EPA/600/R-01/012
March 2001
Final
www.epa.gov/ncea
User's Manual for the Database of Sources of Environmental
Releases of Dioxin-Like Compounds in the United States:
Reference Years 1987 and 1995
Exposure Assessment and Risk Characterization Group
National Center for Environmental Assessment - Washington Office
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document has been reviewed in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency policy and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
March 2001
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within EPA's Office of
Research and Development was responsible for the preparation of this document. General
support was provided by Versar Inc. under EPA Contract Numbers 68-D5-0051 and 68-W-99-
041. David Cleverly of NCEA served as the EPA Work Assignment Manager providing overall
direction and coordination of the production effort as well as technical assistance and guidance.
March 2001
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. USING THE DATABASE 2
2.1 GETTING STARTED 3
2.2 SOURCE CATEGORY INTERFACE 6
2.3 FACILITY DATA FILES 9
2.4 USERNOTES 10
3. DATABASE STRUCTURE 10
3.1 OVERALL STRUCTURE 10
3.2 SUMMARY FILE STRUCTURE 14
3.3 DATA FILE STRUCTURE 16
3.3.1 Worksheet 1 - Facility Data 16
3.3.2 Worksheet 2 - Emission Factor (EF) 17
3.3.3 Worksheet 3 - TEQ Emission Factors 17
3.3.4 Miscellaneous Worksheets 17
4. CALCULATIONS AND QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES 26
4.1 STANDARDIZATION 26
4.2 CALCULATION OF EMISSION FACTORS 27
4.3 QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES 28
5. ANNUAL CDD/CDF EMISSION CALCULATIONS 29
BIBLIOGRAPHY 37
March 2001
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
Table 1. A Sample of Summary Table in the Source Category Summary File 8
Table 2. TEF Schemes for CDD/CDFs 11
Table 3. Database Directory Breakdown 13
Table 4. Data Fields for Facility Data Worksheet 18
Table 5. Emission Factor (EF) Worksheet Contents 22
Table 6. TEQ Emission Factor (EF) Worksheet Contents 24
Table 7. Confidence Rating Scheme for U.S. Emission Estimates 32
Table 8. List of Known and Suspected CDD/CDF Sources 34
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. National Database Introductory Screen 3
Figure 2. Search Dioxin Database Screen 4
Figure 3. Search Dioxin Database based on Combustion Category 5
Figure 4. Search Dioxin Database Results 5
Figure 5. Source Category Interface 7
Figure 6. Database Directory Structure 12
Figure 7. Example of a Summary File 15
Figure 8. Example of the Facility Data Sheet in a Facility Data File 21
Figure 9. Example of an Emission Factor Sheet in a Facility Data File 23
Figure 10. Example of a TEQ Sheet in a Facility Data File 25
Figure 11. Sample CDD/CDF Concentration Standardization Calculation 27
Figure 12. Sample Emission Factor Calculations 28
March 2001
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
The National Database of Sources of Environmental Releases of Dioxin-like Compounds
in the United States has been developed by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) to
be a repository of congener-specific chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/dibenzofuran (CDD/CDF)
emission data extracted from original test reports. The database was designed to accommodate
facility-based emission data, as well as non-facility based sources (e.g., mobile sources such as
automobiles, and area sources such as residential wood combustion). Test reports from various
State agencies, trade associations, EPA program offices, and EPA regulatory dockets were
consolidated and assimilated into the database. Most of the emission data in Version 3.0 of the
database concern releases to air because few data are currently available on releases to other
media.
The database contains information that can be analyzed to track emissions of CDD/CDF
over time, compare homologue and congener profiles between and among source categories, and
develop source-specific emission factors that can then be used to develop emission estimates. In a
separate report (Volume 1, Sources of Dioxin-Like Compounds in the United States) (U.S. EPA,
2001), ORD has used the database to develop a national inventory of annual releases from a
variety of sources for two reference years: 1987 and 1995. EPA selected 1987 primarily
because, prior to this time, little empirical data existed for making source specific emission
estimates. The year 1987 also corresponds roughly with the time when significant advances
occurred in emissions measurement techniques and in the development of high resolution mass
spectrometry and gas chromatography necessary for analytical laboratories to achieve low level
detection of CDD and CDF congeners in environmental samples. Soon after this time, a number
of facilities began upgrades specifically intended to reduce CDD/CDF emissions. Consequently,
1987 is also the latest time representative of the emissions occurring before widespread
installation of dioxin-specific emission controls.
