sions that could not be described as either a specific point source or as
a generic point source because the use is too widespread or unknown. Such
sources included home, business, and transportation uses of specific chem-
icals such as p-dichlorobenzene for moth control or toluene as a solvent
in paints or as a constituent of gasoline.
40
-------
Emission Estimations
Emissions Factors--
Emissions factors were developed to estimate the emissions from the
production, consumption, and incidental formation of the various chemicals
assessed. The emissions factor is expressed as the total pounds of a
specific chemical lost to the atmosphere per pound of the chemical pro-
duced or used. Multiplication of the emissions factor by the quantity of
the chemical produced or used at an individual site or in a specific geo-
graphic region during a specific time period yields the estimated chemical
emissions, in pounds, for that location.
The total emissions resulting from the production or chemical inter-
mediate use of a specific chemical are a summation of process, storage,
and fugitive emissions losses:
> Process emissions are discrete losses that occur at
process vents from reactors, columns, and other types of
plant equipment.
> Storage emissions include losses from the raw material
feed, in-process and final product storage tanks, as well
as from loading and handling losses.
> Fugitive emissions are losses that result from plant
equipment leaks, visual openings, evaporation from waste
products, and other nondiscrete sources.
For most chemicals emitted from chemical production and intermediate con-
sumption facilities, emissions factors were estimated spearately for pro-
cess vent, storage emissions, and fugitive emissions. However, in some
cases, only a total emissions factor could be determined, and further
breakdown was not possible given the lack of emissions data at those
specific sites.
41
-------
Emission factors were not used to determine losses of chemicals used
in solvent applications. Emissions resulting from solvent applications
were estimated by assuming that all the solvent used, or all but a small
waste fraction of the solvent used, is eventually released to the atmos-
phere. For the purpose of this report, emissions from the export of spe-
cific chemicals were assumed to be negligible. To develop specific
chemical emissions factors, data from four different types of information
sources were used:
> Level A—Plant Site Visits: These data were obtained by
Hydroscience while performing tasks for EPA contract No.
68-02-2577, "Emission Control Options for the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry." Under this con-
tract HI assessed approximately for uncontrolled,
controlled, and best estimates of current volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions resulting from chemical produc-
tion facilities. Data were obtained by actual site visits
to selected producers. Emissions estimates were developed
for model plants based on the data obtained by visiting
two or more producers of each chemical assessed. The
emissions factors derived from this information reflect
some degree of control and include only the estimated
losses of the specific chemical in question. Other
associated VOC losses were not included in the emissions
summaries. This level of information was considered the
best because it includes the most recent data available,
and it incorporates some level of existing control in the
emissions estimates.
> Level B - State Air Emission Inventory Questionnaires
(EIQs): The air EIQs for most manufacturing sites are on
file at various state air agencies throughout the United
States. Hydroscience has obtained air files from Texas,
Louisiana, Illinois, New Jersey, and others states, on
42
-------
approximately 200 chemical and petrochemical manufacturing
sites. These files were used to develop emissions factors
for a number of the chemical-emitting processes. Emis-
sions data on most of the questionnaires include total
quantities per year of various kinds of VOC emissions from
process and storage vents as well as fugitive estimates.
The total emissions of a specific chemical were tabulated
from process, storage, and fugitive sources for one or
more producers and divided by the total production
expressed as a percentage of a plant's rated capacity.
The quality of the emissions data usually varies
considerably. Process vent data are usually obtained from
test results, while storage tank losses are usually based
on AP-42 calculations. Fugitive estimates, if made, are
normally obtained by the material balance method. As in
the case of Level A data, only the emissions of the
specific chemical in question were estimated. Other asso-
ciated VOC emissions were not included in the emissions
estimates.
Level C--Other Published Sources: These emissions factors
were obtained from a variety of published reports prepared
by other contractors for the EPA. In the individual
chemical summaries, the specific emissions factor obtained
from these sources is referenced: In most cases, the
accuracy of these data is not known, since the specific
information used to derive the emissions factors is not
given. This level of information was used only if Level A
or B data were not available.
Level D--Hydroscience Engineering Estimates: In some
cases, emissions factors were not available from any of
the three source levels previously discussed. Rather than
omit these sources of emissions entirely, emissions esti-
mates were made by HI process engineers. These estimates
43
-------
were made using synergism between the unknown process and
a process that had been previously defined. In other
instances, an emissions factor for an unknown chemical
intermediate use of a specific chemical was calculated
based on a weighted average factor of all the other known
chemical intermediate uses of the same chemical. Although
specific quantification of the data quality is unknown,
this is obviously the least accurate source of the four
levels used.
Vent Parameter Data--
Vent parameter data are necessary for dispersion modeling of the
chemical emssions. The vent parameter data in each of the chemical sum-
maries include the number of process and storage tank vents, vent height,
vent diameter, gas discharge temperature, gas emission velocity, fugitive
discharge area, and building cross-sectional area. These data were
obtained from the same four source levels discussed above, under emissions
factors. Some data were supplied by producers during site visits, some
data were obtained from EIQs, and some from other published reports or
text books. The vent parameter data in the individual chemical summaries
are usually an average of two or more sources of information. In cases
where no data were available, they were estimated by Hydroscience
engineers.
Summary and Conclusions
Emissions summaries covering 35 selected chemical compounds were com-
pleted for this program. The amount of effort required to complete each
summary varied greatly. Chemicals that are produced and captively con-
sumed, such as chloroprene, required minimal effort; chemicals with multi-
ple production processes and multiple, complex uses and incidental
sources, such as toluene, required considerably more.
44
-------
The completed summaries and resulting emissions estimates are felt to
be representative of current manufacturing activities for the production
and use of each of the assessed chemicals. It is acknowledged that there
are discrepancies between some of these estimates and others previously
completed. The following points need to be considered when comparing
these estimates:
> The base year for all chemicals assessed in this program
is 1978. A number of the chemicals assigned for study
have known toxicity problems, and considerable pressure
has been exerted to restrict their use in numerous appli-
cations. As a result, almost half of the chemicals
assessed had lower production totals in 1978 than in pre-
vious years. In addition, most solvent applications,
which are usually the single largest source of emissions
for most chemicals, have negative growth forecasts because
increased concern for health and safety have brought about
further use restrictions. Reduced production levels will
result in reduced emissions, assuming the percent lost
remains constant. Reduced solvent usage will markedly
reduce total nationwide emissions of a chemical.
> The emissions factors used to estimate emissions represent
only the fraction of the specific chemical that is lost.
They do not take into account other associated volatile
organic compounds (VOC) that normally are emitted along
with the chemical being assessed. For example, nitro-
benzene accounts for less than 20 percent of the total VOC
emitted from nitrobenzene manufacture and captive use to
produce aniline.
> Some degree of control is inherent in most of the data
used to compute emissions factors. The factors do not
represent completely uncontrolled emissions losses. As
more old plants are taken out of service and replaced by
45
-------
new ones with a greater number of more efficient control
devices, the overall emissions factors will be reduced.
This might result in smaller total industry emissions even
if production were to increase significantly.
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
The dispersion computations carried out on this program require input
data on wind speed, wind direction, and the intensity of atmospheric tur-
bulence. The turbulence intensity was represented, as usual, by the
atmospheric stability class.
Acquisition and Processing of STAR Data
Martin and Tikvart (1968) developed a computer program (the "STAR,"
or STability ARray program) that generated frequencies and percentage fre-
quencies of wind direction by speed classes for each stability category
from routinely collected data. The specifications of stability categories
depending on wind speed and sky cover were set up by Pasquill (1961) and
were modified by Turner (1964). The program was adopted for use at the
National Climatic Center (NCC) in Asheville, North Carolina, where
archived records of all national reporting weather stations are kept. The
most up-to-date version of the STAR data from all STAR stations in the
country was obtained on magnetic tape from NCC, and the matrices of STAR
frequencies used in this study were taken from these tapes.
The STAR data obtained from NCC for this study were reprocessed for
the following reasons:
> There are more than one set of frequency summaries for
most STAR stations. By way of illustration, STAR station
14819 (Chicago/Midway) has 27 sets of data corresponding
to different periods of record and different methods of
46
-------
categorizing stability (e.g., one method distinguishes
between day and night hours; another does not). It would
be time-consuming to select the appropriate set of data
for use each time a source is studied. Rather, selection
should be conducted uniformly using the same criteria, and
the most appropriate set of data would be used for each
station.
> The entire STAR data consist of six files, and the sta-
tions are arranged in numerical order of their station
codes within files 1 to 4, file 5 and file 6. Without
reprocessing the data, the tape must be fully scanned for
each source, the cost alone of which is sufficient incen-
tive for data reprocessing.
> Not all data sets for all stations are in the same
format or array. The great majority of data sets are
developed for 16 wind directions, but there are a few with
only 8. The greatest variation in the data format
involves the specification of stability categories. The
number of stability categories defined for different data
sets varies from five to eight, and the most common varia-
tion was the inclusion/exclusion of day and night distinc-
tions. The day-night splits were based on probabilities
provided in the current STAR algorithm. The dispersion
model is based on the availability of daytime and night-
time STAR data, so a day-night STAR data set was developed
for each station.
The first stage in the development of an appropriate STAR data base
was to manually select the most appropriate set of frequency summaries for
each STAR station. The STAR Tabulations Master List (National Climatic
Center, 1979) was used to make the selection by applying the following
criteria, arranged here in order of importance:
47
-------
> Data sets with errors or incomplete data were deleted.
> Data sets based on measurements conducted during a limited
time period in a day or under special conditions would not
be used.
> Data sets covering only parts of years would not be used.
> Data sets with day-night split would be selected in pre-
ference to those for which there is no day-night break-
down.
> Data sets with the longest recording period would be
selected.
> Data sets with seven stability categories would be
selected in preference to those with eight; sets having
six and five categories would be selected last.
> Data sets with the most recent records would be selected
preferentially.
The selected data sets were then reprocessed into a common format. A
computer program was coded and used for selecting the appropriate data
sets and converting these data sets with different specifications of sta-
bility categories into the default stability array with 16 wind direc-
tions, 6 wind speed classes and 7 stability categories (A, B, C, D^y,
Dn.jqnt, E, and F). Following are the basic rules used in conducting such
conversions (U.S. EPA, 1977):
> Day-night data sets with seven stability categories are in
the default format.
> For day-night data sets with six stability categories, a
seventh category, F, would be added with all zeros for its
frequencies (F frequencies having already been assigned
to E).
> For day-night data sets with eight stability categories,
the frequencies for the last two stability categories (F
and 6) would be combined into a single category (F).
48
-------
> For data sets with five stability categories, the fourth
category (D) would be split into two categories (Ddav and
Dnight^ wltn 60 Percent of the frequencies assigned to
Dday and 40 Percent to Dni-ght. The original fifth cate-
gory would become category E, and a new category with all
zero frequencies would be added as category F.
> For data sets with six stability categories, but without a
Dnight Cate9°ry> the fourth category would be split
(60:40) into categories Dday and Dnl-ght.
> For data sets with seven stability categories, but without
a Dn-jgnt category, the fourth category would be split
(60:40) into Dday and Dm-ght, and the last two categories
in the original data set would be combined to form cate-
gory F in the new default format.
> For data sets with eight stability categories, but without
a Dni-ght category, the fourth category would be split
(60:40) into Dday and Dni-ght. The last three categories
in the original data set would be combined to form cate-
gory F in the new default format.
The reprocessed data sets would have a format including 16 wind
directions, six wind speed classes, and seven stability categories with
categories A, B, C, and Dday in the daytime and categories Dni-gnt, E, and
F in the nighttime. There are data sets for 311 stations in this repro-
cessed STAR data file; their locations and recording periods are listed
in Table 6*. This data file was used for dispersion modeling of chemical
emissions from specific and generic point sources. It is also in a form
suitable for direct application for most long-term air quality modeling.
* Because of its length, this table appears at the end of this subsection
on pp. 74 ff.
49
-------
STAR Station Selection
Meteorological data recorded at the STAR station nearest to the
source may be used in the dispersion modeling. However, local meteoro-
logical trends and topographic features may be more important factors in
selecting a STAR station than is the absolute distance between the source
and the station. A STAR station with climatological conditions most
similar to those of the source of emissions may not be the nearest sta-
tion, so the STAR stations were manually selected to take into account
these factors.
The STAR station selection process developed and used in this study
consists of a crude candidate identification process and a detailed
assessment process.
Preliminary Candidate STAR Station Identification Process
The purpose of the preliminary process is to identify 2 to 10 candi-
date STAR stations for each major point source. The major criteria used
in selecting these candidates are the availability of STAR data and the
absolute distance between the source of emissions and the STAR station.
Only those 311 stations listed in Table 6 were considered STAR stations
here. The following steps were involved in this process:
> All of the 311 STAR stations were computer-plotted on four
transparency maps [(Figures 3(a) to 6(a)]. The five-
digit code of each STAR station was printed on the maps
with the third digit representing the exact location of
the station.*
Because of their length, these figures appear at the end of this
subsection on pp. 90 ff.
* All codes that do not overlap in printing are presented in
Figure 3(a). Potential overlapping codes are printed on subsequent
figures [4(a) - 6(a)].
50
-------
> Information on each specific point source of emissions was
collected:
- Company name.
- Plant location.
- Geodetic coordinates (longitude and latitude).
> Each of the sources was computer-plotted on a map with the
same coordinates and scales. For example, the six sources
as plotted on the background maps of Figures 3 through 6
represent six major chemical-emitting sources in the
United States (see Table 7).
> By overlapping the STAR station transparency maps and the
emissions source maps, the candidate STAR stations were
identified for each emissions source based on the nearness
of the STAR stations to the emissions sources.
TABLE 7. LOCATION OF SIX MAJOR CHEMICAL-EMITTING SOURCES*
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Company
Dow
Amoco
Celanese
DuPont
Hercules
FMC
Location
Freeport, TX
Decatur, AL
Bishop, TX
Laplace, LA
Hopewell, VA
S. Charleston, WV
Latitude
28°59'30"
34°36'12"
27°34'06"
30°04'00"
37°15'34"
38°22'10"
Longitude
95°23'35"
86°58'24"
97°49'27"
90°32'00"
77°17'14"
8r40'02"
From Table 3.
51
-------
Detailed STAR Selection Process
Of paramount importance in this process is the matching of STAR sta-
tions and emissions sources that are in similar local meteorological
regimes and are influenced by similar orographic (topography on the scale
of mountain ranges) conditions. Major features considered here Include
the following:
> Surface thermal patterns, which can affect the local
wind. For example, the local sea-land breeze wind system
is usually limited to surface-based layers several hundred
meters thick. This layer, of course, is where chemicals
are emitted; it is important in our study, especially for
chemical plants located on ocean coasts or adjacent to
large lakes. Another example concerns fohn winds, the
influence of which was considered for emissions sources
located in Montana (Chinook) and in Los Angeles County
(the Santa Ana wind). About 10 STAR stations were chosen
in consideration of local winds.
> Wind patterns are taken from the Climatic Atlas (U.S.
Environmental Data Service, 1968) and from maps of the
U.S. Geological Survey (1:500,000; 1:125,000). We have
matched about 20 emissions source-STAR station couples for
Pacific and Atlantic coasts and Great Lakes shore.
> Topographical effects, such as that of mountain-valley
wind. The behavior of the wind in ridge-valley topography
depends, on one hand, on the relationships between the
wind direction and the solar azimuth, and the orientation
of the ridge lines and valleys on the other. These local
wind effects were taken into consideration for selection
processes, especially for emissions sources located in the
valleys of the Cascades and coastal ranges (northwestern
states) or the Appalachian Mountains (Eastern states).
52
-------
> Urban effects, including wind flow disturbances by urban
thermal or frictional elements such as organized patterns
of urban skyscrapers (Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles
metropolitan, etc.). Such features substantially
influence airstream and, consequently, the diffusion of
air contaminants. If an emissions source is located in a
small city, and if STAR stations in a large city and in a
small city are equidistant from the emissions source, then
preference was given to the STAR station in the small
city.
If two or more STAR stations were equally appropriate, preference was
given to the station with the longest and most recent period of record;
this information can be found in Table 6.*
Table 8* lists all the specific point sources identified in this
study, together with the STAR station selected for each. The latter were
selected by means of the selection process described above. Table 9 lists
the location and the selected STAR stations for the 12 PCB incinerators.
Meteorological Data Base for Prototype Point Source Modeling
A prototype model source was defined to represent all the sources of
the same nature in each region,§ so it was desirable to define a set of
meteorological data for dispersion modeling that is representative of the
whole region. However, the use of a mean or composite matrix of clima-
tological frequencies of occurrence in a regional model source emissions
dispersion estimation would not be appropriate, because the averaging pro-
* pp. 74 ff.
pp. 82 ff.
See Figure 1.
53
-------
TABLE 9. SELECTED STAR STATIONS FOR PCB INCINERATORS
no.
on
SITE
LATITUDE LONGITUDE STAR STATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
ATLANTA, GA
BATON ROUGE. LA
BRIDGEPORT, NJ
CHICAGO. IL
DEER PARK. TO
DENVER. CO
EL DORADO. AR
LOS ANGELES. CA
RICHMOND. VA
SANDUSKY. OH
SAN FRANCISCO. CA
WATERFORD, NY
33 45 17
30 33 35
39 46 0
41 52 0
29 45 50
39 43 12
33 14 30
34 0 0
37 2B 53
40 26 15
38 0 0
42 49 3
84 22 51
91 15 30
75 22 0
87 43 38
95 9 0
105 0 0
92 18 45
118 0 0
77 25 6
82 41 21
122 0 0
73 45 13
13874
13970
13739
14819
12906
23062
93992
23174
13740
14891
23234
14735
-------
cess leads to loss of characteristic biases in the original records. For
example, if the prevailing wind is from a different direction at each of
four stations that are averaged, the mean will have a more isotropic dis-
tribution with no strongly prevailing direction. Therefore, typical
climatological data recorded at STAR stations that are representative of
each region were selected and used for generic source modeling; the
Climatic Atlas of the United States (1968) was used as the basis for
selection. The major criteria used in selecting each representative STAR
station include the following:
> Representativeness of annual surface wind rose
> Availability of STAR data at the station
> Size of the urban area at or near station.
Table 10 lists the code and location of the STAR station selected for each
region. The meteorological data recorded at these stations were used to
estimate the concentration patterns in the vicinities in generic point
sources.
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION DATA BASES
The estimation of human exposure to atmospheric chemicals requires
knowledge of both concentration patterns and population distributions.
Errors in specifying either of these factors affect the reliability of
human exposure and dosage estimates. The acquisition, validation, and
processing of population data were performed by Minimax Research Corpor-
ation under subcontract to SAI. This subsection summarizes the approaches
\
and results of these efforts in these aspects. (The User's Manual and
Programmer's Manual for applying the processed population data in specific
point source exposure-dosage estimation are included in Attachment B.
* Selected stations had wind roses like those of most other stations,
55
-------
TABLE 10. SELECTED REGIONAL PROTOTYPE STAR STATIONS WITH REPRESENTATIVE
REGIONAL CLIMATOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
Ul
Region
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
STAR Station
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific Coast
Code
14739
94789
14855
14942
13874
13882
12923
23062
23174
Site
Boston
New York
Chicago
Omaha
Atlanta
Chattanooga
Houston
Denver
Los Angeles
Location
Boston/Logan
New York/J.F. Kennedy
Glenview
Omaha
Atlanta
Chattanooga/Lovel1
Galveston/Scholes
Denver/Stapleton
Los Angeles
Longitude Latitude
71°02'
73°47'
87°50'
95°54'
86°26'
85°12'
96°52'
104°52'
118°24'
42°22'
40°39'
42°05'
41°18'
33°39'
35°02'
29°16'
39°45'
33°56'
-------
Population Data Acquisition
The Computer Science and Applied Mathematics Division of the Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) has assembled an extensive collection of compu-
terized data bases from federal government agencies and contractors.
Several of these data bases that could be used in assembling a population
distribution data base were reviewed.
The LBL data bases are organized according to the system used by the
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistics are reported at various levels:
state, county, Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), census tract
(CT), enumeration district (ED), or block group (B6), and so on. The
SMSAs are composed of one or more contiguous counties (or, in New England,
cities and towns). Counties within SMSAs are subdivided into census
tracts (covering an average of about 6,000 people), and the tracts are
subdivided into block groups (covering an average of about 800 people).
With some exceptions, areas outside of SMSAs are not tracted. Non-SMSA
counties were divided into enumeration districts (ED) in the United States
in 1970. An ED in the non-SMSA counties would be equivalent in terms of
average population to a BG in the SMSA counties.
The population distribution data bases must contain, at a minimum,
the following information for each designated area (county, tract, or
block group):
> The Federal Information Processing System (FIPS) code of
the area.
> The 1970 census population count.
> The geodetic coordinates (latitude/longitude) of the 1970
census population centroid.
Other information would be useful, but not necessary. Such information
would include, for example, area (water, land, and total) and population
density.
57
-------
To the fullest possible extent, the resolution of the population dis-
tributions should be commensurate with dispersion pattern resolution. The
effective radius of dispersion of emissions varies considerably with
source characteristics and atmospheric conditions. Some emissions are
highly concentrated at certain azimuths and radii, whereas others are more
uniformly distributed. Detailed population distribution statistics are
required to estimate exposure to concentrated emissions. Using compara-
tively large areas, such as counties, as the geographic unit of enumera-
tion could seriously bias the results in such cases. These considerations
dictate the use of the finest resolution possible in compiling the popula-
tion statistics. Unfortunately, however, the cost of creating, main-
taining, and using a population distribution data base increases rapidly
with the degree of geographic detail. Within the context of this study,
cost must be balanced with level of detail. Accordingly, the current
availability of population data bases at LBL was first reviewed.
County Level Population Data Bases--
A data base entitled "Geographic Area Code Index (GACI)" contains the
following items for each state and county in the United States:
> FIPS code
> Name
> Geodetic coordinates of the population centroid
> Population
> Land, water, and total areas
> Population density.
This data base can be used in its present condition with only minor
reformatting.
58
-------
Census Tract Level Population Data Bases--
At the tract level, FIPS codes and population counts are readily
available from several data bases. The most convenient source for codes
and populations seems to be the "Master Enumeration District List
(MEDList)." Centroids must be computed from one of two sources:
> The raw digitized tract boundaries in the "US by SMSA
Census Tract" map data base, which contains coordinates
for 1.09 million boundary points for some 35,900 tracts.
These data have been used many times and are quite clean.
> The centroids of the constituent ED/BGs in the "Master
Enumeration District List—Extended" (MED-X) data base.
Processing the tract map files would require the development of a
moderately complex program, portions of which could be adapted from
existing LBL programs. To cover an entire county, further processing
would be required to merge the resulting tract level data base with por-
tions of the county level data.
ED/B6 Level Population Data Base--
The "Master Enumeration District List—Extended (MED-X)" data base
contains, for each block group and enumeration district, the following
variables:
> Complete FIPS codes.
> Population count.
> Latitude and longitude of population centroid (areas are
not available).
This data base contains approximately 350,000 records and 45 million
characters. However, the data base had not been cleaned, and the known
defects in MED-X included the following:
59
-------
> Several hundred Illegal alphabetic characters In numeric
fields.
> An unknown number of erroneous centroid coordinates.
> The omission of half of the state of Louisiana and part of
Vermont.
Despite these defects, MED-X contains all of the essential informa-
tion required in a readily usable form. It is arranged so that popula-
tions and centroids can be easily and cheaply computed for areas larger
than ED/BGs, such as tracts and counties. As a result, it provides more
options in choosing the degree of resolution of the population distribu-
tion data base for different parts of the country. In addition, the MED-X
base was determined to have the most accurate data for both population
counts and distribution, and it offers the finest resolution.
The severity of problems with MED-X was estimated to be marginal
after spot checking for illegal alphabetic characters and comparing county
centroids and populations computed from MED-X with those listed in the
county level base discussed above. The MED-X data base was selected for
this study.
Population Data Validation
MRC undertook a thorough evaluation of both the internal consistency
of MED-X and its consistency with independent external figures. At the
start of the validation effort, two copies of MED-X existed at LBL; one
was already in LBL-compatible format from Argonne National Laboratory (the
ANL version), which was missing approximately half of Louisiana and 15
ED/BGs in Vermont; and another in IBM-compatible format from Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (the ORNL version), which had never been used at
LBL. The ORNL versions of Louisanna and Vermont were found to be complete
and were used to replace the corresponding missing portions of the Argonne
version. This revised version of MED-X was subjected to a detailed
evaluation.
60
-------
The MED-X validation process consisted of five separate tasks:
> Detection of missing or altered data resulting from tape
errors.
> Verification of record formats (typographical errors and
records out of order).
> Comparison of population sums of ED/BGs in each county to
MED-X county population figures.
> Comparison of ED/BG centroid coordinates with digitized
county boundaries.
> Comparison of MED-X state and county population figures
with published 1970 census figures.
The first three tasks were conducted to check the internal consis-
tency of the MED-X data base. The last two tasks were external checks
performed to assess the overall accuracy of MED-X with respect to incor-
rect or geographically misplaced populations. Two kinds of errors cannot
be detected by comparison with other independent sources, namely, mis-
placed ED/BGs that fall within the encompassing census areas and errors in
individual ED/BG population figures.
Such errors, if reasonably infrequent, would have little effect on
the final exposure results except in the rare instance that a substantial
population error occurred in the immediate vicinity of an emissions
source. The 20 km radius exposure area about each source covers only
0.0025 percent of the area of the contiguous U.S., and only over a small
part of that area do the chemical concentrations vary widely. Therefore,
such rare errors are extremely unlikely to significantly affect the
exposure results.
The results of each of the five validation tasks may be summarized
briefly.
61
-------
Hissing Records--
Besides the missing data for Louisiana and Vermont, which were
replaced by the ORNL version, there was no detection of missing or altered
data.
Format Conslstency--
Four typographical errors were found and corrected. These errors took
the form of nondlgits 1n numeric fields. Incorrect digits undoubtedly
exist, but they cannot be detected except by their effects on the popula-
tion distribution. The order of records on the tape was found to be cor-
rect.
Internal Population Conslstency--
Populations for 2 of the 3141 counties (Keokuk County, Iowa, and
Bergen County, New Jersey) did not equal the total population of their
ED/BGs. The cause of these errors has not been determined, and no correc-
tion has been made. The total of the ED/BG populations for Keokuk County
fell short by 173; the total for Bergen County was 3,387 over the corres-
ponding county figure.
ED/BG Coordinate Consistency--
A total of 12,859 (5.5 percent) of the ED/BGs in the contiguous
United States, containing 5.75 percent of the population, fell outside the
digitized boundaries of their corresponding counties. Table 11 classifies
these ED/BGs by the distance of their centroids from the nearest point on
the county boundary. Undoubtedly, other ED/BGs with incorrect coordinates
fall within their boundaries; therefore, the error counts above are lower
bounds. However, most of the ED/BGs that fall immediately outside (within
1 km) are attributable to either digitizing errors in the county bound-
aries or concavities in the ED/BG boundaries that cause the ED/BG centroid
to be outside its boundary; such discrepancies are not errors. Further-
62
-------
TABLE 11. DISTRIBUTION OF ENUMERATION DISTRICTS/BLOCK GROUPS (ED/BDs)
HAVING POPULATION CENTROIDS LOCATED OUTSIDE THEIR CORRES-
PONDING COUNTIES
Distance from
County Line
<;km)
0.1
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
20.0
100.0
200.0
No. of
ED/BGs
2,182
7,533
10,265
11,893
12,475
12,711
12,815
12,857
12,859
Proportion
of Outlying
ED/BGs
16.97%
58.58
79.82
92.49
97.01
98.85
99.66
99.98
100.00
Proportion
of All
ED/BGs
95.37%
97.69
98.87
99.58
99.83
99.94
99.98
99.99
100.00
Source: Minimax Research Corporation consistency
check of U.S Census Bureau files.
63
-------
more, the county codes used In the comparison were those to which the
ED/BGs belonged In 1970. Since that time, some of the county boundaries
have moved and the county boundary file has been updated. Thus, some of
the ED/BGs that fell more than 2 km outside their county boundaries may
really be outside the current county boundaries. It is interesting that
of the 922 ED/BGs that fell between 2 and 20 km outside their counties,
564 occurred in only 23 of the 188 associated counties. This concentra-
tion of discrepancies in so few counties suggests the affect of boundary
changes rather than of coordinate errors.
Statistical analysis of the outliers that are almost certainly errors
(those beyond, say, 5 km) may provide an estimate of the distribution of
all such errors. Alternately, ED/BG coordinates could be compared to
digitized census tract boundaries for SMSA counties. These additional
tasks could further quantify the probable error by county, but they seem
unnecessary.
County Population Consistency--
The county population figures from the MED-X county records were com-
pared to the 1970 county populations in Table 24 of the 1970 Census of
Population, United States Summary, Vol. 1, Part 1, keypunched at LBL. The
discrepancies were then double-checked manually against the published
document. Of the 3141 counties and county equivalents compared, 46 (1.5
percent) did not match. The net population difference for the entire
country was 34,907 (0.017 percent of the 1970 U.S. population). It is
very likely that the published figures, which were the first ones produced
by the Bureau of the Census, are less reliable than those in MED-X.
MED-X was found to be the most accurate and the most detailed of all
the population distribution data bases at LBL. The relatively few errors
found in MED-X affect exposure results less than the lower resolutions of
the alternatives.
64
-------
Population Data Processing
MED-X contains the population centroid coordinates (latitude and lon-
gitude) and the 1970 population of each ED/BG in the country (50 states
plus the District of Columbia). In addition to these essential data, MED-
X contains large amounts of descriptive and summary data. While these
data were invaluable in verifying the high degree of accuracy of MED-X,
they interfere with efficient access to the small subset of information
needed for the exposure calculations. Moreover, MED-X is collated by
Federal Information Processing System (FIPS) codes, which are assigned
alphabetically by state and county. These codes are not appropriate for
accessing ED/BG records by their locations. The efficiency design goal
required that a data base be created containing only the essential infor-
mation, and that it be organized to permit access to only the relevant
geographic areas. To this end, a new, smaller data base was produced from
MED-X.
MED-X was reduced in two phases to a randomly-accessible binary file
that contains only the data essential for exposure estimation. An
indexing system was also created to locate the appropriate ED/BGs. A
separate binary file of county-level growth factors, based on the 1970 to
1978 growth factor at the county level and used for scaling population
figures to 1978 estimations, was also produced. The entire system, based
on MED-X ED/BG population data, was used for estimating the human exposure
and dosage of atmospheric chemicals resulting from specific point source
emissions.
ATMOSPHERIC TRANSFORMATIONS OF TOXIC COMPOUNDS
Species monographs for the 35 toxic compounds included in this study
are presented in Attachment A. It is the purpose of this section to
explain the procedures used to describe the transformations in the atmos-
phere that are undergone by the various compounds. However, the informa-
tion presented is subject the following caveats:
65
-------
> First, the gas phase photochemistry of many of these com-
pounds Is not well known; In several Instances, no Infor-
mation about the behavior of the compound In the gas phase
1s available. Accordingly, many of the reaction rates
given are estimates, with possibly large margins of error,
based on liquid phase chemistry or on the known behavior
of chemically related compounds.
> Second, a compound does not necessarily become less toxic
even though It undergoes transformation and decay. A good
Illustration of the point 1s acetaldehyde, which decays to
form formaldehyde—another compound on the 11st of toxic
chemicals. It may be that some of the 35 toxic compounds
decay to other substances perhaps even more toxic than the
precursors; current lack of knowledge regarding formation
yield and toxic effects could result in such occurrences
passing unnoticed.
Given the considerable body pf knowledge that does exist, the pro-
cedures discussed below were used to estimate the atmospheric lifetimes of
the 35 toxic compounds.
A variety of studies have reported the lifetime or atmospheric resi-
dence time of many of. the listed chemicals. Too often the basis for the
decay estimates is not given, so in many cases we were unable to verify
prior estimates of chemical reaction rates and could not compare and
reconcile the results of these past studies. In recognition of the uncer-
tainty of reaction data, we have adopted the concept of a reference
species against which to compare the relative rates of reaction for the
Important photochemical pathways. We also state the assumed ambient con-
centrations of hydroxyl radical and ozone, the principal species that
attack and degrade gas phase organic compounds.
66
-------
Most chemical destruction of gaseous compounds in the atmosphere
occurs by one of the following three mechanisms:
> Photolysis
> Reaction with free radicals (chiefly hydroxyl)
> Reaction with atmospheric oxidants (chiefly ozone).
The processes of photolysis and reaction with hydroxyl radicals occur only
in the daytime. Hydroxyl radicals have a short atmospheric lifetime and
require a continuing photolytic source to maintain their concentration.
Reference species for atmospheric reactivity selected for this study
are as follows:
> Butane
> Propylene
> Formaldehyde.
Butane is used when a species is OH* reactive; propylene is used when a
species is reactive to 63; formaldehyde is the reference species for
photolysis. Propylene is approximately seven times as reactive to OH- as
butane (EPA, 1977).
The concentration of OH» assumed for the daylight hours is 5 x 106
molecule cm"3, or 2 x 10'^ ppm (Wang et al., 1975). Ozone background is
assumed to be 0.04 ppm. The decay rate for butane due to OH« reactions is
8.4 x 10~4 min~l. The propylene decay rate due to oxidation by 03 is
6 x 10~4 min'1.
The photolytic decay rate of formaldehyde, averaged over the daylight
hours at conditions near the equinox, is about 10~3 min"1. The midday
decay rate is about twice this figure. At the summer solstice, the daily
decay rate is larger owing to increased duration of the day, but the maxi-
mum photolytic decay rate for the summer is still only about
2 x 10~3 min"^; at solar zenith angles below 20°, photolysis rates become
nearly constant (Killus et al., 1977).
67
-------
Decay Rates for Classes of Compounds
The 35 compounds assessed in this study may be divided into six
general categories (Table 12) on the basis of their general structure and
the data available for each compound. The six categories are as follows:
> Solid substances for which no gas phase chemistry applies;
all of these substances are metals except for TCDD
(Dioxin).
> Well characterized compounds, i.e., substances for which
some laboratory data exist as a basis for our estimates.
> Methane analogues, which are compounds with electronic
configurations similar to methane and which are, there-
fore, quite unreactive.
> Aromatic compounds, with reactivities assumed to be
similar to benzene or toluene.
> Formation products, which are compounds formed by atmos-
pheric reaction.
> Miscellaneous.
The last two categories need further explanation. In the "Miscel-
laneous" grouping, four of the compounds—allyl chloride, chloroprene,
hexachloropentadiene, and phosgene—are chlorine substituted compounds of
hydrocarbons with high reactivity. Although chlorine substitution is
expected to modify reactivity somewhat (Gay et al., 1976), we may say with
some confidence that the reactivity of these compounds 1s also high. The
reactivity of these four compounds is, to that extent, better charac-
terized than for the other miscellaneous compounds. Estimates of the
reactivity of the remaining four compounds may be in error to a substan-
tial degree.
For the "formation products" category, the two nitroso-compounds may
be formed from the nighttime reaction of nitrous add (MONO) and precursor
amines that have been inventoried. We have estimated the possible produc-
68
-------
TABLE 12. DECAY RATE ESTIMATION CATEGORIES FOR 35 COMPOUNDS
Category
Solids*
Beryllium
Dioxin§
Manganese
Nickel
Well Characterized
Compounds
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Cresols
Formaldehyde
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes
Methane Analogues
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
1,1,1, Trichloroethane
Aromatics1
Benzyl chloride
Chlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzenes
Nitrobenzene
Phenol
Formation Products
Nitrosomorpholine
Dimethylnitrosamine
(Acetaldehyde)
(Cresols)
(Formaldehyde)
(Phosgene)
(Ethylene oxide)
(Propylene oxide)
IO
Miscellaneous
Allyl chloride
Chloroprene
Epichlorohydrin
Ethylene oxide
Hexachlorocyclo-
pentadiene
PCBs
Phosgene
Propylene oxide
No gas phase reactions.
Benzene analogues.
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated, review of species characteristics,
-------
tion rate for these nltroso-compounds. Photolysis of HONO and nltroso—
compounds precludes the occurrence of significant concentrations of these
compounds during the day.
Nitrous acid and dimethyl amine react to yield dimethylnitrosamine and
water (Lucas, 1933):
(CH3)2NH + HONO * (CH3)2NNO +
Knowledge of the HN02 concentration, the dimethyl amine concentration, and
the rate of disappearence of dimethyl amine, combined with the assumption
of the bimolecular reaction expressed above; allows a rate constant to be
calculated for the expression:
d(CH3)2NH
3t= K * P(CH3)2NH " PHONO
The value was estimated to be K = 0.08 ppnT* min"* (Hanst et al.,
1977). Assuming a homogeneous reaction, with a 100 percent yield of
dimethylnitrosamine, the formation rate under normal atmospheric condi-
tions can be estimated.
Nitrous oxide and nitrogen dioxide are two other pollutants of con-
cern here. These two species, in the presence of water vapor cause the
gas-phase formation of nitrous acid:
NO + N02 + H20 + 2HN02
The equilibrium constant at 23°C has been estimated by Calvert et al
(1975) to be:
70
-------
PHNO?
Keq = -p r-p Vp = 1-5 x 10'° ppm'1
NO KN0 *H0
By assuming a moderatedly polluted urban air mix with a 1:1 mixture
of NO and N02 of 0.05 ppm total and water vapor of 13,000 ppm, Hanst et
al. (1977) have estimated the typical nighttime nitrous acid concentration
to be 0.0035 ppm. This value was used here, together with the bimolecular
formation expression in estimating the pseudo-first order reaction rate
constant. It was estiamted to be:
d(CH3)2NNO
3t= K * PHONO " P(CH3)2NH
= (0.00028 min'1) P(CH , NH
This rate constant applies only in the nighttime. In sunlight, both
the nitrous acid and dimethylnitrosamine would be destroyed by photolysis
much faster they can be formed.
Because of the chemical similarity of dimehtylamine and morpholine,
the same approach used for eatimating the ambient concentration of nitro-
somorpholine. It should be noted that because of the cyclic structure of
morpholine, the lone pair of electrons of the nitrogen atom are more sus-
ceptible to electrophilic attack, and therefore, the formation of nitro-
somorpholine from reaction between morpoline and nitrous acid should pro-
ceed faster than the formation N,N-dimethylnitrosamine from reaction
between dimethyl amine and nitrous acid. However, there is no adequate
data available to estimate the pseudo-first order formation rate constant
for nitrosomorpholine, the estimate for dimethylnitrosamine was taken to
be the same as for nitrosomorpholine.
71
-------
A summary of estimated relative reactivity for each studied chemical
is presented in Table 13. Also included in this table are the day and
nighttime net effective decay rates based on the relative reactivities.
To treat the formation reactions of the remaining compounds in the
formation products category is beyond the scope of this work. Relatively
sophisticated photochemical models would be required for such an under-
taking, and a full accounting of compounds not inventoried in this project
would be required. For acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and phosgene, in par-
ticular, this omission is unfortunate. Formaldehyde, for example, is
emitted as roughly 1 to 2 percent of automobile exhaust, whereas the
photochemical equilibrium for the compound is roughly twice this amount.
Consequently, on a day of high photochemical reactivity, more than half
the population exposure to formaldehyde may come from secondary forma-
tion. Similar inferences apply to acetaldehyde and phosgene. Phosgene is
one of the major termination products of the decay of chlorinated hydro-
carbons.
72
-------
TABLE 13. PHOTOCHEMICAL REACTIVITIES OF SELECTED CHEMICALS
Chemical Species
Acetaldehyde
Acrclein
Allyl chloride
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bls-chloromethyl ether (BCME)
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chloromethyl methyl ether (CMM£)
Chloroprene
"-Cresol
p-Cresol
o-Cresol
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Oichlorobenzene
DimethyInitrosamine
Oioxin (2,3.7,8-TCDD)
Epichlorohydrin
Ethylene oxide
Fornaldehyde
Hexachlorocyclooentadiene
Manganese
Methyl chloroform
Hethylene chloride
Methyl iodide
Nitrosomorpholine
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitropropane
PCB
Phenol
Phosgene
Propylene oxide
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
"-Xylene
p-Xylene
0-Xylene
Reactivity To»ard
OH-
(XButane)
,
0.5
2
2
0
.1
0
0.33
0
1
4.0
12
10
10
0.5
0.5
Reaction Rate
Constant
Oj Photolysis
(XPropylene) (XFornaldehyde) Daytime
0
O.S
0.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.36x10°
9.5x10°
1.77x10°
1.68x10°
0
8.4xlO"4
0
2.8xlO"4
0
8.4xlO"4
4.56x10°
1.01xlO'Z
8.46x10°
3.46x10°
4.5xlO"4
4.5xlO"4
Nighttime
0
3xlO"4
9xlO"5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.2x10°
6x1 O"5
6xlO"5
6xlO'5
3xlO~5
3xlO"5
1
3
0
0
0
P
0
0.5
0.05
2
2
2
8
4
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.4x10
2.52x10°
0
0
0
5xlO"5
0
4.2X10"4
4.2x10°
1.77x10°
1.68x10°
1.68x10°
6.72x10°
3.36x10°
6. ,72x10°
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"
9xlO"5
0
0
0
0
0
* reactivity unknown
73
-------
TABLE 6. LOCATION AND RECORDING PERIOD OF STAR DISPERSION DATA FILES AS REPROCESSED
FOR USE IN HUMAN EXPOSURE DISPERSION STUDIES
NO.
CODE
RITE
STATE LATITUDE LONGITUDE STARTING ENDING
1
2
3
4
.1
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
.15
36
37
38
39
40
3133
3813
3O16
3O20
31122
31155
3872
3927
3937
4739
4743
4751
12810
12834
12839
12839
i :;.•!!• I
12U42
121144
12906
12917
12910
12923
12925
12947
12958
I296O
13701
13705
13707
13713
13714
13V 1 7
13721
13723
13728
13732
13733
13734
13735
YUCCA PLATS
MACOH
PADUCAW
AUGUSTA
SAVANNAH
PKNSACOLA
DKCKLKY
FT NORTH
LAKE CHARLES
RKLI1AR
PORTSMOUTH
BRADFORD
TAHPA
DAYTONA
FT MYERS
MIAMI
OIII.AriDO
TAMPA
WEKT PALM D.
HOUSTON
PUT ARTHUR
HOUSTON
GALVKJTOH
BF.EVILLE
COTULI.A
NEW ORLEANS
HOUSTON, 12910
ABKIim.l'.N
VAUIIIIICTON
DOVF.R
COLI»8ROilO
FT ItRACG
MYRTLE REACH
PATUXKHT RIVER
CRKENSRORO
DANVILLE
CORDONS V I LLE
LYNClinURG
HART1HSBUUC
MILLVILLE
NV
CA
ICY
GA
GA
FL
WV
TX
LA
NJ
NH
PA
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
TX
•IX
TX
TX
TX
TX
LA
TX
MO
DC
DE
HC
NG
i'C
rio
NC
VA
VA
VA
wv
NJ
36 57
32 42
37 4
33 22
32 B
UO 21
37 47
32 54
3O 7
49 11
43 5
41 48
27 81
29 II
26 30
23 48
20 27
27 58
26 41
29 37
29 57
29 39
2<> 16
2H 23
20 27
29 49
29 59
39 2O
30 49
39 8
33 20
35 l«
33 41
38 17
36 9
36 34
38 4
37 29
39 24
39 22
116 3
03 39
80 46
81 58
81 12
87 19
81 7
97 2
93 13
74 4
70 49
78 38
82 31
81 3
81 52
89 16
Gl 10
02 32
00 6
95 10
94 1
95 17
94 52
97 40
99 13
90 1
95 22
76 16
76 52
75 28
77 58
79 1
78 56
76 25
79 57
79 29
78 10
79 12
77 59
75 4
61X12
67X
6OX
70X
69x
67X
7IX
71X
7OX
55X
69X
70X
65/
67X
69X
70X
60/
69/
7O/
66X
64X
64X
56X
66X
GO/
7OX
71/
55/
66/
66X
66X
66/
66/
62X
6O/
60X
66X
69X
60X
sex
\ 64X11
71X12
64X12
74X12
73X12
71X12
75X12
75X12
74X12
59X12
69X12
74X12
69X12
71X12
73X12
74X12
64X12
73X12
70X12
70X12
64X12
68X12
6OX12
7OXI2
54X12
74X12
75X12
57X12
7OX12
70X12
7OX12
70X12
70X12
71X12
72X12
54X12
60X12
73X12
64X12
54X12
-------
TABLE 6 (Continued)
NO.
CODE
SITE
STATE LATITUDE LONGITUDE STARTING ENDING
en
41
42
43
44
43
46
47
40
49
r>o
51
52
59
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
f.5
66
67
68
69
re
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
08
13736
13737
13739
I374O
13741
13743
13744
13749
13753
13773
13(102
131106
13807
13815
I382O
13U24
13825
13840
13850
13O65
13866
13868
13870
13871
131(73
13O74
13877
13881
13882
13889
' 13891
13895
13897
13921
13935
13939
13941
13942
13945
13956
MORCANTOWH
NORFOLK I1KG
ni ii. Amaru i A
RICHMOND
ROANOUE
WASHINGTON DC
FLORENCE
FREDERICK
ATLANTIC CITY
QUANT ICO
BELLEVILLE
FT CAMPBELL
FT ICNOX
ALBANY
HI 1,0X1
SAVAtltlAII
COLIINIIUS
DAYTOII
SELMA
MERIDIAN
CHARLESTON
PULASKI
ALMA
ANNISTON
ATIIFJIC;
ATLANTA
BRISTOL
CHARLOTTE
CHATTANOOGA
JACKGOIIVILLE
ICNOX VH.LE
MONTCOFIGRY
NASHVILLE
FT LEAVRNWORTO
ALEXANDRIA
GREENVILLE
LAKE CHARLES
MONROE
FT SILL
JACKSON
WV
VA
PA
VA
VA
DC
sc
MD
NJ
VA
IL
ICY
RY
CA
MS
CA
MS
Oil
AL
MS
WV
VA
GA
AL
GA
CA
TN
FIG
TN
FL
TM
AL
TN
US
LA
IIS
LA
LA
OK
MS
39 39
36 54
39 53
37 38
37 19
38 51
34 11
39 26
39 27
38 38
38 33
36 48
37 54
31 35
38 25
32 1
33 39
39 49
32 28
32 28
38 22
37 8
31 22
33 35
33 U7
33 39
36 29
35 13
3.ri 2
38 3O
35 49
32 18
36 7
39 22
31 23
33 29
30 13
32 31
34 39
32 28
79 55
76 12
75 15
77 28
79 58
77 2
79 43
77 27
74 35
77 19
89 51
87 29
85 58
04 7
U8 55
01 8
88 27
84 3
86 59
80 45
81 36
88 41
82 31
85 51
83 10
84 26
C2 24
UO 56
85 12
81 42
83 59
86 24
80 41
94 55
92 18
98 59
93 18
92 3
98 24
98 13
58X
L5X
67X
74X
68/
74X
68X
49X
54X
65X
61X
65/
64X
69X
68X
66X
66X
64X
64X
66X
68x
58X
54/
49/
69/
69/
68/
69/
68/
70X
68X
68/
7lx
62/
78X
56X
58X
54X
66X
68x
54X12
64X12
71X12
75X12
72X12
74X12
64X12
52X12
58X12
69X12
7OX12
69X12
68X12
73X12
64X12
7OX12
7OXI2
64X12
58X12
78X12
73X12
54X12
58X12
54X12
V3X12
73X12
64X12
73X12
73X12
74X12
73X12
64X12
75X12
70X12
74X12
60X12
62X12
58X12
70X12
64X12
-------
TABLE 6 (Continued)
NO.
COOK
SITE
STATE LATITUDE LONGITUDE STARTING ENDING
ni
02
113
04
05
06
117
IIU
89
90
91
92
951
94
9fi
96
97
9O
99
100
101
103
103
IO4
IO3
106
1O7
1H8
lev
110
111
112
1 Kt
114
115
116
117
no
119
120
13957
I395O
13960
13961
13962
13963
I3964
13967
1396(1
13969
I397O
13972
13976
13977
13983
13983
13994
13995
13996
14607
14611
14622
I4V02
14704
I4VO6
14VOI1
14712
14717
14735
14736
14737
14739
I'JV'JO
14V42
14745
14747
I474O
14750
14751
14752
SHREVEPORT
AUSTIN
DALLAS
FT WOUTII
ABILENE
LITTLE ROCK
VT WMITII
OICALAIIOMA CITY
TULSA
PONCA CITY
BATON nOUGE
TYI.F.K
LAI-'AVI-VITE
TEXAUICiMlA
coLmmiA
KANSAS CITY
ST LOUIS
SPRINGFIELD
TOPEKA
C AH! HOI!
mUlNUWlCK
OLD TOW
1IEDFOHO
FALKOIITH
Will CUTS'! ON
HEMPirrKAD
READING
HOME
ALBANY
ALTOONA
ALLEHTOWN
BOSTON
IIMllViMtD
IIIJIU.INCTON
CONCOKD
DUNKIIUC
KLMIRA
GLENJ PALL
HARRisnuRc
HARTFORD
LA
TX
TX
TX
TX
AR
An
OK
OK
OK
LA
TX
LA
AH
FiO
r;o
MO
IIO
I'.S
ME
HE
ME
HA
HA
N,I
NY
PA
NY
NY
PA
PA
NA
CT
VT
Illl
NY
NY
NY
PA
CT
32 28
30 18
32 51
32 49
32 26
34 44
35 20
35 24
36 12
36 44
30 32
32 22
3O 12
33 27
30 511
39 7
38 45
37 14
39 4
46 52
43 53
44 57
42 28
41 39
40 1
40 44
40 23
43 14
42 45
40 IB
4O 39
42 22
41 56
44 28
43 12
42 30
42 IO
43 21
40 13
41 44
93 49
97 42
96 51
97 21
99 41
92 14
94 22
97 36
95 54
97 6
91 9
95 24
91 59
94 O
92 22
94 36
90 23
93 23
95 38
68 1
69 59
60 4o>
71 17
70 31
74 36
73 36
75 58
75 24
73 48
78 19
75 26
71 2
72 41
73 9
71 30
79 17
76 G4
73 37
76 51
72 39
7OX
69/
69X
49X
67X
66/
55/
70/
55/
49X
7OX
50/
54X
63/
64X
64X
• 70/
66X
63/
53X
60X
60X
63x
6OX
66X
69X
49X
66X
6OX
49X11
64X
66X
55X
70X
60x
49X
SOX
50X
64X
40X
74X12
73X12
73X12
52X12
71X12
70X12
74X12
74X12
74X12
54X12
74X12
54X12
5OX12
67X12
68X12
64X12
74X12
70X12
72X12
62X12
69X12
64X12
67X12
64X12
70X12
60X12
49X12
79X12
64X12
54X 9
73X12
7OXI2
64X115
74X12
64X12
53X12
54X12
54X12
73X12
52X12
-------
TABLE 6 (Continued)
NO.
CODE
KITE
STATE LATITUDE LONGITUDE STARTING ENDING
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
12H
129
130
131
132
133
134
r.;5
K<6
137
13H
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
1
-------
TABLE 6 (Continued)
NO.
CODE
SITE
STATE LATITUDE LONGITUDE STARTING ENDING
00
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
173
176
177
170
179
180
181
182
ui:i
int
1H3
1116
187
188
1119
19O
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
2O0
14940
14942
14943
14944
14949
14991
23O02
23009
23023
23O34
23039
23043
23044
23047
23O49
23052
23062
23064
23065
23066
23081
23090
231 12
23114
23118
23102
23129
23131
23136
23152
23154
23155
23158
23160
23161
23169
23170
23174
23179
23183
MASON CITY
OMAHA
SIOUX CITY
SIOUX FALLS
OMAHA
EAII CLAIHE
ALAHOCOnUO
IIOStiEI.LxWALKER
MIDLAND
SAN AHCF.LO
LAS CRUCKS
HOSWELL
EL PASO
AHARILLO
SANTA I''K
RATONXCREWS
DENVER
GARDEN CITY
COODLAND
GRAND JUNCTION
GALLUP
FARNINGTON
LAS VI'X'AS
EDWAItn.S
HENOXJ3TF.AD
SAN BERNARDINO
MING IJKACII
VICTOilVILLE
OXNARD
mmuAiuc
ELY
DA' n- •? I ELD
m.v I-:
TUGStMl
DACCET
LAS VECA9
IIANKSV1LLE
LOS AIICELES
NEEDLES
PHOENIX
IA
NO
IA
3D
ND
Wl
NN
MM
TX
TX
NM
NM
TX
TX
NM
NM
CO
KS
KS
CO
NM
NM
NV
CA
HV
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
NV
CA
CA
AZ
CA
HV
UT
CA
CA
AZ
43 9
41 10
42 24
43 34
41 7
44 52
32 51
33 III
31 56
31 22
32 22
33 24
31 41)
35 14
35 37
36 45
39 48
37 56
39 22
39 7
35 31
36 45
36 15
34 54
39 40
34 6
33 49
34 35
34 13
34 12
39 17
35 25
33 37
32 7
34 52
36 5
30 22
33 36
34 46
33 26
93 29
95 54
96 23
96 44
95 54
91 29
106 6
1O4 32
IO2 12
ioe oe
106 29
IO4 32
106 24
IOI 42
106 5
104 30
104 52
199 43
101 42
108 12
108 47
108 14
115 2
117 52
119 52
117 14
118 9
117 23
119 5
118 22
114 CI
1 19 3
114 43
IIO 56
116 47
115 10
110 43
118 24
114 37
112 1
70X
6OX
6OX
74X
60X
69X
49X
73X
60X
60X
CI/
49X
60X
55x
60X
49/
70x
sex
69x
60X
73X
54X
6UX
66x
56x
66x
49X
CSX
60X
6OX
67X
64X
69X
55X
55X
60X
49X
55X
65X
73X
74X12
64X12
64X12
74X12
64X12
73X12
70X12
7»XI2
64X12
64X12
55X12
54X12
64X12
64X12
54X12
51X12
74X12
54X12
73X12
64X12
75X12
64X12
67X12
70X12
6SJXI2
70X12
64X12
67X12
64X12
64X12
71X12
V3X12
74X 8
64X12
64X12
64X12
54X12
64X12
64X12
75X12
-------
TABLE 6 (Continued)
NO.
CODF.
RITE
STATE LATITUDE LONGITUDE STARTING ENDING
vo
201
202
203
2O4
205
2Ofi
2O7
aon
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
2IO
219
220
221
o«»«»
0«»«l
M«u»%>
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
•J:M
2;;2
2^3
234
235
236
237
230
239
240
23184
23185
23180
23I9O
23194
23195
23199
23202
2321 1
2323O
23232
23234
23236
23239
23244
23245
23273
23275
24O12
24013
24015
24O23
24025
24O28
24036
24057
24O90
24101
24106
24110
24IIO
24121
24128
24130
24131
24135
24137
24141
24144
24145
PnESCOTT
RENO
SAN DIEGO
SANTA BARBARA
WINSLCW
vuriA
EL cornio
FAIRFIHLD
SAH I1AFAEL
OAK! .rtIW
SACRAMENTO
SAN FRANCISCO
SANTA I1ARIA
ALAMEDA
SUNNYVALE
MONTERY
SANTA MARIA
UK 1 All
DICKINSON
Ml NOT
AKRON
NORTH PLATTE
PIERRE
SCOTTJRI.UFF
LEW1STOWN
RAWLINS
RAPID CITY
OGDEN
MT HOME
MOSES LAKE
FT IVUUUUl
KLKO
WINNGMJOCA
RAKER
HOICK
HUTTE
OUTRANK
EPHRATA
IIELF.NA
IDAHO FALL
AZ
NV
CA
CA
AX
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
Ml)
NO
CO
NO
SI)
Nil
MT
WY
SD
UT
ID
WA
WY
NV
NV
OR
ID
NT
MT
WA
MT
ID
34 39
39 3O
32 44
34 26
35 1
32 4O
32 49
3U 16
3U 4
37 44
3» 31
37 37
34 56
37 48
37 25
30 35
34 54 1
38 O
46 47
4U 16
4O IO
41 8
44 23
41 52
47 3
41 48
44 3
41 7
43 3
47 12
41 24
4O 5O
4O 54
44 5O
43 34
45 57
48 36
47 19
46 36
43 31
12 26
19 47
17 1
19 50
IO 44
14 36
15 41
21 56
22 3O
22 12
21 30
22 23
2O 25
22 18
22 4
21 52
20 27
23 12
02 48
01 17
03 13
OO 41
00 17
03 36
09 27
97 12
03 4
11 58
15 52
19 19
10 25
15 47
17 48
17 49
16 13
12 30
12 22
19 31
12 0
12 4
67/
6OX
65/
60/
49/
67/
54/
6O/
66/
60/
66/
69X
49/
6O/
6O/
59/
65/
55x
6OX
67/
50x
69/
67/
67/
67/
55/
67/
65/
65/
6I/
5O/
69/
69/
60/
74/
66/
49/
50X
58/
55/
71X12
64/12
74/12
64/12
&4/I2
71/12
&»/ 1 2
04/12
7O/12
64/12
7O/I2
73/12
53/12
64/12
64/12
63/12
74/12
64/12
04/12
VI/12
54/12
73/12
71/12
71/12
71/12
64/12
71/12
69/12
69/12
65/12
;;•:•/ 12
'.3/12
73/12
64/12
74/12
6O/12
58/12
54/12
62/12
64/12
-------
TABLE 6 (Continued)
NO.
CODE
SITE
STATE LATITUDE LONGITUDE STARTING ENDING
00
o
241
242
243
244
243
246
247
2411
249
250
251
252
::;i3
2S.4
255
206
257
258
239
26O
261
202
2651
264
263
266
267
2611
269
27O
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
24146
24151
24153
24155
24156
24157
24160
24203
24207
24217
24219
24220
0/J'M> |
24225
24227
24229
2423O
24232
24233
24234
24241
24243
242113
93026
93O34
93037
93044
93057
93102
93106
931 II
93112
93214
93706
93733
93739
93004
93O05
931107
93813
KALI SPELL
HAL AH CITY
NISSOULA
I'FNIH.I.TON
POCATI.LLO
SPOICANE
WALLA WALLA
EVERETT
TACONA
DELLINCHAN
DALLESPORT
ELLENS BURG
Kin;i-.iiv.
HEDFOiio
OLYNiMA
PORTLAND
REDKON
8ALKH
SEAT1 LE
SEATTLE
TOLEDO
YAK 1 HA
ARCATA
DOUGLAS
iionos
COLO SPRINGS
/UN 1
CHANTS
PALLOII
LOS ALAMITOS
POINT I1UGU
SAN DIEGO
VANDENIUilRG
HACERSTOWN
FT NEAOE
WALLOPS IS
8PARTANDURC
TALLAHASSEE
WINSTON SALEM
DAYTON
MT
ID
MT
OR
IU
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
OR
OR
WA
OR
OR
OR
WA
WA
WA
WA
CA
A'2
IUI
CO
KM
Nil
HV
CA
CA
CA
CA
iro
MD
VA
SC
FL
NC
Oil
40 IO
42 10
46 55
45 51
42 55
47 3O
46 6
47 53
47 9
4O 48
45 37
47 2
44 7
42 22
46 SO
45 36
44 16
44 55
47 27
47 32
46 29
46 34
4O 59
31 27
32 41
3d 49
33 6
33 10
39 25
33 40
34 7
32 43
34 43
39 42
39 5
37 31
34 35
30 23
36 O
39 34
14 16
12 19
14 5
III 61
12 36
17 32
18 17 ,
122 17
122 29
122 32
121 9
120 31
123 13
122 52
122 54
122 36
121 9
123 1
122 IO
122 IO
122 48
120 32
124 6
1O9 36
103 12
IO4 43
10O 48
IO7 54
110 43
110 7
119 7
117 12
120 34
77 43
76 46
75 29
81 57
84 22
00 14
84 13
6O/
48x
67X
65/
65/
74X
60x
63x
66X
74X
64/
5OX
74/
70/
74X
69/
55X
74X
74/
60x
BOX
74X
6OX
50x
49X
74X
67X
54X
66X
65X
B2x
67X
59X
74X
60x
69X
87X
72X
60x
70x
72X12
54X1 a
71X12
64X12
74X12
74X12
54X12
67X12
70X12
74X12
64X12
54X12
V4XI!J
74X12
74X12
73X12
64X12
7-1X12
74X12
64X12
54X12
74X12
72X12
54X12
54X12
74X12
71X12
54X12
7OXI2
69X12
I 72X 2
71X12
72X12
74X12
64X12
73X12
61X12
76X12
64X12
74X12
-------
TABLE 6 (Concluded)
NO.
CODF.
SITE
STATE LATITUDE LONGITUDE STARTING ENDING
00
281
2O2
283
284
2li5
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
;V>6
"O7
308
309
3IO
311
93817
93819
93820
93822
93(124
93836
93841
93842
93846
93919
93950
93987
93989
93992
94012
94014
94224
94225 x
94240
94725
94741
94745
94746
94789
94790
94794
94O1S2 x
9483O
94836
94846
94910
EVANSVILLE
INDIANAPOLIS
LEXINGTON
SPRINGFIELD
CAimillDCE
BRUNSWICK
MILTOH
COLUMBUS
ANDF.nSON
MGGOrm
MCAM''.1JTER
LUl'i.iU
QUINGY
ELDORADO
HAVRE CITY
WILLISTON
ASTORIA
HOQUIAM
QUILLAYUTE
HASSENA
TETERRORO
WHITE PL
WORCHESTER
NEW YORK
WATERTOWN
IJTH:\
HOI ;i; IM i D
TOLEDO
GWINN
CHICAGO
WATERLOO
IN
IN
ICY
IL
Oil
CA
FL
CA
sc
fIS
OK
TX
IL
AR
MT
NO
OR
WA
WA
NY
NJ
NY
HA
NY
NY
NY
IL
OH
MI
IL
IA
38 3
39 44
38 2
39 50
39 57
31 15
30 42
32 31
34 30
31 15
34 53
31 14
39 56
33 13
48 33
48 11
46 9
46 58
47 57
44 56
40 51
41 4
42 16
40 47
44 0
43 9
42 12
41 36
46 21
41 59
42 33
87 32
86 17
84 36
89 40
81 54
81 28
87 1
84 56
82 43
90 28
95 47
94 45
91 12
92 48
109 46
103 38
123 53
123 56
124 33
74 51
74 3
73 43
71 52
73 46
76 1
75 23
89 6
83 48
87 24
8? 54
92 24
70X
55X
65X
70x
50X
69X
62X
69X
54X
49X
54X
67X
5OX
50X
67X
67X
74X
54X
74X
70x
52X
68X
70x
74X
60X
50x
7OX
70x
63X
70x
6Ox
74X12
74X12
64X12
74X12
54X12
73X12
71X12
73X12
58X12
54X12
54X12
71X12
. 54X12
54X12
71X12
71X12
74X12
58X12
74X12
74X12
66X12
72X12
74X12
74X12
64X12
54X » »
74xi :i
74X12
67X12
74X12
64X12
-------
TABLE 8. LOCATION OF SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES AND SELECTED
STAR DISPERSION DATA STATION
NO.
COMPANY
SITE
LATITUDE LONGITUDE STAR STATION
oo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
;| |
3:4
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
AIR PRODUCTS
AKZONA.
AKZONA
ALLIED
ALL i 1:0
ALLIED
ALLIED
ALLIED
ALLIED
ALLIED
AflAX
AHER CYANAMID
AMER CYANAMID
AMER CYAN ATI ID
AHER. IIOECHOT
AMER PETROFINA
AMER PETROF 1 NA
AMOCO
AMOCO
AMOCO
AMOCO
ARCO
ARCO
ASHLAND
ASHLAND
ASHLAND
BASF WYANDOTTE
ASHLAND
BASF WYANDOTTE
BASF WYANDOn>
U,i:;i'' Wi MIIMM 1 1
BETHLEHEM STI.I L
r.LUK SPRUCE
ROPOEN
BORDEN
BOHDEN
BOnDEN
BURDEN
IIOHDEN
BORDEN
PENSACOLA, FL
MCCOOK, IL
MORRIS, IL
DANVILLE, IL
M. IV. Mil/Ill, HJ
El. SXCHMWO. CA
FIHNKFOHD, PA
I10PEWELL, VA
NiMJWDSVILLE. W
ROUTIIPOINT, OH
POUT NICKEL. LA
ROUND BROOK, NJ
CHARLOTTE, IIC
WILLOW ISLAND, WV
BATON ROUGE. LA
IHC SPRINGS, TX
PORT ARTHUR, TX
COPPER RIVER, SC
DECATUR. AL
.IMLIET, IL
TKXiV'S CITY. TX
CIIAHHELVIKV. 'I X 2
HOUSTON. 'IX
CrtTLETTSRURC, F.Y
FOI5D, N.I
JANESVILLE. WI
CE1SMAR. LA
N. TON A WANDA, NY 4
KEARNEY, NJ
WASHINGTON, NJ
\i t AN 'JIM Mp. j H !
MPAHHOKS POINT, MD
i:«WII> fUI'lOK, NJ
DHIliPOLI*:. AL
DMMH.L, TX
I-'AYETTEVILLC. NO
Fi;t:r;t)NT, CA
CEU'MAH, LA
KKNT, WA
LA GRANDE, OR
30 36 29
41 48 17
41 24 24
40 8 30
4O 4O 4«
33 56 30
4O 18 15
37 22 13
39 54 39
38 25 43
29 52 35
40 24 45
35 12 16
39 21 50
30 33 2
32 17 10
29 57 3O
32 45 57
34 3<» 12
41 26 48
29 21 40
<>!i O 40
29 42 17
38 22 39
40 31 20
42 41 56
30 1 1 34
25 94 50
40 45 53
4O 45 20
-.".! 12 55
39 l(i 30
40 32 10
32 30 48
31 II 52
35 1 43
37 32 6
30 13 O
47 23 12
45 20 33
87 8 12
87 49 41
88 18 10
87 33 45
74 13 51
118 26 35
79 52 43
77 IB 8
80 44 49
82 36 O
89 57 26
74 33 40
80 50 32
81 18 50
191 15 50
101 25 17
93 53 20
79 58 28
86 58 42
88 10 41
94 55 50
950 64 31
95 16 1
82 35 5U
74 20 5O
89 0 10
91 0 42
785 52 71
74 9 3
74 58 22
83 8 3U
76 34 3O
74 29 10
27 50 6
94 46 «0
78 51 41
121 57 24
91 1 O
122 13 15
100 2 2
3855
94846
14855
14806
4739
23129
14762
13740
13736
93824
12958
94741
13881
13736
13970
13962
12917
13717
13882
14855
12906
29O60
12960
13866
4739
14839
13970
47470
4739
4739
| »IKli^5
I370I
14737
1385O
93987
13714
23244
13970
24233
24130
-------
TABLE 8 (Continued)
NO.
COMPANY
SITK
LATITUDE LONGITUDE STAR STATION
00
Co
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
50
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
60
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
7H
79
00
BORDEN
BORDEN
BORDEN
nOHDEN
none- WARNER
nflUSH TOLLTIAN
BRUSH TOLLMAN
BRUSH TOLLMAN
E.R. CARPENTER
CELANESE
CELANESE
CELANESE
OLLANESE
CELANESE
CELANESE
CELANESE
CHARTER OIL
CHF.MBOND
CHEMBOND
CHEMTRON
CHEVRON
CHEVRON
CIBA-CEICY
CLARK
COASTAL STATES
CONTINENTAL
CONTINENTAL
COS-MAR
CPC
CROWLY TAR
CROWN OIL
DECUSSA
UENKA
D1AMND SHAMROCK
DOW
DOW
now
DOW
DU PONT
DU PONT
LOUISVILLE, ICY
MISSOULA.MT
SHEBOYCAN, WI
SPRINGFIELD, OR
MOUGAHTOWN , WV
F.LHORE, OH
HAMPTON, NJ
READING, PA
BAY PORT, TX
BAY CITY, TX
BISHOP. TX
CLEAR LAKE, TX
LINDEN, N.J
LOUISVILLE, ICY
NEWARK, NJ.
ROCK HILL, SC
HOUSTON, TX
SPRINGFIELD, OR
WINNIFIELD, LA
LAPORTE, TX
PASCAGOULA, US
RICHMOND, CA
TOKS RIVER, NJ
BLUE ISLAND, IL
CORPUS CHRIST I, TX
CLIFTON, NJ
NEWARK, NJ
CARVILLE, LA
LYNDHURST, NJ
HOUSTON, TX
PASADENA, TX
THEODORE, AL
HOUSTON, TX
BELLE, WV
FREEPORT, TX
MIDLAND, HI
PI1TSBURC, CA
PLAOUEMINE, LA
ANTIOCH, CA
BEAUMONT, TX
3»
46
43
44
39
41
4O
4O
29
2Q
27
29
4O
30
40
34
29
44
31
29
30
37
39
41
117
40
4O
3O
40
29
29
30
29
3B
2O
43
37
30
37
30
12
54
45
2
40
20
42
46
43
51
34
37
37
11
43
57
42
2
54
39
19
56
59
39
40
43
43
13
47
43
44
33
41
14
59
35
59
19
59
0
9
10
26
60
39
6
32
45
20
45
6
17
10
0
30
25
50
00
49
2O
4
12
20
2 1
43
34
34
30
30
50
40
6
31
9
30
28
34
0
37
51
85
114
07
122
00
03
74
76
94
96
97
95
74
85
74
OO
95
122
92
95
88
122
74
87
97
74
74
91
74
95
95
80
95
81
95
84
121
91
121
94
51
40
46
59
58
16
57
11
54
1
49
3
15
50
7
57
15
59
40
2
28
20
22
41
26
7
7
4
4
14
10
10
15
32
23
13
54
15
52
1
49
0
17
6
34
37
41
10
0
O
27
51
53
0
25
32
12
6
35
18
37
48
33
56
28
26
26
0
34
20
30
35
12
38
35
8
56
0
0
40
93820
24146
14898
24221
13736
9483O
94741
14712
12906
12923
12925
12906
94741
93O2O
94741
93804
129O6
2422 1
13942
12906
13O2O
23239
14706
14O55
12925
94741
94741
1397O
94741
12906
12906
3855
12906
13866
12923
14845
23202
1397O
23202
12917
-------
TABLE 8 (Continued)
no.
