HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Air Exposure and Preliminary Risk Appraisal
for 35 U.S. Counties
APPENDICES
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Policy Analysis
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Prepared by:
Versar Inc.
6850 Versar Center
Springfield, Virginia 22151
and
American Management Systems
1777 N. Kent Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Contract #68-01-6715
September, 1984
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A - A Description of the Hazardous Emissions Model and
Integrated System (HEMIS)
Appendix B - Carcinogenic Risk Factors
Appendix C - Description of the National Emission Data System (NEDS)
Appendix D - Pollution Selection and Point Source Background Data
i
Appendix E - Area Source Emission Factor Documentation
Appendix F - Non Traditional Sources
F-l Waste 011
F-2 Publicly Owned Treatment Works
F-3 Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities and Superfund
Sites
Appendix G - Phase II Point Source Emissions Data
Appendix H-- Procedures for the Selection of Stack Parameters
Appendix I-- Annual Incidence of Center for Coke Oven Plants
Appendix J - Raw Outputs from HEMIS
-------
APPENDIX A
A Description of the Hazardous Emission Model
and Integrated System
-------
A Brief Description of The Hazardous Emission Model
and Integrated System (HEMIS).
The Computer System Developed for the Study
The system designed and Implemented for the air toxics study 1s
called "HEMIS" the Hazardous Emissions Model and Integrated System.
The purpose of this section Is to provide a brief overview of the main
functions, design and operations of HEMIS.
1. Main Functions
In summary, HEMIS fulfilled the following functions:
Used algorithms to estimate air toxic emissions for nearly 300,000
point sources and a variety of area sources 1n the 3,000+ U.S.
counties.
Ranked the 3,000 counties on the basis of various emissions-based
and surrogate risk Indices, to assist 1n selecting the 35 counties
for analysis.
Produced tap files for Input to the exposure models used 1n the
study.
Integrated the results of the exposure modelling with emissions
and potency data.
2. Design
HEMIS was designed and Implemented on the IBM-3081 at EPA's
National Computer Center (NCC). Exhibit 2-1 Illustrates the structure of
HEMIS. As shown, the system has several categories of modules: (1)
emissions estimation modules; (2) exposure and risk calculation modules;
and (3) analysis and report-writing modules, to print out data and
produce tabular and graphical outputs. The three modules share a common
data base using Statistical Analysis System (SAS), a software package
maintained and supported at NCC.
-------
POINT-SOURCE
APPORTIONMENT
FACTORS
POINT-SOURCE
APPORTIONMENT
MODULE
Ba^->
OTHER SOURCE
APPORTIONMENT
FACTORS
AREA-SOURCE
APPORTIONMENT
MODULE
VOLATILIZATION
MODULE
HEMIS
POINT-SOURCE
FILES /
;\
EXPOSURE AND
RISK MODU "
HEMIS
AREA- SOURCE
FILES
1 HEMIS
VOLATILIZATION)
FILES
=!==
:OLOGY
MHU CENSUS
DATA
EXPOSURE
PROXY
MODULE
UNIT
RISK
SCORES
I
ANALYSIS AND
REPORT- WRITING
(HEMIS >
RISK
ESTIMATES
(.30QQ county/35 county);
EXPOSURE
MODELLING
MODULE
_J
)
MODULES
£
COUNTY
SELECTION I
HEMIS
REPORT
MODULE
Overview of HEMIS
-------
3. Operations
HEMIS performed the following operations:
The system used the emission and apportionment factors developed
for the study to estimate pollutant loadings for both point and
area sources. The algorithms are described 1n Section 2.0 of the
accompanying report. As Its source data, HEMIS Incorporated data
files on point and area-source Including VOC emission rates,
operating rates, fuel and solvent consumptions, vehicle miles
travelled (VMT), and gasoline marketed. The source of most of
this data was the National Emissions Data System (NEDS) maintained
by EPA's National A1r Data Branch (NAOB). Applying the
apportionment factors to this baseline data, HEMIS created a data
base which 1n Its entirety, contains more than 366,000 records.
It applied methods developed for this study to estimate
volatilization of organlcs from sewage treatment plants, a source
not covered 1n NEDS. The volatilization model covered more than
100 plants and Incorporated data from more than 10,000 Indirect
dischargers. The volatilization file Itself contains 14,000
emissions estimates.
HEMIS Incorporated population and land-mass data from Oak Ridge
National Laboratory's Geoecology System and from U.S. Census
Bureau. Using population and density data and unit risk scores
described later 1n this study, 1t helped rank all 3000+ U.S.
counties with respect to population-weighted, density-weighted,
and potency-weighted risk, as well as aggregate air toxics
emissions. These rankings were useful 1n selecting 35 counties
for further study.
For the 35 counties, the system stored emissions data and stack
parameters for 2000 major facilities . For the major facilities,
HEMIS maintained the plant-by-plant and area source exposure
factors produced by the Gaussian dispersion/exposure model (GAMS).
For both the 3000+ counties and the 35 counties, the system was
used to calculate Incidences of cancer by multiplying the emission
of a pollutant times the risk score for that pollutant and the
exposure-proxy (3000+ counties) or exposure factor (35 counties)
for a area source, to estimate Incidences of cancer.
Finally, HEMIS produced Individuals printouts and charts for the
study.
-------
APPENDIX B
Carcinogenic Risk Factors
-------
APPENDIX 8
Carcinogenic Unit Risk Factors for Selected Pollutants
Pollutant
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic
Benzene
Benzo(a)Pyrene
Beryllium
1,3-Butadiene
Cadmium
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chromium (total)
Coke oven emissions
Ethyl ene Di bromide
Ethylene Di chloride
Formaldehyde
Gas Vapors
Nickel (total)
Pen tach 1 oropheno 1
Perch 1 oroethy 1 ene
Styrene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Unit Risk Factor
6.8 x 10"5
_3
4.3 x 10
6.9 x 10"6
3 3 x 10~3
4.0 x 10~*
4.6 x 10~?
2.3 x 10~3
1.5 x 10~5
1.0 X 10~5
1.2 x 10~2
-4
6.2 x 10
_4
5.1 x 10
_7
7.0 x 10
_7
6.1 x 10
_7
7.5 x 10
3 3 x lO"4
3.9 x 10~?
2.9 x lO"6
2.9 x 10~7
4.1 x ID"6
2.6 x ID"6
Source
Clement
CAG
CAG
CAG
CAG
Clement
CAG
CAG
CAG
CAG
CAG
CAG
CAG
CAG
' CAG
CAG
Clement
CAG
Clement
CAG
CAG
Associates
Associates
Associates
Associates
-------
APPENDIX C
Description of the National Emissions Data System (NEDS)
-------
EPA-450/4-80-013
NEDS
National Emissions Data System
Information
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
National Air Data Branch
U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air. Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. Nonh Carolina 27711
July 1980
-------
OVERVIEW OF
THE NATIONAL EMISSIONS OATA SYSTEM
GENERAL PESrRIPTION
The National Emissions Pata System (NEOS) 1s a computerized data-
hand! 1ng system that accepts, stores, and reports on the latest available
Information relating to sources of air pollutant emissions of oartlculates,
snx» N0x* f"°* and hydrocarbons. In NEPS, sources are treated either as
point sources or area sources. As defined 1n EPA reporting regulations,
point sources are stationary sources that emit more than inn tons ner year
of any of the five pollutants covered 1n HEPS. A point source 1s con-
sidered to be an Individual facility or company location. Sane point
source facilities emitting less than inn tons oer year are also Included
1n NEDS at the option of the state agencies which submit the point source
data. Area sources are all other stationary sources that Individually
emit less than 100 tons/year and all mobile sources. In NEDS, emissions
from area sources are considered collectively on a county Kas1s.
All source-related data are entered Into NEPS via snec1f1cally
formatted point and area source coding forms (Figure 1 and Flaure 2) and
are stored 1n-separate point and area source files. Pata stored for nolnt
and area sources are described below.
POINT SOURCE OATA
The point source data are collected by State and local air pollution
control agencies utilizing State nuestlonnalres and plant visits. These
data are coded onto the oolnt source form (or produced 1n the same format
by computer programs) and submitted for Inclusion 1n NFPS through the
EPA Regional Offices. The States are required to update the data as new
sources are constructed, and when existing sources are modified or cease
operation. The regulation prescribing reporting o* point source data 1s
40CFR 51.321.
-------
The current NEDS point source file reflects the latest data re-
H by State agencies. Since annual reporting Is not required for
P nurces, all point sources in NEDS do not have a common year of
r(j it is assumed that no significant changes have occurred for
se sources whose reported year of record is older than the current
year.
Data reported for point sources in NEDS may be categorized accord-
ing to the following groups:
^anoral source information - name, address, type(s) of source(s),
Standard Industrial Classification, year of record, and comments.
^missions data - operating or production rates and capacities, estimated
emissions, estimation method, and type and efficiency of control device
for each pollutant.
Modeling parameters - UTM coordinates of source, stack height and
diameter, exhaust gas temperature, and gas flow rate.
Compliance information - allowable emissions, compliance status, and
compliance schedules.
NEDS point source data are organized into three hierarchial levels.
1. Plant level data apply to an entire facility defined as a point
source.
2. Point level data apply to .individual emission points within a plant.
A plant may contain any number of emission points. A point is that
portion of a facility that may be considered individually for emission
purposes. A point may contain one or more processes or pieces of
equipment that are related in contributing to the emissions from the
point. In most cases, a point emits pollutants through a single con-
fined location such as a stack, but it may emit pollutants at more
than one location or at no clearly defined location within a plant.
3. Process level data apply to individual processes within a point
and are utilized to calculate emissions. Each process is defined
by a Source Classification Code (SCC). In general, for each SCC there
are emission factors, which relate the quantity of pollutants gener-
ated by a process to annual process operating rate. These emission
-------
uliilu
NATIONAL (MISSIONS DATA SYSTEM (NEOSI
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR PROGRAMS
POINT SOURCE
InpMI Foim
Cn» |*Q"«| f
I I II l"l
N*mt of Pciion
Compliling t wm_
FORHArTROVEO
owe NO i
O«u
i Njnu ind AfMiru
Ill 111 U
UTMCOOnOINATCS
Hotuoniil I Vtincal
km I km
SIACK DAIA
I I I Kimr Hi.gni
Hi.gM nil iDiunlllll Imp l"l 11 Flo* Hill Ih^/m.nl II no link li
p.,-,1 Iji
10 I I > g
_L
Boil* O»«n
r-ll'
CONTROL fOIMPMENT
.l §1 |P..m>,| |S |P,.n«.v| J° |P..m..,| o" |r.,n.
SOj I J NO. J! HC I * I C
ESTIMATED LONTROl EFFICIENCY 1%)
'i SO] I NO. I HC I CO
LuiDlDLiliDBHEnEEfflfaEEEinEDEIJO
i % ANNUAL THRUPUT
I'S.lMr.
iiliiiolii
I I I I I I I I I
11II1III1II11I11I11111111111I11 I IM»I
OPERATING
llM
II
P*VI«iili
5M
Tl
EMISSION ESTIMATES IIOKI.vlvl
SOj I NO. I MC
»|llll2lll|llIS|U||||«II1|*|SI «|H|S«|SS|!
I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I T I I
CO
m
IT
I ESTIMATIO
I METHOD
Ul£°i
ill
I
Mill
>K I Pwncullll
|
ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS llonif»«'l
SO, I NO. MC
INCOMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE
S, SCHEDUI i I STATUS
a I IIPIIATE
.0 I "" I M° | Vt«- I Mo |
CONTROL REGULATIONS
,. I
R«t J
ill
mnjmEQEDEtDQHnLllLIlLDQnntinnnECEEnEEniu
| M 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I M I I I I | I I I M M I M M I M M M M I I I M M I I M I I M I I'lH
Point
ID
II
IS
o
li
I
n
!l
u
u
,
ii
u
n
n
»
2C
sec
III
II
n
II
sec
III
;|
--
;]
21
IV
21
75
IV
21
n
-
Annjll
Full Piumt
Sol* Wtllf
Opr'tting Rait
2i
II
II
n
n
H
12
HOlKl*
R
-
SI
SI
5!
SI
1
T
u
iO
tl
u
il
II
u
il
H
il
-
H
iS
K
U
-
il
il
il
il
-
H
n
-
10
10
|
n
ii
V
3
12
72
-
II
11
-
71
71
IS
IS
71
n
n
n
|
71
S
y
H
n
n
p
p
p
*
cd
c<
10
>
*
1
1
Flqure 1. Point source form
-------
rs are used to compute emissions. Multiple processes and multiple SCC's
be grouped under one emission point, as in the case of boilers using two
fuels or two separate processes sharing the same stack.
The point source file provides for the use of alternative methods for
termining the emissions being reported. Emissions are usually calculated
r each SCC using the emission factors in the SCC emission factor file; how-
ver, by use of an appropriate code on the input form and completion of fields
for recording hand-calculated emission estimates, the emission-factor-computed
emissions may be replaced by any more accurate estimates of emissions available.
If no emission factors are available for an SCC, an alternative method is
used to estimate emissions for these records.
The point source data are routinely submitted by States to the Regional
Offices and by the Regional Offices to the National Air Data Branch. These
data are updated on a regular update schedule and are then available for
generation of publications or computerized reports.
AREA SOURCE DATA
Area source data are developed mainly by NADB, but may be supplemented by
data voluntarily submitted by State agencies. NEDS area source data are grouped
as follows:
General source information - name and location of area (county) source, year
of record.
Activity levels - countywide activity level of each area source category,
(e.g., tons of coal burned in all domestic space heating equipment in a
county).
Emissions data - emissions estimates for the entire county for each pollutant
as well as for each source category for each pollutant.
Activity levels are derived primarily from related information published
by other Federal agencies, supplemented by special data developed by EPA for
the purpose of developing NEDS area source inventories. Published data such
as fuel use by State, motor vehicle miles of travel by State and county,
and forest fire acres burned by State are used with related data such as
emoloyment, population, and miscellaneous geographic or economic data
available on a county-by-county basis to derive annual estimates of the
activity levels for each of the NEDS area source categories. The activity
-------
levels derived are adjusted to account for point source activity (such
as fuel use by point sources) so that the area source data reflect only
the activity levels (and resulting calculated emissions) that are not
accounted for by point sources.
The area source emission estimates are calculated for each source
category utilizing emission factors which are contained in the NEDS area
source emission factor file. For many categories, the same emission
factors are used for all counties; however, for some source categories,
State or county specific emission factors account for local variables
that af-"ect emissions. These more specific emission factors are used
in NEDS calculations for all highway motor vehicle categories, fugitive
dust catego'ies, and for selected other categories in a few counties
where data ar--1 available to develop more applicable emission factors
than the national emission factors. Provision is also made, as an option,
to override computer-calculated emissions for any source category for
any county, by hanc calculated emissions that may be more accurate
than any simple emis?ion-factor calculation.
The area source d.ta are updated on an annual basis by the National
Air Data Branch. All area source data in the file at any given time
therefore reflect a common year of record.
-------
APPENDIX D
Pollutant Selection and
Point Source Background Data
T
-------
This Appendix contains the pollutant recommendations and point source
emissions background data for Phase I of the A1r Toxics Study. The
recommended pollutants were selected from the Table of Pollutants
proposed by the IEHD-OAQPS staff (see Attachment 1). The point source
emissions background data Includes the facility names, locations, and
capacity levels for the major point sources emitting the recommended
pollutants; however, this was only Included when readily available.
This Appendix contains Information only on point sources and
pollutant recommendations. The references used 1n pollutant selection
are presented 1n Attachment 2, and a summary of the recommended
pollutants 1s presented 1n Attachment 3.
This Appendix 1s organized by the pollutants listed 1n Attachment 1.
Information on each of these toxic pollutants 1s presented below:
1.3-8utad1ene: Recommendation - Include
1,3-Butad1ene 1s used mostly to produce synthetic rubber. This
chemical 1s Included 1n the Organic Species Handbook and the AMS data
tape. However, supplemental work will be done for the manufacturing
facilities based on Versar (1984). The 1,3-butad1ene manufacturing
facilities and their annual capacities are listed In Attachment 4.
Total Chromium: Recommendation - Include
Total chromium emissions from point sources can be characterized as
being emitted from direct sources or from Inadvertent sources. Direct
sources Include chromlte ore refining, ferrochromlum production,
refractory manufacture, chromium chemicals manufacture, chromium plating,
steel production, electric furnaces, basic oxygen furnaces, open hearth
furnaces, and leather tanning.
Indirect sources of chromium are generated from coal and oil
combustion, cement production, municipal refuse and sewage sludge
Incineration, cooling towers, and asbestos mining and milling.
-------
nioctvlphthalate (DEHP); Recommendation - Include
OEHP 1s mostly used as a plastldzer 1n Polyvlnyl Chloride (PVC)
resins. Manufacturing emissions are comparatively Insignificant compared
to DEHP emissions from PVC production and processing (approximately 20
Ickg compared to 1120 kkg) (Versar 1982). Therefore, emphasis will be
placed on DEHP emissions from PVC operations. Attachment 5 presents the
U.S. PVC producers and their 1980 capacities.
4.t4-Methy1ened1an1l1ne (HDA): Recommendation - Exclude
Nearly all HOA manufactured 1n this country 1s used captlvely to
produce methylene phynyl d11socyanate (MDI) polymer which 1s then used to
produce polyurethane foams (MATHTECH Inc. 1982). It 1s recommended that
MDA be excluded from this study because MDA air emissions are
negligible. It has been reported there are no air emissions from
manufacturing (ESE 1981). In addition, since most of the MDA produced Is
captlvely converted to MOI polymer on-s1te, any other possible air
emissions of MDA should be Insignificant.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP): Recommendation - Include
PCP 1s used as a fungicide In wood preservatives and cooling
towers. Atmospheric releases of PCP have been estimated to be 50 kkg
from production, 344 kkg from preserved wood, and 228 kkg from cooling
towers (USEPA 1980a). Emissions factors could only be readily developed
for production. Consequently, PCP was excluded from Phase I, but It was
Included 1n Phase II, when area source emissions (I.e., from cooling
towers and preserved wood) could be added to the analyses.
1.2-Toluene dllsocyanate (TDI); Recommendation - Exclude
TOI Is used to make polyurethane foams. Mostly because of Its low
vapor pressure, manufacturing air emissions are assumed to be
negligible. Furthermore, air emissions of TDI at polyurethane
manufacturing plants were found to be Insignificant (1.8 x 10"8 Ib
TDI/lb of product) (Smith and LaShelle 1974). Therefore, 1t 1s suggested
that TDI not be considered 1n this study.
-------
rthylene 01 bromide (EDB): Recommendation - Include
i
EDB 1s used In leaded gasoline and In numerous pesticide
formulations (USEPA 1981b). No emission factors could be found for EDB
manufacturing and for pesticide applications. However, emission factors
are available for the use of EDB 1n leaded gasoline. Therefore, EDB
emission estimates will only Include releases from the combustion of
leaded gasoline In automobiles.
Fthvlbenzene: Recommendation - Include
Ethylbenzene 1s used to manufacture styrene and other miscellaneous
organic chemicals. During the quick literature search that was
performed, no emission factors were located. However, this pollutant 1s
covered 1n the Organic Species Handbook, and 1t 1s listed 1n the current
AMS data tape. If any additional Information can be readily found,
supplemental data will be added.
Stvrene: Recommendation - Include
Styrene 1s used exclusively for the manufacture of plastics
(K1rk-0thmer 1983). No emission factors were found; however, this
pollutant 1s Included 1n the current AMS data tape. If additional
Information can be quickly located, 1t will be added to these data.
D1ox1n: Recommendation - Exclude
Dloxln 1s most commonly produced and emitted during combustion
processes. The formation of dloxln depends on numerous factors, e.g.,
wastefeed or fuel components, combustion temperature, and residence
time. No emissions factors were found during the literature search.
Consequently, unless some readily available data can be found, the
emissions of dloxln cannot be determined.
-------
Emissions: Recommendalon - Include
The evaluation of coke oven emissions Is very complex. However,
metallurgical coke manufacturing 1s Included 1n the Organic Species
Handbook and thus 1t can be Included 1n this study. Because of the
difficulty In characterizing coke oven emissions and since the locations
and coke throughputs of the 53 coke oven plants are not known, no
supplemental work will be performed.
Nickel: Recommendation - Include
Nickel 1s mostly used 1n metal alloys, electroplating operations,
and batteries. However, nearly 89 percent of all atmospheric emissions
of nickel are from the combustion of fossil fuels; alloys manufacturing
only accounts for 5 percent of the total nickel air emissions (USEPA
1981d). Therefore, to characterize atmospheric nickel emissions,
emphasis will be placed on utilities and area sources that Involve the
combustion of fossil fuels.