EPA selected 1995 as the latest time period that could practically be addressed consistent
with the time table for producing the rest of the document. The data collected in the companion
document to this document on CDD/CDF and dioxin-like PCB levels in environmental media and
food were used to characterize conditions in the mid-1990s. So the emissions data and
media/food data in these two volumes are presented on a roughly consistent basis. Since 1995,
EPA has promulgated regulations limiting CDD/CDF emissions for a number of the source
categories that contribute to the inventory including municipal waste combustors, medical waste
incinerators, hazardous waste incinerators, cement kilns burning hazardous waste, and pulp and
paper facilities using chlorine bleached processes. Consequently, the estimate of releases in
1 March 2001
-------
the!995 inventory should not be assumed to accurately represent post-1995 releases. EPA
intends to periodically revise this inventory.
The remainder of this document is divided into four sections. Instructions for using the
database are discussed in Section 2. The structure of the database and the flow of information
into and out of the database are described in Section 3. Assumptions made to standardize the
data are described in Section 4 and sample calculations are provided in Section 5. Section 5 also
describes the process used in U.S. EPA (2001) to develop nationwide annual CDD/CDF TEQ
emission estimates based, to a large extent, on emission factors calculated using this database.
The National Database was created using Microsoft Excel 97® (hereafter, Excel 97®) in
the manner of linked "workbooks." Certain calculations and manipulations of data performed in
Excel® may be lost if the database is converted for use with other software; therefore, any
recalculations for the data in the National Database should be performed using Excel®. The
Excel® workbooks should be compatible with the MacPower version of Excel.
Because the database is stored on a CD-ROM, a CD player is required for use. Although
there do not appear to be any memory constraints in using the CD-ROM, a computer with a 486
or Pentium processor and an adequate amount of RAM should be used.
2. USING THE DATABASE
Version 1.2 of the National Database was created in Excel 97®. This version of the
database contains an interface that allows the user to link summary and individual facility files
from an introductory screen (i.e. the main table) via the "hyperlink" function provided by Excel
97®. The user must first select which TEQ version of the Database to use (i.e., "I-TEFs" or
"WHO98TEFs").
Version 3.0 of the National Database features a user-friendly interface (Figure 1), which
has been designed to help users quickly locate information in the Database. Search capabilities
have also been included in the Database to allow the user to locate facility emissions based on an
EPA Identification Number, the State, the Facility's Name, or the Facility's Combustion
Category.
March 2001
-------
"* Dioxin Database
&EPA
Database of Sources of Environmental Releases of
Dioxin-Mke Compunds in the United States (Version 3.0)
Reference Years 1987 and 1995
of
David H Cleverly
Environmental Scientist
National Center for Environmental
Assessment (8623D)
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
email: cleverly.david@epa.gov
I-TEQ Data
WHO i8 TEQ Data
Search Data
Dioxin Inventory
View User's Guide
March 2001
Exit Database
Versar, Inc.
Figure 1. National Database Introductory Screen
2.1 GETTING STARTED
The National Database should automatically start upon placing the CD into the CD-ROM
drive. However, if the introductory screen does not appear after a few seconds, use the following
steps to start the database:
Open Windows Explorer
• Select the drive which represents the CD-ROM and open the introductory screen by
clicking DioxinDb, the file name of the dioxin database executable file.
Note: The DioxinDb program will only work for Windows-based computers. Computers with
other operating systems should proceed to Section 3.1 for a discussion of the CD's directory
structure.
The introductory screen for the National Database allows the user to select from the I-
TEQ data, the WHO 98 TEQ data, or to search for data in the database. The introductory screen
also allows the user to view the User's Guide and the Dioxin Inventory of I-TEQDF and TEQDF-
WHO98 releases for 1995 and 1987, both PDF files. Selecting the I-TEQ Data button or the
WHO 98 TEQ Data button will open the appropriate Source Category Interface. The Source
March 2001
-------
Category Interfaces are Excel 97® files which allow the user to view data based on the
combustion source category. For more information on these interfaces, please refer to Section
2.2.