COMPANY
SITE
LATITUDE LONGITUDE STAR 8TATIOH
81
112
1(3
It4
H5
1(6
1(7
na
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
tea
101
102
103
IO4
103
106
107
ion
109
110
111
It2
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
DU PONT
DU PONT
DU PONT
DU PONT
DU PONT
UU PONT
DU PONT
DU PONT
11U PONT
DU PONT
OU PONT
DU PONT
DU PONT
DU PONT
DU PONT
DU PONT
EASTMAN KODAK
EASTMAN KODAK
EASTMAN KODAK
EASTMAN KODAK
EMERY
EMERY
ETHYL
EXXON
EXXON
EXXON
FALLEK
FERRO
FIRST CHEMICAL
Fin:
FMC
FHC
FHC
FMC
GAF
GAF
GAF
GEN ELECTRIC
GEORGIA-PACIFIC
GEORGIA-PACIFIC
BELLE. W
CORPUS CIIHIHTI.TX
DCEPWATfiR, NJ
ci BUSI OWN, ru
HEAL I H« SPRING. NC
HOUSTON, IX
LAPLACE. LA
LAPORTE. TX
LINDEN. NJ
LOUISVILLE, KY
MONTAGUE, HI
OLD HICKORY. TN
PARKERSBURG, W
TOLEDO. OH
VICTORIA, TX
WILMINGTON, NC
COLUMBIA, SC
KINCSPORT. TN
LONCV1EW, TX
ROCHESTER. NY
NAULDIN, SC
8ANTAFE SPRINGS, CA
BATON ROUGE. LA
BATON ROUGE, LA
BAYTOWN, TX
BAYWAY, NJ
TUSCALOOSA, AL
SANTA FE S. . CA
PAPCAGOULA, MS
BALIKORE, WD
BUFFALO, NY
MIDDLEPORT. NY
NITRO, WV
SO CHARLESTON, WV
CALVERT CITY, KY
LINDEN, NJ
TEXAS CITY, TX
MOUNT VERNON, IN
ALBANY, OR
COLUMBUS, OH
3H 13 6
27 53 0
39 41 25
39 49 r><>
35 1 5«>
29 42 4
30 4 0
29 42 4
40 36 2
311 II 51
43 24 IO
36 16 24
39 15 27
41 39 22
28 40 29
34 10 0
33 59 50
36 31 41
32 25 55
43 12 1
:I4 411 16
30 55 3O
30 IB 0
3O 9 10
29 44 5O
4O 3M 46
33 11 0
33 56 3O
30 21 20
39 14 50
42 59 10
43 12 21
an 25 33
31) 22 10
37 2 50
40 38 19
29 25 29
37 56 42
44 37 7
39 53 7
81 34 12
97 15 0
75 30 35
75 15 50
1(0 10 30
95 2 5
90 32 0
95 2 5
74 12 8
85 54 13
U6 23 4O
86 34 12
81 32 52
83 33 20
96 57 21
77 56 6
81 4 17
82 12 22
94 41 6
77 37 58
U2 16 9
118 5 40
9180
90 54 20
95 1 O
74 11 48
87 34 50
118 4 18
88 32 55
76 35 30
78 50 3O
78 29 23
81 50 5
81 40 3
88 21 12
74 15 26
94 58 7
87 34 25
123 5 13
82 56 45
13866
12925
13739
13739
13714
I29O6
12958
12906
94741
13807
I484O
13897
13866
94830
12923
13717
13744
13877
13972
14771
93004
23174
I397O
I397O
12906
94741
93806
93106
1382O
13701
14747
14747
13866
13866
3816
94741
12923
93817
24232
14821
-------
TABLE 8 (Continued)
NO.
COMPANY
SITE
LATITUDE LONGITUDE STAR STATION
00
ui
121
122
• 23
124
125
126
127
I2O
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
I5B
159
160
GEORGIA-PACIFIC
GEORGIA-PACIFIC
cr-xwci'V-rAciKic
GEORGIA-PACIFIC
GEORGIA- PACIFIC
GEORGIA-PACIFIC
GKORCIA-PACPFIC
GETTY OIL
W. R. GRACE
GULF
GULF
GULF
GULF
GULF
II ANNA MINING
HERCULES
HERCULES
HERCULES
HERCULES
HERCULES
HERCULES
HERCULES
HEXCEL
HICHPOINT
HODAC
HOOKER
HOOKER
HOOKER
ICC
IMC
IMC
INTER MINERAL
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON
JONES 8 LAUCBLI
KALAMA
KALAMA
KAWECKI DERYLCO
KAWECKI nCRYLCO
COOS BAY, OR
CROSSETT, AH
HH Kin. TX
PLAGIIEHINI-;, LA
RUSSELVILLE, SC
TAVLORVIt.LE. MS
VIENNA, G,V
EL DORADO, KS
NASHUA, Nil
ALLIANCE, LA
CEDAR BAYOU, TX
JERSEY CITY, NJ
PHILADELPHIA, PA
VICKPUURG, MS
RIDDLE, OR
WILMINGTON, NC
BRUNSWICK, GA
HARBOR BEACH, MI
HOPEWELL, VA
LOUISIANA, MO
PARLIN, NJ
WILMINGTON, NC
LODI. RJ
HIGH POINT, NC
STOKIE, 1L
MONTAGUE, MI
NIAGARA FALLS, NY
N TONAWANin, NY
NIAGARA FALLS, NY
SEIPLE, PA
STFRLINCTON, LA
TERRE HAUTE, IN
AUSTIN, TX
CON ROE, TX
PORT NECHES, TX
ALIQU1PPA, PA
EDDYSTONE, PA
KALAMA, WA
HAZELTON. PA
READING, PA
42 27 26
33 8 36
HI 21 1)
30 15 o
33 20 52
31 51 0
32 7 30
37 47 10
42 46 0
29 5O 0
29 49 29
40 43 2
39 54 0
02 17 0
42 55 2
34 19 27
31 7 55
43 51 7
37 15 34
39 26 24
40 31 30
34 19 9
40 52 0
35 59 10
42 1 50
43 24 45
43 3 2
43 2 47
43 3 33
4O 311 12
32 43 25
39 27 7
30 2O 0
30 IB 5O
2(> 57 45
40 35 54
39 50 5H
46 0 54
40 21 2»
40 47 32
124 10 47
93 2 11
94 47 0
9111 0
79 58 0
09 25 O
0:1 49 o
96 52 0
71 27 52
90 O 19
94 55 1O
74 6 14
75 12 3O
90 54 O
123 25 O
77 46 56
81 28 5
82 42 B
77 17 14
91 3 37
74 27 10
77 59 23
74 6 50
80 0 37
87 43 39
86 22 30
79 0 27
78 51 44
79 0 55
75 31 38
92 8 56
87 25 2
97 14 15
95 23 6
93 56 0
80 14 24
75 20 0
122 51 5
75 57 10
76 115*
24283
93992
93987
13970
13717
13865
13815
13969
14745
12958
12923
94741
13739
13956
24221
13717
93836
14845
13740
93989
94741
13748
94741
93807
14855
14846
14747
14747
14747
14737
13942
13806
13958
12960
12917
14762
13739
24229
14737
14712
-------
TABLE 8 (Continued)
NO.
COMPANY
SITE
LATITUDE LONGITUDE STAR STATION
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
ire
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
I7O
179
1119
till
182
183
1114
183
186
107
1(18
189
190
191
192
190
194
195
196
197
198
199
269
II. KOHNSTAM
II. KOHNSTAM
KOPPERS
KOPPERS
KOPPERS
LACHAT
I.ONZA
HAGNA
MAK CHEMICAL
NALLINCKRODT
MKitiuiiEM
MILLIKEN
TIINEREC
3M
MODAY
IIOHAY
MOBILE
MONSANTO
MONSANIt)
MONSANTO
MONSANItt
MONSANTO
MONSANTO
MONSANTO
MONSANTO
NONSANTO
MONSANIt)
MONSANTO
MONSANTO
HONTROSE
noNTnosE
NALCO
NAPP
NATIONAL STARCH
NEPARA
NORDA
N PETROCHEMICAL
OCCIDENTAL
OLIN
OLIN
CAHDEN, NJ
CMC An INC, IL
CICERO, IL
FOLLANSBEK, WV
OIL CITY, PA
MEOUON, Wl
MAPLETOR, IL
HOUSTON, TX
MUNC1E, IN
LOOI. NJ
HOUSTON, TX
IHMAH, SC
BALTIMORE, MD
DECA1UR, AL
BAYTOWN, TX
NEW HARTNSVILLE, WV
BEAUMONT, TX
AODYSTON, OH
ALVIN, TX
BRIDGEPORT, NJ
CHOCOLATE BAYOU, TX
EUGENE, OK
KEARNEY, HJ
LULING, LA
NITHO, WV
8AUCKT, I L
SPRINGFIELD, MA
ST. LOUIS, MO
TEXAS CITY, TX
HENDERSON, NV
TORRANCE, CA
SUGAR LAND, TX
LOU I, NJ
SALISBURY, NC
II Aim I MAN, NY
Bd.'JNTON, NJ
EAST MORRIS, IL
N 10NA WANDA, NY
ASIITADULA, OH
BRANDENBURG, KY
39 04 42
41 4') IO
41 4U 44
40 23 10
41 29 30
43 13 56
40 34 0
29 40 10
40 12 17
40 52 56
29 45 3
-------
TABLE 8 (Continued)
NO.
COMPANY
SITE
LATITUDE LONGITUDE STAR STATION
00
201
202
203
204
2W5
206
207
20O
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
2 in
219
2 2O
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
22O
229
23O
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
23il
239
249
OLIN
OIIB1S
OWENS-CORNING
OXIRANE
OXIRANE
PACIFIC RESINS
PB I -CORDON
PELRON
PENNWALT
PERSTORP
PETROL I TE
PETROL I TE
PFIZER
PLASTICS ENC
PPG
PPG
PPG
PPG
PPG
PROCTR n GAMBLE
PUBLICKER
QUAKER OATS
OH I NTA N A-- IIO WELL
REicmioM)
REICHIIOLI)
RlilClHIOLI)
REicmioLD
KEICIIIIOLD
ItEICIIIIOI.lt
RRICHHOLD
RKICHHOLD
RElCIIIIOLIt
REICTKIOLD
REICIHIOLI)
REICIIIIOLD
RE ILLY TAR
HIVERDALE
ROHM 0 HAAS
ROHN 8 HAAS
RUBICON
LAKE CHARLES, LA
NEWARK, NJ
NEWARK, Oil
MYPOHT, TX
CIIANNELVIEW, TX
EUGENE, OR
KANSAS CITY, MO
LYONS, IL
GAL VERT CITY, KY
TOLEDO, OR
UREA, CA
ST LOUIS, MO
TERRE HAUTE, IN
SHEBOYGAN, Wl
BARBERTON, OH
BEAUMONT, TX
CIRCLE VIEW, OH
l.,v.;i-; ciM.nLE::, LA
NEW flARTNSVILLE, WV
irr.ripins, TN
PHILADELPHIA, PA
MEMPHIS, TN
CORPUS CUR IS IT, TX
A HOOVER, MA
AZUSA, CA
CAFTERKT, NJ
DETROIT, I'M
IIAtiPTON, SC
HOUSTON, TX
KANSAS CITY, KS
HALVKRN. AR
riOHCIIRE, NC
TACOHA, WA
TUSCALOOSA, AL
WHITE CITY, OR
IIIDIANAPOLIS, IN
CHICAGO HEIGHT, IL
DEI:R PARK, TX
PHILADELPHIA, PA
CEISMAR, LA
30
40
40
29
29
44
39
41
37
41
33
30
39
43
41
30
39
30
39
35
39
35
27
42
34
40
42
32
29
39
34
35
47
33
42
39
41
29
39
30
13
41
5
37
48
I
U
44
3
43
53
41
26
45
0
3
36
13
47
10
53
10
4H
O
7
35
2H
53
45
9
24
31
16
12
26
42
30
43
54
12
55
16
30
26
50
0
53
56
18
10
30
50
1
0
37
40
5
14
22
40
30
30
35
30
52
56
17
33
10
28
9
18
11
3
18
0
30
30
50
e
93
74
82
95
95
123
94
87
88
83
117
90
87
87
81
94
82
93
80
89
75
89
97
71
117
74
83
81
95
94
92
79
122
87
122
86
87
95
75
91
15
12
26
3
7
5
40
49
19
31
58
12
24
47
36
2
67
16
51
56
12
56
27
8
53
13
7
6
10
37
48
4
22
34
7
14
38
6
1 1
11
57
17
0
7
30
5
59
4
40
28
45
0
22
0
29
30
34
54
27
30
18
56
30
28
51
13
52
10
15
41
45
52
57
0
7
0
11
15
30
30
3937
94741
93824
12906
12906
24221
13988
94846
3816
94830
23174
13994
93819
14839
14895
12917
93824
3') 37
13736
13963
13739
13963
12925
14739
23174
94741
14822
3820
12906
13988
13963
13714
24207
13825
24225
93819
94846
12906
13739
12958
-------
TABLE 8 (Continued)
NO.
COMPANY
SITE
LATITUDE LONGITUDE STAR STATION
241
242
243
244
243
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
266
261
262
263
264
265
2<>6
207
268
269
27O
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
SCHENECTADY
SCHENECTADY
SCH EH BROTHERS
SHELL
SHELL
SHELL
SHELL
SHELL
SIIEREX
SHERWIN WILLIAM
SPECIALTY ORGAN
STANDARD
STAND CHLORINE
STAUFFER
STAUI'FER
STAUFFER
STAUFFF.R
STAUFFER
STF.PAN
STERLING
STIMSON
SUN OIL
SUN OIL
SUN OIL
SUN OIL
SUN OIL
TELEDYNE MCCORM
TENN EASTMAN
TENNECO
TENNECO
TENNECO
TEXAS EASTMAN
TOMS RIVER
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
OV3TER CREEK, TX
ROTTERDAM JUNC, NY
CLIFTON, NJ
OF.KR PARK, TX
GEIHMAR, LA
MARTINEZ. CA
NORCO, LA
ODESSA, TX
JANESVILLE, WI
CHICAGO, IL
IPWINDALE, CA
RICHMOND, TX
DELAWARE CITY, DE
COLD CREEK, AL
CALLIPOLIS FY. , WV
EDISON, NJ
LKMOYNE, AL
LOUISVILLE, KY
MILLSDALE, IL
CINCINNATI, OH
ANACORTES, WA
CLAYMONT, DE
CORPUS CHRIST!, TX
MARCUS BOOK, PA
TOLEDO, OH
THl.;M, OX
110'. LISTER, CA
KINGSPORT. TN
CHALHETTE. LA
FORDS, NJ
CAKFIELO, NJ
LONGVIEW. TX
TONS RIVER, NJ
AHKLER, PA
BOUND BROOK. NJ
FRI-.MONT, CA
INSTITUTE, WV
8KADRIFT, TX
SO CHARLESTON, WV
ST. JOSEPH, MO
29 58 21
42 47 22
4O 42 14
29 42 55
3O 1 1 O
311 O 5
30 0 1 1
31 49 14
42 40 47
41 43 4
34 6 3O
37 56 12
39 33 54
3O 58 3O
38 46 40
4O 29 23
30 53 5O
38 12 9
41 26 3
39 51 15
48 28 31
39 48 20
27 5O 0
39 48 45
41 36 52
«6 8 IB
36 5O 6
36 31 27
30 3 30
40 30 50
40 52 28
32 25 50
39 58 14
40 1 48
4O 33 32
37 28 38
38 23 2
28 3O 31
38 19 35
39 45 36
95 26 38
73 43 12
74 16 17
95 7 34
90 59 O
122 6 40
90 23 42
102 19 53
89 6 30
87 36 36
117 55 48
122 20 40
75 38 47
88 1 16
82 16 64
74 23 3
87 58 50
85 51 49
88 9 48
84 33 9
122 32 48
75 25 46
97 31 25
75 24 51
83 31 46
96 1 18
121 25 O
88 32 29
89 58 36
74 19 17
74 6 47
94 41 6
74 12 36
75 13 41
74 31 18
122 6 40
81 47 24
96 46 18
81 46 29
94 56 46
12966
14735
94741
I29O6
12958
232O2
12958
23023
14837
94846
23152
I29O6
94741
93841
13866
94741
93841
9382O
94846
13846
24217
94741
12925
13739
94836
13968
2324
3816
12958
94741
94741
13972
14706
13739
94741
23244
13866
12923
13866
13921
-------
TABLE 8 (Concluded)
NO.
COMPANY
SITE
LATITUDE LONGITUDE STAR STATION
00
us
2B1
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
299
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
UNION CARBIDE
UNI ROYAL
UOP
UPJOHN
U. S. STEEL
U. S. STEEL
US STEEL
VAN DE NARK
VEL8ICOL
VELSICOL
VELSICOL
VELSICOL
VERTAC
VI;RTAC
VULCAN
VULCAN
WITCO
WITCO
WRICUT
TAFT, LA
CEISMAR, LA
E RUTHERFOLD. NJ
LAPORTE, TX
CLAIRTON, PA
HAVERHILL, OU
GENEVA, VT
LOCKPORT, NY
BEAUMONT, TX
CnATTANOOGA. TN
MARSHALL, IL
MEMPHIS, TN
JACKSONVILLE, AR
WIST HELENA, AR
CEISHAR. LA
WICHITA, KA
CLEARING, IL
HOUSTON, TX
RIECELWOOD. NC
Ii9 58 0
30 13 30
40 49 46
29 42 26
40 18 15
38 34 52
40 19 1
43 11 8
29 68 16
35 2 31
39 23 0
35 9 50
34 55 36
34 36 10
30 IO 0
37 36 55
41 48 2
29 34 45
34 19 1>2
90 27 0
91 0 15
74 5 30
95 4 29
79 52 43
82 49 36
114 42 92
78 42 40
94 3 17
85 16 36
87 42 30
89 57 45
92 4 56
90 33 45
90 59 0
97 18 30
87 46 39
95 26 0
78 12 9
13970
12958
94741
12906
14762
13066
41010
14747
12917
13882
93819
13963
13963
13939
12958
13969
94846
12906
13717
-------
vo
o
FIGURE 3. STAR STATION SELECTION PROCESS MAP I
-------
FIGURE 4. STAR STATION SELECTION PROCESS MAP II
-------
ID
ro
FIGURE 5. STAR STATION SELECTION PROCESS MAP III
-------
IX)
CO
FIGURE 6. STAR STATION SELECTION PROCESS MAP IV
-------
SECTION 3
EXPOSURE-DOSAGE ESTIMATION APPROACH
As discussed in Section 1, the emissions sources were treated in
terms of three main categories:
> Major point sources, individually specified.
> General point sources represented categorically by a
prototype.
> Area source representations of numerous, widely dis-
tributed, minor sources.
This section explains the exposure-dosage estimation approach for each of
those categories.
MAJOR (SPECIFIC) POINT SOURCES
Major sources of most of the selected chemicals were specifically
identified chemical manufacturing plants. Concentration patterns caused
by unit emissions from such sources depend most strongly on three factors:
> Source elevation above terrain; effective plume elevation
may, in turn, depend on meteorological factors.
> Wind vectors (speed and direction).
> Dispersive effects (intensity of atmospheric turbulence).
For the present study a Gaussian model in the climatological form of
the EPA's COM, using the same basic dispersion algorithm, was coded and
94
-------
used to estimate the annual average ground-level concentrations resulting
from emissions from major point sources. It was necessary to plan for
executing the model for up to 1000 major point sources and generic point
sources, but much of the computer time required by comparable existing
algorithms is used for repetitive evaluations of the Gaussian kernel.
Because wind velocity and atmospheric stability are the only meteorolog-
ical variables involved in the Gaussian dispersion estimation, the Gaus-
sian kernel needs to be evaluated only 36 times (6 wind speeds times 6
stability classes) for a specific combination of source elevation and
building cross-section. The Gaussian algorithms can be used to generate a
file of normalized Gaussian solutions (concentration/emissions), one for
each combination of wind speed and stability, so we computed and stored
these Guassian concentration files for use in conjunction with STAR data,
emissions data, and reactivity data, in estimating the annual average con-
centrations. Substantial computer savings were achieved through this
"matrix modeling" approach.
In SAI's matrix modeling concept, the climatological Gaussian
algorithm would be used to generate a file of normalized Gaussian solu-
tions, one for each combination of wind speed and stability. This task is
accomplished through evaluation of the function given by:
(1)
where
x = concentration,
Q = emissions rate,
U.j = i-th wind speed
Sj = j-th stability class,
R = travel distance from the source.
95
-------
For reactive materials, this equation is extended to include a dependence
on an exponential decay rate derived from prototype analysis:
where T^ is the half-life of the k-th species. With this computer file
available, climatological concentration patterns are obtained by matrix
multiplication with STAR* data:
The maximum radius considered in the exposure/dosage estimation was
set as 20 km for major point sources. Concentrations were estimated for
10 receptors--0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0, 15.0, and 20.0 km
from the source—along each of the 16 wind directions. As shown in
Table 13 for the example of chloroprene, there may be instances of more
than one type of point source (each with its characteristic release /
height, emissions rate, etc.) within a single plant. For the case shown,
fugitive emissions (valve and flange leaks, etc.) that are random and
indeterminate but not negligible are approximated by a single source point
5 m above the ground. This is a height typical of outdoor plumbing. The
building wake effect assures that the assumed point source is represented
STAR data are standard climatological frequency of occurrence
summaries formatted for use in EPA models and available for
major U.S. sites from the National Climatic Center, Asheville,
North Carolina. The data consist of frequencies «J», tabulated
as functions of wind speed, U^; stability, Sjj and direction, e.
96
-------
as a source with dimensions larger than the adjacent structure. Each
emissions category was modeled individually, and the total ground-level
concentrations resulting from plant emissions were then computed by sum-
ming the individual estimates.
The dispersion algorithm can also treat chemical formation and decay,
enhanced dispersion caused by building wake effects, and release or stack
height. These features are discussed in the following subsections.
Chemical Reactivity
The detailed approach adopted in estimating the effect of chemical
reactions on ambient concentrations is shown with chloroprerie as an exam-
ple. Chloroprene is an organic compound that is decidedly photoreactive
in the atmosphere. Based on preliminary calculations conducted with esti-
mated decay rate, approximately 90 percent of the chloroprene emitted into
the sunlit urban atmosphere would be removed within an hour through reac-
tion with hydroxyl radicals and ozone molecules. However, the chemical
decay rates are much lower in the nighttime or under overcast condi-
tions. Figure 7 displays a comparison between the resulting concentra-
tions along a single wind direction with and without the chemical decay
computed for a chloroprene example. Because the chemical reactions that
change atmospheric concentrations occur over time, the chemical reactivity
of a compound has less impact on the concentrations near the emissions
source than further downwind. The difference in concentrations between
The data inputs that are necessary for the reactive case include: the
chloroprene emissions source location (the Dupont plant at Laplace,
Louisiana); the nature of the source emissions (process vent); the map
coordinates (90°32'00"W, 30°04'0"N): the stack height (20 m); the effec-
tive building cross section (100 mzh the emissions rate (34.23 g/sec);
the daytime decay rate (0.00058 sec"1); the nighttime decay rate
(0.000020 sec"1); the wind direction (1, from the north); and the STAR
station [12916 (New Orleans Muisant)].
97
-------
100.0
I REACTIVE (REFERENCE
1-5
Source:
0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 ZO.O
Downwind Distance from Source (km)
Systems Applications, Incorporated computations using SAI
dispersion model and SAI reactivity estimates.
FIGURE 7. EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL REACTIVITY ON CONCENTRATION
DISTRIBUTION OF CHLOROPRENE
98
-------
the two curves of Figure 7 at 200 meters from the source is about 3 per-
cent (43.2/41.9 - 1); at 20 km from the source the difference is about 30
percent (0.070/0.054 - 1).
Building Wake Effect
Pollutants emitted into the wake of a building are subject to an
enhanced dispersion (i.e., the concentration is reduced very quickly by
the turbulence on the lee side of the building). If a dispersion analysis
ignored this effect, the occurrence of high concentrations would be over-
estimated. A detailed description of the equations used in estimating the
building wake effect is addressed in the section beginning on page 121.
The ground-level concentrations that result from different building
structure dimensions are depicted in Figure 8, where the major parameters
for estimating these concentrations are the same as those of the reference
case. Clearly, the building wake effect would have insignificant impacts
on ground-level concentrations at points further downwind from the source
than 1.0 km. However, sources with larger building effects would result
in larger ground-level concentrations near the sources. Additional
analyses that assess the precise impacts of building wake effect may be
required to determine the extent to which the example in Figure 8 is site-
specific.
Release Height
The exact release height of a source can have a great effect on
ground-level concentrations. As Figure 9 shows, concentrations resulting
from ground-level emissions (H = 0) can be more than 10 times as great as
those resulting from emissions at a moderate height (H > 20 m). However,
these differences become insignificant further downwind (R > 5 km).
99
-------
100.0
A = TOO m
(REFERENCE
0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 20.0
Downwind Distance from Source (km)
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated computations using
SAI dispersion model and SAI building wake algorithms
FIGURE 8. EFFECT OF BUILDING WAKE ON CONCENTRATION
DISTRIBUTION OF CHLOROPRENE
100
-------
1000.0,
100.0
c
a
D
10.0
a
L
c
1.0
0.1
BSH * 20 m (REFERENCE CASE)E
1 0
.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 20.0
Downwind Distance from Source (km)
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated com-
putations using SAI dispersion model and
Briggs1 plume rise formulas
FIGURE 9. IMPACTS OF RELEASE HEIGHT ON CONCENTRATION
DISTRIBUTION OF CHLOROPRENE
101
-------
The evidence from Figures 7, 8, and 9 indicates that ground-level
concentrations decrease approximately log-log linearly with distance at
receptors more than 2 km distant from the source. Apparently, a plot of
this log-log linear relationship could be used to interpolate concentra-
tions at specific locations Within the range of 2 to 20 km from the
source.
The Point Source Algorithm
The annual average concentration pattern of a given chemical compound
downwind from an emissions source is estimated by using the climatological
form of the Gaussian algorithm (Turner, 1970) that is given by the
detailed equation used to prepare the computer program:
STAR(6,S.,N.)EXP(R,S.,H)
x(R.6.H.Tk) = 2.03Q . - U(NJ) Roy(R,$.) '
1 Z J (4)
where the symbols have the following meanings:
Polar Coordinates
R - Distance (meters) from the source to the recep-
tor,
e = Compass azimuth of the radius, R; also wind azi-
muth.
Atmospheric Parameters
u = wind speed (meters/second),
9 = wind azimuth (i.e. direction from which wind is
blowing), ^
oz - vertical dispersion coefficient I second I »
102
-------
N.J = the i-th wind speed category,
S|< = the k-th dispersion (stability) category.
Functions
STAR = The STability ARray* of joint probabilities of
occurrence of wind speed, direction and stability
combinations,
EXP = Gaussian dispersion function for elevated pol-
lutant plume.
DEC = Decay function characterizing loss of chemical
species, k, due to atmospheric chemical reac-
tions.
Emission Parameters
Q = Emissions rate (grams/second),
H = Effective plume height (meters).
Species Parameter
\ = Decay rate of species k due to atmospheric
chemical reaction.
Grid System
A polar grid array of sectors- of uniformly increasing size radially
outward from the source was used to overlay the region of interest. Con-
centration is calculated at the four corners of each sector. Another use
of the grid system is to catalog population data for exposure/dosage cal-
culations.
Climatological Parameters
The STAR data were obtained from the National Climatic Center
(Asheville, North Carolina). As received they were not in a uniform for-
Site-specific, from data from several hundred sites in U.S.
103
-------
mat with respect to the stability used. Data from some stations was in
the original STAR format with up to eight stability classes. Data from
other stations had been modified so as to distinguish between day and
nighttime occurrences of neutral D stability. After receipt from the NCC,
all unmodified data sets were modified according to the present EPA day-
night system (Busse and Zimmerman, 1973), as shown in Table 14. This
splitting of the neutral stability data is especially important when other
processes, such as chemical reactions, have diurnal variations.
For all the point source analyses, neutral (D) stability events
designated by the regular STAR data are divided into two classes: 40 per-
cent of the neutrally stable hours are assumed to occur at night, and the
remaining 60 percent in the daytime (Burt, 1977).
Since the lower portion of the atmosphere over urban areas is usually
unstable, even when the adjacent rural area is stable, neutral stability
is assumed for point sources analyses in urban areas whenever the STAR
algorithm indicates stable conditions (Classes E and F). This procedure
follows the recommendations of the EPA.
TABLE 14. PASQUILL-GIFFORD STABILITY CLASSES USED IN
POINT SOURCE ANALYSES
Pasquill/Gifford
Stability Classes Urban Areas Rural Areas
A
B
C
D
E
E
F
Source: Busse and Zimmerman (1973).
104
A
B
C
D-day
D- night
D-night
D-night
A
B
C
D-day
D-night
E
F
-------
Wind Speed
The wind speed U(N.j) for each wind speed class is taken as the
average wind speed of the range for the qiven class (Busse and Zimmerman,
1973).
Vertical Variation of Wind Speed
Generally, the wind speed at plume height will differ from the
measured wind speed at the anemometer height of 10 meters. To account for
this vertical variation, a power law wind profile in the form
(5)
was used, as recommended by Turner (1970). The exponent o, as presented
in EPA (1977), is listed for each stability class:
Pasquill/Gifford
Stability Classes P
A 0.10
B 0.15
C 0.20
D 0.25
E 0.30
F 0.30
105
-------
Plume Height
The height of the plume center!ine, he, is the sum of the physical
stack height, hs, and the plume rise, Ah:
he » hs + th . (6)
In this analysis, plume rise is determined using Briqgs's equations (1969,
1970, 1975) for momentum plumes and buoyancy plumes from low level emis-
sions sources as recommended by Turner and Novak (1978).
Vertical Dispersion Function
The value of oz where emissions do not suffer from downwash phenomena
is calculated from formulas recommended by Briggs (1973), where R is the
downwind distance in meters:
Pasquill Stability Class o_ (m)
A 0.20 R
B 0.12 R
C 0.08 R (1. + 0.0002 R)'1/2
D(day and night) 0.06 R (1. + 0.0015 R)-1/2
E 0.03 R (1. + 0.0003 R)'1
F 0.16 R (1. + 0.0003 R)'1
The proposed formulas for oz for emissions that are influenced by
building wakes are:
106
-------
Pasquill Stability Class 0Z (m)
A 0.20 (R + AR)
B 0.12 (R + AR)
C 0.08 (R + AR)[1. + 0.0002 (R + AR)]-1/2
D 0.06 (R + AR)[1. + 0.0015 (R + AR)]'1/2
E 0.03 (R + AR)[1.0.0003 (R + AR)]'1
F 0.16 (R + AR)[1. + 0.0003 (R + AR)]"1
where AR is the displacement distance and is calculated using:
Pasquill Stability Class ^ (m)
A 1.95 A0*5
B 2.72 A0'5
C 4.09 A0'5
D 4.95 A0-5
E 9.03 A0*52
F 14.88 A0*52
Chemical Decay
The four-class scheme for photochemical decay categorization is
adopted in the dispersion models. The default values of reaction rate
constants for each class are listed below:
Class I
Time of Day
Daytime
Nighttime
Very Reactive
1.0 x
5.0 x
io-2
10'5
Class II
Reactive
5.0 x
5.0 x
10-3
10'5
Class III
Moderately Class IV
Reactive Unreactive
5.0 x 10'4
0
0
0
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated, review as described in
Section 2, pp. 66 ff.
107
-------
Matrix Modeling Technique
To save computing time, the Gaussian algorithm [2.03 EXP(R,Sj,H)/
62(R,Sj)] and the decay function (exp [-ij<(Sj)R/U(Ni)]) from Eq. (4) are
used to generate files of normalized Gaussian solutions—one for each com-
bination of six wind speed categories, seven stability classes, and four
chemical reactivity groups. For each of the combinations, 10 different
downwind distances R, 16 wind directions 9, and 5 different effective
stack heights are used. The values chosen for the 10 different downwind
distances are 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0, 15.0, and 20.0
kilometers. The values for the wind speeds are 1.50, 2.46, 4.47, 6.93,
9.61, and 12.52 m/sec. The values chosen for the effective stack heiqht
are 0.0, 5.0, 10.5, 20.0, and 35.0 meters.
Sector Averaging
The constant 2.03 of Eq. (4) is the product of the factors
2/{/2ir 2ir/16) . This is obtained from the bivariate Gaussian sector
averaging form for a 22.5° (i.e., 2ir/16) sector. This results in a
uniform concentration across the wind sector at a given distance and
height.
Operation
MATRIX and GAUSS are the two major computer programs used in major
point source analysis. The function of program MATRIX is to generate a
matrix file containing dispersion functions as a function of wind direc-
tion and radial distance from the source for a single point source with a
chosen physical characteristic. The GAUSS program reads the matrix data
file generated by MATRIX and calculates the ground concentration pattern
carried by the sources defined in the source definition data set. Output
from GAUSS is a data file that contains surface concentration values.
108
-------
There is no input data requirement to run the MATRIX program.
However, GAUSS does require input. In addition to the intermediate data
file created by MATRIX, GAUSS requires an input data set that identifies
the locations and characteristics of the sources as well as the sur-
rounding meteorological and climatological conditions. Sequences of input
data cards are shown in Table 15.
Vertical Dispersion Function for Downwash Phenomena
When the pollutants are emitted from a vent or opening on a building,
or when the exit velocity of gases emitted from a stack is less than 1.5
times the mean wind speed, dispersion of pollutants is determined by the
atmospheric dispersion mechanism and the building-induced turbulence.
Following Briggs (1975), the atmospheric dispersion function for
MX), m, and az(x) can be expressed as follows (open country conditions,
102 < x < 104m):
Pasquill Type ay(m) oz(m)
A .22x(l + .OOlx)'1/2 .20x
B .16x(l + .OOOlx)'1/2 .12x
C ,llx(l + .OOOlx)'1/2 .08x(l + .0002x)-1/2
D .08x(l + .OOOlx)'1/2 .06x(l + .OOlSx)'1/2
E .06x(l + .OOOlx)-1/2 ,03x(l + .OOOSx)'1
n*..li , nnr»i..\ —1/2 mc..fi , nnr»o..\ —1
F .04x(l + .OOOlx)-1/2 .016x(l + .0003x)
Estimation of the additional initial dispersion in the building wake
is based on Holland's virtual point source concept. In this concept, dis-
persion is as if the emissions came from a virtual source, farther upwind
than the real one and diffused by Gaussian processes to a plume as wide as
the building wake. The downwind distance x can be expressed as x1 + Ax,
where x1 is the distance between the receptor and the actual emission
source, while _Ax is the distance between the actual point source and
virtual point source (see Figure 10). The total dispersion factor can be
expressed as:
109
-------
TABLE 15. SEQUENCE OF INPUT DATA CARDS FOR PROGRAM GAUSS
Contents
Number of emissions sources
Emissions source identifier
Latitude (degree, minute, second)
Longitude (degree, minute, second)
Chosen STAR station number
Ambient temperature (°K)
Lapse rate for stability class E, F
Urban index
IURB = 1 for rural area
IURB = 0 for urban area
User identifier
Number of source type within
each emissions source
Name of the chemical
Compounds
Emissions index
Emissions rates (Ibs/hr)
Physical stack height (meters
above ground level)
Typical building cross sectional area
(meters^)
Stack index
IVGNT = 1 for nonvertical stack
IVGNT = 0 for vertical stack
Stack diameter (meters)
Gas exit velocity (m/s)
Gas exit temperature (°K)
Note: GAUSS also requires the SAI-modified STAR data file.
Card No.
1
2
3
4
Variables
NEMS
LINE
LAT
LONG
I STAR
T
ALAPSE
IURB
IUSE
NOS
ISPEC
ICSPEC
IEMTYP
Q
STAK
XA
IVENT
D
VS
TS
Format
no
7A5
16
17
15
F5.0
2F5.0
11
15
12
A10
A10
ZX.A1
F12.0
F4.0
F4.0
11
F4.0
F5.0
F4.0
no
-------
Q = Emission source strength
AX = Distance between the virtual point source and the
actual point source as a result of the building of
displacement zone
FIGURE 10. SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATION OF VIRTUAL POINT SOURCE CONCEPT
-------
Pasquill
Type
A
B
C
D
E
F
(m)
.22 (x1 + Ax) (1 + 0.0001 (x1 + Ax)'1/2
.16 (x1 + Ax) (1 + 0.0001 (x1 + Ax)'1/2
.11 (x1 + Ax) (1 + 0.0001 (x1 + Ax)'1/2
.08 (x1 + Ax) (1 + 0.0001 (x1 +
.06 (x1 + Ax) (1 + 0.0001 (x1 +
Ax)'1/2
Ax)-1/2
.04 (x1 + Ax) (1 + 0.0001 (x1 + Ax)'1/2
Pasquill
Type
A
B
C
D
E
F
oz (m)
0.20 (x1
0.12 (x1
0.08 (x1
0.06 (x1
0.03 (x1
0.016 (x1
+ Ax)
+ Ax)
+ Ax) (1 +
+ Ax) (1 +
+ Ax) (1 +
+ Ax) (1 +
.0002 (x1 +
.0015 (x1 +
.0003 (x1 +
.0003 (x1
AX)'1/2
AX)'1/2
AX)'1/2
+ AX)'1/2
(6a)
(6b)
(6c)
(6d)
(6e)
(6f)
For_x_'=o, the building-induced turbulence is the only mechanism that con-
trols the dispersion of pollutants. Therefore, the total dispersion func-
tion here can be expressed as:
(m)
(m)
.22 (AX) (1 + O.OOOlAx)-1/2
.16 (Ax) (1 + O.OOOlAx)-1/2
.11 (Ax) (1 + O.OOOlAx)'1/2
.08 (Ax) (1 + O.OOOlAx)-1/2
.06 (Ax) (1 + O.OOOlAx)-1/2
.04 (Ax) (1 + O.OOOlWx)-1/2
0.20 (Ax) (?a)
0.12 (Ax) (7b)
0.08 (Ax) (1 + 0.0002AX)-1/2 (7c)
0.06 (Ax) (1 + 0.00015Ax)-1/2(7d)
0.03 (Ax) (1 + .OOOSAx)-1 (7e)
0.016 (Ax) (1 + .OOOSAx)-1 (7f)
112
-------
The product of oy and 0, is:
o7 (m2) =
4.4 x 1CT2 (Ax)2 [1 + 1CT4 (Ax)]'1/2 (8a)
1.9 x 1CT2 (Ax)2 [1 + 10'4 (Ax)]'172 (8b)
8.8 x 1(T3 (Ax)2 [1 + 3. x 1Q-4 (Ax) +2 x KT8 (Ax)2 ]'1/2 (8c)
4.8 x 1CT3 (Ax)2 [1 + 1.6 x I'3 (Ax) + 1.5 x 10'7 (Ax)2]'1/2 (8d)
1.8 x 10'3 (Ax)2 1 + 7.0 x KT4 (Ax) + 1.5 x 10'7 (Ax)2
+ 9. x 1(T12 (Ax)2 -1/2 (8e)
6.4 x 1CT4 (Ax)2 1 + 7.0 x 10'4 (Ax) + 1.5 x 10'7 (Ax)2
+ 9. x 10'12 (Ax)2 -1/2 (8f)
Gifford (1968) identified the total diffusion factor as:
Oy = (Oy2 +
where A is building cross sectional area perpendicular to the mean wind
and C is the buildinq factor.* It is found that 0.5 < C < 2.0. At X'=0,
the total dispersion function becomes
oy =
0; = (CA/*)1/2 .
Multiply oy and oz to obtain:
Dependence on the height/width ratio of a building was not included.
There is great variety in the sizes and shapes of buildings associated
with the variety of emissions sources. Generally, the structures were
complex, there was uncertainty as to how well this correction should be
detailed, and it was difficult to obtain relevant data.
113
-------
oyoz » CA/Tt . (9)
Let C = 0.5 (a conservative estimation), and compare Eqs. (8a), (8b),
(8c), (8d), (8e), and (8f) with Eq. (9); one gets:
Pasquill c.
Stability ' oy oz (mz) = -^
A 4.4 x 1(T2 (Ax)2 [1 -i- ICT4 (Ax)]'1/2 (lOa)
B 1.9 x ID'2 (Ax)2 [1 + ID'4 (Ax)]'1/2 (lOb)
C 8.8 x lO'3 (Ax)2 [1 + 3. x 1CT4 (AX)
+ 2 x ID'8 (Ax)2 ]'1/2 (lOc)
D 4.8 x 1CT3 (Ax)2 [1 + 1.6 x I'3 (Ax)
+ 1.5 x lO'7 (Ax)2]'1/2 (lOd)
E 1.8 x 1(T3 (Ax)2 1 + 7.0 x ID'4 (Ax) + 1.5 x 1CT7 (Ax)
+ 9. x 1CT12 (Ax)2 -1/2 (lOe)
F 6.4 x lO'4 (Ax)2 1 + 7.0 x 1CT4 (Ax) + 1.5 x 1(T7 (Ax)2
+ 9. x ID'12 (Ax)2 -1/2 (lOf)
Eqs. (lOa) through (lOf) are then solved numerically, and the Ax can be
expressed as:
Pasquill Stability Ax
A 1.95A0'5
B 2.72A0'5
C 4.05A0'5
D 4.95A°-5eA x 10"6
E 9.03A°'52e3-6A x 10~6
F 14.88A°-52eA x 10"5
By substituting them into Eqs. (6a) through (6f), one can obtain the total
dispersion function.
114
-------
Exposure and Dosage Estimation Scheme
SAI has coded this "matrix" dispersion modeling approach into a stan-
dard Fortran program. The output of the program is a well-formatted con-
centration array for 160 receptors around the plant (10 receptors along
each of the 16 wind directions). These are the sum of concentration pat-
terns resulting from all sources within a plant. A typical concentration
pattern printout is shown in Table 16, and the chloroprene-emitting Denka
plant at Houston is used here as an example. This subsection delineates
the basic approach used in combining the concentration pattern with the
population distribution pattern around a plant. Two terms are defined
here and are used frequently in the following discussion. A polar grid
point is one of the 160 receptors at which concentrations were estimated
by the dispersion modeling. A population centroid is the population-
weighted geographical center of an ED/BG for which geodetic coordinates
are known.
A two-level scheme was adopted to pair up concentrations and popula-
tions prior to the computation of dosages and exposures. The two-level
approach is appropriate because the concentrations are defined on a
radius-azimuth (polar) grid pattern with non-uniform spacing. At small
radii the grid cells are much smaller than ED/BGs; at large radii the grid
cells are much larger than ED/BGs. To form the product of population
times concentration, both factors at the same set of points are
required. Interpolation techniques to accomplish this are most appro-
priately applied by interpolating values of the factor defined on the
coarse network at the locations of the finer grid, thus maximizing the
resolution and minimizing the uncertainties of interpolation. Because the
fine/coarse relationship varies with radius, the two-level approach is
used.
For ED/BG centroids located between 0.1 km and 2.8 km from the
source, populations were apportioned among neighboring concentration grid
115
-------
TABLE 16.' ANNUAL AVERAGE CHLOROPRENE CONCENTRATION DISTRIBUTION PATTERN
IN THE VICINITY OF THE DENKA PALNT IN HOUSTON, TEXAS
ireition
1
I
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Cd 1 oroprene Concentration (n/'1>**3)
Downwind Distance (m)
200.00
.14942E-04
. 10168E-04
. 13662E-04
.93610E-05
.17444E-04
.21159E-04
.25284E-04
.17728E-04
.2880IE-04
. H375E-04
.I0625E-04
.47475E-05
.55382E-05
.51789E-05
.74764E-05
.49227E-05
300.00
.95580E-05
.65569E-05
.89314E-05
.6I220E-OS
.11260E-04
.13642E-04
.I6369E-04
.I1470E-04
. 18481E-04
.73260E-05
.69450E-05
.30813E-05
.3S492E-05
.33139E-05
.48679E-05
.31853E-05
500.00
.50743E-05
.35085E-05
.49199E-05
.33440E-05
.60669E-05
.73193E-05
.88764E-05
.62141E-05
.99365E-05
. 39629E-05
.3887SE-05
.17087E-05
.19359E-05
.17869E-05
.26834E-05
.17161E-05
700.00
.32616E-05
.22476E-05
. 32591 E -05
.21873E-05
.39771E-05
.47477E-05
.58142E-05
.40536E-05
.65771E-05
.26502E-05
.27226E-05
.11998E-05
.13315E-05
.11999E-05
.18047E-05
.H088E-05
1000.00
.19506E-05
.13352E-05
.2003 IE -05
.13271E-05
.24292E-05
.28649E-05
.35399E-05
.24554E-05
.406B5E-05
.16575E-05
.17797E-05
.78846E-06
.85815E-06
.75437E-06
.11298E-05
.66469E-06
2000.00
.60156E-06
.4085 IE -06
.63664E-06
.41623E-06
.76792E-06
. 89354 E -06
.11146E-05
.76858E-06
.13053E-05
.53827E-06
.60395E-06
. 26901 E -06
.78704E-06
.24602E-06
.36659E-06
.20559E-06
5000.00
.I0097E-06
.68605E-07
.10886E-06
.70896E-07
.13050E-06
.15131E-06
. I8966E-06
.130S7E-06
.22338E-06
.92638E-07
.10S70E-06
.47015E-07
.49716E-07
.42199E-07
.63154E-07
.34766E-07
10000.00
.24494E-07
.16717E-07
.26667E-07
.17372E-07
.31737E-07
. 36901 E-07
.46349E-07
.31950E-07
.54546E-07
.22657E-07
.25916E-07
.11474E-07
.12118E-07
.10266E-07
.1S4B6E-07
.851B3E-08
1 5000. 00
.10522E-07
.72068E-08
.11501E-07
.74953E-08
.13612E-07
.15895E-07
.19983E-07
.13802E-07
.23487E-07
. 97544 E -08
.11130E-07
.49088E-08
.51918E-08
.44002E-08
.66779E-08
.36872E-08
20000.00
.57312E-08
.39377E-08
.62744E-08
.40910E-08
.73934E-08
.06747E-08
.19212E-07
.75536E-08
.12811E-07
.53156E-OB
.60376E-OB
.26S37E-08
.28131E-08
.2887U-08
.36417E-08
.20211E-08
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated.
-------
points. There are 96 (6 x 16) polar grid points within this range.
Associated with each of these grid points, at which the concentration is
known, is a smaller polar sector bounded by two concentric arcs and two
radial lines. The boundary concentric arcs were defined by radii of 0.1,
0.25, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.2, and 2.8 km in this study, and the boundary
radial lines were drawn right in the middle of two wind directions. Each
of these concentration grid points was assigned to the nearest ED/BG cen-
troid identified from the MED-X data set. The population at each centroid
was then apportioned among all concentration grid points assigned to that
centroid. The exact land area within each polar cell was considered in
the apportionment, and the population density was assumed to be the same
for all grid cells assigned to a single centroid. Both concentration and
population counts were thus available for each polar grid point.
Log-log linear interpolation was used to estimate the concentration
at each ED/BG population centroid located between 2.8 km and 20 km from
the source. Concentration estimates for 80 (5 x 16) grid points
(receptors at 2.0, 5.0, 10.0, 15.0, and 20.0 km from the source along each
of the sixteen directions) resulting from dispersion modeling were used
here as reference points for this interpolation. For each ED/BG centroid,
four reference points were located as the four corners of the polar sector
in which the centroid is located. These four reference points would sur-
round the centroid as depicted in Figure 11. As shown in Figures 7, 8,
and 9, there is a linear relationship between the logarithm of concentra-
tions and the logarithm of distances for receptors more than 2 km away
from the source. This relationship was used to estimate the concentra-
tions at points E and F (see Figure 11). These estimates, together with
the polar angles, were then used to interpolate the concentration at-the
centroid. Using the two-level approach, concentrations and populations
wre paired up for the 96 concentration grid points within 2.8 km of the
source and for all ED/BG centroids located between 2.8 km and 20 km from
the source. The total dosage was then computed as follows:
117
-------
Total Annual Dosage (ug/m -person)
1=1
where P^ = the population at point i, C^ = the annual average concentra-
tion at point i, and N = the total number of grid points and ED/BG cen-
troids-with a specified combination of concentration and population
(representing the entire area within 20 km of the source).
SOURCE
ED/BG CENTROID
FIGURE 11. REFERENCE POINTS FOR AN ED/BG CENTROID
The population exposed to each of a number of concentration levels,
L,-, was computed by:
*j
Exposure to L.. (person) =/J P1.)
1-1
118
-------
where
if C. < L.
"1 , if C. >_ L.J
The dosage of the fraction of the population that is exposed to concentra
tions greater than or equal to each of a number of concentration levels,
Lj, was computed by using the following summation:
N
Annual Dosage at L. (yg/m -person) = 2. P,-C. S. (C. ,L .)
J mmmm III I J
Note that the annual dosage at the minimum concentration within 20 km of
the source will equal the total annual dosage.
The concentration levels at which exposure is to be estimated can be
selected either manually or by an exponential function coded in the pro-
gram. A suggested approach is to select the desired number of concentra-
tion levels, examine the exposure computed at the program-determined
exposure levels, and then compute the exposures at selected levels.
The version of the MED-X data file used in these estimations includes
the 1970 census data, so both exposure and dosage have to be adjusted to
the 1978 levels. The 1978 to 1970 population ratio at the county level
was used as the adjustment factor in this study. The exposure algorithm
program was used to estimate the exposure/dosage for each of the major
point sources and total nationwide exposure/dosage.
119
-------
PROTOTYPE POINT SOURCE EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE ESTIMATION APPROACH
Significant amounts of chemicals are emitted from point sources that,
practically, can only be treated generically. Such sources may include
power plants, refineries, solvent degreasers, solvent users, gas stations,
etc.; they are too numerous to be treated individually as point sources,
and yet the spatial distributions of their emissions are not sufficiently
uniform to be treated as area source emissions.
SAI conducted a study to compare two approaches for estimating the
exposure-dosage resulting from chemical emissions from point sources
treated as classes. The first approach assumes that these sources are
area sources and that the Hanna-Gifford Model can be used to estimate
atmospheric concentrations. This approach was applied to estimate the
benzene concentration/dosage resulting from gasoline station emissions in
an EPA report on human exposure to atmospheric benzene (Mara and Lee,
1978). In the alternative approach, model or prototype sources were
defined; exposure estimates for each model source were developed in the
same fashion as they were for major, specifically identified point
sources. The results were then multiplied by the estimated number of
sources of the same type to obtain national totals.
Trichloroethylene emitted from metal degreasing facilities is used as
an example in this comparison study. Trichloroethylene has been the his-
torical favorite for vapor degreasing uses, but regulations have been
instituted regarding its use for metal cleaning because of its toxicity,
its photochemical reactivity, and the resultant formation of undesirable
byproducts. Vapor degreasers (VD) lose a relatively smaller portion of
their solvents in waste material and as liquid carryout than do cold
degreasers (CD). For both VDs and CDs, most (> 99 percent) of the emis-
sions are those vapors that diffuse from the degreasers. Trichloroethy-
lene vapor degreasing emissions are estimated by HI to have been 104,550
120
-------
metric tons in 1978, or 99 percent of the total amount of trichloroethy-
lene consumed for this purpose (see Attachment A). An estimated 15 per-
cent of trichloroethylene consumed in metal degreasing operations was used
in cold cleaning equipment. The remaining 85 percent was used in open top
vapor degreasers (OTVDs) and conveyorized vapor degreasers (CVDs). The
averaging emissions rates per unit and the total number of units in opera-
tion nationwide are shown in Table 17.
TABLE 17. NATIONWIDE TRICHLOROETHYLENE EMISSIONS
FROM SOLVENT DEGREASERS
National
Emissions
(metric Number of
Type of Degreaser tons/yr) Degreasers
Cold degreaser 14,950 49,770
Open top vapor
degreaser 55,570 6,110
Conveyorized vapor
degreaser 33,340 1,232
Total 104,550 59,382
Average
Emissions Rate
per Degreaser
(g/sec)
0.0095
0.288
0.858
Source: Hydroscience, Incorporated, Knoxville, Tennessee, tri-
chloroethylene emissions summary; included in attached
species report.
In this study, model sources were defined for each of the nine geo-
graphic regions in the United States. Figure 12 displays the nine
regions. The average emissions rate per degreaser, as listed in Table 17,
is assumed applicable to all nine regions, and the deviations from the
average rates are regarded as insignificant in terms of their influence on
the overall exposure-dosage estimates. Therefore, there are three types
of model sources in each region for trichloroethylene, and their emissions
rates were assumed to be the average rates as listed in Table 17. How-
ever, for some model sources of other chemicals, the emissions rates may
be different from region to region.
121
-------
ro
r\>
*•*" MAM*
FIGURE 12. U.S. GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
-------
Degreasers that use trichloroethylene as a solvent are usually
employed in the manufacturing industry; the population exposed to emis-
sions from this type of source resides mostly in urbanized areas. In this
study, all trichloroethylene-using degreasers were assumed to be located
in urbanized areas with populations of more than 25,000. These urbanized
areas were also the major exposed areas. An attempt was made to estimate
the total land area in each region, and the average population density in
these urbanized areas for each region was also derived. Table 18 lists
these statistics, together with the number of each of the three types of
degreaser-s in each of the nine regions. The 1978 population density in
these urbanized areas was assumed not to differ significantly from the
1972 figure. The population and land area data were from the 1970 census
data (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1973) and data on the number of
degreasers were estimates made by HI.
Uniform Emissions Approach
In this approach, trichloroethylene was assumed to be emitted uni-
formly throughout the area covered. To calculate the average annual area-
wide trichloroethylene concentrations, x» resulting from vapor degreasing
emissions, the Hanna-Gifford dispersion equation was used:
Xs i > U6)
* u
where
Q = average emissions rate of trichloroethylene from
2
unit area (yg/sec - m ),
u = average wind speed (m/sec),
225 = an empirical factor derived from several previous
studies on relatively large scale urban areas
(-400 km2
stability.
2
(~400 km ) and under neutral atmospheric
123
-------
TABLE 18. 1970 POPULATION DENSITY AND NUMBER OF TRICHLOROETHYLENE-USING
DEGREASERS IN THE NINE GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
Statistics 1n Urbanized Areas
Region Population
Code Region (in thousands)
1 New England
2 Middle Atlantic
3 East North Central
4 West North Central
5 South Atlantic
6 East South Central
7 West South Central
8 Mountain
9 Pacific
*
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census
8,098
27,959
26,506
8,450
15,862
4,173
10,948
4,692
20,582
, 1973.
Area
(km2)
7,650
14,084
19,543
8,402
14,102
4,986
12,312
4,772
14,335
Density
(persons/km2)
1,059
1,985
1,356
1,006
1,125
837
889
983
1,436
* Source: Hydrosclence, Incorporated, Knoxvllle, Tennessee, trlchlor
Number of Degreaserst
CD§
2,991
7,760
13,179
4,362
6,005
2,944
4,832
1,806
5,893
oethyl ene
OTVD**
560
1,158
1,742
452
465
265
398
174
896
emissions
CVDft
113
244
405
80
84
52
68
21
165
summary Included 1n Attachment A.
* Cold Degreaser.
Open Top Vapor Degreaser.
** Conveyor1 zed Vapor Degreaser.
-------
Since this approach does not consider concentration patterns, patterns of
wind variability were not judged to be pertinent, and a mean, national
average wind was used. The average U.S. wind speed was determined to be
5.5 m/sec by weighting regional average wind speeds by population, (Mara
and Lee, 1978). Because it was assumed that all of the vapor degreasers
are located in Urbanized Areas, the total land area of the Urbanized Areas
in the United States (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1973) was used in the
estimation of unit area emissions rates (Q). Table 19 lists the major
parameters used in this approach, together with the estimated concen-
tration-dosage results. It should be noted that no information on the
differentiation of levels of exposure to the populations residing in the
Urbanized Areas is available, and only the average exposed concentration
is derived from this approach.
TABLE 19. MAJOR PARAMETERS AND CONCENTRATION-DOSAGE RESULTS
OF THE UNIFORM EMISSIONS APPROACH
Major Parameters
Total trichloroethylene
vapor degreasing emissions
Total Urbanized Area
Unit area emissions
rate, Q
Average U. S. wind
speed, u
Average exposed concentra-
tion, x
Total population in
Urbanized Areas in 1978
Total U. S. annual dosage
Concentration-Dosage
Results
104,550 metric tons/yr
100,190 km^
0.0331 pg/sec - m2
5.5 m/sec
1.354 pg/m3
Information
Source
Hydroscience,
Incorporated
U.S Census
Bureau (1973)
SAI computations
Mara and Lee
(1978)
SAI computations
U.S Census
Bureau (1973)
135 million
1.88 x 108 (yg/m3) - person SAI computations
* Based on 1970 population in Urbanized Areas, 127,270,000, and the
projected 1978 to 1970 population ratio of 218 million/205 million.
125
-------
Prototype Point Source Approach
In this approach, concentration-dosage patterns were estimated for
emissions from three model sources—a CD, an OTVD, and a CVD--for the nine
regions. The emissions rates of these three model sources were assumed to
be constants, as shown in Table 19.
A set of STAR (STability ARray) stations with climatological condi-
tions that are typical of those in the nine regions were selected as the
base for conducting regional model source dispersion modeling (see
Table 10).
Trichloroethylene is quite reactive toward ambient hydroxyl radical
(OH )--about one-fifth as reactive as propylene. Its reaction with ozone
molecules is, however, very slow. Therefore, the psuedo-first-order reac-
tion rate constant of trichloroethylene in the ambient air in the daytime
would be about 1.68 x 10"^ min"*; during the night it would be close to
zero since atmospheric reactions toward OH species occur only in the day-
time.
Most of the trichloroethylene-using degreasing units--cold degreasers
or vapor degreasers--are housed inside a building or other shelter. Emis-
sions are from the venting system of the shelter. The emissions para-
meters for these three types of degreasers are summarized in Table 20.
126
-------
TABLE 20. EMISSIONS PARAMETERS FOR PROTOTYPE POINT SOURCES
OF TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Source Type
Vent Building Vent Vent Vent
Height Cross-Section Diameter Velocity Temperature
(m) (nr) (m) (m/sec)
Cold cleaners
Open top vapor
degreasers
4.5
4.5
50
50
0.15
0.15
0.2
0.2
__
327
Conveyorized
vapor degreasers 4.5
50
0.15
0.2
327
Source: Hydroscience, Incorporated, Knoxville, Tennessee; trichloroethy-
lene report, attached.
The major steps involved in deriving the exposure-dosage estimates
can be delineated as follows:
> Based on emissions characteristics, photochemical reac-
tivity, and the STAR data of the selected stations, the
concentration patterns resulting from emissions from the
three model sources were determined individually for all
nine regions by using the same dispersion modeling tech-
nique developed for major point sources. As an example,
the modeling results of concentration patterns around a
model OTVD in the New England Region are shown in Table 21.
> Table 22 lists the distances between the concentration
centers (receptors) and the source, the distances of
boundary areas of the sectors away from the source, and the
land area of sectors corresponding to each concentration
center. The average population density in the urbanized
areas for the nine regions, together with the specific
sector land area assigned to each concentration center,
were used to estimate the population exposed to different
concentrations. To make this estimate, the average popula-
tion density is multiplied by the sector land area corres-
127
-------
ro
00
TABLE 21. TRICHLOROETHYLENE CONCENTRATION PATTERN AROUND A MODEL OPEN TOP
VAPOR DEGREASER IN NEW ENGLAND REGION
Hind
Direction*
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
(ug/m3)
Downwind Distance From the Source
(km)
0.2
2.617
1.017
1.066
1.013
2.190
1.854
1.259
0.882
2.629
1.888
1.897
2.737
2.BS4
2.912
2.771
1.838
0.3
1.180
0.455
0.481
0.458
0.990
0.831
0.551
0.388
1.182
0.869
0.876
1.260
1.325
1.362
1.283
0.841
0.5
0.390
0.149
0.159
0.152
0.330
0.273
0.173
0.122
0.388
0.298
0.302
0.434
0.464
0.480
0.445
0.284
0.7
0.1752
0.0662
0.0720
0.0688
0.1490
0.1223
0.0745
0.0525
0.1732
0.1384
0.1414
0.2026
0.2202
0.2245
0.2090
0.1308
1.0
0.0697
0.0262
0.0291
0.0277
0.0604
0.0486
0.0280
0.0196
0.0681
0.0575
0.0591
0.0845
0.0943
0.0988
0.0879
0.0535
2.0
0.00867
0.00327
0.00386
0.00357
0.00776
0.00608
0.00295
0.00201
0.00809
0.00789
0.00823
0.01160
0.01412
0.01485
0.01243
0.00702
5.0 10.0
2.04 x 10-
0.86 x 10'
1.11 x 10-
0.93 x 10"
1.87 x 10-
1.41 x 10-
0.48 x 10-
0.31 x 10-
1.65 x 10"
2.1J x 10-
2.21 x 10-
2.95 x 10-
4.50 x 10-
4.79 x 10-
3.23 x
1.71 x
2.50 x
1.74 x
2.89 x
1.98 x
0.42 x
0.29 x
2.12 x
3.42 x
3.42 x
4.18 x
8.95 x
9.98 x
3.50 x 10'4 6.03 X
1.70 x 10'4 2.36 x
ID'*
lo-6
io-6
io-6
io-7
10-6
10-6
1C-6
10-6
ID"6
10-6
10-6
10-6
ID'6
10-6
ID"6
15.0
1.30 x 10' 7
0.83 x lO"7
1.33 x ID" 7
0.80 x 10"7
1.18 x HT7
0.68 x ID"7
0.85 x ID'7
0.79 x 10" 7
0.73 x 10'7
1.30 x ID'7
1.26 x 10'7
1.40 x 10" 7
4.11 x 10'7
4.73 x ID'7
2.45 x 10'7
0.79 x HT7
20.0
8.3 x ID"9
6.0 x ID'9
10. I x 10"'
5.6 x 10-*
7.9 x IO-9
3.9 x 10"9
0.26 x 10"9
0.40 x 10'9
4.28 x 10'9
7.71 x ID'9
7.50 x 10'9
7.71 x ID'9
28.4 x 10"9
33.1 x 10'9
15.5 x 10'9
4.4 x 10'9
1 - N, 2 « HUE. 3 - HE. etc.
Source: System Applications, Incorporated computations.
-------
TABLE 22. LAND AREAS FOR SPECIFIED CONCENTRATION CENTERS
ro
10
Distance of
Concentration Center
Distance of Boundary
Land Area of
from Source
(km)
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Arc from Source, r
(km)
0.1*
0.25
0.4
0.6
0.85
1.5
3.5
7.5
12.5
17.5
22.5
2
(km2)
0.0314
0.196
0.503
1.131
2.270
7.069
38.48
176.7
490.9
962.0
1590.0
Sector, Aitr2/16
(km2)
0.0103
0.0192
0.0393
0.071
0.300
1.963
8.64
19.64
29.44
39.25
The radius of prototype plant property is assumed to be 100 meters.
-------
ponding to the specific concentration center. The dosage
corresponding to the specific concentration center can then
be estimated by multiplying the exposed population by the
concentration to which it is exposed. Therefore, for each
model source in each of the nine regions, there were three
corresponding matrices—one for the concentration pattern,
one for the exposed population, and one for the dosage
estimates.
The exposure-dosage data for each model source were then
summarized according to their corresponding exposed concen-
tration. The population exposed to concentrations greater
than or equal to each of a number of concentration levels,
LJ, in the vicinity of a model source m in region r was
computed by:
N
E
1=1
where
N = the total number of concentration points (with
10 receptors along each of 16 wind directions:
10 x 16 = 160),
Pi = the population corresponding to concentration
center i,
C.j = the annual average exposed concentration at con
centration center i,
0, if C. < L.
' J
$1~ i. if e, >LJ
130
-------
The population exposed to trichloroethylene concentrations larger than or
equal to different concentration levels resulting from the three model
sources in the nine regions is listed in Table 23. The dosage of the
fraction of population that is exposed to concentrations greater than or
equal to each of a number of concentration levels, Lj, in the vicinity of
a model source m in region r was computed by:
N
E
1=1
The dosages of trichloroethylene as a function of exposed concentration
levels for the three types of model degreasers in the nine regions are
shown in Table 24. The exposure-dosage patterns for each of the three
model sources located in each of the nine regions can be used as the bases
-for estimating the total exposure-dosage as a function of exposed concen-
tration levels in each individual region by:
(Total exposure at L..)r = (e^ x ryr) , (19)
m=l
3
(Total dosage at L..)r = (d^ x n^) , (20)
m=l
131
-------
TABLE 23. POPULATION EXPOSURE TO TRICHLOROETHYLENE EMITTED FROM A TYPICAL DEGREASER
(a) Cold Oegreaser
Number of Persons Exposed by Geographic Region
ro
toncentrazion Lev*
( ng/rn3)
0
0
0
0
.25
.10
.05
.025
ii
1
0
0
120
398
2
0
41
284
769
3
0
84
300
522
4
0
71*
160
360
5
0
58
226
421
6
9
68
153
339
7
0
28
143
273
8
10
49
169
370
9
30
129
216
614
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated computations.
-------
co
to
TABLE 23 (Continued)
(b) Open Top Vapor Degreaser
Concentration Number of Persons Exposed by Geographic Region
tevei
( ug/m3)
5.0
2.5
1.0
0.5
0.25
0.10
0.05
0.025
1
0
65
286
418
957
2,000
5,554
7,142
2
0
102
477
898
1,857
4,335
9,067
12,176
3
28
98
392
734
1,285
2,210
4,466
8,209
4
10
81
241
438
893
2,203
3,783
4,956
5
12
69
314
608
1,032
2,280
4,387
7,161
6
17
107
282
430
785
1,642
2,506
4,566
7
0
46
212
457
859
2,108
3,668
5,201
8
20
70
295
541
833
1,867
3,086
6,609
9
30
129
488
708
1,216
3,058
4,196
7,087
-------
TABLE 23 (Concluded)
(c) Conveyorlzed Vapor Degreaser
Concentration Number of Persons Exposed by Geographic Region
uevei —
Ug/m3)
5
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.5
.0
.5
.25
.10
.50
.025
1
3
5
7
17
1
120
388
749
,451
,265
,867
,451
,876
2
i
263
672
1,328
2,657
5,205
12,172
13,975
33,443
3
246
496
933
1,674
3,407
6,198
8,716
14,469
4
122
320
764
1,188
2,350
4,663
7,850
17,000
5
182
400
753
1,548
2,869
5,726
7,238
14,167
6
144
338
636
908
1,794
4,019
4,884
7,038
7
107
229
596
1,154
2,471
4,926
5,720
15,000
8
149
314
648
1,214
2,438
4,262
6,905
8,857
9
216
542
1,048
1,491
3,260
5,794
10,363
15,758
-------
co
en
TABLE 24. TRICHLOROETHYLENE DOSAGE RESULTING FROM MODEL DEGREASER EMISSIONS
[(ug/m3)/person]
(a) Cold Degreaser
Concentration Geographic Region
Level
( ug/m3)
0.25
0.10
0.05
0.025
0.010
0*
1
0
0
9
19
25
52
2
0
5
22
38
50
98
3
• 0
12
27
34
42
66
4
0
9
15
22
28
49
5
0
8
19
26
33
55
6
2
9
16
22
27
40
7
0
4
11
16
22
43
8
3
8
16
23
28
47
9
8
19
25
38
47
70
-------
cn
TABLE 24 (Continued)
(b) Open Top Vapor Degreaser
Concentration Geographic Region
Level
( ug/ra3)
5.0
2.5
1.0
0.5
0.25
0.10
0*
1
0
180
488
598
803
979
1,579
2
0
325
915
1,252
1,588
1,960
2,953
3
154
406
924
1,171
1,349
1,498
1,998
4
74
312
551
704
878
1,070
1,478
5
59
260
. 682
895
1,034
1,232
1,671
6
117
351
622
732
853
974
1,211
7
0
161
424
590
719
892
1,296
8
132
285
621
787
891
1,057
1,420
9
230
570
1,063
1,217
1,429
1,719
2,109
-------
CO
TABLE 24 (Concluded)
(c) Conveyorized Vapor Degreaser
Concentration Geographic Region
tevei
( ug/m3)
5.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0*
0
5
0
50
25
10
1
2
2
3
3
4
1
850
,700
,210
,680
,260
,730
,700
2
1,900
3,230
4,260
5,200
6,070
7,250
8,810
3
2,160
3,040
3,730
4,250
4,790
5,210
5,950
4
1,150
1,860
2,500
2,790
3,220
3,640
4,400
5
1,490
2,260
2,850
3,400
3,830
4,300
4,980
6
1,360
2,000
2,400
2,620
2,940
3,250
3,620
7
850
1,310
1,910
2,320
2,750
3,150
3,850
8
1,310
1,900
2,490
2,880
3,300
3,570
4,220
9
2,220
3,310
4,090
4,420
5,160
5,500
6,300
* Total dosage resulting from emissions from one model source in a
-------
where nm r is the total number of model source m (a CD, an OTVD, or a CVD)
in region r. On the other hand, the total nation-wide exposure-dosage
resulting from emissions from one type of model source can be derived by
(Total exposure at L .)m = (e^ x n^) , (21)
m=l
9
(Total dosage at L.)m=£ (dm>r x n^) . (22)
The following two equations were used to estimate the total U.S.
exposure-dosage for the fraction of the population exposed to concen-
trations of trichloroethylene greater than or equal to a number of concen
tration levels, Lj, emitted from this source category:
Total exposure at L . = (e^ x n^) , (23)
r=l m=l
Total dosage at Lj - ^ 2-r (dm,r x nm,r} ' (24)
r=l m=l
138
-------
The results of such summations are shown in Tables 25, 26, and 27.
The two different approaches for computing total dosages resulting
from emissions from trichloroethylene-using degreasers produce different
results. By using the uniform emissions approach, the total U.S. dosage
of trichloroethylene resulting from degreasing operations is computed to
be 1.88 x 10° ug/nr* - person (see Table 19), whereas use of the point
source approach results in a dosage of 2.28 x 10^ ug/m3 - person (see
Table 27). The two approaches can be compared by examining the nature and
detail of the results they offer:
> Degreasing facilities are obviously not uniformly distri-
buted in any siting area. They are point sources and pro-
duce typical point source concentration patterns. Thus,
the exposure levels for receptors close to the source
would be higher than those farther away. The point source
approach would provide better differentiation of the
exposed population and dosage at different concentration
levels, whereas the uniform emissions approach would pro-
vide only a nationwide average exposure level. Tables 23,
24, and 27 list the exposure-dosage by different types of
degreasers. These types of data are useful for risk
analysis and regulatory decision making. For example, one
may conclude from data listed in Table 27 that, although
open top vapor degreasers contribute most to the total
dosages, the conveyorized vapor degreasers contribute most
to the dosage-exposure at high concentration levels.
> The dosage is defined here as the product of concentration
and exposed population. Therefore, it is necessary to set
an arbitrary boundary for dispersion-dosage estimates for
emissions from point sources. In the point-sources
139
-------
TABLE 25. NATIONWIDE TRICHLOROETHYLENE EXPOSURE RESULTING FROM
EMISSIONS FROM DECREASING OPERATIONS
Concentration
Level
(ug/m3)
5
2
1
0
.0
.5
.0
.5
1
14
79
245
398
2
64
282
876
1,690
3
148
371
1,060
1,960
4
144
624
1,700
2,930
5
21
66
209
413
6
12
42
108
161
7
7
34
125
260
8
7
19
65
120
9
62
205
610
880
u.o.
Total
349
1,160
3,470
6,170
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated computations.
-------
TABLE 26. NATIONWIDE TRICHLOROETHYLENE DOSAGE RESULTING FROM
EMISSIONS FROM DECREASING OPERATIONS
[106 (Mg/m3) - person]
Concentration r u,-,. n~~*~~
Level
(Mg/m3)
5
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.5
.0
.50
.25
.10
.05
.025
.010
0*
1
0.10
0.29
0.52
0.64
0.82
0.97
1.16
1.26
1.38
1.57
2
0.46
1.17
2.10
2.72
3.32
4.08
4.63
5.07
5.56
6.33
3
1.14
1.94
3.12
3.77
4.29
4.88
5.47
5.86
6.07
6.76
4
0.13
0.29
0.45
0.54
0.66
0.82
0.91
0.98
1.07
1.23
5
0.15
0.31
0.57
0.70
0.80
0.98
1.13
1.24
1.31
1.53
6
0.10
0.20
0.29
0.33
0.39
0.45
0.49
0.54
0.56
0.63
7
0.06
0.15
0.30
0.39
0.47
0.59
0.67
0.74
0.83
0.99
8
0.05
0.09
0.16
0.20
0.23
0.27
0.31
0.34
0.36
0.42
9
0.57
1.06
1.63
1.82
2.17
2.56
2.70
2.91
3.09
3.34
U.5.