Formaldehyde: Recommendation - Include
Formaldehyde 1s a high volume chemical that 1s released from
numerous point and area sources. The NEDS data base and the Organic
Species Handbook will be used exclusively to characterize the point
source emissions of formaldehyde since nearly 400 SCC (Industrial
process) codes were Identified 1n the AMS data system as formaldehyde
emitters. Area source considerations will be discussed 1n another memo.
Ethvlene dlchloMde (EDO: Recommendation - Include
Most EDC 1s used as an Intermediate 1n the production of other
chemicals, although 1t 1s also used 1n paints, gasoline, and pesticides
(GCA 1982c). This pollutant Is covered 1n the Organic Species Handbook
and according to the AMS data tape. It 1s emitted from 45 SCC codes.
This should be sufficient for point sources, although 1f time and money
permit, some supplemental work may be performed. To aid In the county
selection process, a 11st of the EOC manufacturers 1n presented 1n
Attachment 6.
-------
Recommendation - Include
The major end use of acrylonltrlle 1s 1n the production of acrylic
fibers; 1t 1s also used 1n the production of plastics (Radian Corp.
1982). This chemical 1s well covered 1n the AMS data tape, and 1t 1s
doubtful that any additional work will be required for point source
emissions. A 11st of the acrylonltrlle manufacturers 1s presented In
Attachment 7.
rarbon Tetrachlorlde; Recommendation - Include
Carbon tetrachlorlde Is primarily used to manufacture f luorocarbons
(6CA 1982a). Attachment 8 1s a 11st of facilities that manufacture
carbon tetrachlorlde. Emissions from manufacturing will be
characterized; however, emissions from fluorocarbon production may not be
characterized because of the lack of site-specific capacity data.
Chloroform: Recommendation - Include
Chloroform 1s most commonly used to manufacture fluorocarbon
refrigerants and resin Intermediates (GCA 1982b). Emissions from
manufacturing will be estimated; however, 1t 1s expected that emissions
from processing will not be determined because of the lack of
site-specific capacity data.
Cadmium: Recommendation - Include
Cadmium 1s mostly used for electroplating, although 1t 1s also used
1n batteries, plastic stabilizers, and pigments. The major sources of
atmospheric cadmium emissions are from fossil fuel combustion (68
percent), primary nonferrous smelters (24 percent), and municipal refuse
Incineration (4 percent) (GCA 1981). The point sources that will be
considered 1n this study are the major utilities, primary lead smelters,
and primary copper smelters. The facility names and locations of the
lead and copper smelters are presented 1n Attachments 9 and 10,
respectively.
-------
Recommendation - Include
Of the total U.S. supply of perchloroethylene, 68 percent 1s used
for drycleanlng and textile processing, 17 percent 1s used for metal
degreaslng, 12 percent 1s used for the production of f luorocarbons, and
the remainder 1s used 1n various miscellaneous applications. Atmospheric
releases of perchloroethylene from these uses accounts for 98 percent of
the total air emissions; only two percent of this total 1s released from
perchloroethylene production facilities (USEPA 1980b). Consequently,
much of the emphasis will be placed on area sources. However, since
perchloroethylene 1s Included 1n the Organic Species Handbook and the AHS
data tape, point source emissions can still be calculated using the
automated AMS system.
Trlchloroethylene (TCE); Recommendation - Include
TCE 1s a ubiquitous chemical 1n the environment and 1s widely used
as a solvent. Mostly because of Us widely scattered solvent use, TCE 1s
emitted 1n relatively small quantities from a small number of point
sources. For example, TCE manufacturing accounts for less than 0.5
percent of all TCE atmospheric emissions (USEPA 1981e). Therefore, since
TCE 1s covered 1n the Organic Species Handbook, the point source
emissions from this chemical will be estimated using the AMS data tape.
Asbestos: Recommendation - Exclude
Asbestos 1s a group of minerals characterized by silicate chemistry
and fibrous morphology. The major uses for asbestos Include
asbestos-cement pipe, paper products, friction materials, floor
coverings, packings and gaskets, coatings, asbestos-cement sheet,
textiles and asbestos reinforced plastics (Versar 1983).
There are several reasons for not recommending that asbestos be
Included 1n this study:
There are hundreds of processing facilities; the locations and
capacities for most of these facilities are unknown.
-------
Emissions are not known for many types of operations.
Capacity data are known only for ore mining operation.
» There are different grades and fiber lengths of asbestos which
further Increases the difficulty 1n estimating emissions.
To even very roughly estimate emissions from less than 10 percent
of the sources would require a disproportionately large amount of
the available funds.
Beryllium: Recommendation - Include
Beryllium Is primarily used 1n nuclear and aerospace applications
(USEPA 1973). Currently, no useful data have been reviewed for
Beryllium; however, 1t 1s known that a material balance and a source
assessment document were prepared for this chemical. It 1s therefore
tentatively Included on the recommended pollutant 11st pending the
development of emissions factors from these documents.
Rad1onuc11des: Recommendation - Exclude
Radlonuclldes Include radioactive substances such as tritium
argon-41, krypton-85, and antlmony-125 (USEPA 1983). It 1s recommended
that radlonuclldes not be Included In this study for the following four
reasons:
e There are too many facilities, with unknown locations, that are
releasing radlonuclldes.
There are too many small sources and background emissions of
radlonuclldes.
0 The methodology of characterizing this source 1s different from
all other pollutants.
It would be very resource-Intensive to estimate radlonucllde
emissions.
Arsenic; Recommendation - Include
Arsenic 1s used 1n pesticides, wood preservatives, alloys, and
during the manufacture of glass. However, most releases occur from
-------
inadvertent sources such as fossil fuel combustion and copper, lead, and
zinc production. There Is only one arsenic production facility 1n the
U.S.: the ARSARCO smelter 1n Tacoma, WA (USEPA 1981a). As many of the
point sources as possible will be characterized, Including the production
facility, utilities, and copper production facilities (see Attachment 10).
Benzene: Recommendation - Include
The major use for benzene 1s as a chemical feedstock. It 1s
released from a large number of sources throughout the country (USEPA
1981c). The point sources are very well covered 1n NEDS and the Organic
Species Handbook; the current AMS data base reports that benzene 1s
released from approximately 450 SCC codes. Consequently, this data base
will be used exclusively to estimate benzene emissions from point sources.
V1nvl Chloride: Recommendation - Include
Vinyl chloride 1s used to make polyvlnyl chloride and ethylene
dlchlorlde. This chemical 1s well covered In NEDS and the Organic
Species Handbook. Therefore, the AMS data base, which Is based on NEDS
and the Organic Species Handbook, will be used exclusively to
characterize vinyl chloride emissions.
Benzo(a)pyrene (BAP): Recommendation - Include
Benzo(a)pyrene 1s an unwanted chemical that 1s Inadvertently
produced during numerous combustion processes. According to USEPA
(1982), over 97 percent of all BAP emissions are from area sources.
Furthermore, emissions from all point sources are less than 4 kkg/yr.
Therefore, this pollutant will be handled only as an area source.
Benzo(a)anthracene: Recommendation - Include
Benzo(a)anthracene 1s Inadvertently produced during many combustion
processes. It 1s released entirely from area sources (USEPA 1982).
-------
Attachment 1 ORAFT 1/6/84
POLLl'T^NTP FO9 RPT.IONM AIR TOXICS A'-JM.YSI S
Pollutants fron OAOPS List of 50 (Potential Carcinogens)
1,3-Butadiene
Chromium (VI)
Dioctylpthalate (DEHP)
4,4-Methylenedianiline (MDA)
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
1,2-Toluene diisocyanate (TDI)
Ethylene dibromide (EDB)
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Pollutants from List of 37 (Potential Carcinogens)
Dioxin
Coke Oven Emissions
Nickel
Formaldehyde
Ethylene dichlnride
Acrylonitrile
Carbon tetracholride
Chloroform
Cadmium
Perchloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
NESHAPS Either Proposed or Regulated
Asbestos
Beryllium
Radionuclides
Arsenic
Benzene
Vinyl Chloride
Potential Carcinogens Excluded from OAOPS Lists
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
-------
Attachment 2
References Examined for Pollutant Selection
ESE. 1981. Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. Environmental
assessment for 4,4'-methylened1an111ne (HDA). Test rule support
documents: Chapters I, II, IV, V. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA Contract No. 68-01-6153.
Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 1979. Sources of atmospheric
cadmium. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA-450/5-79-006.
Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 1978. Preliminary assessment of
the sources, control, and population exposure to airborne polycycllc
organic matter (POM) as Indicated by benzo(a)pyrene (BaP). Final
Report. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
6CA. 1981. Survey of cadmium emission sources. Research Triangle Park,
NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-450/3-81-013.
GCA. 1982. Chloroform materials balance. Draft report. Washington,
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
GCA. 1982. Locating and estimating air emissions from sources of
formaldehyde. Draft final report. Reserach Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
GCA. 1982. Locating and estimating air emissions from sources of
chloroform. Draft final report. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
GCA. 1982. Locating and estimating air emissions from sources of carbon
tetrachlorlde. Draft final report. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
GCA. 1982. Locating and estimating air emissions from sources of
ethylene dlchlorlde. Draft final report. Research Triangle Park, NC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
GCA. 1983. Preliminary study of sources of carbon tetrachlorlde. Final
report. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
-------
Attachment 2 (continued)
JRB Associates. 1982. Materials balance formaldehyde. Revised draft
report. Washington. DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Klrk-Othmer. 1983. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Third
edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
MATHTECH Inc. 1982. Level I economic evaluation of
4,4l-methylened1an1l1ne (MOA). Washington. DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-01-5864.
Radian Corp. 1982. Locating and estimating a1r*em1ss1ons from sources
of acryion1tr1le. Draft final report. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Radian Corp. 1982. Preliminary study of sources of Inorganic arsenic.
Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA-450/45-82-005.
Radian Corp. 1983. Estimates of population exposure to ambient chromium
emissions. Final report. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Reseach Triangle Institute. 1981. Review of national emissions standard
for asbestos. Draft. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Smith and LaShelle. 1974. Characterization of atmospheric emissions from
polyurethane resin manufacture. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. PB 237 420.
TRC Environmental Consultants. 1982. A critical review of EPA's
background Information document for NESHAP on coke oven charging, door
leaks, and topside leaks for wet-coal charged batteries. Final report.
East Hartford, CT: American Iron and Steel Institute.
Tlerney OR, U1lk1ns GE. 1979. Status Assessment of toxic chemicals:
acrylonltrlle. Cincinnati, OH. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA-600/2-79-210a.
r
USEPA. 1973. Control techniques for beryllium air pollutants. Research
Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1976. Investigation of selected potential environmental
contaminants: formaldehyde. Washington, UC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA-560/2-72-009.
-------
Attachment 2 (continued)
USEPA. 1980. An exposure and risk assessment for pentachlorophenol.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Contract No.
68-01-3857.
USEPA. 1980. An exposure and risk assessment for tetrachloroethylene.
Final draft report. Washington, OC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
USEPA. 1980. An exposure and risk assessment for phthalate esters.
Final draft report. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
USEPA. 1981. An exposure and risk assessment for arsenic. Final draft
report. Washington, OC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1981. An exposure and risk assessment for nickel. Final draft
report. Washington, OC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1981. An exposure and risk assessment for trlchloroethylene.
Final draft report. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
USEPA. 1981. An exposure and risk assessment for benzene. Final draft
report. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1981. An exposure and risk assessment for dlchloroethanes.
Final draft report. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
USEPA. 1981. Ethylene dlbromlde: position document 2/3. Washington,
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. PB81-157851.
USEPA. 1982. An exposure assessment for benzo(a)pyrene and other
polycycllc aromatic hydrocarbons. Final draft report. Washington, OC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1983. Background Information document proposed standards for
radlonuclldes. Washington, OC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA S20/1-83-001.
USEPA. 1983. Coke oven emissions by-product coke oven charging, door
leaks, and topside leaks on wet coal charged batteries - background for
proposed standards. Draft. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
Attachment 2 (continued)
USEPA. 1983. Vinyl chloride - background Information for proposed
revision of standards. Preliminary draft. Research Triangle Park. NC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Versar. 1982. Exposure assessment for d1(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
(DCHP). Interim draft report. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Versar. 1983. Exposure assessment for asbestos. Draft final report.
Washington, OC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Versar. 1984. Exposure assessment for 1,3-8utad1ene. Unpublished.
Washington, OC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Versar. 1983. Emissions factors handbook version II. Draft.
Washington, OC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
Attachment 3
Summary of Recommended Pollutants
Pollutants from OAQPS List of 50 (Potential Carcinogens)
1,3-Butadiene
Dioctylpthalate (DEHP)
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Chromium (total)
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Ethylene Oibromide (EDS)
Pollutants from List of 37 (Potential Carcinogens)
Coke Oven Emissions
Nickel
Formaldehyde
Ethylene dichloride
Acrylonitrile
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Cadmium
Perch1oroethy1ene
Trichloroethylene
NESHAPS Either Proposed or Regulated
Beryllium
Arsenic
Benzene
Vinyl Chloride
Potential Carcinogens Excluded from OAQPS Lists
Benzo(a)pyrene
-------
Attachment 4
1.3-Butadiene Manufacturers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Facility
Petrotex (Tenneco)
Union Carbide
Exxon Chemical
Mobil Oil Corp.
Texaco Butadiene Co.
Dow Chemical
El Paso Products
Corpus Christi
Petro Chemicals
ARCO Chemicals
Conoco (Dupont)
Standard Oi 1 (Amoco)
Shell Chemical Co.
Capacities
Location (103 kkg)
Houston, TX
Seadrift, TX
Texas City. TX
Baton Rouge, LA
Bay town, TX
Beaumont, TX
Port Neches, TX
Freeport, TX
Corpus Christi , TX
Corpus Christi , TX
Channel view, TX
Alvin, TX
Alvin, TX
Deer Park, TX
Nor co, LA
272
15
25
141
109
27
227
39
91
91
204
66
82
227
227
County
Harris
Calhoun
Calves ton
East Baton Rouge
Harris
Jefferson
Jefferson
Brazoria
Nueces
Nueces
Harris
Brazoria
Brazoria
Harris
St. Charles
Source: Versar 1984.
-------
Attachment 5. U.S. PVC Producers and Their 1980 Capacities
Company
Plant location
Annual capacity
(x 103 kkg)
Air Products and Chems., Inc.
Plastics Civ.
Calwert City, KY
Pensacola, FL
100
91
Borden Inc.
Borden Chem. Oiv.
Thermoplastic Products
CertainTeed Corp.
Conoco Inc.
Conoco Chems. Co. Div.
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
Indus. Chems. & Plastics Unit
Plastics Div
Ethyl Corp.
Chems. Group
The Gen. Tire & Rubber Co.
Chemicals/Plastics/
Industrial Products Oiv.
GTR Chem. Co.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Chem. Oiv.
The BF Goodrich Co.
BF Goodrich Chem. Group
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Chem. Div.
Illiopolis, II
Leominster, MA
Lake Charles, LA
Aberdeen, MS
Oklahoma City, OK
Deer Park, TX
Delaware City, OE
Baton Rouge, LA
Ashtabula, OH
Point Pleasant, WV
Plaquemine, LA
Avon Lake, OH
Henry, IL
Long Beach, CA
Louisville, KY
Pedricktown. NJ
Plaquemine, LA
Niagara Falls, NY
154
84
86
152
98
213
54
82
57
27
318
136
91
68
170
68
86
32
-------
Attachment 5. (continued)
Company
Plant location
Annual capacity
(x 103 kkg)
Keysor Corp.
Occidental Petroleum Corp.
Hooker Chen Corp., subsid.
Plastics Group
Plastics Div.
Ruco Oiv.
Pantasote Inc.
Film/Compound Div.
Rico Chem. Corp.
SHINTECH Inc.
Stauffer Chem. Co.
Plastics Div.
Polymers Delaware City,
Delaware
Polymers Long Beach,
California
Talleyrand Chems., Inc.
Tenneco Inc.
Tenneco Chems., Inc.
Union Carbide Corp
Chems. and Plastics, Div.
Whittaker Corp.
Great American Chem.,
subsid.
Saugus, CA 23
Addis. LA 100
Perryville, MD 118
Pottstown, PA 109
Burlington, NO 86
Passaic, NO 25
Point Pleasant, WV 39
Guayanilla, PR 73
Freeport, TX 150
Delaware City, DE 127
Carson, CA 64
New Bedford, MA 35
Burlington, NO 73
Flemington, NO 48
Pasadena, TX 218
South Charleston, WV 23
Texas City, TX 57
Fitchburg, MS 34
TOTAL
3,569
Source: Versar 1982.
-------
Attachment 6
Production of Ethylene Dichloride
Manufacturer
Location
Annual
Capaci tya
(xlO3 kkg)
Atlantic Richfield Co.
ARCO Chem. Co., div.
Borden, Inc.
Borden Chem. Oiv.
Petrchems. Div.
Dow Chem. U.S.A.
E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc.
Conoco Inc., subsid.
Conoco Chems. Co. Oiv.
Ethyl Corp.
Chems. Group
Formosa Plastics Corp. U.S.A.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Chem. Div.
The BF Goodrich Co.
BF Goodrich Chem. Group
Convent Chem. Corp., subsid.
PPG Indust., Inc.
Indust. Chem. Oiv.
Shell Chem. Co.
Port Arthur, TX
Geismar, LA
Freeport, TX
Oyster Creek, TX
Plaquemine, LA
Lake Charles, LA
Baton Rouge, LA
Pasadena, TX
Baton Rouge, LA
Plaquemine, LA
Deer Park, TX
La Porte, TX
Calvert City, KY
Convent, LA
Lake Charles, LA
Deer Park, TX
Norco, LA
205
230
725
475
860
525
320
100
250
750
145
720
450
360
1,225
635
545
-------
Attachment 6 (continued)
Production of Ethylene Dichloride
Manufacturer
Location
Annual
Capacity3
(xlO3 kkg)
Itauffer Chem. Co.
Plastics Div.
Polymers, Long Beach, California
Union Carbide Corp.
Ethylene Oxide Derivatives Div.
Vulcan Materials Co.
Vulcan Chems., div.
Carson, CA
Taft, LA
Texas City, TX
Geismar, LA
155
70b
70b
160
TOTAL 8,975
aCapacities are flexible depending on finishing capacities for vinyl chloride
and chlorinated solvents.
^Captive use only.
Source: GCA 1982c.
-------
Attachment 7
Acrylonitrile Manufacturers
Company
American Cyanamid Co
Ou Pont Co.
Ou Pont Co.
Monsanto Co.
Monsanto Co.
Vistron Corp.
TOTALS
Location
New Orleans, LA
Beaumont, TX
Memphis, TN
Alvin, TX
Texas City, TX
Lima. OH
Capacity
(kkg/yr)
91,000
160,000
130,000
200,000
190,000
91.000
862.000
Source: Tier-ray and Uilkens 1979.
-------
Attachment 8
Carbon Tetrachloride Production Facilities
Company
Location
Carbon
tetrachloride
capacity
(xlO3 Ickg)
Oow Chemical Co.
E.I. duPont de Nemours
and Co.
Linden Chemicals and
Plastics, Inc.
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Vulcan Materials Co.
Diamond Shamrock Corp
Freeport. TX
Pittsburg, CA
Plaquemine, LA
Corpus Christi, TX
Moundsville, WV
Lemoyne, AL
Louisville, KY
Geismar, LA
Witchita, KS
Belle, WV
61
36
57
154
91
32
41
27
Source: GCA 1982a.
-------
Attachment 9
Locations of Primary Lead Smelters
Company Location
ANAX-Hcmestake Lead Tollers Boss. NO
ASARCO, Inc. East Helena. NT
ASARCO. Inc. Glover. HO
ASARCO, Inc. El Paso, TX
The Bunker Hill Co. Kellogg. ID
St. Joe Minerals Corp. Herculaneun, MO
Source: GCA 1981.
-------
Attachment 10
Locations of Primary Copper Smelters
Company
Location
ASARCO. Inc.
ASARCO, Inc.
ASARCO. Inc.
Cities Service Co.
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co.
Kennecott Copper Corp.
Kennecott Copper Corp.
Kennecott Copper Corp.
Kennecott Copper Corp.
Ragma Copper Co.
Pnelps Dodge Copper Corp.
Phelps Dodge Copper Corp.
Pnelps Dodge Copper Corp.
Phelps Dodge Copper Corp.
Copper Range Co.
El Paso. TX
Hayden. AZ
Tacona. UA
Cooper-hill, TN
Miami. AZ
Garfield, UT
Hayden, AZ
Hurley, iff
HcGill, NV
San Manuel, AZ
Ajo. AZ
Douglas, AZ
Hildago, NM
Norenci, AZ
White Pine. NX
Source: GCA 1982.
-------
APPENDIX E
Area Source Emission Factor Documentation
DRA
-------
HAPS Area Source Emission Factor Documentation
INTRODUCTION
County-wide area source emissions of the study pollutants were
estimated for the following sources:
Road Vehicles
Gasoline Marketing
Solvent usage (drycleanlng, degreaslng, surface coating, printing
and publishing, and misc.)
