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

-------