Total
2.76
5.50
9.13
11.10
13.20
15.60
17.50
18.90
20.20
22.80
Total dosage, assuming the exposed area Is within 22.5 km radius of the source.
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated computations.
-------
TABLE 27. NATIONWIDE TRICHLOROETHYLENE EXPOSURES AND DOSAGES RESULTING FROM
EMISSIONS FROM DIFFERENT TYPES OF DECREASING FACILITIES
9
Concentration
Level Exposure (106 persons exposed) Dosage [106 (ug/m3) - person]
CD OTVD CVD Total
0 0.59 2.17 2.76
0 2.17 3.33 5.50
0 4.91 4.22 9.13
0 6.22 4.89 11.1
0.06 7.46 5.63 13.2
0.46 8.83 6.31 15.6
1.01 9.93 6.53 17.5
1.46 10.60 6.92 18.9
1.84 11.20 7.20 20.2
1X3 0** — -- -- — 3.15 12.20 7.43 22.8
Cold degreaser.
* Open top degreaser.
^ Conveyorized vapor degreaser.
Total dosage, assuming the exposed area is within 22.5 km radius of the source.
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated computations.
(ug/nr)
5.0
2.5
1.0
0.50
0.25
0.10
0.05
0.025
0.010
0**
CD*
0
0
0
0
—
—
—
—
—
.•> mm
OTVDt
0.09
0.57
2.30
4.06
--
—
--
—
--
— • «
CVD§
0.26
0.59
1.17
2.11
--
--
—
--
—
— —
Total
0.35
1.16
3.47
6.17
--
—
--
—
—
"
-------
approach, the Impact area of one model source is defined
as being within a 22.5 km radius of the source. As
revealed by the data in Tables 26 and 27 , dosages
decrease rapidly with decreasing concentration levels;
thus, dosages also decrease dramatically as one moves
farther away from the source. This convergency nature of
the dosages as a function of concentrations indicates that
the dosages contributed by exposures outside the
arbitrarily defined impact areas (r < 22.5 km) would not
be significant compared to the total dosage within the
impact area.
The total dosage for a specified population can be estimated by using
either of the following two methods:
> Estimate the dosage resulting from emissions from each
nearby source and sum them.
> Estimate the overall exposed concentration level and then
compute the total dosage.
Since the overall exposed concentration level cannot be derived
because of the lack of data on geographical distributions of sources, the
first method was used here.
By examining the results derived from adoption of the two approaches
and considering the above information, the study team concluded that the
point source approach would be more appropriate for dealing with all
general point sources in this study. However, not all the data involved
would be listed in each individual chemical exposure-dosage summary, and
only the modeling results and the major input data, such as the number of
sources in each region and the emissions characteristics, would be
delineated.
143
-------
AREA SOURCE MODELING APPROACH
Certain of the chemicals to be studied in the Human Exposure program
are emitted from area sources that cannot be specified in detail; such
emissions must be inferred by relating them to population, motor vehicles,
etc. However, different urbanized areas with different levels of popula-
tion/motor vehicles concentrations are likely to be exposed to different
levels of these ambient chemicals under different environmental
settings. Because the number of urbanized areas to be studied is quite
large, it is necessary to use a simple dispersion algorithm to estimate
concentration patterns. The Hanna-Gifford urban area dispersion algorithm
(Hanna, 1971; Hanna and Gifford, 1973) has proved to be a simple but
physically realistic model capable of estimating atmospheric pollutant
concentrations caused by area source emissions in cities. The basic
Hanna-Gifford Equation is given as: -
(25)
where X is the air pollutant concentration, Q0 is the effective emissions
rate per unit area, and w is the average wind speed. The parameter C,
generally referred to as the Hanna-Gifford coefficient, is a weak function
of the city size; it may be taken to be approximately constant. Theoret-
ically, the parameter C is given by:
(2/*)1/2 • x~b I Ca(l-b)]-1 , (25)
144
-------
where x is the distance from a receptor point to the upwind edge of the
area source. The constants a and b are defined by the vertical atmos-
pheric diffusion length, a^ = ax• Values of a and b for different atmos-
pheric dispersion conditions have been discussed by Pasquill (1970,
1971). The parameter C can be estimated for various combinations of the
stability factors a and b and by assuming that x equals half the city size
(Hanna, 1978). For example, 213 would be an appropriate value of C for a
city with a land area of 400 km2 under Pasquill Class D stability (while a
= 0.15 and b = 0.75). Specific values of the parameter C have been
empirically estimated by Hanna and Gifford (1973) for a large number of
U.S. cities based on a large quantity of air quality data, average annual
emissions, and meteorological conditions. The mean value of C has been
found to equal 225, with a standard deviation roughly half that magni-
tude. This value of the parameter C has been recommended for use in
evaluating an area source by the EPA (1977a,b) if removal and decay
processes may be neglected. Because a large number of cities with dif-
ferent sizes would be considered in this study, the theoretical estimates
of the parameter C were calculated by using Equation 2 and by assuming
Pasquill Class D stability as the average long-term meteorological condi-
tion. This is the EPA-recommended approach.
Three types of cities were assessed in this study. Type I cities
include all 248 Urbanized Areas in the United States, as determined by the
U.S. Bureau of Census (1973). An "Urbanized Area" consists of a central
city or cities with 50,000 inhabitants or more in 1960 and the surrounding
densely settled territory. Figure 13 displays the location and size of
these Urbanized Areas. The widely used data bases for Standard Metro-
politan Statistical Areas (SMSAs), displayed in Figure 14, were not used
here. A comparison of Figures 13 and 14 shows clearly that the delinea-
tion of Urbanized Areas provides a better separation of urban and rural
populations in the vicinity of large metropolitan areas. Most of the
145
-------
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1973).
FIGURE 13. U.S. URBANIZED AREAS (1970)
-------
Source: U.S. Federal Highway Administration (1974)
FIGURE 14. U.S. STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS (1970)
-------
Urbanized Areas can be further divided into inner cities and urban
fringe. The central cities were classified as inner cities and any
Urbanized Areas outside the central cities were classified as urban
fringe. The latest census data for the Urbanized Areas are based on the
1970 census survey results (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1973); accordingly,
1970 population data were used throughout this study even though more up-
to-date population data (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1978) are currently
available at other levels of population unit/grouping. The 1973 statis-
tics on motor vehicle registrations in the SMSAs were obtained from the
U.S. Federal Highway Administration (1974) and were used, together with
population data, as the bases for estimating the number of automobiles and
trucks and buses in the Urbanized Areas (for both inner city and urban
fringe). These 1970 population and 1973 motor vehicle data were subse-
quently extrapolated to 1978 figures based on statistics at the state
level. Table 28* lists the land areas, 1970 population, and 1973 motor
vehicle data for Type I cities. The statistics for trucks include buses
and all other heavy duty vehicles. The total 1970 population in these 248
Urbanized Areas is 118,446,000, which is about 59 percent of the total
U.S. population.
Type II cities include all cities with a 1970 population larger than
25,000 but not located in any Urbanized Area. The total population
residing in the 243 Type II cities is 8,594,000, which is about 4.3 per-
cent of the total U.S. population. Table 29* lists the land area, the
1970 population, and 1973 motor vehicle data for these cities. These
Type II city estimates used the same data sources and methodology as were
used for Type I city estimations.
Type III cities have 1970 populations of more than 2,500 but are not
Because of their length, Tables 28 and 29 appear at the end of
Section 3.
148
-------
included in Type I and Type II cities. There are over 1,000 cities and
towns in the United States in this category. Therefore, a sample of 150
cities of this type was pulled from the list (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1973,
Table B-2) using a random numbers table. Table 30* lists the land area,
1970 population, and 1973 motor vehicle data for these 150 cities and
towns. The motor vehicle data estimates were based on statistics at the
state level. The total population of these 150 cities and towns is
1,077,000 in 1970. It is about 5 percent of the total population
(21,708,000) in all Type III ci.ties. The exposure-dosage data estimated
for the 150 cities/towns were scaled by the ratio of all Type III popula-
tion to the sample population so as to represent exposure-dosage for all
Type III cities. Type III cities represented about 11 percent of the
total U.S. population in 1970.
Most of the U.S. population (about 75 percent) is included in cities
of Type I, II, or III. Chemical exposure-dosage in areas not represented
is deemed insignificant because of the low concentrations and low popula-
tion densities. As evidenced later in this report, this assumption—that
less densely populated areas would be exposed to insignificant ambient
concentrations—is valid. The atmospheric concentrations of chemicals
resulting from area source emissions were shown to be much lower for
residents in Type III cities than those in Type I cities. Rural popula-
tion densities and, therefore, rural concentrations are even lower.
Chemical emissions from area sources of various categories are esti-
mated and reported as national totals in the emissions summaries submitted
by HI. These national total emissions estimates have to be distributed
among cities of each of the three types. Depending on the nature of emit-
ting sources, the distribution can be accomplished by one of the following
methods:
* Because of its length, Table 30 appears at the end of Section 3.
149
-------
> Emissions from mobile sources can be distributed by the
number of motor vehicles.
> Emissions from home heating sources can be distributed by
the product of population and per capita heating require-
ment.
> Other stationary area sources can be distributed by popula-
tion.
Table 31 lists, in addition to those data listed in Tables 28, 29, and
30, the necessary data for area source emissions distributions. These
include the 1970 and 1978 state population data (U.S. Bureau of Census,
1979), 1973 and 1978 state motor vehicle data (U.S. Federal Highway
Administration, 1978), statewide average wind speed, and state-wide
average heating requirements in degree-days (U.S. Bureau of Census,
1979). The 1978 figures are estimates, as population/motor vehicle data
for each of the three types of cities are not available for 1978. These
data at the state level were used to project the growth. For example,
Anniston, Alabama, is a Type II city with city code 1 (as shown in Table
29). Its 1970 population was 31,058, and there were 16,800/3,692
autos/trucks registered in 1973. To estimate the 1978 statistics, the
state growth during the same period (as shown in Table 31) was used. The
1978 population in this city is estimated to be 31,508 x (3,724,000/
3,444,000) = 34,070. The 1978 auto/truck figure can be estimated in the
same way: 16,899 x (2,791,000/2,299,000) = 20,515; 3,692 x (2,791,0007
2,299,000) - 4,482.
Three equations were used to distribute the area sources into each of
the three types of cities (or urbanized areas). For mobile sources,
EM a78 + t78-R
gM * A 117,147,000 + 31,921,000-R ' ( '
150
-------
TABLE 31. MAJOR STATE STATISTICS RELATED TO AREA SOURCE
EMISSIONS DISTRIBUTION
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D.C.
Florida
Georgia
Hawai i
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyomi ng
U.S. Total
* Source:
t Source:
§ Source:
Population*
(in thousands)
1970 1978
3,444 3,724
300 420
1,771 2,365
1,923 2,176
19,953 22,153
2.207 2,674
3.032 3,119
548 587
757 680
6,789 8,687
4,590 5,116
769 912
713 878
11,114 11,265
5.194 5,348
2,824 2,886
2,247 2,335
3,219 3,491
3,641 3,95£
992 1,096
3.922 4,168
5.689 5,795
9,875 9.158
3,805 3.998
2.217 2,414
4,677 4,818
697 774
1.483 1.570
469 655
738 842
7,168 7.349
1,016 1,214
18,237 17,874
2.488 2,992
618 659
10.652 10,702
2,559 2,846
2,091 2,417
11,794 11,776
947 930
2,591 2,917
666 692
3,924 4.350
11,197 13,062
1,059 1,298
444 489
4,648 5.200
3,409 3,689
1,744 1,875
4,418 4,684
332 417
200.621 215,494
U.S. Census
U.S. Federal
U.S. Census
No. of Vehicles"
(in thousands) ...
1973
2,299
180
1,379
1.195
13,238
1.757
1,927
336
262
5.242
3,079
465
597
5,940
3,156
1,980
1,726
2.064
2,037
605
2,228
2,838
5.193
2,451
1,285
2,710
560
1.102
431
465
4,023
732
7,273
3,384
502
6,717
1,959
1,527
6,836
548
1,593
487
2,439
7.713
774
269
2,944
2,358
902
2,479
292
124,478
Bureau
1978
2,791
280
1,630
1,501
15,514
2,303
2,133
385
261
6,345
3,670
s;4
762
7,127
3,720
2,301
1,981
2,549
2,504
751
2,674
3,621
6,252
2,897
1,544
3,125
761
1,247
583
591
4,534
945
7,851
4,273
595
7,766
2,361
1,845
8,183
690
1,941
585
3,177
10,021
941
336
3,330
3.048
1,170
2,734
395
149.068
(1979).
£ £
erage Wind Speed Average Heating-
(m/sec)
4.4
4.0
3.0
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.2
4.3
5.6
4.3
4.9
4.6
5.3
6.0
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.5
6.0
4.7
5.2
3.6
4.7
6.2
5.2
3.1
3.2
5.1
4.3
4.9
3.7
5.0
4.5
6.1
3.7
4.5
5.1
3.3
5.3
4.1
4.4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.3
3.1-
5.6
6.3
Highway Administration
Bureau
(1979)
(dearee-dav/vear)
1.684
9,007
1,552
3,354
2,568
6,016
6.350
4.940
4.211
767
3,095
0
5,833
6,298
5,577
6,710
4,687
4,645
1,465
7,498
4,729
5,621
7,710
8,958
2,300
4,956
7,652
6.049
6,002
7,360
4,946
4,292
6,221
3,366
9,044
5,642
3,692
4,792
5,398
5.972
2,598
7,838
3,462
2,165
5.983
7,876
3,714
6,010
4,590
7,444
7.255
(1978).
151
-------
where
EM is the national total mobile source emissions ([g/sec)
of the chemical,
A is the land area of the city (m^),
a78 is the 1978 estimated number of automobiles in the
city,
t78 is the 1978 estimated number of trucks/buses in the
city,
R is the ratio of average truck emissions to the average
automobile emissions,
117,147,000 is the 1978 estimated national total number
of automobiles,
31,921,000 is the 1978 estimated national total number of
trucks/buses.
For heating sources,
n EH P78 • HR
WH " 7T ' 215,494,000 • 4633 '
where
EH is the national total heating source emissions
(ug/sec) of the chemical,
P78 is the 1978 estimated population in the city,
HR is heating requirements (degree-days/yr),
215,494,000 is the total U.S. population (excluding
military service) in 1978,
4633 is the population-weighted nationwide per-capita
heating requirement (degree-days/year).
152
-------
For nonheating stationary sources,
n EN P78
4N " T~ * 215,494,000 '
where EN is the national total emissions from nonheating stationary area
sources (yg/sec).
These three types of emissions can be summarized as the total area
source emissions in the specific city. Some of the chemicals may undergo
chemical decay in the ambient air. Therefore, the effective emissions
rates must be estimated, taking consideration of the decay factor. The
pseudo-first-order decay constants used in estimating effective emissions
rates in the dispersion modeling of point source emissions were applied
here also. The average time, t, that wind-blown pollutant remains within
a city was estimated by assuming the average travel distance to be half
the size of the city and the wind to be at its annual average speed. The
average of the daytime and nighttime effective emissions rates was used as
the overall effective emissions rate, Q0, in Equation 1 in estimating the
annual average concentration. The equation used in deriving the effective
emissions rate is:
Q0 = (QM + QH + Qw) • [exp(-Kdi-) + exp(-Kn -)]/2 , (30)
where Kd is the daytime chemical decay rate (sec'1), Kn is the nighttime
chemical decay rate (sec'1), and y is the average wind speed (m/sec).
153
-------
The total dosage of ambient chemical in a specific city can be esti-
mated by multiplying the average ambient concentration of the chemical, x»
by the estimated 1978 population of that city. These exposure-dosage data
for all three types of cities can be summarized at different exposure
levels. The contribution of each of the three types of area emissions to
the total dosage can alsp be estimated for each city and for all cities as
a whole. The distribution of national total dosages among the three types
of cities can also be estimated.
A computer program has been coded to conduct the estimation and data
summarization as described above. Beryllium emitted from area sources was
used as an example to exercise the program and to illustrate the nature
and details of the estimated results. Table 32 lists the data input
required for estimating the exposure-dosage resulting from area source
emissions of beryllium. Tables 33, 34, and 35 list the annual average
ambient concentration computed with the box model, the estimated 1978
population, the total resulting dosages, and the percentage contribution
of total dosage by the different types of area sources for each of three
types of cities. The overall national total beryllium exposure and dosage
resulting from area source emissions are listed in Table 36.
This approach was used to estimate the human exposure and dosages
resulting from chemical emissions from area sources in this study.
154
-------
TABLE 32. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE
RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF BERYLLIUM
Parameter
Value
(gm/sec)
Sources
CJl
en
Daytime decay rate (Kd)
Nighttime decay rate (Kn)
Hanna-Gifford coefficient (C)
Nationwide heating source emissions
Residential/commercial coal burning
Residential/commercial oil burning
Nationwide nonheating stationary source
emissions (EN)
Coal-burning
Oil-burning
Nationwide mobile source emissions (EM)
Ratio of truck emissions to auto emissions (RM)
0
0
225
0.203
0.058
0.145
Section 2
Section 2
EPA, 1977
0.538
0.396
0.142
0.0693
3.0
-------
TABLE 33. BERYLLIUM EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS IN TYPE I CITIES
in
CITY
TYPE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY
CODE CITY NArtF.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
AIHENE.TX
AKRON, OH
ALBANY. CA
ALBANY, NY
ALDUOirEROUE.NN
ALLF.NTOVN.PA
ALTOONA, PA
AHARILLO.TX
ANDERSON, IN
ANN ARnOR.nt
APPLETON.WI
APIIEVILLE.NC
AitAliTA. c A
ATLANTIC CITY.ItJ
AUGUSTA, GA
AURORA, IL
AUSTIN. TX
BAKKRSFIELO.CA
B ALT 1 MORE. HD
BATON ROUGE. LA
BAY CITY. HI
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
unnAN
INNER
UnnAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
unnAN
IN NCR
unnAN
INNER
unnAN
INNER
unnAN
INNER
INNER
unnAN
INNER
unnAN
INNER
unnAN
INNER
unnAN
INNER
unnAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
I'lUIAN
INNER
unnAN
INNER
unnAN
INNER
. unnAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
unnAN
INNER
unnAN
CITY / EXPO LEVEL
FRINGE HIGX(H)3) f
CITY
FRINGE
CITY .
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE'
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE .
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
. OO0078
.OOOO 15
. 000320
.000128
. OOO 1 44
. OOO049
. OOO348
.OOO 133
.OOO232
.OOOI III
. 000303
.OOO 164
.OOO34O
. 0000117
. OOO 1 29
.000115
. 000080
. OOO279
. OOO209
.OOO2 17
. OOO 1 55
.000 inn
. OOOO66
. OOO27O
. OOO 1 76
.OOO 177
. OOOO87
. 0002 1 2
.01101211
. 000255
.0001211
. OOO223
. OO0047
.OOO 160
. O002 1 1
. 000766
. 00022 1
. O00247
.000114
. OO0275
. OOOIOfi
DOSAGE
POP 3-
PERSOIO PERSON)
IO439I
1265
2767 1 2
268619
80945
4334
251548
225292
291253
64165
212136
I5O079
62002
18868
142332
72953
10143
102979
8 1-320
601162
76050
69233
17894
55398 i
753193
49098
8830 1
66724
9«»298
131754
104327
293760
14794
77179
1 19508
96257 1
716298
I8O420
9O762
51025
2956 1
8.
*
88.
34.
II.
%
87.
29.
67.
7.
64.
24.
21.
1 .
18.
II.
t
28.
17.
13.
II.
13.
i.
149.
132.
a.
7.
14.
12.
33.
13.
65.
PERCENTAGE
OF CONTRIBUTION
IIF. AT 1 NC STAT 1 ONARY
2
0
5
3
7
2
5
9
5
6
2
7
4
6
4
4
8
8
O
2
9
O
2
5
9
7
7
2
7
6
3
6
.7
12.3
25.2
737. 1
158.0
44.6
10.3
14.0
3.
, 1
13.3
13.3
29.2
29.2
18.5
18.5
31.8
31.8
2tl . 5
23.5
28.4
28.4
28.4
28.4
13.2
28.9
28.9
36.2
36 . 2
35 . fl
35.8
19.6
19.6
18.3
18.3
26.8
26.8
18.5
IB. 5
31.3
31.3
13.6
13.6
15.3
15.5
26.0
26.0
9.5
9.5
36. 1
36. I
75.3
75.3
63.6
63.6
73.5
73.5
62.7
62.7
«.r.3
67.3
64.6
64.6
64.6
64.6
74.7
63.7
63.7
57.7
57.7
59.0
59. 0
71.5
71.5
72.5
72.5
66.6
66.6
73.3
73 . 3
61. 1
61. 1
76.9
76.9
73.9
73.9
67.6
67.6
79.4
79.4
57.4
57.4
won i LE
11.4
11.4
7.2
7.2
8.9
8.9
5.5
5.5
9.2
9.2
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.O
12.2
7.4
7.4
6. 1
6. 1
5.2
5.3
8.9
8.9
9.2
9.2
6.6
6.6
8.3
8.3
7.5
7.5
9.5
9.3
10.7
10.7
6.3
6.3
II. 1
II. 1
6.5
6.5
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
CITY
TYPE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY
CODE
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
3O
39
40
41
42
cltV RAKE
BEAUHONT.TX
BILL INGS, MONT
BILOXI.MS
BINGBAMTON.NY
BIRHIHCIIAM.AL
BLOOM IfJCTON. IL
BOISE CITY, ID
BOSTON. MASS
BOULDER. CO
BRIDGEPORT. CONN
BRISTOL, CONN
BROCKTON. MAPS
BROWNS VILLE.TX
BRYAN. TX
BUFFALO, NY
CANTON . Oil
CF.DAR RAPIDS. IOWA
CHArtPA ICN-URBANA, IL
CIIARLESTON.SC
CHARLESTON. WV
CHARLOTTE. NC
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
IN HER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
innr.R
URBAN
INNER
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
CITY s
FKlNCfc
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
C 1 TY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FR 1 NGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
EXPO LEVEL
3) i
.OO0I04
. 000005
.OOO20O
.OOO03O
.000102
.OOOO7O
.000277
.000141
. OOO223
.0001 13
.OOO221
. 0:1003 1
. OOO239
. OOO 1 1 3
. OO0654
. OO02 1 1
. 000354
. OOOOOO
.000594
.OOO 154
.OOO 136
. OOOO90
.OOO 17')
. OOO004
.OOO 191
.OOO 107
. 000050
. OOO024
. OOO24O
.
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
tn
CITY
TYPE
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY
CODE CITY WAHF.
43
44
43
46
47
4(1
49
50
31
52
53
34
55
56
57
50
59
60
61
62
63
CHATTANOCA. TENN
CHICAGO. IL
C INC INN AT 1,011
CLEVELAND. OH
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO
COLUMBIA. Ho1
COLUI1BIA.SC
COLUMBUS. GA
coLimous.on
CORPUS CIIRISTI.TX
DALLAS, TX
DANHURY.CONN
DAVENPORT, IOWA
DAYTON. OH
DECATUR. IL
DENVER. CO
DES MOINES.IOVA
DETROIT, Ml
DUBUOUE. IOWA
DULUTH MN
nuninu.itc
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
INNER
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
1 NNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
1 NNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
I NNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
CITY X EXPO LEVEL
FRINGE Mli;/MMKM <
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
CITY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
.000143
.UOIM O4
. OOO904
. OOO2»>4
. OO0379
.OOO 194
. O00643
.OOO 177
. OOO 1 04
.OOOIOI
. OOOOOO
. OOO209
.OOO 144
. OOO009
. OO026O
.3-
( PERSON) PERSON)
133613
1 15564
374296 I
3062043
454674
6
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
CITY
TYPE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
_, 1
en
vo |
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY
CODE
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
no
01
O2
83
04
CITY NAME
EL PASO.TX
EH IE. PA
EUGENE. OR
EVANSViLLE, IN
FALL RIVER. MASS
FARGO. NH
FAYETIEVILLE.NC
FICHBURC.NASS
FLINT, MI
FORT LAUDERDALE.FL
FORT SMITH.AR
FORT WAYNE. IH
FORT WORTH. TX
FRESNO. CA
CADSDEN.AL
CAINSVILLE.FL
CALVESTON.TX
CRAW* RAP IDS, MI
GREAT FALLS.MT
GREEN BAY.WI
GREENSBORO. NC
INNER
URBAN
INNER
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
UP DAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
1 NNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
inriKR
URBAN
INNER
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
CITY / EXPO LEVEL
FRINGE <"<;x
CITY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY ,
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
.000191
. ooo:if.9
.000103
. OOO226
.OOO 171
. OOO233
. OOOO36
.OOO 155
.OOO 193
.OO0272
."OOO If.
.OOO 164
.000171
. 000065
. OOOO 1 3
. O003O 1
.000132
.OO0291
.OOO 173
. OOO 1 03
. OOO055
.O002 16
.OOO 1 40
.000142
.OOOIOO
.OO0250
.OOO 162
. OOOOO9
. O0003 1
.OHO |.|f,
. 000074
.000140
. O00296
.0001 14
.OOO 199
. OOO066
.0001 17
. 000063
.000217
.000076
POP
(PERSON)
393681
129022
45972
00243
72722
J420O2
3O9O
95190
41690
87240
2539
64349
I297O9
77703
1003
199546
141 IOO
315404
4699 1 1
7 1 064
14307
103007
40052
45O999
31)0690
104271
107624
50294
14916
O2 5 45
6166
72104
203032
1 60 1 1 6
66729
I200O
92963
43914
173465
«)620
DOSAGE
PERSON)
75.
47.
4.
20.
12.
33.
.
14.
8.
23.
.
10.
22.
5.
.
75.
21.
92.
01 .
7.
f
39.
7.
65.
35.
46.
17.
5.
,
12.
.
10.
60.
IO.
13.
,
10.
2.
37!
.
PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTION
0
6
7
0
4
3
1
8
1
7
O
6
2
1
0
9
4
0
5
3
0
6
3
0
9
1
4
2
5
O
5
7
3
3
3
O
9
7
6
7
HEATING
13.7
2O. 4
2O.4
25 . 0
25.8
20.6
20.6
30. 1
30. 1
39.0
39. O
20. 1
2O. 1
29.2
29.2
36. O
36. O
5.3
5.3
19.0
19. O
2O.9
2O. 9
13.4
In. 4
15.5
15.5
IO.7
10.7
r. .3
5.3
13.6
35.9
35.9
34.9
34.9
35.7
35.7
19.6
19.6
STATIONARY
77.9
64.6
64.6
66. 1
66. 1
63. 1
63. 1
61.8
61. B
53.5
53.5
73.2
73.2
63. O
63. fl
57.4
57.4
O4.7
04.7
69.7
69.7
63.7
63.7
76.0
76.0
74.2
74.2
77.9
77.9
nr> . i
05. 1
77.3
57.2
57.2
56. O
56. O
5O.9
50.9
71.4
71.4
MOB 1 LE
8.4
7.O
7.0
O.O
0.0
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.2
7.5
7.:;
6.7
6.7
6.9
6.9
6.6
6.6
IO.O
10. O
1 1.2
1 1.2
7.4
7.4
10.6
10.6
IO.3
10.3
11.5
ii. n
C) _f,
9. 1
6.8
6.O
9. 1
9.2
5.4
5.4
9.O
9.O
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
CITY CITY
TYPE CODE
1 83
1 06
1 07
1 80
1 89
1 9O
1 91
1 92
1 93
1 94
1 95
1 96
1 97
1 90
1 99
1 100
1 101
1 102
1 103
1 IO4
1 103
CITY NAME
CREENSVILLE.SC
HAMILTON. OH
HARLINCEN.TX
HARRISBURY.PA
HARTFORD. CONN
HIGH POINT.NC
HONOLULU. HAWAII
HOUSTON. TX
HUriTINCTON.WV
HWSVILLE.AL
INDIANAPOLIS. IN
JACKSON. Ml
JACKSON , MS
JACKSONVILLE.FL
JOHNSTOWN . PA
JO MET. IL
KALAMA700.H1
KANSASCITY.MO
KENOSHA.WI
KNOXVILLE.TENN
LA CR')SSE,WI
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URRAN
Hint. ii
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
INNER
URBAN
INNER
I'RP.AN
INNER
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
. INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
DOSAGE
CITY / EXPO LEVEL POP 3) (PERSON) PERSON)
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY ,
FRINGE
CITY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
.O002 16
.000157
. 000220
. OOO059
.OOOOo I
.000074
. 0004:10
.OOO 156
. OOO560
. OOO2 1 1
.OOO 156
.OOOIO4
.000169
.OOO 145
. OOO229
. 0002O'»
.OOOUiCI
. OOO 1 69
. OOO079
. 00003O
.000172
. OO0239
. OOOO02
.OOO2 16
.OOOCI4
. OOO 1 23
. 000346
.OOO 133
. OOO250
.0001 16
.O002IO
. OOO093
.000130
. 000235
. OOO200
. 000053
.TOO 164
. 00009 H
.OOO 166
. OOOO64
60909
109052
67934
23404
3'»09T
19777
67776
172607
162551
315795
75800
366011
305202
I3937O
1437679
519652
1 1 1346
60024
I490O7
9393
844579
46931
34146
167649
50IO7
67764 1
42411
5350O
797 1 2
77900
00392
6O54O
695752
43925O
03562
5772
193540
17642
54232
12955
14.
17.
15.
1.
3.
1.
29.
26.
91.
66.
1 1 .
3.
65.
20.
329.
I4O.
42.
II.
II.
145 !
II.
2.
36.
6.
83.
14.
7.
19.
9.
19.
6.
95.
103.
23.
31 .
1.
9.
9
1
5
4
12
5
1
9
O
5
O
O
O
3
O
0
7
7
8
3
3
2
8
2
~
2
7
1
9
1
3
4
8
1
4
3
a
7
O
8
PERCENTAGE
RE AT INC
15.9
15.9
29.2
29.2
i:i. o
13.0
211.4
2O. 4
31.0
3I.O
19.6
19.6
O.
0.
13.5
13.5
25 . 0
25.0
10.6
IO.6
29. 1
33.9
35.9
14.3
14.3
5.3
28.4
28.4
31.3
31.3
33.9
33.9
26.6
26.6
35.7
35.7
20. 1
20. 1
35.7
35.7
OF CONTRIBUTION
STATIONARY
73.
75.
63.
63.
70.
7O.
64.
64.
61.
61.
71.
71.
92.
92.
76.
76.
66.
66.
77.
77.
64.
57.
57.
76.
76.
05.
64.
64.
61.
61.
57.
57.
65.
65.
58.
58.
71.
•
0
6
6
3
3
6
6
5
5
4
4
2
2
4
4
O
0
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
4
6
6
1
1
2
o
O
fl
9
9
2
71.2
58.8
58.8
MOBILE
9. 1
9. 1
7.2
7.2
7."
7.9
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.7
•). O
9.O
7.0
7.11
10.2
10.2
8.2
0.2
12. 1
12. 1
6.8
6.8
6.8
9.6
9.6
9.3
7.0
7.0
7.5
7.5
6.0
6.8
7.6
7.6
5.4
5.4
8.7
8.7
5.5
5.5
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
CITY
TYPE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY
CODE
IO6
107
100
109
1 10
1 1 1
112
113
114
115
116
i 17
I 18
1 19
120
'21
122
123
124
125
126
CITY NAME
LAFAYETTE. LA
LAFAYETTE. IN
LAKE CHARLES. LA
LANCASTER, PA
LANS ING. MI
LAREDO, TX
LAS VEGAS. NV
LAWRENCE, MASS
LAWTON.OK
LEW 1STON. MAINE
LEXIHGTON.KY
LI MA. OH
LINCOLN. NEB
LITTLE ROCK.AR
LORAIN.OH
LOS ANf-ELES.CA
LOUISVILLE.KY
LOWELL. MASS
LUBBOCK.TX
LYNCIIBURG.VA
flACON . CA
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNF.Il
UIIBAN
INNER
UIIBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
UBBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URDAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URDAN
INNER
URDAN
INNER
URBAN.
INNER
URDAN
INNER
INNER
UllDAN
INHER
URBAN
CITY /
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY ,
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
EXPO LEVEL
MIG/
.OOO 190
. OOOOO9
. 000257
.OOO 160
.POOI9O
.00004O
. 000302
.OOOIOO
.OOO255
.OOO 163
.OOO 176
. O00032
. O003 1 2
.OOO2 I 3
.OOOI 33
. 00009 1
.OOO 106
. OO0066
.0000') 5
. OOOO55
. OOO3 1 2
.000193
.OOO240
. OOO06O
.OOOI7O
. OOOO59
. 000223
. 000 1 1 6
. OOO200
. OOO059
. OO0526
.OO044 1
. OO03O5
. OOO 1 OO
.OO0279
. 000096
. OOO 1 27
.000128
.000076
.OOO 1 56
.0001 Ml
POP
(PERSON)
74990
10392
46207
35174
04700
II 155
57501
59417
135035
IOIOOI
00419
1469
160292
140734
115153
88050
02996
23421
46159
25009
1 17274
55744
53733
16091
150209
4155
1 69 1 89
02715
132768
60399
40I9M7
525295 1
372169
3O9I40
96007
100314
17514!
60505
10749
136452
6200
DOSAGE
(UGX(M)3-
PF.RSON)
14.2
.9
1 1 .9
5.9
16. 1
.5
22.0
6.4
34.6
16.5
14.2
.0
52.6
31.7
15.3
8. i
8.8
1.5
4.4
1.4
36.6
10.8
12.9
I.O
28. 1
.2
37.7
9.6
26.6
3.5
2115.6
2314.1
143. 1
70.2
26. O
9.6
22.2
7.0
1.4
21.3
. 7
PERCENTAGE OF COUTH 1 BUT I OH
HEATING
9.5
9.5
29 . 2
29.2
9.5
9.5
20.4
20.4
36. O
36. O
14. 1
14. 1
30. 1
30. 1
29.2
29.2
20.7
20.7
34.9
34.9
25.0
25.0
2O. 9
20.9
30 . 0
30. O
19.4
19.4
29 . 2
29! 2
15.9
15.9
20.9
20. 9
29 . 2
29^2
13.4
21.5
21.5
III. 4
IO.4
STATIONARY
79.
79.
64.
64.
79.
79.
64.
64.
57.
57.
80.
00.
61.
61.
63.
63.
68.
60.
57.
57.
66.
66.
63.
63.
62.
62.
71.
71.
63.
63.
75.
75.
63.
63.
63.
63.
76.
71.
71.
73.
73.
4
4
O
2
4
4
7
7
4
4
I
1
3
3
O
8
9
9
2
2
1
1
O
0
5
5
2
2
6
6
0
8
7
7
O
0
2
O
0
O
0
MOBILE
1 1. 1
1 1 . 1
6.6
6.6
1 1. 1
1 1. 1
6.9
6.9
6.6
6.6
5.0
5.8
8.6
8.6
6.9
6.9
10.4
1O.4
7.'>
7.9
0.8
8.8
8. 1
8. 1
6.7
6.7
9.4
9.4
7.2
7.2
0.3
0.3
7.4
7.4
6.9
6.9
1O.3
7.5
7.B
O. 5
8.5
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
PO
CITY
TYPE
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
CITY
CODE
127
128
129
ino
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
I4O
Ui
142
143
144
145
146
147
CITY NAME
MADISON. W|
MANCHESTER, NH
MANSFIELD, OH
MCALLEN , TX
MEMPHIS. MS
MERI DEN, CONN
NIAMI.FI,
MIDLAND.TX
MILLVAKEE.WI
MINNEAPOL1S.MN
riODILE.AL
MODESTO. C A
MONROE. LA
MONTGOMERY. AL
HUJfCiE. IN
MUSKECON.HI
NASHUA. Nil
NASIIVILLE.TENN
NEW BEDFORD, MASS
NEW nni TAIN, CONN
NEW HAVEN. CONN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
I'RRAN
INNER
INNER
URBAN
1 NNER
URRAN
INNER
URBAN
CITY X EXPO LEVEL
FRINGE < w;/( rn:i» i
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY ,
FRINGE
CITY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
. OOO2O3
.oooono
. 0002114
.OOOO92
.000131
. OOO074
.000143
.000147
. O00200
. 000 1 5 1
. OO0063
. O0059O
.OOO299
. OOO 1 2O
. OOOO 1 1
.OOO4 04
.OOOIO7
. ooor.oa
.OOO 141
.000101
. OOO074
.OOO343
.OOO 1011
.OOO 142
.OOOI04
. O03453
. 000049
. OOO204
. OOO09 1
.OOO 197
. OOO 1 03
. OOO 1 02
.000150
. OOO I 1 4
. 000220
. OOOO09
. OOO374
. OOO | 2 1
.000405
.000 IOO
DOSAGE
POP ( lH;x< M> 3-
IPF.RSON) PF.RSON)
103672
34154
IOO 120
0426
55259
22704
43904
62416
722976
57564
43714
42O75 1
1 13 1901
6963O
795
76O300
507564
7O2074
1000000
205432
73344
60516
492O9
61202
37169
446952
5960
7ll8l
21926
46054
63032
6307O
51165
4971 2O
103655
32502
05H35
49202
141666
216609
37.
2.
20.
_
7.
1.
6.
9.
202.
8.
2.
253.
338.
8.
t
352.
61.
393.
141.
20.
5.
23.
5.
8.
3.
1543.
2o!
2.
9.
6.
II.
.
56.
22.
2.
32!
PERCENTAGE
OF cfMrnummoN
HEATING STATIONARY
3
7
4
8
3
7
3
2
1
7
7
1
O
3
O
7
0
4
9
7
4
5
3
7
9
4
3
2
O
1
5
5
9
8
8
9
1
5.9
65.9
30.9
35.7
35.7
34. G
34.8
28.9
20. 9
13.7
13.7
14.4
31.8
31.8
5.4
5.4
13.2
13.2
36. O
36.0
39.7
39.7
IO.9
10.9
15.4
15.4
9.5
9.5
11.7
10.8
29.0
29.0
36. 1
36. 1
34.8
34 . II
20.0
29.2
29.2
31.8
31.8
31.0
31.8
58.9
58.9
50. 1
50. 1
62.8
62.8
78.0
78.0
77. 1
61.5
61.5
86.0
IN» . 6
75.0
75.0
59.3
59.3
54.4
54.4
79.3
79.3
73.4
73.4
79.4
79.4
85.0
79. 1
63.8
63.8
57.5
57.5
58.0
no. i
7O.9
63.8
63.8
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.5
Monn.E
5.4
5.4
7. 1
7. 1
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.4
6.7
6.7
8.7
o.o
11.8
11.7
4.7
4.7
5.9
5.9
9.9
9.9
11.2
11.2
II. 1
II. 1
3.4
10. 1
7.2
7.2
•6.4
6.4
7.2
7. 1
9. 1
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
CO
CITY
TYPE
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
CITY
CODE
140
149
ISO
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
I5B
159
160
161
162
103
164
165
166
167
168
169
CITY NAME
NEW ORLEANS, LA
NEW YORK. NY
NEWPORT. VA
NORFORK. VA
NORWALK.CONN
ODESSA. TX
OGDEN . UT
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK
OMAUA, IOWA
ORLANDO. FL
OSHKOSII.KY
OWENSHORO.KY
OXNARD.CA
PENSACOLA.FL
PEORIA. IL
PETERSBURG. VA
PHILADELPHIA. PA
PHOENIX. ARIZ
PINE BLUFF, AR
PITTSBURC.PA
PITTSFIELD.IIASS
PORT AUTIIER.TX
INNER
UIUJAN
INNER
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
INNER
URBAN
INNErt
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
up. r, \ri
INNKR
UHB
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
UllHAN
INNER
UIUI\N
IN HI R
URBAN
CITY / EXPO LEVEL
FRINGE (UC/(H)3)
CITY
CITY
FR 1 NCC
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
C 1 TY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
O 1 TY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
C 1 TY
FRINGE
C 1 TY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
. 000380
.00 1735
.OOO3 17
. 000 1 50
. OOO028
. OOO349
. OOOO88
. OUd229
. OOO086
.00(1237
.OOO024
.OOO253
.000166
.OOOIO3
. OOO273
.OOOI 16
.OOO2 17
. 000 1 4 1
.OOO207
. 000349
. 000042
.OOO 153
. OOO I 2 1
. OOO 1 44
.OOO 158
.OOO 197
.OOO 109
. 00023O
.OOOI 16
. OO0929
.OO0248
.OO0289
. OO023 1
.O00224
.000040
.O00584
.O0020I
.003703
.000054
.000073
.OOO 134
POP (
(PEICSON)
1045459
8644589
7239660
2897O9
10412
468664
278957
8I4<>4
28304
9 1435
3808
85 1 60
9835 1
644813
355006
146544
126632
264249
OOI67
54568
3053
j 80720
90908
76225
136975
1 28688
I2I79O
40390
72175
1997813
2124788
776670
376259
64833
4087
519373
1323(151
58188
5855
66937
68930
DOSAGE
PERSON)
397.
14995.
2294.
43.
.
163.
24.
18.
'ft
21.
f
<» 1
16.
66.
97.
17.
27.
37.
16.
19.
27!
1 1.
II.
21.
25.
13.
9.
8.
1856.
527.
224.
86.
14.
,
303.
266 .
215.
.
4.
9.
2
4
e
4
3
7
6
6
4
6
1
5
3
2
0
O
4
1
1
1
1
7
e
e
7
4
11
3
4
6
3
*fe
8
6
2
3
6
5
3
9
3
PERCENTAGE
HEATING
9.5
32 . 8
32.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
31.8
31.8
13.2
13.2
30.2
3O.2
20.7
33.0
33. 0
5.2
5.2
24.7
24.8
24.8
15.8
15.8
5.4
5.4
31.3
31.3
21.7
21.7
26.8
26 . IV
IO. 1
10. 1
19.7
19.7
28.4
28.4
29.2
29.2
13.5
13.5
OF CONTRIBUTION
STATIONARY
79.4
64.7
64.7
7 .9
7 .9
7 .9
7 .9
0 . !J
6 .5
74.6
74.6
62. O
62. O
68.9
6O.4
60.4
83 . 9
83 . 9
65.2
65.7
65.7
75.5
75.5
85.7
85.7
61.1
61.1
71.0
71.8
66 . 5
66.5
80 . 0
80. O
72.0
72.0
64.5
64.5
63.8
63.8
76.4
76.4
MOB 1 LE
1 1. 1
2.5
2.5
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
0.7
0.7
12.3
12.3
7.8
7.8
10.4
6.7
6.7
10.8
IO.8
IO.2
9.5
9.5
0.7
8.7
8.9
8.9
7.6
7.0
0 . .'»
0.5
0.7
6.7
9.8
9.8
8.:
8.:
7.
7 .
6.9
6.9
10.
10.
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
o»
CITY CITY
TYPE CODE
1 170
1 171
1 172
1 173
1 174
i 173
1 176
1 177
1 178
1 179
1 1OO
1 IOI
1 IO2
1 103
1 104
1 103
1 106
1 107
1 IOO
1 109
CITY NAME
PORTLAND, MAINE
PORTLAND, OR
PROVIDENCE.RI
PROVO.UT
PUEBLO. CO
RACINE. VI
RALEIGH, i(C
RE AD INC. PA
RENO.NEV
RICUMOND.VA
ROANOKE.VA
ROCHESTER, MN
ROCHESTER, NY
ROCKFORD, IL
SACRAMENTO.CA
SAC IN AW, Ml
ST. JOSEPII.no
ST. Louis.no
ST. PETERSBURG. FL
SALEM. OR
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
KUBAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
URBAN
IN Ml 11
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
CITY x EXPO LEVEL
FRINGE 4UCX(N>3> <
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
C 1 TV
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
. OO0223
. OOOO95
. OO0340
.OO02 15
.OO03 14
.000103
.000177
. OOOO09
.OOO3I 9
. OO004 1
. OOO35O
.000073
.OOO2 17
. 0000<>O
. O00437
.OOO 149
.000293
. 000357
. OO0274
.OOO 135
.OO:i20'»
.OOOIO4
. OO0225
. 000070
. OOO44O
.000177
. 000247
. OOO 1 22
. OOO 1 117
.0001115
.OOO3 16
.000131
. OOO 1 4 1
. OOOO54
. OOO6 1 O
. OOO239
. OOO253
.0001116
.OOO2I3
. OOO 1 4 1
DOSAGE
POP f UCx< M) 3-
! PERSON) PERSON)
71942
45B32
413242
479439
333723
447310
960114
3092 1
1 1 1107 4
70B4
IOO924
23552
145065
37473
O7407
ne if 10
97597
35929
279266
I0676B
103054
72 1 66
56493
29OI
29O336
299054
149204
59670
2024O9
421 196
94747
57509
75IO7
4363
640994
1290715
276472
357117
70UB9
20657
16.
4.
140.
103.
IO4.
73.
17.
2.
37.
.
35.
1.
31.
3.
30.
II.
20.
12.
76.
25.
21.
7.
12.
,
129.
52.
36.
7.
52.
77.
29.
7.
10.
9
391.
310.
69.
66.
16.
4.
PERCENTAGE
OP CONTRIBUTION
HEATING STATIONARY
1
3
5
"2
n
i
i
i
7
3
4
7
6
4
JJ
9
6
0
6
3
6
5
7
•t
5
9
II
3
9
9
9
3
6
2
1
7
9
4
O
0
34.9
34.9
29.9
29.9
3O. 1
30. 1
3O.3
3O.3
30.0
30. O
35. 0
35 . 0
19.4
19.4
20.4
20. 4
29.7
29.7
21.5
21.5
21.3
21.3
39.5
39 . 5
31.7
31.7
31.5
31.5
15.7
15.7
36. 1
36. 1
26.5
26.5
26.9
26.9
5.3
5.3
25. 0
25.0
57.
57.
61 .
61.
61.
61.
62.
62.
61 .
61.
59.
59.
70.
70.
64.
64.
6O.
60.
71.
71.
VO .
70.
54.
54.
62.
62.
61.
61.
74.
74.
57.
57.
65.
65.
66.
66.
o
2
O
O
B
0
3
3
*»
•»
0
0
9
9
6
6
5
5
1
1
4
4
1
1
6
6
4
4
O
0
5
5
6
6
6
6
115.0
115.0
66.2
66.2
MOBILE
7.9
7.9
9. 1
9. 1
O.2
0.2
7.4
7.4
0.9
O.9
5.2
5.2
9.6
. 9.6
7.0
7.0
9.9
9.9
7.4
7.4
a. 3
0.3
0.4
6.4
5.7
5.7
7.2
7.2
9.5
9.5
6.4
6.4
7.9
7.0
6.5
6.5
9.7
9.7
O.O
0.0
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
CITY
TYPE
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
_,
Cf\ I
in
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY
CODE
190
191
192
193
(94
195
196
197
I9U
199
200
201
202
203
2O4
205
206
207
200
209
210
CITY NAME
SAL IN AS. CA
SALT LAKE CITY.UT
SANANGELO.TX
SAN ANTON IO.TX
SAN BERNARD 1 NO, CA
SAN biEcd.cA
SAM FRANC I SCO, C A
SAN JOSE.CA
SANTA BARBARA, C A
SANTA ROSA. C A
SAVANNAII.CA
SCRANTON . PA
SEASIb£.CA
SEATTLE. WA
SHERMAN, TX
SUREVEPORT. LA
SI HI VALLEY. CA
SIOUX CITY. IOWA
SIOUX FALLS. SO
SOUTH REND. IN
SPOKAHE.WA
INNER
UllUAN
INNER
URBAN
INNf.ll
URBAN
INNER
INNER
DHU AN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
l'IUl\H
INNEH
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNKR
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
rimv<
iNiiEii
UllUAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
CITY / EXPO LEVEL
FRINGE UH;/(N)3>
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
C I TY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
KIllrtGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
.000207
. 000007
.000250
.(1002:12
.0001 12
.000254
.OOO 1711
. ooo i 5 i
.000134
.000175
. OOO5 1 1
. OO0700
.OO0277
. 0002.16
.OOO2VO
.OOO 190
. OU020.r>
.OOO 144
.0000110
. O00253
. OOO074
.OOO2:iO
. OOOO<> 1
. 00020.')
.OOO2 17
. O0042O
. O002OO
. OO0005
.000091
. 00020 1
. OOOOU4
.OOO 142
. 000006
. OOOO96
.000(1511
.OOO2CI
.OOO055
. OOO25O
.OOO 144
.000249
.OOO 149
DOSAGE
POP 3-
< PERSON) PERSON)
653O9
3952
215491
372030
74524
763200
137915
27IO04
376059
773360
557000
1269017
2047469
495735
6-1251)3
77952
66 1 30
5537 1
279O9
131905
5O6I2
103336
100557
691 14
34454
63204O
707 1 59
33922
3063O
190150
56036
62925
2OO
0701 1
10231
7530
27_
33.
3.
23 .
"9.
14.
7.
265.
141.
2.
«>
At'.
4.
0.
.
O.
I .
,
32.
24.
45.
9.
5
3
5
3
4
6
6
0
5
d
7
e
9
9
3
0
5
0
2
4
7
0
1
1
5
6
o
9
0
U
0
9
O
4
<>
(>
•>
4
1
9
5
PERCENTAGE
HEATING
15.11
15.0
30.2
30.2
13.2
13.7
13.7
15.5
15.5
is. II
15. 0
15.9
15.9
15.0
15.11
15.0
1 5 . 0
15.4
15.4
III. 5
IO.5
27.9
27.9
15.0
15.0
3O. 1
30. 1
13. 1
13. 1
9.5
9.5
15.0
15. O
32.6
ni.».
20.11
35.11
29 . 1
29. 1
29.0
29.0
OF CONTRIBUTION
STATIONARY MOBILE
75.6
75.6
62.0
62 . 0
75.0
77.5
77.5
73.9
73.9
75.6
75.6
75.9
75.9
75.4
":> . 4
75 . 4
75.4
73 . 6
73 . 6
73.5
73 . 5
63.4
63 . 4
75.6
75.6
61.4
61.4
74.2
74.2
79.4
79.4
75.5
75.5
59.6
K9 . (i
32.0
5(, . I
64. O
64.0
60 . 9
60.9
O.6
O.6
7.11
7.O
11.7
0.0
n.o
10.7
10.7
0.6
0.6
11.2
0.2
0.0
ii. a
II. 0
o.o
1 1 .0
1 1.0
11.0
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.6
I). 6
II. 5
O.5
12.7
12.7
1 1. 1
1 1. 1
O.7
0.7
7.O
7.8
40.7
O.O
0.9
6.9
9.4
9.4
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
cr>
CITY CITY
TYPE CODE
1 211
1 212
1 219
1 214
1 J1S
1 216
1 217
1 2IO
1 219
1 220
1 221
1 222
1 223
1 224
1 225
1 226
1 227
1 220
1 229
1 230
1 231
CITY NAME
SPRINGFIELD. IL
SPRINCFIELD.no
SPRINGFIELD. Oil
SPRINGFIELD, MASS
STAMFORD. CONN
STEUHENVILLE.OII
STOCKTON. CA
SYRACUSE. NY
TACOMA.WA
TALLAHASSEE. FL
TAMPA.FL
TERRE HAUTE. IN
TEXARKANA.TX
TEXAS CITY.TX
TOLEDO. OH
TOPEKA.KANS
TRENTON. NJ
TUCSON. ARIZ
TULSA.OK
TUSCALOOSA.AL
TYLER. TX
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
UniiAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
URDAN
INNER
UIUIAN
1 NHER
INNER
UIS'JAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
UIUIAN
CITY x EXPO LEVEL
FRINGE (UG'3> <
GITY
FR 1 NGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
FRINGE
GITY
FRINGE
CITY
FR 1 NGE
CITY
FRINGE
GITY
FR 1 NGE
CITY
FRINGE
. OO02O2
.000102
. OOO 1 2O
.OOOO35
. O002O7
. OOOO7 1
.OOO 165
. OOOOH4
.000|<»4
.OOO 159
.OOOI23
.004H2I
.OOO2 17
.OOO 174
. OOO4O4
.OOO 153
. OOO230
. 000 1 70
.OOO 161
. OOOO7O
. OO0225
.OOO 124
. OOO 1 56
. OOOOII6
. OOO 1 02
.OOOI02
. O00066
. O00342
. 0000(19
.OOO 124
. OOO047
.OOO599
.OOO 163
.OOO35 1
.OOOI 15
. ODOIO7
.OOO 11)7
.000123
. OO005II
.OOO 141
.000044
DOSAGE
POP (UG/
92115 1
295113
123616
1301
02234
1 1115 II
2R5II22
2311060
1 1 l<>70
711227
511300
27592
1 19307
5II74II
193343
1753311
107249
1 9251)3
92044
7573
3553112
1 164411
724OO
10906
35576
327 4O
90054
396260
1070113
1291130
7450
1072 III
1731151
351 121
41732
369O
61.5
o:i.a
63.11
74.3
74 . :i
62.6
62.6
61.5
61.5
1)5.9
1)5 . 9
115. 0
115.0
63.3
63.3
75.3
75.3
77.3
07.3
57.3
65.4
65.4
66 . 6
66.6
ao. i
ao. i
611.7
01). 7
79.7
79.7
75.4
75.4
MOD 1 LE
a.o
a.o
9.0
9.0
7.6
7.6
6.9
6.9
0 . V
0.7
6.1)
6.1)
IO.2
10.2
5.7
5.7
11.5
11.5
I). 7
a. 7
9.7
9.7
7.9
7.9
11.4
1 1.4
9. 1
6.0
6.11
9.6
9.6
6.6
6.6
9.7
9.7
IO.6
IO.6
9 . t)
9.3
11.3
11.3
-------
TABLE 33 (Concluded)
CITY CITY
TYPE CODE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
202
233
234
235
236
237
23O
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
24O
CITY NAME
UTICA.NY
VINLLAND.NJ
WACO.TX
WASHINGTON, DC
WATERIJURY, CONN
WATERLOO. IOWA
WEST PALM DEACn.FL
WHEEL ING.WV
WICHITA. KAJ1S
WICHITA FALLS, TX
WILKES.PA
WILMINGTON. DEL
WILMINCTON.NC
W1NSTON.NC
WORCESTER, MASS
YORK, PA
YOUNCSTOWN.OII
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
UIIBAN
INNLR
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNLR
URBAN
INNLR
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
INNER
URBAN
INNER
li III) AN
INNER
URBAN
INNLR
URBAN
INNLR
URBAN
INNLR
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
CITY / EXPO LEVEL
FRINGE (UG/(M>3)
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FRINGE
. OO02O5
.ooooun
.0000:19
. OO0079
.000103
.OO0044
.OOO643
.OOO265
.OOO256
.000101
.000075
.OOO 179
. 000093
.OOO 165
.OOO202
. O00239
.OOO 164
. 00005O
.OOO 142
.000424
.000141
.OOO352
.OOO2 IB
. ooo i a?
.000067
.OOO 193
.000067
.OII02 16
. OOO07 1
.000437
.OOOI32
.OOO274
.OOO 153
DOSAGE
POP ( UC/( M) d-
( PERSON) PERSON)
89O29
116935
4BB46
26590
1 1 1203
27434
679565
1 5 495 13
I 1 1 132
5O357
77237
311 121
73355
294599
5 1 9O6
40oi a
207535
2663B
1 13014
50727
163762
IK, MX.
31 1502
55521
I3BOO
159B23
1 1644
1 791193
72132
50271)
72659
204127
I9326B
25
"7
i
o
1 1
1
436
4IO
20
5
5
6
6
411
14
1 1
47
1
16
24
23
30
67
10
30
30
5
22
9
56
29
.6
.6
.9
. 1
.4
'ft
.7
.5
.4
. 1
.a
.a
.a
.6
.6
.5
.0
.6
. 1
.9
.0
.3
.9
.4
.9
.a
.a
.a
. 2
. 0
.6
.0
.6
PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBOTION
HEATING
31. O
3i .a
26.11
26 . a
13.4
13.4
24.4
24.4
3 1 . II
31.1)
32.7
32.7
5.3
5.3
25.2
25.2
24.9
24.9
13.3
27.9
27.9
26.5
26.5
19.6
19.6
19.6
19.6
29.2
29.2
20.4
2a.4
29 . 2
29 . 2
STATIONARY
62.0
62.11
66.6
66.6
75.9
75.9
71.1
71.1
61.5
61.5
59 . a
59 . II
1)4.7
114.7
67.5
67.5
65.2
65.2
75.4
63.4
63.4
65. a
65. a
71.5
71.5
71.4
71.4
63. a
63. a
64.6
64.6
63.6
63.6
MOBILE
5.4
5.4
6.6
6.6
10.7
10.7
4.5
4.5
6.7
6.7
7.5
7.5
IO.O
10.0
7.2
7.2
9.9
9.9
11.3
0.0
0.0
•r -r
7.7
0.0
a.n
9.0
9.0
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
7. 1
7. 1
Source: Systems Applications; Incorporated computations.
-------
TABLE 34. BERYLLIUM EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS IN TYPE II CITIES
cr>
oo
CITY
TYPE
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
o
2
o
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
o
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.2
2
CITY
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
EXPO LEVEL
CITY NAME (UC/(m3>
ANNISTON.AL
BESSEMER, AL
DECATUR, AL
nOTHAN.AL
1 I.OIU.NCK. AL
PIIENIX CITY.AL
SELMA.AL
ANCHORAGE. AL
FLAGSTAFF. \H
YUMA.AR
EL DORADO. AR
FAYETPEVI^LE.AR
IIOTSPRING.AR
JONES BOKO. AR
WEST NF.MTIIIS.AR
ANTIOCII.CA
CONCORD. CA
COIIONA.CA
FAIRFIELD.CA
LANCASTER.CA
LIVERMORE.CA
LODI.CA
LOMPAC.CA
NAPA.CA
NEWARK. CA
KOVATO.CA
OCEANS IDE.CA
HEDLANDS.CA
REDWOOD CITY.CA
SAN LUIS OUISI'O.CA
SAN RAFAEL. CA
SANTA CRUX, C A
SANTA MARIA.CA
VISALIA.CA
WALNUT CREEK. CA
FORT COLL INS, CO
GREELEY.CO
MIDDLETOWN.CON
MILFORD.CON
NEW I.ONSON.CON
. O00095
.OOOI IO
. 000075
. OOO042
.OM0009
.OOOOO 4
.OOOIOO
. 0003O6
. O00042
. 000292
.OOOIO2
. OOO 1 1 1
.000103
. 000 1 4 1
.OOO 179
.OOO 189
.000192
. OOO069
.OCOI56
. OOO 1 2 1
.OOO 167
. OOO2O4
.OOO 132
. OOO 1 49
.000163
. (1001)113
. O00070
.O0009O
.OOOI54
. OOO 1 59
.OOO 147
.OOO 142
.OOO 124
.OOOI 18
.OOO 147
. O00274
. OOO33O
.OOO058
.OOO 145
. 0002OO
POP
(PERSON)
34069
36206
4 II 37
39719
5U294
27336
29004
67419
34(176
3U736
211009
34070
40:1 111
:i.)5in
2'KI4O
31092
91446
:io5:iii
49013
36161
41860
3 1 1154
281 II
39944
30144
34232
44955
40428
6IO62
3 1 1 27
43243
35612
3o359
30274
44224
52544
47 1 33
3796 1
52317
32312
DOSAGE
-PERSON)
3.2
4.O
3. 1
1.7
5.2
1.8
3.0
20.lt
1.5
11.3
2.9
3.9
4.2
4.3
5.2
5.9
111. 1
O 1
7.6
' 4.4
7.8
6.5
3.7
6.0
4.9
2.9
3. 1
4.0
9.5
5.0
6.4
5. 1
4.5
3.6
6.5
14.4
15.6
2. 2
7.7,
9. 1
PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTION
HEATING
19. 0
10.9
10.6
10.6
10.7
10.6
10.6
39. 1
10.2
IO.2
19. 1
19.2
19. 1
19. 1
19. 1
15.8
15.8
15.7
15.8
15.9
19.9
19.9
19.8
19.6
15.9
15.8
15.8
15.3
15.7
15.6
15.8
15.5
15.8
15.6
15.8
29.6
29.6
31.8
31.8
31.8
STATIONARY
78.9
79.5
77.5
77.5
77.8
77.5
77.5
53.3
80.4
DO . 4
70. 1
70.2
70. 1
70. 1
70. 1
75.5
75.5
75 . 0
75.8
75.8
75.9
74.3
75.4
74.9
75.9
75.7
75.6
73. 1
75. 1
74.8
75.7
73.9
75.4
74.8
75.5
60.4
60.4
61.5
61.5
61.5
MOBILE
10.3
9.6
.8
.8
. o
.8
.8
7.7
9.4
9.4
10.8
IO.6
10.8
10.8
1 0 . 8
8.7
8.7
9.4
8.4
8.3
8.2
10.2
8.8
10.0
8.2
8.5
8.6
11.6
9.2
9.6
8.5
10.6
8.8
9.6
8.7
10. I
10. 1
6.7
6.7
6.7
-------
TABLE 34 (Continued)
en
vo
CITY
TYPE
2
2
2
o
2
2
2
2
2
o
2
2
o
2
«»
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
•»
*»
2
o
2
•»
*»
2
•»
2
2
o
o
2
2
2
«»
CITY
CODE
41
42
43
44
43
46
47
4O
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
SO
39
60
61
62
63
04
03
06
67
611
69
7O
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
70
79
00
fciTY NAME
NORWICH, CON
S HELTON . CON
TulUtlliCTOil.CON
DAYTON* IIEACII.FL
FOHTMYEIIS . I L
FOIVT MEIICE.KL
KEY WEST.FL
LAKELAND. Fl.
MEI.UOUHME.FL
MEIUUTT ISLAND. FL
PANAMA CITY.FL
POMPANO UEACII.FL
SAHASOTA.FL
TITUSV1LLE.FL
ATHENS. CE
HOME.CE
VAI.OOSTA.CI:
VAIINER ROUINS.CE
illLO.HA
IDAHO FALI.S. ID
LEWISTON. ID
POCATELLO. ID
ALTON . 1 L
I'F.I.I .KVILLK. II.
DANVILLE, IL
UK KALK, II.
LAST ST. LOUIS. IL
FHEEI'OIIT. 11.
CAI.ESIIIIUC. IL
KANKAKEE. IL
PEKIN. IL
O.UINCY. IL
nLOOMINCTtlll. IN
COUINIUJS . 1 N
KIKHAHT. IN
KOKOMO. IN
rniuoN. IN
MICHIGAN. IH
Hi:W AI.I1ANY. IN
HICIIMOND. IN
EXPO LEVEL
3>
. 000 1 03
. OOOO59
.(100055
. ooo 1 1 :i
.000124
.000147
. 0003 1 :i
.0001110
.OOOO92
. OOO 1 OO
.OOO 127
.000175
.000160
.0001 1 1
.OOO 165
.OOO 123
.000154
.0001 17
. OOOO20
.OO0264
. OOO 1 27
. O002 1 3
.OOOI 110
.ito.1214
.OOO 1611
.OOO4I7
.OOO2.V*
.OOO 10 1
.OIMH5O
. (MMH'1 4
. OOO Hi 7
. 00()I'>J
.OOO^rtH
.OOOIdO
. oooir»:i
. OOO246
.0002 It
.0001 Oil
. OO(H7')
.00017:1
POP
(PEILSON)
42621
27974
:Uin,u
5 7 •*•>«>
34'»'»7
:iflOU9
349 6 1
5:il<>6
5 15112
37405
41 I0<>
411253
5 I4IK,
3<>046
4'/423
342HO
3i.22o
3726O
31260
44055
32 1 OO
49300
40239
4-477
4:1270
3:«375
70H97
2111 12
;io7li:i
3 i :ior.
Ill 722
4-i'MKI
44044
2HI04
44IUIO
45347
41017
404;I7
3'»540
45314
DOS ACE
>
9.6
4.7
3.7
5.2
11.5
11.2
4.3
H. 1
4.2
5.6
4.4
.6
1 1 .6
4. 1
10.5
7.2
9. 1
7.3
13.9
1)1. :t
4.5
5 . 5
<>. 1
5 . 3
11.11
11.4
4.5
6.9
M.I
11.11
4.4
7. 1
7.9
PEItCENTACE OF CONTRIBUTION
HEATING
31.11
3 1 . II
3 1 . tl
5.4
5.2
5.4
5. 1
ri.2
5. 1
5. 1
5. 1
5. 1
5.2
5.3
III. 2
III. 2
1(1.2
III. 4
0.
211.5
211.4
211.5
1 .1
1 . I
1 . 1
1 . 1
1 . I
1 . 1
1 . I
1 . 1
1 .•»
1 . 1
211.5
211. 5
211.5
211.5
211.5
211.5
211. 5
211.5
STATIONAItY
61.5
61.5
(. 1 . S
117. 1
113 . 9
115 . II
114 . 9
113.7
115.2
115.2
114.9
114.7
113.3
115 . 2
72. 1
72. 1
72. 1
72. H
91.5
59.9
59.0
59.9
61 .
«> 1 .
O 1 .
<• 1 .
6 1 .
(i 1 .
61.
O 1 .
6 i . :
01 .
02 . 7
02.7
02.7
02.7
02.7
02.7
62.7
02.7
MOU 1 LE
6.7
6.7
<..7
7.5
IO.9
II. 1)
9.11
1 1 .0
9 . 5
9.5
9. II
10.0
11.5
9.5
9.7
9.7
9.7
II. O
11.5
11.6
1 I.O
1 1.6
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.2
7.5
11.9
(1.9
(1.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
(1.9
-------
TABLE 34 (Continued)
CITY
TYPE
2
2
2
2
2
2
o
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
y
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
CITY
CODE
01
O2
O3
O4
03
O6
07
OO
O<>
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
90
99
I0O
101
102
IO3
104
105
IO6
107
10O
IO9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
120
DOSAGE
EXPO LEVEL POP 3
CITY NAME 3> C PERSON) -PERSON)
AMES, > A
BURLINGTON. IA
CLINTON, IA
FORT DODGE. IA
IOWA CITY. IA
MARSH ALLTOVN . IA
MASON CITY, 1 A
OTTUMIVA, IA
HUTCH INSON.KA
LAWRENCE.KA
LLAVENVORTII.KA
MANHATTAN. KA
OVERLAND PARK. KA
PRAIRIE VILLAGE. KA
SALINA.KA
BOWLING GREEN. KE
FORT KNOX.KE
PADUCAII.KE
ALEXANDRIA. LA
DOSSIER CITY, LA
HOUMA.LA
1. EN N KILL A
NLW 1 DERI A. LA
RANCOR. ME
ANNAPOLIS.MD
CUMIIERLAND.MD
HACERSTOWN.MD
ATTLEDORO.MASS
GLOUCESTER. MASS
MLMILROROUGII. MASS
TAUNTON.MASS
BATTLECREEK.MICII
HOLLAND, MICH
MIDLAND, MICH
PORT HURON. MICH
YPS ILANTI. MICH
AUSTIN. MN
MANKATO.MN
ST. CLOUD. MN
VINONA.MN
. OOO 1 22
.000125
.00005')
.OOOI 10
.0001 III
. 000092
.00010:1
.OOO 124
. OOO 1 1 4
.OOOI 16
. OOO 1 1 1
.00014:1
. oooon i
.0001 on
.000 KM
.OOO 144
.900123
.OOO 165
.OOO 179
.000110
.000100
. 000 1 1 1
.OOO 196
. 000070
.OO0247
. OOO 1 IUI
.OO02 15
.OO0054
. OOOO49
.000050
.OOOO44
.00011111
.OOOI 1 1
. OO0009
.O00256
.000356
.OOOIO2
.OOO 173
.000201
. 000 1 1 6
40370
3:il 56
35411 1
31949
47II7O
26944
31160
30346
3O329
47365
26131
211634
79O7O
292O4
39191
39316
4067O
34299
45120
433O4
335112
325 1 4
32771
34i645
31 4411
31690
311 1 1 1
33520
211457
21(456
44571
40172
27176
3632O
3697 1
3O442
2b3OO
32462
41704
27721
5.0
4. 1
2. 1
3.5
5.7
2.5
3.2
3.0
4.4
5.5
2.9
4. 1
6.4
4.9
4.O
5.7
5.0
5.7
0. 1
5.0
6.O
3.6
6.4
2.11
7.0
6.O
I). 2
1.0
1.4
1.6
2.0
7.6
3.0
3.2
9.5
10.11
4.O
5.6
0.4
3.2
PERCENTAGE 6P CONTRIBUTION
HEATING STATIONARY
31. 0
3 .0
3 .0
3 .0
3 .O
3 .11
31.11
31 .11
24.
24.
24.
24.
24.
24.
24.
24.7
24.7
24.7
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
34.9
25.7
23.7
25.7
09 2
29! 2
29.2
29 . 2
35.11
35.0
35.0
36.0
36.2
3O.7
3O.7
39.4
30.7
5O.
50.
SO.
511.
51).
50.
5O.
511.
63 . 6
63. (>
63.6
f>3.6
63.6
63.6
63.6
63.2
65.2
65.2
79.4
79.4
79.4
7'*. 4
79.4
57.2
66 . 9
66 . 7
66.7
63.0
63.11
63 . 0
63. O
57. 1
57.0
57.0
57.4
57.7
53. 1
53. 1
54.0
53. 1
MOBILE
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
IO.
IO.
IO.
12.
12.
12.
12.
12.
12.
12.
10.2
10.2
IO.2
II.
II.
II.
1 1.
1 1.