Heating (residential, commercial and Institutional, and Industrial)
Pentachlorophenol emissions (cooling towers, treated wood).
Area source emissions were based upon either (a) data provided 1n
NEDS, as listed 1n the Area Source Reports, or (b) national emissions
estimates factored down to the local level. The methods used to estimate
each of these sources are documented 1n the following discussion.
(1) Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
There are two major pentachlorophenol area sources - cooling towers
and preserved wood.
Cooling towers - PCPs are used 1n cooling water systems to Inhibit
growth of microorganisms. According to AOL (1980) nationwide
emissions of PCPs totaled 228 kkg/yr (1n 1978). Because there are
no known data on the geographical distribution of cooling towers,
cooling tower emissions were apportioned based on population
density, using the following formula:
(county-wide population) x (228 kkg/yr) = annual county-wide
national population emissions of PCPs
from cooling towers
Preserved wood - According to AOL (1980) In 1978 approximately 344
kkg of PCPs were emitted from treated wood products (Mnce posts,
polks, railroad ties, etc). These emissions were reported to be
distributed uniformly with each of five geographical regions of
the US (Northeast, Southeast, North central. South central, and
-------
West). Emission densities (kkg/mlle2) were determined for each
region (and state) of the county. Table 1 presents emissions
densities for each state. County wide emissions of PCPs can then
be estimated using the following formula:
(PCP Emission Oens1ty)x(county area 1n mile2) = annual county-
wide emissions
of PCP from
treated wood.
(2) Gasoline Marketing
There are three HAPS pollutants emitted from gasoline marketing -
benzene, benzene, ethylene dlchlorlde (EDC) and ethylene d1bromide
(EDB). In addition, a fourth "pollutant" - gasoline vapors - was
Included 1n the risk analysis. The following factors were used to
estimate these emissions:
Benzene 0.005 kkg/kkg of VOC
EDB 0.000005 kkg/kkg of VOC
EDC 0.00001 kkg/kkg of VOC
Gasoline vapors 1.000 kkg/kkg of VOC
The benzene factor was provided to Versar by Sobotka, Inc (Carpenter
1983). EDC and EDB estimates from estimated based on Information found
1n M1senhe1mer (1982). Gasoline vapors are considered to be equivalent
to Total VOC, as listed In NEDS (Kellam 1984). Although benzene, EDB,
and EDC are constituents 1n the gasoline vapor, the risks due to the
constituents and total gasoline vapors are, In fact, additive (Kellam
1984).
(3) Solvent Use
Solvents are liquid organic compounds that are used for (1) cleaning
or (2) product application e,g,m surface coatings or aerosol
propellants. Because solvents are used throughout the economy 1n both
the private and Industrial sectors, Inventorying emissions can be quite
complicated. While large sources must be considered as point sources.
-------
smaller sources must be treated as area sources, although these small
sources collectively often make up the bulk of the solvent emissions In a
typical urban area.
Two solvents, perchloroethylene and trlchloroethylene are among the
eighteen HAPS pollutants. Perchloroethylene 1s emitted by degreasers,
and drycleaners, with a small amount emitted by the miscellaneous
Industrial category. (This Industrial category does not Include
degreasers, drycleaners, graphic arts, and rubber and plastics).
Trlchloroethylene 1s used almost solely as a degreaslng agent.
The following approach was used In estimating these emissions. It
was assumed that all solvent that used volatilize on site.
When the NEDS "Special Report" NE099 was available for a county, 1t
was used as the basis for estimating emissions. The report provides a
breakdown on solvent usage by category (I.e., solvent use, degreaslng,
drycleanlng, rubber and plastics, graphic arts, miscellaneous.
Industrial, and nonlndustrlal. The following factors taken from Mann
(1983) were applied to breakdown solvent usage (emissions) by pollutant.
All results are 1n kkg/yr.
Perchloroethylene
Drycleanlng (0.64)x(Drycleanlng Usage)
Degreaslng (O.lO)x(Degreaslng Usage)
Misc. Industrial (0.01)x(H1sc. Industrial Usage)
Trlchloroethylene
.Degreaslng (0.21)x(Degreaslng Usage)
(4) Road Vehicles
HAPS pollutants emitted by road vehicles Include formaldehyde,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzene, ethylene dlbromlde, 1,3-butad1ene, and cadmium.
One major assumption was that half of the gasoline consumed 1n the US 1s
unleaded (Slgsby 1983). This affected emissions of lead and ethylene
dlbromlde, which are found only 1n leaded gasolines.
Table 1 presents road vehicle emission factors which are multiplied
by the vehicle miles travelled (VHT) provided 1n NEDS. The numerous
references that were used in the compilation of these factors are also
listed 1n this table.
-------
/5) Industrial. Commercial and Institutional, and Residential Heating
Emissions from the combustion of fossil fuel and wood for space.
heating and small Industrial boilers are treated as area sources rather
than point sources because of their numerous and Individually small
loadings. Larger sources were treated as point sources. Pollutants
emitted during heat generation Include benzo(a)pyrene, formaldehyde,
beryllium, nickel, arsenic and cadmium.
These factors were derived from a variety of sources as listed In
Table 2. Nickel and arsenic factors were derived by dividing total
national air emissions by total national fuel usage. Formaldehyde
factors except for residential wood stoves and fireplaces were originally
presented In JRB (1982). BaP factors came from a variety of sources
Including a memorandum prepared by EPA especially for this project
(McCr1ll1s 1984). McCr1ll1s (1984) also provided formaldehyde factors
for wood stoves and fireplaces. DeAngells (1980) contained most of the
remaining metals emission factors for heating.
Residential Wood Consumption was divided between woodburnlng stoves
and fireplaces based upon data provided by DeAngells et al. (1980b).
These percentages are presented 1n Table 3.
-------
Table 1. Road Vehicle Emission Factors
A. Light Duty Gas (includes light duty gasoline powered automobile and light duty gasoline powered trucks)
Benzene
Ethylene di bromide
Formaldehyde
1.3-Butadtene
Cadmium
(1.17xlO-*kkg/1000 VNT) x (1000 VNTLV
(1.3xlO-4kkg/IOOO VN1) x (1000 VH1LV
(1.3xlO-'kkg/1000 VNT) x (1000 VNTLV
(2.68xlO-5kkg/1000 VNT) x (1000 VNTLV
(1.00xlO-*kkg/1000 VNT) x (1000 VNTLV
(9.0xlO-9kkg/1000 VNT) x (1000 VNTLV
(Lang et al. 1981)
(Black et al. 1980)
(Sigsby et al. 1982)
(Carey 1981)
(Black and High 1977)
(USEPA 1979)
B. Heavy Duty Gas
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzene
Ethylene dibronide
Formaldehyde
1.3-Butadiene
Cadmium
(8.31x10-^9/1000 VHT) x (1000
(3.3x10-^/1000 VNT) x (1000 VNTHDV
(3.1xlO-'kkg/1000 VNT) x (1000 VMT^y
(1.12xUHkkg/1000 VNT) x (1000 VNTHOV
(2.50xlO-«kkg/1000 VNT) X (1000 VMI
(9.0xlO-9kkg/1000 VNT) x (1000 vmHDV
(Lang et al. 1981)
(Oietzman et al. 1980)
(Stump et al. 1982)
(Carey 1981)
(Black ft High 1977)
(USEPA 1979)
C. Heavy Duty Diesel
Benzo(a)pyrene
Formaldehyde
(5.01xlO-*kkg/1000 VNT) x (1000
(8.0xlO-5kkg/1000 VNT) x (1000
n£S)
(Braddock 1982. Gabele et al. 1982)
(Carey 1981)
NOTE: Whenever VNT (vehicle miles travelled) data are not available for a specific area, the following
factors were used to estimate vehicle miles travelled. Multiply the gasoline consumption in each
category. CHAR, by its respective miles per gallon.
For Light Duty Gas Vehicles (LV Gas):
For Heavy Duty Gas Vehicles (HDV Gas):
For Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDV OES):
1000 VNTLV
1000
1000
= 15.1 mpg x LDV Gas
6.4 mpg x HDV Gas
Diesel = 5-9 mpg x HDV Diesel
NOTE: These average MPG values were calculated based upon national fuel consumption and national
VNT. as supplied by NEDS.
-------
table 2. Heating Emission Factors
A. Residential
I Coal
Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic
Nickel
Formaldehyde
Cadmium
II Oil
Benzo(a)pyrene
Cadniun
Arsenic
Formaldehyde
III Gas
Formaldehyde
IV Wood
a. Fireplaces
Benzo(a)pyrene
Formaldehyde
Beryl Hun
Nickel
Cadmium
Arsenic
(6.8xlO-7kkg/ton of coal) x (RES ANT + RES BIT)
(6.2xlO-9kkg/ton of coal) x (RES ANT * RES BID
(4.5xlO-*kkg/ton of coal) x (RES ANT f RES BIT)
(2.2xlO-*kkg/ton of coal) x (RES ANT + RES BIT)
(8.8xlO-7kkg/ton of coal) x (RES ANT + RES BIT)
(5.7xlO-nkkg/1000 gallons) x (RES DIS t RES RESD)
(7.2xlO-|0kkg/1000 gallons of distillate) x (RES DIS)
(7.9xl(H0kkg/1000 gallons of residual) x (RES RESD)
(1.3xlO-10kkg/1000 gallons of distillate) x (RES OIS)
(7.1x)(Hkkg/1000 gallons of residual) x (RES RESD) »
(2.9xlO-4kkg/1000 gallons of distillate) x (RES DIS)
(3.4xlO-3kkg/million cubic feet) x (RES N GAS)
(5.9xlO~7kkg/ton) x (FP Factor)* x (RES WOOD)
(1.36xlO-3kkg/ton) x (FP Factor)* x (RES WOOD)
(1.3xlO-10kkg/ton) x (FP Factor)* x (RES WOOD)
(1.5xlO-*kkg/ton) x (FP Factor)* x (RES WOOD)
O.ZxlO^kkg/ton) x (FP Factor)* x (RES WOOD)
(1.2xlO-7kkg/ton) x (FP Factor)* x (RES MOOD)
(White ft Vanderslice 1980)
(Scow et al. 1981)
(NcNamara et al. 1981)
(JRB 1982)
(GCA 1981)
(Shih et al. 1982)
(GCA 1981)
(Scow et al. 1981)
(JRB 1982)
(JRB 1982)
(NcCrillis 1984)
(HcCrillis 1984)'
(DeAngelis et al. 1980)
(DeAngelis et al. 1980)
(DeAngelis et al. 1980)
(DeAngelis et al. 1980)
*See Table 4
NOTE: No emission factors have been identified for Beryllium, Nickel, Cadmium, and
Arsenic emission factors for fireplaces. Consequently, these factors are being
considered by default, identical to those for woodburning stoves. These factors
will be revised should better data become available.
-------
TabK
icontlnued)
b. Mood Burning Stoves
Benzo(a)pyrene
Formaldehyde
Beryllium
Nickel
Cadmium
Arsenic
(3.6xlO-*kkg/ton) x (WS Factor)* x (RES WOOD)
(Z.lxluAkg/ton) x (WS Factor)* x (RES WOOD)
(1.3xlO-10kkg/ton) x (US Factor)* x (RES WOOD)
(1.5xlO-*kkg/ton) x (US Factor)* x (RES WOOD)
O.ZxlO-^kkg/ton) x (US Factor)* x (RES WOOD)
(1.2xlO-7kkg/ton) x (US Factor)* x (RES WOOD)
(Perwak 1982)
(NcCrillis 1984)
(DeAngelis 1980)
(OeAngelis 1980)
(DeAngelis 1980)
(DeAngelis 1980)
B. Camercial & Institutional
I Coal
Formaldehyde
Arsenic
Nickel
Benzo(a)pyrene
Cadmium
ii on
Benzo(a)pyrene
Formaldehyde
Cadmium
Arsenic
III Gas
Formaldehyde
(2.2x)0-*kkg/ton) x (CI ANT » CI BIT)
(6.2xlO~9kkg/ton) x (CI ANT * CI BIT)
(4.5xlO-*kkg/ton) x (CI ANT * CI BIT)
(8.4xlO-13kkg/ton) x (CI ANT « CI BIT)
(8.8xlO-'kkg/ton) x (CI ANT t CI BIT)
(5.7xlO-nkkg/1000 gallons) x (CI OIS * CI RESD)
(7.lxuHkkg/1000 gallons of residual) x (CI RESD) +
(2.9xlO-4kkg/1000 gallons of distillate) x (CI OIS)
(5.7xlO-10kkg/1000 gallons) x (CI DIS * CI RESD)
(1.3xlO-10kkg/1000 gallons of distillate) x (CI DIS)
(Z.BxlO^kkgAnillion cubic feet) x (CI N GAS)
(JRB 1982)
(Scow et al. 1981)
(NcNamara et al. 1981)
(White and Vanderslice 1980)
(GCA 1981)
(Shih et al. 1982)
(JRB 1982)
(GCA 1981)
(Scow et al. 1981)
(JRB 1982)
*see Table.4,
-------
Table 2 .(continued)
Industrial
I. Coal
Benzo(a)pyrene
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Arsenic
Cadmium
ii on
Benzo(a)pyrene
Formaldehyde
Arsenic
Cadmium
Nickel
III Gas
Formaldehyde
(8.0x10-)3kkg/ton) x (IND ANT » IND BIT)
(Z.ZxlO^kkg/ton) x (IND ANT + INO BIT)
(4.1xlO-9kkg/ton) x (IND ANT * IND BIT)
(6.7xlO-9kkg/ton) x (IND ANT f IND BIT)
(8.3xlO-?kkg/ton) x (IND ANT + IND BIT)
(5.7xlO-nkkg/1000 gallons) x (IND RESD + IND BIT)
U.lxltHkkg/lOOO gallons of residual) x (IND RESD) *
(2.4xl(Hkkg/1000 gallons of distillate) x (IND DIS)
(8.7x10-10kkg/1000 gallons of residual) x (IND RESD) *
(l.lxlO-|0kkg/1000 gallons of distillate) x (IND DIS)
(3.4xlO-7kkg/1000 gallons of residual) x (IND RESD) *
(1.3xlO-*kkg/1000 gallons of distillate) x (IND RESD)
(l.SxlO-'kkg/lOOO gallons of residual) x (IND RESD)
tt.lxloAkg/million cubic feet) x (IND N GAS)
(White ft Vanderslice 1980)
(JRB 1982)
(NcNamara et al. 1981)
(Scow et al. 1981)
(GCA 1981)
(White and Vanderslice 1980)
(JRB 1982)
(Scow et al. 1981)
(GCA 1981)
(NcNamara et al. 1981)
(JRB 1982)
Code: RES ANT - Residential Anthracite Coal
RES BIT - Residential Bituminous Coal
RES DIS - Residential Distillate Oil
RES RESD - Residential Residual Oil
RES N GAS - Residential Natural Gas
RES WOOD - Residential Wood
FP FACTOR - Fireplace Factor (see Table I-S)
WS FACTOR - Wood Stove Factor (see Table I-S)
CI ANT - Conmercial and Institutional
Anthracite Coal
CI BIT
CI DIS
CI RESD
CI NGAS
IND ANT
IND BIT
IND DIS
IND RESD
IND N GAS
- Conmercial
- Conmercial
- Coimercial
- Conmercial
- Industrial
- Industrial
- Industrial
- Industrial
- Industrial
and Institutional Bituminous Coal
and Institutional Distillate Oil
and Institutional Residual Oil
and Institutional Natural Gas
Anthracite Coal
Bituminous Coal
Distillate Oil
Residual Oil
Natural Gas
-------
Table 3.
Apportionment of Residential Wood Consumption Between
Fireplaces (FP) and Hood Stoves (WS) for the Year 1976
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
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
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
DC
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
HT
NV
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
NO
OH
FP
.08
.14
.57
.17
.57
.40
.26
.28
.29
.30
.17
.57
.39
.32
.33
.32
.32
.16
.29
.04
.29
.25
.19
.11
.16
.19
.40
.32
.56
.04
.40
.73
.25
.30
.33
.32
WS
.92
.86
.43
.83
.43
.60
.74
.72
.71
.70
.83
.43
.61
.68
.67
.68
.68
.84
.71
.96
.71
.75
.81
.89
.84
.81
.60
.68
.44
.96
.60
.27
.75
.70
.67
.68
-------
Table 3.(continued)
State
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carol ina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SO
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
FP
.45
.13
.40
.40
.30
.30
.05
.29
.42
.04
.30
.13
.30
.19
.40
WS
.55
.87
.60
.60
.70
.70
.95
.71
.58
.96
.70
.87
.70
.81
.60
.24
.76
Source: DeAngelis et al. (1980b)
-------
REFERENCES
ADL. 1980. Arthur 0. Little, Inc. An exposure and risk assessment for
pentachlorophenol. Washington, O.C.: USEPA Office of Mater Regulators
and Standards. EPA contract #68-01-3857.
Black F, High L. 1977. Automotive hydrocarbon emission patterns 1n the
measurement of nonmethane hydrocarbon emission rates. Proceedings of the
International Automotive Engineering Congress and Exposition. Detroit,
HI: Society of Automotive Engineers.
Braddock JN. 1982. Impact of low ambient temperature on dlesel
passenger car emissions. Warrendale, PA: SAE Technical Paper Series.
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
Carey PM. 1981. Mobile source emissions of formaldehyde and other
aldehydes. Ann Arbor, MI: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA/AA/CTAB/PA/81-11.
Carpenter C. Versar 1983. Memorandum to D. Taylor and J. Williams,
USEPA. Springfield, VA: Versar Inc. March 11, 1983.
DeAngells D, Ruffln D, Reznlk R. 1980a. Monsanto Research Corp.
Preliminary characterization of emissions from wood fuel residential
combustion equipment. Research Triangle Park, NC: USEPA, Office of
Research and Development. EPA-600/7-80-040.
DeAngells D, Ruffln D, Peters J, Reznlk R. 1980b. Monsanto Research
Corp. Source Assessment: Residential combustion of wood. Research
Triangle Park, NC: USEPA, Office of Research and Development.
EPA-600/2-80-042b.
Dletzmann HE, Parness MA. Bradow RL. 1981. Emissions from gasoline and
dlesel delivery trucks by chassis transient cycle. New York, NY:
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Diesel and Gas Energy Power
Division, ASME Publication No. 81-DGP-6.
Dletzmann HE, Parness MA, Bradow RL. 1980. Emissions from trucks by
chassis version of 1983 transient procedure. Warrendale, PA: SAE
Technical Paper Series. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
GCA Corporation. 1981. Survey of cadmium emission sources. Research
Triangle Park, NC: USEPA, Office of A1r Quality Planning and Standards.
EPA 450/3-81-013.
Gabele PA, Zweldlnger R, Black F. 1982. Passenger car exhaust emission
patterns: petroleum and oil shale derived dlesel fuels. Warrendale,
PA: SAE Technical Paper Series. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
-------
JRB Associates. 1982. Materials balance formaldehyde. Revised draft
report. Washington, DC: USEPA, Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances. EPA Contract 68-01-5793.
Lang JM, Snow L, Carlson R, Black F, Swe1d1nger R, Tejada S. 1981.
Characterization of participate emissions from In-use gasoline-fueled
motor vehicles. Warrendale, PA: SAE Technical Paper Series. Society of
Automotive Engineers, Inc.
McCrllUs, R.C. March 30, 1984. Memorandum to Elaine Haemesseger IEMD,
Research Triangle Park, NC USEPA IERL.
McNamara P, M Byrne, B Goodwin, K Scow, W Steber, R Thomas, M Wood.
Arthur 0 Little, Inc. 1981. An exposure and risk assessment for
nickel. Final draft report. Washington, DC: USEPA, Monitoring and Data
Support Division. EPA Contract 68-01-6017.
M1senhe1mer D, Battye W. GCA Corporation. 1982a. Locating and
estimating air emissions from sources of ethylene dlchlorlde. Draft
final report. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of A1r Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Perwak J, Byrne M, Coons S, Goyer M, Harris J. Arthur D. Little, Inc.
1982. An exposure and risk assessment for benzo(a)pyrene and other
polycycllc aromatic hydrocarbons. Washington, DC: USEPA. Monitoring
and Data Support Division. EPA Contract 68-01-6160.
Scow K. Byrne M, Goyer M, Melken L, Perwak J, Wood M, Young S. Arthur D.
Little, Inc. 1982. An exposure and risk assessment for arsenic. Final
draft report. Washington, DC: USEPA, Monitoring and Data Support
Division. EPA Contract 68-01-6017.
Sh1h C, Ackerman D, Sdnto L, Hoar E, Fisher E. 1980. POM emissions
from stationary conventional combustion processes, with emphasis on
polychlorlnated compounds of PCDOs, POBS, and PCDs. Research Triangle
Park, NC: USEPA.
Slgsby J, Dropkln D. Brodow R. and Lardy J. 1982. Automotive emissions
of ethylene d1brom1de. Warrendale. PA: SAE Technical Paper Series.
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
Stump F, Brodow R. Ray W, Dropkln D, Zweldlnger R, Slgsby J, Snow R.
1982. Trapping gasseous hydrocarbons for mutagenlc testing. Warrendale,
PA: SAI Technical Paper Series. Society of Automotive Engineers.
USEPA. 1977 and later. Completion of A1r Pollution Emission Factors and
Supplements 1-13. Research Triangle Park, NC: USEPA Office of A1r
Quality Planning and Standards.
-------
USEPA. 1979. Sources of atmospheric cadmium. Research Triangle Park,
NC: USEPA, Office of A1r Quality Planning and Standards. EPA
450/5-79-006.
White J. Vandersllce R. Research Triangle Institute. 1980. POM source
and ambient concentration data review and analysis. Research Triangle
Park, NC: USEPA Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology. EPA
600/7-80-044.
-------
APPENDIX F
Non-Traditional Sources
F-l Waste 011
F-2 Publicly Owned Treatment Works
F-3 Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities
and Superfund Sites
* V
' \ -
! \ .«
-------
APPENDIX F-l
Documentation for Waste Oil Emission Factors
One of the objectives of the Regional air toxics study Is the
characterization of pollutants, attributable to the combustion of waste
oils 1n boilers. This Appendix provides the method by which the
emissions released from the burning of waste oil were estimated on a
county by county basis.
Every year, about 1148 million gallons of waste oil are generated In
the United States (Franklin Associates, 1983). The sources of this oil
range from automotive and Industrial service, such as repair shops,
service stations, airports, docks, recycling centers, to other categories
Including spills, tank cleaning, etc. A major portion of the waste oil
generated (upwards of 500 million gallons) Is burned 1n boilers, kilns,
dlesel engines, and waste oil heaters (PEDCo Environmental, 1983); the
remainder 1s re-refined, used as dust suppressants, land filled, or
dumped.
EPA's Office of Solid Wastes (OSW) has compiled a data base on the
country-wide distribution of waste oil. It 1s estimated that the waste
oil burned 1n boilers ranges from a low 374.000 gallons 1n Alaska to a
high 43,698,000 gallons 1n Texas. Table 1 provides the OSW estimates of
waste oil burned 1n boilers for all the states 1n the country.
Composition
Waste oils contain a variety of contaminants Including heavy metals,
polynuclear aromatic compounds, chlorinated solvents, PCBs, and other
toxic compounds. However, available data suggest that only 11 pollutants
Included 1n the Regional air toxics study would be released by burning
waste oils 1n boilers.
A number of studies have been performed to characterize the
contaminant concentrations 1n waste oil. Franklin Associates (1983), 1n
a report entitled "Waste 011 Management and Composition", has provided a
-------
detailed analysis of the typical contaminant concentrations In waste
011. Extensive sampling was carried out, as a part of the study, for
each source of oil and Us end-use application.
The range of concentrations, determined 1n the study, varied from
virtually zero to very high for most contaminants. This variability 1s
only to be expected since the contaminating factors are numerous and they
affect the oil composition to a great extent. The variations 1n
composition can generally occur based upon the types of oil, or due to
the additives which are used to enhance the performance characteristics
of the oil.
For the purposes of this analysis, average concentrations of
contaminants were derived using the sampling results for burner oil.
where applicable. However, In the absence of burner oil data, the
overall averages of all the samples were used to represent typical
contaminant concentrations. Table 2 lists the average concentrations of
the 11 pollutants applicable to the Regional study.
Burning
The major concern about using waste oil as fuel 1s related to the
potential for harmful emissions. The available literature Indicates that
waste oil 1s currently burned 1n various facilities or types of
equipment. Including 1n boilers, waste oil heaters, and cement kilns.
The efficiencies and the products of combustion are dependent on the type
of application. However, of all the waste oil burned, 92% was estimated
to be burned 1n boilers (PEDCo Environmental, 1983). This analysis
attempts to characterize the emissions released only for the burning of
waste oils 1n boilers.
Waste oil 1s often pretreated prior to burning. The pretreatment
Includes (1) reprocessing of waste oil, (2) re-refining of waste oil, and
(3) blending of virgin or clean fuel oil with waste oil. It was
estimated that approximately 44% of the total waste oil generated 1n
1982, underwent some form of processing (Franklin Associates, 1983). The
-------
oil fired boilers consuming waste oil Include small residential boilers,
Intermediate commercial and Institutional boilers, and large Industrial
boilers.
Typically. Industrial boilers are larger 1n size and achieve high
combustion efficiency at higher burner temperatures. But, the factors
that affect the quality of combustion are not as carefully controlled 1n
smaller boilers. These conditions Impose a tremendous variability 1n the
level of metal emissions from boilers, the average metal emissions
ranging from 31 to 75 percent of the metal composition. However, to be
on the conservative side, a 75% emission rate for metals would be assumed
(PEOCo Environmental, 1983), 1n this analysis.
Test data Indicate destruction efficiencies for organlcs ranging
from 97% to 99.99%. Higher combustion temperatures 1n Industrial boilers
dictate higher destruction efficiencies. Hence, a 99.9% destruction
efficiency for organlcs 1n.Industrial boilers would be a reasonable
estimate. In residential, commercial and Institutional (RIC) boilers,
poorer quality of combustion results 1n comparatively lower destruction
efficiencies for organlcs. This would be used as the basis for the
selection of a 99% destruction efficiency for organlcs In RIC boilers.
The boilers using waste oil as a fuel vastly differ In their
characteristics. This prevents any attempt at a simple quantification of
boiler population, fuel blending or oil consumption. OSW has estimated
that about 100 million gallons of waste oil are burned 1n RIC boilers
(23%). and about 330 million gallons 1n Industrial boilers (77%). It has
also been Indicated that waste oil 1s more likely to be burned at
facilities that currently burn residual oil rather than at those that
burn distillate oil (PEDCo Environmental, 1983).
Combining the above factors. 1t could be concluded that a very
reasonable estimate of waste oil distribution by county could be made, 1f
residual oil consumption data at the county level are available. The
National Emissions Data System (NEDS) provides such data on distillate
-------
and residual oil consumption patterns by RIC and Industrial boilers for
most of the counties 1n the country.
F
-------
(11) Calculate waste oil burned 1n Industrial boilers as,
IND_WO = (RES_OIS * CI_DIS + IND_DIS)
* (TOT_OIS for state)
x 77/100
x waste oil burned 1n state from Table 1 (gallons).
Step 3; Read average concentrations 1n waste oil for the 11 contaminants
from Table 2.
step 4: Compute metal and organlcs emissions as follows:
(a) Metal (Chromium. Nickel. Cadmium. Beryllium & Arsenic) Emissions:
For each county, calculate the metals emissions (for example,
Cadmium) as,
Cadmium EMIS = (RIC_WO + IND_WO) for county (gallons)
x (Metals emission rate) 75/100
x 3391.36 x 10-6 kkg of oil/gallon of waste oil
x (Cadmium concentration) 2.7 x 10~6 kkg/kkg of oil.
(b) Organlcs Emissions:
For each county, calculate the organlcs emissions (for example,
Benzene) as.
Benzene.EHIS = (RIC_WO x 0.01) * (IND_WO x 0.001)
for county (gallons)
x 3391.36 x 10-6 kkg of oil/gallon of waste oil
x (Benzene concentration) 160xlO~6 kkg/kkg of oil.
In summary, due to the complex nature of the waste oil
characteristics, this analysis should only be considered as a screening
level approach. However, the emissions estimated for the burning of
waste oil 1n boilers using the method presented In this analysis, would
be helpful In the OAQPS regional air toxics study In placing this source
category 1n perspective.
-------
Franklin Associates. 1983. Waste oil management and composition.
Revised Draft Report. Office of Solid Wastes, EPA, Washington, OC.
OSW. Personal communication between Sh1v Krlshnan, Versar, and Hike
petruska, Office of Solid Wastes, EPA, Washington, DC.
OSW. Personal communication between Hope Plllsbury, EPA and Eric Males,
OSW, EPA, Washington, DC.
PEDCo Environmental. 1983. A Risk Assessment of Waste Oil Burning 1n
Boilers and Space Heaters. Final Draft Report. Office of Solid Wastes,
EPA, Washington, DC.
-------
Table 1
Uaste Oil Consunation by State
State waste 01 1 Burned State waste Oi 1 Burned
Alabama
Alaska
Ari zona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Total - 429.014.
(gallons)
6678000
374000
5130000
6946000
36053000
6080000
3610000
1606000
10640000
8542000
608000
570000
19419000
6707000
4151000
8220000
5075000
17233000
2098000
6287000
8550000
24397000
7373000
4431000
13590000
969000
000
Source: Connunication between
EPA.
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
wash DC
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Hope Pillsbury, EPA and Eric
(gal Ions)
5362000
1069000
855000
22641000
2563000
16503000
9856000
665000
9405000
12806000
5653000
32797000
2166000
4367000
739000
10947000
43698000
2660000
470000
7429000
556000
9063000
4932000
5013000
1461000
Hales. OSW,
-------
Table 2
Concentrations of Contaminants in Waste Oils
(Available data indicate that the pollutants listed in
this table are the subset of pollutants being evaluated
in the Air Toxics Study that are released from the
burning of waste oils in boilers)
Total
Samples
Pollutant analyzed for
Contaminant
Hetals
Arsenic1 17
Beryllium2
Cadmium3 33
Chromium3 71
Nickel2
Orqanics
Benzene4 1
Benzo (a) anthracene^ 17
Benzo(a)pyrene5 19
Ethylbenzene2'4
Perchloroethylene3 86
Trichloroethylene3 101
Total
Samples
Detecting
Contaminant
17
23
21
59
184
1
14
11
17
79
90
Average
Concentration
(ppm)
12
1.2
2.7
37
12.5
160
88
59
120
448
527
Concentration
range (ppm)
Low High
*""
-
0.01 7
0.3 36
1 537
0 627
160 160
S 660
3.2 405
0 1150
5 3900
1 7000
'End uses of waste oils sampled for arsenic were not specified.
2A11 reported values, including "0", were used to calculate average.
^Average calculated using burner oil samples.
^Twenty-two additional samples were tested for the general category of
non halogenated solvents which nay include benzene and its derivatives.
Nine of the samples were found to contain one or more of these solvents.
'Average concentration is representative of all waste oil samples.
Source: Franklin Associates. 1983.
-------
APPENDIX F-2
Documentation of the Methodology Used to
Estimate Air Emissions from POTWS
A Methodology
Our objective was to develop a methodology that could be implemented
quickly and inexpensively as part of our Phase I screening exercise. Our Phase
I methodology for characterizing POTW volatilization emissions is described in
subsections 1 and 2, below. As discussed in subsection 3, we may develop and
implement a more refined version of this methodology in Phase II, if the Phase
I results indicate that POTW volatilization emissions may account for a
relatively large proportion of air toxics-related risk in the 35-50 counties
selected for Phase II.
1. Overview
In brief summary, we used the following approach to characterize
volatilization of toxics from POTWs:
t Step 1: Identify POTWs which are known to handle industrial
discharges. Of the approximately 20,000 POTWs in the U.S.,
only a relatively small number handle industrial discharges.
These are the POTWs that probably account for the largest
volumes of volatilization of air toxics. EPA's Industrial
Facilities Discharge (IFO) file is the best readily
available data base for identifying POTWs that handle
industrial discharges. (Some of the IFO data pertaining to
POTWs is derived from EPA's NEEDS survey of POTWs.) While
not 100% complete and accurate, by using IFD we were able to
identify 1,600 POTWs known to have industrial discharges.
(While this subset accounts for less than 101 of U.S. POTWs,
it does account for about 50% of the flow discharged from
POTWs.)
-------
0 Step 2A; Array selected readily available data on these
POTWs. We extracted readily available data from IFO for
each of the POTWs In our set of 1,600. We Identified the
readily available data that would be useful in developing
estimates of volatilization (e.g., flow; % industrial
contribution; types of industries that discharge into the
POTW, by SIC code; level of treatment, such as primary or
secondary). We then created a data set containing as much
of this information as was available for each of the POTWs
in our set of 1,600.
Step 2B: Develop emission estimation algorithms. In an
iterative fashion with step 2A, in step 2B we developed an
algorithm for estimating the volatilization of air toxics
from POTWs, based on best readily available data. In brief
summary, this algorithm first provides criteria for sorting
each of the 1,600 POTWs into one of thirteen categories.
The sorting criteria were based on the following factors:
The percent of inflow to the POTW attributable to
industrial dischargers (e.g., 0-20%; between 20 and
30%; etc.);
- The types of industries that discharge to the POTW (by
SIC code); and
-- The type of treatment at the POTW (e.g., primary,
advanced primary, secondary, etc.).
We then developed a set of pollutant-specific emission
factors for POTWs in each of the categories. We developed
these emission factors based on our analysis of a study
-------
recently sponsored by EPA, titled Fate of Priority
Pollutants In Publicly Owned Treatment Works. Final Report,
Volume I EPA 440/1-82-303, published in September, 1982.
In this study, sponsored by the Effluents Guideline
Division, 50 POTWs were monitored. (This study is sometimes
referred to as the "50-POTW" monitoring study.) For each
POTW, the key data collected, Included: (1) flow, in
millions of gallons per day; and (2) loadings of individual
pollutants, in KKg/yr, for each of a range of pollutants, in
the influent, effluent and sludge. Based on this data, we
developed emission factors based on assumptions regarding
the proportions of volatile- pollutants in the influent,
effluent and sludge of prototype POTWs, and the amounts
volatilized. The "50-POTW" study included monitoring data
for nine pollutants that are within the scope of our study:
benzene; ethylene dlchlorlde; carbon tetrachloMde;
chloroform; vinyl chloride; trlchloroethylene;
perchloroethylene; and acrylonltMle.
Step 3; Estimate Volatilization Emissions Using The Data
and Algorithms Developed in Step 2. Using our automated
model, HEMIS, we then applied the estimation algorithm to
each of the POTWs in our subset of 1,600. For each POTW we
estimated emissions of each of the nine pollutants listed
above.
2. Detailed Description of Key Elements of the Methodology
a. IFD
As noted above, we used the IFD file to identify 1,600 POTWs with
known industrial discharges. We then extracted the following specific data
elements for each of these POTWs:
-------
County and State
Total POTW Flow
t NEEDS Treatment Code
0 3 Zero discharge
1 3 Raw
2 » Primary
3 a Advanced Primary
4 a Secondary
5 a Advanced Secondary
6 » Tertiary
% Industrial Flow (NEEDS)
In some cases there were data gaps. In cases where flow was not recorded, no
default was assigned and the POTW was excluded from further analysis. For
POTWs for which flow data was recorded but there was Insufficient data to
calculate £ Industrial flow, we used a default assumption of 25% industrial
flow.
In cases where the NEEDS Treatment Code was missing, we assigned a
default equating to secondary treatment.
b. Criteria for Assigning POTWs to Prototype Categories
As noted above, we sorted each POTU in our subset of 1,600 into
one of thirteen categories. The sorting criteria are depicted in Exhibit 2 on
the following page. The sorting criteria were designed based on the data
available in the POTW monitoring study cited above.
-------
c. Emission Algorithms
(1) POTWs in Categories X and Y
For POTWs that have a zero discharge (Category X) or
discharge raw wastes (Category Y), 1t was assumed that the loadings to air
Wou1d be zero, since there would be no removal of pollutants from the
wastewater.
(2) POTWs in Category A-l
POTWs in this category have advanced primary, secondary,
advanced secondary or tertiary treatment. POTWs in this category do not have
any indirect dischargers in a "significant" industrial SIC -- significant being
defined as an indirect discharger in one of the major SIC Industrial
classification (22-24; 28-31; 33-47).
This equation is based on the assumption that the amount of
a pollutant that is volatilized to air is the total removed by treatment, minus
the portion that remains in the sludge.
The difficulty, of course, is in estimating the influent,
effluent and sludge term for each of the POTWs in Category A-l. We estimated
these values using the following steps:
First, from the previously cited monitoring study, we
selected two POTWs that best meet the criteria for Category
A-l.
Second, for those two POTWs, we calculated the average
values for the following parameters, based on the data from
the monitoring study.
-------
Exhibit 2
Sorting Criteria for the Phase I Study
0 ( Zero Diacharte)
Treatment Cod««
Zero diichargea
lav
Prlaary
Advanced Prlaary
Secondary
Advanced Secondary
Tertiary
Default (Equatea to Secondary Treatment)
Cateiory**
X
T
A-1
A-2
1-1
a-2
1-3
»-*
B-J
8-6
C-l
C-2
Equation Type)**
H.A.
M.A.
I
IX
II
II
II
retotvy.
S.A.
M.A.
A
B.I
a.2
a.]
B.L
8.2
B.3
C.I
C.2
C-3
C.I
See the text of the Appendix for a deterlptien of Categories
Equation Typee and Prototype!.
-------
-- Flow, in MOD
Influent KKg/Yr for each of nine pollutants;
Effluent KKg/Yr for each of these pollutants; and
Sludge KKg/Yr for each of these pollutants.
We used these averaged values to define a prototype POTW --
specifically "Prototype A". These values for Prototype A
are shown in a table at the end of this appendix.
Third, for each POTW in Category A-l, we applied Basic
Equation I, shown on the following page.
The flow portion of the equation is used to proportion the loading of
Prototype A to that of each of the POTWs in category A-l are being evaluated
(3) POTWs in Category A-2
POTWs in this category have primary treatment. They do not
have any "significant1* industrial discharges significant being defined as an
indirect discharger with a SIC code from one of the major industrial
classifications (22-24; 28-31; 33-47).
Monitoring data for POTWs with primary treatment (e.g.,
POTWs in Category A-2) were not available. For our purposes, we assumed that
50% of the pollutants we are studying would be removed during primary
treatment. We also assumed that the amount of a pollutant remaining in the
sludge from primary treatment would be equal to the amount remaining following
-------
Basic Equation I
(Annual Air Emissions). .-((Prototype A Influent).-(Prototype A Effluent).-(Prototype A Sludge).! x ((POTU.Flow)/(Prototype A Flow))
*§j * * * J
where
(Annual Air Emissions). . = Estimated Volatilization Air Emissions of Pollutant 1 from POTU j. in KKg/yr
* J
(Prototype A Influent) Influent of Pollutant i into Prototype POTU A. in KKg/yr
(Prototype A Effluent) - Effluent of Pollutant i into Prototype POTU A, in KKg/yr
POTU Flow - Flow from POTU j. in Millions of Gallons per Day
Prototype A Flow - Flow from Prototype POTU A, in Millions of Gallons per Day
-------
econdary treatment, with the remainder being volatilized. We estimated these
a lues using Basic Equation II, shown on the next page.
This equation assumes that 50* of the pollutant Is removed during
treatment and the amount that does not remain in the sludge is volatilized to
the air. The flow portion of the equation is used to proportion the loading of
the Prototype A to that of the POTW being evaluated.
(4) POTWs In Each of the Other Categories
As indicated in Exhibit 2, each of the rest of the POTWs was
sorted into one of the nine other categories. As shown in Exhibit 2, we used
either Equation I or Equation II to estimate air volatilization emissions from
each of these POTWs, using the appropriate prototypes derived from the
"50-POTW" mon-itoring study. (Each prototype is described in a table attached
to the end of this Appendix.)
3. Phase II Methodology
As described previously, in Phase II we are analyzing 35-50 counties
in more depth. As part of this effort we are refining emissions estimates for
selected sources and pollutants. We will refine our estimates of POTW
volatilization emissions if it appears that such refinements would have a
substantial impact on our Phase II results. Our basic approach will be to
continue to use Basic Equations I and II. However, we will use an expanded
number of prototypes, to more closely match POTWs in the 35-50 counties with
prototypes from the "50-POTW" monitoring study. For example, we may attempt to
match POTWs and prototypes based on a more refined distinction of the types of
industries that are indirect dischargers to the POTWs.
If it appears that there would be a high payoff from developing and
implementing a more refined methodology for estimating POTW volatilization in
-------
Basic Equation II
(Annual Air Emissions^ «I(Prototype A Influent)1x(0.5)-(Prototype A Sludge).) x [(POTU.Flow)/(Prototype A Flow)].
where
Annual Air Emissions. = Volatilization air emissions of pollutant i from POTU J, in KKg/yr
* J
(Prototype A Influent). = Influent to Prototype A of pollutant i. in KKg/yr
(Prototype A Sludge). = Amount of Pollutant i remaining in the sludge for Prototype A
POTU Flow " Amount of Flow for POTU j in Millions of Gallons per Day
Prototype A Flow - Amount of Flow for Prototype A, in Millions of Gallons per Day
-------
phase Hi we w111 document the methodology In a revised version of this
appendix.
c> Alternative Methodologies Considered
Before selecting the methodology described above, we first considered two
alternatives:
JRB's POTW Model. This model was developed to assess
pretreatment control options. The model reviews the
estimated 2000 POTUs requiring pretreatment, determines and
quantifies the pretreatment options for each, and then
aggregates the results in order to estimate the national
impact. We decided not to use this model primarily because
it uses too many generic simplifying assumptions. For
example, it assumes that for any POTW:
- 90% of toxic organics are volatile
~ 80% of volatiles are removed by the POTW
-- 90% of the volatiles removed are released to
the atmosphere
In contrast, the methodology we used took advantage of actual monitoring
data wherever possible.