7.1
7.4
7.7
7.7
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
7. 1
7.C
7.1
6.(
6.
o.:
o.:
6.4
o.:
-------
I ABLE 34 (Continued)
CITY
TYPE
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
o
2
2
CITY
CODE
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
I3O
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
15O
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
EXPO LEVEL
CITY NAME ( uc/(M)3»
COLUNIU'S.MI
GREENVILLE, Ml
HATTIESOURG.MI
MERIDIAN, MI
PASCAGOULA.MI
visKSDunc.ru
CAPE CIRARDEAU.NO
FERGUSON , MO
FLORISSANT. MO
FORT LEONARD WOOD. NO
JEFFERSON CITY. MO
JOPLIN.HO
KIRKWOOD.MO
RAYTOWN.MO
ST. CIIAnLES.NO
NISSOULA.MT
GRAND ISLAND, NE
CONCARD.NII
PORTSMOUTH. Nil
LONG UK \HCII.NJ
NEW BnimsKicK.ru
OLD DRIDCE.NJ
PERTH AHUOY.NJ
SAYREVILLE.NJ
CLOU IS, KM
HOODS, NM
LAS CRUCES.NM
ROSWELL.NN
SANTA FE.NM
AMSTERDAM. NY
AUHURN.NY
ELM IRA, NY
ITHACA, NY
JAMESTOWN. NY
KINGSTON. NY
NLWOURGII.NY
NIGARA FALLS. NY
NORTH TONAHVANDA.NY
POUGIIKEEPSIE.NY
WATERTOWN.NY
.000177
. OO020O
. OOO 1 36
.0001 16
. 000 1 1 3
.000143
. 000000
. 000222
.000346
.000139
. 00009 1
. 000076
.OOO 169
.000162
.000162
.000175
.000143
.000054
.OOO 163
. O00255
. 000309
.000175
.000334
.000095
.000150
.OOOIO4
.OOO 142
.000097
. 000099
.000193
.000106
.000247
. 000203
.000194
.000149
.00027(1
.000310
.000169
.000295
.000154
POP
(PEItSON)
2O007
43171
41 (.74
49OO9
29912
27O59
311)50
297O6
67995
34O60
33222
4O409
3204 1
34649
32793
32651
33103
34252
29O7O
32576
429 1 1
25OI I
39756
3332O
341 17
31 197
43234
40516
49 If 19
25OI5
33910
39 1 49
25703
39002
25035
25to97
039 IO
35295
32371
30 1 74
DOSAGE
-------
TABLE 34 (Continued)
••4
ro
CITY
TYPE
2
2
2
o
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
CITY
CODE
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
I6O
169
17O
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
170
179
IOO
IUI
102
1O3
1O4
1O5
106
107
mo
IO9
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
CITY NAME
BURL1NGTON.NC
CAMP LEJUNE CENTRAL
CHAPEL IIILL.NC
CASTTOHIA.NC
COLDSDORA , NC
OREF.NVILLE.NC
KANNAPOLIS.NC
HOCKY MOUNT. NC
WILSON. NC
OISMARCK.ND
GRAND FORKS. ND
Ml NOT. NO
ALLIANCE. OH
AUSTINTOWN.OII
BOARDMAN.OII
FAIRnORN.OII
FINOLAY.OII
LANCASTER. Oil
MAR ION, OH
mSSILON.OH
NEWARK. Oil
PORTSMOUTH. OH
SANDUSKY.OII
XENIA.OII
ZANESVILLE.OII
BARLESVILLE.OK
ENID. OK
MUSKOCEE.OK
PONCA.OK
SIIAWNE.OK
STILLWATER.OK
CORVALLIS.OR
MEOFORD.OR
LEBANON. PA
NEW CASTLE. PA
STATE COLLEGE. PA
WILLIAHSPORT.PA
NEWPORT. Rl
WOONSOCKET.RI
ANDERSON, SC
EXPO LF.VF.L
(UG'(M>3)
.000166
.OOO 150
. O002 1 :»
.OOO 169
.O«)(M«>7
.00017:)
. OOOO93
.OOOI9O
. 0002:16
.OOO 197
. 000257
. 000237
. O002O4
.OOO 177
.000164
.000213
.000162
.000135
. OO026O
.0001116
.OOOI<»9
.OOOI 19
.OOOIO2
. 000204
. O002O4
. OOO 1 34
. OOOOO3
.000073
. OOOO57
. OOOO35
. O00076
. OO030 1
.000166
. OO0206
.000246
. 00035')
. 00012O5
. OOO207
. O001!62
.000172
POP
(PERSON)
4JI5HO
41509
30714
56704
31i^34
3493
-PERSON)
7.2
6.'J
6.5
9.6
6.3
6. 1
4.0
7.O
11.3
7.3
10.7
0.2
5.3
5.2
5. 1
6.9
5. II
4.5
10.4
6. 1
7. 1
3.3
6.0
5.2
6.O
4.4
4. 1
3.0
1.7
1.0
2.6
12.2
5.5
0.2
9.5
12. 1
7.0
7.0
12. 0
5.3
PERCENTAGE OK CONTRIOUTION
HEATING
19.5
19.4
19.3
19.7
19.4
19.4
19.4
19.4
19.4
37.5
37.5
37.5
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.0
29 . 4
211. 7
29 . 0
29. O
20. 6
29. 0
29 . 0
29.0
29 . 0
IO.9
20.2
20.2
20.9
20.4
20.2
25.4
25.4
27.9
27.9
27.9
20.4
30. 1
30. 1
15.0
STATIONARY
71.3
7O.6
7O.6
71.9
70.6
7O.6
70.6
7O.6
7O.6
50 . 9
5O.9
SO. 9
63.9
63.9
63.9
63. O
(i 3. 9
62.5
63. O
63 . 0
62. :i
63 . 0
63.O
63.O
63 . 0
62.9
67.3
67.3
69.6
67.7
67.3
65.2
65.2
63.4
63.4
63.4
64.6
61.0
6 1 . II
74.9
non i LE
9.2
IO.O
10. 1
(1.4
IO.O
10.0
IO.O
IO.O
IO.O
1 1.7
11.7
11.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
0.0
«..7
O.7
O.O
II. 0
9. 1
(1.0
O.O
O.O
0.0
111. 1
12.3
12.5
9.5
11.9
12.5
9.3
9.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
0.2
O.2
9.3
-------
V.UHI, i nucuy
-J
to
CITY
TYPE
2
2
2
2
2
o
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
o
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
o
2
2
o
2
2
2
2
2
o
2
2
2
2
2
2
o
2
CITY
CODE
201
2O2
203
204
2O3
2O6
2O7
200
2O9
210
211
212
213
214
213
216
217
2IO
219
220
22 1
222
223
224
225
226
227
22O
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
230
239
24O
CITY NAME
FLORENCE, SC
HOCK IIILL.SC
SPAHTANHUHC.se
ABERDEEN. SD
RAPID CITY. SO
CLAHKSVII.LE.TN
JACKSON, TN
JOHNSON CITY.TN
KINCSPORT.TN
MURFREESBORO.TN
OAK RIDCE.TN
BIG SPRING. TX
DENTON.TX
FORT IIOOD.TX
KH.LEI.H.TX
KINCSVILLE.TX
LONCVIEW.TX
NEXOUITE.TX
RICIIARDSON.TX
TEMPLE. TX
VICTOHIA.TX
BURLINCTON.VT
CHARLOTTES V 1 LLE. VA
DANVILLE.VA
BELLINCIIAM.WA
HREMMRTON , WA
FORT LEWIS.WA
LAKES DISTRICT.WA
LONCVIEW.WA
RIOILANO.WA
YAK IMA, WA
FAIRflONT.WV
MORCANTOVN . WV
PARKKRSBURtJ, WV
BELOIT.WI
EAU CLAIRE. VI
FONDOULAC.WI
JAMES VI LLE. VI
MANITOVOC.WI
SIIEBOYCAN.WI
EXPO LEVEL
( UG/(N>3>
.OOO I 77
.000167
.000192
. O00230
. 000 1 40
.000077
. 000 1 4 1
.OOOI2O
.OOOI 10
.000132
. OOOO26
.0001 19
. OOOOB3
.000192
.0(10076
.OOOI37
.0001 15
.O0012I
.000100
. ooooa i
.0001:11.
. OO0260
. 000200
. 000 1 5O
. OOO 1 27
. 000220
.000172
.OOO 193
.OOO 159
.O00075
. 000250
. 000224
. 000320
.OOO.'HO
.000135
.0001 15
.000177
.OOO 125
.OOO 145
.000237
POP
( PKILSON)
2«H!67
3OI04
50150
27509
45547
35 Id 2
443:iO
37436
35305
2922 1
3 1 465
33624
46515
301 19
41421
3U:i(>9
53171
(.4404
5«.7«,7
30-199
411236
4254O
434->7
5I90O
426 1 3
3O206
41 I7O
52103
3O7O3
2.'I44 1
49332
27065
31594
47517
37OOO
47200
37O47
49221
35513
51446
DOSACE
CU<;x3
- PERSON 1
5.
6.
9.
6.
6.
12 •
6.
4.
3.
3.
^
4.
3.
7.
3.
4.
6.
7.
5.
3.
6.
1 1 .
O.
O.
5.
O.
7.
10.
4.
2.
12.
6.
10.
14.
5.
5.
6.
6.
5.
1 '*
n
4
6
3
7
7
3
O
9
9
0
O
9
3
o
6
1
O
7
2
d
I
7
o
4
4
1
1
<>
1
3
.*
I
7
1
4
7
1
o
2
PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTION
HEAT INC
15.
15.
16.
34.
34.
20.
19.
2O.
20.
19.
19.
13.
13.
11.
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
3C .
2
2 .
29.
29.
30.
30.
29.
30.
29.
24.
24.
25.
35.
35.
35.
35.
35.
35.
O
O
O
f,
6
3
7
1
2
5
6
2
3
7
7
^J
•i
5
3
7
*»
*»
3
3
4
4
1
1
4
3
3
7
7
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
STATIONARY
74
74
75
54
54
71
69
71
71
70
69
74
75
77
4 t
74
74
76
75
77
74
56
70
7O
60
6O
61
61
6O
61
59
66
66
67
50
50
50
50
5O
50
c>
.9
.7
. 2
. 2
.9
.9
. |
.6
.6
.6
.0
.7
.6
. (>
.0
.0
.4
.6
.
-------
CITY CITY
TYPE CODE
CITY NAME
TABLE 34 (Concluded)
EXPO LEVEL
3>
POP
(Pfr.USON)
DOSAGE
(UC/MH>3
-PKHSON)
PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTION
HEATING STATIONARY MOUILE
2 241 WAUSAU.Vt
2 242 CASPER.WY
2 243 CHEYENNE.VY
.O00in:i
.O0024H
.000 192
347111
493V5
5IU24
4.6
12.«
9.9
33.4
02.4
32.4
50. 5
54.0
54. U
6. I
12.9
12.9
Source: Systems Applications, Incorporated computations.
-------
TABLE 35. BERYLLIUM EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS IN TYPE III CITIES
en
CITY
TYPE
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
CITY
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
2O
21
°2
23
24
25
26
27
20
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
30
39
40
CITY NAME
ARAO.AL
BAY MINETTE.AL
IRONDALE.AL
CONWAY. AR
ENGLAND, AR
LAKE VILLAGE. AR
MENA.AR
MONTI CELLO, All
RUSSELLV1LI.E.AR
WALNUT RIUGE.AR
ALTURAS , CA
BANNING. CA
CVRMEL VALLEY, CA
CHINA LAKE. C A
CUCAMONCA.CA
EUREKA. CA
CR1DLEY.CA
LAMONT.CA
NEWH/\LL,C\
PALMOALE.CA
SANTA MARIA.CA
SUISAN CITY.CA
BRIGHTON. CO
GOLDEN , CO
DAN 1 ELSON . CN
OIUNCETOWN.CN
SIMSBURY CENTER. CN
WILLIHANTIC.CN
riEMPIHS.FL
MIAMI SHORES. FL
PERRY. FL
CAIinOLLTON . CA
LARKSTON . GA
SMYHNATOWN.CA
HALEUVA.HAW
CIIUDOUCK. ID
ALSID. IL
CENTREVILLE, IL
CHESTER. IL
CLARENDON HILLS. IL
EXPO LEVEL
(UC/(M>3)
.000033
.000041
.000040
.OOO 106
. oooouu
. 00000:1
. O00049
. 0000(16
. 0000911
. 0000(14
. OOOO5 1
. 000046
. 00002O
. O00075
.OO007O
.000090
. OOO 1 39
.OOO 1(14
. OOO 1 1 I
. OO0O 1 1
.000129
. 000090
.000176
.00011 1
.OOOIO2
.11(1004(1
.0000311
.000167
. 0000(1(1
.OOO 172
. OO004 1
. OOOO67
. 000 1 (16
. OOO 1 0(1
.000040
. O000'.i2
. OO0065
.000122
. 000036
.OOO 173
POP
( PERSON)
4756
7273
3423
I755O
11479
'.1745
5125
S754
T.I295
4299
3107
13360
:U)59
12:129
6435
2702O
3923
7779
10715
9449
7915
3230
IO067
1 IH94
471 1
1 39 1 2
5 1 37
14(115
4 I O.'l
12059
0(153
1 3O69
34(15
21352
31 14
3«OO
1 1292
11532
53(12
6(141
DOSAGE
-------
TABLE 35 (Continued)
CITY
TYPE
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
CITY
CODE
41
42
•13
44
45
46
47
4O
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
6O
61
62
63
64
63
66
67
60
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
70
79
00
CITY NAME
EFF IONIUM. IL
HENRY. IL
LA GRANGE PARK, IL
LAWHENCEVILLE. IL
LYONS . 1 L
SPARTA. IL
AURORA. IN
AUSTIN. IN
HO11ART. IN
DENISON. IA
El.DORA. IA
MOUNT VERNON, IA
ONAWA. IA
W INTERNET, IA
CONCORD 1 A. KA
MULVANE. KA
PIIILLPSnURG.KA
DAWSON SPRINC.KN
FORT WRICHT-LOOKdUt
JENKINS. KN
OKOLONA.KN
CARIBOU. ME
FARMINCTON CENTER
KITTEHY CENTER, ME
UMNUIIIUCE.rU)
PALMER PARK.MD
DUXDURYTOWN . MASS
GREENF 1 ELDTOWN . MASS
IIADLEYTOWN.MASS
ORANGE CENTER. MASS
TEMPLETONTOWN. MASS
WARETOWH.MASS
W 1 LM 1 NCTONTOWN . MASS
FREMONT. MICH
C:\YLORD.MICII
CROSSE ILE.MICII
LEVEL PARK-OAK PARK
ST. LOUIS. MICH
LAKE CITY.MN
HINNETRISTA.MN
EXPO LEVEL
(UC/(M)3)
.000126
. OOO097
. OOO2(>(1
.OOUI III
. OOO22II
.0001 11!
. 00007:1
. OOOO9I1
. OOOO76
.000031
. OOOO:i2
.O00094
. 000o:i 1
. O0009M
. OOOOU3
. O0009II
. 0000li:i
. OOO044
. OOO 1 1 5
. 00002U
.OOO 140
. 0001)0:1
. 00006 1
.IHMH73
.000117
. OO03I16
.OOOO 14
. oooono
. OOOOO7
. OOOO5O
. OOOOOII
. 0000 1 1
.000041
. OO0063
. OO0066
. 000056
. OOOO74
.OOO 103
.OO0054
. OOOOO7
POP
(PERSON)
95116
2645
15 ft 6 9
5<»42
1 1275
41165
442O
5047
22 1 22
6354
:i2'»:i
:ioii4
1122:1
:i7:i4
750:1
3309
:i:t«>7
3263
5226
2767
19133
1131 1
342O
111:14
55116
IK. 114
777O
1 11453
an 19
:i9in
5972
H339
17420
3575
a ion
I157O
31711
4231
4154
3O23
DOSAGE
(UCx(M>3
-PERSON)
1.2
.3
4.2
.7
2.6
.5
.3
.5
1.7
.3
. 1
.3
. 1
.3
.6
«|
.3
. 1
< .6
. 1
2.7
1.0
.2
1.4
.7
3.4
• 1.
.7
.O
.2
.O
. 1
.7
. 2
. 2
is
.2
.4
. 2
.0
PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTION
HEATING
31.3
11.3
12.
II.
12.
II. J
29.
J9.
29.4
J .0
1 .11
1 .11
1 .11
J .11
24.3
25.0
24.3
24.7
24.7
24.7
25.4
34.9
34.9
34.9
25.7
23.7
29.2
29.2
29.2
29. 2
29.2
29.2
29.2
35. fl
35. n
36.5
35.0
35.0
39.0
39.7
STATIONARY
61. 1
61.1
«i2.'»
61.1
62.9
61.1
04. O
64. 0
64.7
511.
5(1.
nu.
5«.
511.
f.:» . o
<>5 . 4
63 . ft
65.2
65.2
65.2
67. 1
57.2
57.2
57.2
66.7
66.1)
63. II
63.11
li 3. II
63 . II
63.11
63. U
63.11
57.0
57.0
511. 1
57. 1
57.0
53.5
54.4
MOBILE
7.5
7.5
4.11
7.5
4.11
7.5
6.9
6.9
5.9
IO.
IO.
IO.
10.
10.
12.
9.6
12. 1
IO.2
Id. 2
10.2
7.5
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.7
7.5
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.3
7.3
5.5
7. 1
7.3
7.5
3.9
-------
TABLE 35 (Continued)
CITY
TYPE
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
CITY
CODE
01
O2
03
tl4
O5
86
O7
00
O9
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
10O
109
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IO
19
20
CITY NAME
MORA.HH
NACON.MISS
MORTON. MISS
AVA.MISS
BUTLER, MISS
DEXTER, HISS
CENTRAL C1TY.NE
EXETERTOWN.NH
IIAMPTONTOWN.NII
11 1 LLSBOROCIITOWN, NH
HINSDALETOVN.NH
NEWMARKET COMPACT.N
WOLFEBOROTOWN.NH
DUMONT. NJ
KENDALL PARK.NJ
LITTLE SILVEIt.NJ
MOORESTOWN- LENOLA
NEW MILFORD.NJ
NORTH CAPE MAY.NJ
ELMA CENTER. NY
LAKE CARNEL.NY
LITTLE FALLS. NY
HKWMAIUC.NY
NEW YORK MILLS. NY
NORTH BELLPORT.NY
NORTH MASSAPEQUA.NY
RYE. NY
SCOTIA. NY
TICONDEROGA.NY
VOORIIEESVILLE.NY
KERNS VILLE.NC
NEW RIVER-CIECER.NC
STANFORD, NO
BRUNSWICK. Oil
GKEENSVILLE.OH
NEW PHILADELPHIA, OH
ADA, OK
LINDSAY. OK
SULPHUR. OK
BLAKELY. PA
EXPO LEVEL
(UC/(M)3)
.000036
.0000:111
. 000047
. 000046
. OOOO7 1
.OOOO74
. 000067
.OO0044
.000055
. OO0007
.000016
.000093
.OOOOO7
. 000402
.COO 100
. OOOOII 1
. 000005
. OOOOOtl
.000174
. OOOO22
.OOO I 05
. 0000711
.OOOI02
.000147
.000073
. 00033 1
. 000 1 23
.OOO 153
.0000115
.000050
.000092
.O00077
.000161
.000077
.000107
.000160
.0000116
. 0000117
.000054
.000071
POP
< PERSON)
2712
21144
2909
2579
4IO4
6205
2067
10145
9 1 39
3 1 66
3737
3017
3463
20663
7599
6161
14527
19632
39OO
2720
47OO
7477
1 1412
3729
57115
2264.2
15553
7223
3202
2769
579O
10461
1 40119
15926
6120
15255
16525
4I2O
5736
<>3U1
DOSAGE
(UGX(M)3
-PERSON)
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
.3
.5
> j»
.4
.5
.O
1
.3
.O
0.3
.0
.5
1.2
6. 1
.7
. 1
.5
.6
1.2
.5
.4
7.5
1 .9
1. 1
.3
. |
.5
.n
2.3
1 . 2
1 . 1
2.4
1 .4
.4
.3
.5
PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTION
HEATING
30.7
14. 1
14. 1
26 . 3
26.3
26 . 3
29. 1
34. 0
35.2
35.2
34 . 0
34. H
34. U
26.11
26.0
26.0
26.6
26. O
26.0
32. O
32.0
3 1 . 0
31.3
a i . o
31.7
3I.O
31.0
31.7
32.0
31.9
19.5
19.4
19.4
2O. 9
29.0
29.0
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.4
STATIONARY
53. 1
75.4
75.4
65. 1
65. 1
65. 1
59 . 0
5O. 1
5O.O
50.11
5O. 1
5O. 1
5O. 1
66.6
66.6
66.6
66.6
66.6
66.6
63.2
63 . 2
62.O
61.7
62.il
62.6
62.7
62.9
62.6
63.2
62.9
71. 1
70.6
70.6
62.9
63 . 0
63 . 0
<>7.3
67.3
67.3
64.6
MOBILE
O.2
IO.4
IO.4
0.7
0.7
O.7
1 1.9
7. 1
6.0
6.O
7. 1
7. 1
7. 1
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
4.0
4.0
5 . f.
7.0
5.3
5.7
5.6
5.3
5.6
4.O
5.2
9.4
10.0
10.O
0.2
0.0
0.0
12.5
12.5
12.5
7. 1
-------
TABLE 35 (Concluded)
oo
CITY
TYPE
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
CITY
CODE
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
I2O
129
130
131
132
133
134
133
136
137
130
139
J4O
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
140
149
150
CITY NAME
DOYLESTOKN.PA
GETTYSBURG, PA
LIBERTY. PA
ST. CLARI.PA
SLIPPERY, ROCK. PA
TYRONE. PA
VANDERCRIFT.PA
WEST WARWICKTOKH.RI
CAPEIIART.SC
CONWAY.SC
nOBHIDCE.SD
LA KOLLETTE.TN
ROCKVOOD.TN
BURNET.TX
CROWLEY.TX
FRONIA.TX
LOCKHART.TX
LULINC.TX
PORTLAND. TX
SAN AUGUST I NE.TX
SEALY.TX
SILSKEE.TX
PRICE. UT
RADFORD.VI
LYDEN . WA
STEILACOON.WA
II4RTLAND.WI
MEUFORD.WI
SOUTH MILWAUKF.E.W1
GREEN RIVER. WY
EXPO LEVEL
(UGx(fhO)
.0001 in
.0001411
. 000094
,' .OOO 139
.0001111
.OOO 175
. 0002:14
.OOOIUO
.000134
.OOOO96
.OOO 125
.000161
.OO0075
. O00036
. OOOO20
. OOOO95
. 00007O
. OOOO04
.0000(15
. OUV025
. OOO062
. 00006(1
.ooomu
.000113
. O00096
. oooooo
. OOOO45
. 00006 1
. 0002011
.000046
POP
(PKItSON)
11257
7263
3.-»IIO
4569
4941
706 1
71176
2:illll6
5054
9176
4722
7651
51129
3341
3105
3629
7569
5505
(15 1(1
29 li 1
» i 32
114112
7621
12973
3030
30(14
2929
366 1
24699
5270
DOSAGE
-------
TABLE 36. SUMMARY OF BERYLLIUM EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
\o
EXPO LEVEL
(UG/dVa)
.002500
.001000
.000500
.000250
.OOOIOO
0.
POPULATION
(PERSON)
505140
9149730
2860 1329
73351092
139664750
158679135
DOSAGE
-------
TABLE 28. EXPOSURE/DOSAGE ANALYSIS DATA BASE FOR TYPE I CITY AREA SOURCES
00
o
CITY
TYPF.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY
CODF.
1
2
3
4
n
f»
7
n
9
1*
II
12
13
14
in
16
17
in
19
2*
21
CITY WAftF.
ARILF.NF..TX
AKRON . Oil
AI.RANY.CA
1
AI.RANY.NY
Ai.miotiF,RoirF.,Nn
ALLF.WTOWW.PA
.
ALTOONA.PA
AHARILLO.TX
ANHK.nSON. IN
ANN ARBOR. HI
APPLF.TOH.WI
AS1IF.V1LLF..NC
ATLANTA.C A
ATLANTIC CITY.rU
AtJCtTSTA.CA
AURORA. IL
AttSTIN.TX
nAKF.RJ5FIF.LD.CA
RALTIHORF..Iin
RATON nOI»CF..LA
RAY CITY.NI
INHFR
tmnAN
INNF.R
i mil AN
INNKII
IHUIAN
INNF.n
tmnAN
INNF.n
tmitAN
INNF.n
IFRRAN
INNF.R
tmnAN
INNF.R
tmilAN
INNF.n
INNKn
tmnAN
INNF.n
tmnAN
INNKn
tmnAN
inwF.n
mm AN
INNF.n
HUMAN
INNF.n
imitAN
1 NNF.n
HUMAN
1 NNF.n
HUMAN
INNF.n
tmnAN
INNKn
HUMAN
INNF.n
tmnAN
INNKR
tmMAN
INNF.n
tmnAN
CITY /
I.ANn ARF.A
FniNCF. ISO flll.KS)
CITY
FHINCE
CITY
Fit 1 NCF.
CITY
Fit 1 NCF.
CITY
Fit 1 NCF.
CITY
FniNCF,
CITY
FR 1 NCF.
CITY
Fit 1 NCF.
CITY
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
Fit 1 NCF.
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
Fit 1 NCR
CITY
Fit 1 NCF.
CITY
FltlNCF.
CITY
FRINCF,
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
Fn i NCF.
74.
3.
54.
149.
29.
3.
41.
1*9.
112.
31.
41.
57.
9.
1*.
61.
.37.
•1.
21.
23.
12.
24.
22.
15.
131.
3*3 .
12.
54.
15.
42.
211.
411.
72.
13.
25.
31.
711.
231.
4A.
44.
HI.
16.
9
1
2
II
4
ft
3
7
II
B
n
2
1
9
A
1
9
B
2
7
3
3
7
5
5
4
6
2
7
7
3
1
9
9
1
3
7
4
6
A
O
POPULATION
< PF.RSOin
R94B6
IHII5
27542*
267365
72623
311119
256657
229B6B
24375 1
537**
212461
1511 1*
62R9B
IBB97
1 22* 1 *
7*1153
9B5I
99797
7BB*B
574*6
724116
5757 1
I4BB*
497*24
675754
47RII9
116 127
591164
B9*B9
I299IIB
102929
25 III 17
1 26112
69515
1*764*
9*5759
674*22
16597*
113493
49449
2116411
1973
Atrro
4643*
563
15211*11
1 4B323
34362
1114*
1 l**2 1
9B53B
125567
27663
1AA7I0
71629
3**66
9*31
T4794
33153
46*9
47793
37741
25*54
3IB36
2B933
74711
292325
397445
249911
449511
3*977
461**
63B24
5*5 3B
127 1511
64*4
34446
53337
4*124*
29B5II*
73*27
36737
233*7
13503
1973
TRUCK
15722
191
IR6I2
1(1*66
7*9*
4*1
15177
13593
36BA7
BIA9
15304
1*942
4592
I3B*
2*64*
73 in
1*17
72*1
56117
41113
5315
77*5
1992
53721
73A3B
27112
5AA4
51126
B67I
I33B9
1*6*2
2BBII4
1455
I2BI7
I9B46
57B92
43WR*
2112 15
14194
4566
2646
-------
TABLE 28 (Continued)
oo
CITY
TVTK
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
CITY
CODE CITY NAME
43
44
45
46
47
4B
4«»
5ft
51
!»2
59
54
55
56
57
5(1
59
6«
61
62
63
CHATTANOCA.TENN
CHICAGO, IL
CINCINNATI. 011
CLEVELAND. OR
COLORADO SPRINCS.CO
COLUMRIA.MO
coi.unniA.se
COLUMBUS, CA
COLUMRUS.OH
CORPUS CHRISTI.TX
DALLAS. TX
DANBURY.CONW
DAVENPORT, IOWA
DAYTON . OH
DECATim. It,
DENVER. CO
DES MOINES, IOWA
DETROIT. Ill
DURUoirE. IOWA
DiiLurn JIN
DURHAM, NC
INNER
URIIAN
INNER
URUAN
INNF.n
unnAM
INNER
imnAN
INNER
IIRRAN
INNER
URRAN
INNER
INNER
INNER
URRAN
INNER
URRAN
INNER
imnAN
1 NNER
URRAN
INNER
URRAN
INNER
1IRRAN
INNER
imitAN
INNER
URRAN
INNER
URRAN
INNER
URRAN
INNER
imnAN
INNER
imnAN
INNER
imnAN
INNER
imnAN
CITY /
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
FRINGE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
CITY
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FR I NCE
LAND AREA
(SO MILES)
52
64
3«i
976
711
256
75
57W
6«
29
42
ion
69
06
IH5
1«0
MM
29
266
4tm
44
1 1
f)4
:i4
nil
1115
50
6
95
201
63
45
1:111
7:i4
16
2
105
6
56
6
.5
.5
.O
.O
. |
.9
.9
. |
.11
.2
.«
.«
.5
.5
.9
.0
.«
.ft
.A
.»
.»
.ft
.ft
.«
. :»
.7
.6
.4
.2
.11
.2
.n
.«
.ft
.4
.6
.ft
.ft
.6
.4
197ft
POPULATION
(PERSON)
1 19(176
I03«>n:i
569279ft
:IO2I7IIII
45255ft
657964
75|ft46
1 2
-------
TABLE 28 (Continued)
00
ro
CITY
TYPF.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
CITY
COOP.
22
23
24
25
26
27
2O
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
tin
39
4*
41
42
CITY NAHF.
BF.AWMONT.TX
BII.LINCS.MONT
BILOXI.MS
B 1 NCBAMTON , NY
ninMiNCRAM.AL
BLOOniNCTON. IL
BOISE CITY. 10
BOSTON. MASS
BOULDER, CO
nRIDCF.PORT.CONN
BRISTOL.CONN
BROCKTON. MASS
BnOWNSVII.I.F..TX
IIHYAN . TX
BUFFALO. NY
CANTON, OH
CF.OAB HAP IBS. IOWA
CHAMPA ICN-URBANA. IL
CHARLESTON, SC
CHARLESTON. WV
CIIAni,OTTF..NC
1 NNF.M
unnAN
INNER
unnAN
INNF.n
unnAN
INNF.n
UnilAN
INNF.H
UlUtAN
INNKn
unnAN
INNK.n
UnitAN
1 NNF.n
unnAN
INNER
unnAN
1 NNF.n
inutAN
INNF.n
unnAN
INNF.n
unnAN
IN W F.R.
UIUIAN
INNKn
INNF.n
unnAN
INNF.n
unnAN
INNF.n
unnAN
INNF.n
UnitAN
INNF.n
imnAN
INNF.n
unnAN
INNF.n
unnAN
INNK.Il
UIUIAN
CITY /
FRINCE
CITY
FIIINCF.
CITY
Fit 1 NCF.
CITY
FR 1 NCF.
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCG
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
FniNCF.
CITY
Fill NCF.
CITY
CITY
FttlNCF.
CITY
FniNCF,
CITY
FniNCF.
CITY
Fll 1 NCF.
CITY ,
Fll 1 NCF.
CITY
Fit 1 NCF.
CITY
FniNCF,
CITY
FIIINCE
LANO AREA
-------
TABLE 28 (Continued)
00
CO
CtTY
TYPE
1
1
t
1
t
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY
COOF.
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
III
82
83
84
CITY NAHF.
EL PASO.TX
F.RIF..PA
F.UCENE.OR
EVANSVII.LE, IN
FALL RIVER, MASS
FARCO.ND
FAYETTEVILLE.NC
F ITC1IOURC , HAPS
FLINT, HI
FORT LAUBERDALE.FL
FORT SHI TO. AH
FORT WAYNE. IN
FORT VORTO.TX
FRESNO. G A
CADSBEN.AL
CAINSV1LI.E.FL
CALVESTON.TX
GRAND RAI'ins.ni
GREAT FALLS.HT
GREEN BAY.WI
GREENSBORO. NG
INNER CITY /
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URP.AN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
tJRBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
imnAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
LAND ARKA
-------
TABLE 28 (Continued)
CITY
TYI'K
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
^
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY
CODF.
RS
A*
117
nn
nt
90
«M
92
93
94
99
96
97
9fl
99
100
101
102
ion
104
10!)
CITY NAHF.
CREEKSVILLF..FC
HAMii.TOK.on
1IARLINCF.N.TX
HARRismiRY.PA
IIARTFORI>, CONK
IIICII P01KT.NC
HONOLULU. HAWAII
lUWSTOK.TX
HIIKTIKOTON.WV
mmsvn.LF..AL
INDIANAPOLIS, IK
JACKSON. Ill
JACKROK.MS
JACKSONVILLE, FL
JOHNS riWK. PA
.IOI.IFT. II.
KALAMA7.00.11I
KANSASCITY.ftO
KENOSIIA.WI
KNOXVILLF..TF.NN
LA CROSSF..WI
INNF.R
HRRAN
INNF.H
UROAN
INMF.R
HUMAN
IMNF.R
IIIWAN
INNF.R
UHI'.AN
1 NNF.R
HIinAN
INNKII
UnjtAN
INNF.R
tiRRAN
iriNrjt
UURAN
INNF.R
URBAN
INNF.R
If HI) AN
INNF.R
INNF.R
URRAN
INNF.R
URBAN
INNF.R
INNF.R
llimAN
INNF.R
tmitAN
INNF.R
URRAN
INNF.R
IIHRAN
INNF.R
lIRItAN
INNKR
IfltRAN
INNF.R
HUMAN
CITY /
FRINCF.
CITY
FR 1 NCF,
CITY
FR 1 NCF.
CITY
FR 1 NCF.
CITY
FR 1 NCF.
CITY
FRINCF,
CITY
FR 1 NCR
CITY
FRIKCF
CITY
FRIKCF.
CITY
FRINCF,
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
FRINCK
CITY
FRINCF
CITY
FRINCF
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
FRINCF.
LAND ARFA
(SO MILKS)
20.
30.
If..
1!!!.
^2.
1 1 .
7 .
70.
17.
11:1.
30.
21.
11:1.
31 .
434.
ior. .
22.
a:i.
I0«>.
13.
am.
10.
25.
50.
21.
351.
5.
22.
I*.
3R.
24.
4O.
373.
120.
13.
4.
77.
9.
15.
II.
7
3
A
H
5
5
A
4
4
ft
II
2
«»
1
ft
A
7
3
1
9
0
7
3
2
n
0
7
3
5
5
5
5
»
0
7
3
0
0
2
It
1970
POPULATION
< I'KKSnN)
«I20H
9frlir.5
f.7M7
^:i2«»5
33515
M>154
».7IMM»
I72H7I
I5IMM7
3nr>'»n7
f>3l05
30442
324117 1
1 17524
1232407
44545*
I035ft7
6401*
1 371170
(M.II7
R20259
45411 1
3309 1
1539*11
4*092
A295I15
4247ft
53*70
7IM.44
7*115*
Il5f.* I
**422
*7539 I
42*39«
71111 17
5443
1 745117
I5«M5
5 1 153
12220
1979
Airro
32*24
»l*30
3575 1
12317
1 27211
*439
32002
HI499
9733H
IR9I04
3*453
1 75115
l*07*n
BniR9
«4*n33
233799
4713*
2913*
B343H
5257
964704
21970
IB9B5
75*00
22*32
2955411
201*11
254113
311*14
37736
41104
31072
337022
21 32711
37*54
2*01
fl9902
0195
223*6
5343
1979
TRUCK
6607
10456
5009
172*
3512
I7III
411011
12449
11470
1*455
7 1112
34*4
I7*O0
*39*
161293
511300
1 1320
6997
21552
13511
724*9
4553
3313
19*96
5O96
57:1*9
30311
3O92
1)100
7916
11*05
**72
6B3IN)
4I2O2
535O
370
16401
1495
4357
1041
-------
TABLE 28 (Continued)
CITY CITY
TYPE CORE CITY NAME
INNER CITY x
URBAN FRINGE
CD
en
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
106
197
100
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
IIR
119
120
121
122
123
124
123
I2A
LAFAYETTE, LA
LAFAYETTE. IN
LAKE CHARLES, LA
LANCASTER. PA
LANS ING. Ml
L ARF.no, TX
LAS VEGAS, NV
LAWRENCE. MASS
LAWTON.OK
LEWISTON, MAINE
LEXINGTON, KY
LIMA. OH
LINCOLN, NEB
LITTLE ROCK.AR
LORAIN.OH
LOS ANGELES. CA
LOUISVILLE.KY
LOWELL, MASS
LUBROCK, TX
LYNCIIBURG.VA
MACON.GA
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNKR CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
URRAN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
UHnAN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URRAN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
URRAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URRAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URRAN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
URRAN FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
URRAN FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
UBRAN FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
imRAN FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
INNER CITY
URRAN FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
URBAN FRINGE
LAN1> AREA
(SO MILKS)
20.0
5.0
11.7
10.3
2M.0
11.0
7.2
31.11
33.4
39.6
20.5
1.5
51. 6
69.4
39. 1
44.9
31.2
12. (I
34.6
33.4
23.0
17.0
11.7
15.3
49.3
2.7
49.3
45.7
40.0
T>T> ( W
590.0
9112.0
60.0
150.0
13.6
411.4
77.0
25. 1
11.9
49.0
2.0
1970
POPULATION
( PKMSONJ
6B9B4
9560
44955
34162
779911
10262
575(19
595HB
i:nr,:m
97BB0
6B9II7
1260
125641
II 1040
113047
B7233
74627
21060
41779
23433
I0BI37
5 1 40 1
534B2
1611 13
1495 IB
3925
1495 IB
7309B
1321 411
60M7
36I99B2
4731 2114
361453
377943
94251
9(14(10
150135
540B3
16759
1 22423
5042
1973
AUTO
303B3
4206
IB329
I392B
34319
4515
27051
27953
61761
45923
24973
456
774IB
6B42I
55732
43006
421 IB
II8B6
21266
11927
116230
2672B
29939
9412
71662
IBBI
729B2
356B0
74633
33952
194695 1
2544647
IB39B2
192376
46466
4B55I
75574
24B22
7691
64267
2962
1973
TRUCK
11727
1625
4155
3157
1326 4
1745
4132
4270
12479
9279
3175
SB
18779
16596
6523
5033
12551
3542
6016
3374
13659
6492
5309
1669
1 44112
3B0
21207
I036B
11463
31150
313020
4091 17
32064
33527
543B
56B2
2I43B
6244
1935
I2B02
590
-------
TABLE 28 (Continued)
co
CITY
TYPE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY
conn
127
120
129
13ft
131
132
133
134
133
136
137
I3R
139
14ft
141
142
143
144
143
146
147
CITY NAME
HADISON.WI
WINCHESTER, NH
MANSFIKLO.OH
WCAU.EN.TX
MEMPHIS, MS
MKII 1 DKN , CONN
MIAMI.FL
MIDLAND. TX
M 1 LWA1HCEE , VI
MINNEAPOLIS. Mil
MORILE.AL
MODESTO. CA
MONROE, LA
MONTCOMERY, AL
MUNCIF..IN
MVSKFCON.MI
NASHUA. NH
NASHVILLE, TEN*
NEW IIK.DFOnn. MASS
NEW BRITAIN. CONN
NEW HAVEN. CONN
INNER CITY '
mm AN FRINCE
INNER CITY
imnAN FRINCE
INNKR CJTY
URItAN FRINCE
INNKR CITY
UnitAN FRINCE
INNKR CITY
unr.AN FRINCE
INNKR CITY
INNKR CITY
imilAN FRINCF.
INNER CITY
imnAN FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
imnAN FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
IIRRAN FRINCF.
INNER CITY
imnAN FRINCE
INNKR CITY
imnAN FRINCF.
INNF.R CITY
imnAN FRINCE
INNER CITY
imnAN FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
UIWAN FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
imilAN FIIINCE
INNF.R CITY
imnAN FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
imnAN FRINCE
INNKR CITY
INNKR CITY
imnAN FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
imnAN FRINCE
INNKR CITY
imnAN FRINCE
LANn AREA '
«S«I NII.KS)
4ft. «
20.5
32. 1
*.9
24. 1
Mt.9
13.5
19.5
19*. 0
2:1.7
47.3
34.3
224.7
29. 2
2! a
95.0
3*2.0
IO7.O
*I4.0
1 1*.*
51.4
9.5
24.5
22.2
17.11
^ * *9
4.*
12.11
12.2
13.0
39. 0
31.4
2.*
344.0
19. r,
14.5
13.3
25.7
Ml. 4
nn.*
197ft
POPULATION
< PKI1SON)
173242
32215
117754
7311*
55OOI
225911
:i?*:i*
535O5
6*397*
55959
42495
335075
WI4595
59*09
*II2
717124
535333
74432 1
9*O I O2
MI99II*
*7ll3ft
*I7I2
4439R
5*374
34193
413347
5512
69132
21295
44*3 1
*IOII5
552110
5141
4411444
101759
3I90B
H344I
4790B
137715
210*2*
1973
Airro
79702
I4B36
473B7
39BB
335*3
1379ft
I34!I5
19100
2957 IB
3447 1
2*177
2IO3*2
553353
37054
423
323759
24I6B6
3*9BftB
477ft 1 ft
94947
33B9B
3201ft
2302B
24B05
15045
|O70*9
2919
29635
9129
20517
2BOBI
30143
2776
22B6B3
no 1*7
15731
51400
29511
B4B32
12974*
I97JI
TIUICIC
I23«4
2303
llfl*3
74*
49*B
2041
4713
*7O3
69*5B
2999
227B
21150
35ft55
9MB
IO4
32492
24235
*095B
7n*30
22252
7944
12132
B727
95B4
5BI3
1516
626
7454
229*
4103
56 IB
563B
519
49134
5O7I
IB4I
4472
256B
73112
1 1290
-------
TABLE 28 (Continued)
oo
CITY CITY
TYI'K CODE CITY NAUE
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14B
149
I5«
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
I5fl
ir.<»
160
m
162
163
164
165
166
167
I6fl
169
HEW ORLEANS. LA
NEW YORK, NY
NEWPORT. VA
HOI\FOIIK,VA
NORWALK.CONN
ODESSA, TX
OCDKWJJT
OKLAHOMA CITY. OK
OMAHA, IOWA
ORLANDO. FL
osincosn.KY
OWF.NSHORO.KY
OXNARO.CA
PF.NSACOLA.FL
PEORJA, IL
PETERSIUJRC.VA
PHILADELPHIA, PA
PIIOF.WlX,Ani7.
pinK nuiFF.AR
piTTSRimc.pA
PITTSF1 ELD, MASS
PORT AnTtnm.Tx
I if HER
imnAN
INNER
INNF.R
IMWAN
INNF.R
imnAN
INNF.R
imiiAN
INNF.R
UIIUAN
IMNF.R
URBAN
INNF.R
imnAN
INNF.R
INNF.R
imitAN
INNF.R
imiiAN
INNF.R
INNKR
imiiAN
INNF.R
nnn/\N
INNF.R
IFRRAN
INNER
IIRHAN
INNF.R
imitAN
INNF.R
1) UP. AN
INNF.R
URBAN
INNF.R
imnAN
INNF.R
URRAN
INNF.R
imnAN
INNF.R
UIIIIAN
CITY s
FR 1 NCE
CITY
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
LAHII AREA
.
21.
40.
nn«».
7f..
74.
27.
104.
in.
II.
a.
70.
42.
24.
42.
57.
69.
B.
34.
I2H.
62:1 .
2411.
140.
16.
4.
55.
541.
•
a.
4n.
24.
0
0
0
II
2
ft
4
0
0
4
A
0
0
0
6
4
r»
5
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
4
6
0
0
5
!»
0
0
1
9
0
0
4
6
2
ft
1970
POPULATION
( PF.IISONI
96I72R
RH2015I
?:in*69n<»5r»
9:107
41119 14
249:14.1
791915
27515
7it:m0
CI265
694R5
110242
57U7MII
:i47:uio
I43JI96
9fl9f>5
20A5I4
554n0
5O3I7
211 16
162773
ninno
5957 1
10704ft
1269M
12015ft
36103
64514
194(1609
2072457
511 1600
211 1757
57295
3612
520167
1 325075
57124
57411
57300
59094
1973
Airro
423160
2017343
1 6094110
120402
4327
IB2706
I0O750
4II7II2
16949
44214
IO42
36053
41635
327223
166945
6B9I4
66361
13O496
27962
26353
1475
(1411 1
42310
30929
05R7I1
64330
60ABI
1501 1
26824
94IB7I
|00|?;i4
327709
I5B759
22549
1422
2B2RB9
644599
2BI62
2834
2B37B
29226
19751
TRUCK
163494
1 13814
95317
17525
630
32194
19163
4245
1475
1484(1
619
10410
12022
97514
30668
12660
12316
25700
10097
7522
421
17343
8724
6396
11493
I24R2
IIBI3
3255
5817
143927
153073
97127
47053
7790
491
38630
98465
3296
332
7998
8237
-------
TABLE 28 (Continued)
CITY
TYPE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY
CODE
17*
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
170
179
IO*
101
102
I A3
1O4
IRR
IOA
107
ton
109
CITY RA11E
PORTLAND. nAINF.
PORTLAND, OR
PROVIDENCE. Rl
PROVO.UT
PHERLO.CO
RACINF..WI
RALEIcn.RC
READ IRC. PA
RENO. REV
nicimoND.VA
ROAROKE.VA
ROCHES 1 Ml. nR
ROCHESTER, RY
ROC WORD, IL
SACRA nF.NTO , CA
SACINAW.ni
ST. .iosEPii.no
ST. LOIIIS.no
ST. PETERSRHRC.FL
SALW.OR
INNER CITY /•
\mn/\n FRINCE
INNER CITY
itnnjkM E*n • Mf^c*
UHKAn rlUnlJK
INNER CITY
imRAN FRIRCR
INNER CITY
IIIU1AN FRINCE
INNER CITY
IIRRAN FRINCE
INNKR CITY
IIROAN FRIRCE
INNF.H CITY
IfRRAN FRIRCE
INNER CITY
1IRRAN FRIRCE
INNF.R CITY
URRAN FRIRCE
INNER CITY
imnAN FRIRCE
INNER CITY
imnAN FRIRCE
INNF.n CITY
1MIRAN FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
1MIRAN FRINCE
INNER CITY
1IRRAN FRINCE
INNER CITY
IIRItAN FRINCE
INNER CITY
UIU1AN FRINCE
INNER CITY
IIIUIAN FRINCE
INNF.R CITY
IIIIHAN FRIRCE
INNF.R CITY
UHRAN FRIRCE
INNER CITY
1IRRAR FRINCE
INNER CITY
tmnnN FRINCE
LARD ARKA
»s« nn.Ks>
21.6
34.4
O9.o
170. «
61 .«
1(12.2
3ft. 2
2it.n
22.5
9.5
1:1. i
14.9
44.9
2ft. 1
Iff.*
3i.o
tiff. 5
7.7
ft*. 3
05.3
2ft. 6
39.4
13.4
l.ft
36.7
1*9.3
34.2
2ft. II
93. o
15*. 2
17.3
2ft. 7
211. 7
3.3
61.2
399. n
55.4
I A3. A
24. A
12.4
197*
POPULATION
< n.HsoN)
ft nil ft
4I4O3
an i H77
443*49
3391124
4554117
7IMM12
252211
97453
51147
95193
22215
121 1211
3llftl
07621
0*3 1 1
72O63
2ftll24
249ft2 1
166942
92115
645*6
53766
2II3H
29ft 233
3*5120
1472*3
5IMI79
2543ft4
3793ftR
9102*
55732
729117
423ft
ft2223ft
I2ft*7*o
216067
279*92
ftl!249
24792
1973
Atrro
95144
21115
2 inn i.t
25293ft
IO7923
25 1004
3242ft
10371
4<»325
2959
44549
1039 A
697*1
17931
41726
311244
4626*
I7«3«
123947
H2M93
49512
94672
26252
1311ft
131 147
I350D5
75119 1
3«35S
I9I4II
I9B99I
43597
2ft45l
3I733
1642
29*570
5OR73O
I37WB9
177*77
39423
14321
1973
TnncK
9377
5974
4094B
5ft7O6
2677O
35092
13269
4244
1 69011
1014
tl062
I36O
16041
4333
6374
5O42
I467O
54*3
24*24
16*67
11*62
7747
57*3
3*1
IKI76
1 119 2O
1109!
4756
34433
51355
7927
4012
9574
556
4274*
06595
2*634
26653
7*97
2570
-------
TABLE 28 (Continued)
CD
IO
CITY
TYPE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
CITY
CODE
190
191
192
193
194
193
196
197
1911
199
200
201
202
203
2*4
2*3
206
207
20B
209
210
CITY NAflE
SALINAS.CA
SALT LAKK CITY.UT
SAW ANCELO.TX
SAN ANTON IO.TX
SAN BERNARD I NO. CA
SAN DIECO.CA
SAN FRANC ISCO.CA
SAN JOSE. C A
SANTA IlAlinAnA.CA
SANTA nOSA.CA
SAVANNAR.CA
SCRA1ITON. PA
SEASIDE.CA
SEATTLE. WA
SRTJWIAN.TX
SlIREVEPOnT.LA
Sim VALLEY, CA
SIOUX CITY. IOWA
SIOUX FALLS.SD
SOUTH RENO. IN
SPOKANE. WA
INNER
UltRAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
imnAN
INNER
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
URRAN
INNKR
UltnAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
tntRAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
irRBAN
INNER
URBAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
URBAN
1 NNER
URBAN
INNER
URBAN
IHNER
UIIBAN
INNER
trRBAN
INNER
UIUIAN
INNER
UHRAN
CITY /
FRINGE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
Fill NCE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCF.
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
FRINCE
CITY
FR 1 NCE
CITY
FRINCE
LAND AREA
ft
2
n
n
2
1970
POPULATION
( PEHSON)
511896
:ir.f,«
1751113
3«3!i29
A3ftn4
6542IW
II 11224
244 If, 3
339434
f.'H.r.f.f,
501757
1 143713
1 1144 137
44f,504
57ll7fi9
7W2II
59563
49073
2521 ft
1 1 11344
454ft9
103494
I««7II
62231
3lft33
5B4622
f>534f!5
29W79
2f>264
IH22flA
522114
5f.f,7fj
260
B5925
10012
724fl
2f,r,n
I25llft2
162770
170516
59104
1973
AUTO
2B674
1733
91247
137R3I
33R2 1
307364
53538
123078
171 102
365132
2f.3«ir.
582407
939078
246514
319538
36959
31354
27871
14088
89147
22693
60647
89017
30307
13109
303528
341516
16705
13036
80203
23003
29287
134
42327
4932
39028
1431
8704O
73802
89295
3O95 1
1973
TRUCK
6729
407
26337
454f>9
1 lf.f.4
68*77
12409
44334
61*32
70058
504f>5
105806
I70AO4
44669
5790 1
7*04
6450
874*
4421
1 10*9
4247
1 02911
10021
71 12
3543
7091*
792*9
5893
3324
309IU1
8888
6»39
28
1 13311
1321
9974
366
1 1 1 39
14411
2*367
9139
-------
TABLE 28 (Continued)
vo
o
CITY
TYPE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY
COI»E
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
211)
219
22*
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
220
229
230
231
CITY NAHE
SPRINGFIELD. IL
9PRinGFIELI).m
SPR 1 NCF 1 ELD , OH
SPRINCF1ELD.HASS
STAIlFORD.COnN
STF.tmF.nvi LI .E. on
STOCKTOn.CA
SYRACirSE. NY
TACOrfA.WA
TALLAHASSEE, FL
TAIIPA.FL
TERRF. HAUTE, IN
TEXARKANA.TX
TEXAS CITY.TX
TOLEDO. Oil
TOFEKA.KANS
TRENTON, NJ
TUCSON. AR 17.
TULSA.OK
TUSCALOOSA.AL
TYLER, TX
INNER CITY '
HRRAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URRAN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
1IRI1AN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
UHRAN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
1 Hill AN Fll 1 NGE
INNF.R CITY
URRAN FRINGE
INNKR CITY
tfllRAN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
IIRIIAN FRINGE
INNKR CITY
ItnilAN FRINGE
1 NNF.R CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
URDAN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
URBAN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
1IRRAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
IIRRAN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
INNF.R CITY
1IRI1AN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
URRAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
URRAN FRINGE
INNKR CITY
UIIRAN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
linilAN FRINGE
INNER CITY
INDIAN FRINGE
INNF.R CITY
imilAN FRINGE
LAND AREA
25.2
n.n
61.5
1 .!>
16.7
(1.3
B*. 3
151.7
:in. i
31.9
27.2
11.11
29.9
17. 1
25. n
7*. 2
47.7
III. 3
26. 1
3.9
(14.5
46.5
26. 1
5.9
16.2
14. n
(13.*
ni.2
04.0
47.5
5.5
7 . R
57.5
II*.*
25.*
172.*
II.*
27.4
16.6
23. 1
1.9
POPULATION
< PERSON I
916*7
29107
1 19999
1:141
RIO5*
1 111*3
211*594
2U37 14
1*1)1153
76*45
51)0211
27464
1*7459
52914
19727*
1 711099
154555
I779A6
71934
5919
277736
9I**6
7*3 1 6
1*592
3*497
211073
1)4*54
31)4* 1 5
1*3774
1 24931)
717*
1*4571)
16957*
262933
31251
33111**
39699
65773
2*1*2
5777*
2O I I
1973
AUTO
47R2*
15236
5611**
«.:ir,
4525(1
6526
I3R333
1 15221
67*53
46(143
27217
121)02
52471)
25O4I
83652
751162
75514
O6952
37572
3*92
176217
57741
29331
44 IO
14594
13434
4*531
2*7234
56**2
6B94*
3956
5459*
(K15I6
15*7611
1792*
IO6269
22207
3*424
9290
3**3II
1*45
1973
TRUCK
l**64
32*(t
19*1)4
21:1
6692
965
1619*
I34O5
51133
4*76
4722
2233
10199
O96I
13563
123**
2*397
23466
7164
5O9
26523
O69I
9766
1471
571*
5256
929*
3*515
11246
I9MI6
113*
6*76
9O52
4212*
5**6
58(193
7*47
7363
2251
911 19
342
-------
TABLE 28 (Concluded)
IX)
CITY
TYPR
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY
CODE
232
233
234
235
236
237
230
239
240
241
242
243
244
243
246
247
24O
CITY NAUR
WTICA.NY
VINKLANn.Nj
WACO.TX
WASH 1 flCTON , DC
WATRRnURY.COKN
WATRRLOO. IOWA
WEST PALH nF.ACn.PL
WHRELINC.WV
WICHITA, KANS
WICHITA FALLS, TX
WILKKS.PA
WILniNCTON.nRL
WILHINCTON.NC
WINSTON.NC
WORCESTER, MASS
YORK. PA
YOUNCSTOWN.OIt
INHF.R CITY /
URI1AN FIUNCF,
INNKR CITY
HHRAN FIUNCF,
INNF.Il CITY
I WHAN FIUNCF.
INNF.n CITY
inmAN FRINCF.
INNF.R CITY
imiiAN FRINCR
INNF.R CITY
URHAN FRINCF.
INNF.R CITY
IIIUIAN FRINCR
INNF.n CITY
HUMAN FIUNCF,
INNF.Il. CITY
Unit AN FIUNCF.
INNF.n CITY
IIIinAN FRINCR
INNF.R CITY
INNF.R CITY
unnAN FIUNCF,
INNF.n CITY
UtlllAN FRINCR
INNF.n CITY
UIIHAN FRINCR
INNF.R CITY
UnnAN Fill NCR
INNF.n CUT
unnAN FniNCR
INNF.n CITY
UIUIAN FIUNCF.
INNF.Il CITY
UimAN FRINCR
LAND AREA
(SO MILLS)
16.0
59.0
69 *>
iR.r.
511.7
31.3
61.4
43:1.6
27.6
32.4
rjij g
9.O
3O.4
97.6
I :i . 3
14.7
116 . 5
IH.5
42.0
6.7
76.3
12.9
0*7 I
17.5
11.5
56 . 5
9.5
37.4
46.6
5.3
31.7
45.6
ICI.4
1970
POPULATION
( 1'I.HSON)
91654
IIII70 1
47643
25136
95326
23517
756516
1724973
1011033
411953
7557(1
37303
57320
230233
4112(10
44664
276699
25635
97564
5imi7
164013
II03O6
290(11! 1
46169
1 1476
1 3290 1
96O3
176603
70013
50355
72771
203174
192366
1973
AUTO
36349
35169
24O70
1 3539
49294
12161
264024
602016
6654R
30155
3O693
19097
311623
1551 1 1
20RO4
19320
163334
15132
55011
34467
96117
41077
I4R640
253O9
6311
76770
5593
07065
34911
23724
3429B
M242I
106441
1973
TRUCK
6194
5994
27611
1507
14516
35OI
2125(1
411472
5791
2624
(1361
4127
B3*»4
21663
4022
3720
42021
3967
149(10
5O52
163 19
11042
31997
5422
I34O
15124
1 102
10190
40O6
3624
5239
13196
12494
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1973) and U.S. Federal Highway Administration (1978).
-------
TABLE 29. EXPOSURE/DOSAGE ANALYSIS DATA BASE FOR TYPE II CITY AREA SOURCES
VD
INS
CITY
TYPE
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
CITY
CODK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
O
9
to
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
IO
19
2ft
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
3fl
39
40
CITY WAflE
ANTf I8TO1I , AL
nFCf^FpfFn Al
nKCATUIi. AL
no THAN , AL
FI.OHKNCK. AL
PIIKNIX CITY.AL
SKI.MA.AL
ANCHORACK.AL
FI.ACSTAKF.AH
YOMA.An
KL nOHAOO.An
FAYKTTKV I LLK, AR
IIOTSPIUNC.AI1
joNKsnono.Ait
WKST NKMPIIIS.AR
ANTIOCII.CA
CONCOItD.CA
cnnoriA.CA
FAIHFIF.LO.CA
LANCASTKH.CA
LivF.nnonK.CA
LOItl.CA
LOnPOC.CA
NAI'A.CA
NKWAOK.CA
NOVATO.CA
OCKANSIOK.CA
nKm.ANDS.CA
ItKDWOOO CITY.CA
SAN MMS OOISPO.CA
SAN RAFARL.CA
SANTA Cmi7.,CA
SANTA HAniA.CA
VISALIA.CA
WALNUT CRKFK.CA
FOttT COLL INS, CO
CIIKKLKY.CO
mm»LKTOwii.coi»
MiLrono.coii
M--.W LONDON. CON
LAND ARF.A P
-------
TABLE 29 (Continued)
vo
CO
CITY
TYPE
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
o
2
2
j>
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
CITY
COI»F.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
4O
49
50
51
52
55
54
55
56
57
5fl
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
61)
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
7O
79
no
CITY WAHE
NORWICH. CON
SlfF.LTOW.CON
TORR I NCTON , COH
IIAYWNA IIBACII.FI.
FORT MYF.HS.H.
FORT PIKROF..FL
KEY WKST.FL
LAICF.LAND.rL
WKLIWMIRNF,.FL
HF.RIUTI' ISLANn.FL
PANAMA CITY.FI.
POPIPANO nKACH.FL
SARASOTA.FI.
TITUS VILLK.FL
A11IF.NS.CA
ROMF..CA
VAL1MISTA.CA
WARNF.R ROniNS.CA
IIILO.IIA
IDAHO KALI-S.in
LF.WISTON. ID
P
ALTON, II.
nF.LLF.VILLR. IL
DANVILLE. IL
OF. KALR. IL
EAST ST. LOUIS. IL
FRF.EPORT, IL
CALKSRirRC. IL
KANKAKEK. IL
PK.KIN. IL
OIIINOY. IL
nLoonimmtN. IN
ooi.unniis. IN
RIIOIART. IN
KOKono. IN
nAIUON, IN
men i<: AN, IN
NEW ALRANV. IN
RICimOND. IN
LAND AREA 1
ISO HII.KS>
26. 1
30. n
39 . 6
22.11
12.0
10. ft
4. 1
12.6
23.9
16.2
13.11
11.5
14.0
15.2
14.7
15.5
1 1. 1
15.5
56. 1
9.4
15. 1
13.7
1 1 .0
9.6
12.9
5.4
15.9
11.3
12.2
7.6
9. 1
11.9
11.4
11.7
15.6
9.2
9.6
20.6
11.3
13.7
1970
•OPULATION
< PERSON)
41433
27194
51952
45327
2755 1
297211
27325
41550
40312
29255
52125
577 1 1
40257
50515
44542
50756
52502
33430
26359
35776
260611
40036
39700
4I90H
42690
3292n
69947
27756
56290
50iifif>
31297
452IUI
42776
27295
43594
44042
391156
59275
311402
44OIO
1973
AUTO
25523
16752
196(12
1 76211
III 1911
17064
156113
24952
251146
1 11743
1 11440
2«>300
51515
195611
25191
I60n5
16996
19004
1 2626
1115 17
15347
2049H
19495
20577
20961
I6I6H
34344
136 in
1711 III
15165
1 51106
22256
2 1 3lin
1 56411
21797
22021
199 in
19639
19201
220O5
1973
TRUCK
2221
I45H
1713
4629
3526
2567
3279
6462
3537
2565
3O55
3224
453O
26711
65 IH
4521
477H
3309
2167
11019
H2»9
12331
40n9
4316
4397
3392
7205
2H57
373H
3ini
2674
4665
6416
4094
6539
6606
5975
BH9I
5760
6602
-------
TABLE 29 (Continued)
CITY
TYPE
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
CITY
CODF.
81
82
nn
n4
B5
nft
n7
nn
119
9ft
91
92
93
94
95
9ft
97
9H
99
Ift*
1*1
1*2
1*3
1*4
1*5
Iftft
1*7
ion
109
10
II
12
in
14
15
Ift
17
in
19
120
CITY WAHF.
Arms. IA
nUIU.INCTON. IA
CLINTON. IA
FOUT noncR. IA
IOWA CITY, IA
MAIISnALLTOWN, IA
MASON CITY. IA
orruniVA.iA
HUTCH INSON.KA
LAWRRNCR.KA
I.KAVKNWOnill.KA
MANHATTAN. KA
OVF.IILAND PAIUC.KA
PRAiniF. YILLACR.KA
SALINA.KA
noWI.INC CRF.RN.KF.
FONT KNOX.KK
PAnUCAII.KF.
ALRXANimiA.LA
nossiF.n CITY. LA
HOUMA.LA
KRNNKR. LA
NRW inRRIA.LA
nANCOR. MR
ANNAPOLIS.im
cunnF.nj.ANn, no
iiACRnsTowN.rro
ATTLF.nono.nAss
GMNICKSTF.lt. MASS
MAni.nonou«:n. MASS
TAIINTON , HASS
nArn.RCRRKK, men
HOLLAND. niCII
nini.ANn.nicn
ponT inmoN.ntcfi
YPSILANTI.Miai
AUSTIN.MN
HANKATO. rtN
ST. ci.oiin.rm
VI WON A, MM
LAItn ARF.A
16. n
i 3 . «
33. 1
14.5
21. 1
14. ft
15.2
11.9
in. 4
Ift. 7
11.9
7.4
46. 2
6.3
15.11
16.2
*^O 2
11.9
12. ft
21. 1
n.5
14.2
7.5
34.3
5.11
II. ft
11.5
27. ft
24.7
20. 5
47. ft
11.11
13.11
24.9
7.5
4. 1
7.3
9.11
HI. II
1 3 . «
197*
-------
TABLE 29 (Continued)
vo
(Jl
CITY
TYPE
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
CITY
CODE
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
I2O
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
I3O
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
I4O
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
150
159
160
CITY WAME
cournnirs.M!
CnF.F.NVILI.F.,111
iiATriKsnimo.Hi
MK.nilHAN.ni
PASOACOULA.MI
vicKsmmc.m
CAPE <;inAiu>EAir,iio
FF.nciJsoN.no
FI.OniSSANT.l1O
Foirr I.F.ON Annwoon.no
JEFFERSON CITY, no
JOPLIN.nO
KI nKwoon.no
nAvrowN.no
ST. CHAnLF.fl.no
niSSOULA.HT
OHANII ISLAND. HE
coNconn.mi
POnTSnoUTII.NH
LONG ntlAWCII.NJ
NEW nnUNSWICK.NJ
oi. T> nni IK; E.N.I
PERTH AMnOY.NJ
SAYnKVILLE.N.I
CLOU IS. Nn
uonns . it N
LAS cmicEs.ifn
nos WELL, mi
SANTA FE.NH
AMSTF.nnAn. NY
AimiHlN.NY
ELninA.NY
ITHACA, NY
JAmCSTOWN.WY
KINGSTON, NY
NF.wmmcii.NY
NIAGARA FALLS, If Y
NonTII TONAnVANDA.flY
POUCIIKEEPS IE, NY
WATEIirOWN.NY
I,Alf1> AREA PCI
(SO niLES) (
fl.3
11.0
17.5
25.4
14.9
10.5
III. 5
5.(l
9.0
12.2
lll.il
20. 7
(1.9
10.0
9.5
7.9
II. 1
63 . 3
15.2 '
5. 1
5.6
6.0
4.7
16.2
1 1.4
16.6
17.0
24.2
29.4
5.0
II. 5
7.3
5.6
9.5
7.7
3.9
13.4
10.0
4.0
9.2
•PWLATIOW
PKIISON >
2579S
396411
3(1274
450113
27471
255(16
309 Ml
2HO37
66006
33(14(1
32250
39227
31(1(10
33635
3IO34
29403
*l 1 *^4»O
• > 1 *Cfl™
30022
261 (Ml
31774
41(155
25176
30777
3250O
2O553
26109
37O57
3390O
41 167
25524
34599
39945
26226
39795
25544
26219
O56I5
36012
JI3029
307117
1973
Airro
i m*
17445
I6O4I
19(137
1 20117
1 1 25(1
14439
14944
34207
1 51107
15061
1(1319
16521
1 5569
15741
15290
16635
16212
14142
165116
2111411
13142
20242
16969
14505
13263
19231
17225
20913
101100
12(171
17060
9756
I4O04
9502
9753
37243
1 5666
1 50119
1 1453
1973
TRUCK
448B
61199
6660
71144
47O0
4452
4576
1514
3465
5010
4773
S006
1674
2762
3O63
9527
7(117
3032
2645
1046
2432
1463
2253
IIIO9
7110
6501
9426
O443
1025 1
1705
1754
2751
1330
20 IO
1295
1329
4520
1905
1792
1561
-------
TABLE 29 (Continued)
0»
CITT
TYPE
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
cm
conr.
1*1
1*2
163
Ki4
165
166
167
Iftfl
169
17*
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
17ft
179
IIKI
mi
1O2
m:i
104
ins
Ifl6
If 17
inn
mi
190
191
192
19:1
194
199
196
197
19n
199
2OO
CITY HAHE
BtmLiiwmnf.nc
CANP I.KJEtrNF..NC
CIIAPEI, HI i.i,. m:
«ASTONIA,NO
coutsnono. we
Cn.F.KNVIiXE.NC
KANNAPOLIS.NU
nocicv nowNT.NC
WILSON.NC
BISMARCK. ND
CflAND FORKS. m>
niNor.ND
ALLIANCE. OH
AUSTINTOWN, On
nOAWmAN.OH
FAIIinoilN.OII
FINDLAY.OII
LANCASTEH. OH
riAniori.oii
MASS i LOW. on
NF.VAnK.on
rofiTsniJimi, OH
jsAnmiSKY.on
XENIA.Ofl
7ANESVII.LE.on
nAni,ESVILLE.O)C
EN in. OK
nil^KOCEE.OIC
PONOA.OK
SHAWWF.E.OK
STII.I.WATEH.OK
convAi.i.is.on
iw.iiFonn.on
LF.ItANON.PA
NEW <:ASTLE.PA
f»TATE COLLEGE, FA
WII.LIAItSPOnT.PA
NEWOHT.ni
«m»NSOf;KKT,ni
ANnKIISON.SC
LAND AREA 1
(SU HIM.S)
13.2
16. 4
7.n
19.9
9.<»
11.4
29. t
12.4
fl. 1
I». 9
9.2
H. 1
6.2
n.2
9.5
7.5
11.4
in. i
7. 1
ft. 9
i:i.:i
12.2
9. 1
6.H
II. 1
9.:i
2H.5
22.5
111.7
na.5
17. a
7.9
12.2
4.6
7.7
4.tl
9. 1
7.:i
7.9
10. fl
19m
•OFW1.ATIOW
(PEIISONI
»«i9n
»45I7
2554 1
471 5:i
26fl2 1
29W7H
:i62;iA
34315
29JI47
3467«
n9«44
32279
26547
29563
3ftfl6ft
02279
:i5IUM»
:I2'» 1 1
:tfi6ni
:i26
-------
TABLE 29 (Continued)
10
CITY
TYPE
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
CITY
CODE
291
202
2*3
1>04
205
206
207
20(1
2O9
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
2lfl
219
220
221
222
223
224
223
226
227
22R
229
230
231
232
233
234
233
23ft
237
23B
239
240
CITY WANE
FLOREKCE.SC
ROCK IIILL.SC
SPARTAHRIIRC.RC
AnKRnEKN.sn
u/\rii» i:iTY.sf»
CLARKSVILLE.TR
JACKSON.TN
JOHNSON CITY.TR
KINOSrORT.TN
nunrnr.Ksnono, TN
OAK RIIM:E,TN
me SPRINC..TX
DENTON.TX
FORT IIOOn.TX
KILLEEN.TX
KINGSVILLE.TX
LONGVIF.W.TX
WF,SQUITE,TX
RICIIARnSON.TX
TEMPLE. TX
VICTORIA, TX
BURL 1 NGTON . VT
en ARLoTTEsv i LLE . VA
DANVILLE.VA
nF.LLIKaiAM.WA
RRF.nERTON.WA
FORT LEWIS.WA
LAKES niSTRICT.WA
LONCVIfiW.HA
RICIILAND.VA
YAKII1A.WA
FAIRHONT.WV
MORUANTOWN , WV
PARKEIWmiRO.WV
RF.MMT.WI
EAU CLAIRE. Wl
FONDDULAC.VI
JAHESVILLE.WI
HAHITOWOC.WI
SIIF.nOYOAH.WI
LAIfn AREA 1
(S«i HII,F.S>
9. R
14. 1
16.3
5.6
If.. 5
25 . (1
17.3
15.6
17.4
11.3
O2. 7
12.0
27.6
0.2
26.0
10. U
22.6
25 . II
211.0
22.6
16.6
10. 1
10.4
16.7
20. B
9.8
13. n
15. n
II. 1
23. 1
1 1.4
0.7
6.7
10.9
12. n
19.9
9.4
19.0
11.0
9.6
1970
•OPIH.ATIOW
25997
33(146
44546
26476
43H36
31719
39996
33770
31920
26360
203(14
211(124
09O74
32677
35507
20605
455(10
552»9
4O662
3343 1
41349
3(1633
3OOO0
4639 1
39379
35307
3O033
4(1149
20373
262113
4550(1
25919
293(17
4419(1
33729
44603
35690
46426
33497
411523
1973
AUTO
12017
I66R6
21472
13264
21962
121103
20430
I4O29
12563
1 3067
IOOO4
15190
19274
13629
141109
15075
24021
31552
24243
13943
21791
I9OI9
21345
23799
2I5O0
I934O
10592
23525
I554O
11413
24369
I0O0O
12254
1 11921
17043
21276
I702O
22145
1 597(1
23146
1973
TRUCK
9354
4366
4421
7652
12669
3216
6159
4144
3O02
3316
3271
5505
6O33
3(16(1
4204
5464
B706
6336
R243
3950
7O9O
4945
4160
593A
77 IR
6920
5017
6349
B56I
3330
960O
4017
4553
4O3B
34O0
4344
3477
4522
3263
4726
-------
TABLE 29 (Concluded)
CITY CITf
TYTE COW.
2 241
2 242
2 24fl
CITY 1«AHE
WAOSAU.WI
CAsrF.n. wv
f 1 1 ir vi' M ill I.* W
^7n
224:14
If79
TRUCK
9I9S
141147
ir»:if.4
00
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (1973) and U.S. Federal Highway
Administration (1978).
-------
TABLE 30. EXPOSURE/DOSAGE ANALYSIS DATA BASE FOR TYPE III CITY AREA SOURCES
ID
10
CITY
TYPE
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
CITY
conr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
n
9
to
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
in
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
30
39
4O
CITY flAHF.
ARAR.AL
HAY MINKTTE.At.
inONDAI.E.AI,
CONWAY.AIl
KN«LANt», AR
I.AICF. VII,U\CF,,AR
PTF.NA.An
MONTI CELLO. Alt
miSSFJ.I.VILLE.AR
WAI.NUT niDCF..AIl
A1,TUHAS.CA
nANNINO.CA
CAIWF.I. VALLEY, CA
CHINA LAKK..CA
CUCAriONCA.CA
EUREKA, C A
CIXim.EY.CA
LAMONT.CA
NF.WIIALL.CA
PALIWALE.CA
SANTA HARIA.CA
SWISAW CITY.CA
nniorroN.co
GOLDEN , CO
DANIEUSON.CH
OHANCETOWN.CI1
smsmmv CENTKR.CH
WILLIMANTIC.CN
MF.MPIIIS.FL
MIAMI SIHmF.S,FL
PEnnY. FL
CAnnoi.LTon.cA
LAnKSTON.GA
SMYIINATOWN.CA
IIALF.in^A.HAW
ciiunnucK, ID
ALSIH. IL
CENTREVILLE. IL
CHESTER . IL
CLAnENHON niLLS, IL
I.Ann AREA i
(H«l WILES)
6. 1
7.4
3. i
it. ii
1.7
2.0
5.2
3. i
7.0
2.:i
2.4
14. :i
7.4
7.6
3.5
14.9
1.0
1.6
4.0
47.4
2.4
i . :i
2.7
5.r.
i . i
17.4
4.5
4.5
1 .5
2.4
'».!!