Site Specific Characterization of POTWs. Another alternative
we considered was to perform detailed data gathering (e.g.,
including on-site visits) for selected POTWs. This effort
would in part entail collecting information on numerous
indirect dischargers to POTWs to assess the sources of
volatile organics (i.e., instead of relying on IPO data) and
to obtain site-specific monitoring data. We rejected this
-------
option because It would be far too expensive and time
consuming to fit within our limited budget and timeframe.
The methodology that we used (described In section B of this appendix) is a
screening exercise, and as such has limitations. For example:
The IFD file does not contain all POTWs which receive
industrial dischargers only about 90% are identified.
Therefore, we may have missed some POTWs with significant
volatilization releases.
We had limited data on the indirect dischargers to POTWs.
Only the facilities listed by POTWs in Section 4 or 8 of
their permits are in IFD. (For example, one of the
Philadelphia POTWs is listed in IFO as having 4~ indirect
dischargers; site-specific information compiled by the City
of Philadelphia indicates that this POTW has over 100
indirect dischargers.)
0 The monitoring data in the "50-POTW" study was available only
for POTWs with flows greater than 5 MGD. However, in the
data base 65 percent of the POTWs discharge less than 5 MGO.
There may be a difference in removal rates and operational
practices based on size. However, no data are readily
available to assess these differences.
t We did not estimate potential volatilization releases from
sludge.
Despite these limitations, we felt that on balance the methodology we used
was the best available within the budget and timeline constraints, especially
considering the key strengths of this approach:
-------
Our methodology Incorporated the most comprehensive available
11st of POTUs with data on Industrial discharges and POTW
location (I.e., the IFD file).
The IFD file 1s available on-line, which facilitated our data
retrieval and manipulation.
Our equations for estimating releases took into account
site-specific data on key factors, such as treatment (e.g.,
primary, advanced primary, etc.), percent contribution from
Industry and total flow.
Our equations also took advantage of actual monitoring data.
-------
ATTACHMENTS
The following attachments present data for the prototypes derived from
the previously cited "50-POTW" Study.
-------
POTW Prototype Code: A
POTW Flow (gal/day): 29.95 x 106
Pollutants
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dichloride
Carbon Tetrachlorlde
Chloroform
Vinyl Chloride
Trlchloroethylene
Perch lorethylene
Acrylonitrile
Influent
(KKg/yr)
0.085
0.025
<0.02
<0.035
0.165
N.O.
1.195
0.165
N.O.
Effluent
(KKg/yr)
2.085
0.025
<0.02
N.O.
0.095
N.O.
<0.02
0.02
N.O.
Sludge
(KKg/yr)
<0.02
<0.02
N.O.
N.O.
N.D.
N.O.
<0.02
<0.02
N.O.
-------
POTW Prototype Code: B.I
POTW Flow (gal/day): 40.4 x 106
Pollutants
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dichloride
Carbon Tetrachlorlde
Chloroform
Vinyl Chloride
TrichloroethYlene
Perchlorethylene
Acrylonitrile
Influent
(KKd/yr)
0.29
2.11
0.03
<0.02
0.44
22.11
5.01
5.39
0.15
Effluent
(KKq/yr)
<0.02
0.04
<0.02
<0.02
0.22
1.55
0.47
1.60
0.03
Sludge
(KKq/yr)
<0.02
0.13
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.02
<0.02
<0.02
-------
J>OTV Prototype Code: B.2
POTW Flow (gal/day): 13.04 x 106
Pollutants
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dichloride
Carbon Tetrachlorlde
Chloroform
Vinyl Chloride
Trichloroethylene
Perchlorethylene
Acrylonitrile
Influent
(KKg/yr)
0.95
0.27
55.8
<0.02
0.31
0.24
1.33
0.71
N.O.
Effluent
(KKg/yr)
<0.04
0.05
6.12
N.O.
0.09
N.D.
0.02
0.13
N.O.
Sludge
(KKg/yr)
<0.02
<0.02
0.16
N.O.
<0.02
N.O.
0.02
0.03
N.D.
-------
POTV Prototype Code: B.3
POTW Flow (gal/day): 29.7 x 106
Pollutants
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dlchlorlde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Vinyl Chloride
Trichloroethylene
Perchlorethylene
Acrylonitrile
Influent
(KKq/yr)
3.27
2.8S
77.9
1.29
5.10
0.15
7.89
29.75
1.52
Effluent
(KKq/yr)
0.06
0.09
39.28
0.14
0.90
N.O.
1.0
4.06
0.09
Sludge
(KKq/yr)
<0.02
0.16
11.55
0.32
0.16
<0.02
3.69
0.04
0.14
-------
TTW Prototype Code: C.I
POTH Flow (gal/day): 63.6 x 106
Pollutants
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dichloride
Carbon Tetrachlorlde
Chloroform
Vinyl Chloride
Trichloroethylene
Perchlorethylene
Acrylonitrlle
Influent
(KKa/vr)
1.34
1.4S
ride 0.02
oride 3.28
1.87
0.53
ie 4.78
! 3.56
N.D.
Effluent
(KKg/yrl
<0.02
0.06
<0.02
0.02
0.36
N.O.
0.03
0.21
N.O.
Sludge
fKKg/yr)
l^S'J* /
0.04
0.06
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
N.O.
0.19
0.03
<0.02
-------
POTU Prototype Code: C.2
POTW Flow (gal/day): 15.1 x 106
Pollutants
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dichloride
Carbon Tetrachlorlde
Chloroform
Vinyl Chloride
Tr ich 1 oroethy lene
Perchlorethylene
Acrylom'trile
Influent
(KKa/yr)
<0.02
0.09
N.O.
N.O.
0.05
N.O.
1.07
5.64
N.O.
Effluent
(KKg/yr)
<0.02
<0.02
N.O.
N.D.
<0.02
N.O.
0.39
0.16
N.O.
Sludge
(KKq/yr)
<0.02
0.02
N.O.
N.D.
N.O.
N.O.
N.O.
N.O.
N.O.
-------
Table 11. Illustrative Per Capita Risk Associated with Air Toxics
Release from TSDFs and Superfund Sites1
Concentration (ug/it|3)
Max Avg. Min
CAG
Unit Risk
Number
Per Capita Risk
Max
Avg.
Min
'roethylene4
Voethylene4
... dichloride4
319
3.8
1.0
12.1
6.8
5.4
6.3
24.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.8
sarnie location unknown5;
364
190
28.5
13.9
36
3.2
4896
itetrachloride8
loroethylene9
Moride*
oride10
60
(9.6)
15
7.4
3.2
14.3
1229
6.9xlO-b
6.9x10-*
l.OxlO-5
2.61x10-*
1.7xlO-6
4.1xlO~6
7.0xlO-6
6.9x10-*
6.9x10-*
l.OxlO-5
l.OxlO-5
l.SxlO-5
4.1xlO~6
2.61x10-*
2.61xlO-6
2.2x10-3
2.6x10-5
l.OxlO-5
3.2x10-5
1.2x10-5
2.2x10-5
4.4x10-5
2.5x10-3
1.9x10-3
2.9xlO-4
2.1xlO-4
l.SxlO-4
8.4x10-*
1.3x10-2
1.7X10-4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.6x10-*
5.6x10-*
4-lxlO-4
(6.6x10-5)
l.SxlO-4
7.4x10-5
4.8x10-5
5.9x10-5
3.2x10-3
,risk values presented in the table are illustrative in nature. They are based on an assumed lifetime exposure
te indicated chemical concentrations, and thus equate with a worst case scenario. They are not intended
represent an accurate determination of the real world risk experienced by populations in the vicinity of these
K. See text for a more detailed discussion of these data and caveats pertaining to them.
[downwind concentrations are much more likely to approximate expected risk than are on-site concentrations
text).
ant rat ion data from Table 7.
miration data from Table 6. BKK, CA.
not possible to determine the specific sites where samples corresponding with these concentration values
(obtained (e.g., on-site vs. off-site, vent vs. ambient air). Thus, these data can not be assumed to
nsent average, off-site breathing zone concentrations/risk.
wntration data from Table 4, BKK Corp, CA.
wit rat ion data from Table 4, Kin-Buc, NO (only one value reported).
cent rat ion data from Table 4, Kin-Buc, NO
nitration data from Table 4, BKK Corp, CA. Table 4 also reports measured values of 2.1x10* and 1.6x10*
i3 for trichloroethylene at Kin-Buc, NJ. However, these numbers were not included in this table because they
d not be corroborated from the primary source reports.
feentration data from Table 4, Landfill *2.
-------
Table 10. Measured Air Toxics Concentrations of Two
Super-Fund Sites
Site
Kramer NO1
Haste nanagenent
Process
LF
Chemical
Species
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Styrene
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.2
0.3
0.2
Gratiot M2 LF Benzene 3.2
1 Sample obtained near entrance to dtnp.
^Sample obtained downwind of site.
Source: Untitled draft paper provided to L.Schultz (Versar Inc.) by
Elaine Haenrisegger (EPA)
-------
- In many cases, only generic air contaminant data was recorded.
- Many files contained no Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) or
RI/FS document. This could be due to a state or region
taking the lead 1n site analysis and remediation and thus
having possession of relevant documentation, or to EPA
headquarters personnel using the report at the time the file
review was made. In other cases RAMP or RI/FS documents have
not yet been generated.
- In a number of cases, although air release Is significant,
detailed quantification for releases 1s not addressed 1n site
documentation because the remediation method planned to
control contamination of another medium of primary concern
will also control air release (e.g., soil contamination
remediation via clay cover will also prevent air release).
Generally, Superfund analyses appear to concentrate primarily
on water contamination problems, and secondarily on air.
o Although data quantifying concentrations of specific air toxics
at Superfund sites are sparse at present, some data for
contaminants of concern 1n this evaluation are available
(reports provided by E. Haemlsegger, USEPA). These are
summarized 1n Table 10 for two superfund sites. Note that the
concentrations cited In this table are 1n most cases lower than
those found at active TSOFs (see Tables 4.5, and 6). This Is
not surprising as highly volatile materials will have had ample
time to escape from abandoned sites, while their release from
active sites would be ongoing. It 1s Interesting, however, that
the benzene concentrations obtained downwind from the Gratlot,
HI site correspond well with those obtained at two of the
residential sampling sites downwind of the BKK Landfill (see
Table 6). Note, however, that the Gratlot concentration value
Is "total" while the BKK concentration Is "net" (ambient minus
control).
7. A1r toxics release from TSDFs may pose significant risk to receptor
populations.
o In order to obtain a perspective on the level of possible risk
to receptor populations, air toxics concentration data from
proceeding tables have been used with current CAG unit risk
numbers to calculate estimates of per capita risk. These data
are presented 1n Table 11 for chemicals with measured
concentrations at TSDFs and/or Superfund sites, and for which
CAG risk numbers are available. They should only be Interpreted
as rough screening Indicators of risk. It 1s Important to note
that Interpretation of the risk data presented 1n Table 11 Is
subject to the following significant caveats:
-------
parameters 1n predicting emission of compound classes (see
Radian n.d.). Results such as those shown 1n Table 9 highlight
the need for further model development and field validation to
generate estimation methods which are sensitive to and account
for the range of compounds and conditions actually found at TSD
facilities.
6. Uncontrolled hazardous waste facilities (Superfund sites) have been
demonstrated to be significant air toxics release sources:
A1r releases must be "observed" 1n order for an abandoned site
to be listed on the National Priorities List as a Superfund
site. This Is contrasted against the "potential" for release to
surface or ground water to serve as partial grounds for NPL
listing (see the National 011 and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan (NCP): Hazard Ranking System (HRS) - 40 CFR
Part 300: Appendix A). The requirement for an observed release
for air ranking resulted from a lack of any better method for
considering the air route. No good, consistent correlation was
found between physical/chemical properties of wastes and air
migration potential*. To date, using the current HRS scoring
system, 109 sites have been listed on the NPL due to high air
scores. Of these, 43 were listed for participate, heavy metal,
or radium releases. The remaining 67 sites are those with
volatile organic releases. This represents a total of 16% of
all NPL sites currently listed.
Guidance for conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility
Studies (RI/FS) at listed Superfund sites give equal
consideration to air exposure vs other exposure routes (see
draft Remedial Inventlgatlon Guidance Document (EPA 1984), draft
Feasibility Study Guidance Document (EPA 1983), and draft
Feasibility Study Background Document (Versar 1983)).
In order to obtain air toxics data* for uncontrolled hazardous
waste facilities to compare with controlled TSDFs. a brief
review of the Superfund files at EPA was made. However, the
effort did not uncover useful data (I.e., quantitative data for
specific contaminant species) for the following reasons:
Personal communication between Lee Schultz (Versar Inc.). and
S. Caldwell (EPA Superfund Remedial Action) June 14. 1984. See also the
preamble to the NCP final rule. Federal Register Volume 47, No. 137,
wherein comments on the proposed HRS and responses thereto are published.
-------
Table 9. TSOF Air Emission Measurement/Estimation Comparison Results
inon-neinane nyarocaroonsj
Site
2
Source Sampling
Technique
Used
Land treatment4 flux chamber
method
concentration
Measured
Emissions
725
60.8
112
1250
profile method 963
5
5
5
Reducing6 flux chamber
lagoon method
Oxidizing5 flux chamber
lagoon method
Holding pond0 concentration
1000
9.2
14.5
60.0
54.6
0.182
profile method 2.09
6
flux chamber
method
Spray evapo-b transect
ration pond method
0.558
2.64
3.72
55.1
41.7
Predicted
Emissions
47400
9480
8010
13400
13000
10100
35.4
32.7
17000
5080
5.22
5.24
0.268
5.24
0.268
197
197
Model
Used
Thibodeaux and
Hwang (1982)
Thibodeaux
et al. (n.d.)
Thibodeaux
et al. (n.d.)
Thibodeaux
et al. (n.d.)
units a ug-C/m2-sec
''units ug/n?-sec
Source: Radian (n.d.)
-------
5. Numerous studies have been conducted or are ongoing to address TSDF
air release analysis needs:
Attachment A provides a summary of studies* related to the TSDF
air release Issue. This listing Is taken from the proceedings
of a workshop on TSOF research held 1n October. 1983 (see JACA
1983)
Even 1n light of the many current and recent TSOF related
studies, much work remains to be done to fill 1n critical data
gaps.
- Attachment B lists continuing source characterization
research needs as summarized at the JACA workshop.
- Attachment C presents a summary of areas requiring additional
research 1n support of EPA/OAQPS responsibility to research
and develop standards limiting air emissions from TSOFs
(Battye et al. 1984).
One area requiring significant work Is the development of
sampling/analysis and estimation procedures for air releases
from TSDF processes. It 1s recognized that air release
estimation 1s still 1n Its Infancy. Although models of release
from various TSDF sources have been developed (see Farlno et al.
1983. Wetherold and Oubose 1982), they generally require further
refinement and validation. Validation necessitates development
of field methods specific to TSOf sampling and analysis. Work
Is currently underway (see Radian n.d.) to field test certain
air release sampling methods, and to test the TSOF release
estimation methods summarized 1n Farlno et al. (1983). Table 9
provides an overview of the results of some of the emission
measurement/estimation comparison efforts conducted for total
non-methane hydrocarbons at these TSDFs. As can be seen from
the data 1n the table. In some cases the estimated values
compare reasonably well with the measured values, while 1n many
others the estimation models performed poorly. For site #5.
oxidizing lagoon, the great disparity between measured and
estimated values Is thought to result from the presence of a
sludge/oil/aqueous surface at this lagoon (see Radian n.d.).
The difference 1n measured and predicted emission rates for the
spray evaporation pond at site #6 Is at least partly due to the
predictive model's current Inability to consider both
evaporative and spray losses (only evaporative loss Is modeled
at present).- In the land treatment evaluation at site 2,
predicted and measured values for specific compounds agreed much
more than did those for compound classes (e.g.. non-methane
hydrocarbons). This 1s probably due to the use of composite
-------
Table 8. TSOF Emissions Estimates:
Percentage Release by Process
Process
Storage Tanks
Aerated-SI
Treatment Tanks
NSI-Storage4
NSI-Treatment*
NSI-Oisposal*
Land Application
Landfill
Total
Percent of total
estimated TSOF Emissions
0.6
4.0
32.5
26.0
18.7
4.0
2.7
JUS
100.0
*NSI a Non-aerated surface impoundment.
Source: Breton et al (1983). GCA Corporation.
-------
Table 7. Concentrations of Two Toxic Volatile Organic Compounds
Found in the Ambient Air at Hazardous Waste Facilities
Facility
Type1
IN/SI
SI/LA
LF/SI/LA
LF/SI/LA
LF3
Background
Type2
R.I
R.I
R
R
U
Up-
wind
25. 5
26.8
40.2
89.3
47.8
Ambient
Benzene
Down-
Mind
191.4
51.0
338.2
146.7
366.9
Air Concentrations.
&
165.9
24.2
298.0
57.4
319.0
Up-
wind
13.3
14.2
16.1
99.6
49.8
ug/nr
Ethyl
Benzene
Down-
Hind
52.2
41.8
303.6
113.9
175.5
A
38.9
27.5
287.5
14.2
125.7
^Facility type - Slasurface impoundment, LAsland application, LFalandfill,
INaincineration
^Background type: ferural. laindustrial, IMirban.
3codisposal landfill
Source: Ase (1981)
-------
- 70 (16X) of the total 430 disposal facilities land apply
O.lxlO9 gallons (IX) of the total 14.7xl09 gallons
disposed.
Thus, approximately 36.7x1O9 gallons (SIX) of total quantity
of wastes managed at TSDFs are managed (treated, stored, and/or
disposed) 1n Impoundments or In/on the land, with Impoundments
equating with SOX of all wastes managed.
It 1s Interesting to note that landfills constitute the largest
disposal category (46X of the disposal facilities surveyed
reported using landfills), and yet they receive only 5X of the
total amount of waste reported as being disposed. Conversely.
the majority of wastes disposed (59X) go to Injection wells.
which were reported as being employed at only 20X of the
facilities surveyed.
The air contamination potential of this situation Is reflected
In the above numbers and the fact that even compounds with
extremely low vapor pressure and low solubility In water can be
subject to significant volatilization release when placed In
surface Impoundments or 1n landfills [or landfarms] (Hwang 1982).
4. Various studies reflect the potential for toxic VOC release from
TSOFs overall (I.e., total aggregate release from a facility).
A 1981 study of TSOF releases (Ase 1981) measured the ambient
downwind and upwind (background) concentrations for the five
toxic compounds shown 1n Table 7. The data clearly Indicate an
Increase In ambient concentrations downwind of the TSOFs.
Breton et al. (1983) estimated emissions from TSOFs and compared
them with stationary and mobile sources. Although the accuracy
of their quantitative estimates are quite questionable for a
number of good reasons (see EPA/OAQPS comments on Breton et al.
1983). the relative contribution of various TSOF processes
(based on the Breton et al. estimates) shown 1n Table 8 1s
Interesting to note. These data not only further support the
significance of surface Impoundments as VOC release sources, but
also highlight the significant release potential associated with
treatment tanks. From the data 1n No. 1 above (Westat 1984).
609 (41X of the total 1495 treatment facilities) treat
8.73x109 gallons (18X of the total 47.5x10$ gallons of waste
treated) In tanks.
-------
Table 6. Net Increase in Toxic Air Contaminants
Originating at BKK Landfill, CAa.
Vinyl Chloride
Perchloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Ethylene Oichloride
Chloroform
Benzene
Site A
(ug/m3)
12.1
6.8
3.2
6.3
0.0
3.8
Site B
(ug/m3)
6.4
3.4
5.4
4.8
0.5
3.2
Site E
(ug/m3)
0.0
+.*
2.1
0.8
-1.0*>
-1.9°
Site F
(ug/m3)
0.0
4.1
3.8
0.8
-I.Ob
""
The values presented in this table were obtained by subtracting the
average mean control values from the average mean non-control (ambient
air in residential areas) values reported in the source document.
Sampling was conducted over a three month period.
^Negative values indicate that the control value was higher than the
non-control value.