10.5
.6
9.2
l.ll
6.0
n.o
4. 1
7.0
1.5
197*
•OP1ILATIOW
< PERSON)
4399
6727
3166
15510
3O75
:mo
45:10
5OII5
11750
31100
2799
120:14
3026
II K>5
5796
24X17
3534
7007
965 1
115 1 1
7129
2917
B309
9BI7
45B0
13524
4994
14402
3207
9425
7701
13520
:t!27
19157
2626
2924
11 141
Iin7fl
3310
6750
1979
Airro
3467
36 6 B
1616
66311
1316
1417
1939
2176
5029
1626
1520
6217
1561
5503
2960
13215
1919
3472
RI9I
457H
3753
1424
4006
63411
2B2I
1133 1
3076
IIII72
1041
54IO
4420
7071
1627
I247O
1257
1520
4512
55B7
2607
36OO
1979
TRUCK
921
1295
3O9
32IMI
652
702
960
10711
2491
nO6
369
157O
366
2047
1261
3212
466
1292
0:15
736
772
30fl
1BO7
1559
249
725
26(1
772
3O5
1131
924
19117
219
2460
216
9
-------
TABLE 30 (Continued)
8
CITY
TYPE
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
cm
COIIF,
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
4B
49
5*
51
52
53
54
53
56
57
5B
59
6*
61
62
63
64
63
66
67
6B
69
7*
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
B*
t
CITY RAMF.
FFFINCflAM. IL
IIF.NRY. IL
LA CRANCF. PARK. IL
LAVRF.NCEVILLF.. IL
LYONS. IL
SPARTA. IL
AURORA. IN
AUSTIN. IN
IIOItART. IN
RENISON. IA
F.LnORA, IA
MOUNT VF.RNO1f.tA
ONAWA. IA
WINTF.RSET. IA
CONCORDIA.KA
MULVANF..KA
PIIILLPSnURR.KA
DAWSON SPRINC.KJI
FORT WRICHT.KN
JF.NKINS.KN
OKOLONA.KN
CARinOU.MF.
FARMINOTON.ME
KITTF.RY CF.NTF.ll, HE
RAINRRIDGF..MD
PALMF.R PARK. Ml)
nUXRURYTOWN , MASS
CRF.ENF 1 F.LDTOWN . MASS
IIADLF.YTOWN.MASS
ORAIK7E CENTER. MASS
TF.MPUCTORTOWR . MASS
WARF.TOWN.HASS
WILHINr.TONTOVN.MASS
FREMONT. MICH
<;AYI.ORI>.MICII
CROSKF. ILE.MICH
LEVEL PARK. MICH
ST. LOUIS. MICH
LAKK CITY.MN
MINNF.TRISTA.MN
LANT» ARF.A 1
(SO MILKS)
3.2
1 . W
2.:i
2.*
1.9
1.5
2.5
2. 1
15.*
5.5
4.4
1.2
4.5
1.5
2.9
1 .«
1.2
3.7
2. 1
6.5
7. 1
8.2
2.9
2.4
1.9
.B
23. 3
21. 0
23.2
2.5
31 .9
34.2
17.2
2.6
2. 1
7.9
1.9
I.B
3.5
26. 1
197*
1»P1ILATION
94118
2610
15459
5B63
II 124
49*7
429 3
4«»»2
21 4115
62 III
0223
3«iB
3154
3654
7221
3 1115
3241
3*O9
4HI9
2552
1764:1
1*419
3*96
7363
5257
8172
76J16
181 16
375*
3847
51163
BIB7
171*2
3465
a* 12
n:i*6
3*11*
41*1
3954
2B7II
1973
Atrm
4644
I2III
62ft*
2O79
45*5
2115
2147
2451
9IM6
3451
I7B9
1675
175*
2*211
4«|5
IIIBI
11102
1517
2429
12116
9166
5U«3
1576
3748
2713
4217
3765
893 1
IB49
HI97
2119* -
4*36
8431
1798
1563
3945
1559
2128
inn*
1514
1979
TRUCK
»74
269
4B»
6*4
345
444
322
368
133*
1287
667
623
653
756
1841
454
826
548
877
464
1386
IB**
449
1*6*
465
676
441
1*45
216
222
338
472
987
371
322
4*4
316
439
629
2*3
-------
TABLE 30 (Continued)
ro
o
CITY
TYPE
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
CITY
COI>F.
ai
02
83
84
B5
n6
B7
OR
119
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
9B
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
10R
109
110
II 1
112
113
1 14
115
116
117
tin
119
120
CITY NAME
HDRA.PIN
HACOW.PIIJJS
MORTON, MISS
AVA.PIISS
nUTLER.HISS
DEXTER, HISS
CENTRAL CITY, HE
EXETERTOWN.NH
HAriPTONTOWN.NH
H i LLsnonocnro wii , rot
HINSDALETOWN.NH
NF.WHARKF.T COW ACT. H
woLFF.noROTowN . mi
DimONT, N.I
KENDALL PARK. N.I
LITTLE 8ILVER.NJ
MOORESTOWN.NJ
NEW MILFORD.NJ
notmi CAPE HAY.IIJ
ELMA CENTER. NY
LAKE CARWEL.NY
LITTLE FALLS, NY
NF.WMARK.NY
NF.W YORK MILLS. HY
NORTH BF.LLPORT.NY
NORTH MASSAPEOOA.IIY
RYE, NY
SOOT 1 A. 11 Y
TICONDF.nOCA.nY
VOORHEESV 1 LLE, WY
KERNS VILLE.NC
NEW RIVF.R-CIECER.IfC
STANFORD, NC
BRUNSWICK, OR
CRF.F.NSVILLE.OIt
NEW PIIILADF.LrillA.On
ADA. OK
LINDSAY, OK
SULPHUR. OK
ni.AKKLY.PA
197*
LAND AREA 1
(SQ niLKS)
3.5
3.5
2.H
2.2
2.3
3.5
1.7
20.0
in. 3
44.5
20.5
2. 1
47.4
i.n
2.11
2.11
7. 1
2.3
.7
5.4
1.7
4. 1
5.0
.9
3.3
2.H
5.6
l.fl
1 .4
2.2
3.0
7.3
4.4
10.7
1.3
4.4
6.5
1.3
3.3
4.0
•OP1FLATION
(PF.RSON)
2RB2
2612
2672
2504
39114
6024
21103
HH'»2
n0| 1
2775
3276
2645
3036
20155
7412
6010
14170
19149
3RI2
27«4
4796
7629
11644
31105
5903
23123
1 5H69
7370
326A
21126
411 15
IUi99
11716
1 51152
6092
151114
1 41159
3705
5I5B
6391
1973
AUTO
1350
1149
1176
1169
inf. i
211 13
1941
4R02
4326
1499
1769
I42H
1639
10521
31169
3137
7397
9996
1990
1130
1704
3012
5241
1511
2922
12350
7933
3469
1216
1 159
2923
4776
6432
9276
3521
B776
11054
200R
2796
3071
I»T3
TRUCK
4B2
454
465
371
590
B92
701
B9B
437
151
331
267
307
1171
431
349
B23
1113
221
114
243
530
I3IR
24B
2B3
642
454
379
166
159
575
1409
IB9B
1476
551
1373
3B34
956
1331
469
-------
TABLE 30 (Concluded)
CITY
TYPF,
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
CITY
CODF,
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
1211
129
13*
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
inn
139
14*
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
145
149
15*
CITY WAHE
DOYLESTOWII.PA
CETTYSmmG.PA
LinF.RTY.rA
ST. OLA in. PA
SLIPPERY ROCK. PA
TYRONE, PA
VAI»nF.nCRIFT.PA
WEST WARWICKTOWlt.RI
CAPF.nART.se
corrwAY.sc
nonRincE.SD
LA FOLLF.TTE.ni
Roacwoon.TN
BURWF.T.TX
C ROWLEY, TX
FROHIA.TX
LOCKIIAirr.TX
LULiriC.TX
PORTl.AIIO.TX
SAX AUGUSTIW!.TX
ST.ALY.TX
RILSKF.E.TX
PRICE. UT
RAOFORII.VI
LVIIKN.WA
STEILACOOn.WA
IIARTl.ANn.WI
HKI»FOU1».WI
SOUTH MILWAUKEE.*!
GI1F.KN RIVF.R.WY
LAWD AREA \
-------
SECTION 4
UNCERTAINTIES
The data and data-based estimations described in Sections 2 and 3 are
subject to uncertainties that may be evaluated subjectively or objec-
tively. Quantification of uncertainty has been undertaken where feasi-
ble. If data for the quantification of some aspects of uncertainty were
not available within the scope of this program, an effort was made to sub-
jectively describe the parameters of the uncertainty factor and evaluate
its qualitative effect.
Review of uncertainty is presented in two parts:
> Uncertainty of Emissions Estimation
> Uncertainty of Exposure/Dosage Estimation.
UNCERTAINTIES INVOLVED IN EMISSION ESTIMATIONS
A number of factors could cause the estimated emissions of a specific
chemical to be considerably higher or lower than the actual amount calcu-
lated. This is true to a greater degree for individual plant sites and to
a lesser degree for total industry sources. The primary factors that
could cause emission estimate deviations are listed and discussed below:
> A primary source of error would occur if production or use
quantities were estimated too high or too low. The effect
on emissions and, in turn, on ambient concentrations would
be directly proportional.
203
-------
Not all plants operate at the same level of capacity. By
distributing total production of a chemical based on the
ratio of individual site capacity compared to total
industry capacity, error is automatically built in.
Plants that operate below the average industry level of
capacity would have emissions estimated too low. This
type of averaging necessarily leads to underestimates of
the exposure and dosage at the highest concentration
levels; in fact, the averaging will lead to underestimates
of the maximum concentrations. Depending on population
patterns, however, the effect on total dosage may be rela-
tively little.
The omission of significant sources of emissions in any
summary for a specific chemical would render the total
emissions estimate too low.
The use and efficiency of control devices is not uniform
for all producers or users of a specific chemical. Emis-
sion factors derived from a plant without control devices
would make emissions estimates from those plants that do
use control devices too high. Conversely, if the emis-
sions factor were derived from a plant with an effective
control device, the emissions estimates from those plants
not employing a similar device would be too low.
In general, old plants have greater associated emissions
than do new plants producing or using the same chemical.
Emission factors derived primarily from old plant data
would cause emissions estimates to be too high, and emis-
sions factors derived primarily from modern, new plants
would cause emissions estimates to be too low.
Emissions estimates derived by assuming that all the
chemical is lost to the atmosphere when it is used in sol-
vent applications are probably too high. Some portion of
most solvents normally is disposed of by encapsulation for
burial or is burned for the heat value of the solvent.
204
-------
There is a level of uncertainty or confidence associated with each
source identified and each emissions estimate. Although that level cannot
be quantified, it can be assumed to vary as a function of the quality of
the available information on sources and emissions. Uncertainty levels
were defined according to this rationale, as shown in Table 37. It should
be noted that emissions uncertainty levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 correspond with
levels A, B, C, and D, respectively, used in the individual chemical emis-
sions summaries. These defined uncertainty levels are necessarily subjec-
tive. They were assigned by HI on the basis of the nature of data used to
identify the sources and generate the emissions estimates. Even with the
highest level of confidence (level 1), attempts to quantify the uncer-
tainty would represent a formidable task. A complete listing of the
levels of uncertainty assigned to the emissions of the 35 chemicals from
the production, use, and incidental sources is shown as Table 38. A com-
posite uncertainty, based on emissions-weighted averages of the component
uncertainties, is also presented for each chemical.
UNCERTAINTIES IN EXPOSURE/DOSAGE ESTIMATIONS
Estimating human exposure to toxic chemicals requires detailed know-
ledge of both population distribution and concentration patterns over the
surface of the earth within a given time period. The ideal estimate would
require error-free characterizations of concentrations, c(x,t),at all
spatial coordinates x and times t and, similarly, of population densi-
ties, p(x,t), for all x and t. At each instant t, the total dosage would
be given by
D(t) = / c(x,t) p(x,t) dx (31)
and the exposure at level L by
205
-------
TABLE 37. DEFINITION OF UNCERTAINTY LEVELS IN CHEMICAL SOURCE LOCATIONS
AND EMISSIONS ESTIMATIONS
Uncertainty Uncertainty
Type Level
Definition
Example
Sources
ro
o
o>
Emissions
Complete data of reasonable accuracy on site
locations and individual site capacities.
Partially estimated data of Indeterminate
accuracy on site locations or individual site
capacities.
Complete data of indeterminate accuracy on
regional site locations using an average pro-
duction or use quantity per site.
Site locations and production or use quanti-
ties of indeterminate accuracy estimated
without data.
Unable to identify site locations.
Emissions estimated from company site visit
data of reasonable accuracy.
Emissions estimated from data of Indeter-
minate accuracy supplied by a company to
state agencies.
Emissions estimated from data of indeter-
minate accuracy obtained from other published
sources.
Emissions of indeterminate accuracy estimated
without data.
Complete data on ethylene oxide-producing
locations are available along with total
Industry and Individual plant capacities to
allow for the distribution of total industry
production.
Complete data on peracetic acid-producing
locations are available but total use of
acetaldehyde to produce peracetic acid must
be distributed evenly over all sites because
total and Individual site capacity data are
not available.
Complete data on regional locations of phenolic
resin plants are available and an average use
of phenol per site can be determined.
The total number of quaternary ammonium com-
contpound-producing locations was estimated, and
total benzyl chloride usage to produce it was
evenly distributed over the estimated sites.
Site locations for miscellaneous uses of
phenol could not be Identified.
Emissions data were obtained from site visits by
HI personnel to various companies (I.e.,
chlorobenzene production emission factor).
Emissions data were obtained from various state
agencies emissions Inventory questionnaires
(i.e., phosgene emissions factor from its use
to produce TDI).
Emissions data were obtained from other pre-
viously published emissions Information (I.e.
pentaerythrltol formaldehyde use emissions
factor).
Emissions data and emissions estimates made by
HI personnel (i.e.. mixed xylene emissions
factor from ethyl benzene production).
Source: Hydroscience, Incorporated, Knoxville, Tennessee.
-------
TABLE 38. LEVELS OF UNCERTAINTY FOR ASSESSED CHEMICALS
Source Emissions
Chemical Location Estimates
Acetaldehyde 1.2* 2.6*
Production 1 2
Use
Acetic acid 1 2/3
Peracetic acid 22
Pentaerythritol 1 3
Pyridenes 1 3
Glyoxal 2 4
1,3-butylene glycol 2 2
Miscellaneous 5 4
Acrolei n 1.3* 1.8*
Production 1 1
Use
Acrylic acid and esters 1 1
Glycerin 1 1
Methionine 2 4
Miscellaneous 5 4
Ally! Chloride 1.0* 2.0*
Production 1 2
Use
Epichlorohydrin 1 2
Benzyl Chloride 1.6* 2J5*_
Production 1 2/3
Use
Butyl benzyl phthalate 2 3
Quarternary ammonium compounds 2 4
Benzyl alcohol 1 3
Miscellaneous 5 4
* Composite level of uncertainty based on weighted average of total emissions,
Source: Hydroscience, Incorporated, Knoxville, Tennessee estimates.
207
-------
TABLE 38 (Continued)
Source Emissions
Chemical Location Estimates
Beryl 1i um 4.9* 3.0*
Production • 5 3
Use
Beryllium alloy 2 3
Beryllium fabrication 5 3
Beryllium oxide 5 3
Incidental
Gray iron foundries 4 3
Coal burning 3/5 3
Oil burning 3/5 3
*
Carbon Tetrachloride 4.7* 4.0
Production 1 1
Use
Solvents 4 4
Nitrochlorobenzene 1 3
DDT 1 3
Diphenyl oxide 2 2
Miscellaneous 5 4
Chloroform 4.8* 3.9<
Production 1 1
Use
Fluorocarbons 1 1
Solvents, miscellaneous 5 4
Chlorprene 2.0* 2.0*
Production 2 2
Use
Neoprene 2 2
* Composite level of uncertainty based on weighted average of total
emissions.
203
-------
TABLE 38 (Continued)
Source Emissions
Chemical Location Estimates
Cresols (m-, o-, p- isomers) 4.7* 3.9*
Production 1/2 2/4
Use
BHT/antioxidants 1/2 4
Phenolic resins 4 4
Pesticides 3 3
Pyrethroid pesticides 4 4
TCP production 1 3
Solvent 3 3
Disinfectant/cleaning 5 4
Ore flotation 4 4
Miscellaneous 5 4
Incidental
Coke ovens 3 3
Dichlorobenzenes (o- and p- isomers) 4.8* 3.9*
Production 1 1
Use
3,4-Dichloroaniline 2 3
Toluene diisocyanate solvent 1 4
Miscellaneous solvents 5 4
Dye manufacturing 5 4
Pesticide intermediates 5 4
Space deodorant 5 4
Moth control 5 4
Pimethyl amine 2.2* 3.3*
Production 2 3
Use
Dimethyl formide 2 4
Lauryl dimethyl amine oxide 2 4
Rubber chemical accelerators 4 4
Dimethyl hydrazine/pesticides 4 4
* Composite level of uncertainty based on weighted average of
total emissions.
-------
TABLE 38 (Continued)
Source Emissions
Chemical Location Estimates
2.3.7.8-TCDD (Dioxin) 4.3* 3.3*
Incidental
Trichlorophenol 2 4
2,4,5-T 2 3
Pentachlorophenol 1 4
Burning 5 3
Application of 2,4,5-T 5 1
Application of pentachlorophenol 5 4
Epichlorohydrin 2.2* 2.3*
Production 1 2
Use
Glycerin 1 2
Epoxy resins 2 2
Miscellaneous 5 4
Elastomers 5 4
Ethylene Oxide 1.0* 1.0*
Production 1 1
Use
AlT 11
Formaldehyde 1.7* 3.7*
Production 1 1
Use
Resins 1 4
Butanediol 1 4
Pentaerythritol 1 3
Hexamethylene tetramine 1 3
Trimethylopropane 1 2
Miscellaneous 5 4
* Composite level of uncertainty based on weighted average of total emissions
210
-------
TABLE 38 (Continued)
Source Emissions
Chemical Location Estimates
Hexachl orocyclopentadi ene 4.0* 4.0*
Production 4 4
Use
Pesticides 4 3
Flame retard ants 4 4
Resins 4 4
Manganese 4.0* 3.0*
Production 5 3
Use
All 3 3
Incidental
All 3/5 3
Methylene Chloride 4.5* 3.7*
Production 1 1
Use
Solvents 3 3/4
Miscellaneous 5 4
Morpholine 4.7* 4.0*
Production 2 1
Use
Rubber chemicals 3 4
Corrosion inhibitor 5 4
Optical brightener 4 4
Polishes and waxes 4 4
Miscellaneous 5 4
* Composite level of uncertainty based on weighted average of
total emissions.
211
-------
TABLE 38 (Continued)
Source Emissions
Chemical Location Estimates
Nickel 3.8* 3.0*
Production 1 3
Use
All 3 3
Incidental
Power plants 3 3
Boilers 5 3
Coke ovens 3 3
Diesel fuel 5 3
Nitrobenzene 3.9* 3.9*
Production 1 1
Use
Aniline - 1 1
Sol vent £- f<
Chemical intermediates 4 3
PCBs 2.0* 4.0*
Incidental
Incinerators 2 4
Phenol 1.2* L21
Production 1 3
Use
Caprolactam 1 1
Bisphenol A 13
Nonylphenol 1 3
Salicylic acid 1 3
Dodecyl phenol 1 4
Phenolic resins 1 4
Adi pic acid 1 1
Miscellaneous 5 4
* Composite level of uncertainty based on weighted average of
total emissions.
212
-------
TABLE 38 (Continued)
Source Emissions
Chemical Location Estimates
Phosgene 1.0* 2.0*
Production 1 2
Use
TDI 1 2
MDI 1 2
Polycarbonates 5 4
Miscellaneous • 5 4
Propylene Oxide 1.0* 2.0*
Production 1 2
Use
Urethane polyols 1 2
Propylene glycol 1 2
Surfactant polyols 2 4
di/tri-Propylene glycols 1 2
Glycol ethers 2 2
Miscellaneous 5 4
*
Toluene 3.7* 3.4
Production 1 1/2/4
Use
Benzene 1 2
Solvent 5 4
TDI 1 3
Xylenes 1 4
Benzoic acid 1 3 .
Benzyl chloride 1 3
Vinyl toluene 1 4
Benzaldehyde 2 4
p-Cresol 1 4
Miscellaneous 5 4
Incidental
Gasoline marketing 3 3
* Composite level of uncertainty based on weighted average of
total emissions.
213
-------
TABLE 38 (Continued)
Source Emissions
Chemical Location Estimates
To!uene (Continued)
Incidental
Gasoline - automobiles 3 3
Gasoline - exhaust 3 3
Coke ovens 3 3
Trichloroethylene 3.1* 3.0*
Production 1 2
Use
Vapor degreasing 3 3
Sol vent 5 4
1.1.1-Trichloroethane 3.6* 3.3*
Production 1 2
Use
Degreasing 3 3
Chemical intermediate 5 4
Aerosols 5 4
Solvent 5 4
Xylenes (o-. m-. and p- isomers) 4.0* 3.5*
Production
Catalytic reformate 1 2
Pyrolysis gasoline 1 1
Coal-derived . 1 4
Styrene by-product 2 4
Use
p-Xyler.e isomer 1 2
o-Xylene isomer 1 4
m-Xylene isomer 1 2
Ethyl benzene 1 4
Solvent 5 4
* Composite level of uncertainty based on weighted average of
total emissions.
2H
-------
TABLE 38 (Concluded)
Source Emissions
Chemical Location Estimates
Xylenes (Continued)
Use
Phthalic anhydride 1 3
Terephthalic acid 1 3
Dimethyl terephthalate 1 1
I-sophthalic acid 1 1
Incidental
Gasoline marketing 3 3
Gasoline evaporation - automobiles 3 3
Gasoline exhaust - automobiles 3 3
* Composite level of uncertainty based on weighted average of
total emissions.
215
-------
where
CL(t) = (x | c(x,t) > L)
Certain statistics, such as maxima, minima, quantiles, and means could
then be derived over a time period from the functions D(t) and EL(t).
There are various ways in which the estimates obtained in the Human
Exposure Project may differ from this idealized computation. Although
many of the error components can be analyzed quantitatively, such analysis
requires gathering extensive statistics on the population and concentra-
tion patterns, a task that is well beyond the resources available to us in
this project. The discussion is therefore mostly qualitative. Below, we
identify the major error sources.
Sources of Error
Population Count Errors—
The population distribution data base used for the exposure computa-
tions is derived from 1970 census counts. These counts are carefully pre-
pared by the Bureau of the Census, but at best are only very accurate
estimates. The Bureau has admitted suspicions that in some areas of the
country the counts may be too low by significant amounts. However, no
comprehensive analysis exists on the degree and distribution of under-
counting over the entire United States.
216
-------
Apart from these suspected undercounts, Mim'max found discrepancies
between counts in different census data sets. The net difference over the
United States is extremely small (0.017 percent) and is probably neg-
ligible compared to the undercounting errors. The effect of these popula-
tion count errors is that exposure and dosage estimates for some regions
are too low.
Concentration Pattern Errors--
The concentration patterns used in the exposure computations are
obtained through atmospheric dispersion modeling based on known source
characteristics and weather patterns at nearby stations. Naturally, any
deviations in these estimates from the true pattern directly affect the
exposure results.
Additional considerations pertain to concentration pattern estimates
for sources not analyzed individually. No statistical data are available
on the geographical distribution of sources analyzed by prototype. It is,
therefore, very difficult to estimate the exact concentration levels for
populations exposed to emissions from more than one such source. The
exposure data derived from prototype modeling were based on the assump-
tions that all sources modeled are isolated sources and that the popula-
tion in the urban areas exposed to emissions from one source would not be
exposed to those from other sources. This assumption is obviously not
true everywhere. For example, the total nubmer of trichloroethylene-using
open top vapor degreasers in the United States was estimated by HI to be
6,110, and the total land area in urbanized areas is 100,190 km2, on the
average. Therefore, most of the urban population is likely to be exposed
to emissions from multiple degreasers; thus, the computations may over-
estimate the number of people exposed to some concentration but under-
estimate the dosage received by some individuals. However, for a popula-
tion 1n the vicinity of a "major" source (an OTVD or a CVD), the impacts
from other sources would be insignificant compared to that from the nearby
217
-------
major source. One might conclude that the exposure estimates are conser-
vative estimates and that the exposure data for the higher concentration
levies are more accurate than those for the lower concentration levels.
However, the total dosage estimates would not be Influenced by the geo-
graphical distribution of sources.
Uncertainties In exposure-dosage estimates made with the box model
method for area sources Include uncertainties of the emissions estimates
described in Hi's final report, the census population uncertainties as
described in Minimax's final report, and uncertainties directly attri-
butable to this method. The last-mentioned uncertainties include the fol-
lowing:
> Dispersion factors.
- Representativeness of mean annual wind for the state to
each city.
- Representativeness of neutral atmospheric stability as
a long-term mean condition.
> Time factors.
- The use of annual average emissions and meteorology.
- The estimation of 1978 population vehicle totals from
data of earlier years.
> Spatial factors.
- The use of the Hanna-Gifford model that provides no
spatial resolution of concentration patterns.
- The assumption that population and vehicle density pat-
terns did not change from data base years to 1978.
The effect of each of these factors is to reduce a spectrum of con-
centration or emissions values (i.e., a set of values ranging from maximum
to minimum) to a single, mean value for each city. This may not affect
total dosages, but it will lead to underestimation of exposure at high
concentrations and overestimation of low concentration exposures.
218
-------
If the concentration patterns are congruous with the source patterns,
time variations of emissions or meteorology would have little effect,
because the annual average doses or exposures would average out high and
low concentrations in the same proportion at every station. There will,
however, be locations where people receive higher or lower exposure-dosage
than the mean, even on an annual average basis. Thus, spatial variability
appears to be a more significant factor than time variability. The study
team explored the possibility of developing a population spectrum as a
function of exposure level within individual cities, based on the census
population data and land area of all census tracts of a set of representa-
tive cities.
Discretizing Errors
Certain errors are introduced into the exposure calculations because
each concentration pattern is described "by an array of concentrations at
only 160 points in the vicinity of the source instead of a continuous
function. Similarly, the population distribution is described by a series
of "point masses" located at the population centroids of all 1970 census
ED/BG. Particularly in less densely populated regions, in which ED/BGs
cover relatively large areas, the latter practice may introduce population
displacements over sizable distances. Thus, the fractional error is most
likely to be large where exposure-dosages are small because of low popula-
tion density.
We have grouped both of these error sources under the heading of
"Discretizing Errors," because both results from replacing continuous
functions with discrete approximations for the purpose of reducing the
associated computational burden.
219
-------
Interpolation Error--
Unfortunately, the discrete patterns generated for concentrations and
populations generally do not coincide. The exposure program uses inter-
polation techniques for either of two purposes:
> Compute a concentration value at each ED/BG centroid.
> Apportion the population of each ED/BG among several con-
centration grid points.
The first technique is used far from the source, where centroids are more
densely concentrated than grid points. The second technique is applied
near the source, where grid points are more dense than centroids.
Both methods introduce interpolation errors, the severity of which
depends on the degree of variability in the concentration and population
patterns.
Location Errors--
The relationships between concentrations and populations depend on
the accuracy with which the source and ED/BG centroid coordinates are
known. Source coordinates are supplied in degrees, minutes, and
seconds. For a source in Houston, Texas, for example, a second of longi-
tude represents about 27 meters and a second of latitude represents about
31 meters. ED/BG coordinates are given in degrees to four decimal
places. At Houston, .0001 degree of lontitude represents about
11 meters. These figures represent lower bounds on the locational errors,
based solely on the precision of the numbers.
We have little information on the actual measurement error in these
coordinates. The census documentation we received contained no mention of
measurement errors.
220
-------
In the MED-X validation work, an attempt was made to estimate ED/BG
location accuracy by testing whether each ED/BG fell within its corres-
ponding county boundary. About 5.6 percent of the ED/BGs failed the test;
only 0.42 percent fell more than 2 km from their county boundaries. Most
of these failures are probably due to causes other than centroid location
errors, such as concavities in ED/BG boundaries, digitizing errors in the
county boundaries, and county boundary changes since 1970. The large
amount of "noise" present precluded drawing more definite quantitative
estimates from the validation study.
Commuting Pattern Errors--
There are also time-dependent aspects of the exposure problem. The
exposure program uses a time-averaged concentration pattern for each
source, so that the time dimension is ignored in the computations. If the
population distribution were essentially constant over the averaging time
period, the resulting estimates would be true averages. However, popula-
tion distributions are constantly changing as people commute to work, go
shopping, and take longer trips. Particularly in urban industrial cen-
ters, the shifts in populations and concentrations throughout the day may
be highly correlated; thus, the actual exposure may differ considerably
from the value obtained by matching time-averaged concentrations with
population distributions based on census addresses. Whether the exposure
is over- or underestimated depends on whether populations in the vicinity
of a source are drained (e.g., because people leave residences near the
source for work in an urban center) or are augmented (e.g., because of
employment near the source).
A quantitative estimate of this source of error would require a
detailed study of commuting patterns for each major SMSA.
221
-------
Population Growth and Migration Errors—
The final source of error considered here arises from the age of the
population estimates, which are based on the 1970 census. Migration and
suburban development since April 1970 have affected population distribu-
tions around certain sources. The Human Exposure Program does take Into
account county-level changes 1n population from 1970 to 1978, but other-
wise it leaves the intra-county distributions unaffected. As In the case
of commuting patterns, errors arising from migration patterns can be quan-
tified only through detailed studies of the affected regions.
A Simple Model of the Discretizing Error—
Although a full characterization of the uncertainties in the exposure
estimates is a very complex job, certain Important properties of some of
these error sources can be derived from simplified mathematical models.
To analyze the discretizing error with a simple one-dimensional,
time-independent model, let c(x) be the concentration and p(x) the popu-
lation density per unit length. Dosage is given by
c(x)p(x) dx . (33)
The discretizing error Involves replacing the concentration c(x) with
the constant c(x0) over some ED/B6 with centroid at XQ. The Taylor
formula for c(x) about XQ is
c(x) = C(XQ) + C'(XQ) (X-XQ) + l/2c"(tx) (x-xQ)2 . (34)
222
-------
where tx is between x and XQ and depends on x. Then, for this ED/BG,
D = I c(x)p(x) dx = c(xQ)P + c'(x ) / (x-x )p(x) dx
l/2/"c"(tv) (x-xn)2 p(x) dx , (35)
X 0
where P is the total ED/BG population. The second term is zero, by the
definition of x0 as the population centroid. The third term is the dis-
cretizing error in dosage made by computing dosage as the product of the
concentration at the centroid and the total population. For a typical
concentration pattern, c"(x) is negative along a radial direction near the
source and positive farther away. The error term changes sign in the same
fashion. This suggests that "discretizing" the concentration pattern
leads to a systematic underestimation of dosages at low concentrations and
overestimating dosages at high concentrations. The size of the error
depends on the value of c"(x) and is, therefore, dependent on the relative
locations of sources and ED/BG centroids.
Sensitivity Analysis of Location Errors--
To assess the effect of location errors on exposures and dosages, we
reran the computations for Denka Chemical Corporation in Houston, Texas,
for the eight possible shifts in the source location obtained by changing
the source location by one minute of latitude, longitude, or both, in
either direction (N/S or E/W, respectively). Selected results from these
runs are shown in Tables 39 and 40. Note that a minute of latitude repre-
sents about 1.9 km and a minute of longitude represents about 1.6 km at
223
-------
TABLE 39. PERCENTAGE OF CHANGE IN DOSAGE FROM BASE CASE
RESULTING FROM LOCATION SHIFT
Changes
Latitude
Longitude
Shift
Shift
+1'
0
-1'
0
0
+1'
0
-r
+r
+r
+1'
-I1
-1'
+1'
-r
-r
Concentration Level
ppb
Source:
10
1
0
0
TABLE
-54 -92
.1
.0
.001
Minimax Research
40. PERCENTAGE
RESULTING
-44
-27
-15
-11
-11
-6
20
11
7
7
Corporation
OF
FROM
210
189
65
40
33
33
172
144
30
17
12
12
71
23
7
12
10
10
-71
-75
-51
-31
-26
-26
50
97
48
29
22
22
107
119
45
23
15
15
computations.
CHANGE IN EXPOSURE FROM
LOCATION SHIFT
BASE CASE
Changes
Latitude Shift
Longi
tude Shift
+1'
0
-I1
0
0
•H1
0
-1'
+1'
+11
+1'
-I1
-1'
+1'
-1'
-1'
Concentration Level
ppb
10
1
0
0
0
.1
.01
.001
-60
-35
-7
4
3
3
-90
42
9
4
-4
-4
200
178
34
12
6
6
170
127
-20
-6
-7
-7
70
7
16
21
9
9
-70
-78
-64
-3
-4
-4
50
114
27
12
1
2
100
132
11
-4
-12
-12
Source: Minimax Research Corporation computations.
224
-------
Houston. These shifts produce very large variations in exposures and
dosages estimated for high concentrations. At low concentrations, the
dosage variations are still farily large, but exposure counts are rela-
tively stable.
Summary
We have described seven sources of error that can affect the accuracy
of the exposure results. Available information was insufficient to sup-
port any numerical estimates. Further insight has been gained by studying
analytical models and carrying out sensitivity tests, but it is difficult
to generalize such results to an entire group of sources.
A fruitful approach in future projects would be to select a small
number of sources representing a variety of demographic settings and then
to carry out detailed quantitative error analyses for each of these
sources, based on information about local conditions. Such a study should
provide a better understanding of the error components in human exposure
estimates.
225
-------
REFERENCES
Anderson, G. E., et al. (1977), "Air Quality in the Denver Metropolitan
Region: 1974-2000," EPA-908/1-77-002, prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Denver, Colorado, by
Systems Applications, Incorporated, San Rafael, California.
Briggs, G. A. (1975), "Lectures on Air Pollutions and Environmental Impact
Analyses," American Meteorological Society, Bo-ston, Massachusetts.
Briggs, G. A. (1973), "Diffusion Estimation for Small Emissions," Air
Resources Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Laboratory, National
Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Brigqs, G. A. (1970), "Some Recent Analyses of Plume Rise Observations,"
Proc. of International Air Pollution Conference, December 1970,
Washington, D.C.
Briggs, G. A. (1969), "Plume Rise," USAEC Critical Review Series, TID-
25075, Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical
Information.
Burt, E. W. (1977), "Valley Model User's Guide," EPA 450/2-77-018, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina.
Busse, A. D., and J. R. Zimmerman (1973), "User's Guide for the
Climatological Dispersion Model," NTIS PB-227346, National Oceanic
Atmospheric Association (NOAA), Rockville, Maryland.
CEQ (1977), "Environmental Quality: The Eighth Annual Report of the
Council on Environmental Quality," Washington, D.C.
Calvert, J. G., et al. (1975), "Spectroscopic Studies of Photochemical
Smog Trace Pollutant Detection," Ohio State University, Columbus,
Ohio.
226
-------
EOF (1977), "Environmental Defense Fund Petition for the Initiation of
Rulemaking Proceedings to Establish a Policy Governing the
Classification and Regulation of Carcinogenic Air Pollutants Under
the Clean Air Act," transmitted by letter to EPA Administrator
Costle from Robert Rauch, Staff Attorney, Environmental Defense Fund,
Washington, D.C.
EPA (1978), "Administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act: First
Annual Report--1977," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA (1978b), Federal Register, Section 5565, 9 February 1978.
EPA (1977), "User's Manual for Single Source (CRSTER) Model," U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIS
PB-271360.
EPA (1976), "Report to U.S. EPA Specialists Conference on the EPA Modeling
Guideline," Conference report organized by Argon Laboratory, 22-24
February 1977, Chicago, Illinois.
Gay, B. W., et al. (1976), "Atmospheric Oxidation of Chlorinated
Ethylenes." Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 58.
Gifford, F. A., Jr., (1968), "An Outline of Theories of Diffusion in the
Lower Layers of the Atmosphere," David H. Slade, ed., Meteorology and
Atomic Energy.
Hanna, S. R. (1978), "Diurnal Variation of the Stability Factor in the
Simple ATDL Urban Dispersion Model," J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc..
Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 147-150.
Hanna, S. R,, and F. A. Gifford (1973), "Modeling Urban Air Pollution,"
Atmos. Environ., Vol. 7, pp. 131-136.
Hanna, S. R. (1973), "A Simple Dispersion Model for the Analysis of
Chemically Reactive Pollutants," Atmos. Environ., Vol. 7, pp. 803-
817.
Hanna, S. R. (1971), "A Simple Method of Calculating Dispersion from Urban
Area Sources," J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., Vol. 21, No. 12, pp.
774-777.
Hanst, P. L., J. W. Spence, and M. Miller (1977), "Atmospheric Chemistry
of N-Nitroso Dimethylamine," Environ. Sci. Techno!., Vol. 11, No. 4,
p. 403.
227
-------
Killus, J. P., et al. (1977), "Continued Research in Mesoscale Air
Pollution Simulation Modeling: Volume V--Refinements in Numerical
Analysis, Transport, Chemistry, and Pollutant Removal," EF77-142,
Systems Applications, Incorporated, San Rafael, California.
Lucas, H. J. (1933), Organic Chemistry, (American Book Company, New York,
New York).
Mara, S. J., and S. S. Lee (1978), "Human Exposures to Atmospheric
Benzene," EPA-450/3-78-031 Report to the Environmental Protection
Agency, Contract 68-01-4314, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park,
California.
Martin, D. 0., and J. A. Tikvart (1968), "A General Atmospheric Diffusion
Model for Estimating the Effects on Air Quality of One or More
Sources," APCA Paper, presented at the 61st annual APCA meeting, June
1968, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Mitre (1976), "Scoring Organic Air .Pollutants," Technical Report 2248.
National Climatic Center (1979), "STAR Tabulations Master List,"
Asheville, North Carolina.
Pasquill, F. (1971), "Atmospheric Dispersion of Pollution." Q. J. R.
Meteorol. Soc., Vol. 97, pp. 369-395.
Pasquill, F. (1970), "The Prediction of Diffusion over an Urban Area,"
Proc. of the Symposium on Multiple-Source Urban Diffusion, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina.
Pasquill, F. (1961), "The Estimation of the Dispersion of Windborne
Material," Met. Mag.. Vol. 90, pp 33-49.
Tesche, T. W., and C. S. Burton (1978), "Simulated Impact of Alternative
Emissions Control Strategies on Photochemical Oxidants in Los
Angeles," EF78-22R, Systems Applications, Incorporated, San Rafael,
California.
Turner, D. B. (1970), Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates, Office
of Air Programs, Publication No. AP-26, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
228
-------
Turner, D. B. (1964), "A Diffusion Model for an Urban Area, Atmospheric
Dispersion Estimates," 6th Printing Rev., Government Printing Office,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Publ.
No. AP-26, Washington, D.C.
Turner, D. B., and J. H. Novak (1978), "User's Guide for RAM," EPA-600/8-
78-016a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina.
U.S. Bureau of Census (1979), Statistical Abstract of the United States,
1978 (Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.).
U.S. Bureau of Census (1978), County and City Data Book. 1977. (Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.).
U.S. Bureau of Census (1973), County and City Data Book, 1972, (Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.).
U.S. Federal Highway Administration (1978), "Motor Vehicle Registration,"
(Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.).
U.S. Federal Highway Administration (1974), "Motor Vehicle Registrations
by Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas," (Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.).
Wang, C. C., et al. (1975), "Hydroxyl Radical Concentrations Measured in
Ambient Air," Science, Vol. 189, p. 797.
229
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A-l Acetaldehyde
'APPENDIX A-2 Acrolein
APPENDIX A-3 Allyl Chloride
APPENDIX A-4 Benzyl Chloride
APPENDIX A-5 Beryllium
APPENDIX A-6 Carbon Tetrachloride
APPENDIX A-7 Chlorobenzene (p-Dichlorobenzene
and o-Dichlorobenzene)
APPENDIX A-8 Chloroform
APPENDIX A-9 Chloroprene
APPENDIX A-10 Cresol
APPENDIX A-ll Dimethylnitrosamine
APPENDIX A-12 Dioxin
APPENDIX A-13 Epichlorohydrin
APPENDIX A-14 Ethylene Oxide
APPENDIX A-l5 Formaldehyde
APPENDIX A-16 Hexachlorocylopentadiene
APPENDIX A-l7 Manganese
APPENDIX A-18 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl Chloroform)
APPENDIX A-l9 Methylene Chloride
APPENDIX A-20 Nitrosomorpholine
APPENDIX A-21 Nickel
APPENDIX A-22 Nitrobenzene
-------
APPENDIX A-23 PCB
APPENDIX A-24 Phenol
APPENDIX A-25 Phosgene
APPENDIX A-26 Propylene Oxide
APPENDIX A-27 Toluene
APPENDIX A-28 Trichloroethylene
APPENDIX A-29 Xylene
The following three pages were located at the beginning of each
appendix. In order to reduce the reproduction cost, all duplications
of these pages have been removed. Thus, each appendix will begin on
page four.
-------
Each chemical was studied as one of a set of 35 chemicals. A con*-
plete description of the program 1s given 1n the parent document to this
attachment. The table of contents of the parent report 1s presented as
Figure 1 here. Specific questions that the reader may have about pre-
sentations 1n this attachment are most probably addressed 1n the relevant
section or sections as described in Figure 1.
This attachment consists of the following elements:
> A table of physical and chemical properties of the chemi-
cal.
>. A summary of emission sources, modes, and rates.
> A map showing major, specific point sources.
> Input parameters for dispersion calculations.
> Exposure/dosage tables for each type of source analyzed
and a summary for all sources.
> A reference list for the emissions study.
A few definitions—described more completely in the main text—are
presented here as an aid to the reader.
> EXPOSURE - The number of people in the United States esti-
mated to experience annual average atmospheric concentra-
tions equal to or greater than the stated level.
> DOSAGE - The sum over the population of the product of con-
centration (ygm/m3), times number of people exposed at that
concentration. This is a potential concentration, and
does not represent material actually ingested or absorbed
into body tissues.
> EMISSIONS ANALYSIS - A review by one or more of various
methods Including surveys of literature or state and
federal data, communication with, or visits to, staff of
the operator of the sources to determine sources and
source locations, and to estimate
- emission rates-adjusted to 1978
-------
- type of source (e.g. chimney, vent, open surface, etc).
> DISPERSION ANALYSIS - Use of a computer program to compute
annual average concentration patterns given wind, turbu-
lence and emissions data.
> POPULATION ANALYSIS - Use of a computer program to extract
site-specific population patterns at the finest resolution
available from U.S. Census Bureau 1970 census files.
Populations are scaled to 1978 levels.
> SOURCE TYPE - Three source types are defined:
- Major, specific point sources, each emitting a signifi-
cant fraction of the total emissions of a studied
chemical. These sources are treated using parameters
appropriate to each specific source.
- General point sources - other point sources warranting
a detailed dispersion analysis but which are members of
a group of sources too numerous to treat
individually. For such sources, a prototype analysis
is done, and results are multiplied by the estimated
number of sources.
- Area Sources - sources which are so small and numerous
that their concentration patterns are inseparable. Such
sources are treated as emissions per unit area over
identified areas.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
FIGURES iii
TABLES iv
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2. DATA BASES 37
Emissions Data 37
Meteorological Data 46
Population Distribution Data Bases 55
Atmospheric Transformations of Toxic Compounds 65
3. EXPOSURE-DOSAGE ESTIMATION APPROACH 94
Major (Specific) Point Sources 94
Prototype °oint Source Exposure and Dosage Estimations... 120
Area Source Modeling Approach... 144
4. UNCERTAINTIES 203
Uncertainties Involved in Emissions Estimations 203
Uncertainties in Exposure/Dosage Estimations 204
REFERENCES 226
APPENDICES
iii
-------
APPENDIX A-l Acetaldehyde
ACETALDEHYDE CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 75-07-0
Synonyms: Acetic Aldehyde; Ethyl Aldehyde; Ethanal
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 44.05
Molecular Formula: C^H.O,
Molecular Structure:
CH3-Ct°
6 H
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at SIP: Liquid - flammable, pungent odor
Boiling Point: 20.8°C at 760mm
Melting Point: -121°C
Density: 0.7834 at 18°C/4°C
Vapor Pressure: 923 Torrs at 256C
Vapor Density: 1.52
Solubility: Infinite (hot H20)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H20): 0.43
;
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products: Peroxyacetyl Nitrate; Formaldehyde
Reactivity Toward OH-: 4 x Butane
Reactivity Toward 0,: No reaction
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: a 0.5 x Formaldehyde
Major Atmospheric Precursors: Hydrocarbons (C3 +)
Formation Reactivity: Equilibrium concentration * 5* NMHC
-------
1-5
I. SOURCES
A. PRODUCTION
Acetaldehyde (C2H40) is produced by ethylene oxidation processes, such as the
Wacker process, or by vapor phase oxidation and dehydrogenation of ethanol.
The latter method has declined rapidly since the ethylene oxidation facilities
have come on-stream. Publicker is the only company that uses the ethanol process.1
In the ethanol process, ethanol vapors and preheated air are mixed. The exit
gases, containing ethanol and acetaldehyde. are scrubbed and the solution is
rectified in a column to produce acetaldehyde. In the direct oxidation of ethylene,
air or oxygen can be used. A water solution of cupric chloride and a small
amount of palladium chloride is generally used as a catalyst. The gaseous reaction
mixture containing steam and unreacted ethylene in addition to reaction product
gases goes to a water scrubber, where acetaldehyde is removed in solution.1
There are currently four companies at five locations that produce acetaldehyde
in the United States. The locations of the plants and the 1978 estimated capacity
and production levels for each site are shown in Table 1-1.' An estimated
1000 million Ib of acetaldehyde was produced in 1978.1/2
B. USES
Acetaidehyde is used exclusively as a chemical intermediate to produce other
chemicals. The largest end-use is in acetic acid manufacture, which accounts
for an estimated 690 million Ib of production. The second largest end-use is
for peracetic acid production, which consumed an estimated 100 million Ib in
1978. Other uses of acetaldehyde include pentaerythritol (80 million Ib),
pyridines (40 million Ib), glyoxal (40 million Ib), 1,3-butylene glycol (20 million
Ib), and miscellaneous uses (remaining 30 million Ib). There were no reported
exports of acetaldehyde in 1978. Acetaldehyde end-uses.are summarized in
Table 1-2.»•*
Acetic acid is produced by two companies at three locations by the catalytic
3 > 4
oxidation of acetaldehyde. Source locations are shown in Table 1-3,
-------
Table 1-1. Acetaldehyde Producers
Company
Location
1978
Capacity
(TO6 Ib/yr)
1978
Production0
(106 Ib/yr)
Geographical Location
Latitude/Longitude
Celanese
Texas Eastman
Publicker Industries
Shell Chemical
Total
Bay City, TX
Clear Lake, TX
Longview, TX
Philadelphia, PA
Norco, LA
300
600
500
65
5
1470
204
408
340
44
4
1000
28 51 45/96 01 00
29 37 17/95 03 51
32 25 55/94 41 06
39 53 30/75 12 18
30 00 11/90 23 42
See refs. 1 and 2.
DUnion Carbide shut down 200 million Ib of capacity at Institute and S. Charleston, WV, in the
first quarter of 1978.
cTotal production distributed over individual sites based on site capacity compared to total
industry capacity.
-------
1-7
Table 1-2. 1978 Acetaldehyde End-Use Distribution*
End-Use
Acetic acid
Peracetic acid
Pentaerythritol
Pyridenes
Glyoxal
1,3-Butylene glycol
Miscellaneous
Total
Usage
(%)
69
10
8
4
4
2
3
100
Acetaldehyde Use
(million Ib/vr)
690
100
80
40
40
20
30
1000
*See refs. 1 and 2.
-------
Table 1-3. Acetic Acid Producers
Company
Celanese
Tennessee Eastman
Total
Location
Bay City, TX
Clear Lake, TX
Kings port, TN
1978
Acetic Acid
Capacity
(10& Ib/yr)
110
600
400
1110
1978
Acetaldehyde
Usage
(106 Ib/yr)
68
373
249
690
Geographical Location
Latitude/Longitude
28 51 45/96 01 00
29 37 17/95 03 51
36 31 27/88 32 29
See refs. 3 and 4.
Total acetaldehyde usage distributed over all three sites based on acetic acid capacity.
i
oo
-------
1-9
Peracetic acid is manufactured by the liquid-phase catalytic oxidation of
acetaldehyde at three sites in the United States. Source locations are
shown in Table 1 -4.
Pentaerythritol is produced by the aldol condensation of acetaldehyde and for-
maldehyde in the presence of lime or caustic at ambient temperature and pressure.
The four manufacturing sites are shown in Table 1-5.3'5
Synthetic pyridenes are produced as a co-product with beta-picoline by the vapor
phase reaction of acetaldehyde, ammonia, and formaldehyde by two companies in
the United States. Source locations are shown in Table 1-6.3'6
Glyoxal is produced by two companies by the nitric acid oxidation of acetaldehyde
in an autoclave at two locations as shown in Table 1-7.3
1,3-Butylene glycol is produced by the catalytic hydrogenation of acetaldol which
is made by the liquid-phase condensation of acetaldehyde. The three companies
at three sites which produce 1,3-butylene glycol are shown in Table!-8.3
II. EMISSION ESTIMATES
A. PRODUCTION
Acetaldehyde emissions from production sites are presented in Table 1-9.7'8'9'10'X
Total estimated emissions from these sites for 1978 were 270,000 Ib. Emission
factors, derived from state files, used to develop process, storage, and fugitive
emission estimates are shown in Table 1-9. Process vent emissions originate pri-
marily from the off-air absorber vents. Other associated emissions would include
ethylene and ethane. Storage emissions represent the losses from both working
and final product storage tanks. Fugitive emissions are those which result
from plant equipment leaks. For the purpose of this report, the emissions of
acetaldehyde from the ethanol process used by Publicker were assumed to be the
same (emission factor) since no data were available from that site.
Vent parameter data for the production sites11 as well as the end-users are
shown in Table 1-10.
-------
Table 1-4. Peracetic Acid Producers'
Company
FMC
High Point Chemical
Union Carbide
Total
Location
Buffalo, NY
High Point, NC
Taft, LA
1978
Peracetic
Acid Capacity
(million Ib)
NAC
NA
NA
NA
1978
Acetaldehyde
Used
(million Ib)
33.33
33.33
33.33
100.00
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude /Longitude
42 59 10/78 50 30
35 59 10/80 00 30
29 58 00/90 27 00
See ref. 3.
'•Total acetaldehyde used distributed evenly over all three sites in the absence of capacity data.
^
"Not available.
i
o
-------
Table 1-5. Pentaerythritol Producers'
Company
Celanese
Hercules
IMC (CSC)
Perstorp AB
Total
Location
Bishop, TX
Louisiana, MO
Seiple , PA
Toledo, OH
1978
Pentaerythritol
Capacity
(106 Ib/yr)
75
47
25
35
182
1978
Acetaldchyde
Usedb
(106 Ib/yr)
33
21
11
15
80
Geographical Location
Latitude /Longitude
27 34 06/97 49 27
39 26 24/91 03 37
40 38 12/75 31 58
41 43 10/83 31 28
See refs. 3 and 5.
Q
Total acetaldehyde usage distributed over all four sites based on pentaerythritol capacity.
-------
Table 1-6. Pyridenes Producers1
Company
Nepara Chemical
Reilly Tar &
Chemical
Total
Location
Harriman, NY
Indianapolis, IN
1970 Pyridene
Capacity^
(106 Ib/yr)
>25
35
>60
1978
£
Production
(10° Ib/yr)
17
23
40
Geographical Location
Latitude /Longitude
41 16 45/74 08 24
39 42 00/86 14 00
See refs. 3 and 6.
Capacity includes pyridenes, picolines, and pyridene derivatives.
"Total acetaldehyde usage distributed over both sites based on pyridenes' capacity.
i
ro
-------
Table 1-7. Glyoxal Producers
Company Location
American Cyanamide Charlotte , NC
Union Carbide Taft, LA
Total
1978 Glyoxal
Capacity
(million Ib)
NAC
NA
NA
1978
Estimated
Acctaldehyde
Uscdb
(million Ib)
20
20
40
Geographic Coordinates
T.ntitude /Longitude
35 12 ]6/80 50 32
29 58 00/97 27 00
See ref. 3.
Total acetaldehyde used distributed equally over both sites in the absence of capacity data.
c
Not available.
i
CO
-------
1-14
Table 1-8. 1,3-Butylene Glycol Producers'
Company
Celanese
Eastman
Mallinckrodt
Total
Location
Bishop, TX
Rochester, NY
Lodi, NJ
1978
1,3-Butylene
Glycol Capacity
(million Ib)
NAC
NA
NA
NA
1978
Acetaldehyde
Used
(million Ib)
6.67
6.67
6.67
20.00
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude /Longitude
27 34 06/97 49 27
43 12 01/77 37 58
40 52 56/74 05 46
See ref. 3.
Total actaldehyde used distributed evenly over all three sites in the absence of
capacity data.
P*
"Not available.
-------
Table 1-9. Acetaldehyde Emissions from Production Sites
Emissions (lb/yr)
Company
Celanese
Tennessee Eastman
Publicker Industries
Shell Chemical
Total
Location
Bay City, TX
Clear Lake, TX
Longview, TX
Philadelphia, PA
Nor co, LA
Process
46,510
93,025
77,520
10,030
910
228,000
Storaqc
5,915
11,830
9,860
1,275
115
29,000
Fugitive
2,650
5,305
4,420
570
50
13,000
a
Total Emissions
(lb/yr)
55,080
110,160
91,800
11,880
1,080
270,000
(g/sec)b
0.79
1.59
1.32
0.17
0.02
Based on the following emission factors (Ib acetaldehyde emitted per Ib produced). See refs. 7, 8,
9, 10, and 11.
Process 0.000228 B - (derived from state air emission files) L,
in
Storage 0.000029 B - (derived from state air emission files)
Fugitive 0.000013 B - (derived from state air emission files)
Total 0.000270
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
Table 1-10. Acetaldehyde Vent Parameters
Source
Production
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Acetic acid
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Peracetic acid
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Pentaerythirtol
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Pyridenes
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Number
of
Stacks
4
3
4
4
1
2
3
2
1
2
Vent
Height
(ft)
36
24
30
24
30
24
140
20
30
16
Vent
Diameter
(ft)
1.0
0.17
1.2
0.17
1.0
0.17
1.5
0.33
0.5
0.17
Discharge
Temperature Velocity
(°F) (ft/sec)
70
80
75 190
80
80 110
80
140 175
70
100 10
80
Distribution
Area
(ft X ft)
400 X 800
300 X 300
300 X 300
100 X 200
100 X 200
-------
Table 1-10. (Continued)
Source
Glyoxal
Process
Storage
Fugitive
1,3-Butylene glycol
Process
Fugitive
Number
of
Stacks
2
2
2
Vent
Height
(ft)
20
16
20
Vent
Diameter
(ft)
0.08
0.17
0.08
Discharge
Temperature Velocity
(°F) (ft/sec)
70 5
70
65 44
Distribution
Area
(ft X ft)
100 X 100
100 X 100
Note: building cross-section for production and end-uses - 50 m .
-------
1-18
B. USES
Emission estimates for the end-users of acetaldehyde in 1978 are summarized in
Table 1-11. They are based on the emission factors tabulated in Table 12.
Acetaldehyde emissions from acetic acid production were estimated to have been
2,801,550 Ib. Other associated emissions would include acetic acid and ethyl
acetate.
Acetaldehyde emissions from peracetic acid production were estimated to have
been 450,000 Ib. Other associated emissions would include ethyl acetate and
peracetic acid.
Pentaerythritol production contributed an estimated 688,000 Ib of acetaldehyde.
Other associated emissions would include formaldehyde, ammonia, and pentaerythritol.
Pyridenes manufacture release an estimated 300,000 Ib of acetaldehyde. Other
emission components include picoline, formaldehyde, and pyridene.
Glyoxal production contributed an estimated 180,000 Ib of acetaldehyde. Other
associated emissions besides blyoxal are unknown.
1,3-Butylene glycol manufacture contributed 27,000 Ib of acetaldehyde emissions.
Other associated emissions include ethanol, dioxane, and 1,3-butylene glycol.
Miscellaneous uses of acetaldehyde were estimated to have contributed 153,900 Ib.
These uses are too diverse and numerous to specify or location. Emissions were
estimated by taking a weighted average of all the other acetaldehyde end-uses
and multiplying by the 30 million Ib used.
The total nationwide emissions of acetaldehyde in 1978 were estimated to have
been 4,870,450 Ib. A tabulation of the losses is shown in Table 1-13.
-------
Table 1-11. Acetaldehyde Emissions from End-Users
Emissions (Ib/yr)
Company
Celanese
Eastman
FMC
High Point
Union Carbide
Celanese
Hercules
IMC
Perstorp
Nepara
Reilly
American Cyanamide
Union Carbide
Celanese
Eastman
Mallinckrodt
Total
Location
Bay City, TX
Clear Lake, TX
Kingsport, TN
Buffalo, NY
High Point, NC
Taft, LA
Bishop, TX
Louisiana, MO
Seiple, PA
Toledo, OH
Harriman , NY
Indianapolis , IN
Charlotte, NC
Taft, LA
Bishop, TX
Rochester, NY
Lodi, NJ
EndrUse
Acetic acid
Acetic acid
Acetic acid
Peracetic acid
Peracetic acid
Peracetic acid
Pentaerythritol
Pentaerythritol
Pentaerythritol
Pentaerythritol
Pyridenes
Pyridenes
GlyoxaJ.
Glyoxal
1,3-Butylene glycol
1,3-Butylene glycol
1,3-Butylene glycol
Process
180,880
992,180
1,197,690
135,000
135,000
135,000
241,230
153,510
80,410
109,650
108,460
146,740
81,000
81,000
8,135
8,135
8,135
3,802,155
Storage
22,440'
123,090
151,890
7,330
7,330
7,330
29,040
18,480
9,680
13,200
10,880
14,720
4,400
4,400
0
0
0
424,210
Fugitive
10,200
55,950
67,230
7,670
7,670
7,670
13,530
8,610
4,510
6,150
8,160
11,040
4,600
4,600
865
865
865
220,185
a
Total Emissions
db/yr)
213,520
1,171,220
1,416,810
150,000
150,000
150,000
283,800
180,600
94,600
129,000
127,500
172,500
90,000
90 , 000
9,000
9,000
9,000
4,446,550
b
(g/sec)
3.07
16,86
20.40
2.16
2.16
2.16
4.09
2.60
1.36
1.86
1.84
2.48
1.30
1.30
0.13
0.13
0.13
3Derived from the emission factors shown in Table 12.
°Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
Table 1-12. Acetaldehyde End-Use Emission Factors
End-Use Process
Acetic acid - Celanese 0.00266
Acetic acid - Eastman 0.00481
Peracetic acid 0.00405
Pentaerythritol 0.00731
Pyridenes 0.00638
Glyoxal 0.00405
1,3-Butylene glycol 0.00122
aA - Basis: site visit data
B - Basis: state emission files
C - Basis: published literature
D - Basis: Hydroscience estimate
Derivation3
B
B
B
C
C
D
B
Storage
0.00033
0.00015
0.00022
0.00088
0.00004
0.00022
0
Derivation
B
B
B
C
C
D
B
Fugitive
0.00061
0.00027
0.00023
0.00041
0.00048
0.00023
0.00013
Derivation
B
B
B
C
C
D
B
Total
0.00314b
0.00569°
0.00450d
0.00860G
0.007506
0.00450f
0.000139
i
ro
o
See refs. 7 and 8.
GSee ref. 10.
3See ref. 12.
See ref. 13.
Hydroscience estimate,
3See ref. 14.
-------
1-21
Table 1-13. 1973 Acetaldehyde
Nationwide Emissions
Nationwide
Emissions
Source (Ib/yr)
Production 270,000
Acetic acid 2,801,550
Peracetic acid 450,000
Pentaerythritol 688,000
Pyridenes 300,000
Glyoxal 180,000
1,3-Butylene glycol 27,000
Miscellaneous* 137,400
Total 4,853,950
*Based on a weighted average of emission
factors for other user categories.
Factor: 0.00458 Ib lost/lb used.
-------
c. \r
\i
'\ \
I
ro
ro
FIGURE 1-1. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF ACETALDEHYDE EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 1-14. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC
POINT SOURCES OF ACETALDEHYDE
* t
EMISSIONS (CM/SEC)
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
COUP ANY
CELANESE
CELANESE
EASTriAN KODAK
I'URLICKER
SHELL
EASTTIAN KODAK
FKC
IIICITOirtT
UIUON CARD IDE
CELARESE
HERCULES
IMC
PEnSTORP
PEPARA
RE ILLY TAR
AMER CYAN AM ID
EASTMAN KODAK
HALLINCKRODT
SITE
BAY CITY. TX
CLEAR LAKE, TX
LONCVIEW, TX
PHILADELPHIA, PA
RORCO.LA
KINCSPORT, TN
BUFFALO, NY
HIGH POINT, NC
TAFT, LA
BISHOP, TX
LOUISIANA, MO
SEIPLE, PA
TOLEDO, OH
KARRI MAN, NY
INDIANAPOLIS, IN
CHARLOTTE, NC
ROCHESTER, NY
LODI, NJ
LATITUDE
28
29
32
39
30
36
42
35
27
27
39
40
41
41
39
35
43
40
51 45
37 17
25 55
53 30
00 11
31 41
59 10
59 10
58 00
34 06
26 24
38 21
43 10
16 40
42 00
12 16
12 01
52 56
SIAK
LONGITUDE STATION
96 01
95 03
94 41
75 12
9O 23
82 12
78 50
80 00
97 27
97 49
91 03
75 31
83 31
74 08
86 14
80 50
77 37
74 05
00
51
06
18
42
22
30
37
00
27
37
38
28
24
00
32
58
46
12923
12906
13972
13739
12958
13877
14747
93007
13970
12925
93989
14737
94830
14757
93819
13U8I
14717
94741
FLAHT
TYPE
J
1
2
o
0
3
4
4
5
6
7
7
7
8
8
9
10
10
suimut
TYPE'
i
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
6
4
7
4
4
4
5
5
6
7
7
PROCESS
2.
I.
14.
1.
•
•
17.
1.
1 .
3.
2.
I.
1.
1.
2.
1.
•
.
669744
604672
339560
287392
1 16288
144432
O13104
246736
944000
944000
944000
166400
473712
117144
210544
157904
578960
561824
113056
166400
117144
117144
STORAGE
.085176
.323136
. 170352
1.77,2496
. 14(984
.O1U360
.001656
2. 187216
. 105552
. 1O5552
. 105552
.063360
.418176
0.
.266112
. 139392
. 190080
. 155520
.211968
.063360
0.
0.
FUGITIVE
.038160
. 146880
.076392
. 80568O
.063648
. O08208
. 00072O
.968112 — •
i
. 1 10448 w
. 1 10448
. 1 10448
. 066240
. 194832
.012456
. 123984
. O64944
. 088560
. 1 17504
. 158976
.066240
.012456
.012456
-------
TABLE 1-14 (Concluded)
* Plant Types:
Type 1: Plant produces acetaldehyde and
acetic acid
Type 2: Plant produces acetaldehyde
Type 3: Plant produces acetic acid
Type 4: Plant procudes peracetic acid
Type 5: Plant produces peracetic acid
and glyoxal
Type 6: Plant produces pentaerythirtol
and 1, 3-butylene glycol
Type 7: Plant produces pentaerythirtol
Type 8: Plant produces pyridenes
Type 9: Plant produces glyoxal
Type 10: Plant produces 1, 3-butylene glycol
t Source Types:
Type 1: Acetaldehyde production
Type 2: Acetic acid production
Type 3: Peracetic acid production
Type 4: Pentaerythirtol production
Type 5: Pyridenes production
Type 6: Glyoxal production
Type 7: 1, 3-butylene glycol
ro
-------
TABLE 1-15. EMISSIONS PARAMETERS FOR SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF ACETALDEHYDE
Vent Building Cross Vent Vent
Height Section Diameter Velocity
Source Type Emissions Category (m) (m2) (m) (m/sec)
Acetaldehyde production
Acetic acid production
Peracetlc acid production
Pentaerythirtol production
Pyrl denes production
Glyoxal production
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Process
Storage
Fugitive
10.8
7.2
0
9.0
7.2
0
9.0
7.2
0
42
4.8
0
9
4.8
0
6
4.8
0
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
0.3
0.05
—
0.36 57
0.05
—
0.3 33
0.05
._
0.45 52
0.10
—
0.15 3
0.05
__
0.02 1.5
0.05
-_
Vent
Temperature
(°k)
—
--
—
—
—
—
—
--
--
333
--
—
311
--
—
—
—
--
I
ro
en
-------
TABLE 1-15 (Concluded)
Vent Building Cross Vent Vent Vent
Height Section Diameter Velocity Temperature
Source Type Emission Category (m) (m?) (m) (m/sec) (°k)
0.02 13
1 ,3-Butylene glycol
production
Process
Fugitive
6
0
50
50
I
ro
-------
1-27
TABLE 1-16.
EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF ACETALDEHYDE RESULTING
FROM-SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration
Level
(ug/m3)
Population
Exposed
(persons)
Dosage
[(ug/m3) . persons]
1,000
500
250
100
50
25
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.}
0.05
0.25
0.01
0.005
0.0025
2.12X10
-12*
2
5
13
28
83
317
1,835
5,579
14,296
41,267
88,591
169,691
418,584
836,572
1,574,194
3,170,624
4,132,507
5,448,040
12,423,341
2,160
4,650
7,210
9,430
13,200
21,100
44,600
70,700
99,400
140,000
173,000
201,000
239,000
268,000
294,000
320,000
327,000
337,000
*The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
1-28
TABLE 1-17. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF ACETALDEHYDE
Parameter Value
Daytime decay rate (Kd) 7.3 x 10'5 sec"1
Nighttime decay rate (K ) 0
Hanna-Gifford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (En 0
Nationwide nonheating stationary source emissions (EN) 1.98 gm/sec
Nationwide mobile source emissions (E..) 0
-------
TABLE 1-18. ACETALDEHYDE EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIOHS
DOSAGE
PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTION
PERCENTAGE OF DISTRIBUTION
E.ATU UE.VE.Li
(UC/(M)3)
.010000
.005000
.002500
.001000
. 000500
. 000250
0.
ruruLiAi tun
(PERSON)
446952
500140
9 149730
30088407
O9470782
135836014
I5O679135
i v**s\ nj o-
PERSON)
4759 . 0
5263.7
37317.9
75I2O.7
110094.3
127401.4
131504.0
HEATING
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
STATIONARY
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
MOB I LE
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
CITY TYPE 1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
97.2
94.0
92.4
CITY TYPE 2
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.2
2.6
2.0
CITY TYPE 3
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.6
3.4
4.8
I
ro
-------
TABLE 1-19. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUMMARY OF ACETALDEHYDE
Population Exposed
(persons)
Concentration Specific
Level
(v>q/m3)
1,000
500
256
100
50
25
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0.005
0.0025
0.001
0.0005
0.00025
0
Point
Source
2
5
13
28
83
317
1,835
5,579
14,296
41,267
88,591
169,691
418,584
836,572
1,574,194
3,170,624
4,132,507
5,448,040
--
__
__
12t423,341
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
446,952
505,140
9,149,730
35,008,457
89,470,782
135,836,014
158,679,135
U.S. Total
2
5
13
28
83
317
1,835
5,579
14,296
41,267
88,591
169,691
418,584
836,572
1,514,194
3,617,576
4,637,647
14,597,770
--
--
--
--
Specific
Point
Source
2,160
4,650
7,210
9,430
13,200
21,100
44,600
70,700
99,400
140,000
173,000
201 ,000
239,000
268,000
294,000
320,000
327,000
331,000
--
--
__
337 ,000
Dosage
[(yg/m3) -persons]
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,760
5,260
37,300
75,100
110,000
127,000
132,000
U.S. Total
2,160
4,650
7,210
9,430
13,200
21,100
44,600
70,700
99,400
140,000
173,000
201,000
239,000
268,000
294,000
324,760
332,260
368,300
--
__
__
469,000
NOTE: The use of -- as an entry indicates that the incremental E/D is not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry in another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted in another column.
-------
1-31
REFERENCES
1. A. K. Rafie and S. L Soder, "Acetaldehyde," Chemical Economics Handbook,
p. 601.5020F, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (March 1979).
2. "Chemical Products Synopsis on Acetaldehyde," Mannsville Chemical Products,
October 1976.
3. 1978 Directory of Chemical Producers, United States, p. 415, Stanford Research
Institute, Menlo Park, CA.
4. A. K. Rafie, S. L. Soder, "Acetic Acid," p. 602.5020E, Chemical Economics
Handbook, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (April 1977).
5. "Chemical Products Synopsis on Pentaerythritol," Mannsville Chemical Products.
(December 1977).
6. "Chemical Products Synopsis on Pyridines Synthetic," Mannsville Chemical Products,
(December 1977).
7. Texas Air Control Board 1975 Emissions- Inventory Questionnaire, Celanese
Chemical Co., Bay City, Texas.
8. Texas Air Control Board 1975 Emissions Inventory Questionnaire, Celanese
•Chemical Co., Clear Lake, Texas.
9. Texas Air Control Board 1975 Emissions Inventory Questionnaire, Texas Eastman
Co., Longview, Texas.
iO- Survey Reports on Atmospheric Emissions from the Petrochemical Industry,
Volume I, prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Water Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, by J. W. Pervier, et al., Houdry
Division, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Marcus Hook, PA, January 1974
EPA-450/3-73-005a.
-------
1-32
11. Emission Control Options for the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry.
Acetaldehyde Abbreviated Product Report, prepared for Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, by R. J. Lovell, Hydroscience, Inc., January 1979.
12. Louisiana Air Board, 1975 Emission Inventory Questionnaire, Union Carbide,
Taft, LA.
13. Special Project Report "Petrochemical Plant Sites" prepared for Industrial
Pollution Control Division, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, by Monsanto Research
Corporation, Dayton, Ohio. April 1976.
14. Texas Air Control Board 1975 Emissions Inventory Questionnaire, Celanese Chemical
Co., Bishop, Texas.
-------
APPENDIX A-2 Acrolein
ACROLEIN CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 107-02-8
Synonyms: 2-Propenal; Acrylic Aldehyde; Ally! Aldehyde;
Acrylaldehyde; Acraldehyde
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 56.06
Molecular Formula: C^H.
Molecular Structure:
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Liquid - flammable, pungent odor
Boiling Point: 52.5°C
Melting Point: -86.95°C
Density: 0.8410 at 20°C/4°C
Vapor Pressure: 288.2 mm at 25°C
Vapor Density: 1.94
Solubility: very soluble, (400 g/1 of H20)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H20):
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products: Formaldehyde
Reactivity Toward OH-: 1/2 Propylene
Reactivity Toward 03: 1/2 Propylene
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: » 5 x Formaldehyde
Major Atmospheric Precursors: N/A
Formation Reactivity: N/A
-------
2-5
A. ACROLEIN
All acrolein is currently produced in the United States by the direct oxidation
of propylene.1 The specific processes vary significantly, depending primarily
on the by-product distribution desired and on the end-use requirements.3'4
Acrolein is currently produced by four companies at four locations in the United
States.1 The plant locations and the 1978 capacity and estimated production
level for each plant are shown in Table 2-1. An estimated 350 million Ib of arcrolein
was produced in 1978.5
The largest end-use of acrolein is as an unisolated intermediate in the produc-
tion of acrylic acid and its derivatives.1 This end-use consumed an estimated
87% of production in 1978 amounting to 308 million lb.s
The end-uses of refined, or isolated, acrolein are small compared to its use as
an unisolated intermediate in acrylic acid production. Synthetic glycerin con-
sumed an estimated 24 million Ib (7% of total acrolein production) in 1978.5
Refined acrolein is also used in the manufacture of methionine and methionine
hydroxy analogue (poultry feed supplements) which consumes 20 million Ib. Mis-
cellaneous applications consume the remaining 2 M Ib and include 1,2,6-hexanetriol
(a humectant used in flexible polyurethane foam manufacture), glutaraldehyde
(used in leather tanning), and others.1 Total consumption of acrolein in chemical
intermediate applications is estimated to have been 22 million Ib (6%) in 1978.