Source: COHS (1983)
-------
Table 5. Examples of Maximum Concentrations of Toxic Air
Contaminants Found in Air Near Hazardous Waste Sites
Site
Chemical Love Canal Kin-Buc Elizabeth,
Niagara Falls, NY Edison. NO NO
(ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3)
Benzene 5703 1550 234
Acetaldehyde 245
Phenol 10
Chloroform 172 266
Hethylene chloride 10 1250
Trichloroethylene 270 93 218
Perchloroethylene 1140 394 95
Carbon tetrachloride 5 20
Chlorobenzene 240 50 16
Source: Esposito et al. (1981)
-------
Table 4. Concentrations of Toxic Air Pollutants at Hazardous Waste Landfills
Source
BKK Corp. CA Landfill 2
(ug/m3) (ug/m3)
Max. Av. Max. Av.
Caputo Landfill, NY Kin-Buc. NO
(ug/m3) (ug/ffl3)
Max. Av. Max. Av.
Source 92
Kin-Sue, NO
(ug/m3)
}i0rtbenzene
n Tetrachloride
sdiloroethylene
chloride
nylene chloride
2400
950
364 60
190 15
242
36 14.3
3.2 4896 1229
28.5 7.4
13.9 3.2
2.1x10** 1.6X106*
23.2
9.6
59.6
300 130
57.4
Magnitude of these values is so great that their accuracy is questionable. They could not be verified from
lu presented in the original source references cited in the secondary source from which they were extracted.
toefore. these values may represent typographical or other error, and are not considered to represent anfcient air
wentrations at or near the site.
"tell: Hwang (1982) - data taken from various sources cited in Hwang (1982)
V2: USEPA. 1982.
-------
Other studies report the results of measurement of air
concentrations of various toxic air contaminants at several
landfills.
- Table 4 presents a summary of the results of certain studies,
as summarized 1n Hwang (1982). It could not be determined
from this source where the exact locations of the sampling
points were (I.e., on-s1te or off-site).
- Table 5 also summarizes ambient air concentrations of toxic
contaminants at or near TSO facilities. The data 1n that
table, however, equate with maximum reported concentrations.
and they represent a likely worst case. In addition, the
source from which these data were obtained (Esposlto et al.
1981) states that 1t was not possible to determine the exact
locations (on- or off-site) from which the samples
represented by these data were obtained.
- Ambient concentrations of certain air toxics have also been
reported 1n detail for residential areas adjacent to BKK
landfill 1n California and at a distant control site. This
sampling effort was conducted over a three month period. The
results are summarized 1n condensed form 1n Table 6, which
presents net air contaminant loading assumed to be
attributable to the landfill (ambient concentrations 1n
residential areas minus control concentrations).
3. A large proportion of wastes handled at TSOFs are managed 1n open
systems.
From the data In No. 1 above (Mestat 1984):
- 410 (21%) of the total 1495 treatment facilities Impound
16.6x10.9 gallons (35X) of the total 47.5x10^ gallons
treated.
- 552 (13%) of the total 4299 storage facilities Impound
14.1x109 gallons (39X) of the total 36.5x10? gallons
stored.
- 116 (27X) of the total 430 disposal facilities Impound
5.1x109 gallons (35X) of the total 14.7x10$ gallons
disposed.
- 199 (46X) of the total 430 disposal facilities landfill
O.SxlO9 gallons (5X) of the total 14.7xl09 gallons
disposed.
-------
Table 3. Volatile Organic Emissions from Stationary
and Habile Sources
Tons/year
Industrial Sources
Stationary Fuel Combustion
Open Burning
Miscellaneous
(Organic Solvents, etc.)
Mobile Sources
Total
Source
3.5 x
1.4 x
1.0 x
13.4 x
11.7 x
*1
106 \
106 1
106 /
10* /
106
Stationary
sources a
19.3xl06
in 1975
and
13.7xl06
in 1981
Source 92
!9.8xl06
0.9xl06
J.OxlO6
7.7xl06
31.0 x 10*
21.4xl06
Source fl: Hwang (1982) based on 1975 data presented in USEPA (1976)
Source #2: USEPA (n.d.). 1981 estimates as cited in Breton et al. (1983).
Open burning and miscellaneous sources are combined and include
incineration and open burning of solid waste.
-------
Table 2. Estimated Volatile Organic Emissions from Hazardous
Waste Facilities (1982 Estimates)*
Tons/year
Surface Impoundments
Disposal 4.0 x 106
Treatment 7 0 1Q6 \ l.9x!06
Storage 8 0 x 1Q6
Landfills 4 ? x 1Q6
Land Treatment Facilities 1.8 x io6
Total 25.5 x IO6
Source: Hwang (1982)
"Note that Hwang (1982) does not present a detailed explanation of the
demotion of these estimates. Thus, their reliability can not be
determined.
-------
Quantity (percent) of the total 36.5xl09 gallons of waste
stored'by each storage category:*
- storage tanks S.lxlO9 gallons (14)
- storage containers 0.2xl09 gallons (
-------
Number (percent) of the total 430 disposal facilities
employing each disposal category:*
- landfills 199 (46)
- disposal surface
Impoundments 116 (27)
- injection wells 87 (20)
- land application 70 (16)
- other 7 (2)
8. Quantity of waste managed:
Total quantity of waste managed « 71.3xl09 gallons
(264x1O6 metric tonnes)
Quantity of waste managed by Industry source:
- chemical and petroleum Industries
(SIC 28-29) 85%
- Metal related Industries
(SIC 33-37) 7%
- Other Industries 8%
Quantity (percent) of the total 71.3xl09 gallons of waste
treated, stored and/or disposed:*
- treated 47.5x109 gallons (67)
- stored 36.5x10* gallons (51)
- disposed 14.7xlQ9 gallons (21)
Quantity (percent) of the total 47.5x1O9 gallons of waste
treated by each treatment category:*
- treatment tanks 8.7xl09 gallons (18)
- treatment surface
Impoundments . 16.6x109 gallons (35)
- Incinerators O.SxlO9 gallons (1)
- other 4.6x109 gallons (10)
*Number/quantity values rounded to one decimal point. Percent values
rounded to whole percent. Also, note that the sum of the disaggregated
treatment, storage, and disposal category values (numbers and quantities)
are greater than the total number of facilities or quantities reported
because some facilities employ multiple processes on-s1te.
-------
Summary of Information and Issues Pertaining to Hazardous
Waste Treatment. Storage, and Disposal Facilities
1. In the Fall of 1982 and Spring of 1983, an extensive national survey
of hazardous waste generators and treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities was conducted by Westat. Inc. for EPA/OSW. Collation and
tabulation of the data, obtained by questionnaire response and
addressing generator and TSOF operations 1n 1981, has recently been
completed, and the results published 1n a final summary report
(01etz et al. 1984). The following data pertaining to TSDFs have
been extracted from that report:
A. Number of facilities:
Total number of TSOFs » 4818
Number (percent) of the total 4818 TSDF facilities employing
treatment, storage and/or disposal:*
- treatment 1495 (31)
- storage 4299 (89)
- disposal 430 (9)
Number (percent) of the total 1495 treatment facilities
employing each treatment category:*
- treatment tanks 609 (41)
- treatment surface
Impoundments 410 (27)
- Incinerators 240 (16)
- other 392 (26)
Number (percent) of the total 4299 storage facilities
employing each storage category:*
- containers 3577 (83)
- storage tanks 1428 (33)
- storage surface
Impoundments 552 (13)
- waste piles 174 (4)
- other 139 (3)
*Number/quant1ty values rounded to one decimal point. Percent values
rounded to whole percent. Also, note that the sum of the disaggregated
treatment, storage, and disposal category values (numbers and quantities)
are greater than the total number of facilities or quantities reported
because some facilities employ multiple processes on-s1te.
-------
Table 1 (continued)
Sources
Compounds 18 TSOF Study List of 32 23 Toxics Sunmary
Chemicals Carcinogens Information Chemicals
Hexachlorocyclopenadiene X X4
Manganese X X4
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylene chloride X X3
Methyl chloroform X X4
Nickel .X X* X1
Nitrobenzene X
Nitrosonorpholine X
PCBs X
Pentachlorophenol -
Perchloroethylene XX X3
Phenol X
Phosgene X
Propylene oxide X
Styrene X
Trichloroethylene XX X3
Vinyl chloride X
Vinylidene chloride X X3
*Subsulfides and carboniles; oxides and sulfates.
Numerical superscripts indicate type and quality of health evidence:
'human; strong
^animal; strong
^animal; weak
Inadequate evidence
-------
Table 1. Target Chemicals for Consideration in this Evaluation
Sources
Compounds 18 TSOF Study List of 32 23 Toxics Summary
Chemicals Carcinogens Information Chemicals
1,2-Toluene diisocyanate
1.3-Butadiene X X2
4.4-Methylene dianiline
Acetaldehyde X
Acrylonitrile XX X2
Allyl chloride X
Arsenic X
Benzene X
Benzo(a)pyrene X
Benzyl chloride X
Beryllium X X2
Cadmium XX X3
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride XX X2
Chlorobenzene X2
Chloroform XX X2
Chloroprene X
Chromium X X1
Coke oven emissions X X^
Dibenzofuran
Dimethyl nitrosamine X
Oioctylopthalate
Dioxin (2,3.7,8,-TCOO) X X2
Epichlorohydrin X X3
Ethyl benzene X
Ethylene bromide X
Ethylene chloride X
Ethylene dibromide X
Ethylene dichloride X X2
Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether
Ethylene oxide XX3
Formaldehyde X X
-------
APPENDIX F-3
Review of Air Toxics Data for TSDFs and Superfund Sites
This Appendix conveys findings concerning TSDF air toxics release
Issues. Included 1s a discussion of Superfund sites which ranked high In
the HRS due to air releases of VOC.
Table 1 comprises a listing of those chemicals that were cited 1n
materials provided by EPA (sources cited at the top of the table) as
being toxic (due to cardnogenlclty, etc.)- This listing served as a
focus for a review and qualitative evaluation of relevant TSDF reports.
The remainder of this Appendix consists of material extracted from the
reviewed literature, as well as conclusions drawn from that Information.
The material 1s organized Into seven statements or observations, with
accompanying bulleted Items supporting/expanding each statement.
Per capita risk levels are calculated for those chemicals having HAP
study unit risk numbers. These data are presented In Table 11. However,
1t 1s Important to note that even those risk values that are based on the
best air concentration available for this evaluation (I.e., net toxics
concentration downwind of the TSDF facility - obtained by subtracting
upwind/control values from downwind values) must be viewed as
representing the worst case (I.e., constant exposure to the Indicated
concentration over a lifetime). Other values (on-s1te; maximum; sample
site unknown) should be Interpreted as extreme worst case - an unlikely
scenario as people would not breathe on-sHe concentrations over a
lifetime. Thus, these latter data are presented for Illustrative
purposes only and should not be Interpreted to represent actual,
real-world risk experienced by receptor populations.
-------
POTW Prototype Code: C.3
POTW Flow (gal/day): 19 x 106
Pollutants
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene di chloride
Carbon Tetrachlorlde
Chloroform
Vinyl Chloride
Trlchloroethylene
Perch! or ethyl ene
Acrylonitrile
Influent
(KKq/yr)
0.03
0.26
N.O.
N.O.
0.20
N.O.
0.53
0.52
N.O.
Effluent
(KKq/yr)
0.12
0.03
N.O.
N.O.
0.19
N.O.
<0.02
<0.02
N.O.
Sludge
(KKg/yr)
<0.02
0.06
N.O.
N.O.
N.O.
0.04
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
-------
Table 11. (continued)
/*
nitpound
£^~sample location
*ne12
£l3
J4
ygfortn
yofonn
nloroethylene12
jloroethylene13
jloroethylene14
flloroethylene12
,_iloroethylene13
tfloroethylene14
0, tetrachloride12
0i tetrachloride13
CAG
Concentration (uq/m3)
Max Avg. Min
unknown: Maximum (worst
(5703)
- (1550)
- (234) -
- (172)
- (266)
- (270) -
- (93) -
- (218) -
- (1140) -
- (394) -
- (95) -
- (5)
- (20)
Unit Risk Per
Number Max
possible case) concentrations11:
6.9x10-6 _
6.9x10-6 _
6.9x10-6
1.0x10-5 _
1.0x10-5 _
4.1x10-6 _
4.1x10-6 _
4.1x10-6
.7x10-6
.7x10-6 _
.7x10-6 _
.5x10-5 _
.SxlO-5 _
Capita Risk
Avg. Min
(3.9x10-2)
(l.lxlO-2)
(1.6xlO-3) - -
(1.7xlO~3)
(2.7xlO~3)
(l.lxlO-3)
(3. SxlO-4)
(8.9X10-4)
(1.9xlO-3)
(6.7xlO~4)
(1.6X10-4)
(7.5x10-5)
(S.OxlO-4)
__
_ _
__
_ _
^^
'ues. taken from Table 5, represent maximum concentrations found at or near TSO facilities and do not
iverage conditions. Also, the sample sites are unknown. Thus the high values may well have been obtained
freshly excavated holes, etc., and can not necessarily be considered representative of ambient air over the
i. The risk values associated with these concentrations are presented for illustrative purposes only.
jicentration data from Table 5, Love Canal, NY (only one value reported).
Kentration data from Table 5, Kin-Buc, NO (only one value reported).
went ration data from Table 5, Elizabeth, NO (only one value reported).
-------
In many cases. U was not possible to determine the location
or period of sampling performed at a given site from the
literature available for this study. Thus, 1t 1s not known
whether such data represents ambient or restricted (e.g.. 1n
a vent) concentrations, on-s1te values at one point 1n time
(event), on-slte values over time, offsite event values, or
offslte values over time.
In some cases, monitoring data provided upwind/control and
downwind data. For these sites, the data 1n Table 11 are
calculated for the estimated net air toxics contribution
assumed to be attributable to the facility (I.e., downwind
ambient concentration minus upwind/control concentration).
The estimated risk levels shown 1n Table 11 represent the
level of risk experienced by a person breathing the Indicated
chemical concentration continuously over a lifetime.
The representativeness of these data points cannot be
assessed.
-------
REFERENCES
Ase PK. 1981. A1r pollution sampling and monitoring at hazardous waste
facilities. Chicago, IL. IIT Research Institute. Prepared for
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No.
68-03-2654.
Battye W, Breton M, Farlno U, Nunno T, Spawn P, Turner H, Warn T. 1984.
Status of air emissions regulatory development for area sources In
hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities: draft final
report. Chapel H111, NC. GCA Corporation. Prepared for Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Contract No. 68-01-6871.
Breton M, Nunno T, Spawn P, Farlno M, Mclnnes R. 1983. Assessment of
air emissions from hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSOFs): preliminary national emission estimates. Bedford
MA. GCA Corporation. Prepared for Office of Solid Waste, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-02-3168.
COHS. 1983. Ambient air monitoring and health risk assessment for
suspect human carcinogens around the BKK landfill 1n West Covlna.
California Department of Health Services, California Air Resources Board,
and South Coast A1r Quality Management District.
D1etz S. Emmet M. DIGaetano R. Tuttle 0. Vincent D. 1984. National
survey of hazardous waste generators and treatment, storage and disposal
facilities regulated under RCRA 1n 1981. Rock vine, MD. Westat. Inc.
Prepared for Office of Solid Waste. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Contract No. 68-01-6861, subcontract No. EPA 33-01.
Esposlto MP, Wagner TJ. Amlck RJ. 1981. Ambient air monitoring at
hazardous waste disposal sites. Cincinnati OH. PEDCo Environmental
Inc. Prepared for Environmental Monitoring and Systems Laboratory, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-02-2722.
Farlno W, Spawn P, Jas1nsk1 M, Murphy M. 1983. Evaluation and selection
of models for estimating air emissions from hazardous waste treatment.
storage, and disposal facilities. Bedford, MA. GCA Corporation.
Prepared for Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Contract No. 68-02-3168.
Hwang ST. 1982. An assessment of toxic organic emissions from hazardous
waste facilities. Washington. DC. Office of Solid Waste. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
REFERENCES (continued)
JACA. 1983. Workshop on research 1n support of OSW regulation of air
emissions from hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities: Summary of Proceedings. Ft. Washington, PA. JACA Corp.
Workshop held 1n Cincinnati. OH. October 19-20.
Radian, not dated. Evaluation of air emissions from hazardous waste
treatment, storage and disposal facilities In support of the RCRA Air
emission regulatory Impact analyses (RIA). Austin, TX. Radian
Corporation. Prepared for Office of Research and Development. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-02-3171.
Thlbodeaux, LJ and Hwang ST. 1982. Landfarming .of petroleum wastes
modeling the air emission problem. Environmental Progress. 1 (1), 42-46
(February 1982).
Thlbodeaux LJ. Parker DG. and Heck. HH. not dated. Measurement of ~
volatile chemical emissions from wastewater basins. Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory.
USEPA. 1976. Control of volatile organic emissions from existing
stationary sources-volume I; control methods for surface-coating
operations. Research Triangle Park. NC, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
USEPA. 1982. Site status report: Kln-Buc landfill/pool C. Edison.
NJ. Region III. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1983. Superfund feasibility study guidance document.
Washington. DC. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Final draft dated August 5. 1983.
USEPA. 1984. Superfund remedial Investigation guidance document.
Washington. DC. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. First draft dated March 28, 1984.
Versar. 1983. Superfund feasibility study background document: source
release, environmental fate, exposed population, and Integrated exposure
analyses: preliminary draft. Versar Inc. Springfield, VA. prepared for
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Contract No. 68-01-6271.
Wetherold R6 and Dubose DA. 1982. A review of selected theoretical
models for estimating and describing atmospheric emissions from waste
disposal operations: draft Interim report. Austin, TX. Radian
Corporation. Prepared for Office of Research and Development. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-03-3038.
-------
Attachment A: TSDF Workshop Research
Project Summary
I. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS DEVELOPMENT
SA-1 Sampling Me mods for Characterization of Hazardous waste Sites
P.O. - Charles Fitzsinnnons EMSL-LY 545-2359
SA-2 Development of an Air Monitoring System Complete with a QA Manual and
QA Workshop for Use at Super-fund Hazardous Waste Sites
P.O. - Joseph R. Gearo, Jr. OERR-DC 475-8103
SA-3 Development of Protocols for Ambient Air Sampling and Monitoring at
Hazardous waste Facilities
P.O. - Seong Hwang OSW/LDB-DC 382-4685
SA-4 Fugitive Organic Emissions from Incineration
P.O. - Merrill Jackson 1ERL-RTP 629-2559
SA-5 Tenax GC/MS System for Sampling and Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds
P.O. - J. F. Walling EMSL/R7P 629-7954
SA-6 Technical Assistance Document for Sampling and Analysis of Organic
Compounds in Ambient Air
P.O. - Larry Purdue EMSL/RTP 629-2665
SA-7 Compendium of Methods for Measuring Toxic-Organic Compounds 1n Ambient Air
P.O. - Larry Purdue EMSL/RTP 629-2665
SA-8 Synthesis and Evaluastion of Polymeric Sorbents for Collection of Volatile
Organic Compounds
P.O J1m Mulik EMSL/RTP 629-3067
SA-9 Air Sampling Methods for Chlorinated Die* 1ns
P.O. - Robert Lewis EMSL/RTP 629-3067
SA-10 Evaluate Chemometric Methods for Analysis of Analytical Outputs
P.O. - Donald R. Scott EMSL/RTP 629-7948
SA-11 Evaluate TALKS for Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds
P.O. Donald R. Scott EMSL/RTP 629-7948
SA-12 Develop Methods for Metal Species In Particulate Matter
P.O. - Donald R. Scott EMSL/RTP 629-7948
SA-13 Evaluate New GC Techniques
P.O. - Stan Kopczynski EMSL/RTP 629-3066
SA-14 Evaluate Supercritical Fluid Chromatography for Analysis of
Nonvolatile Organic Compounds
P.O. - Robert Lewis EMSL/RTP 629-3067
SA-15 Evaluation of GC/FTIR and GC/FTIR/MS for Analysis of Volatile Organic
Compounds
P.O. - J. WalUng/W. McClenny EMSL/RTP 629-7954
Source: JACA 1983
-------
Attachment A (cont.)
SA-16 Evaluation of LC/MS for Analysis of Nonvolatile Organic Compounds
P.O. - Ken KPOSt EMSL/RTP 629-7969
SA-17 Cryogenic Concentration of Volatile Organic Compounds
P.O. - William A. McClenny EMSL/RTP 629-3158
SA-18 Evaluation of Passive Samplers for Collection of Volatile Organic Compounds
P.O. - Robert Lewis EMSL/RT? 629-3067
-------
Attachment A (cont.)
II. SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION
SC-1 Evaluation of Air Emissions from Hazardous Waste TSD Facilities 1n Support
of the RCRA Air Emission RIA
P.O. - Paul dePerdn MERL-C1 684-7871
SC-2 Investigation and Evaluation of Air Emissions from Hazardous Waste
Treatment. Storage and Disposal
P.O. - Karen Walker OSW/TB-DC 382-4790
SC-3 Measurement of Air Emissions from Hazardous Waste TSD Facilities
P.O. - Karen Walker OSW/TB-DC 382-4790
SC-4 Soil Gas Sampling Techniques of Chemicals for Exposure Assessment
P.O. - Shelly W11 Hanson EMSL-LY / 545-2208
SC-5 Detection of Leachate Plumes 1n Groundwater with Geophysics
P.O. - Jeffrey van Ee EMSL-LY - 545-2254
SC-6 Atmospheric Measurements of Trace Hazardous Organic Chemicals
P.O. - Larry CupUt ESRL-RTP 629-2878
SO7 study of Source-Receptor Measurements Methodology for Some Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons
P.O. Janes Cheney ESRL-RTP 629-3085
SC-8 Technical Report Concerning Production. Migration and Hazards Associated
with Toxic Gases at Remedial Action Sites
P.O. - Steve James MERL-C1 684-7871
SC-9 Locating and Estimating Emissions from Sources of (9 compounds now 1n
preparation)
P.O. - Thomas F. Lohre OAQPS 629-5585
SC-10 Land Treatment Research Project
P.O. - James P. Law, Jr. ERL-Ada 743-2300
SC-11 Land Treatment of Petroleum Refinery Sludges
P.O. - Don Kampbell ERL-Ada 743-2332
SC-12 Assessment of Air Emissions from Land Treatment of Refinery 011y Sludges
P.O. - Fred Pfeffer MERL * OEPER-Ada 743-2305
SC-13 Identify Volatilization Mechanism and Parameters, and Develop Measurement
Techniques for these Parameters
P.O. - Steve James MERL-C1 684-7871
-------
Attachment A (cont.)
SC-14 Evaluation and Selection of Models for Estimating Air Emissions fron
Hazardous Waste Treatment. Storage and Disposal Facilities
P.O. - Seong Hwang OSH/LOB-DC 382-4685
SC-15 Evaluation of Volatilization of Hazardous Constituents at Hazardous
Waste Land Treatment Sites,
P.O. - Fred Pfeffer MERL/ERL 743-2305
SC-16 Methods for Assessing Exposure to Particulate Emissions from Surface
Contamination Sources
P.O. - John Schaun OHEA/EAC 382-7353
-------
Attachment A (cont.)
III. CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
CT-1 Evaluation of Control Techniques and Associated Costs to Reduce Toxic
Air Emissions from Hazardous waste TSDFs
P.O. - Seong Hwang OSW/LDB-DC 382-4685
CT-2 Investigation of VOC Emissions Control Technology Methods
P.O. - Steve James MERL-C1 684-7871
CT-3 Field Verification of Methane Movement Predictions and Methane Control
Systems for Landfills
P.O. - Mike Rouller MERL-C1 684-7871
CT-4 Develop Mobile Collection/Tree tnent System for Spilled Volatile and
Gaseous Materials
P.O. - Mike Royer MERL-Ed1son . 340*6633
CT-5 Evaluation/Development of Foams for Mitigating Air Pollution from
Hazardous Spills
P.O. - Dr. John Brugger MERL-Ed1son 340-6634 -
CT-6 Preliminary Assessment of Hazardous Waste Pretreaflnent as an Air
Pollution Control Technique
P.O. - Ben Blaney IERL-C1 : '684-7696
CT-7 Assessments of Control Techniques for Air Emissions from TSDF Facilities
P.O. - Ben Blaney IER1-C1 684-7696
CT-8 Catalytic Oxidation: Industrial Flares
P.O. - Bruce Tlchenor IERL-RTP 629-2745
CT-9 HAP - Control Technology
P.O. - Bruce Tlchenor IERL-RTP 629-2745
CT-10 HAP - Source Assessment
P.O. - Bruce Tlchenor IERL-RTP 629-2745
-------
Attachment A (cont.)
IV. FATE AND EFFECTS
FE-1 Assessment of Air Emissions from Hazardous Waste TSOFs, and Determination
of Hunan Health Impacts
P.O. - Seong Hwang CSH/LDB-DC 382-4685
FE-2 Evaluation of Hazardous Waste Sites and Accompanying Health Effects
P.O. - Karen Walker OSH/TB-DC 382-4790
FE-3 Use of the W-E-T Model to Estimate Impacts of TSDF Air Emissions
P.O. - Curtis Haymore/Frank Smith OSH/EPAB-DC 382-4646
FE-4 Applications of Inhalation Exposure Methodology (IEM) to Hazardous
Waste Air Emissions
P.O. - Ben Blaney IERL-C1 684-7696
FE-5 Methods for Assessing Exposure to Wind-Blown Partlculates
P.O. - John Schaum OHEA/EAG 382-7353
i
FE-6 Risk Assessment Methodology
P.O. - M1ke Dourson OHEA/ECAO-C1 684-7572
FT-7 Health Effects Assessments
P.O. - M1ke Dourson OHEA/ECAO-C1 684-7572
FT-8 Ambient Air/Source Transport and Transformation Relationship for Selected
Hazardous A1r Pollutants
P.O. - Bill Lonnefflan ESRL-RTP 629-2829
FE-9 Update Data Base on Volatile Organic Chemicals 1n the Ambient Atmosphere
P.O. - Larry Cupltt ESRL-RTP 629-2878
FE-10 Use of Structure Activity Relationships to Predict Formation of HAPS as
Secondary Products
P.O. - Larry Cupltt ESRL-RTP 629-2878
FE-11 Hazardous A1r Pollutants In the Urban Environment
P.O. - Marl Jon Bufal1n1 ESRL-RTP 629-2949
FT-12 Ecological Risk Analysis
P.O. - Al Mogh1ss1 OEPER-DC 382-5945
-------
Attachment B
Summary of Source Characterization Research Needs
OSWNeeas
Comments
Near Team
r
1. Field Assessment
2. Emission Models
3. waste Stream
Characterization
Waste piles, drum storage,
tanks (data input from
previous work)
Validation needed
(Incidental to other monitoring)
some data available needs to /
be collected and coordinated
Long Term
1. Emiss. Model Guidance"
Document
2. Waste Pile Emission Data
3. Other YOC Emission Data
Effect of Landfill Ban
Update one to two years
Waste characterization
(chemical groupings) eg.
BaP as reoresentative of PAH
Source: JACA 1983
-------
Attachment C: TSDF Data Needs Not Presently Being Addressed
by Research Programs
Site visits to TSDFs and analysis of wastestreams and composite
wastewater samples,
Model plant and waste parameter development.
Review of data on competing removal mechanisms,
Additional review of TSDF emission models,
Assessment of potential controls.
Review of ambient concentration data around TSDFs,
Review of health effects data for TSDF pollutants, and
Review of economic data on the Industry.
Source: Battye et al. (1984)
-------
APPENDIX G
Phase II Point Source Emissions Data
-------
Appendix G presents point source emissions data developed during
Phase II. This appendix 1s divided Into three sections: (1) Versar
generated data, (2) SAI data, and (3) supplemental data.
(1) Versar generated data
This section of Appendix G contains a listing of the estimated point
source emissions and emission factors for the A1r Toxics Study as
developed by Versar, Inc.
Emissions estimates have been based on plant capacities. A plant's
capacity Is Its maximum production rate. Capacities will be used to
estimate emissions for the following reasons:
Actual projection rates are rarely known for Individual
facilities.
Actual production rates will vary between product lines and
Individual plants.
Capacity data offer the most flexibility to the automated data
system. For example, 1f the actual production rate for a given
product line 1s known (e.g., 80 percent of capacity), the
emissions estimates can be easily revised.
Capacities offer conservative estimates In the absence of more
accurate data.
The first part of this section of Appendix G presents Information on
each of the pollutants that have been examined. At the conclusion of
that discussion the data determined as being most reliable and was used
1n Phase II 1s presented. The second part presents the recommended
methodology for estimating emissions from utilities.
EMISSIONS DATA FOR SPECIFIC POLLUTANTS:
Acrylonltrlle;
According to Tlerney and Milkens (1979), acrylonltrlle 1s produced
by four companies at six locations. Total air emissions from
-------
acrylonltrlle production were estimated to be 0.807 kg/kkg produced. The
acrylonltrlle emissions were estimated by multiplying this emissions
factor by the plant capacity. The company names, locations, capacities,
and estimated acrylonltrlle emissions from production are presented In
Table 1.
Acrylonltrlle 1s used to make acrylic fibers and plastics (Radian
Corp. 1982). Emissions from all these facilities are Important; however,
only emissions from acrylic fiber manufacturing and nltrlle elastomers
could be estimated because of the lack of emissions factors for specific
plastic facilities and process operations. Acrylonltrlle emissions from
fiber production are presented 1n Table 2. Emissions from nltrlle
elastomer operators, as estimated by Industry, are also Included In
Table 2.
Chloroform;
Chloroform Is manufactured by two major processes 1n the U.S.
Uncontrolled emission factors for various operations within these
processes have been estimated by GCA (1982). These emissions factors
along with capacity data were used to estimate emissions. The major
chloroform producers, their capacities, and estimated emissions are
presented In Table 3.
Cadmium:
Atmospheric cadmium 1s emitted from combustion processes, primary
smelters, municipal refuse Incineration, wastewater sludge Incineration,
and Iron and steel production. Emissions from the major point sources,
I.e.. utilities and copper and lead smelters, have been estimated; these
sources account for approximately 90 percent of all atmospheric cadmium
emissions from point sources (GCA 1981). Furthermore, the other sources
either could not be calculated or were so small, numerous, and widely
scattered that It was not practical to estimate their emissions for this
screening analysis.
-------
Table 1. Acrylomtrile Emissions from Production Facilities
Company
American Cyanamid Co.
Ou Pont Co.
Du Pont Co.
Monsanto Co.
Monsanto Co.
Vistron Corp.
Location
New Orleans, LA
Beaumont. TX
Memphis, TN
Alvin, TX
Texas City, TX
Lima, OH
County
Orleans
Jefferson
Shelby
Brazoria
Calves ton
Allen
Capacity Emissions
(kkg/yr) (kkg/yr)
91,000
160,000
130,000
200,000
190,000
91,000
73
130
100
160
150
73
Source: Tierney and Uilkins 1979.
-------
Table 2. Acrylonitrile Emissions from Acrylic Fiber Producers
and Nitrile Elastomer Operations
Acrylic Fiber Producers
Company
Location
County
Annual Estimated
capacity emissions
(kkg/yr) (kkg/yr)
American Cyanamid Co. Milton. FL
Santa Rosa
59,000
Badische Corporation Williamsburg, VA Wi11iamsburg 34,000
City
E.I. duPont de Nemours
197
113
and Co. , Inc.
Tennessee Eastman Co.
Monsanto Co.
Camden, SC
Waynesboro, VA
Kingsport, TN
Decatur, AL
Kershaw
Waynesboro
City
Sullivan
Morgan
71.5001
71.5001
11,000
143,000
238
238
37
477
1These are estimated capacities based on a total capacity of 143,000
kkg for all E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., acrylic fiber operations.
Source: Radian Corp. 1982.
Nitrile Elastomer Operations
Company Name
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Copolymer Rubber
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Goodrich
Goodrich
County
Harris. TX
East Baton Rouge, LA
Sutnnit, OH
Jefferson, KY
Estimated emissions
(kkg/vr)
2.4
4.3
26.3
34.0
141.3
Source: Industry Emission Estimates (1983). Presented in a letter from
Joseph E. Hadley Jr., LaRoe, Winn and Moerman, Attorneys at Law
to Deborah Taylor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, dated March 19, 1984.
-------
Table 3. Emissions from Chloroform Production Facilities
Company
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
Dow Chemical
Linden Chemicals and
Plastics, Inc.
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Vulcan Materials Co.
Location
Belle, WV
Freeport, TX
Plaquemine, LA
Moundsville, WV
Louisville, KY
Geismar, LA
Wichita, KS
County
Kanawha
Brazoria
Iberville
Marshall
Jefferson
Ascension
Sedgwick
Chloroform
capacity
(kkg/yr)
18,000
45,000
45,000
14.000
34,000
28,000
50,000
Chloroform
emissions'
(kkg/yr)
53
110
105
47
72
64
100
Process emissions were weighted by production process; fugitive
emissions were based on 8,760 hrs of operation per year.
Source: GCA 1982.
-------
Atmospheric cadmium emissions data from primary lead and copper
smelters were extracted directly from GCA (1981). This Information 1s
presented 1n Tables 4 and 5. '
The atmospheric cadmium emissions factors for utilities burning coal
were extracted from GCA (1981). However, 1t was necessary to derive a
cadmium emissions factor for utilities burning residual oil. This
emissions factor was based on the following data:
U.S. consumption of residual oil 1n utilities: 493xl06 bbl/yr (GCA 1981)
Heating value of residual oil: 140,000 Btu/gal (Versar 1981)
Cadmium emissions from residual oil-fired utilities: 133 kkg/yr (GCA 1981)
The first step towards estimating the emissions factor 1s to determine
the total amount of Btus produced by residual oil-fired utilities:
493 x 106 bbl x 42 gal/bbl x 140,000 Btu/gal = 2.899 x 105 Btu
The emissions factor 1s simply total cadmium emissions divided by total
Btu production:
133 kkg/yr
2.899xl015 Btu
or
0.046 kkg/yr
1012 Btu
A 11st of all the atmospheric cadmium emissions factors for
utilities along with Information on their use Is presented 1n Part 2 of
this section of Appendix G.
Perchloroethylene;
Although perchloroethylene production facilities only account for
approximately 2 percent of total perchloroethylene air emissions (USEPA
1980) they should be characterized since major point sources can cause
-------
Table 4. Cadmium Emissions from Primary Lead Smelters
Company
ANAX-Hcmestake Lead Tollers
ASARCO. Inc.
ASARCO. Inc.
ASARCO, Inc.
The Bunker Hill Co.
St. Joe Minerals Corp.
i
Location
Boss. MO
East Helena, NT
Glover, HO
El Paso, TX
Kellogg, ID
Herculaneun, NO
County
Dent
Lewis & Clark
Iron
El Paso
Shoshone
Jefferson
Emissions
(kkg/yr)
7.9 - 28
3.8
0.9
4.3
47.0
9.8 - 13.0
Source: GCA 1981.
-------
Table 5. Cadmium Emissions from Primary Copper Smelters
Company
ASARCO, Inc.
ASARCO. Inc.
ASARCO. Inc.
Cities Service Co.
Cities Service Co.
Inspiration Consolidated
Copper Co.
Kennecott Copper Corp.
Kennecott Capper Corp.
Kennecott Copper Corp.
Kennecott Copper Corp.
Magma Copper Co.
Phelps Dodge Copper Corp.
Phelps Dodge Copper Corp.
Phelps Dodge Copper Corp.
Phelps Dodge Copper Corp.
Copper Range Co.
Location
El Paso, TX
Hayden, AZ
Tacoma, WA
Copperhill, TN
Anaconda, NT
Miami, AZ
Garfield, UT
Hayden. AZ
Hurley, NH
McGill. NV
San Manuel. AZ
A jo, AZ
Douglas, AZ
Hi! dago. NM
Morenci, AZ
White Pine, MI
County
El Paso
Gila
Pierce
Polk
Deer Lodge
Gila
Salt Lake
Gila
Grant
White Pine
Pinal
Pimo
Cochise
Hi 1 dago
Green lee
Ontanogon
Emissions
(kkg/yr)
0.2
3.7
1.5
0.3
N/A
2.1
3.9
1.2
1.9
5.1
3.5
2.4
3.9
2.0
7.5
4.4
N/A: Not available
Source: GCA 1981.
-------
substantial localized Impacts. Perchloroethylene 1s manufactured by
three processes, and thus air emissions may vary among plants using
different processes. However, since no further data were known, total
air emissions from production were simply allocated to Individual plants
based on their capacities. The capacity data and total air emissions
data from production (3,000 kkg/yr) were extracted from USEPA (1980).
This Information and the estimated emissions are given 1n Table 6.
TMchloroethylene (TCE):
The TCE emissions from production were extracted directly from USEPA
(1981a) and are presented 1n Table 7. A1r emissions from degreaslng
operations are considerably more significant; however, they will be
characterized using the existing NEDS data tape and during the area
source analysis.
Arsenic:
Host of the point source air emissions of arsenic are Inadvertently
produced. The largest point sources are primary copper and lead smelters
and utilities. The estimated atmospheric emissions data from copper
smelters were extracted directly from USEPA (1981b) and are presented 1n
Table 8.
The estimated arsenic releases from lead smelters were calculated
based on the lead smelter capacities (GCA 1981) and the total amount of
atmospheric arsenic emissions from lead smelters USEPA (1981b). These
release estimates are presented 1n Table 9.
It was found that atmospheric arsenic emissions from utility boilers
burning bituminous coal are by far the most significant; they account for
nearly 98 percent of all arsenic air emissions from utilities (USEPA
1981b). For utilities burning bituminous coal, emission factors were
estimated based on the total amount of bituminous coal burned 1n utility
boilers (USEPA 1981b). the heating value of the coal (GCA 1981), and the
-------
Table 6. Perchloroethylene Emissions
Manufacturer
Diamond Shamrock
Dow Chemical
E.I. duPont de Nemours
Ethyl Corporation
Occidental Petroleum
Corp. (Hooker)
PPG Industries
Stauffer Chemicals
Vulcan Chemicals
Location
Deer Park. TX
Freeport, TX
Pittsburg, CA
Plaquemine, LA
Corpus Christie. TX
Baton Rouge, LA
Taft, LA
Lake Charles, LA
Louisville, KY
Geismar, LA
Wichita, TX
County
Harris
Brazoria
Contra Costa
Iberville
Nueces
E. Baton Rouge
St. Charles
Calcasieu
Jefferson
Ascension
Wichita
Production
capaci ty
(kkg/yr)
90,700
54,400
9,100
68.000
72.700
22.700
18.100
90.700
31.800
68.000
22.700
Perch loro-
ethylene
emissions
(kkg/yr)
496
297
50
372
397
124
99
496
174
372
124
Source: USEPA 1980.
-------
Table 7. TCE Emissions from Production
Company
Location
County Capacity Air emissions
(kkg/yr) (kkg/yr)
Dow Chemical Corp. Freeport, TX Brazoria 68,000 110
Ethyl Corp. Baton Rouge. LA E.Baton Rouge 20,000 30
PPG Industries Lake Charles, LA Calcasieu 91.000 140
Source: USEPA 1981a.
-------
Table 8. Arsenic Emissions from Primary Copper Smelters
Company
ASARCO. Inc.
ASARCO. Inc.
ASARCO, Inc.
Cities Service Co.
Cities Service Co.
Inspiration Consolidated
Copper Co.
Kennecott Copper Corp.
Kennecott Copper Corp.
Kennecott Copper Corp.
Kennecott Copper Corp.
Magma Copper Co.
Phelps Dodge Copper Corp.
Phelps Dodge Copper Corp.
Phelps Dodge Copper Corp.
Phelps Dodge Copper Corp.
Copper Range Co.
Location
El Paso, TX
Hayden, AZ
Tacona. UA
Anaconda, NT
Copperhill. TN
Miami, AZ
Garfield. UT
Hayden, AZ
Hurley. NH
McGill. NV
San Manuel , AZ
Ajo. AZ
Douglas, AZ
Hi 1 dago, NM
Morenci, AZ
White Pine. HI
County
El Paso
Gila
Pierce
Deer Lodge
Polk
Gila
Salt Lake
Gila
Grant
White Pine
Pinal
Pino
Cochise
Hi 1 dago
Green lee
Ontanagon
Emissions
(kkg/yr)
40
210
210
180
-
6
8
36
5
58
25
310
37
6
30
4
Source: USEPA 19816.
-------
Table 9. Arsenic Emissions from Primary Lead Smelters
Company
ANAX-Homestake
Lead Tollers
ASARCO. Inc.
ASARCO. Inc.
ASARCO. Inc.
The Bunker Hill Co.
St. Joe Minerals
Corp.
Location
Boss, NO
East Helena. NT
Glover, NO
El Paso, TX
Kellogg, ID
Herculaneum. NO
County
Dent
Lewis & Clark
Iron
El Paso
Shoshone
Jefferson
Emissions
(kkg/yr)
38.1
32.7
30.0
32.7
35. 4
61.2
Source: GCA 1981 and USEPA 1981b.
-------
Table 10 1,3-Butadiene Emissions from Manufacturing
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Facilities
Petrotex (Tenneco)
Union Carbide
Exxon Chemical
Mobil Oil Corp.
Texaco Butadiene Co.
Dow Chemical
El Paso Products
Corpus Christ i
Petro Chemicals
ARCO Chemicals
Conoco (Dupont)
Standard Oil (Amoco)
Shell Chemical Co.