End-uses are summarized in Table 2-2.5
-------
Table 2-1. Production of Allyl Chloride, Epichlorohydrin, and Acroleinc
1978 Estimated Production'
(M Ib)
Source
Dow Chemical Co.
Shell Chemical Co.
Shell Chemical Co.
Union Carbide Corp.
Celanese Corp.
Rohm and Haas Co.
Union Carbide Corp.
Total
Mlyl
Location Chloride-
Frcciort. TX 176
Deer Park, TX 77
Norco. LA 77
Taft, La
Clear Lake, TX
Deer Park. TX
Taft, LA
330
Epichloro-
hydrin
106
73
73
312
Acrolcin
24°
22C
89d
d
146
73d
354
1978 Estimated Capacity
(ii lb)
Allyl
Chloride
265
117
117
499
Eqichloro-
hytlrin
250
110
110
470
Acrolein
55°
60°
167d
d
273
137d
692
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude/Longitude
28 59 30/95 23 35
29 42 55/95 07 34
30 00 11/90 23 42
29 58 00/90 27 00
29 37 17/95 03 51
29 43 30/95 06 15
29 58 00/90 27 00
See refs 1 and 2.
The distribution of production for each producer is determined by the ratio of total U.S. production to total U.S. capacity as compared to indivi-
dual plant capacity.
clsolatcd acrolein.
Acrolcin produced as an unisolated intermediate in the propylene oxidation process for acrylic acid and dcrivitives.
ro
i
-------
2-7
Table 2-2. 1973 Acrolein Consumption by End-Use
End-Use
Acrylic acid and esters
Glycerin
Methionine and methionine
hydroxy analogue
Miscellaneous
Total
Usage
(%)
87
7
6
>1
100
End-Use
Consumption
(M Ib)
308
24
20
2
354
See refs. 1 and 2.
Acrolein produced as an unisolated intermediate in
the propylene oxidation process used to produce
acrylic acid and esters.
Includes glutaraldehyde, 1,2,6-hexane triol and
others.
-------
2-8
Estimated production losses are shown in Table 2-3 for each of the four producing
locations. Total emissions of acrolein from production faclities are estimated
to have been 76,300 Ib in 1978. In the production of acrylic acid and derivatives
(three locations) acrolein occurs only as an unisolated intermediate. Refined
acrolein is produced at two locations. (One plant produces both acrylic acid
and refined acrolein.) The emission sources and resulting emissions are signifi-
cantly different for the two types of processes.
The predominant source of acrolein emissions from plants producing acrylic acid
is the off-gas from the quench-absorber.4 Other associated emission components
include propane, propylene, acrylic acid, ethyl acrylate, acetone, and acetic
acid. Emissions from this source are normally controlled by thermal oxidation.4
With acrolein occurring only as an unisolated intermediate, storage emissions
are negligible.6'7 Fugitive emissions are those which result from plant equip-
ment leaks.
The predominant sources of acrolein emissions from plants producing refined
acrolein are the acrolein absorber vent (Union Carbide Process) and the condenser
vents from the distillation columns. Other associated emission components include
propane, propylene, and acetaldehyde-3 With the use of pressurized tanks for
storage the emissions of acrolein from storage sources are negligible.
Vent stack data for acrolein are shown Jn Table 2-4. Data for plants producing
refined acrolein are also given in Table 2-4. Both types of production facilities
are usually "open-air" structures without walls and solid floors (i.e., steel
grating). Only the control room area is enclosed.
Uses
The acrolein produced by acrylic acid manufacturers (308 million Ib in 1978),
which accounts for 87% of acrolein production, occurs as an unisolated inter-
mediate. End-use emissions are included in production emissions. Similarly,
the emissions of acrolein from the production of glycerin (7% of total acrolein
consumption) are included in the production emissions since the glycerin is
produced in the same plant.
-------
2-9
Table 2-3. 1978 Acrolein Production Emissions
Conpany
Shell
Union Carbide
Celanese
Rohm and Haas
Union Carbide
Total
Location
Norco , LA
Taft, LA
Clear Lake , TX
Deer Park, TX
Taft, LA
Process
Emissions
(lb/yr)-
26,400
24,200
5,520
9,050
4,530
69,700
Storage
Emissions
db/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fugitive
Emissions
db/yr)
2,640
2,420
445
730
365
6,600
Total Emissions
db/yr)
29,040b
26,620b
5,965°
9,780°
4,895°
76,300
(g/sec)
0.418
0.383
0.086
0.141
0.071
See ref. 3.
on 8760 hr/yr operation.
2
Isolated acrolein emission factor (Ib lost per Ib produced)
Process 0.00110 A - Derived from site visit data
Storage 0 A - Derived from site visit data
Fugitive 0.00011 A - Derived from site visit data
Total 0.00121
CUnisolated acrolein emission factor (Ib lost per Ib acrolein produced) . See ref. 4.
Process 0.000062 A - Derived from site visit data
Storage 0 A - Derived from site visit data
Fugitive 0.000005 A - Derived from site visit data
Total O.O00067
-------
2-10
Table 2-4. Acrolein Vent Parameters
Source
Number
of
Stacks
Vent
Height
(ft)
Vent
Diameter
(ft)
Discharge
Temperature
Velocity
(ft/sec)
a,b,c
Production
(acrylic acid mfgs)
Process
. b,c
Production
(refined acrolein)
Process
End-use
(Methionine)
Process
b,d
50
120
40
2.7
0.3
0.6
70
70
70
50
72
Individual process vents are collected and fed to a single thermal oxidizer.
Storage emissions are negligible.
Building cross-section 10 m .
d 2
Building cross-section 100 m .
-------
2-11
Emissions resulting from the use of acrolein in the production of methionine
and its derivatives, and in miscellaneous uses, were estimated by using the refined
(isolated) acrolein production emission factor. Specific source locations for
methionine manufacturers are shown in Table 2-5. Acrolein usage was distributed
evenly over all four sites since capacities were not known. Specific locations
for miscellaneous uses could not be identified.
Total nationwide emissions of acrolein in 1978 from all sources are estimated
to have been 102,920 Ib. A tabulation of the losses is shown in Table 2-6.
-------
Table 2-5. 1978 Emissions of Acrolein from Methionine Production0
Company
Degussa
NAPP
Dupont
Monsanto
Total
Location
Theodore, AL
Lodi, NJ
Beaumont, TX
Nitro, WV
1978 Estimate
Acrolein Used
(M Ibs)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
20.0
Process
Emissions
db/yr)
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
22,000
Fugitive
Emissions
db/yr)
550
550
550
550
2,200G
b,c
Total Emissions
db/yr)
6,050
6,050
6,050
6,050
24,200
(g/sec)
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude /Longitude
30 33 06/88 10 35
40 52 30/74 06 14
30 00 51/94 01 40
38 24 26/81 51 26
See ref. 1.
Based on isolated acrolein production emission factor.
»•
"Storage emissions negilible.
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
fugitive losses are distributed over a 100 ft X 100 ft area.
ro
ro
-------
2-13
Table 2-6. 1978 Estimated Acrolein Nationwide
Emission Losses
Estimated National
Emissions
Source (Ib/yr)
Production
Acrylic acid intermediate 20,640
Refined acrolein and glycerin 55,660
Chemical intermediate*
Methionine 24,200
Miscellaneous 2,420
Total 102,920
*Based on emission factor of 0.00121 determined for
isolated acrolein production.
-------
-tfv
r
ro
x/
FIGURE 2-1. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF ACROLEIN EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 2-7. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC
POINT SOURCES OF ACROLEIN
* .t
EMISSIONS (ClfflEC)
NO.
1
2
9
4
S
6
7
0
COMPANY
SHELL
UNION CARRIDE
GELANESE
ROHNAND HAAS
DECUSSA
NAPP
DUPONT
SITE
NORCO. LA
TAFT, LA
CLEAR LAKE, TX
DEER PARK. TX
THEODOR. AL
LOO I, NT
BEAUMONT, TX
NITRO, WV
LATITUDE
30 00
29 50
29 37
29 43
30 33
40 52
30 00
30 24
1 1
OO
17
30
06
30
51
26
LONGITUDE
090 23
090 27
095 03
095 06
0OO 10
074 06
094 01
001 51
42
00
51
30
35
14
40
26
STAR
STATION
12950
13970
12906
12906
03055
94741
12917
13066
PLANT
TYPE
1
2
9
3
4
4
4
4
SOURCE
TYPF, PROCESS
1 .300160
1 . 340400
2 . 065232
2 .079400
2 . 130320
3 .079200
3 . 0504OO
3 . 079200
3 . 079200
STORAGE FUGITIVE
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.03BOI6
. 034B40
.005256
. 006400
.010512
.007920
. 007920
. 007920
. 007920
» Plant Types:
Type 1: Plant produces refined acroleln
Type 2: Plant produces refined acroleln and acrylic acid
Type 3: Plant produces acrylic acid and acrolein is the intermediate
Type 4: Plant produces methionine
t Source Types:
Type 1: Refined acrolein production
Type 2: Acrylic acid production
Type 3: Methionine production
ro
i
-------
2-16
TABLE 2-8. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF ACROLEIN RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration Population
Level Exposed Dosage
(ug/m3) (persons) [(ug/rc3) • persons]
1 129 141
0.5 671 491
0.25 1,985 955
0.1 8,034 1,730
0.05 13,169 2,080
0.025 25,183 2,530
0.01 58,727 3,060
0.005 121,420 3,490
0.0025 287,635 4,060
0.001 813,153 4,860
0.0005 1,256,386 5,190
-TS* 6,692,103 5,290
*The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
2-17
TABLE 2-9. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF ACROLEIN
Parameter ' Value
Daytime decay rate (Kd) 1.6 x 10 sec"
Nighttime decay rate (Kn) 5.0 x 10"6 sec"1
Hanna-Gifford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (EH) 0
Nationwide nonheating stationary source emissions (E,.) 0.0348 gm/sec
Nationwide mobile source emissions (EM) 0
n
-------
TABLE 2-10. ACROLE IN EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
EXPO LEVEL POPULATION
COG/
-------
TABLE 2-11. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUMMARY OF ACROLEIN
Population Exposed
Dosage
I(|ig/m3). persons]
Concentration Specific
Level
(iiq/m3)
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
.0.05
0.025
0.01
0.005
0.0025
0.001
0.0005
0.0001
0.00005
0.000025
0.00001
0.000005
0
Point
Source
129
671
1,985
8,034
13,169
25,183
58,727
121,420
287,635
813,153
1,256,386
--
--
—
--
Wi
6,692,103
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
505,140
9,149,730
20,443,737
55,204,345
127,350,709
158,679,135
U.S. Total
129
671
1,985
8,034
13,169
25,183
58,727
121,420
287,635
813,153
1,256,386
—
--
—
—
--
—
Specific
Point
Source
141
491
955
1,730
2,080
2,530
3,060
3,490
4,060
4,860
5,190
—
__
—
--
--
5,290
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
91
590
925
1,443
1,987
2.094
•
U.S. Total
141
491
955
1,730
2,080
2,530
3,060
3,490
4,060
4 860
» 9 \J\f\F
5,190
• »
--
— .
— —
7,384
ro
NOTE: The use of ~ as an entry indicates that the incremental E/D is not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry in another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted in another column.
-------
2-20
REFERENCES
1. S. L. Soder and K. Ring, "Propylene," pp. 300.5405E—300.5405L in Chemical Economics
Handbook, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (August 1978).
2. J. L. Blackford, "Epichlorohydrin," pp. 642.3021A—642.3022M in Chemical Economics
Handbook, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (May 1978).
3. C. A. Peterson, Jr., Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for the Synthetic
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Product Report on Glycerin and Its
Intermediates (Allyl Chloride, Epichlorohydrin, Acrolein, and Allyl Alcohol (on
file at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC)(March 1979).
4. J. W. Blackburn, Hydroscience, Inc., Emisson Control Options for the Synthetic
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Acrylic Acid and Esters Product Report
(on file at EPA, ESED. Research Triangle Park, NC) (July 1978).
5. CEH Manual of Current Indicators Supplementary Data, p. 84 in Chemical Economics
Handbook, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (April 1979).
6. D. B. Dimick, Dow Chemical, Freeport, TX, Texas Air Control Board Emissions
Inventory Questionnaire for 1975, Epichlorohydrin, Glycerin No. 1.
7. Dow Chemical Co., Freeport, TX, Texas Air Control Board Emission Inventory
Questionnaire for 1975, Allyl Chloride, Glycerin II.
B. Shell Chemical Co., Deer Park, TX, Texas Air Control Board Emission Inventory
Questionnaire for 1975, Glycerin and Associated Products.
9. Shell Chemical Co., Norco. LA, Louisiana Air Control Commission Emission Inventory
Questionnaire (January 31, 1977).
10. Shell Chemical Co., Deer Park, TX, Texas Air Control Board Emission Inventory
Questionnaire for 1975, Resins Process.
-------
APPENDIX A-3 Ally! Chloride
ALLYL CHLORIDE CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 107-05-1
Synonyms: 3-Chloroprene; AC; Chlorallylene; 3-Chloro-l-propene;
1-Chioro-2-propene; 3-Chloropropylene
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 76.53
Molecular Formula: £3^5^
Molecular Structure: CH£ • CH - CH2C1
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Liquid, pungent odor
Boiling Point: 44.6°C
Melting Point: -134.5°C
Density: 0.938 at 20°C/4°C
Vapor Pressure: 359 m at 25°C
Vapor Density: 2.64
Solubility: Soluble (33 g/1 of H20) at 20°
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/^O):
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products: 2-Chloroacetaldehyde; Formaldehyde
Reactivity Toward OH-: 2 x Butane
Reactivity Toward 03: 15? of propylene
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: NAPP
Major Atmospheric Precursors: N/A
Formation Reactivity:
-------
3-5
A. ALLYL CHLORIDE
All allyl chloride currently produced in the United States by the chlorination
of propylene is consumed in the production of epichlorohydrin.1/2 Allyl
chloride is first reacted with hypochlorous acid to form dichlorohydrin;
dichlorohydrin is then reacted with sodium hydroxide or calcium hydroxide
to form crude epichlorohydrin.2
Crude epichlorohydrin can be used directly for the production of synthetic
glycerin.2 For other end-uses (primarily expoxy resins) the crude product is
further refined by distillation.2
Allyl chloride and epichlorohydrin are both produced by two companies at three
locations.2 The plant locations and the 1978 capacities and estimated production
levels for each plant are shown in Table 3-1.I<2 The estimated quantities of
.allyl chloride and epichlorohydrin produced in 1978 were 330 million Ib and 312
million Ib respectively.2
The primary end-uses of epichlorohydrin are for the manufacture of epoxy resins
and synthetic glycerin. An estimated 53% of epichlorohydrin production amounting
to 165 million Ib was consumed to produce epoxy resins and 25%, or 78 million
Ib, was consumed in the manufacture of synthetic glycerin.1'2
Most of the other applications of epichlorohydrin are relatively minor. Epichloro-
hydrin elastomers consumed an estimated 6 million Ib (2%) in 1978. An esti-
mated 47 million Ib (15%) was used to produce a variety of products in relatively
small volume including glycidol ethers, some types of modified epoxy resins,
wet strength resins for the paper industry, water treatment resins, surfactants,
and ion-exchange resins. Exports of epichlorohydrin are estimated to have been
16 million Ib (5%) in 1978. End-uses are summarized in Table 15-2.'•* Specific
source locations of the epoxy resin producers are shown in Table 15-3.1'2
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
1- Production
Estimated production losses are shown in Table 3-2 for each of the three producing
locations. Total emissions of allyl chloride and epichlorohydrin from production
facilities are estimated to have been 1,112,100 Ib and 146,640 Ib respectively
in 1978.3 Process emissions originate primarily through the condenser vents
-------
Table 3-1. Production of Allyl Chloride, Epichlorohydrin, and Acrolein*
1978 Estimated Production
(M Ib)
Source
Dow Chemical Co.
Shell Chemical Co.
Shell Chemical Co.
Union Carbide Corp.
Celanese Corp.
Rohm and Haas Co.
Union Carbide Corp.
Total
Location
Freeport, TX
Deer Park, TX
Norco, LA
Taft, La
Clear Lake, TX
Deer Park, TX
Taft, LA
Allyl
Chloride •
176
77
77
330
Epichloro-
hydrin
166
73
73
312
Acrolein
24°
22°
89d
146d
73d
354
1978 Estimated Capacity
(M Ib)
Allyl
Chloride
265
117
117
499
Eqichloro-
hydrin
250
110
110
470
Acrolein
55C
60C
167d
273d
137d
692
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude/Longitude
28 59 30/95 23 35
29 42 55/95 07 34
30 00 11/90 23 42
29 58 00/90 27 00
29 37 17/95 03 51
29 43 30/95 06 IS
29 58 00/90 27 00
See refs 1 and 2.
The distribution of production for each producer is determined by the ratio of total U.S. production to total U.S. capacity as compared to indivi-
dual plant capacity.
cIsolated acrolein.
Acrolein produced as an unisolated intermediate in the propylene oxidation process for acrylic acid and derivitives.
-------
Table 3-2. 1978 Allyl Chloride and Epichlorohydrin Production Emissions
Company
Location
Dow Freeport, TX
Shell Deer Park, TX
Nor co, LA
Total
Process
Allyl
Chloride
(Ib/yr)
515, 680
225,610
225,610
966,900
Emissions
Epichloro-
hydrin
(Ib/yr)
69,720
30,660
30,660
131,040
Storage
Allyl
Chloride
(Ib/yr)
24,640
10,780
10,780
46,200
Emissions
Epichloro-
hydrin
(Ib/yr)
1,660
730
730
3,120
Fugitive
Allyl
Chloride
(Ib/yr)
52,800
23,100
23,100
99,000
Emissions
Epichloro-
hydrin
(Ib/yr)
6,640
2,920
2,920
12,400
Allyl Chloride*
(Ib/yr)
593,120
259,490
259,490
1,112,100
(g/scc)c
8.54
3.74
3.74
Epichlorohydrin
(Ib/yr)
78,020
34,310
34,310
146,640
(g/scc)c
1.12
0.49
0.49
"Based on ally! chloride emission factor (Ib lost/lb produced), see refs. 7—9.
Process 0.00293 B - From state files
Storage 0.00014 B - From state files
Fugitive 0.00030 D - Engineering estimate
Total 0.00337
b
Based on epichlorohydrin emission factor (Ib lost/lb produced). See refs. 6, 8, and 9.
Process 0.00042 B - Fron state files
Storage 0.00001 B - From state files
Fugitive 0.00004 D - Engineering estimate
Total 0.00047
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
CO
i
-------
3-8
from the distillation columns.3 Other associated emissions include Cg hydro-
carbons and other C3 chlorinated hydrocarbons.3 Storage emissions, which repre-
sent total losses from storage tanks and loading and handling, are generally
controlled by the use of pressurized tanks and/or refrigerated vent condensers
and account for less than 5% of allyl chloride losses and less than 3% of epi-
chlorohydrin losses.6*7 Fugitive emissions are those which result from plant
equipment leaks.
Vent stack data are shown in Table 3-3. Typically, there are four process vents
that emit allyl chloride and three process vents that emit epichlorohydrin.
Emissions from banks of storage tanks are normally collected and discharged
from common vent stacks. Usually allyl chloride/epichlorohydrin production
facilities are "open-air" structures without walls and solid floors (i.e., steel
grating). Only the control room area is enclosed.
2. Uses
For the purpose of this report, emissions resulting from the export of epichloro-
hydrin are assumed to be negligible.
Since the only significant end-use for allyl chloride is in the production of
epichlorohydrin, allyl chloride end-use emissions are included in the allyl
chloride/epichlorohydrin production emissions.
More than half (53%) of the epichlorohydrin produced is used in the production
of epoxy resins. The current domestic producers of epoxy resins, plant locations,
and estimated emissions of epichlorohydrin are given in Table 15-6. Vent parameter
data relative to epichlorohydrin emissions from epoxy resin production are shown
in Table 3-3.
Emissions of epichlorohydrin resulting from the production of glycerin, the
next largest end-use of epichlorohydrin (25%), are included in the listed epi-
chlorohydrin production emissions. (Glycerin and the required epichlorohydrin
are produced at the same location.) Emissions resulting from the use of epi-
chlorohydrin in the production of miscellaneous products were estimated by using
the epoxy resin (epichlorohydrin use) emission factor. Specific source locations
for miscellaneous chemical intermediate use could not be identified.
Total nationwide emissions of allyl chloride and epichlorohydrin in 1978 from
all sources are estimated to have been 1.11 million Ib and 0.479 million Ib
respectively. A tabulation of the losses is shown in Table 3-4.
-------
3-9
Table 3-3.
Allyl Chloride and Epichlorohydrin Vent Parameters
Number
of
Source Stacks
" ~~a~rb
reduction
Process vents
Allyl chloride
Epichlorohydrin
Storage vents
Allyl chloride
Epichlorohydrin
c,d
se
Epoxy resins, elas-
tomers and misc.
products
Process
Column vent
Recovery vents
Storage
2
2
3
2
2
1
3
7
Vent Vent
Height Diameter
(ft) (ft)
85 0.6
40 0.167
50 0.34
15 ^ 20 0.6
15 - 20 0.6
50 0.33
135 0.83
20 0.17
Discharge
Temperature
(°F)
80
228
90
86
80
115
110
80
Velocity
(fps)
Intermittent
5.5
13.8
5.3
10.0
Building cross-section 5m.
Fugitive emissions distributed over a 300 ft X 300 ft area.
Building cross-section 100 m .
Fugitive emissions distributed over a 100 ft X 200 ft area.
-------
3-10
Table 3-4. 1973 Estimated Allyl Chloride and Epichlorohydrin
Nationwide Emission Losses
Estimated National Emissions
Chloride Epichlorohydrin
Source (M Ib/yr) (M Ib/yr)
Production (allyl chloride, 1.11 0.147
epichlorohydrin, and glycerin)
Unmodified epoxy resins - use
Chemical intermediate - use
Export
Total
*Based on emission factor of 0.00152 Ib lost per Ib used derived
for epoxy resin manufacture.
-------
NJ
FIGURE 3-1. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF ALLYL CHLORIDE EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 3-5. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC
POINT SOURCES OF ALLYL CHLORIDE
EMISSIONS (CfftJEU)
no.
i
2
3
COMPAIfY
DOW
SHELL
SHELL
SITE
FREEPORT. TX
DEER PARK. TX
IfORCO. LA
LATIT1
20 59
29 42
no 00
JOE
30
33
II
LOWCITI
093 23
093 97
090 23
IDE 1
33
34
42
n i nit ri.AN i
BTATIOH TYPE
12923 1
12906 1
12958 1
BWUIWiK
TYPE Pfl
1 7.
1 3.
1 3.
OTCESS
423792
24B7B4
24B7B4
STORAGE
.334BI6
. 135232
. 133232
FUGITIVE
.76032V
.332640
. 332640
* All ally! chloride currently produced 1n the United States Is consumed 1n the production of
eplchlorohydrin. Therefore, the only emissions sources are the ally! chloride production facilities.
-------
3-13
TABLE 3-6. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF ALLYL CHLORIDE RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration Population
Level Exposed Dosage
(ug/m3) (persons) [(ug/m3) . persons]
25 9 285
10 59 1,060
5 137 1,620
2.5 298 2,220
1 937 3,160
0.5 3,009 4,540
0.25 4,744 5,130
0.1 17,436 6,800
0.05 33,654 7,860
0.025 62,662 9,020
0.01 0 75,858 9,240
1.61xl(TB* 940,365 9,770
*The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
3-14
REFERENCES
1. S. L. Soder and K. Ring, "Propylene," pp. 300.5405E—300.5405L in Chemical Economics
Handbook. Stanford Research Institute, Henlo Park, CA- (August 1978).
2. J. L. Blackford, "Epichlorohydrin," pp. 642.3021A—642.3022M in Chemical Economics
Handbook. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (May 1978).
3. C. A. Peterson, Jr., Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for the Synthetic
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Product Report on Glycerin and Its
Intermediates (Allyl Chloride. Epichlorohydrin. Acrolein, and Allyl Alcohol (on
file at EPA, ESED. Research Triangle Park, NC)(March 1979).
4. J. W. Blackburn, Hydroscience, Inc., Emisson Control Options for the Synthetic
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Acrylic Acid and Esters Product Report
(on file at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC) (July 1978).
5. CEH Manual of Current Indicators Supplementary Data, p. 84 in Chemical Economics
Handbook. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (April 1979).
6. D. B. Dimick, Dow Chemical, Freeport, XX, Texas Air Control Board Emissions
Inventory Questionnaire for 1975, Epichlorohydrin, Glycerin No. 1.
7. Dow Chemical Co., Freeport, XX, Texas Air Control Board Emission Inventory
Questionnaire for 1975, Allyl Chloride, Glycerin II.
8. Shell Chemical Co., Deer Park, TX, Texas Air Control Board Emission Inventory
Questionnaire for 1975, Glycerin and Associated Products.
9. Shell Chemical Co., Norco, LA, Louisiana Air Control Commission Emission Inventory
Questionnaire (January 31, 1977).
10. Shell Chemical Co., Deer Park, TX, Texas Air Control Board Emission Inventory
Questionnaire for 1975, Resins Process.
-------
APPENDIX A-4 Benzyl Chloride
BENZYL CHLORIDE CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 100-44-7
Synonyms: a-Tolylchloride; Chi oromethyl benzene; a-Chlorotoluene
Chemical Formula
Holecular' Weight: 126.5
Molecular Formula: CjHCl
Molecular Structure:
-------
4-5
I. SOURCES
j. PRODUCTION
Benzyl chloride (C6H5CH2C1) is currently produced in -the United States by the
direct chlorination of boiling toluene. In this process, boiling toluene is
chlorinated in the absence of light until the proper weight increase is achieved.
The reaction mixture is then agitated with mild alkali and distilled. Benzyl
chloride and benzotrichloride are formed as by-products. Other processes for
producing benzyl chloride which are not in use in the U.S. today include chlori-
nation of toluene using sulfuryl chloride and the chloromethylation of benzene
using formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride.
There are currently three producers of benzyl chloride at four -locations in the
United States. The site locations of the plants and the 1978 capacity and esti-
mated production levels for each plant are shown in Table 4-1.' in 1978 an esti-
mated 115 million Ib of benzyl chloride was produced.
B. USES
The major use of benzyl chloride is for the production of butyl benzyl phthalate,
a plasticizer used in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) for floor
coverings. An estimated 75% (86.25 million Ib) of benzyl chloride production
was consumed for this end-use. Butyl benzyl phthalate is produced by reacting
butyl alcohol, benzyl chloride, and phthalic anhydride in the presence of an
acid catalyst. The site locations of the butyl benzyl phthalate producers are
shown in Table 4-2.2
Quaternary ammonium compounds are the second largest outlet for benzyl chloride.
They are formed by reacting benzyl chloride with dimethyl alkyl amines and are
used primarily as germicides. Approximately 10% (11.5 million Ib) was consumed
for this end-use- Source locations of the major quaternary ammonium compound
manufactures are shown in Table 4-3.2
Benzyl alcohol production consumed 7% of benzyl chloride production (8.0 million
Ib). Benzyl alcohol is made by the hydrolysis of benzyl chloride with an alkali.
Benzyl alcohol is used primarily as a textile dye assistant. Source locations
of benzyl alcohol producers are shown in Table 4-4.3
-------
Table 4-1. Benzyl Chloride Producers*
Company
Monsanto
Stauf fer
UOP, Inc.
Total
Location
Bridgeport, NJ
Sauget, IL
Edison, NJ
East Rutherford, NJ
1978
Capacity
(106 Jb/yr)
80
80
12
3
175
1978b
Production
(106 Ib/yr)
52.5
52.5
8.0
2.0
115.0
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude/Longitude
39 47 33/75 23 45
38 35 31/90 10 11
40 29 23/74 23 03
40 49 46/74 05 30
See ref. 1.
on ratio of production to capacity of 66% (see ref. 1).
-------
Table 4-2. But;yl Benzyl Phthalate Producers'
Company
Location
1978
Butyl Benzyl
Phathalate
Capacity
(106 Ib/yr)
1975
Benzyl Chloride
Used
(106 ]b/yr)
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude/Longitude
Monsanto
Total
Bridgeport, NJ
Sauget, IL
NA° 43
NA 43
86
.125
.125
.25
39 47 33/75
38 35 31/90
23
10
45
11
See ref. 2.
bTotal benzyl chloride use of 86.25 million Ib was distributed evenly over both sites since capacity
data were not available.
Q
Not available.
-------
Table 4-3. Quaternary Ammonium Compounds Producers'
Company
Location
Akzona
Lonza
Hexcel
Witco
Ashland
Gulf Oil
Rohm S Haas
Sterling
National Starch
Total
McCook, IL
Morris, IL
Mapleton, IL
Lodi, NJ
Hous ton, TX
Janesville, WI
Jersey City, NJ
Philadelphia, PA
Cincinnati, OH
Salisbury, NC
Quaternary
Ammonium Compound
Capa city (Ib/yt )
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Benzyl Chloride
Used (Ib/yr)
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude/Longitude
92,500
92,500
92,500
92,500
92,500
92,500
92,500
92,500
92,500
92,500
9,250,000
41 48 17/87 49 41
41 2/1 24/88 18 10
40 34 00/89 43 01
40 52 00/74 06 50
29 34 45/95 26 00
42 41 56/89 00 10
40 43 02/74 06 14
39 54 50/75 11 30
39 05 15/84 33 09
35 43 36/80 28 19
i
00
See ref. 2.
DTotal benzyl chloride usage distributed evenly over all 10 sites.
"Not available.
-------
Table 4-4. Benzyl Alcohol Producers'
Company
Location
1978
Capacity
Benzyl Alcohol
(1Q6 Ib/yr)
1978
Benzyl Chloride
Use
(106 Ib/yr)
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude/Longitude
Stauffer Chemical
UOP, Inc.
Velsicol
Orbis
Nor da
Total
Edison, NJ
E. Rutherford, NJ
Chattanooga, TW
Newark, NJ
Boon ton, NJ
5
2
5
1,5
1.5
15
2.7
1.0
2.7
0.8
0.8
8.0
40 29 23/74 23 07
40 49 46/74 05 30
30 36 31/85 16 36
40 41 16/74 12 17
40 54 13/74 24 44
See ref. 3.
""Based on 7% of benzyl chloride that; is used to make benzyl alcohol (sse ref. 1) .
BA capacity
Benzyl alcohol used = 15""X 0.07 (115 X 106 Ib/yr benzyl chloride produced).
-------
4-10
The remaining benzyl chloride production (8%) representing 9.25 million Ib was
used in a variety of small diverse chemical intermediate end-uses. Benzyl
chloride end-uses are summarized in Table 4-5.'
II. EMISSION ESTIMATES
A. PRODUCTION
Benzyl chloride emissions from production sites are presented in Table 4-6.
Total estimated emissions from these sites for 1978 were 58,860 Ib. Emission
factors derived from state files4'5 included both benzyl chloride production
emissions and benzyl alcohol consumption emissions. They apply only to Stauffer
at Edison, NJ and UOP at E. Rutherford, NJ. Emission factors used to develop
process, storage, and fugitive emissions from Monsanto's two facilities were
taken from published data.6 Both factors are shown in Table 4-7. Process emissions
originate primarily from scrubber vents and vacuum jets. Other associated
emission components would include toluene, hydrochloric acid, and chlorine.
Storage emissions represent the losses from both working and final product
storage as well as loading and handling losses. Fugitive emissions are those
that are result from plant equipment leaks.
Vent parameter data are reported in Table 4-8 for both producers and end-users.
B. USES
Emission estimates for end-users of benzyl chloride are summarized along with
production emissions in Table 4-6. They are based on the emission factors
tabulated in Table 4-7.
Benzyl chloride emissions from butyl benzene phthalate production are estimated
to have been 27,168 Ib. Other associated emissions would include phthalic
anhydride and butanol.
Benzyl chloride emissions from benzyl alcohol production are estimated to have
been 2150 Ib. However the emissions from benzyl alcohol manufactured at Stuaffer
and UOP are already included in the benzyl chloride production emission losses.
-------
4-11
Table 4-5. Benzyl Chloride End-Uses 1978*
Usage Usage
Use (106 Ib/yr) (%)
Butyl benzyl 86.25 75
phthalate
Benzyl alcohol 8.0 7
Quaternary ammonium 11.5 10
compounds
Miscellaneous 9-25 8
Total 115 100
*See ref. 1.
-------
Table 4-6. Benzyl Chloride Emissions from Producers and Users
Emissions (Ib/yr)
Company
Monsanto
Stauffer
UOP
Monsanto
Velsicol
Orb is
Norda
Akzona
Lonza
Hexcel
Witco
Ashland
Gulf Oil
Rohm & Haas
Sterling
National Starch
Total
Location
Bridgeport, NJ
Sauget, IL
Edison, NJ
E. Rutherford, NJ
Bridgeport, NJ
Sauget, IL
Chattanooga, TN
Newark, NJ
Boon ton, NJ
McCook, IL
Morris, IL
Mapelton, IL
Lodi, NJ
Houston, TX
Janesville, WI
Jersey City, NJ
Philadelphia, PA
Cincinnati, OH
Salisbury, NC
Source
Production
Production
Production
Production
BBP
BBP
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl alcohol
QAC
QAC
QAC
QAC
QAC
QAC
QAC
QAC
QAC
QAC
Process
20,633
20,633
4,000
1,000
10,178
10,178
945
280
280
322
322
322
322
322
322
322
322
322
322
71,347
Storage
1785
1785
344
86
1078
1078
108
32
32
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
6788
Fugitive
3833
3833
744
186
2329
2329
297
88
88
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
14,647
Total Emissions ,_
(Ib/yr)
26,250
26,250
5,088
1,272
13,584
13,584
1,350
400
400
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
92,778
(g/sec)
0.378
0.378
0.073
0.018
0.196
0.196
0.019
0.006
0.006 *
ro
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
aBased on emission factors shown in Table 7.
bBased on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
Table 4-7. Benzyl Chloride Emission Factors
Emission Factor (Ib lost/l.b
Source
Benzyl chloride production
(Monsanto sites)
Benzyl chloride production
(Stauffer/UOP)
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Benzyl alcohol
Quaternary ammonium compounds
P
0
0
0
0
0
rocess
.000393
.000500
.000236
.000350
.000280
Derivation'
-------
Table 4-8. Benzyl Chloride Vent Paremeters
Number Vent Vent Discharge
of Height Diameter Temp.
Stacks (ft) (ft) (°F)
Production
Process 2 ' 38 1.0 78
Storage 6 24 0.17 70
Fugitive
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Process 1 36 0.6 90
Storage 4 24 0.33 80
Fugitive
Quaternary NH_ compounds
Process 1 20 0.33 75
Storage ' 1 ' 8 0.17 70
Fugitive
Benzyl alcohol
Process 2 36 0.33 80
Storage 2 20 0.17 70
Fugitive
Velocity Distribution
(ft/sec) Area
0.02
0.02
300 X 300
5
200 X 300
14
100 X 100
10
300 X 300
I
.£»
2
Building cross-section for all sources - 50 m .
-------
Quaternary ammonium compounds manufacture contributed an estimated 4600 Ib
of benzyl chloride emissions. Other emission components would likely be
amines. Miscellaneous uses of benzyl chloride were estimated to have contrib-
uted 7493 Ib of emissions. These uses are extremely-small and too diverse and
numerous to locate and specify individual emission quantities. Emissions were
estimated by taking a weighted average of the other benzyl chloride end-uses and
multiplying by the 9.25 million Ib used.
The total nationwide emissions of benzyl chloride in 1978 were estimated to have
been 100,271 Ib. A tabulation of the losses is shown in Table 4-9.
-------
4-16
Table 4-9. Benzyl Chloride Nationwide Emissions
Nationwide
Emissions
Source (Ib/yr)
Production 58,860a
Butyl benzyl phthalate 27,168
Quaternary ammonium compounds 4,600
Benzyl alcohol 2,150
Miscellaneous 7,493
Total 100,271
Emissions from the use of 3.7 million Ib of benzyl
chloride to produce benzyl alcohol are included in
production.
Based on a weighted average emission factor for all
benzyl chloride uses of 0.000405 Ib lost/lb used.
-------
I
—I
^J
FIGURE 4-1. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF BENZYL CHLORIDE EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 4-10. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC
POINT SOURCES OF BENZYL CHLORIDE
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
!•
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
COMPANY
MONSANTO
MONSANTO
STAUI-W.R
UOP
VKLS1COL
ORIIIS
NORDA
AKZONA
AKZONA
LOIfZA
HEXCEL
WITCO
ASHLAND
GULF OIL
lUftiM ;. HAAS
STERLING
NATIONAL STARCH
SUTE
BRIDGEPORT, NJ
SAUCET, IL
EDISON. N.I
E. RUTHERFORD. N.J
niATTANOOCA. TW
NEWARK, HJ
I5OOTEN. N.I
HCCOOK, IL
MORRIS, IL
MAPELTOW, IL
LODI, NJ
HOUSTON, TO
JANESVILLE, WI
JERSEY CITY, NJ
i in1.* !>Ei.n i,\, i'/\
CINCINNATI. Oil
SALISBURY. NC
ST/iR
LATITUDE LONGITUDE STATION
39
3Q
40
40
35
4O
4O
41
41
40
40
29
42
40
50
;»•>
35
47 33 075
35 31 090
2') 2:; OV4
4') 4«» 074
02 3 1 O«M
41 16 074
54 13 074
4H 17 O87
24 24 OOO
34 00 089
52 00 074
34 45 095
41 56 089
43 02 074
o4 l»0 07U
05 :;; 004
43 34 oi;o
23 45
10 II
23 (»:;
O5 30
10 30
12 17
24 44
4') 41
lit 10
43 01
06 50
26 00
00 10
06 14
i : 3«>
33 09
2» l«>
1 3739
13994
•x.7«•<. i
ciate
9474 1
9474 1
94U40
141155
14842
94741
12906
14839
94741
i ;,-,:??
i:uwo
i::7i!t?
*
PLANT
TVI'E
'
1
"
2
a
«»
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
-'
4
4
SOURCE
TYI'K
1
«»
1
'*
!
1
:i
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
•:
4
4
EMISSIONS (CM/SEC)
I'KWCKSLJ
. 297 1 1 5
. 140503
.2971 15
. 140503
.uav«.<*
. 0 1 44OO
. o i :;oon
. 004032
. OO4O32
. 004037
. 004037
. 005357
. 004637
. 004637
. 004637
. 004637
. 00463-7
. 004637
. 004037
STOIiACK
.025704
.015523
. 025704
. 0 1 5523
.0««M4
. OO 1 23K
.OO 1555
. OOO40 1
. 00040 1
. 000062
. 0O0602
.000662
. 000662
.000662
. 000662
. 000662
.O00C6Z
. 000602
. 000662
H'CITlVE
.055195
. 033538
.055195
.033538
. O 1 OV 1 4
. 002078
. O04277
. 00 1 267
.OO 1267 1*
.001325 °°
. OO 1 325
.001325
.001325
.001328
.001325
.001325
.com*
. OO 1 U2U
.001325
-------
TABLE 4-10. (Concluded)
* Plant Types:
Type 1: Plant produces benzyl chloride and butylenzyl phthalate
Type 2: Plant produces benzyl rhloHde
Type 3: Plant procudes benzyl alcohol
Type 4: Plant produces quaternary ammonium compounds
t Source Types:
Type 1: Benzyl chloride production
Type 2: Butyl benzyl phthalate production
Type 3: Benzyl alcohol production
Type 4: Quaternary ammonium compounds production
I
<£>
-------
4-20
TABLE 4-11. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF BENZYL CHLORIDE RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration
Level
fug/in3)
18.5
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0.005
0.0025
0.001
0.0005
0.00025
0.0001
3.74X10'11*
Population
Exposed
(persons)
1
7
26
44
209
858
3,312
10,606
18,356
39,471
102,126
216,455
449,991
1,229,667
2,265,842
4,270,619
11,982,073
33,270,545
Dosage
[fug/m3) . persons]
13.2
101
227
286
521
963
,810
,990
,620
,340^
5,320
6,110
6,?00
8.110
8,840
9,530
11,704
11,600
1..
2,!
3,1
4,:
*The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
4-21
TABLE 4-12. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF BENZYL CHLORIDE
Parameter Va 1 ue
Daytime decay rate (Kd) 2.8 x 10~ sec"
Nighttime decay rate (Kn) 0
Hanna-Gifford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (E^) 0
Nationwide nonheating stationary source emissions (EN) 0.108 gm/sec
Nationwide mobile source emissions (EM) 0
-------
TABLE 4-13. BENZYL CHLORIDE EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
DOSAGE
PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTION
PERCENTAGE OF DISTRIBUTION
EJiru LG,ve.L,
3)
.000500
.•••25ft
* 999 1 99
• VVV030
. OOO023
.OOOOIO
0.
ruruLAiiun
(PERSON)
446932
303 140
17331646
3B99686B
90035255
1406O7OI1
150679135
t u«;/» nia-
PERSON)
26 1 . 9
2B9.4
3978.7
433 1 . O
66I7.O
75 1 1 . a
75V7 . 7
HEATING
0.
e.
0.
0.
O.
0.
O.
STATIONARY
IOO.O
100.0
100. 0
100.0
IOO.O
100.0
IOO.O
MOBILE
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
CITY TYPE 1
100. 0
100.0
100. ft
99.2
97.0
93.4
92.7
CITY TYPE 2
O.
0.
O.
. 1
1.4
2.6
2.7
CITY TYPE 3
0.
ft.
ft.
.7
1.5
4.0
4.6
4*
I
ro
ro
-------
TABLE 4-14. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUMMARY OF BENZYL CHLORIDE
Population Exposed
(persons)
Dosage
Concentration Specific
Level
(pa./m3)
18.5
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0.005
0.0025
0.001
0.0005
0.00025
0.0001
0.00005
0.000025
0.00001
0.0
Point
Source
1
7
26
44
209
858
3,312
10,606
19,356
39,471
102,126
216,455
449,991
1,229,667
2,265,842
4,270,619
11,982,073
--
__ .
—
33,270,545
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
446,952
505,140
17,551,646
38,996,868
98,835,255
148,607,011
158,679,135
U.S. Total
1
7
26
44
209
858
3,312
10,606
19,356
39,471
102,126
216,455
449,991
1,229,667
2,712,794
4,775,759
29,533,719
--
--
—
--
Specific
Point
Source
13
101
227
286
521
963
1,810
2,990
3,620
4,340
5,320
6,110
6,900
8,110
8,840
9,530
10,704
--
--
--
11,600
'General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
261
289
3,080
4,550
6,620
7,510
7,580
U.S. Total
13
101
227
286
521
963
1,810
2,990
3,620
4,340
5,320
6,110
6,900
8,110
9,101
9,819
13,784
--
—
—
19.190
*k
GO
NOTE: The use of — as an entry indicates that the Incremental E/D 1s not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry in another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted in another column.
-------
4-24
REFERENCES
1. "Chemical Product Synopsis on Benzyl Chloride," Hannsville Chemical Products,
Mannsville, NY (July 1978).
2. 1979 Directory of Chemical Producers, United States, Stanford Research Institute,
Menlo Park, CA.
3. "Chemical Product Synopsis on Benzyl Alcohol," Mannsville Chemical Products,
Mannsville, NY (July 1978).
4. State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Pollution
Control, files on Universal Oil Products, E. Rutherford, New Jersey.
5. State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air
Pollution Control, files on Stauffer Chemical Company, Edison, New Jersey.
6. Special Project Report, "Petrochemical Plant Sites," prepared for Industrial
Pollution Control Division, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, by Monsanto Research Corporation,
Dayton, OH (April 1976).
-------
APPENDIX A-5 Beryllium
BERYLLIUM CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 744.04-17
Synonyms: Glucinium
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 9.012 (atomic)
Molecular Formula: Be - atomic number: 4
Molecular Structure: Gray metal, close-packed hexagonal structure,
anisotropic
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: hard, non-corrosible gray metal
Boiling Point: 2970°C at 5 mm
Melting Point: 1278°C
Density: 1.848 at 20°C/4°C
Vapor Pressure: N/A
Vapor Density: N/A
Solubility: Insoluble
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H20): N/A
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products: (depend upon aerosol size range and growth char-
acteristics) Metal resistant to attack by acid due to the formation of a thin
Reactivity Toward OH-: \ oxide film.
Reactivity Toward 03: \ unreactive
Reactivity Toward Photolysis:
Major Atmospheric Precursors:
Formation Reactivity:
-------
5-5
I. SOURCES
A. PRODUCTION
Bertrandite ore is the major source for beryllium mineral produced in the United
States. Production data for beryllium have not been reported in recent years
in order to avoid disclosing individual company confidential data.1
Only one site, Brush Wellman, Inc., in Millard County, Utah, processes bertrandite
ore and converts it to beryllium hydroxide. Brush Wellman processes both domestic
bertrandite ore. mined at its delta facility, and imported beryl ore for
Kawecki-Berylco. The beryllium hydroxide resulting from the processing of the
imported beryl ore is then upgraded by Kawecki-Berylco at its plants in Hazelton
and Reading, Pennsylvania.1'2 Small quantities of beryl ore have reportedly been
mined in South Dakota and Arizona.
In 1976, the last year for which data are available, 7.5 million Ib of beryllium
was used in the United States. Of this quantity, approximately 2.1 million Ib
was imported from other countries, and the remaining 5.4 million Ib was obtained
from stockpiles and production.2
B. USES
The primary end-use of beryllium is in the manufacture of beryllium-copper alloys.
An estimated 75% (5.6 million Ib) is consumed for this end-use. Beryllium metal
production consumed an estimated 18% (1.35 million Ib), and beryllium oxide con-
sumed the remaining 7% (0.55 million Ib). Uses are summarized in Table 5-1.2 There
have been no reported exports of beryllium since 1964. Source locations for the
major beryllium metal and alloy sites are shown in Table 5-2.3«4 Total beryllium
use in metal and alloy manufacture was allocated based on the number of employees
at each site.
C- INCIDENTAL SOURCES
Incidental sources of beryllium emissions include coal- and oil-fired boilers,
coke ovens, and the gray iron foundry industry. The boilers include industrial,
power plant, commercial, and residential types. Beryllium emissions originate
as impurities from oil and coal when they are burned in the boilers or in coke
ovens or as diesel fuel. Table 5-3 shows the estimated consumption of oil and coal
in 1978 by category. Table 5-4 indicates, by region, the percent of coal and oil
used by power plants.
-------
5-6
Table 5-1. Beryllium End-Use 19783
Use
Beryllium-copper alloys
Beryllium metal
Beryllium-oxide ceramics
Total
Usage
(106 lb/yr)-
5.6
1.35
0.55
7.5
Usage
(%)
75
18
7
100
See ref. 2.
-------
Table 5-2. Beryllium Metal and Alloy Producers
Company
Brush Wellman
Kawecki Berylco Industries
Total
Location
Elmore, OH
Reading, PA
Hampton, NJ
Ilazelton, PA
Reading, PA
Beryllium Metal/ Beryllium
AUoy Capacity Used
db/yr) Ub/yr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
0
0
2
1
6
.39
.57
.28
.16
.55
.95
Geographical Location
Latitude/Longitude
41
40
40
40
40
28
46
42
21
47
06/83
45/73
32/74
28/75
32/73
16
11
57
57
11
37
10
41
10
50
See refs. 3 and 4.
""Total beryllium usage distributed over the sites based on the number of people employed.
en
i
-------
5-8
Table 5-3. 1978 United States Oil and Coal Consumption*
User
Electrical utilities
Industry
Coke ovens
Residential commercial
Diesel fuel
Total
Coal Consumption
(million tons)
480
55
75
8
-
618
Oil Consumption
(million bbls)
646
671
-
707
327
2351
*See refs 5 and 6.
-------
5-9
Table 5-4. Electrical Utility Power Plant Locations and
Usage of Coal and Oil by Geographic Region*
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total
Number of
Sites
9
51
156
111
61
44
3
38
1
474
Percentage of
Total U.S. Coal
Consumption
0.7
11.3
33.9
9.4
19.6
16.3
1.3
6.8
0.7
100.0
Number of
Sites
35
70
110
85
97
26
100
44
33
600
Percentage of
Total U.S. Oil
Consumption
9.4
27.9
5.9
0.7
31.4
2.0
4.8
2.2
15.7
100.0
*See ref. 7.
-------
5-10
II. EMISSION ESTIMATES
A. PRODUCTION
The primary source of emission data for this summary Was the Survey of Emissions
and Controls for Hazardous and Other Pollutants prepared for the Environmental
Protection Agency by the Mitre Corp.8 In this report, it is estimated that
emissions resulting from ore mining and processing, use as beryllium oxide, and
use in beryllium metal fabrication are negligible due to control techniques.
The only significant sources of beryllium emissions are in beryllium alloy and
compound manufacture and from the incidental sources noted in Section I.
B. USES
Beryllium emissions from beryllium metal and alloy manufacture are shown in
TablC 5-5.3'4'8 Total emissions were derived by multiplying the emission factor
of 0.000785 Ib beryllium lost per Ib used from the Mitre report8 times the beryllium
used. Total beryllium emissions from this end-use are estimated to have been
5455 Ib.
C. INCIDENTAL
Beryllium emissions resulting from gray iron foundry operations are shown in
Table 5-6 by geographic region. They totaled 8,000 Ib. Emissions were estimated
by multiplying the emission factor 0.000444 lb/ton8 times the estimated pro-
duction of 18,000,000 tons of metal. The total emissions were then distributed
by region based on the total number of employees in gray iron foundry operations
in each region.9
Beryllium emissions resulting from electrical utility power plants are shown
for coal-fired operations in Table 5-7 and for oil-fired operations in Table 5-8.
Coal-fired plants had emissions of 240,000 Ib, and oil-fired plants had emissions
of 9500 Ib.
These emissions were calculated by multiplying the emission factors shown in
Tables 5-7 and 5-8 by the coal and oil used shown in Table 5-3. The emissions were
distributed by region according to the usage percentages shown in Table 5-4.
-------
Table 5-5. Beryllium Emissions from Beryllium Metal and Allyol Production'
Company
Brush Wellman
Kawecki- Beryl co
Total
Location
El more, OH
Reading, PA
Hampton, NJ
Hazelton, PA
Reading, PA
Beryllium Used
(lb/yr)b
2.39
0.57
0.28
2.16
1.55
6.95
Beryllium Emissions0
(Ib/yr)
1875
450
220
1695
1215
5455
(g/sec)^
0.027
0.006
0.003
0.024
0.017
See refs. 3 and 4.
''Total beryllium usage allocated per site based on the number of employees at each site.
"Based on emission factor of 0.000785 Ib beryllium lost per Ib used. C - derived from published source,
See ref. 8.
^Assumes 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
5-12
Table 5-6. Beryllium Emissions from Gray Iron Foundry Operations*
Reqion
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North" Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total
Number of
Sites
13
. 42
129
29
22
37
19
5
28
324
, ., . _ . . Average Emissions/Site
Beryllium Emissions * —
(Ib/yr) (Ib/vr) (g/sec)b
200
735
4170
455
590
944
400
95
408
8000C
15.4
17.5
32.3
15.7
26". 8
25.5
21.0
23.8
14.5
0.0002
0.0003
0.0005
0.0002
0.0004
0.0004
0.0003
0.0003
0.0002
See ref. 9.
b
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
°Based on an emission factor of 0.000444 Ib beryllium lost per ton of metal produced.
C - derived from published data. See ref. 8.
-------
5-13
Table 5-7. Beryllium Emissions from Electrical Utilities
Power Plants Coal-fireda
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
.Total
Number of
Sites
9
51
156
111
61
44
3
38
1
474
Beryllium Emissions
db/yr)
1,680
27,120
81,360
22,560
47,040
39,120
3,120
16,320
1,680
240,000°
Average Emissions/Site
db/yr)
190
530
520
200
770
890
1040
430
1680
506
(g/sec)
0.003
0.008
0.007
0.003
0.011
0.013
0.015
0.006
0.024
See ref. 7.
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
Based on 0.00000025 Ib beryllium emitted per Ib coal burned.
published data. See ref. 8.
C - derived from
-------
5-14
Table 5-8. Beryllium Emissions from Electrical Utility
Power Plants Oil-fired3
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total
Number of
Sites
35
70
110
85
97
26
100
44
33
600
D , , . „ . . Average Emissions/Site
Beryllium Emissions *• -
(Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (g/sec)b
893
2650
560
67
2983
190
456
209
1492
9500C
25.5
37.9
5.1
0.8
30.8
7.3
4.6
4.8
45.2
15.8
0.0004
0.0005
nil
nil
0.0004
0.0001
nil
nil
0.0007
See ref. 7.
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
CBased on 0.00000035 Ib beryllium emitted per gallon oil burned.
published data. See ref. 8.
C - derived from
-------
5-15
Beryllium emissions from coke oven operations were estimated to be 37,500 Ib as
shown in Table 5-9. This estimate is based on the coal emission factor derived
for power plants.8 Total emissions were distributed by the number of sites in
each region.10
The remaining incidental sources of beryllium emissions are from other sources
that burn oil or coal. The emission factors used were the same as for power
plant emission estimates. Emissions from oil- and coal-fired industrial boilers
were estimated to have been 27,500 Ib and 9870 Ub respectively. Emissions from
residential and commercial oil and coal heating were estimated to be 4,000 Ib
and 10,400 Ib respectively. Diesel fuel consumption generated an estimated
4810 Ib of beryllium emissions. Source locations for all these incidental cate-
gories are considered too numerous and too diverse to pinpoint regional distribu-
tions .
Vent parameter data for all beryllium emission sources are shown in Table 5-10.
Table 5-11 presents a summary of beryllium emissions. Total nationwide beryllium
emissions are estimated to have been 357,035 Ib in 1978.
-------
5-16
Table 5-9. Beryllium Emissions from Coke Oven Operations
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total
Number of
Sites
0
15
25
3
4
9
2
2
1
61
Beryllium Emissions
db/yr)
0
9,220
15,370
1,845
2,460
5,530
1,230
1,230
615
37,500b'C
See ref. 10.
Based on an emission factor of 0.00000025 Ib lost/lb coal
burned. See ref. 8.
CAverage emission per site 615 Ib/yr (0.009 g/sec).
-------
5-17
Table 5-10. Beryllium Vent Parameters
Source
Power plants
Gray iron foundry
Alloy manufacture
Coke oven
Number of
Stacks
1
1
2
2
Vent Height
(ft)
400
150
40
30
Vent
Diameter
(ft)
16
2
1
1
Discharge
Temperature
(°F)
200
200
140
300
Velocity
(ft/sec)
90
40
10
15
*Building cross-section for all sources - 200
-------
5-18
Table 5-11. 1978 Beryllium Nationwide Emissions
Source
Estimated
Nationwide Emissions
(Ib/yr)
Producers
Beryllium metal, alloys, and compounds
Beryllium fabrication
Beryllium oxide-ceramics
Gray iron foundries
Electrical utility
Power plant boilers
Coal
Oil
Industrial boilers
Coal
Oil
Residential/commercial boilers
Coal
Oil
Coke ovens (coal)
Diesel fuel (oil)
Negligible
5,455
Negligible
Negligible
8,000
240,000
9,500
27,500
9,870
4,000
10,400
37,500
4,810
Total
357,035
-------
en
FIGURE 5-1. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF BERYLLIUM EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 5-12. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC
POINT SOURCES OF BERRYLLIUM
EMISSIONS
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
COMPANY
nnusii TOLLMAN
BIIUCII TOLLMAN
nnnsii TOLLMAN
KAWECKI-DEHYLCO
KATOCKI-DEnYLCO
SITF.
ELMon, on
READING. PA
HAMPTON. NJ
REAIMN, PA
IIAZELTON. PA
LATITUDE
41
40
4O
40
40
20
46
42
47
21
06
43
32
32
2fl
LONGITUDE
oai
076
074
O76
073
16
II
37
II
r.7
37
IO
41
50
IO
WTAII ruin i
STATION TYI'F.
94D3O 1
14712 1
9474 1 1
14712 1
14737 1
!«
-------
5-21
TABLE 5-13. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF BERYLLIUM RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration Population
Level Exposed Dosage
(ug/m3) (persons) [(ug/m3) . persons]
0.394 0 .132
0.25 71 18.6
0.1 795 126
0.05 2,387 235
0.025 5,794 346
0.01 23,622 585
0.005 61,062 849
0.0025 117,12? 1,050
0.001 275,165 1,300
0.0005 367,850 1,370
0.0025 494,748 1,420
0.0001 619,837 1,440
8.01x10-6* 720,769 1,440
*The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
TABLE 5-14. EMISSIONS RATES AND NUMBER OF GENERAL POINT SOURCES OF BERYLLIUM
Gray Iron Fa
Po»er Plant (Coil]
Power flint (Oil)
Col* Own
fifim ions/Site
Meal on (gm/sec)
Hm En^ltfiQ
Middle Atlantic
Cast North Central
Kelt North Central
South Atlantic
Cast South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
0.000??
o.ooo?s
0.00047
0.00023
0.00039
0.0003?
0.00030
0.00034
0.00021
Number
OL-iilM
13
42
129
29
22
37
19
5
28
Emissions/ Site Number
(gm/sec) of Sites
0.00274
0.00763
0.00749
0.00288
0.0111
0.0128
0.01SO
0.0062
0.00242
9
51
156
111
61
44
3
38
1
Emissions/Site
(gm/sec)
0.00037
0.00055
0.000073
0.000012
0.00044
0.00011
0.000066
0.000069
0.00065
Number
of Sites
35
70
110
85
97
26
100
44
33
missions/Site
(qm/sec)
0
0.00885
0.00885
0.00885
0.00885
0.00885
0.00885
0.00885
0.00885
Number
of Sites
0
15
25
3
4
9
2
1
1
ro
ro
-------
TABLE 5-15. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM EMISSIONS FROM GENERAL POINT SOURCES'OF BERYLLIUM
Population Exposed
(103 persons)
Dosage
[103(yg/m3).persons]
Concentration
Level
(uq/m3)
0.5
0.25
0.10
0.05
0.025
0.010
0.005
0.0025
0.0010
0.0005
0.00025
0
Gray
Iron
Foundry
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
—
..
--
Power
Plant
(Coal)
0
0
0
0
0
27
538
1,800
--
--
--
Power
Plant
(Oil)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
—
—
—
Coke Oven
0.127
4.37
27.5
70.3
181
702
1,620
3,170
—
—
--
—
U.S.
Total
0.127
4.37
27.5
70.3
181
729
2,160
4,970
--
--
—
--
Gray
Iron
Foundry
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.04
0.3
1.1
7.4
Power
Plant
(Coal)
0
0
0
0
0
0.4
3.7
8.2
20
29
38
82
Power
Plant
i2iU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.4
3.2
Coke
Oven
0.08
1.6
5.0
8
11.6
18.8
24.8
30.2
38.5
47.2
56.5
67.4
U.S.
Total
0.08
1.6
5
8
11.6
19.2
28.5
38.4
58.9
76.5
96.1
160
en
i
ro
NOTE: The use of -- as an entry indicates that the incremental E/D is not significant (relative
to last entry or relative to entry in another column at the same row) or that the exposure
of the same population may be counted in another column.
-------
5-24
TABLE 5-16. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF BERYLLIUM
Parameter Value
Daytime decay rate (K^) 0
nighttime decay rate (KR) 0
Hanna-Gifford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (EH) 0.203 gm/sec
Residential/comercial coal burning 0.058 gm/sec
Residential/conroercial oil burning 0.145 gm/sec
Nationwide nonheating stationary source emissions (E^) 0.538 gm/sec
Coal-burning 0.396 gm/sec
Oil-burning 0.142 gm/sec
Nationwide mobile source emissions (EM) 0.0693 gm/sec
Ratio of truck emissions to auto emissions (R 3.0
-------
TABLE 5-17. BERYLLIUM EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
Kft\f V Ul j v r>U
2r»o . o
5OO-12 . 5
r.rmo.n
HEAT INC
Iti.H
30.0
20.9
27.7
20.9
20.0
STATIOHAUY
O2. 4
66.6
66.7
07.2
67.4
67.4
NOniLE
a.«
2.6
4.4
5. 1
5.O
5.O
CITY TYPE 1
10ft. ft
100.0
100.0
97.0
94.2
92.0
CITY TYPF, 2
ft.
0.
0.
.O
2.5
2.6
CITY TYPE 3
ft.
0.
0.
1.3
3.3
4.6
en
ro
en
-------
TABLE 5-18. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUMMARY OF BERYLLIUM
Population Exposed
Dosage
/m3)>persons!
Concentration Specific
Level
(uq/m3)
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0.005
0.0025
0.001
0.0005
0.00025
0.0001
0
Point
Source
0
71
795
2,387
5,794
23,622
61,062
117.129
275,165
367,850
494,748
619.837
720,769
General
Point
Source
127
4,370
27,500
70,300
181 ,000
729,000
2,160,000
4,970,000
__
••
__
..
—
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
505,140
9.149,730
28,601,329
73,351,092
139,664,758
158,679,135
U.S. Total
127
4,441
28,295
72,687
186,794
752,622
2,221,062
5,592,269
..
..
_.
_.
—
Specific
Point
Source
0
19
126
235
346
585
849
1,050
1.30Q
1,370
1.420
1,440
1,440
General
Point
Source
80
600
5,000
8,000
11,600
19,200
28,500
38,400
58,900
76,500
96,000
_-
160,000
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,759
16,754
30,552
45,257
56.843
58,100
U.S. Total
80
619
5,126
8,235
11,946
19,785
29,349
41,259
76,954
107,052
__
__
219,600
r\»
NOTE- The use of — as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D Is not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry 1n another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted In another column.
-------
5-27
REFERENCES
1. Benjamin Petkof, "Beryllium," Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook, 1976.
2. "Beryllium Minerals—Salient Characteristics," Chemical Economics Handbook,
p. 716.1000A, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (July 1978).
3. 1978 Directory of Chemical Producers, United States, p. 474, Stanford Research
Institute, Menlo Park, CA.
4. 1979 Thomas Register, Thomas Publishing Co., New York, NY.
5. "Bituminous Coal," Chemical Economics Handbook, p. 211.3026, Stanford Research
Institute, Menlo Park, CA (October 1978).
6. "Fuel Oils," Chemical Economics Handbook, p. 229.4350B, Stanford Research
Institute, Menlo Park, CA (February 1979).
7. "Existing Power Plants as of 1974," supplied by Systems Applications, Inc.,
San Rafael, CA, to Hydroscience, Inc., Knoxville, TN.
8. Survey of Emissions and Controls for Hazardous and Other Pollutants, the Mitre
Corp., EPA Contract No. 68-01-0438, p. 103.
9. Marketing Economics Key Plants 1975-1976.. Marketing Economics Institute,
New York, New York.
10. "Coke Oven Plants in the United States." p. 212.2000A—D, Chemical Economics
Handbook, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (October 1978).
-------
APPENDIX A-6 Carbon Tetrachloride
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 56-23-5
Synonyms: Tetrachloromethane; Perch!oromethane; Methane Tetrachloride;
Necatorina; Benzinoform
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 153.82
Molecular Formula:
Molecular Structure:
Cl
C1-C-C1
i
Cl
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Liquid - colorless, nonflammable
Boiling Point: 76.54°C at 76C mm
Melting Point: -22.996C
Density: 1.5940 at 20°C/4°C
Vapor Pressure: 115.2 mm at 25°C
Vapor Density: 5.32
Solubility: Soluble (0.77 g/1 of H20)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/HjO): 2.64
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products: None • NAPP
Reactivity Toward OH-: Extremely slow
Reactivity Toward 0^: Extremely slow
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: NAPP
Major Atmospheric Precursors: Chlorinated hydrocarbons
Formation Reactivity:
-------
6-5
I. SOURCES
Four volatile organic compounds methyl chloride. »ethylene chloride, chloro-
form, »nd carbon tetrachloride comprise the group of chemicals commonly referred
to as the chloronethanes.
Carbon tetrachloride (CC14) can be produced by a variety of processes including
the chlorination of carbon disulfide, methane, and methyl chloride, or the chlori-
nolysis of mixed hydrocarbons.
In 1978 six companies at ten locations in the U.S. produced an estimated 750 million
Ib of carbon tetrachloride. The locations of the plants, the type of production
process used, and the 1978 capacity and estimated production level for each
plant are shown in Table 6-i.4'8'9
The major end-use for carbon tetrachloride is in the production of the fluoro-
carbon gases trichlorofluoromethane (F-ll) and dichlorodifluoromethane (F-12).
An estimated 55% (412.5 million Ib) of carbon tetrachloride was used to make
F-12 and an estimated 255.0 million Ib was used to make F-ll in 1978.
The remaining carbon tetrachloride production (60.0 million Ib) was used in
solvent applications as an oil, wax, and fat extractant; in rubber cement; in
shoe and furniture polishes; in paints and lacquers,- in printing ink; in floor
waxes,- in stains; and in pesticide manufacture.
An estimated 3% of the total production amounting to 22.5 million Ib of carbon
tetrachloride was exported. End-uses for carbon tetrachloride are summarized
in Table 6-2.6
11. EMISSION ESTIMATES
PRODUCTION
Estimated emission losses from the production of carbon tetrachloride for each
location is shown in Table 6-3.1'2 Total emissions of methylene chloride,
chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride from production facilities are estimated
to have been 1,351,580 Ib, 351,280 Ib, and 4,557,160 Ib respectively in 1978.
These estimates are based on the emission factors generated for each of the
four processes used in the industry.1'2'10 Other associated emission components
include methyl chloride and hydrogen chloride from the methyl chloride and
^ethane chlorination processes and perchloroethylene, ethylene source locations
-------
TABLE 6-1. Production of Carbon Tetrachloride
Source
Allied Chemical Corp.
Dow Chemical
Du Pont
FMC Corp.
Stauffer Chemical
Vulcan Materials Co.
Total
Location
Moundsvi lie, WV
Freeport , TX
Pittsburg, CA
Plaquemine , LA
Corpus Christi, TX
S. Charleston, WV
LeMoyne , AL
Louisville, KY
Geismar, I ft
Wichita, KS
1978
Estimated
C
Production
(106 lb/yr)
4
70
42
65
213
156
104
18
47
31
750
Process
A,BC
B
C
C
C
D
D
C
C
C
1978
Estimated
Capacity
(106 lb/yr)
8
135
80
125
410
300
200
35
90
60
1443
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude /Longitude
39 54 24/80 47 51
28 59 15/95 24 45
37 59 34/121 54 56
30 19 00/91 15 00
27 53 00/97 15 00
38 22 10/81 40 03
30 53 50/87 58 50
38 12 09/85 51 49
30 10 00/90 59 00
37 36 55/97 18 30
aSee refs. 4, 8,and 9.
bFMC Corp. has announced that it is shutting down its 300 million pound per year plant in S. Charleston, WV, in
September 1979.
Distribution of the 750 million pounds per year for each producing location has been made as a direct ratio of
total production/total capacity X plant capacity.
(A) - Methyl chloride chlorination.
(B) - Methane chlorination.
(C) - Chlorinolysis of mixed HC feed with perchlor co-product.
(D) - Carbon disulfide chlorination.
e5% methane chlorination, 95% methyl chloride chlorination.
I
01
-------
6-7
TABLE 6-2. 1973 Carbon Tetrachloride Consumption by End Use*
End Use
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F-12)
Trichlorofluoromethane (F-ll)
Solvents and miscellaneous
Export
Total
Percent of
Total Consumption
55
34
8
3
100
End Use
Consumption
(M Ib)
412.5
255.0
60.0
22.5
750.0
*See ref. 6.
-------
TABLE 6-3. 1978 Carbon Tetrachloride Production Emissions
Process Vent Emissions
Company
Location
Allied Chemical Houndsville, WV
Dow Chemical
Dupont
FMC
Stauf fer
Vulcan
Total
"Derived from
Based on 8760
Freeport, TX
Pittsburg, CA
Plaquemine, LA
Corpus Christi, TX
South Charleston, WV
Lemoyne, AL
Louisville, KY
Geismar, LA
Wichita, KA
the emission factors shown
hr/yr operation.
db/yr)
20
370
350
550
1,790
1,560,000
1,040,000
150
400
260
2,603,890
in Table 10.
(g/sec)
Nil
0.005
0.005
0.008
0.026
22.458
14.972
0.002
0.006
0.004
Storage Vent Emissions
db/yr)
510
8,880
70,140
108,550
355,710
530,400
353,600
30,060
78,490
51,770
1,508,110
(g/scc)
0.007
0.128
1.010
1.563
5.121
7.636
5.091
0.433
1.130
0.745
Fugitive
db/yr)
290
5,030
20,580
31,850
104,370
93,600
62,400
8,820
23,030
15,190
365,160
Bitisslons
(g/sec)b
0.004
0.072
0.296
0.459
1.503
1.347
0.898
0.127
0.332
0.219
Total Emissions
db/yr)
820
14,280
91,070
140,950
461,870
2,184,000
1,456,000
39,030
101,920
67,220
4,557,160
(g/sec) b
0.012
0.206
1.311
2.029
6.649
31.441
20.961
0.562
1.467
0.968
CT>
CO
-------
6-9
source locations for fluorocarbons 11 and 12 manufacture are shown in Table 6-4.n
Also shown in that table are the production quantities for fluorocarbons 11 and
12 and the corresponding carbon tetrachloride manufacturing requirement.
Emission estimates of carbon tetrachloride from these sites are shown in Table 6-5.14
Total estimated emissions of carbon tetrachloride from fluorocarbon 11 and 12
production sites are estimated to have been 446,200 Ib in 1978. Other associated
emissions from these sites would incude other halocarbons used as feed materials
and the various fluorocarbons produced. Vent parameter data relative to carbon
tetrachloride emissions from fluorocarbons 11 and 12 production are shown in
Table 9-7. Carbon tetrachloride emissions originate from two process distillation
vents and four storage tanks.
The remaining carbon tetrachloride (60.0 million Ib) consumed for solvent appli-
cations is eventually released to the atmosphere. Specific source locations
could not be identified. Emissions from exports were assumed to be negligible.
Total nationwide emissions of carbon tetrachloride in 1978 from all sources are
estimated to have been 65,030,000 Ib. A tabulation of the losses is shown in
Table 6-6.
-------
Table 6-4. Users of Carbon Tetrachloride and Chloroform to Produce Pluorocarbons
Allied Chemical
•s
Baton Rouge, LA
Danville. IL
Elisabeth. NJ
El Segundo, CA
Du Pont
Ant loch, CA
Deepwater, NJ
Montague, HI
Louisville. KY
Corpus Christ! , TX
Pennwalt Corp.
Calvert City, KY
Thorofare, NJ
Union Carbide
Flurorocarbon
Annual Estimated 1978 Production
Capacity F-ll F-12 F-22
(106 lb) (10b lb) (106 lb) <106 lb)
Assumed shut down
28.5 40.6 1
310 1
28.5 40.6 37.8)
28.5 40.6 37. 8j
J
^ 36.8 52.3
36.8 52.3 48.8
1 400 36.8 52.3
48.8
80 22.1 31.4 19.5
35 Assumed shutdown
Carbon
Estimated Tetra- Chloro-
* Production en Lor LOO form
Totals Used Used
(106 lb) J106 lb) UO6 lb)
87.3
282.9 87.3 55.7
87.3 55.7
112.6
112.6 71.9
i 364.9 112.6
71.9
73.0 67.6 28. f.
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude/Longitude
40 08 30/87 33 45
40 40 45/74 13 51
33 56 30/118 26 35
37 59 37/121 52 00
39 41 25/75 30 35
43 24 10/86 23 40
38 11 51/85 54 13
27 53 00/97 15 00
37 03 18/88 19 40
Institute and S. Charleston, WV Not listed Assumed shutdown
Essex Chemical Corp
Wichita, KS
(Racon)
20
Kaiser Aluminum I Chemical Corp.
Cramercy, LA
Total
80
925 218 310.1 192.7
720.8 667.5 283.8
•See ref. 13.
I
_^
o
-------
6-11
Table 6-5. Emissions from Carbon Tetrachloride and
Chloroform Users for Flurocarbon Production3
F-ll/F-12 Carbon
Tetrachloride
Emissions
F-22 Chloroform
Emissions
Source Location
Allied Danville, IL
Elizabeth, NJ
El Segundo, CA
Du Pont Antioch, CA
Deepwater , N J
Montague , MI
Louisville, KY
Pennwalt Calvert City, KY
Total
a
See ref. 14.
(lb/vr)b (q/sec)d (lb/yr)c (g/sec)d
58,460 0.84 0
58,460 0.84 115,200 1.66
58,460 0.84 115,200 1.66
75,420 1.09 0 0
75,420 1.09 148,800 2.14
75,420 1.09 0 0
0 148,800 2.14
45,240 0.65 59,410 0.86
446,200 587,410
Based on the following emission factor:
Process 0.000449 A -
Storage 0.000442 A -
Fugitive 0.000178 A -
0.001069
(derived from site visit)
(derived from site visit)
(derived from site visit)
c
Based on the following emission factor:
Process 0 A -
Storage 0.00374 A -
Fugitive 0.00075 A -
(derived from site visit)
(derived from site visit)
(derived from site visit)
0.00449
Assumes 8760 hours/year operation.
-------
6-12
Table 6-6. 1978 Estimated Carbon Tetrachloride Nationwide Emission Losses
Estimated National
Source Emission (M Ib/yr)
Production 4.56
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F-12H
Trichlorofluoromethane 7
Solvents, miscellaneous 60.0
Export Q
Total 65.03
-------
CT>
CO
FIGURE 6-1. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF CARBON TETRACHLORIDE EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 6-7. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC
POINT SOURCES OF CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
EMISSIONS (CM/SEC)
no.
COMPANY
SITE
STAR PLANT SOURCE1
LATITUDE LONGITUDE STATION TYPE TYPE
PROCESS STORAGE FUGITIVE
1 ALLIED CHEMICAL
2 DOW CHEMICAL
3 DOW CHEMICAL
4 DOW CHEMICAL
5 DUPONT
6 STAUFFEH
7 VULCAN
B VULCAN
9 FMC
10 STAUFFKIX
II ALLIED
12 ALLIED
13 ALLIED
14 DUPONT
15 DUPONT
16 DUPONT
17 PKNNWALT
MOUNDS V I LLE, MV 39 54 39 080 44 49 13736 I
FREEPORT, TX 28 59 32 095 23 35 12923 2
PITTSBURG, CA 37 59 34 121 54 56 23202 3
PLAOUF.M1NE, LA 30 19 OO O9 1 15 OO 13970 3
CORPUS CRIST I. TX 27 53 OO O97 15 00 12925 3
LOUISVILLE, ICY 3O 12 09 OO5 51 49 93020 3
CEISMAR, LA 3O 1O 00 O9O 59 OO 12950 3
WICHITA, ICA 37 36 «5 097 IB 30 O3920 3
SO CHARLESTON. WV 38 22 10 OO I 4O 03 13066 4
LEMOYNE, AL 3O 53 50 OO7 5U 50 93841 4
DANVILLE, IL 40 O(l 3O OO7 33 45 14806 C
ELIZABETH, NJ 40 40 48 074 13 Si 04739 5
EL SEGUNDO. CA 33 56 30 1 18 26 35 23129 5
DEEPWATER. NJ 39 41 23 075 30 35 13739 5
[tONTAC.D/., Ml 43 21 IU tHUt 23 40 (4JKO d
ANTIOCII, CA 37 59 3? 121 52 00 23202 U
CALVERT CITY, ICY 37 03 l» OOH 19 4O O38M. U
I
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
.000288
.OO5328
.OO5O4O
.O0792O
.025776
.OO2I6O
.OO576O
.OO3744
22.4640OO
14.976OOO
.35352O
.383520
.353520
.456192
.45594O
.4i»«il92
.2736OO
.0O7344
. 127872
1.010016
1.563120
5.122224
1 . 13O256
.745488
7.637760
5.O91840
. 34UO4U
.348048
.348048
.448992
.440992
.2b<>2UO
.004176
.072432
.296352
.4513640
1 . 5O2928
. 127OO8
.331632
.218736
1 . 34784O
.89U56O
.139680
.13968*
.139680
.180864
. JR0A64
. HO0864
. 1O8432
01
-------
TABLE 6-7 (Concluded)
* Plant Types:
Type 1: Plant produces carbon tetrachloride by using the methyl chloride
chlon"nation process
Type 2: Plant produces carbon tetrachloride by using the methane chlorlnatlon
process
Type 3: Plant produces carbon tetrachloride by using the chlorlnolysls process
Type 4: Plant produces carbon tetrachloride by using the carbon dlsulflde
chlorlnation process
Type 5: Plant produces flurocarbons
t Source Types: cr>
Type 1: Methyl chloride chlorlnatlon process ^
Type 2: Methane chlorlnatlon process
Type 3: ChloHnolysis process
Type 4: Carbon dlsulflde chlorlnatlon processes
Type 5: Flurocarbons production process
-------
6-16
TABLE 6-8. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF CARBON TETRACHLORIDE RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration Population
Level Exposed Dosage
(ug/m3) (persons) [(ug/m3) . persons]
1,580 15 24,100
1,000 97 127.000
500 475 399,000
250 1,098 627.000
100 3,803 1,020,000
50 7.409 1,270,000
25 18,319 1,650,000
10 36,196 1,930,000
5 61,634 2,110,000
2.5 102,689 2,260,000
1 209,428 2,420,000
0.5 335,559 2.500,000
8.79xlO-5* 7,979,115 2,880,000
*The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
6-17
TABLE 6-9. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
Parameter Value
Daytime decay rate (K^) 0
Nighttime decay rate (Kn) 0
Hanna-Gifford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (Eu) 0
n
Nationwide nonheating stationary source emissions (EN) 864 gm/sec
Nationwide mobile source emissions 0
-------
TABLE 6-10. CARBON TETRACHLORIDE EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING PROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
EXPO LEVEL POPULATION
(UGX(N>3) (PEHSON)
aHJL^AAA •AH A.AA
• WWW OVv I W
1AAAAAA A • AA94IA
• WWW ViWfvfV
.500000 33072205
.200060 O32 19704
. 100000 142928533
0. I5O679133
DOSACE
< UC/< M) 3-
PERSOIO
2327358.7
179 13784.0
35194859.0
515282S4.4
61079083. 9
629262U9 . 0
PERCENTAGE
OF CONTRIBUTION
HKAriNG STATI UNARY
,.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
100.0
100.0
100.0
IOO.O
10O.O
IOO.O
MOD ILL'
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
PERCENTAGE
OF DISTRIBUTION
CITY TYPE 1 CITY TYPE 2
100.0
100.0
100.0
9B. 1
94.0
92.9
0.
0.
0.
.7
2.5
2.6
CITY TYPE 3
0.
0.
0.
1.2
3.5
4.5
CTl
00
-------
TABLE 6-12. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUMMARY OF CARBON TETRACHLOR1DE
i
Concentration Specific
Level
(yq/nr*)
1580
1000
500
250
100
50
25
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0
Point
Source
15
97
475
1,098
3,803
7,409
18,819
36,196
61 ,634
102,689
209,428
335,559
—
—
7,979,115
Population Exposed
(persons) [(wg/m
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
505,140
9,149,730
33,072,205
83,219,704
142,928,535
158,679,135
U.S. Total
„
97
475
1,098
3,803
7,409
18,819
36,196
61 ,634
606,829
9,359,158
33,407,764
—
--
—
Specific
Point
Source
24,100
127,000
399,000
627,000
1 ,020,000
1,270,000
1 ,650,000
1 ,930,000
2,110,000
2,260,000
2,420,000
2,500,000
—
--
2,880,000
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dosage
3) -persons]
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,327,400
17,913,784
35,194,859
51,528,284
61,879,083
62,926,300
1
U.S. Total
24,100
127,000
399,000
627,000
1 ,020,000
1,270,000
1,650,000
1,930,000
2,110,000
4,587,400
20,333,784
__
__
M w
65,806,200
VO
NOTE: The use of — as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D 1s not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry 1n another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted 1n another column.
-------
6-20
REFERENCES
1. F. D. Hobbs and C. W. Stuewe. Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for
the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Product Report on Chloro-
methanes, Methane Chlorination Process (on file at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle
Park, NC (January 1979).
2. F. D. Hobbs and C. W. Stuewe, Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for
the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Product Report on Chloro-
methanes, Methanol Hydrochlorination and Methyl Chloride Chlorination Processes
(on file at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC (January 1979).
3. "Chemical Product Synopsis on Methylene Chloride," Mannsville. Chemical Products
(March 1978).
4. T. E. Killilea, "Chlorinated Methanes," Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford
Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (April 1979).
5. "Chemical Profile on Methylene Chloride." Chemical Marketing Reporter
(September 20, 1976).
6. "Chemical Product Synopsis on Chloroform," Mannsville Chemical Products
(June 1978).
7. "Chemical Profile on Chloroform," Chemical Marketing Reporter (September 27, 1976).
8. "Chemical Product Synopsis on Carbon Tetrachloride," Mannsville Chemical Products
(June 1978).
9. "Chemical Profile on Carbon Tetrachloride," Chemical Marketing Reporter
(April 10, 1978).
10. F. D. Hobbs and C. W. Stuewe, Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for
the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Product Report on Carbon
Tetrachloride and Perchloroethylene, Hydrocarbon Chlorinolysis Process (on file
at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC (March 1979).
-------
6-21
11. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning, EPA-450/2-77-022
(OAQPS No. 1.2-079). Research Triangle Park, NC (November 1977).
12. Solvent Metal Cleaning, Background Information: Proposed Standards (draft)
EPA, NSPS, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC (November 1978).
13. Chemical Research Services, 1979 Directory of Chemical Producers, United States
of America, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA.
14. D. M. Pitts, Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for the Synthetic Organic
Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Product Report on Fluorocarbons, on file at EPA,
ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC (February 1979).
-------
APPENDIX A-7 - Chlorobenzene (p-Dichlorobenzene
and o-Dichlorobenzene)
CHLOROBENZENE (MONO) CHEMICAL DATA
flpmenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 108-90-7
Synonyms: Phenyl Chloride; Monochlorobenzene; Chorobenzol; Benzene
Chloride
Chercical Formula
Molecular Weight: 112.56
Molecular Formula: ^6H51-'1
Molecular Structure:
/-^
Cl
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Liquid-colorless, very refractive
Boiling Point: 131.7eC at 760 mm
Melting Point: -45.6°C
Density: 1.1053 at 20°C/4°C
Vapor Pressure: 12.14 mm at 25°C
Vapor Density: 3.88
Solubility: Insoluble (H20)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H20): 2-84
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products:
Reactivity Toward OH-: V3 Butane
Reactivity Toward 0,: No reaction
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: No photochemical degradation
Major Atmospheric Precursors: N/A
Formation Reactivity:
-------
7-5
o-DICHLOROBENZENE CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 95-50-1
Synonyms: DCB; Dichlorobenzol; 1,2-Dichlorobenzene; o-Dichlorobenzol;
ODB; ODCB; Chloroben; Cloroben; Dizene; Dowthern E
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 147.0
Molecular Formula: CgH^C^
Molecular Structure: r
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Liquid - colorless
Boiling Point: 180.5°C at 760 mm
Melting Point: -17°C
Density: 1.305 at 20°C/4°C
Vapor Pressure: 1.45 at 25°C
Vapor Density: 5.05
Solubility: Slightly soluble (0.145 g/1 of H20)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H20): 3.38
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products:
Reactivity Toward OH-: 1/2 Butane
Reactivity Toward 03: 5% Propylene
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: NAPP
Major Atmospheric Precursors: N/A
Formation Reactivity:
-------
/-D
p-DICHLOROBENZENE CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 95-50-1
Synonyms: DCB; Dichlorobenzol; Paradichlorobenzene; Parazene; Paramoth;
Di-chloricide; Paracide; Paradi; Paradow; Santochlor
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 147.0
Molecular Formula: CgH^CK
Molecular Structure:
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Monoclinic crystals - volatile
Boiling Point: 174.12°C
Melting Point: 53.5°C
Density: 1.288 at 20°C/4°C
Vapor Pressure: 2.28 at 25°C
Vapor Density:
Solubility: Nearly insoluble (0.079 g/1 of H20)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H20): 3.39
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products:
Reactivity Toward OH-: 1/2 Butane
Reactivity Toward 03: 5% Propylene
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: NAPP
Major Atmospheric Precursors: N/A
Formation Rpartlvitv:
-------
7-7
I. SOURCES
A. PRODUCTION
This report summarizes emissions of chlorobenzenes including monochlorobenzene
and the two dichlorobenzene isomers (o-dichlorobenzene and p-dichlorobenzene).
Monochlorobenzene is produced by the direct chlorination of benzene using iron
as a catalyst. When only monochlorobenzene is desired, the temperature is
kept near the lower end of a 40 to 60°C range, and only 60% of the theoretical
amount of chlorine is added to lessen the formation of dichlorobenzenes. When
dichlorobenzenes are desired, higher chlorine quantities and temperatures are
used. The chlorinated benzene is neutralized with aqueous caustic soda, allowed
to separate, and the dichlorobenzene-rich sludge that forms is removed. The
chlorobenzene layer is then distilled to obtain a fraction containing unreacted
benzene and some monochlorobenzene, which is recycled, and chlorobenzene. The
higher chlorinated fractions and residues from a number of batches are combined
and then distilled to recover para-dichlorobenzene in the distillate and ortho-
dichlorobenzene residues which are then purified.
There are currently 6 monochlorobenzene producers in the United States. The
locations of the plants and the 1978 capacity and estimated production for each
plant are shown in Table 7-1.l 2 3 In 1978, an estimated 355 million Ib of mono-
chlorobenzene was produced.
Table 7-2 3 * 5 presents the producers of o-dichlorobenzene in the United States.
There are currently 7 sites which produced an estimated 59 million Ib of
o-dichlorobenzene in 1978.
Table 7-3 3 * 6 presents the producers of p-dichlorobenzene in the United States.
There are currently 7 sites which produced an estimated 55 million Ib of
p-dichlorobenzene in 1978.
B. USES
Table 7-4 summaries the chlorobenzene end-use distribution. The various uses,
quantities, and percent usage of monochlorobenzene, o-dichlorobenzene, and
p-dichlorobenzene are shown. Approximately 49% of the monochloobenzene pro-
duced is used in solvents and 30% is used in nitrochlorobenzenes. Other uses
-------
Table 7-1. Monochlorobenzene Producers
Source
Dow
ICC
Monsanto
Montrose
PPGb
Standard Chlorine
Total
Location
Midland, MI
Niagra Falls, NY
Sauget , IL
Henderson, NV
New Martinsville, WV
Delaware City, DE
1978
Estimated
Production
(106 Ib/yr)
101
5
69
32
79
69
355
1978
Estimated
Capacity
(106 Ib/yr)
220
10
150
70
172
150
772
Geographic Coordinates
La t i tude /Longi tude
43 35 28/84 13 08
43 03 33/79 00 55
38 35 31/90 10 11
36 03 32/114 58 34
39 47 22/80 51 27
39 33 54/75 38 47
See refs. 1, 2, and 3.
Total production was distributed per site based on site capacity.
i
oo
-------
Table 7-2. o-Dichlorobenzene Producers
Source
Location
1978
Estimated
Production^
(10C Ib/yr)
1978
Estimated
Capacity
(106 Ib/yr)
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude/Lonqitude
Dow
Monsanto
PPG
Standard Chlorine
Specialty Organicsc
Montrose
ICC
Total
Midland, MI
Sauget, IL
New Martinsville, WV
Delaware City, DE
Irwindale, CA
Henderson, NV
Niagara Falls, NY
12
6
15
19
1
3
_3
59
30
16
38
50
2
7
8
151
43 35 28/84 13 08
38 35 31/90 10 11
39 47 22/80 51 27
39 33 54/75 38 47
34 06 30/117 55 48
36 03 32/114 58 34
43 03 33/79 00 55
aSee refs. 3, 4, and 5.
bTotal production was distributed per site based on capacity.
CProcesses dichlorobenzenes from Montrose.
-------
Table 7-3. p-Dichlorobenzene Producers1
Source
Location
]978
Estimated
Production*5
(10b Ib/yr)
1978
Estimated
Capacity
(10° Ib/yr)
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude/Longitude
Dow
Monsanto
PPG
Standard Chlorine
Specialty Organics
Montrose
ICC
Total
Midland, MI
Sauget, IL
New Martinsville, WV
Delaware City, DE
Irwindale, CA
Henderson, NV
Niagara Falls, NY
9
4
13
24
1
2
2
55
30
12
40
75
2
7
8
174
43
38
39
39
34
36
43
35
35
47
33
06
03
03
28/84
31/90
22/80
54/75
30/117
32/114
33/79
13 08
10 11
51 27
38 47
55 48
58 34
00 55
See refs. 3, 4, and 6.
DTotal production was distributed per site based on capacity.
"Processes dichlorobenzenes from Montrose.
I
•^
o
-------
7-11
Table 7-4. Chlorobenzenes End-Use Distribution 19783
Source
Monochlorobenzene
Pesticide/degreasing solvents
Nitrochlorobenzene
DDT
Diphenyl oxide
Miscellaneous, others
o-Dichlorobenzene
3,4 dichloroaniline
Toluene diisocyanate solvent
Miscellaneous solvents (paint
removers, engine cleaners, etc.)
Dye manufacturing
Pesticide intermediate
p-Dichlorobenzene
Space deodorant
Moth control
Pesticide intermediate
Usage
(million Ib/yr)
355
174
107
25
28
21
59
38
9
6
3
3
55
27.5
22
5.5
Usage
(%)
100
49
30
7
8
6
100
65
15
10
5
5
100
50
40
10
a
See ref. 3.
-------
7-12
of monochlorobenzene include DDT and diphenyl oxide. Approximately 65% of the
o-dichlorobenzene produced is used for dichloroaniline manufacture, which is
then used as an intermediate in pesticide manufacture. Other uses include solvents,
dyes, and as a pesticide intermediate. Approximately. 50% of the p-dichlorobenzene
is used in the manufacture of space odorants and 40% is used in moth control.
Pesticide manufacture, as a chemical intermediate, accounts for 10% of the
p-dichlorobenzene usage.
Specific identified source locations of monochlorobenzene users are shown in
Table 7-5.7 They include nitrochlorobenzene, DDT, and diphenyl oxide producers.
Monchlorobenzene usage was distributed based on the individual plant's produc-
tion capacity. In the case of diphenyloxide, capacity numbers were not available
so the usage was distributed evenly between both sites.
Specific identified source locations of o-dichlorobenzene users are shown in
Tables 7-6 and 7-7. They include TDI production sites where o-dichlorobenzene is
used as a solvent (Table 7-67) and dichloroaniline sites where it is used as an
intermediate (Table 7-77). Total o-dichlorobenzene usage was distributed over the
TDI sites based on TDI site capacity.
o-Dichlorobenzene usage for dichloroaniline manufacture was divided evenly over
the four sites in the absence of capacity figures.
All other uses of chlorobenzenes are presented by a geographic region distribution
in the emissions Section II of this report.
II. EMISSION ESTIMATES
A. PRODUCTION
Table 7-8 shows the monochlorobenzene emissions from production sites. Total
estimated emissions from the 6 sites were 1,136,000 Ib in 1978. Emission factors
used to develop process, storage, and fugitive emission estimates are shown in
Table 7-8. Process vent emissions originate primarily from distillation processes.
Storage emissions represent losses from both working and final product storage
tanks as well as loading and unloading losses. The number of tanks at a facility
-------
Table 7-5. Monochlorobenzene End-Users
a
Company
Location
End-Use Capacity
(million Ib/yr)
Monochloro-
benzene Used
(million Ib/yr)
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude/Longitude
Du Pont Deepwater, NJ
Monsanto Sauget , IL
Total
Nitrochlorobenzene
45
90
140
Producers
34
73
107
. 39 41 25/75 30 35
38 35 31/90 10 11
Montrose
Torrance, CA
DDT Producer
60
25
33 46 58/118 22 06
Dow Midland, MI
Monsanto Chocolate Bayou, TX
Total
aSee ref. 7.
Not available.
Diphenyl Oxide Producers
NA
NA
14
M
28
43 35 28/84 13 08
29 14 55/95 12 45
-------
Table 7-6. o-Dichlorobenzene Solvent Users
[Manufacturers of Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI)]
Company
Allied Chemical
BASF Wyandotte
Dow Chemical
Du Pont
Mobay Chem. Corp.
Olin Corp.
Rubicon Chems. Inc.
Union Carbide
Total
Location
1978
TDI
Capacity
(IP6 Ib/yr)
1978 o-Dichloro-
benzene Use
(Ib/yr)
Moundsville, WV
Geismar. LA
Freeport, TX
Deepwater, NJ
Baytown, TX
New Martinsville, WV
Ashtabula, OH
Lake Charles, LA
Geismar, LA
S. Charleston, WV
80
100
100
70
130
100
30
100
40
55
805
894,410
1,118,010
1,118,010
782,610
1,453,416
1,118,010
335,405
1,118,010
447,205
614,905
9,000,000
Geographic Location
Latitude/Longitude
39 54 39/80 44 49
30 11 34/91 00 42
28 59 12/95 24 05
39 41 25/75 30 35
29 45 30/94 54 25
39 44 50/80 50 50
41 53 07/80 45 50
30 13 55/93 15 57
30 12 00/91 11 30
38 19 35/81 40 29
See ref. 7.
3Total o-dichlorobenzene use is distributed per site based on TDI capacity.
I
4*
-------
7-15
Table 7-7. o-Dichlorobenzene Chemical Intermediate User Locations*
Source
Location
Geographic Coordinates
(latitude/longitude)
2,4-Dichloroaniline
Eastman Kodak Company
2,4-Dichloroaniline
Blue Spruce Company
Du Pont
Monsanto
Rochester, NY
Bound Brook, NJ
Deepwater, NY
Luling, LA
43 12 01/77 37 58
40 32 10/74 29 18
39 41 25/75 30 35
29 55 10/90 22 30
See ref. -7.
-------
Table 7-8. Monochlorobenzene Emissions from Production Sites
Emissions (Ib/yr)
Dow
ICC
Company
Monsanto
Mont rose
PPG
Standard Chlorine
Total
Based on the following
Process 0.00206
Storage 0.00045
Fugitive 0.00069
Locat ion
Midland, MI
Niagara Falls, NY
Sauget, IL
Henderson, NV
New Martinsville, WV
Delaware City, DE
emission factors (Ib
A - (derived from
A - (derived from
A - (derived from
Process
208,060
10 , 300
142,140
65,920
162,740
142,140
731,300
emitted per
site visit
site visit
site visit
Storage
45
2
31
14
35
31
159
,450
,250
,050
,400
,550
,050
,750
Ib produced).
data)
data)
data)
Fugitive
69
3
47
22
54
47
244
See
,690
,450
,610
,080
,510
,610
,950
ref. 8.
Total Emissions
(Ib/yr)
323
16
220
102
252
220
1,136
,200
,000
,800
,400
,800
,800
,000
a
i-
(g/sec)
4.
0.
3.
1.
3.
3.
65
23
18
47
64
18
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
7-17
are a function of the production and tank sizes. Fugitive emissions are those
that result from plant equipment leaks. Emission estimates are based on a plant
operation schedule of 24 hr/day, 7 days/week, 52 weeks/yr.
Table 7-9 shows the o-dichlorobenzene emissions from production sites. Total
estimated emissions from the 7 sites were 209,450 Ib in 1978. Emission factors
used to develop the process, storage, and fugitive emissions are shown in Table 9.
Table 7-10 shows the p-dichlorobenzene emissions from production sites. Total
estimated emissions from the 8 sites were 398,200 Ib in 1978. Emission factors
used to develop the process, storage, and fugitive emissions are shown in Table 7-10.
B. USES
Monochlorobenzene
It was estimated that 75% of the chlorobenzene used as solvent was consumed in
cold cleaning operations. Total emissions of 130,500,000 Ib were derived by
assuming that all chlorobenzene consumed was lost. The total number of cleaners
in service and the average emission rate per unit are shown in Table 7-11. Distri-
bution of the cold cleaners by geographic region is shown in Table 7-12.
The remaining chlorobenzene was used as a solvent in pesticide manufacture.
The entire amount used (43,500,000 Ib) was assumed to be lost. The total emis-
sions that are shown in Table 7-13 by geographic region were distributed by the
number of sites in each region.
Emissions from chlorobenzenes used as chemical intermediates are summarized in
Table 7-14. They were derived from the emission factors shown in Table 7-^15. Emis-
sions from nitrochlorobenzene, DDT, and diphenyl oxide were estimated to be
171,200 Ib, 12,500 Ib, and 28,500 Ib respectively.
Miscellaneous uses of chlorobenzene were estimated by using an average emission
factor derived for all other chlorobenzene uses of 0.00133 Ib lost/lb used times
the usage. Emissions from miscellaneous uses were estimated to have been 27,930 Ib.
Source locations could not be identified for regional distribution.
-------
Table 7-9. o-Dichlorobenzene Emissions from Production Sites
Emissions (Ib/yr)
Company
Dow
Monsanto
PPG
Standard Chlorine
Specialty Organics
Montrose
ICC
Total
Location
Midland, Ml
Sauget, IL
New Martinsville, WV
Delaware City, DE
Irwindale, CA
Henderson, NV
Niagara Falls, NY
Process
27,840
13,920
34,800
44,080
2,320
6,960
6,960
136,880
Storage
5,640
2,820
7,050
8,930
470
1,410
1,410
27,730
Fugitive
9,120
4,560
11,400
14,440
760
2,280
2,280
44,840
Total Emissions ,_
(Ib/yr)
42,600
21,300
53,250
67,450
3,550
10,650
10,650
209,450
(g/sec)
0.61
0.31
0.77
0.97
0.05
0.15
0.15
Based on the following emission factors (Ib emitted per Ib produced). See ref. 8.
Process 0.00232 A - (derived from site visit data)
Storage 0.00047 A - (derived from site visit data)
Fugitive 0.00076 A - (derived from site visit data)
Total 0.00355
DBased on 8760 hr/yr operation.
••4
00
-------
Table 7-10. p-Dichlorobenzene Emissions from Production Sites
Dow
Company
Monsanto
PPG
Standard Chlorine
Specialty Organics
Mont rose
ICC
Total
Based on the following
Process 0.00581
Storage 0.00041
Fugitive 0.00102
Location
Midland, Ml
Sauget, IL
New Marti nsvi lie, WV
Delaware City, DE
Irwindale, CA
Henderson, NV
Niagara Falls, NY
emission factors (Ib
A - (derived from
A - (derived from
A - (derived from
I
Process
52,290
23,240
75 , 5 30
139,440
5,810
11,620
11,620
319,550
Emissions (Ib/yr)
Storage
3
1
5
9
22
,690
,640
,330
,840
410
820
820
,550
emitted per Ib produced).
site visit
site visit
site visit
data)
data)
data)
Fugitive
9
4
13
24
1
2
2
56
See
,180
,080
,260
,480
,020
,040
,040
,100
ref. 8.
Total Emissions K
(Ib/yr)
65
28
94
173
7
14
14
398
,160
,960
,120
,760
,240
,480
,480
,200
(g/sec)"
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
.94
.42
.35
.50
.10
.21
.21
-vl
i
10
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
7-20
Table 7-11. Chlorobenzene Emissions from Solvent Degreasers'
Type Degreaser
Estimated
National
Emission^
(M Ib/yr)
Estimated
Number of
Units in
Service
Average Emission
Rate per Unit
(Ib/yr) (q/sec)C
Cold cleaners
130.5
197,428
661
0.04
See refs. 3 and 9.
Assumes all chlorobenzene used in cold cleaners is lost,
"Based on 2250 hr/yr operation.
-------
Table 7-12. Estimated Number of Degreasers Using Chlorobenzene in 1978 by Geographic Location*
East West East West
North Mid North North South South South
Degreaser Type East Atlantic Central Central Atlantic Central Central ' Mountain Pacific Total
Cold cleaners 11,869 30,780 52,272 17,309 23,817 11,678 19,166 7,164 23,374 197,428
*See ref. 10.
ro
-------
Table 7-13.
Chlorobenzene Emission Estimates from Pesticide Manufacturers'
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total
Number of Monoch lorobenzene
Sites per Emissions as Solvent
Region ( Ib/yr) b
4
37
19
15
17
14
15
5
13
139
1,251,800
11,579,135
5,946,045
, 4,694,245
5,320,145
4,381,295
4,694,245
1,564,750
4,068,345
43,500,000
o-Di chlorobenzene
Emissions
(lb/yr)c
43
400
205
160
185
150
160
55
140
1500
p-Dichlorobenzene
Emissions
( Ib/yr) d
80
730
375
295
335
275
295
100
255
2750
-vl
1
ro
ro
See ref. 10.
^Average per site 312,950 Ib/yr (4.51 g/sec)
"Average per site 10.8 Ib/yr (0.0002 g/sec).
Average per site 19.8 Ib/yr (0.0003 g/sec).
-------
Table 7-14. Emissions from Chlorobenzene End-Users (Chemical Intermediate)
„ . . a
Emissions
Company
Monochlorobenzene
Du Pont
Monsanto
Mont rose
Dow
Monsanto
o-Dichlorobenzene
Eastman
Blue Spruce
Du Pont
Monsanto
Location
Deepwater, NJ
Sauget, IL
Torrance, CA
Midland, MI
Chocolate Bayou, TX
Rochester, NY
Bound Brook, NJ
Deepwater, NY
Luling, LA
Process
db/yr)
37,400
80 , 300
10,000
9,800
9,800
9,975
9,975
9,975
9,975
Storage
(Ib/yr)
6,800
14,600
1,250
1,400
1,400
1,425
1,425
1,425
1,425
Fugitive
(Ib/yr)
10,200
21,900
1,250
2,800
2,800
2,850
2,850
2,850
2,850
Total
Ib/yr
54,400
116,800
12,500
14,000
14,000
14,250
14,250
14,250
14,250
g/sec"
0.78
1.68
0.18
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
Based on emission factors shown in table.
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
rv>
co
-------
7-24
Table 7-15. Chlorobenzenes End-User Emission Factors
End-User
Monochlorobenzene
DDT
Nitrochlorobenzene
Diphenyloxide
o-Dichlorobenzene
4-Dichloroaniline
Dye manufacturing
Pesticide intermed.
p-Dichlorobenzene
Pesticide intermed.
Emission
Process
0.0004
0.0011
0.0007
0.00105
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
Factor
Storage
0.00005
0.00020
0.00010
0.00015
0.00005
0.00005
0.00005
(Ib lost/lb used)
Fugitive
0.00005
0.00030
0.00020
0.00030
0.00005
0.00005
0.00005
Total
0.00050
0.00160
0.00100
0.00150
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
Derivation
b
C
cb
BC
b
C
D
D
D
a ....
B - Basis: state air files
C - Basis: published data
D - Basis: Hydroscience estimate
See ref. 11.
CSee ref. 12.
-------
7-25
2. o-Dichlorobenzene
Emissions resulting from the use of o-dichlorobenzene as a solvent in TDI manu-
facture were estimated to be 9.000,000 Ib by assuming that all usage is lost.
Table 7-16 summarizes TDI o-dichlorobenzene emissions which were distributed based
on TDI capacity.
Emissions from chemical intermediate use of o-dichlorobenzene are shown in Table 7-14
for dichloroaniline manufacture (57,000 Ib). Total emissions were distributed
evenly per site since capacity data were not available. Emission factors used
to derive o-dichlorobenzene emissions are shown in Table 7-15.
Pesticide intermediate uses of o-dichlorobenzene were estimated to have been
1500 Ib and were distributed by region in Table 7-13. Dye manufacturing losses
were also estimated to be 1500 Ib, but locations by region could not be identi-
fied.
Miscellaneous solvents primarily consumer types, (i.e., paint cleaners, engine
cleaners, etc.) contributed 6,000,000 Ib of o-dichlorobenzene emissions. Losses
were considered too widespread to model.
p-Dichlorobenzene emissions from its use as a space deodorant were estimated as
27,500,000 Ib and as 22,000,000 Ib for moth control by assuming that total
usage is lost. Losses were considered too widespread to model.
Emissions from p-dichlorobenzene used as a chemical intermediate in pesticide
manufacture (2,750 Ib) are shown in Table 13 by geographic region. Emissions
were derived from the emission factors shown in Table 7-15 and distributed by the
number of sites in each region.
Vent parameter data for producers and users of chlorobenzenes are shown in Table
Total emissions of all three chlorobenzenes are summarized in Table 7-18. Total
nationwide emissions of chlorobenzene, o-dichlorobenzene, and p-dichlorobenzene
were 175,376,130 Ib, 15,269,240 Ib, and 49,900,950 Ib respectively in 1978.
Total emissions of all chlorobenzenes were estimated to have been 240,546,530 Ib.
-------
7-26
Table 7-16. o-Dichlorobenzene Emissions from Solvent Use in TDI Production
a
Total Emissions
Company
Allied Chemical
BASF Wyandotte
Dow
Du Pont
Mobay
Olin
Rubicon
Union Carbide
Total
Location
Moundsville, WV
Geismar, LA
Freeport, TX
Deepwater, NJ
Bay town, TX
New Mart insvi lie , WV
Ash tabula, OH
Lake Charles, LA
Geismar, LA
S. Charleston, WV
(Ib/yr)
894,410
1,118,010
1,118,010
782,610
1,453,416
1,118,010
335.405
1,118,010
447,205
614,905
9,000,000
b
(g/sec)
12.88
16.10
16-10
11.27
20.92
16.10
4.83
16.10
6.44
8.85
Based on total o-dichlorobenzene used as solvent lost as process emission.
Q
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
Table 7-17. Chlorobenzenes Vent Parameters
Number Vent Vent Discharge
of Height Diameter Temp. Velocity Distribution Area
Stacks (ft) (ft) (°F) (ft/sec) (ft x ft)
Production
Process m,o,p
P
Storage m
o
P
Fugitive
Degreasing
End-Uses .
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Pesticide/DDT
Process
Storage
Fugitive
TDI
Process
aBuilding cross-section
3
5
5
8
5
1
1
2
1
2
1
Production
60 0.125 104 20
30 0.80 120 12
36 0.33 80
12 0.33 170
16 0.33 80
300 x 600
15 0.5 70 0.6
20 0.17 140 12
20 0.17 80
100 x 100
30 0.17 100 15
20 0.17 80
300 x 300
90 0.9 110 40
- 50m2
Degreasing - 50m
End-uses - 100m
2
Pesticide - 100m
TDI
- 200m
i
ro
""includes dichloroaniline, nitro chlorobenzene, diphenyl oxide.
-------
7-28
Table 7-18. 1973 Nationwide Emissions of Chlorobenzenes
Source
Nationwide
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
Monochlorobenzene
Production
Pesticide/degreasing solvents
Nitrochlorobenzene
DDT
Diphenyl oxide
Miscellaneous, other
Sub-total
o-Dichlorobenzene
Production
3,4-Dichloroaniline
Toluene diisocynnate solvent
Miscellaneous solvents
Dye manufacturing
Pesticide intermediate
Sub-total
p-Dichlorobenzene
Production
Space deodorant
Moth control
Pesticide intermediate
Sub-total
Total - all chlorobenzenes
1,136,000
174,000,000
171,200
12,500
28,500
27,930
175,376,130
209,450
57,000
9,000,000
6,000,000
1,500
1,500
15,269,450
398,200
27,500,000
22,000,000
2,750
49,900,950
240,546,530
Based on an emission factor of 0.00133 Ib lost/lb used derived
from weighted average of all other monochlorobenzene uses.
-------
I
ro
FIGURE 7-1. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF CHLOROBENZENE(MONO) EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 7-19. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC
POINT SOURCES OF CHLOROBENZENE(MONO)
* .t
EMI88IOH8 (CH'MO
•0.
1
2
3
4
8
6
7
a
9
COMPANY
DOW
NONSANTO
ICC
HONTROSC
PFG
STAND CHLORINE
DUPOHT
MONTROBE
noifSAirro
SITE
MIDLAND, HI
SAUCET, IL
NIAGARA FALLS, NY
RttTOERSON. «V
HEW HARTINSVILLE.WV
DELAWARE CITY, DE
DEEPWATER, NJ
TORRANC, GA
CHOCOLATE BAYOU. TX
LATITUDE
43 38 28
38 38 31
43 03 33
96 93 32
39 47 22
39 33 84
39 41 28
33 46 88
29 14 88
LONGITUDE
9o4 1 3 Vo
•9« ie ii
•79 99 88
114 Bfl 34
•M 81 27
•78 38 47
•78 30 38
118 22 96
•98 12 48
CriAH
STATION
14848
13994
14747
23112
13736
94741
13739
23129
12996
rLJUrr
TYPE
1
2
3
3
3
3
4
8
6
BUUNUE
TYPE
1
4
I
2
1
I
1
1
2
3
4
PROCESS
2.996*64
. 14112*
2.946816
1. 13632*
.148329
.944246
2.343486
2.946816
.838869
. 144999
.141129
STORAGE
.684489
.•2016*
.44712*
.21*24*
.•324**
.2*7369
. 8 1 1929
.447129
.99792*
• % 1 cW tw
.•2*16*
FUGITIVE
1.9*3894
• V^^Wp«^w
.680864
.318869
^AQ&MI
• ^HTFW^^F
.*if*6*
9AAJkAA
• vV^^F^IrV
.688884
.146089
.918999
.94932*
•vj
00
0
-------
TABLE 7-19 (Concluded)
* Plant Types:
Type 1: Plant produces chlorobenzene(mono) and diphenyl oxide
Type 2: Plant produces chlorobenzene(mono) and nltro
chlorobenzene
Type 3: Plant produces chlorobenzene(mono)
Type 4i Plant produces nitro chlorobenzene
Type 5: Plant produces DDT
Type 6: Plant produces diphenyl oxide
t Source Types:
Type 1: Chlorobenzene(mono) production
Type 2: Nltro chlorobenzene production
Type 3: DDT production
Type 4: Diphenyl oxide production
-------
7-32
TABLE 7-20.
EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF CHLOROBENZENE(MONO) RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration
Level
(ug/m3)
100
50
25
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.000432*
Population
Exposed
(persons)
12
48
228
1,808
5,627
12,867
53,490
155,559
353,475
841,655
421,298
909,743
1,
1,
4,065,898
Dosage
[(ug/m3) . persons]
1,450
3.910
10,010
33,200
58,500
83,600
142,000
212,000
282,000
356,000
397.000
415,000
430,000
*The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
TABLE 7-21.
EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM EMISSIONS FROM GENERAL
POINT SOURCES OF CHLOROBENZENE (MONO)
1
1
Concentration
Level
(ug/m3)
TOO
50
25
10
5
2.5
1.5
0.5
0.25
0.10
0.05
0.025
0.010
0
Population Exposed
(103 persons)
Oegreaslng
Ope rat Ion
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—
—
--
'
—
Pesticide
Production
1.1
11
46
213
394
913
2,640
5,700
—
_.
—
__
—
—
U.S. Total
1.1
11
46
213
394
913
2,640
5,700
--
—
—
—
—
—
Dosage
p06(ug/mj) -persons]
Degreaslng
Operation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.06
5.5
9.4
13.0
19.9
55.3
Pesticide
Production
0.14
0.81
2.0
4.81
5.26
7.01
9.62
11.8
12.6
14.5
15.3
15.9
16.7
17.4
U.S. Total
0.14
0.81
2.0
4.81
5.26
7.01
9.62
11.8
13.7
20.0
24.7
29.0
36.6
72.6
I
CO
CO
NOTE: The use of — as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D 1s not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry In another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted in another column.
-------
7-34
TABLE 7-22. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF CHLOROBENZENE (MONO)
Parameter Value
Daytime decay rate (Kd) 4.67 x 10* sec"
Nighttime decay rate (Kj 0
Hanna-Gifford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (EH) 0
Nationwide nonheating stationary source emissions (EN) 0.402 gin/sec
Nationwide mobile source emissions (EM) 0
-------
TABLE 7-23. CHLOROBENZENE (MONO) EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
!TVt» f\ I ITVITl
rj«U IF 1*1'* VIM*
.001000
.999999
.000250
.000100
. 000050
O.
nflftlff AIM fill
i \tl UL./1 1 I Illl
< rKiismo
505140
9149730
27rt 19254
9Sfl92;iS7
I40O932O2
l5nG79iaS
•'"• ' * "
I-KHSIMI* 1
ioni.9
O2H 1 . 1
14972. 1
ir> Km. a
2(M 09 . 2
2909 1 . 4
I 1,tt1«l >ll 1 11
IKATINt;
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
o.
\*rt l^r ^j^^rii i 11 1
STATIOHAHY
IOO.O
IOO.O
IOO.O
IOO.O
IOO.O
IOO.O
i I»IF i i «rn
NIHlll.F. (
0.
O.
0.
o.
o.
0.
:ITY TYi'F. I c:
IOO.O
IOO.O
IOO.O
97. :i
94.2
92.')
1 1 JFI If • t 1 II • • 1>
ITY TYPE 2 C
0.
0.
O.
1 .2
2.5
2. ft
V W v ri*
ITY TYI'I. tl
O.
0.
O.
i .r.
:i.n
4.r;
I
CO
-------
TABLE 7-24. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUMMARY OF CHLOROBENZENE(MONO)
Population Exposed
(persons)
Dosage
[ (v g/m3) • persons!
Concentration Specific
Level
(uq/m3)
100
50
25
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0.001
0.0005
0.00025
0.0001
0.00005
0
Point
Source
12
48
228
1,808
5,627
12,867
53,490
155,559
353,475
841 .655
1.421.298
1.909,743
*•
• •>
__
_M
__
• •»
4,065.898
* r
General
Point
Source
1,100
11,000
46,000
213,000
394,000
913,000
—
5,700,000
--
—
--
—
™ ^ .
_—
__
-_
_.
._
—
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
505,140
9,149,730
27,819,254
95,892,857
140,098,202
158,679,135
U.S. Total
1,112
11,048
46,228
214,808
399,627
925,867
5,855,559
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
--
--
--
--
Specific
Point
1,450
3,910
10,010
32,200
58,500
83,600
142,000
212,000
282,000
356,000
397,000
415,000
430,000
--
—
—
—
--
430,000
General
Point
Source
140,000
810,000
2,000,000
4,810,000
5,260,000
7,010,000
11,800,000
13,700,000
20,000,000
24,700,000
29,000,000
36,600,000
_-
—
—
—
—
72,600,000
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.082
8,281
14,972
25,169
28,469
29,100
U.S. Total
141,450
813,910
2,010,010
4,842,200
5,318,500
7,840,600
12,012,000
13,982,000
20,356,000
25,097,000
29,415,000
--
—
--
--
—
--
73,059,100
CO
en
NOTE: The use of — as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D 1s not significant
(relative, to last entry or relative to entry 1n another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted 1n another column.
-------
\ L_ T—• A
P^B^Wf '^"VX^ \
r
CO
FIGURE 7-2. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF o-DICHLOROBENZENE EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 7-25. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF o-DlCHLOROBENZENE
NO.
COMPANY
RITE
* t
STAR PLANT SOIWCE
LATITUDE LONGITUDE STATION TYPE TYPE
EMISSIONS
PROCESS STORAGE FUGITIVE
I DOW
2 MONSANTO
3 PPC
4 STAND CHLORINE
5 SPECIALTY ORGAN
6 NONTnOSE
7 ICC
B DUPONT
9 ALLIED
IO DASF WYArtDOTTB
11 DOW
12 TODAY
13 HOHAY
14 OLIN
13 OLIN
16 mm i CON
17 UNION CAim IDE
10 EASTMAN
19 I1LUE SPRUCE
20 MONSANTO
MIDLAND, MI 43 35 20 OO4 13 OO 14045
SAUCET. IL 30 33 31 090 IO II 13994
NEW MARTINRVILLE.WV 39 47 22 0O0 51 27 13736
DELAWARE CITY, DE 39 33 54 O73 3O 47 94741
34 06 30 117 55 40 23213
36 03 32 114 3O 34 23112
43 03 33 079 00 55 14747
39 41 25 07S 13 50 13739
inWtNDALE, CA
HENDERSON, NV
NIAGARA, IIY
DEEPWATEH, NJ
MOUNDSVILLE, WV 39 34 39 080 44 49 13736
CEISIIAR, LA 30 II 34 O9I OO 42 13970
FREEPORT, TH 28 39 3O 095 23 35 12923
DAYTOWN, TX 29 45 SO O94 54 25 I29O6
NEW IIARTINSVILLE.WV 39 44 3O 000 5O 50 13736
ASHTARULA, Oil 41 33 07 0O0 43 5O I4B43
LAKE CHARLES. LA 30 13 55 093 13 57 03937
GEISNAR. LA 3O 12 OO 091 II 3O I295O
S. CHARLESTON, WV 3O 19 33 Ofll 4O 29 13066
ROCHESTER, NY 43 12 01 077 37 50 14771
ROUND CROOK. IIJ 4O 32 IO O74 29 10 14737
LULIirC. LA 29 35 10 O90 22 3O I395O
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
.200440
.901120
.634732
.033400
.100224
.100224
11.269304
.143640
12.079304
16.099344
16.099344
2O.929190
16.099344
4.R29A32
16.099344
6.439732
O.034632
.14364O
.143640
.I4364O
.001216
.040600
.IO1520
.120392
.006760
.02O304
.O2O3O4
0.
.020320
0.
0.
O.
O.
O.
O.
0.
O.
0.
.020320
.020520
.020320
.131320
.068664
.164169
.207936
.010944
.032032
.032032
• .
.Q4I»4«
0.
0.
0.
0.
9.
0.
0.
O.
0.
.041049
.041049
.041049
to
OO
-------
TABLE 7-25 (Concluded)
* Plant Types:
Type 1: Plant produces o-Dichlorobenzene
Type 2: Plant produces Toluene dilsocyanate and 3,4-D1ch1oroani11ne
Type 3: Plant produces Toluene d11socyanate
Type 4: Plant produces 3,4-D1chloroanil1ne
t Source Types:
Type 1: o-Dichlorobenzene production
Type 2: Toluene dlisocyanate production
Type 3: 3,4-D1chloroan1l1ne production
-------
7-40
TABLE 7-26. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF o-DICHLORO BENZENE
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration
Level
(ug/m3)
Population
Exposed
(persons)
Dosage
[(ug/m3) . persons]
100
50
25
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.000198*
1
2
38
4,258
16,315
25,406
57,100
159,047
352,618
655,976
955,490
,210,194
6,442,161
175
2,520
147,000
349,000
407,000
509,000
658.000
790,000
897,000
952,000
968,000
1,010,000
*The lowest annual average concentration occurring Mi thin 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
TABLE 7-27. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM EMISSIONS FROM GENERAL POINT SOURCES
; OF o-DICHLOROBENZENE (PESTICIDE PRODUCTION)
Concentration
Level Population Exposed Dosage
(ug/m3) (IP3 persons) ClQ3(tig/m3)-persons]
0.010 0.2 0.002
0.0050 4 0.03
0.0025 25 0.10
0.0010 -- 0.23
0.00050 — 0.34
0.00025 — 0.47
0 — 2.02
NOTE: The use of ~ as an entry Indicates that the incremental E/D 1s not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry in another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted in another column.
-------
7-42
TABLE 7-28. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF 0-DICHLOROBENZENE
Parameter Value
Daytime decay rate (Kd) 7.5 x io'6 sec"1
Nighttime decay rate (KR) 5.0 x 10"7 sec"1
Hanna-Gifford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (EH) 0
Nationwide nonheating stationary source emissions (EN) 86.42 gm/sec
Dye production 0.02 gm/sec
Miscellaneous solvents 86.4 gm/sec
Nationwide mobile source emissions (EM) 0
M
-------
TABLE 7-29. 0-DICHLOROBENZENE EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
EXPO LEVEL
(OG/(IO3>
»—.
.!•••••
.8i«tM
.0280O9
.•i*««e
POPULATION
< PERSON)
S48144
9I497M
33*722*8
8ir59«48
142920938
168679135
DOSAGE
PERSON)
282481.4
1772*82.3
8479778.2
6O364O1.0
6121131.0
6226594.7
PERCENTAGE
OF CONTRIBUTION
HEATING STATIONARY
..
9.
e.
0.
0.
0.
!*•.•
!••.«
loe.o
100.0
100.0
100.0
MOBILE
t.
• .
e.
e.
e.
0.
PERCENTAGE
OF DISTRIBUTION
CITY TYPE 1 CITY TYPE 2
!•«.*
!••.•
tee.e
98.0
94.0
92.9
..
0.
0.
.7
a. s
2.6
CITY TYPE 8
9.
e.
0.
1.2
3.C
4.G
i
.£>
to
-------
TABLE 7-30. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUMMARY OF o-DICHLOROBENZENE
Population Exposed
(persons)
Dosage
[(pg/w3). persons]
Concentration specific
Level
(uq/m3)
100
50
25
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0
Point
Source
2
38
4,258
16,315
25,406
57,100
159,047
352,618
655,976
955,490
1,210,194
„_
__
6,442,161
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
—
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
505,140
9,149,730
33,072,205
81,759,648
142,928,535
158,679,135
U.S. Total
2
38
4,258
16,315
26,406
57,100
159,047
352,618
1,161,116
10,105,220
34,282,399
—
—
—
Specific
Point
Source
175
2,520
147,000
349,000
407,000
509,000
658,000
790,000
897,000
952,000
968,000
—
—
1,010,000
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2,020
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
232,451
1.772,052
3,479,775
5,056,481
6,121,131
6,225,594
U.S. Total
175
2,520
147,000
349,000
407,000
509,000
658,000
790,000
1,129,451
2,724,052
4,447,775
-_
--
7,238,000
IOTE: The use of — as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D 1s not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry 1n another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted In another column.
-------
I
Ji
Ul
FIGURE 7-3. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF p-DICHLOROBENZENE EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 7-31. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF p-OICHLOROBENZENE
missions
NO.
1
2
3
4
3
6
7
COMPANY
DOW
WONSANTO
PPC
PTANI) CRLORINE
SPECIALTY ORGAN
IWNTROSE
ICC
RITE
HIDLAND, Ml
SAUCET, 1L
HEW NARTIN9VILLE.WV
DELEWARE CITY, DE
IHWinrMLE, CA
HENDERSON, NV
NIAGARA FALLS. NY
LATITUDE
43
no
39
39
36
36
43
35
35
47
33
O6
O3
03
20
31
22
94
30
32
33
^ i nit i i>nn i
LONGITUDE STATION TYPE
0114 13
*9« !•
089 51
O73 3H
117 55
114 50
079 00
on
If
27
47
40
34
55
14045 1
13994 1
13736 1
94741 1
23215 1
23112 1
14747 1
TYPE PROCESS
1 .732976
1 . 334696
1 1.987632
1 2.907936
1 .903604
1 . I6732O
1 . I6732O
STORAGE
.933136
.923616
.976792
.141696
. 005994
.9I1O9O
.9IIBOB
FUGITIVE
. 132192
.998782
. 199944
.352912
.014608
. 929376
. 929376
i
CTi
-------
7-47
TABLE 7-32. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF p-DlCHLOROBENZENE RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration Population
Level Exposed Dosage
(uQ/m3) (persons) [(u9/m3) • persons]
100 2 239
50 8 662
25 30 1,360
10 125 2,780
5 342 4,380
2.5 1,233 7,360
1 3,747 11,300
0.5 9,714 15,000
0.25 18,980 18,900
0.1 94,145 29,500
0.05 259,561 40,400
0.025 552,574 51,200
0.01 1,151,587 60,600
0.005 1,663,080 64,300
0.000482 2,341,103 66,000
-------
TABLE 7-33. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM EMISSIONS FROM GENERAL POINT SOURCES
OF p-DICHLOROBENZENE (PESTICIDE PRODUCTION)
/
Concentration
Level Population Exposed Dosage
) (TO3 persons) [103(yg/m3)» persons]
0.010 2 0.03
0.0050 21 0.15
0.0025 58 0.29
0.0010 — 0.54
0.00025 — 0.77
0 - 3.36
NOTE: The use of -- as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D 1s not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry In another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted 1n another column.
-------
7-49
TABLE 7-34. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF p-DICHLOROBENZENE
Parameter Value
Daytime decay rate (Krf) 7.5 x io~6 sec"1
Nighttime decay rate (Kn) 5.0 x 10"7 sec"1
Hanna-Gifford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (EH) 0
Nationwide nonheating stationary source emissions (EN) 713 gm/sec
Space deodorant 396 gm/sec
Moth control 317 gm/sec
Nationwide mobile source emissions (EM) 0
-------
TABLE 7-35. p-DICHLOROBENZENE EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
DOSAGE
PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTION
PERCENTAGE OF DISTRIBUTION
IC/
-------
TABLE 7-36. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUMMARY OF p-DICHLOROBENZENE
Population Exposed
(persons)
Dosage
[( g/m3)*persons]
Concentration Specific
Level
(uq/m3)
100
50
25
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0.005
0
Point
Source
2
8
30
125
342
1,233
3,747
9,714
18,980
94,145
259,561
552,574
1,151,587
1,663,080
2,341,103
% r
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
21 ,000
--
—
—
--
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
505,140
9,149,730
26,976,292
61,583,693
133,037,356
—
—
--
--
158,679,135
U.S. Total
2
8
30
125
342
505,373
9,153,477
26,986,006
61,682,673
133,639,503
—
—
—
—
--
Specific
Point
Source
239
662
1,360
2,780
4,380
7,360
11,300
15,000
18,900
29,500
40,400
51 ,200
60,600
64,300
66,000
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
150
--
-„
—
3,360
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
1,917,818
14,620,149
26,029,918
37,167,988
49,590,816
--
--
--
--
51,363,678
U.S. Total
239
662
1,360
2,780
4,380
1,925,178
14,631,449
26,044,918
37,186,888
49,620,346
—
--
—
--
51,430,000
I
Ul
NOTE: The use of — as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D 1s not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry in another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted in another column.
-------
7-52
REFERENCES
1. "Chemical Product Synopsis on Monochlorobenzene," Mannsville Chemical Products,
July 1977.
2. "Chemical Profile on Monochlorobenzene," Oct. 31, 1977, Chemical Marketing
Reporter.
3. E. M. Klapproth, "Chlorobenzenes," p. 633.5030A—I, Chemical Economics Handbook,
Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (July 1977).
4. "Chemical Product Synopsis on Dichlorobenzene," Mannsville Chemical Products,
June 1978.
5. "Chemical Profile on o-Dichlorobenzene," Sept. 6, 1976, Chemical Marketing
Reporter.
6. "Chemical Profile on p-Dichlorobenzene," Mar. 15, 1976, Chemical Marketing
Reporter.
7. 1978 Directory of Chemical Producers, United States, Stanford Research Institute,
Menlo Park, CA.
8. S. W. Dylewsi, Emissions Control Options for the Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industry, Chlorobenzenes Product Report, Hydroscience, Inc.,
Knoxville, TN, August 1978.
9. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning, EPA-450/
2-77-022 (OAQPS No. 1.2-079), Research Triangle Park, NC (November 1977).
10. Solvent Metal Cleaning, Background Information: Proposed Standards (draft),
EPA, NSPS, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC (Ndvember 1978).
11. Special Project Report, "Petrochemical Plant Sites," prepared for Industrial
Pollution Control Division, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, by Monsanto Research Corp.,
Dayton, OH (April 1976).
12. Monsanto Corp., Chocolate Bayou, TX, Diphenyl Oxide Process, Texas Air Control
Board emission inventory questionnaire for 1975.
-------
APPENDIX A-8 Chloroform
CHLOROFORM- CHE74ICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 67-66-3
Synonyms: Trichloromethane; Methenyl Chloride; Trichloroform; Methenyl
Trichloride; Foray! Trichloride; Methyl Trichloride
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 119.39
Molecular Formula: CHC1.
Molecular Structure:
Cl
i
Cl-C-H
l
Cl
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Liquid - highly refractive, nonflarmable, heavy,
very volatile
Boiling Point: 61.25'C
Melting Point: -63.5°C
Density: 1.49845 at 15°C
Vapor Pressure: 200 mm at 25.9eC
Vapor Density: 4-12
Solubility: Soluble (8.15 g/1 of H20)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H20): 1.17
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products: Easily hydrolyred by aqueous alkali to formic acid.
When exposed to air and light, breaks down to phosgene, HC1, and chlorine.
Reactivity Toward OH*: same as methane, I/AS Butane
Reactivity Toward Q^: No reaction
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: No photochemical degradation
Major Atmospheric Precursors: N/A
Formation Reactivity:
-------
8-5
I. SOURCES
Four volatile organic compounds methyl chloride, methylene chloride, chloro-
form, and carbon tetrachloride comprise the group of chemicals commonly referred
to as the chloromethanes. Emission losses for all except methyl chloride are
assessed in this summary.
CHLOROFORM
Chloroform (CHC13) is a clear, water-white, heavy, volatile, nonflammable liquid
at ambient conditions and is manufactured by the chlorination of either methyl
chloride or methane. The chlorination of methane is the predominant route for
the manufacture-of chloroform.
In 1978 five companies were operating plants at seven locations in the U.S.
The locations of the plants, the type of production process used, and the 1978
capacity and estimated production level for each plant are shown in Table 8-1,4'6'
An estimated 330 million Ib of chloroform was produced in 1978.
The largest end-use for chloroform is in the manufacture of chlorodifluoromethane,
commonly referred to as fluorocarbon 22 or F-22. Fluorocarbon 22 is used primarily
as a refrigerant with an estimated 61% of the chloroform production (201.3 million
Ib) consumed for this application. In addition an estimated 82.5 million Ib of
chloroform was consumed to produce fluorocarbon 22 that was subsequently used
as a chemical intermediate to produce fluorocarbon resins.
The remaining 1978 chloroform production was either exported (23.1 million Ib)
or used as an industrial solvent to produce Pharmaceuticals or pesticides
(23.1 million Ib). End-uses of chloroform are summarized in Table 8-2.
For the purpose of this report emissions resulting from the export of chloroform
are assumed to be negligible. The remaining chloroform produced (23.1 million
Ib) is used as a solvent in a variety of end-use applications and is eventually
released to the atmosphere. Individual source locations could not be identified
for this broad category. Estimated emissions losses for each producing location
are shown in Table 8-3.
Total nationwide emissions of chloroform in 1978 from all sources are estimated
to have been 24,040,000 Ib. A tabulation of the losses is shown in Table 8-4.
-------
8-6
The most significant end-use for chloroform is as a chemical intermediate in
the production of fluorocarbon 22. Identified source locations for fluorocarbon 22
manufacture are shown in Table 8-5.l3 Also shovn in that table are the 1973
fluorocarbon 22 production and the corresponding chloroform requirement for its
manufacture.
Emission estimates of chlorofrora from these sites are shown in Table 8-6.l4
Total estimated emissions of chloroform from fluorocarbon 22 production sites
are estimated to have been 537,000 Ib in 1978. Additional associated emissions
from these sites would include other halocarbons used and the various fluoro-
carbons produced. Vent parameter data relative to chloroform emissions from
fluorocarbon production are shown in Table 8-7. It is estimated that an average
of five tanks per site contribute chloroform storage emissions. Process emissions
were reported as negligible.14
-------
Table 8-1. Production of Chloroform
Source
Allied Chemical Corp.
Diamond Shamrock
Dow Chemical
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Vulcan Materials Co.
Total
Location
Moundsville, WV
Belle, WV
Freeport, TX
Plaquemine, LA
Louisville, KY
Geismar, LA
Wichita, KS
1978
Estimated^
Production
(106 Ib/yr)
19
26
64
64
49
38
70
330
c
Process
A,Bd
A
B
A
A
A
A,BG
1978
Estimated
Capacity
(1CP Ib/yr)
30
40
100
100
75
60
110
515
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude /Longitude
39 54 24/80 47 51
38 14 09/81 32 38
28 59 15/45 24 45
30 19 00/91 15 00
38 12 09/85 51 49
30 10 00/90 59 00
37 36 55/97 18 30
See refs. 4, 6, and 7.
Distribution of the 330 million pounds per year for each producing location has been made as a direct ratio of
total production/total capacity X individual plant capacity.
C(A) - Methanol hydrochlorination process or methyl chloride chlorination process.
(B) - Methane chlorination process.
5% methane chlorination 95% methyl chloride chlorination.
C10% methane chlorination 90 % methyl chloride chlorination.
OO
I
-------
8-8
Table 8-2. 1973 chloroform Consumption by End Use*
End Use
Chlorodifluorome thane (F-22)
refrigerants
Chlorodifluorome thane (F-22)
resin intermediates
Export
Solvent/misce llaneous
Total
Percent of-
Total Consuzrotion
61
25
7
7
100
End Use
Consumption
(M Ib)
201.3
82.5
23.1
_23^1
330.0
*See refs. 6 and 7.
-------
Table 8-3. 1978 Chloroform Production Emissions
Process Vent
Emissions
. Company
Allied
Chemical
Diamond
Shamrock
Dow
Chemical
Stauffer
Vulcan
Total
Location
Moundsville, WV
Belle, WV
Freeport, TX
P 1 aquemi ne , LA
Louisville, KY
Geismar, LA
Wichita, KA
db/yr)
140
200
260
480
370
290
500
2,240
(g/sec)
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.007
0.005
0.004
0.007
Storage Vent
Emissions
db/yr)
17,870
25,350
18,470
62,400
47,780
37,050
63,450
272,370
(g/sec)
0.257
0.365
0.266
0.898
0.688
0.533
0.913
Fugitive
Emissions
db/yr)
4,630
6,420
11,500
15,810
12,100
9,390
16,820
76,670
(g/sec)
0.067
0.092
0.166
0.228
0.174
0.135
0.242
Total Emissions
db/yr)
22,640
31,970
30,230
78,690
60,250
46,730
80,770
351,280
(g/sec)
0.326
0.460
0.435
1.133
0.867
0.673
1.163
00
i
10
Derived from the emission factors shown in Table 10.
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
8-10
Table 8-4. 1973 Estimated Chloroform Nationwide Emission Losses
Estimated National
Source Emission (M lb/yr)
Production 0.35
Chlorodifluorone thane (F-22)|
(refrigerants) I
Chlorodifluoromethane (F-22)j °*59
resin intermediates J
Solvent, miscellaneous 23.1
Export 0
Total 24.04
-------
Table 8-5. Users of Carbon Tetrachloride and Chloroform to Produce Fluorocarbons
Allied Chemical
Baton Rouge, LA
Danville, 1L
Elizabeth, NJ
El Segundo, CA _
Du Pont
Ant loch, CA
Deepwater, NJ
Montague. HI
Louisville, KY
Corpus Christ!, T)
Pennwalt Corp.
Calvert City, KY
Thorofare, NJ
Union Carbide
Flurorocarbon
Annual
Capacity
(10* Ib)
310
"
, 400
t
80
35
Institute and S. Charleston, HV Not listed
Essex Chemical Corp
Wichita, KS
. (Rocon)
20
Estimated 1978 Production
F-ll F-12 F-22
(106 Ib) (106 Ib) (106 Ib)
Assumed shut down
36.8 52.3
36.8 52.3 48.8
36.8 52.3
48.8
J
22.1 31.4 19.5
Assumed shutdown
Assumed shutdown
Carbon
Estimated Tetra- Chloro-
Production chloride form
Totals Used Used
(106 Ib) (106 Ib) (106 Ib)
87.3
282.9 87.3 55.7
87.3 55.7
112.6
112.6 71.9
364.9 112.6
71.9
73.0 67.6 28.6
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude /Longitude
40 08 30/87 33 45
40 40 45/74 13 51
33 56 30/118 26 35
37 59 37/121 52 00
39 41 25/75 30 35
43 24 10/86 23 40
38 11 51/85 54 13
27 53 00/97 15 00
37 03 18/88 19 40
.
Kaiser Aluminum t Chemical Corp.
Gramercy, LA
Total
80
925
218 310.1 192.7
720.8 667.5 283.8
CO
•Soe ref. 13.
-------
8-12
Table 8-6. Emissions from Carbon Tetrachloride and
Chloroform Users for Flurocarbon Production*
P-ll/F-12 Carbon
Tetrachloride F-22 Chloroform
Emissions Emissions
Source Location . (lb/vr)b - (g/sec)d (lb/yr)c
Allied Danville, IL 58,460 O.B4 0
Elizabeth, NJ 58,460 0.84 115,200
El Segundo, CA 58,460 0.84 115,200
Du Pont Antioch, CA . 75,420 1.09 0
Deepwater, NJ 75,420 1.09 148,800
Montague, MI 75,420 1.09 0
Louisville, KY 0 148,800
Pennwalt Calvert City, KY 45,240 0.65 59,410
Total 446,200 587,410
See ref . 14.
Based on the following emission factor:
Process 0.000449 A - (derived from site visit)
Storage 0.000442 A - (derived from site visit)
Fugitive 0.000178 A - (derived from site visit)
0.001069
Based on the following emission factor:
Process 0 . , • A - (derived from site visit)
Storage 0.00374 A - (derived from site- visit)
Fugitive 0.00075 A - (derived from site visit)
0.00449
Assumes 8760 hours/year operation.
(g/sec)d
1.66
1.66
0
2.14
0
2.14
0.86
-------
8-13
Table 8-7. Chloromethane Vent Parameters*
source
" b~
.-.ion
-.1 chloride chlo-
process
Storage
rane chlorination
Process
Storage
.:cr. disulfide and
v*r chlorination
rxesses
Process
Storage
.tie chloride end-use
Cold cleaner
Vjpor degreaser
-urbons ll/12d
Process
Storage
••:irbon 22d
Process6
Storage
Number
of
Vents
3
10
2
10
2
7
1
1
2
4
0
2
Vent
Height
(ft)
35
20
35
20
45
20
15
15
30
20
0
20
Vent
Diameter1
(ft)
0.08
0.17
0.08
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.5
0.5
0.33
0.17
0
0.17
Discharge
Temperature Velocity
(°F) (fps)
95 5.0
80
100 270
80
100 9. 0
80
70 0.6
150
90
80
0 0
80
- 1, 2, 10, and 14.
^g cross-section -5m
^9 cross-section - 50 m
;-r'9 cross-section - 20 m
'• »re no process vent losses of chloroform from f-22 manufacture.
-------
00
FIGURE 8-1. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF CHLOROFORM EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 8-8. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC
POINT SOURCES OF CHLOROFORM
EH IRS IONS (CHXRF.C)
NO.
1
3
a
4
3
6
T
a
9
10
II
12
COMPANY
ALLIED CHEMICAL
DIAMND SHAMROCK
DOW
STAUFFEH
VULCAN
VULCAN
DOW
ALLIED
ALLIED
DUPONT
DUPONT
PENNWALT
SITE
HOUNDS VILLE, WV
DELLE. WV
PLAaUEHINE. LA
LOUISVILLE. ICY
CEISMAn. LA
WICHITA. ICA
FltEEPORT, TX
ELIZABETH. NT
EL SECUNDO. CA
DEEPWATER, NJ
LOUISVILLE. KY
CALVERT CITY, KY
LATITUDE LONGITUDE
39 54
38 14
3O 19
30 12
30 10
37 36
28 39
40 40
33 56
39 41
38 II
37 03
39 080
09 OOI
OO O9I
09 083
00 09O
55 097
3O O9S
45 074
30 118
25 075
51 085
IO OO8
44 49
32 38
15 00
51 49
59 00
18 30
23 35
13 SI
26 33
30 33
34 13
19 4O
r> inn
STATION
13736
13866
I397O
93820
12938
03928
12923
04739
23129
13739
13807
O38I6
i i-fin i
TYPE
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
rn»um>c,
TYPE
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
2
2
2
2
PROCESS
.OO20 16
. OO288O
.O069I2
.003320
.004176
. OO72OO
.6*3744
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
STORAGE
. 237328
. 363040
. 898360
. 688O32
.333520
.913680
. 260968
.661824
1.381824
1 . 784736
1.784736
.712800
FUGITIVE
. 066672
. 092448
.227664
. 174240
. 135216
. 242206
. I636M
. 27705*
.277036
. 357984
. 357964
. 142560
-------
TABLE 8-9. (Concluded)
* Plant Type:
Type 1: Plant produces chloroform by using the methyl chloride chlorlnatlon
process
Type 2: Plant produces chloroform by using the methan chlorlnatlon process
Type 3: Plant produces flurocarbon 22
t Source Type:
Type 1: Methyl chloride chlorlnatlon process
Type 2: Methane chlorlnatlon process
Type 3: Flurocarbon 22 production
00
I
-------
8-17
TABLE 8-10. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF CHLOROFORM RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration Population
Level Exposed Dosage
?ug/m3) (persons) [(ug/m3) . persons]
67.6 1 34.7
50 2 87.6
25 21 736
10 111 2,110
5 224 2,910
2.5 679 4,430
1 2,513 6,850
0.5 4,684 8,370
0.25 13,630 11,500
0.1 68,319 19,000
0.05 217,703 29,200
0.025 447,556 37,400
0.01 826,081 43,400
0.00719* 866,290 43,800
*The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
8-18
TABLE 8-11. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF CHLOROFORM
Parameter Value
Daytime decay rate (Kg) 0
Nighttime decay rate (
-------
TABLE 8-12. CHLOROFORM EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
DOSAGE
PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTION
PERCENTAGE OF DISTRIBUTION
•ilTV USVEL,
-------
TABLE 8-13. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUMMARY OF CHLOROFORM
Population Exposed
(persons!
Concentration
level
(im/»3)
SO
25
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0.005
0
Specific
Point
Source
2
21
111
224
679
2.513
4,684
13,630
68,319
217,703
447,556
826,081
—
866.290
Genera 1
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
505,140
9,149,730
21,839,303
78,609.557
129,499,835
--
—
—
158,679,135
U.S. Total
2
21
111
224
679
507,653
--
—
--
--
—
--
—
—
Dosage
[(ng/«3)'persons]
Specific
Point
Source
Rfl
736
2,110
2,910
4,430
6,850
8,370
11.500
19,000
29,200
37.400
43,400
--
43,800
General
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
895.925
6,895,977
11.010.193
19,384,869
23,221,696
—
--
—
24.223,708
U.S. Total
88
736
2.110
2.910
4.430
902.775
6,904.347
11.021.693
19.403.869
23,250,896
--
--
__
24.267.508
oa
ro
o
NOTE: The use of — as an entry indicates that the incremental E/0 is not significant
(relative) to last entry or relative to entry in another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted in another column.