Location
Houston, TX
Seadrift, TX
Texas City, TX
Baton Rouge, LA
Bay town, TX
Beaumont, TX
Port Neches. TX
Freeport, TX
Corpus Christi , TX
Corpus Christi , TX
Channel view, TX
Alvin, TX
Alvin, TX
Deer Park, TX
Norco, LA
County Emissions
(kkg/yr)
Harris
Calhoun
Calves ton
East Baton Rouge
Harris
Jefferson
Jefferson
Brazoria
Nueces
Nueces
Harris
Brazoria
Brazoria
Harris
St. Charles
24.7
1.4
2.6
12.8
9.9
2.5
20.6
3.5
4.7
8.2
18.5
6.0
7.4
20.6
20.6
Source: Versar 1984.
-------
Table 11 1,3-Butadiene Emissions from SBR Production*
Facilities
Location
Ci ty County
Emissions
(kkg/yr)
Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Company
B.F. Goodrich Co.
Copolymer Robber &
Chemical Corp.
American Synthetic
Rubber Corp.
Firestone Tire and
Rubber Co.
General Tire and
Rubber Co.
Houston, TX
Harris
Port Neches, TX Jefferson
Baton Rouge, LA East Baton Rouge
Louisville, KY Jefferson
Lake Charles, LA Calcasieu
Borger, TX
Odessa, TX
Hutchinson
Ecter
151.7
59.9
50.5
28.7
78.8
37.8
34.7
aThere are four other SBR production facilities; however, emissions could
not be estimated from these plants.
Source: Versar 1984.
-------
total arsenic emissions from all utility boilers burning bituminous coal
(USEPA 1981b). The calculation procedure for this emission factor and
other arsenic emission factors for utilities 1s Identical to the
procedure used to derive the utility emissions factors for cadmium.
l.3-Butad1ene:
Atmospheric emissions of 1,3-butad1ene come from many sources
Including manufacturing, second-tier processing, tire wear, municipal
Incineration, and clgareet smoke (Versar 1984). However, the major point
source emissions come from manufacturing the second-tier processing.
Second-tier processing Includes the manufacture of elastomers such as
styrene-butadlene rubber (SBR), polybutadlene, styrene-butadlene
copolymer latexes, polychloroprene, and acrylon1tr1le-butad1ene-styrene
resins (Versar 1984). SBR 1s the major second-tier use of 1,3-butad1ene,
and 1t 1s the only use where 1,3-butad1ene emissions have been quantified
(Versar 1984).
Airborne 1,3-butad1ene emissions from manufacturing and SBR
production are presented 1n Table 10 and 11, respectively.
Total Chromium:
Total chromium emissions from point sources can be characterized as
being emitted from direct sources or from Inadvertent sources. Direct
sources Include chromlte ore refining, ferrochromlum production,
refractory manufacture, chromium chemicals manufacture, chromium plating.
steel production, electric arc furnaces, basic oxygen process furnaces,
open hearth furnaces, and leather tanning.
Indirect sources of chromium are coal and oil combustion, cement
production, municipal refuse and sewage sludge Incineration, cooling
towers, and asbestos mining and milling.
One study (V1v1an1 et al. 1982) listed the following percentages of
total anthropogenic air emissions: 73 percent from ferrochromlum
-------
refining, 8.6 percent from coal combuslon, 3.7 percent from the Iron and
steel Industry, 2.0 percent from oil combustion, and 0.9 percent from
Incineration; 11.8 percent 1s unidentified. However, these data are
based on a 1970 source and the relative percentages are known to have
changed drastically since 1t was reported that 1n early 1983, 95 percent
of the ferrochromlum consumed 1n the U.S. was Imported (USEPA 1983).
Consequently, the current percentage of total emissions from each of the
sources listed above 1s unknown.
Only two sets of emissions data could be developed for total
chromium releases: emissions from sodium dlchromate manufacturing and
chromium emissions factors from utilities. Sodium dlchromate
manufacturing emissions are presented 1n Table 12 while the total
chromium emissions factors for utilities are given with the other trace
metal emission factors for utlltles 1n the second part of this section of
Appendix G.
Pentachlorophenl (PCP):
PCP 1s used as a fungicide 1n wood preservatives and cooling
towers. Atmospheric releases of PCP have been estimated to 50 kkg from
production, 344 kkg from preserved wood, and 228 from cooling towers
(USEPA 1980). Emissions estimates from PCP production facilities are
presented 1n Table 13. The other two sources are area sources and are
discussed 1n Appendix G.
Ethvlene D1brom1de (EDB):
The EPA has recently Imposed an emergency suspension on nearly all
uses of EDB. The effected uses Include preplant soil fumigation and the
fumigation of grain, citrus, and felled logs. Within one year, a law
* 4.
will go Into effect permanently banning these uses. '
'Telephone conversation between John Oorla, Versar and Joseph
Relnert, Chemist, Health Effects Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency on April 19, 1984.
-------
Table 12 Chromium Emissions from Sodium Chronate and
Sodium Dichromate Manufacturing Plants
Plant
Allied Corp.
American Chrome
Location
City
Baltimore, MO
Corpus Christi , TX
County
Baltimore
Nueces
Emissions
(kkg/yr)
3.5
2.5
& Chemicals, Inc.
Diamond Shamrock Castle Hayne, NC New Hanover 12.4
Source: USEPA 1983.
-------
Table 13 Pentachlorophenol Emissions from Production Facilities
Company
Dow Chemical Co.
Reichhold Chan. , Inc.
Vulcan Co.
City
Midland
Tacoma,
Wichita
Location
, MI
MA
, KA
County
Bay
Pierce
Sedgwick
Annual
Capacity
(kkg/yr)
12,000
8,500
8,500
Emissions
(kkg/yr)
21
15
15
Source: USEPA 1980.
-------
The only two remaining applications of any consequence are the use of
* +
EDB as a beehive fumlgant and as a lead scavenger 1n gasoline. Use
as a beehive fumlgant 1s very limited and thus the releases are expected
to be quite small. Releases from the use of EDB 1s leaded gasoline were
covered 1n Appendix G.
EDB production should be significantly reduced as a result of the
restrictions Imposed by the EPA. Consequently, releases from production
should also be significantly reduced, although the actual quantity of
releases could not be estimated.
Beryllium
One report (V1v1an1 et al. 1982) estimates that nearly 97 percent of
all atmospheric beryllium emissions are generated from coal and oil
combustion. Emission factors for the major point source emissions In
this category, I.e., utilities, are presented In the second part of this
section of Appendix G. Other non-combustion point source emissions were
relatively Insignificant and/or difficult to characterize, and therefore
they were not estimated.
SUMMARY OF PHASE II POINT SOURCE DATA
In Table 14, a summary Is presented of the supplemental point source
data that were entered Into HEMIS. These data are organized by county; a
plant number from NEDS 1s given for easy Identification. When the plant
number 1s unknown, the supplemental data could not be matched to a
specific plant 1n NEDS. In all cases, the original source of the data 1s
Telephone conversation between John Dorla, Versar and Roger
Holtorf, Economist, Benefits and Use Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency on April 19, 1984.
-------
Table 14. Supplemental Point Source Data Entered
Into HEMIS
Burlington. NJ
Company Name
Tenneco
Hooker
Plant No. Stack No.
0407
0430
unknown
unknown
Pollutant
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Emissions Sources
62.0
886
Versar
Versar
Harris, TX
Diamond Shamrock
Petrotex
Exxon Chemicals
Shell Chemical Co.
ARCO
Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co.
DuPont
Reichold Chemicals
0009
0031
0014
0036
0075
0088
0011
0033
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
05
Perch loroethylene
1,3-Butadiene
1,3-Butadiene
1,3-Butadiene
1,3-Butadiene
1,3-Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
496
24.7
9.9
20.6
18.5
151.7
33.6
20.5
Versar
Versar
Versar
Versar
Versar
Versar
SAI
SAI
Jefferson, TX
DuPont
Texaco
Mobil
B.F. Goodrich Co.
0003
0006
0009
0034
30
unknown
unknown
02
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
1,3-Butadiene
1,3-Butadiene
130
20.6
2.5
59.9
Versar
Versar
Versar
Versar
Kanawaha, WV
FMC Corp. 0002 unknown
Diamond Shamrock 0034 unknown
Diamond Shamrock 0034 unknown
DuPont 0001 unknown
Carbon tetrachloride 991 SAI
Chloroform 14.5 SAI
Chloroform 53 Versar
Formaldehyde 52.8 SAI
Sedgewick, KS
Vulcan
Vulcan
Vulcan
Vulcan
0070
0070
0070
0070
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
Carbon tetrachloride 30.5 SAI
Chloroform 100 Versar
Chloroform 36.6 SAI
Pentachlorophenol 15 Versar
Essex, NJ
Celanese Chem. Co.
1039
unknown
Formaldehyde
20.0
SAI
-------
Table 14 (continued)
son.
jrazoria,
TX
Calcasieu, LA
Germany Name
Stauffer Chen.
Stauffer Chan.
Stauffer Chem.
Stauffer Chem.
American Synthetic
Rubber
Borden Chem. Co.
Plant No. Stack No.
Pollutant
Emissions Sources
Dow Chemical Co.
Dow Chemical Co.
Dow Chemical Co.
DOM Chemical Co.
DOM Chemical Co.
Monsanto
DOM Chemical Co.
DOM Chemical Co.
Amoco
Conoco (DuPont)
Monsanto
PPG Industries
PPG Industries
PPG Industries
Firestone Rubber
& Tire
0216
0216
0216
0216
0011
0028
0004
0004
0004
0004
0004
0009
0004
004
0014
unknown
0009
0004
0004
0004
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
03
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
0007
unknown
Carbon tetrachloride 17.7 SAI
Chloroform 27.3 SAI
Chloroform 72 Versar
Perchloroethylene 174 Versar
1,3-Butadiene 28.7 Versar
Formaldehyde 8.4 SAI
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chloroform
Trichloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Acrylonitrile
Perch1oroethy1ene
1,3-8utadiene
1,3-Sutadiene
1,3-Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Trichloroethylene 140 Versar
Trichloroethylene 154 SAI
Perchloroethy1ene 496 Versar
l,3-8utadiene 78.8 Versar
6.4
110
13.7
110
145
160
297
3.5
7.4
6.0
3.7
SAI
Versar
SAI
Versar
SAI
Versar
Versar
Versar
Versar
Versar
SAI
Baltimore, HO
Allied Corp.
unknown* unknown
Total Chromium
3.5
Versar
*The UTH coordinates for this plant are as follows:
UTHX - 363.3, UTMY - 4349.2.
-------
Table 14 (continued)
County Concany Name
East Baton Rouge. LA
Ethyl Corp.
Ethyl Corp.
Ethyl Corp.
Copolymer Rubber Co.
Exxon Chemical
Plant No. Stack No.
0017
0017
0017
0008
0014
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
Pollutant
Trichloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
1,3-Butadiene
1,3-Butadiene
Emissions
30
34.8
124
50.5
12.8
Vers.
SAI
Vers.
Vers.
Sullivan, TN
Tennessee Eastman Co. 0003 unknown
Acrylonitrile
37
Versar
Galveston. TX
Monsanto Co.
Union Carbide
0010
0015
88
unknown
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
150
26
Versar
Versar
-------
given. When data from more than one source are listed, the priority of
the data Is as follows: (1) SAI, (2) Versar, and (3) NEDS.
METHOD FOR ESTIMATING EMISSIONS FROM UTILITIES
Most of the VOC emissions from utility boilers can be automatically
apportioned using the NEDS data tapes. For utilities where specific VOC
emissions cannot be easily estimated, additional emissions factors can be
developed at a later date depending on their relative Importance and the
constraints of this study.
However, trace element emissions. I.e., arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
and nickel, from utilities cannot be directly estimated using only the
NEDS data tapes. To estimate these emissions, the annual operating rate
and fuel heat content will have to be extracted from the NEDS point
source listing and multiplied by an emissions factor. The general method
1s as follows:
Annual Operating Rate x Fuel Heat Content x Emissions Factor = Emissions (kkg/yr)
The units for the annual operating rate and fuel heat content (e.g.
8600 1000 gallons burned and 147 million Btu/1000 gallons burned) will
vary for the different fuel types; however, the product of these two
values will always yield the total quantity of Btus produced at a given
utility. Utility emissions factors will always be 1n kkg/1012 Btu.
These emissions factors depend on the type of fuel being combusted
and, for bituminous coal, the type of boiler (e.g., pulverized dry bottom
and stoker). This Information will also have to be extracted from the
NEDS listing (by SCC codes) for the proper emissions factor to be
selected. In the literature, emissions factors do not change for
different boiler sizes (e.g., 10-100 MMBtu compared to >100 MMBtu).
The emissions factors, by type of fuel burned, are summarized below:
-------
Bituminous Coal:
Pulverized dry bottom -
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Nickel
Total Chromium
2.9 x KHkkg/lO^Btu
2.3 x 10-3kkg/1012Btu
3.8 x 10-3kkg/1012Btu
6.5 x 10-2kkg/1012Btu
1.8 x KHkkg/lO^Btu
(USEPA 1981b. GCA 1981)
(Versar 1983)
(GCA 1981)
(Versar 1983)
(USEPA 1983, Versar 1981)
Pulverized wet bottom -
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Nickel
Total Chromium
3.0 x KHkkg/lO^Btu
1.9 x 10-3kkg/1012Btu
9.4 x 10-4kkg/1012Btu
5.3 x 10-2kkg/1012Btu
1.8 x 10-'kkg/1012Btu
(USEPA 1981b, GCA 1981)
(Versar 1983)
(GCA 1981)
(Versar 1983)
(USEPA 1983, Versar 1981)
Cyclone -
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Nickel
Total Chromium
2.3 x KHkkg/lO^Btu
3.9 x 10-4kkg/1012Btu
9.8 x 10-5kkg/1012Btu
1.2 x 10-2kkg/1012Btu
3.6 x 10-2kkg/1012Btu
(USEPA 1981b, GCA 1981)
(Versar 1983)
(GCA 1981)
(Versar 1983)
(USEPA 1983, Versar 1981)
Stokers -
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Nickel
Total Chromium
2.7 x 10-1kkg/1012Btu
5.8 x 10-3kkg/1012Btu
1.3 x 10-4kkg/1012Btu
1.5 x 10° kkg/1012Btu
2.2 x 10-2kkg/1012Btu
(USEPA 1981b. GCA 1981)
(Versar 1983)
(GCA 1981)
(Versar 1983)
(USEPA 1983, Versar 1981)
Lignite (all types of boilers):
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Nickel
Total Chromium
7.0 x 10-2kkg/1012Btu
2.6 x 10-2kkg/1012Btu
negligible
7.2 x 10-2kkg/1012Btu
negligible
(USEPA 1981b)
(Versar 1983)
(GCA 1981)
(Versar 1983)
(USEPA 1983, Versar
1981)
-------
Anthracite:
All trace
elements
negligible
Residual oil (all types of boilers):
9.9 x 10-4kkg/1012Btu
2.5 x 10~3kkg/1012Btu
4.6 x 10-2kkg/1012Btu
4.5 x
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Nickel
Total Chromium 2.2 x 10-2kkg/1012Btu
(USEPA 1981b, Versar 1981)
(Versar 1983)
(GCA 1981, Versar 1981)
(Versar 1983)
(USEPA 1983, GCA 1981)
Distillate oil:
All trace
elements
negligible
Gas-Fired Utilities:
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Nickel
Total Chromium
negligible
negligible
negligible
4.4 x 10-2kkg/1012Btu
negligible
(USEPA 1981b)
(Versar 1983)
(GCA 1981b)
(Versar 1983)
(USEPA 1983)
THE STACK-SELECTION PROGRAM FOR UTILITIES
Originally, stack selection for utilities was based on only one set
of stack data. If these data were missing or recorded as zero, the worst
case default values were used. This led to an over dependence on default
stack parameters (for example, 1n Wayne, Michigan, seven out of nine
facilities used worst case default stack parameters) because of the lack
of stack data In NEDS.
To Improve this situation, a scheme was developed to select only
those stacks with good data (when stack data exist for the facility).
The stack selection was prioritized by the quantity of VOC, I.e., stack
-------
data associated with the largest quantity of VOC emissions were checked
first, followed by the stack data for the second largest quantity of VOC
emissions, etc. Of course 1f no data exist for a given facility, 1t will
still be necessary to use default values.
(2) SAI Data
This section of Appendix E presents point source emissions data
extracted directly from the report, "Human Exposure to Atmospheric
Concentrations of Selected Chemicals," Volume II, dated February 1982.
This report was prepared by Systems Applications, Incorporated (SAI) for
the Office of A1r Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS).
Data are presented for six chemicals: carbon tetrachloMde, nickel,
formaldehyde, chloroform, trlchloroethylene, and beryllium. Information
1s given on the company name, location, SAROAD Code, and estimated
emissions (In kkg/yr).
These data were developed by SAI and they have not gained full
acceptance by Industry and EPA. Consequently, a special code was entered
with the SAI data so that they could be easily distinguished.
(3) Supplemental Data
This appendix contains supplemental point source data (seven new
data points) that were Into HEMIS. The first data set, which contains
Industry emission estimates, was obtained by EPA. The second group of
data comes from an earlier Versar study that dealt with Kanawha, WV;
these data greatly enhance the NEDS data for this county.
-------
REFERENCES
GCA. 1981. Survey of cadmium emission sources. Research Triangle Park,
NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-450/3-81-013.
GCA. 1982. Locating and estimating air emissions from sources of
chloroform. Draft final report. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Radian Corp. 1982. Locating and estimating air emissions from sources
of acrylonltrlle. Draft final report. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Tlerney DR, W1lk1ns GE. 1979. Status Assessment of toxic chemicals:
acrylonltrlle. Cincinnati, OH. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA-600/2-79-210a.
USEPA. 1980. An exposure and risk assessment for tetrachloroethylene.
Final draft report. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
USEPA. 1980. An exposure and risk assessment for pentachlorophenol.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Contract No.
68-01-3857.
USEPA. 1981a. An exposure and risk assessment for tMchloroethylene.
Final draft report. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
USEPA. 1981b. An exposure and risk assessment for arsenic. Final draft
report. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1983. Locating and estimating air emissions from sources of
chromium. Preliminary draft report. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Versar. 1981. Evaluation of the coal-limestone pellet fuel for
residential applications. Draft report. Research Triangle Park, NC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3181.
Versar. 1983. Emissions factors handbook version II. Draft.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Versar. 1984. Exposure assessment for 1,3-Butadlene. Unpublished.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
V1v1an1, Kayser, Sterling. 1982. Toxic metals and metalloids: an
analytic comparison of emissions and agency controls by Industry
categories. Washington, DC: Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
APPENDIX H
Procedures for the Selection of Stack Parameters
-------
As part of Us Input, GAMS requires stack parameters (height,
diameter, velocity, and exit temperature). Since NEDS may 11st different
stack parameters for each stack at a multi-stack facility, HEHIS selected
the set of stack data to use according to the following algorithm:
Distinguish between those stacks where NEDS lists height and
diameter from those where either parameter Is missing.
From those with complete stack parameters, sort stacks 1n order of
the quantity of VOC emissions. Use the stack parameter of the
stack emitting the highest quantity of VOC emissions.
If NEDS lists no height or diameter for any stack, use whatever
stack parameters are available for the stack emitting the highest
quantity VOC emissions.
For the chosen stack, 1f either height or diameter 1s missing, set
the height equal to 10 meters and the diameter equal to 0.1
meters. If flow Is missing, set the velocity equal to 0.1
meters/second; otherwise, the velocity 1s equal to flow/3.14159 x
Radius?. If exit temperature 1s missing, set the exit
temperature equal to 300 degrees K.
HEMIS then creates records In the format required by GAMS, using the
stack parameters determined from the above algorithm. HEMIS
simultaneously converts UTM coordinates Into latitudes and longitudes.
For the 180 utilities In the 35 counties, HEMIS follows the same
procedures, except that the default height and diameter are 52.4 and 1.70
meters, respectively; default velocity Is 20 meters/second; and default
exit temperature 1s 491 K. Furthermore, 1f the diameter exceeds height x
0.075 then diameter In meters equals (height - 1.8)758.8.
For POTW volatilization, the algorithm 1s simpler. Emissions are
calculated for each POTW, and stack parameters are uniform: height
equals 10 meters; diameter equals 0.1 meters; velocity equals 0.1
meters/second; and exit temperature equals 300 K.
-------
APPENDIX I
Annual Incidence of Cancer for Coke Oven Plants
-------
Annual Incidence of Cancer for Coke Oven Plants
Contained in the 35 County Study
County
Cook, IL
Marion, IN
Baltimore, HO
Wayne, HI
Allegheny, PA
Cuyahoga, OH
Number of
Plants
2
1
1
2
2
1
Annual Cancer
Incidence
.25
26
.18
.34
.71
.69
Lifetime Cancer
Incidence
17.5
18.2
12.6
23.8
49.7
48.3
170.1
Source: USEPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
-------
APPENDIX J
Raw Outputs from HEHIS
-------
Appendix J is forthcoming in a separately bound volume
------- |