-------
8-21
REFERENCES
1. F. D. Hobbs and C. W. Stuewe, Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for
the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Product Report on Chloro-
methanes, Methane Chlorination Process (on file at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle
Park, NC (January 1979).
2. F. D. Hobbs and C. W. Stuewe, Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for
the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Product Report on Chloro-
methanes, Methanol Hydrochlorination and Methyl Chloride Chlorination Processes
(on file at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC (January 1979).
3. "Chemical Product Synopsis on Methylene Chloride," Mannsville Chemical Products
(March 1978).
4. T. E. Killilea, "Chlorinated Methanes," Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford
Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (April 1979).
5. "Chemical Profile on Methylene Chloride," Chemical Marketing Reporter
(September 20, 1976).
6. "Chemical Product Synopsis on Chloroform," Mannsville Chemical Products
(June 1978).
7. "Chemical Profile on Chloroform," Chemical Marketing Reporter (September 27, 1976)
8. "Chemical Product Synopsis on Carbon Tetrachloride," Mannsville Chemical Products
(June 1978).
9. "Chemical Profile on Carbon Tetrachloride," Chemical Marketing Reporter
(April 10, 1978).
10. F. D. Hobbs and C. W. Stuewe, Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for
the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry Product Report on Carbon
Tetrachloride and Perchloroethylene, Hydrocarbon Chlorinolysis Process (on file
at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC (March 1979).
-------
8-22
11.. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning, EPA-450/2-77-022
(OAQPS No. 1.2-079), Research Triangle Park, NC (November 1977).
12. Solvent Metal Cleaning, Background Information: Proposed Standards (draft)
EPA, NSPS, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC (November 1978).
13. Chemical Research Services, 1979 Directory of Chemical Producers, United States
of America, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA.
14. D. M. Pitts. Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for the Synthetic Organic
Chemicals Manufacturing Industry——Product Report on Fluorocarbons, on file at EPA,
ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC (February 1979).
-------
APPENDIX A-9 Ch.loroprene
CHLOROPRENE CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 126-99-8
Synonyms: 2-Chlorobutadiene-l,3; B-Chloroprene; Chloroprene;
2-Chloro-l,3-Butadiene
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 88.54
Molecular Formula: C.HrCl,
Molecular Structure:
Cl
CH2-C-CH-CH2
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Liquid-colorless, flammable, pungent ethereal odor
Boiling Point: 59.4°C at 760 mm
Melting Point:
Density: 0.9583 at 20°C/4eC
Vapor Pressure: 215.4 mm at 25°C
Vapor Density: 3.0
Solubility: Slightly soluble (<10.0 g/1 of H20)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H20):
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products: 2-Chloroacrolein, Chloroacrolein
Reactivity Toward OH«: 4 x Butane
Reactivity Toward 03: 2 x Propylene
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: NAPP
Major Atmospheric Precursors:
Formation Reactivity:
-------
9-5
I. SOURCES
Chloroprene is currently produced in the United States by chlorination, isomeri-
zation, and caustic dehydrochlorination from butadiene. Until the late 1960s.
chloroprene was also produced from acetylene, but that process has been discon-
tinued because the cost of acetylene is much higher than that of butadiene.
Only two companies at three locations currently produce chloroprene in the United
States. Dupont shut down its Louisville, KY, chloroprene facility and expanded
its Laplace, LA, facility. Dupont's Victoria, TX, facility has also begun produc-
tion of chloroprene. The locations of the plants and the 1978 capacity and
estimated production for each site are shown in Table 9-1. An estimated 277.2 million
Ib of chloroprene was produced in 1978.1/2
All chjoroprene produced is captively consumed to manufacture polychloroprene
(neoprene) synthetic rubber by polymerization of the chloroprene. Neoprene is
used in wire and cable covers, gaskets, automobile parts, caulks, and other
applications requiring chemical, oil, and weather resistance.
II. EMISSION ESTIMATES
Emission estimates for the three sites listed in Table 9-1 include the total emis-
sions of chloroprene, and toluene from the Dupont sites, for both the production
of chloroprene and its captive use to make neoprene.
Emission factors used to calculate the emissions of chloroprene and toluene are
shown in Table 9-2, along with vent parameter data.
Total emissions of chloroprene from its production and use are estimated to
have been 3,523,090 Ib, and those of toluene are estimated to have been
895,433 Ib. There were no identified toluene emissions associated with chloro-
prene or neoprene manufacture at the Denka facility. Total emissions are shown
in Table 9-3 by site location.
-------
9-6
Table 9-1. Chloroprene Producers and Captive Users'
Company
Du Pont
Denka
Total
Location
Laplace, LA
Victoria, TX°
Houston, TX
1978
Capacity
(M Ib)
190
60
60
310
1978
Production ' '
(M lb)b
169.4
53.9
53.9
277.2
Geographic Coordinates
Latitude /Longi tude
30 04 00/90 32 00
28 40 29/96 57 21
29 41 31/95 15 12
See refs. 1 and 2.
Total production distributed over all sites based on capacity.
«
"Total capacity and estimated production have been determined by the difference
in overall U.S. capacity and overall U.S. demand for neoprene.
-------
9-7
Table 9-2. Chloroprene/Toluene Emission Factors and Vent Parameter Data
Source
Chemical
Emission Factor Ib Lost per Ib Produced/Used
Process Storage Fugitive Total
Emission Factors
Du Pont sites Chloroprene
Toluene
Denka site Chloroprene
0.014000
0.00347s
0.002200*
0.000004
0.00004s
0.000004*
0.001000
0.00050°
o.ooioooc
0.015004
0.00401
0.003204
Vent Parameter Data
Source
All sites0
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Number
of
Vents
6
4
Vent
Height
(ft)
56
16
Vent
Diameter
(ft)
1.25
0.33
Vent
Discharge
Temperature
(°F)
100
75
Vent
Velocity
(ft /sec)
85
Discharge
Area
(ft X ft)
400 X 600
See ref. 3.
b
See ref. 4.
c
Hydroscience estimate.
d
Building cross section all sites -
100 m2.
-------
9-8
Table 9-3. chloroprene and Toluene Emissions from Chloroprene Production and Use
Emissions (Ib/yr)
Company
Location
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Total Emissions
(Ib/yr)
(g/sec)b
Chloroprene Emissions
.Du Pont Laplace, LA ' 2,371,600
Victoria, TX 754,600
Denka Houston, TX 118,580
Total 3,244,780
169,400
53,900
53,900
277,200
2,541,678
808,716
172,696
3,523,090
36.59
11.64
2.49
Du Pont
Total
Laplace, LA
Victoria, TX
Toluene Emissions
587,818 6,776 84,700
187,033 2,156 26,950
774,851 8,932 111,650
679,294
216,139
895,433
9.78
3.11
Based on emission factors shown in Table 2.
b
Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
9-9
Process emissions originate from the chloroprene reactor vent scrubber, the
neoprene strippers, and the neoprene dryer exhausts. Storage emissions repre-
sent the losses from both working and final product storage as well as loading
and handling losses. Fugitive emissions as those that result from plant equip-
ment leaks.
-------
vo
FIGURE 9-T. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF CHIOROPRENE EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 9-4. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF CHLOROPRENE
missions
NO.
1
2
3
COMPANY
DUPONT
DUPONT
DENKA
SITE
LAPLACE.
VICTORIA.
HOUSTON,
LATITUDE LONGITUDE
LA
TX
TX
3O
2n
29
O4
4O
41
00 093
29 O96
31 095
2O Ol
57 21
IS 12
?»IAII i L.nn
STATION TVI'K
29511 1
12923 1
I29O6 1
i r»»M»m.r. ——————
TYPE PROCESS
1 34. I5IO4O
1 10.066240
1 1 . 707552
STORAGE
. OO9763
.0031 IO
.003 HO
FUGITIVE
2.439360
.776I6O
.776160
UD
I
-------
TABLE 9-5. EMISSIONS PARAMETERS FOR SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF CMLOROPRENE
Vent Building Cross Vent Vent Vent
Height Section Diameter Velocity Temperature
Source Typg ' Emissions Category (m) (m?) (m) (m/secj (°k)
Process 17 100 0.38 26 311
Storage 5 • 100
Fugitive 0 100
NOTE: The use of — as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D 1s not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry 1n another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted 1n another column. f
ro
-------
9-13
TABLE 9-6.
EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF CHLOROPRENE RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration
Level
96.6
50
25
10
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0.005
0.00331*
Population
Exposed
(persons)
1
55
292
,038
,170
9,136
29,573
48,326
92,173
227,457
454,997
989,679
369,545
1,411,458
1,414,691.
1
Dosage
) . persons]
3,.
11
75.
,340
,000
34,200
54,600
60,300
100,000
121,000
126,000
146,000
162,000
181,000
188,000
188,000
188,000
*The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
9-14
REFERENCES
1. Sara L. Soder, "Butadiene Marketing Research Report," Chemical Economics Handbook,
Stanford Research Institute, June 1977.
2. Chemical Marketing Reporter, Chemical Profiles Neoprene. August 16, 1976.
3. D. D. Wild, Louisiana Air Control Commission, Emission Inventory Questionnaire
for Dupont Chemical, March 3, 1977.
4. M. Z. Woskow, Texas Air Control Board Emissions Inventory Questionnaire for
Petrotex Chemical, Aug. 26, 1976.
-------
APPENDIX A-10 ----- Cresol
ro-CRESOL CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 108-39-4
Synonyms : 3-Methyl phenol ; m- Hydroxyl to! uene
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 108.1
Molecular Formula: C7H00
/ o
Molecular Structure: OH
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Liquid - colorless or yellowish, phenolic odor
Boiling Point: 202. 8°C
Melting Point: 12°C
Density: 1.034 at 20°C/4°C
Vapor Pressure: 1 mm at 52.0°C
Vapor Density: 3.72
Solubility: Slightly soluble (H20)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H20): 2.37
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products:
Reactivity Toward OH-: 12 x Butane
Reactivity Toward 03: 10% Propylene
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: NAPP
Major Atmospheric Precursors: Toluene
Formation Reactivity: Small formation pathway MOX from all cresols)
from toluene decay
-------
10-5
o-CRESOL CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 95-48-7
Synonyms: o-Cresylic Acid; o-Hydroxyltoluene; 2-Methylphenol
Chemical Formula
Molecular-Weight: 108.1
Molecular Formula: C7HD0
/ o
Molecular Structure: CH
/-OH
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Solid crystals - non volatile phenolic odor
Boiling Point: 190.8°C
Melting Point: 30.9°C
Density: 1.047 at 20°C/4°C
Vapor Pressure: 1 mm at 38.2°C
Vapor Density: 3.72
Solubility: Soluble (31 g/1 of H20)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H2q): 3.40
Atmospheri c Reacti vi ty
Transformation Products: Reacts with oxidizing materials to yield quinones and
benzenes (<1 day in air, <10 days in water). Methyl quinohe, methyldihydroxyl
Reactivity Toward OH-: 10 x Butane benzenes
Reactivity Toward 03: 10% Propylene
Reactivity Toward Photolysis: N/A
Major Atmospheric Precursors: Toluene
Formation Reactivity: See m-Cresol
-------
10-6
p-CRESOL CHEMICAL DATA
Nomenclature
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number: 106-44-5
Synonyms: 4-Cresol; 4-Methyl phenol ; p-Hydroxyltoluene
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight: 108.1
Molecular Formula: C^HgO
Molecular Structure:
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical State at STP: Solid crystals - phenolic odor
Boiling Point: 201. 8°C
Melting Point: 35.26°C
Density: 1.0341 at 20°C/4°C
Vapor Pressure: 1 "w at 53.0°C
Vapor Density: 3.72
Solubility: Slightly soluble (H20)
Log Partition Coefficient (Octanol/H20): 2.35
Atmospheric Reactivity
Transformation Products:
Reactivity Toward OH-: 10 x Butane
Reactivity Toward 0,: 10% Propylene
Reactivity Toward Photolysis:
Major Atmospheric Precursors: Toluene
Formation Reactivity: See m-Cres*?!
-------
10-7
I. SOURCES
PRODUCTION
The cresol isomers include para-cresol, ortho-cresol, and meta-cresol. Produc-
tion and capacity information is normally expressed in terms of total cresols
and cresylic acid rather than the individual cresol isomers. Cresols typically
occur as mixture of the cresol isomers and are defined as the compounds in the
mixture with boiling points below 204°C. Cresylic acids are the compounds with
boiling points above 204°C. Cresols and cresylic acid are produced as by-products
of either coal tar distillation or petroleum naphtha cracking.
As a by-product of coal tar distillation, cresols and cresylic acids are obtained
from the middle light oil cut of the distillation and from the filtrate remaining
after crystallization of the naphthalene, which is also present in the middle
light oil. Extraction of the filtrate with sodium hydroxide removes phenols,
cresols, and xylenols. After separation in an aqueous layer, the phenols are
acidifed to yield an organic layer which is then distilled to yield natural
phenol, cresols, and xylenols. The crude cresol cut is further purified by
fractional distillation to yield ortho-cresol and a mixture consisting of meta-
and para-cresol. In the thermal cracking of naphtha and gas oil fractions.
petroleum acids are obtained which can be processed by methods similar to the
cresol recovery processes used by the coal tar distillation.1
p-Cresol is also produced synthetically by methylation of phenol.
There are currently six producers of mixed cresols. The locations of the plants
and the 1978 capacity and estimated production level for each plant are shown
in Tabl«» 10-1 ,l In 1978 an estimated 32 million Ib of mixed cresols was produced.
The average composition of the three isomers in the mixed cresols produced is
estimated to have been 26% p-cresol, 31% o-cresol, and 43% m-cresol.2'3
There are also currently eight producers of cresylic acid. The locations of the
plants and the 1978 capacity and estimated production of each are shown in Table 10-1.
In 1978 an estimated 52 million Ib of cresylic acid was produced. The average
composition of the three isomers in the cresylic acid produced is estimated to
-------
Table 10-1. Mixed Cresols and Crosylic Acid Producers'
Company
Continental Oil
Fallek
Ferro
Koppers
Merichem
Stimson
Total
Continental Oil
Crowley Tar
Products
Fallek
Ferro
Koppers
Merichem
Mobil Oil
Stimson
Total
Location
Newark, NJ
Tuscaloosa, AL
Sante Fe Springs,
Oil City, PA
Houston, TX
Anacartes , WA
Newark ; NJ
Houston, TX
Tuscaloosa, AL
Sante Fe Springs,
Follansbee, WV
Houston, TX
Beaumont, TX
Anacortes , WA
Cresols or
Tar Acids Cresylic Acid
Capacity Produced
(million Ib/yr) (million Ib/yr)
Mixed Cresols Producers
50
20
CA 30
35
100
30
265
Cresylic Acid Producers
50
30b
20
CA 30
35
100
10
.30
305
6
2
4
4
12
4
32
9
5
3
5
6
17
2
_i
52
Geographic Coordinates
(Latitude/Longitude)
40 43 34/74 07 26
33 11 00/87 34 50
33 56 30/118 04 18
41 29 30/79 43 20
29 45 36/95 10 48
48 28 31/122 32 48
40 43 34/74 07 26
29 43 50/95 14 20
33 11 00/87 34 50
33 56 30/118 04 18
40 23 10/80 35 07
29 45 36/95 10 48
34 04 14/94 03 40
48 28 31/122 32 48
o
I
00
See ref. 1.
3Hydroscience estimate.
-------
10-9
have been 35% p-cresol, 3% o-cresol, and 34% m-cresol. The remaining 28% of
cresylic acid is made up primarily of xylenols.1
Some of the cresols/cresylic acid manufacturers also produce individual isomers,
with o- and m-cresols removed by extraction and distillation of the coal tars
and petroleum fractions. p-Cresol isomer is produced synthetically.
There are currently six producers of o-cresol isomer in the United States. The
locations of the plants and the 1978 capacity and production levels are shown
in Table 10-2.1 An estimated 30 million Ib of o-cresol was produced in 1978.
Sherwin Williams at its Chicago. Illinois, plant produced an estimated 21 million
Ib of p-cresol synthetically in 1978. The plant location is shown in Table 10-2.
There were two m-cresol isomer producers in 1978 that manufactured an estimated
1.5 million Ib. Source locations are shown in Tab]" 10-2.1
A summary of the estimated cresol isomer composition of mixed cresols, cresylic
acids, and a mixture of the two as used in 1978 is given in Table 10-3.1'2'
USES
Table 10-41'4 shows the end-use distribution of the individual cresol isomers, the
mixed cresols, and cresylic acid.
The manufactaure of 2,6-ditert butyl-p-cresol (BHT), which is used as a food
preservative, consumed half of the o-cresol isomer production (15 million Ib).
Antioxidant manufacture consumed an estimated 10 million Ib with the remainder
being exported (5 million Ib).
The majority of the p-cresol isomer produced was exported. Estimated exports
in 1978 were 10.5 million Ib, representing 50% of production. An estimated
5.5 million Ib was consumed in phenolic resin manufacture, and 5.0 million Ib
was used to produce pesticides.
m-Cresol isomer production was used exclusively in the manufacture of pyrethroid
pesticides (1.5 million Ib).
-------
Table 10-2. Cresol.Isomer Producers1
Company
Continental Oil
Fallek Chemical
Ferro Corp.
Koppe rs
Me rich em
Stimson
Total
Sherwin Williams
Koppe rs
Merichem
Total
Cresol Isomer Cresol Isomer
Capacity Produced
Location (million Ib/yr) (million Ib/yr)
o-Cresol Producers
Newark, NJ 7.7
Tuscaloosa, AL 9.6
Sante Fe Springs, CA 4.5
Oil City, PA 5.4
Houston, TX 15.1
Anacortes, WA 4.5
46.8
p-Cresol Producer
b
Chicago, IL NA
m-Cresol Producers
b
Oil City, PA NA
b
Houston, TX NA
5.0
6.0
3.0
3.0
10.0
3.0
30.0
21.0
0.75
0.75
1.50
Geographic Coordinates
( Lat i t ude/LoncjrtucloJ
40 43 34/74 07
33 11 00/87 34
33 56 30/118 04
41 29 30/79 43
29 45 36/95 10
48 28 31/122 32
41 43 04/87 36
41 29 30/79 43
29 45 36/95 10
26
50
18
20
48
48
30
20
48
o
o
See ref. 1.
3Not available.
-------
10-11
Table 10-3. Cresol Isomer Compositions*
In mixed cresol 3 (both product and emissions)
26% p-cresol
31% o-cresol
43% m-cresol
100%
In cresylic acid (both' product and emissions)
35% p-cresol
3% o-cresol
34% m-cresol
28% others, mainly xylenols
In mixed cresol/cresylic acid end-use (combined) and emissions
31.6% p-cresol
12.7% o-crescl
37.4% m-cresol
17.3% others (mainly xylenols)
*See refs. 1, 2 and 3.
-------
10-12
Table 10-4. 1978 End Use Distribution of Cresol Isomers, Cresols
and Cresylic Acid*
Isomer, Cresols, or Cresylic Acid Used
End-Use (million Ib/yr) (%)
o-Cresol Isomer
2,6-ditert butyl-p-cresol (BHT) 15.0 50 '
Antioxidants 10.0 33
Export 5.0 17
Total 30.0 100
p-Cresol Isomer
Phenolic resins 5.5 26
Pesticides 5.0 24
Export 10.5 50
Total 21.0 100
m-Cresol Isomer
Pyrethroid pesticides 1.5 100
Total 1.5 100
Mixed Cresols/Cresylic Acids
Tricresyl phosphate (TCP) ^
31.0 32
Cresyl diphenol phosphate (CDP) J
Phenolic resins 20.0 21
Wire enamel solvent 20.0 21
Pesticides 8.0 8
Disinfectants/cleaning compound 3.0 3
Ore flotation 3.0 3
Miscellaneous other 7.0 7
Export 5.0 5_
Total 97.0 100
*See refs. 1 and 4.
-------
10-13
The only available data on the end-uses of mixed cresols and cresylic acid are
in combined form. Total consumption of both mixed cresols and cresylic acid
was 97 million Ib with the difference between production (84 million Ib) and
use resulting from imports (13 million Ib).
The largest end-use5 of mixed cresols/cresylic acid was in tricresyl phosphate
(plasticizer) manufacture (31 million Ib), phenolic resins (20 million Ib), and
wire enamel solvent (20 million Ib). Pesticide manufacture consumed 8 million
Ib; use in cleaning compounds and disinfectants for consumer use consumed 3 million
Ib; and use as an ore flotation agent consumed 3 million Ib.
Other miscellaneous uses consumed 7 million Ib, and exports accounted for 5 million
Ib.
Specific user locations for BHT producers, pyrethroid pesticide producers, and
tricresyl phosphate producers are shown in Table 10-5.
C. INCIDENTAL SOURCES
The major incidental source of cresol isomer emissions is coke ovens. Coal
tars from coke ovens contain tar acids of 1.04% cresols.
Table 10-66 presents a list of coke oven plants in the U.S. Data to assign capacity
and production to each site were not available. The total estimated coke pro-
duction from these plants in 1978 was 107 billion Ib.
II. EMISSION ESTIMATES
PRODUCTION
Emission factors used to develop production and end-use emission estimates for
the isomers. mixed cresols, and cresylic acid are shown in Table 10-7.
Emissions from the production of mixed cresols and cresylic acid are shown in
Table 10-8. Total cresol emissions from mixed cresol production were estimated to
have been 80,000 Ib in 1978. Of this total 24,800 Ib were o-cresol, 20,800 Ib
were p-cresol, and 34,400 Ib were m-cresol.
-------
Table 10-5. Identified Source Locations of Cresols End-Users
Company
Location
Production
Capacity
. db/yr)
2,6 di-tert-buty-p-cresol (BHT) Producers
Ashland Fords, NJ
Koppors Oil City, PA
Shell Martinez, CA
Uniroyal Geismar, LA
Total
Pyrcthroid Pesticide Producers
CPC International Lyndhurst, NJ
FMC Baltimore, MD
Vertac West Helena, AR
Total
o-Crcsol Isomer
12
9
10
_5
36
m-Cresol Isomer
NA
NA
Cresol
Usacjc
db/yr)
5
4
4
_2
15
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
Geographic Coordinates
(Latitude/Longitude)
40 31 20/74 20 50
41 29 30/79 43 20
38 00 05/122 06 40
30 13 30/91 00 15
40 47 30/74 04 34
39 14 50/76 35 30
34 36 10/90 33 45
o
i
Mixed Cresols/Cresylic Acid
Tricresyl Phosphate/Cresyl Diphenyphosphate Producers
FMC Nitro, WV 60
Stauffer Gallipolis Ferry, WV _35_
Total 95
20
11
31
38 25 33/81 50 05
38 46 40/82 10 54
See ref. 5.
available.
-------
10-15
Table 10-6. Coke-Oven Plants in the United States*
Company
Location
Alabama By-Products Corporation
Alan Wood Steel Company
Allied Chemical Corporation
Semet-Solvay Division
Armco Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Chattanooga Coke & Chemical Co. Inc.
Citizens Gas & Coke Utility
Colorado Fuel & Iron Steel Corporation
Colt Industries Inc.
Crucible Stainless Steel and Alloy
Division
Cyclops Corporation
Empire-Detroit Steel Division
Donner-Hanna Coke Corporation
(jointly owned by Republic Steel
Corporation and Hanna Furnace Corpo-
ration, a subsidiary of National
Steel Corporation)
Eastern Gas and Fuel Associates
Eastern Associated Coal Corp., subsidiary
Empire'Coke Company
Ford Motor Company
Steel Division
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
Missouri Coke and Chemical Division
Indiana Gas & Chemical Corporation
Inland Steel Company
Interlake, Inc.
Tarrant, Alabama
Swedeland, Pennsylvania
Ashland, Kentucky
Detroit, Michigan
Hamilton, Ohio
Houston, Texas
Middletown, Ohio
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Burns Harbor, Indiana
Johnstown, Pennsylvania
Lackawana, New York
Sparrows Point, Marylan-d
Alton Park, Tennessee
Indianapolis, Indiana
Pueblo, Colorado
Midland, Pennsylvania
Portsmouth, Ohio
Buffalo, New York
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Holt, Alabama
Rouge, Michigan
St. Louis, Missouri
Terre Haute, Indiana
Indiana Harbor, Indiana
South Chicago, Illinois
Toledo, Ohio
-------
10-16
Table 10-6 (Continued)
Company
Location
International Harvester Company
Wisconsin Steel Division
Jones & Laughlin Industries, Inc.
(owned by the LTV Corporation)
Jones &, Laughlin Steel Corp., subsidiary
Kaiser Steel Corporation
Koppers Company, Inc.
Organic Material Division
Lykes Corporation
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company,
subsidiary
McClouth Steel Corporation*
Milwaukee Solvay Coke Company
(affiliated with Pickands Mather &
Co., subsidiary of Moore and McCormick
Co., Inc.)
National Steel Corporation
Granite City Steel Division
Great Lakes Steel Division
B. F. Division
Weirton Steel Division
Northwest Industries, Inc.
Lone Star Steel Company, subsidiary
NVF Company
Sharon Steel Corporation, subsidiary
Republic Steel Corporation
Iron and Chemical Division
South Chicago, Illinois
Aliquippa, Pennsylvania
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Fontana, California
Erie, Pennsylvania
St. Paul, Minnesota
Woodward, Alabama
Campbell, Ohio
Indiana Harbor,
Ironton, Ohio
Indiana
Milwaukee, Wi scons in
Granite City, Illinois
Zug Island, Michigan
Weirton, West Virginia
Daingerfield, Texas
Fairmont, West Virginia
Chicago, Illinois
Cleveland, Ohio
Gadsdcn, Alabama
Massillon, Ohio
Thomas, Alabama
Warren, Ohio
Youngstown, Ohio
*McClouth Steel Corporation purchased only the coking operations of Allied
Chemical Corporation's Ironton, Ohio, facility in 1977. By-products are
still manufactured by Allied.
-------
10-17
Table 10-6 (Continued)
Company
Location
Shenango Incorporated
(owned by The Shenango Furnace Company)
Tonawanda Coke Corporation
United States Steel Corporation
USS Agri-Chemicals Division and
USS Chemicals Division
Jim Walter Corporation
Jim Walter Resources, Inc., subsidiary
Chemical Division
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation
*See ref. 6.
Neville Island, Pennsylvania
Buffalo, New York
Clairton, Pennsylvania
Duluth, Minnesota
Fairfield, Alabama
Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania
Gary, Indiana
Geneva, Utah
Lorain, Ohio
Birmingham, Alabama
East Steubenville, West
Virginia
Monessen, Pennsylvania
-------
10-18
Table 10-7. Cresols Production and End-Use Emission Factors
Source
Mixed cresol production
Cresylic acid production
p-Cresol production
BHT/antioxidants
Phenolic resins
Pesticides
.Pyrethroid pesticides
TCP production
Miscellaneous, other
Ib
Process
0.00190
0.00190
0.0039
0.0008
0.00400
0.00040
0.00040
0.00035
Lost per Ib
Storage
0.00020
0.00020
0.00030
0.0001
0.0005
0.00005
0.00005
0.00005
Produced
(Used)
Fugitive Total
0.00040
0.00040
0.00080
0.0001
0.0005
0.00005
0.00005
0.00010
0.00250
0.00250
0.00500
0.001
0.00500
0.00050
0.00050
0.0005
d
0.001
Derivation
Bb
Bb
D
D
D
cc
D
cb
Basis: A - site visit data
B - state files
C - published data
D - Hydroscience estimate
bSee ref. 7.
CSee ref. 8.
4
Based on a weighted average of all of cresol uses.
-------
Table 10-8. Cresol Emissions from Mixed Cresol, Cresylic Acid Producers
Emissions (Ib/yr)
Company
Continental Oil
Fallek
Ferro
Koppers
Merichem
Stimson
Total
Continental Oil
Crowley Tar Products
Fallek
Ferro
Koppers
Merichem
Mobil Oil
Stimson Lumber
Total
Location
Newark, NJ
Tuscaloosa, AL
Santa Fe Springs,
Oil City, PA
Houston, TX
Anacortes , WA
Newark, NJ
Houston, TX
Tuscaloosa, AL
Santa Fe Springs,
Follansbee, WV
Houston, TX
Beaumont, TX
Anacortes, WA
Process
Mixed Cresols
11,400
3,800
CA .7,600
7,600
22,800
7,600
60 , 800
Cresylic Acid
17,100
9,500
5,700
CA 9,500
11,400
32,300
3,800
9,500
98,800
Storage
Producers
6,400
400
800
800
2,400
800
6,400
Producers
1,800
1,000
600
1,000
1,200
3,400
400
1,000
10 , 400
Fugitive
2,400
800
1,600
1,600
4,800
1,600
12,800
3,600
2,000
1,200
2,000
2,400
6,800
800
2,000
20,800
Total Cresol
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
15,000
5,000
10,000
10,000
30,000
10,000
80,000
22,500
12,500
7,500
12,500
15,000
42,500
5,000
12,500
130,000
*
(g/sec)
0.22
0.07
0.14
0.14
0.43
0.14
0.32
0.18
0.11
0.18
0.22
0.61
0.07
0.18
o
I
*Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
10-20
Total cresylic acid production emissions were estimated to have been 130,000 Ib.
Of this total 3,900 Ib were o-cresol, 45,500 Ib were p-cresol, and 44,200 Ib were
m-cresol.
Since both mixed cresols and cresylic acid share common producing sites, and in
the absence of other emission data, the same emission factor of 0.00250 was
used to estimate emissions for both. It was assumed that the cresol isomer
composition in the emissions was the same as in the product mixtures', shown in
Table 1U-3.
Process vent emissions originate primarily from distillation and neutralizaton
processes. Storage emissions represent the losses from both working and final
product storage as well as loading and handling. Fugitive emissions are those
which result from plant equipment leaks.
Emissions from the individual isomer production are shown in Table 10-9. The emis-
sion factor used for m- and o-cresol production losses is the same that was
used for mixed cresols. The p-cresol emission factor used was 0.005 Ib/lb since
it is synthetically manufactured.
Emissions from o-cresol, p-cresol, and m-cresol individual isomer production
were estimated to have been 75,000 Ib, 105,000 Ib, and 3,750 Ib respectively.
B. USES
The emissions from specific end-user locations are shown in Table 10-10 for p-cresol
isomer used in BHT production, m-cresol isomer used in pyrethroid pesticide
production, and mixed cresols/cresylic acid used in TCP production Emission
estimates were developed using the emission factors shown in Table 10-7.
o-Cresol emissions from BHT production were 15,000 Ib. Emissions resulting
from its use in antioxidant manufacture were estimated to be 10,000 Ib. Specific
manufactures and locations for regional distribution of antioxidant emissions
were not available.
Emissions from m-cresol use were estimated to have been 750 Ib. Emissions were
distributed evenly over all three sites in the absence of capacity data.
-------
Table 10-9. Cresol Isomer Emissions from Cresol Isomer Producers
Emissions (Ib/yr)
Company
Continental Oil
Fallek
Ferro
Koppers
Merichem
Stimson
Total
Sherwin-Williams
Total
Koppers
Merichem
Total
Location
Newark, NJ
Tuscaloosa, AL
Santa Fe Springs, CA
Oil City, PA
Houston, TX
Anacortes , WA
Chicago , IL
Oil City, PA
Houston, TX
Process Storage
o-Cresol
9,500
11,400
5,700
5,700
19,000
5,700
57,000
p-Cresol
81,900
81 , 900
m-Cresol
1,425
1,425
2,850
Producers
1,000
1,200
600
600
2,000
600
6,000
Producer
6,300
6,300
Producers
150
150
300
Fugitive
2,000
2,400
1,200
1,200
4,000
1,200
12,000
16,800
16 , 800
300
300
600
Total Emissions
(Ib/yr)
12,500
15,000
7,500
7,500
25,000
7,500
75,000
105,000
105,000
1,875
1,875
3,750
(g/sec)*
0.18
0.22
0.11
0.11
0.36
0.11
1.51
0.03
0-03
O
ro
*Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
Table 10-10. Cresol Emissions from Cresol Users
Emissions (lb/yr)
Company
2 , 6-Di-tert-buty-p-cresol
(BUT) producers
Ashland
Koppers
Shell
Uniroyal
Total
Pyrethroid pesticide
producers
CPC International
FMC
Vertac
Total
Tricresyl phosphate/cresyl
diphenylphosphate producers
FMC
Stauffer
Total
Location Process Storage
o-Cresol Isomer
Fords, NJ 4,000 500
Oil City, PA 3,200 400
Martinez, CA 3,200 400
Geismar, LA 1,600 200
12,000 1,500
m-Cresol Isomer
Lyndhurst, NJ 200 25
Baltimore, MD 200 25
West Helena, AR 200 25
600 75
Mixed Cresols/Cresylic Acid
Nitro, WV 7,000 1,000
Gallipolis Ferry, WV 5,500 550
12,500 1,550
Fugitive
500
400
400
200
1,500
25
25
25
75
2,000
1,100
3,100
Total Emissions
(lb/yr)
5,000
4,000
4,000
2,000
15,000
250
250
250
750
10,000
5,500
15,500
(g/sec)*
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.14
0.08
o
ro
*Based on 8760 hr/yr operation.
-------
10-23
Emissions from the use of cresols/cresylic acid to manufacture TCP were estimated
to have been 15,500 Ib. Of that total 2120 Ib were o-cresol, 4900 Ib were p-cresol,
and 5800 Ib were m-cresol.
Other sources of cresol emissions had to be handled on a regional basis because
of their widespread use.
Emissions of p-cresol isomer and cresol/cresylic acid used to produce phenolic
resins are summarized in Table 10-11 by geographic region. Emissions from this
end-use were estimated to have been 13,700 Ib o-cresol, 37,400 Ib m-cresol, and
31,600 Ib p-cresol. In addition, 27,500 Ib of p-cresol was lost when used as
an individual isomer for phenolic resins production. Total emissions of all
isomers were distributed based on the number of sites in each .region.
The emissions of p-cresol isomer and cresol/cresylic acid used to produce pesti-
cides are shown in Tabii 10-12 by geographic region. Emissions from this end-use
were estimated to have been 1265 Ib p-cresol, 550 Ib o-cresol, and 2185 Ib m-cresol
from cresol/cresylic acid use. In addition, 2500 Ib p-cresol was lost from its
use as an individual isomer in pesticide production. Total emissions were distri-
buted by the number of sites in each region.
The emissions of cresols in wire enamel solvents are shown in Table 10-13. Emissions
were developed by assuming that all cresols used in this solvent application
are lost and that the emission composition of cresol isomers is the same as the
end-use production shown in Table 10-3. Emissions were estimated to have been
2,740,000 Ib o-cresol, 6,320,000 pcresol, and 7,480,000 m-cresol. Emissions
were distributed over the number of paint and lacquer sites in the U.S. in the
absence on any other distributable data.
Emissions from cresols/cresylic acid used in ore flotation were estimated to
have been'411,000 Ib o-cresol, 1,122,000 Ib m-cresol, and 948,000 p-cresol in
1978. Emissions are summarized and distributed in Table 10-14 by the number of
mining sites in the U.S.
Emissions from coke ovens were estimated to have been 796,080 Ib o-cresol,
1,104,240 Ib m-cresol, and 667,680 Ib p-cresol in 1978. Emissions were
-------
10-24
Table 10-11. cresol Isomer Emissions from Phenolic Resin Producers by Region*
p-Cresol Emissions
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
fountain
Pacific
Total
See ref. 9.
"Average 110 Ib/yr per
'Average 220 Ib/yr per
Average 250 Ib/yr per
a
"Average 300 Ib/yr per
Number
of
Sites
6
26
31
5
15
6
11
1
24
125
site.
site.
site.
site.
o-Cresol
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
660
2,860
3,410
550
1,650
660
1,210
110
2,640
13,700b
From
Isomer
(Ib/yr)
1,320
5,720
6,820
1,100
3,300
1,320
2,420
220
5.280
27,500°
From Cresols/
Cresylic Acid
(Ib/yr)
1,500
6,500
7,750
1,250
3,750
1,500
2,750
250
6,000
31,600d
m-Cresol
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
1,800
7,800
9,300
1,500
4,500
1,800
3,300
300
7.200
37,400e
-------
10-25
Table 10-12. 1973 Cresol Isomer Emission Estimates from Pesticide Manufacturers3
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total
Number
of
Sites
4
37
19
15
17
14
15
5
13
139
As Isomer
db/yr)
72
666
342
270
306
250
270
90
234
2500b
p-Cresol
In Mixed Cresols/
Cresylic Acid
db/yr)
36
337
173
137
155
127
137
46
118
1265°
o-Cresol
in Mixed
Cresols/
Cresylic
Acid
db/yr)
16
148-
76
60
68
56
60
20
52
550d
m -Cresol
in Mixed
Cresols/
Cresylic
Acid
db/yr)
63
581
298
236
267
220
236
79
204
21S5£
a
See ref. 10.
Average 18 Ib/yr per site.
CAverage 9.1 Ib/yr per site.
Average 4.0 Ib/yr per site.
Average 15.7 Ib/yr per site.
-------
10-26
Table 10-13.
Cresol Isomer Emissions from Mixed Cresols/Cresylic Acid
Used as Wire Enamel Solvent3
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total
See ref. 11.
b
Average 1738.6 Ib/yr
CAverage 4010.2 Ib/yr
dAverage 4746.2 Ib/yr
Number
of
Sites
46
339
370
84
174
44
87
258
174
1,576
per site.
per site.
per site.
o-Cresol
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
79,975
589,380
• 643,275
146,040
302,510
76,500
151,255
448,555
302,510
2,740,000
p-Cresol
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
184,465
1,359,440
1,483,755
336,855
697,765
176,445
348,885
1,034,620
697,765
6,320,000
m-Cresol
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
218,325
1,608,960
1,756,090
398,680
825,835
208,830
412,920
1,224,520
825,840
7 , 480, 000
-------
10-27
Table 10-14. Cresol Isomer Emissions from Mixed Cresol/Cresylic Acid
Used as an Ore Flotation Agenta
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total
Number
of
(Mining)
Sites
6
38
85
145
62
40
21
144
22
563
o-Cresol
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
4,382
27,750
62,075
105,890
45,275
29,211
15,336
105,161
16,066
411,000b
m-Cresol
Emissions
db/yr)
11,957
75,729
169,392
288,964
123,557
79,714
41,850 '
286,971
43,843
1,122,000°
p-Cresol
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
10,103
63,987
143,128
244,159
104,399
67,354
35,361
242,475
37,045
984,000d
See ref. 12.
Average 730 Ib/yr per site
CAverage 1993 Ib/yr per site.
Average 1684 Ib/yr per site.
-------
10-28
estimated by assuming that for 107 billion Ib coke produced, 0.000024 Ib of
cresols would be lost per pound of coke produced. Composition of the cresols
is the same as the mixed cresols product composition shown in Table 10-3. Emissions
are summarized and distributed in Table 10-15 by the number of coke oven sites in
each region.
Emissions from the solvent use of cresols/cresylic acid as a disinfectant/cleaning
compound were estimated to have been 411,000 Ib o-cresol, 948.000 Ib p-cresol,
and 1,122,000 m-cresol. Emissions are considered widespread in proportion
with population.
Miscellaneous uses as a chemical intermediate are too widespread to allow for
regional distribution. Emission estimates were made by using a weighted average
emission factor of 0.001 Ib lost/lb use derived from all other isomers, mixed
cresols, and cresylic acid end-users. Emissions from miscellaneous uses were
estimated to have been 1000 Ib o-cresol, 2200 Ib p-cresol, and 2600 Ib m-cresol.
Vent parameter data for both production and end-uses of cresols are summarized
in Table 10-16.
The total nationwide emissions of o-cresol, p-cresol, and m-cresol are estimated
to have been 4,504,150 Ib, 9,124,9*5 Ib. and 10 959,325 Ib respectively. Total
emissions are summarized in Tables 10-17, 10-18, and 10-19 for o-cresol, p-cresol and
m-cresol, respectively.
-------
10-29
Table 10-15. Cresol Isomer Emissions from Coke Oven Operations3'
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total
Number
of
Sites
0
15
25
3
4
9
2
2
1
61
o-Cresol
Emissions
db/yr)
0
195,750
326,250
39,150
52,200
117,450
26,100
26,100
13,050
796,080C
m-Cresol
Emissions
db/yr)
0
271,500
452,500
54,300
72,400
162,900
36,200
36,200
18,100
l,104,240d
p-Cresol
Emissions
db/yr)
0
164,175
273,625
32,835,
43,780
98,505
21,890
21,890
10, 945
667,6806
Total
Cresol
Emissions
(Ib/yr)
0
631,500
1,052,500
126,300
168,400
378,900
84,200
84,200
42,100
2,568,000
See ref. 6.
Basis: 107 billion Ib coke produced; 0.000024 Ib cresols emitted/lb coke produced;
cresol composition - 26% p-cresol, 31% o-cresol, and 43% m-cresol in mixed cresols
emitted.
Average 13,050 Ib/yr per site.
Average 18,100 Ib/yr per site.
Average 10,945 Ib/yr per site.
-------
Table 10-16. ciresol Vent Parameters
Source
Production (all types)
Process
Storage
Fugitive
BHT/TCP production
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Phenolic resins
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Pesticides /pyrethroids
Process
Storage
Fugitive
Wire enamel solvent
Process
Ore flotation
Process
Number
of
Stacks
2
8
1
4
1
1
1
2
.1
1
Vent
Height
(ft)
30
24
60
16
60
16
30
20
40
20
Vent
Diameter
(ft)
1
0.17
_
0.5
0.17
0.33
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.25
0.25
Discharge
Temperature
(°F)
208
80
150
80
\
150
80
100
80
120
120
Discharge
Velocity Area
(ft/sec) (ft X ft)
75
300 X 600
35
100 X 100
20
100 X 100
15
100 X 100
10
10
o
I
Building cross-section: Production - 200 m2; BHT/TCP - 100 m2; Phenolic Resins - 50 m2;
Pesticides - 100 m2; Wire Enamel Solvent 0 200 m2; Ore Flotation - 50 m^.
-------
10-31
Table 10-17. 1978 Nationwide o-Cresol Emissions
Nationwide
Emissions
Source (Ib/yr)
o-Cresol production 75,000
Mixed cresol production 24,800
Cresylic acid production 3,900
BHT production 15,000
Antioxidants production 10,000
Tricresyl phosphate production 2,120
Phenolic resins 13,700
Wire enamel solvent 2,740,000
Pesticides 550
Disinfectants/cleaning compounds 411,000
Ore flotation agent 411,000
Miscellaneous, other 1,000
Coke ovens 796,080
Total 4,504,150
-------
10-32
Table 10-18. 1978 Nationwide p-Cresol Emissions
Nationwide
Emissions
Source (Ib/yr)
p-Cresol production 105,000
Mixed cresol production 20,800
Cresylic acid production 45,500
Phenolic resins production (isomer) 27,500
Pesticides production 2,500
Tricresyl phosphate 4,900
Phenolic resins 31,600
Wire enamel solvent 6,320,000
Pesticides 1,265
Disinfectants/cleaning compounds 948,000
Ore flotation agent 948,000
Miscellaneous, other -.2,200
Coke ovens -667,680
Total 9,124,945
-------
10-33
Table 10-19. 1978 Nationwide Emissions m-Cresol
Nationwide
Emissions
Source
-------
o
i
OJ
-ti
FIGURE 10-1. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF m-CRESOl EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 10-20. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF m-CRESOL
EMISSIONS (CM/SEC)
NO.
'
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
COMPANY
KOPPERS
MEKICHEM
CONT1 , KNTAL OIL
FALLEK
FEIIHO
STIMSON
CROWLEY TAR
MOUIL OIL
KOPPERS
CPC
FMC
VI'.HTAC
FMC
STAUFFER
SITE
OIL CITY, PA
HOUSTON, TX
NEWARK. NJ
TUSCALOOSA, AL
SANTA FE S, CA
ANACORTES, WA
HOUSTON, TX
nEAUMONT, TX
FOLLANSBEE, W
LYNDHURST, NJ
BALTIMORE, MO
WEST HfcLKNA, All
HITRO, WV
CALL I POL IS FY, WV
LATITUDE
41
29
4O
33
33
4(1
29
3O
40
40
39
34
3ii
38
29
45
43
11
56
28
43
04
23
47
14
36
25
46
30
36
34
00
3O
31
50
14
10
30
50
10
33
40
LOW
079
095
074
OJ17
i 18
i22
095
O94
080
074
076
V8VO
oai
Ol>2
m'UDF,
43
10
O7
34
04
32
14
O3
35
04
35
*»*>
50
10
20
48
2t>
50
it;
48
20
40
07
34
30
4;*
05
54
P> 1 fill 1 L.AI1 I
STATION TVI'l.
14860 1
12906 2
9474 1 3
938(y6 3
93IO6 3
242 1 7 3
12906 4
1 29 1 7 4
14762 4
9474 1 5
9372 1 5
!3<>;,'.> 'o
138<>(> (j
1 386<> 6
:MHJIU,1L
TYPK PROCESS
1 . 020520
2 . 047088
1 . 020520
'2 . 141 I2O
3 .158112
2 . 07056O
3 . 083664
C . 023472
3 . 027936
2 . 04VOJHJ
3 . 027936
2 . 047088
3 .040512
3 .O40512
3 . 1581 12
3 . 055872
4 . 002880
4 . 002880
4 . 002ul>O
5 . 037728
.'» . O29604
STORAGE
.002160
. 004896
.002160
.014832
.016704
.039600
. OO8784
. OO2448
. 002880
. O04896
. 002880
.OO489G
. 004896
. O04896
.OI67O4
.005904
. 000360
. 000360
.otM';><»o
. OO5328
. OO2906
FUGITIVE
. 004320
. 009936
. 004320
. O2'.M><>4
. 033264
. 0 1 4U32
.017568
. OO4J596
. OW5904
.O09936
. OO5904
. du
-------
TABLE 10-20. (Concluded)
* Plant Types:
Type 1: Plant produces Isolated m-cresol and mixed cresols
Type 2: Plant produces Isolated m-cresol, mixed cresols* and cresyllc acid
Type 3: Plant produces mixed cresols and cresyllc acid
Type 4: Plant produces cresyllc add
Type 5: Plant produces pyrethrold pesticide
Type 6: Plant produces tHcresyl phosphate (TCP) and cresyl dlphenyl
phosphate (CDP)
t Source Types:
Type 1: Isolated m-cresol production o
Type 2: Hlxed cresols production £
Type 3: Cresyllc add production
Type 4: Pyrethrold pesticide production
Type 5: THcresyl phosphate (TCP) and cresyl dlphenyl phosphate (CDP) production
-------
10-37
TABLE 10-21
EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF m-CRESOL RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration
Level
Population
Exposed
(persons)
Dosage
[(yg/m3) . persons]
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0.005
0.0025
0.001
0005
3.12x10-6*
2
43
240
947
3,243
17,464
40,501
111,091
508,466
1,273,154
3,370,507
8,666,629
11,188,566
21,040,904
10.
143
459
979
1,760
3,850
5,460
7,840
13,800
19,000
26,200
39,900
36,800
37,800
*The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
TABLE 10-22. EMISSIONS RATES AND NUMBER OF GENERAL POINT SOURCES OF m-CRESOL
Resins Production
Pesticide Production
Or* Flotation
Coke Oven
Region
Net* England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
Mest North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
EmisstonVSHe
(qm/sec)
0.00431
0.00431
0.00431
0.00431
0.00431
0.00431
0.00431
0.00431
0.00431
Number
of Sites
6
26
31
S
15
6
11
1
24
Emissions/Site
(am/sec)
0.0683
0.0683
0.0683
0.0683
0.0683
0.0683
0.0683
0.0683
0.0683
Number
of Sites
46
339
370
84
174
44
87
258
174
BnlsstonySlte
(g"/*ec)
0.000155
0.000155
0.000155
0.000155
0.000155
0.000155
0.000155
0.000155
0.000155
Number
of Sites
4
37
19
15
17
14
15
5
13
Emissions/Site
(gm/sec)
0.0287
0.0787
0.0287
0.0287
0.0287
0.0287
0.0287
0.0287
0.0287
Number
of Sites
6
38
85
145
62
40
21
144
22
Birfsslonysite
(gm/sec)
0
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
Number
of Sites
0
15
25
3
4
9
2
2
1
CO
00
-------
TABLE 10-23. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM EMISSIONS FROM
GENERAL POINT SOURCES OF m-CRESOL
Population Exposed
(103 persons)
Concentration
Level
5.0
2.5
1.0
0.5
0.25
0.10
0.05
0.025
0.01
0
Hire
Resins Enamel Pesticide
Production Solvent Production
0
0
0
0
0
—
—
--
«
--
0
31
28?
815
1.960
--
—
—
"
--
0
0
0
0
0
--
—
—
—
—
Ore Coke
Floatation Oven
0
0
4
26
101
—
--
--
--
--
8.0
23
73
199
449
—
—
--
--
—
U.S.
Total
8.0
54
364
1.064
2,510
--
--
—
•~
—
Resins
Production
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.007
0.04
Hire
Enamel
Solvent
0
0.10
0.46
0.83
1.23
1.86
2.70
3.32
4.36
8.2
Pesticide
Production
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.002
Ore Coke
Floatation Oven
0
0
0.004
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.11
0.14
0.20
0.56
0.06
0.10
0.19
0.27
0.35
0.52
0.62
0.74
0.91
1.22
U.S.
Total
0.06
0.20
0.65
1.12
1.62
2.45
9.43
4.20
5.48
10.0
NOTE: The use of — as an entry Indicates that the incremental E/D 1s not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry in another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted 1n another column.
o
I
(A)
VO
-------
10-40
TABtE 10-24. HAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF m-CRESOL
Parameter Value
Daytime decay rate (Kd) 1.68 x 10"4 sec"1
Nighttime decay rate (Kn) 1.0 x 10"6 sec"1
Hanna-Gifford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (EH) 0
Nationwide nonheating stationary source emissions (EN) 16.20 gm/sec
Cleaning solvent 16.16 gm/sec
Miscellaneous 0.04 gm/sec
Nationwide mobile source emissions (EM) 0
-------
TABLE 10-25. m-CRESOL EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
Dosage
_f-SrS?5.taJe_lf. Contribution
Percentage of Distribution
(,p9/m J_
. 050000
. 025000
.010000
. 005000
. 002500
3.
(person)
505140
9149730
23637585
51757583
123305988
158679135
\tig/m-/
person)
42338.5
274137.2
464245.9
654161.0
914669.0
973892.7
Heating
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Stationary
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Mobile
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
CJt£ Jype 1
100.0
100.0
100.0
97.8
94.5
91.8
City Type 2
0.
0.
0.
.7
2.5
3.0
City Type 3
0.
0.
0.
1.5
2.9
5.3
o
I
-------
TABLE 10-26. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUMMARY OF m-CRESOL
Population Exposed
(persons)
Dosage
" -persons!
Concentration
Level
(pq/m3)
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0.005
0.0025
0.001
0.0005
0
Specific
Point
Source
2
43
240
947
3,243
17,464
40,464
111,091
508,466
1,273,154
3.370,507
8.666,629
11.188,566
21,040,904
General
Point
Source
8,000
54,000
364,000
1,064,000
2,510,000
.._
_„
__
__
— —
__
__
__
--
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
505,140
9,149.730
23,637,585
51,757,583
123,305,988
__
__
158,679,135
U.S. Total
8,000
54,043
364,240
1,064,947
2,513,242
""**
— —
— -
~~
~~
"•
~~
"•
*" •
Specific
Point
Source
11
143
459
979
1,760
3,850
5,460
7,840
13,800
19,000
26.200
34,900
36,800
37,800
General
Point
Source
60,000
200,000
650 ,000
1,120,000
1,620,000
2,450,000
3,430,000
4,200,000
5,480,000
~~
--
«•*
«»•
10,000,000
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
42,339
274,137
464,246
654,161
914,669
— —
--
973,900
U.S. Total
60,000
200,100
650,500
1,121,000
1 ,622 ,000
2,454,000
3,477,000
4.482,000
5,958,000
__
_.
11,012,000
NOTE- The use of — as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D Is not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry 1n another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted In another column.
-------
o
i
co
FIGURE 10-2. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF o-CRESOL EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 10-27. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF o-CRESOL
EMISSION*
NO.
I
2
3
4
0
6
7
a
9
19
II
12
13
14
COMPANY
CONTINENTAL OIL
FALLEK
FERRO
nERinilEH
8TIMSON
KOPPERS
CROWLEY TAIl
KOPPERS
nooiL OIL
ASHLAND
SHELL
UNI ROYAL
FMC
8TAUFFEH
SITE
NEWARK. NJ
TUSCALOOSA. AL
RANTE FE SPRIW7S.CA
HOUSTON, TX
ANACORTES. WA
OIL CITY. PA
HOUSTON. TX
FOLLANSOEE. WV
DEANONT, TX
FORDS. NJ
MARTINEZ. CA
CEISMAR. LA
NITRO, WV
CALLIPOLIR FY, WV
LATITUDE LONGITUDE
49 43
33 II
33 56
29 43
4O 2O
41 29
29 43
49 23
39 94
49 31
30 90
39 13
30 23
30 46
34 974
00 907
30 IIO
36 993
31 122
39 979
50 93
19 909
14 094
22 974
03 122
39 991
33 901
49 902
97 26
34 50
94 10
19 4O
32 40
43 20
14 29
33 97
93 49
29 59
96 49
99 15
89 95
19 54
KTAN
STATION
94741
93006
93196
12996
24217
I4O69
12996
14762
12917
94739
23292
12930
13066
13041
rbflicr
TYPE
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
8
5
f»wuiw;K
TYPE
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
3
PROCESS
• 1 SvHWW
.9391132
. 997344
.164169
.•16992
.9024411
.902989
. 9339O4
.994932
.273699
.I9IOOO
.OI3*>60
.982989
. 9339O4
. 994932
.9O29O9
. 0339O4
.940000
• 9v4932
.994896
.991504
. 957699
. 9469O9
.92394*
.913824
.919899
STORAGE
.914499
.920312
. 99O729
.9I72O9
.99I72O
.9992IIO
• wWO"^W
. 993436
. 999432
.92OO99
.919656
.991449
• WWffV*W
. 993436
. 999432
• wwHw^w
.993436
.993769
.999864
.999576
.999144
. vW» fc™W
. 998769
.992889
• 9v2w 16
.991989
FUGITIVE
.928899
.919636
.9913114
. 934369
. OW34.16
. 90O376
.917289
. 9972O9
. 9O9O64
.957699
.921699
. 992OO9 _,
0
.917289 i.
.997299 4=»
. 990(164
.917289
. 997209
. 993769
• VH04%pZ
• ftfr I99o
. 999288
.997299
. 995769
.992889
.993808
.992169
-------
TABLE 10-27 (Concluded)
* Plant Types:
Type 1: Plant produces isolated o-cresol, mixed cresols, and cresylic acid
Type 2: Plant produces isolated o-cresol, mixed cresols, and 2,6-di(t-butyl)-p-
cresol (BHT)
Type 3: Plant produces cresylic acid
Type 4: Plant produces 2,6-di(t-butyl)-p-cresol (BHT)
Type 5: Plant produces tricresyl phosphate (TCP) and cresyl diphenyl phosphate (COP)
t Source Types:
Type 1: o-Cresol production
Type 2: Mixed cresols production
Type 3: Cresylic acid production
Type 4: 2,6-D1(t-butyl)-p-cresol (BHT) production
Type 5: Tricresyl phosphate (TCP) and cresyl diphonyl phosphate (CDP) production
o
I
-p.
en
-------
10-46
TABLE 10-28. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF o-CRESOL RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration Population
Level Exposed Dosage
(vg/m3) (persons) [(yg/ff>3) . persons]
0.05 70 4.55
0.025 215 9.47
0.01 1,318 26.3
0.005 4,166 51.5
0.0025 7,461 62.6
0.001 25,599 89.3
0.0005 48,734 106
0.00025 116,611 ' 129
0.0001 - 421,797 176
0.00005 907,944 210
6.96xlO'6* 1,336,543 225
*The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
TABLE 10-29. EMISSIONS RATES AND NUMBER OF GENERAL POINT SOURCES OF o-CRESOL
Pesticide Production
Ore notation
Em ss ions/5 He
Region (ojn/sec)
New England
Middle Atlantic
Catt North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
0.00158
0.00158
0.00158
0.00158
0.00158
0.00158
0.00158
0.00158
0.00158
Number Emissions/sue Number
of Sites (gm/sec) of Sites
6
26
31
5
15
6
11
1
74
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
46
339
370
84
174
44
87
258
174
EmfssionVStte
(qm/sec)
0.000057
0.000057
0.000057
0.000057
0.000057
0.000057
0.000057
0.000057
0.000057
Number
of Sites
4
37
19
15
17
14
15
5
13
Emissionysite Number
(qm/sec) of Sites
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
6
38
85
145
62
40
21
144
22
Emissions/Site Number
(qm/sec) of Sites
0.188
0.188
0.188
0.188
0.188
0.188
0.188
0.188
0.188
0
15
25
3
4
9
2
2
1
o
I
-------
TABLE 10-30.
EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM EMISSIONS FROM
GENERAL POINT SOURCES OF o-CRESOL
Population Exposed
personil
Concentration Wire
Lewi Res Ins Enamel
(mi/ni'l Production Solvent
5.0
2.5
1.0
0.50
0.25
0.10
O.OSO
0.02S
0.010
0.005
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.6
--
--
..
..
0
0
17
147
S«l
1.750
4.400
—
—
..
•
Pesticide
Production
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—
--
—
Ore Coke
Floatation Oven
0
0
0
0.3
12
95
234
—
--
—
—
3
14
48
119
302
1.040
1.990
—
—
--
--
U.S. Resins
Total Production
3
14
65
266
854
2.890
6.630
--
--
—
--
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0.6
1.4
2
13.5
Wire
Enamel
Solvent
0
0
22
110
245
430
612
830
1.180
1.480
3,000
Pesticide
Production
0
0
0
0,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.6
Ore Coke
Floatation Oven
0
0
0
0.2
4
1C
26
37
53
72
214
21
59
111
160
225
336
402
507
601
692
881
U.S.
Total
21
59
133
270
474
783
1.040
1.370
1.830
2.240
4.110
o
00
NOTE: The use of — as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D Is not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry in another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted 1n another column.
-------
10-49
TABLE 10-31. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF 0-CRESOL
Parameter Value
Daytime decay rate (Kd) 1.41 x ID"4 sec"1
Nighttime decay rate (Kn) 1.0 x 10~6 sec"1
Hanna-Gifford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (EH) 0
Nationwide nonnesting stationary source emissions (EJ 6.076 gin/sec
Cleaning solvent 5.918 gm/sec
Antioxidants production 0.144 gm/sec
Miscellaneous 0.014 gm/sec
National mobile source emissions 0
-------
TABLE 10-32. 0-CRESOL EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
<»3)
93*999
919999
999999
999999
eeioee
eeesee
POPULATION
(PERSON)'
,•514*
91497M
17051*46
4MI«OTa
1193O61I4
1312048*8
150679133
DOSAGE
PERSON)
15955.3
1M758.2
1 62*43. e
220322. 1
348S04.V
372500. G
374759. O
PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTION
HEATING
0.
• .
e.
e.
0.
0.
o.
STATIONARY
ieo.e
lee.e
lee.e
lee.e
tee.e
lee.e
lee.e
MOBILE
e.
e.
e.
e.
e.
e.
o.
PERCENTAGE OP DISTRIBUTION
CITY TYPE 1
lee.e
199.9
199.9
99.9
94.7
92.4
91.9
CITY TYPE 2
e.
*.
e.
.2
2.4
2.9
2.9
CITY TYPE 3
e.
t.
*.
.8
2.9
4.7
5.2
O
on
0
-------
TABLE 10-33. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUMMARY OF o-CRESOL
Population Exposed
(persons)
Dosage
_[(wg/m3j •persons]
Concentration Specific
Level
(pg/m3)
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0.005
0
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
215
1,318
4.166
1 ,336,543
General
Point
Source
3,000
14,000
65,000
266,000
854,000
2,890,000
6,630,000
—
.
--
—
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
505,140
9,149,730
17,551,646
158,679,135
U.S. Total
3,000
14,000
65,000
266,000
854,000
2,890,000
6,630,070
--
—
—
—
Specific
Point
Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
9
26
52
225
General
Point
Source
21 ,000
59,000
133,000
270,000
474,000
783,000
1 ,040,000
1,370,000
1,830,000
2,240,000
.4,110,000
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15,955
105,758
152,043
374,759
U.S. Total
21 ,000
59,000
133,000
270,000
474.000
783 ,000
1,040,005
1,385,964
1,935,784
2,392,095
4.485,000
o
I
01
NOTE: The use of ~ as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/0 1s not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry in another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted in another column.
-------
•\
X
tf "ar*-4--wx \
,em*>~^^,4, } \
', '
r
^
*v
o
I
en
ro
FIGURE 10-3. SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF p-CRESOL EMISSIONS
-------
TABLE 10-34. EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS OF SPECIFIC POINT SOURCES OF p-CRESOL
EMISSIONS (CM/SEC)
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
COMPANY
SHEHW IN- WILLIAM
CONTINENTAL OIL
FALLEK
FERRO
MERICIIEM
STIMSON
KOPPERS
CROWLEY TAR
KOPPERS
MOBIL OIL
FMC
STAUFFER
SITE
CHICAGO. IL
NEWARK, NJ
TUSCAI.OOSA, AL
SANTA FE S, CA
HOUSTON, TX
ANACORTEX, WA
OIL CITY, PA
HOUSTON. TX
FOLLANSDEE, WV
NEAUNOUNT, TX
NITRO, WV
G ALL 1 POL IS FY, WV
LATITUDE
41
4O
33
33
29
48
41
29
40
30
38
38
43
43
! 1
56
45
28
29
43
23
04
23
46
04
34
00
30
36
31
30
50
10
14
33
40
LONGITUDE
087
074
087
1(8
005
122
079
095
080
004
081
O82
36
07
34
04
10
32
43
14
35
03
50
10
30
26
50
18
4li
48
20
20
07
40
05
54
r-i/xii n,/\ix i r»uui«..&
STATION TVl'E TYIT, PROCESS
04846 l 1 1 . 170360
0474 12 2 . 0411624
03806 2
03106 2
12006 2
24217 2
t . 086250
i .01 4256
I . 02880O
Jl . 0285 1 2
t .046368
.08(5302
{ . 162720
: .028512
J .O46368
14860 3 2 .020512
12906 4 3 .0478O8
14762 4 3 .057456
12917 4 8 .010152
13866 5 4 .031824
13866 5 4 .025056
STORAGE
. 00072O
. OL'3904
. 000072
.00144O
. 003024
. 003024
. 005040
.OOJJ028
.O 17 136
.OO3<»24
. 005040
. O03024
. O05040
.006048
.OO20IO
. 0046O8
. 002448
FUGITIVE
.241920
. 008928
.01.JI44
.003*24
. 006048
. 006048
. 0 1 0080
. 0 1 liOOO
. 034272
.1-03456
. OO504O
.006048
.010080
. O 1 2096
. 004032
. OO0072
. O03O40
i
cn
OJ
-------
TABLE 10-34. (Concluded)
* Plant Types:
Type 1: Plant produces Isolated p-cresol
Type 2: Plant produces mixed cresols and cresyllc acid
Type 3: Plant produces mixed cresols
Type 4: Plant produces cresyllc add
Type 5: Plant produces trlcresyl phosphate (TCP) and cresyl dlphenyl
phosphate (CDP)
t Source Types:
Type 1: p-cresol production
Type 2: Nixed cresols production
Type 3: Cresyllc add production
Type 4: Trlcresyl phosphate (TCP) and cresyl dlphenyl phosphate
(COP) production
in
-------
10-55
TABLE 10-35.
EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE OF p-CRESDL RESULTING
FROM SPECIFIC POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
Concentration
Level
Population
Exposed
(persons)
Dosage
[(yjg/m3) . persons]
5
2.5
1
0.
0.
5
25
0.1
0.05
0.025
.01
.005
0.
0.
0.0025
0.001
3.67xlO-5*
227
1,116
5,358
16,508
40,620
170,926
419,077
891,820
1,795,513
3,029,719
5,046,244
10,304,456
14,974,476
1,460
4,450
10,500
18,500
26,700
46,300
63,100
79,500
93,600
102,000
109,000
118,000
121,000
*The lowest annual average concentration occurring within 20 km of the
specific point source.
-------
TABLE 10-36. EMISSIONS RATES AND NUMBER OF GENERAL POINT SOURCES OF p-CRESOL
Resins Production
Wire Ena»1 Solvent Pesticide Production
Ort flotation
Cefct Oven
Region
New C 09! and
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
Cast South Central
west South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Emissions/Site
(urn/sec)
0.00681
0.00681
0.00681
0.00681
0.00681
0.00681
0.00681
0.00681
0.00681
Number
of Sites
6
26
31
5
15
6
11
1
24
Emissions/Site
(am/sec)
0.0577
O.OS77
0.0577
0.0577
0.0577
0.0577
0.0577
0.0577
0.0577
Number
of Sites
«6
339
370
84
174
44
87
258
174
Emissions/Site
(qm/sec)
0.00039
0.00039
0.00039
0.00039
0.00039
0.00039
0.00039
0.00039
0.00039
Number
Of Sites
4
37
19
15
17
14
15
5
13
Emissions/Site
(on/sec)
0.0242
0.0242
0.0242
0.0242
0.0242
0.0242
0.0242
0.0242
0.0242
••UB»tk*a»
nvmiw*
Of Sites
i
38
85
145
62
40
21
144
22
Emissions/Site
(9*/Sec)
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
Hunker
of- Sites
0
15
25
3
4
9
2
2
1
o
in
-------
TABLE 10-37.
EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM EMISSIONS FROM
GENERAL POINT SOURCES OF p-CRESOL
Population Exposed
(IOJ persons) [1
Concentration
Level
d.q/m3}
5.0
2.5
1.0
0.50
0.25
0.10
0.050
0.025
0.010
0
Resins
Production
0
0
0
0
1.3
18
--
~
—
—
Hire
Enamel
Solvent
0
15
195
688
1.660
5,040
--
—
—
-•
Pesticide
Production
0
0
0
0
0
0
-- .
—
—
—
Ore
Floatation
0
0
2
19
77
280
--
—
—
«*
Coke
Oven
2
11
40
99
232
942
—
—
—
—
U.S.
Total
2
26
237
807
1.970
6,280
—
--
--
--
Resins
Production
0
0
0
0
0.4
3
6
8
13
58
Hire
Enamel
Solvent
0
44
306
643
971
1.480
2.060
2,640
3.590
6.930
Dotao*
O-Miifl/m3) persons]
Pesticide
Production
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
4
Or*
Floatation
0
0
2
13
33
65
88
120
173
493
Coke
Oven
12
43
86
126
173
273
326
406
483
740
U.S.
Total
12
87
394
782
1.180
1.830
2.480
3.180
4.260
8.230
o
en
NOTE: The use of -- as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D 1s not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry in another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted 1n another column.
-------
10-58
TABLE 10-38. MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE/DOSAGE RESULTING
FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS OF p-CRESOL
Parameter Value
Daytime decay rate (Kd) 1.41 x io"4 sec"1
Nighttime decay rate (KR) 1.0 x 10~6 sec"1
Hanna-Gifford coefficient (C) 225
Nationwide heating source emissions (EH) 0
Nationwide nonheatlng stationary source emissions (E.,) 13.683 gm/sec
Cleaning solvent 13.651 gm/sec
Miscellaneous 0.032 gm/sec
National mobile source emissions (E») 0
-------
TABLE 10-39. p-CRESOL EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE RESULTING FROM AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
DOSAGE
PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTION
PERCENTAGE OF DISTRIBUTION
EJITU UE.VE.L.
(UOX(M)3)
..5
O39614.U
O43949.7
UMATING
O.
e.
e.
e.
0.
0.
0.
STATIONARY
100. 0
tee.e
lee.e
lee.e
100.0
10O.O
100.0
MOD ILL;
o.
e.
e.
e.
0.
0.
o.
CITY TYPE 1
100.0
lee.e
lee.e
98.0
95.3
92. a
9.1.9
CITY TYPE 2
0.
e.
e.
.4
2.2
2.9
2.9
CITY TYPE 3
0.
e.
e.
1.6
2.5
4.0
5.2
o
i
Ul
Id
-------
TABLE 10-40. EXPOSURE AND DOSAGE SUMMARY OF p-CRESOL
Concentration specific
Level
(im/m3)
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.025
0.01
0.005
0.0025
0.001
0
Point
Source
227
1.116
5.358
16.508
40,620
170,926
419,077
891 ,820
1,795,513
3,029,719
5.029,719
10,304,456
14,974,476
Population Exposed
(persons)
General
Point
Source
2,000
26,000
237,000
807,000
1,970,000
6,280,000
—
—
—
—
—
--
—
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
505,140
505,140
19,790,740
44,443,179
111,931,566
151,902,934
158,679,135
U.S. Total
2,227
27,116
242,358
223,508
2,010,620
6,450,926
--
--
--
—
--
--
—
Specific
Point
Source
1,460
4,450
10.500
18,500
26,700
46,300
63.100
79.500
93,900
102,000
109,000
118,000
121,000
Dosage
[(Mi/m3) -persons!
General
Point
Source
12,000
87.000
394,000
782,000
1,180,000
1,830,000
2,480,000
3,180.000
4,260,000
—
—
~
8,230,000
Area Source
0
0
0
0
0
0
35,931
35.931
366,437
533,543
766,691
839,614
843,950
U.S. Total
13,460
91 ,450
404,500
800,500
1,206,700
1,876,300
--
—
—
--
—
—
9,185,000
o
I
NOTE: The use of — as an entry Indicates that the Incremental E/D 1s not significant
(relative to last entry or relative to entry 1n another column at the same row)
or that the exposure of the same population may be counted In another column.
-------
10-61
REFERENCES
1. "Cresols and Cresylic Acid," p. 637.5030A—K, Chemical Economics Handbook,
Stanford Research Institute, Henlo Park, CA (Kay 1979).
2. Kirk-Othmer, Volume 6, 2d ed., pp. 440—442.
3. J. Gosdar, "Air Pollution Assessment of Cresols," Mitre Corp., Report No. MTR-7227,
June 1976.
4. "Chemical Products Synopsis on Cresols and Cresylic Acids," Mannsville Chemical
Products. Mannsville. New York, August 1977.
5. The 1978 Directory of Chemical Producers, United States, Stanford Research
Institute, Menlo Park, CA.
6. "Coke-Oven Plants in the United States," Coal and Coke Products, Chemical Economics
Handbook, p. 212.2000A, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (October 1978).
7. New Jersey State Air Files, Continental Oil Co., Newark, NJ, March 31, 1977.
8. Special Project Report "Petrochemical Plant Sites" prepared for Industrial
Pollution Control Division, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, by Monsanto Research
Corporation, Dayton, Ohio. April 1976.
9. "Phenolic Resins," p. 580.0933, Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford Research
Institute, Menlo Park, CA (May 1978).
10. Source Assessment, Pesticide Manufacturing Air Emissions Overview and Priori-
tization, Environmental Protection Agency Technology Series, EPA 600/2-78-0049,
March 1978.
11. U.S. Bureau of Census, Standard Industrial Code 2851, Paints and Allied Products,
1972.
12. "Industrial Explosives," p. 530.2000B. Chemical Economics Handbook. Stanford
Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (May 1976).
-------
|