To search the National Database for data from a particular facility, the user should select
the Search Data button. Upon pressing this button the Search Dioxin Database screen should
appear (Figure 2). The user can search for data based on an EPA Identification number, a State
of interest, a Facility's Name, or by Combustion Category.
. Search Dioxin Database
To seaich the Dioxin Database for a particular facility, make a
selection from the Seaich Category drop down list below and entei the
appropriate Search Criteria. When you are finished entering criteria,
push the Conduct Search button and the Results will appear below.
To view the data for a facility, select the record in the Results list and
click on the View I-TEQ File or View WHO 98 TEQ File button.
Search Category
Search Criteria
Conduct Search
EPA ID
State
Facility Name
Combustion Category
Results
EPA ID
Site Name
CHy
Inci
View I-TEQ File
View WHO 98 TEQ File
Exit Search
Figure 2. Search Dioxin Database Screen
To search the database, the user should first select the desired Search Category from the
drop-down list. If the user decides to search for data based EPA ID and Facility Name, a text box
will appear that will allow the user to enter the EPA ID or facility name. If the user chooses to
search for data based on a State of interest or a Combustion Category, a drop-down list will
appear providing the user with applicable choices (Figure 3). Next, the user should enter or select
the appropriate Search Criteria in the text box or drop-down list which appears and push the
Conduct Search button. The results of the search will appear in the Results table (Figure 4). If
none of the records in the National Database meet the criteria entered, the Results table will
appear blank.
March 2001
-------
4 Search Dioxin Database
To search the Dioxin Database for a particular facility, make a
selection from the Search Category drop-down list below and enter the
appropriate Search Criteria. When you are finished entering criteria,
push the Conduct Seaich button and the Results will appear below.
To view the data for a facility, select the record in the Results list and
click on the View I-TEQ File or View WHO 98 TEQ File button.
Search Category j Combustion Category
Search Criteria
Conduct Search
Subcategory
Municipal Solid Waste Incineration
Results |A»Subcategories
EPA ID
Site Name
City
Inci
View I-TEQ File
View WHO 38 TEQ File
3
Exit Search
Figure 3. Search Dioxin Database based on Combustion Category
Search Dioxin Database
To search the Dioxin Database for a particular facility, make a
selection from the Search Category drop-down list below and enter the
appropriate Search Criteria. When you are finished entering criteria,
push the Conduct Search button and the Results will appear below.
To view the data for a facility, select the record in the Results list and
click on the View I-TEQ File or View WHO 98 TEQ File button.
1
Sedich Cdltjyuiy Combustion Categor
^"\KJr Search Criteria
| Municipal Solid Waste Incineration
Subcategory
Results A" Subcatefl°ries
EPA ID Site Name
Summary Table
Summary Table
Summary Table
Summary Table
LlJJ
View I-TEQ File View WHO
,i T 1 Conduct Search
5
d
City 1 *j
M_j
M
M
MT|
jTp1
96 TEQ File Exit Search
Figure 4. Search Dioxin Database Results
March 2001
-------
After the results of a search have been displayed, the user can go to the Excel 97® data file
by highlighting the row with the result of interest and pushing the View I-TEQ File or the View
WHO 98 TEQ File button. To exit the Search Dioxin Database screen, the user should simply
press the Exit Search button at the bottom of the screen.
2.2 SOURCE CATEGORY INTERFACE
The National Database contains Excel 97® files that permit the user to view data based on
the combustion source. These files can be accessed by selecting the I-TEQ Data button or the
WHO 98 TEQ Data button on the introductory screen for the National Database program, or
can access them from Excel 97®. An example of the Source Category Interface is depicted in
Figure 5.
To access the Source Category Interfaces from Excel 97®
• Place the CD into the CD-ROM drive and open the Excel 97®.
• Click the menu File and the selection Open.
• Select the drive which represents the CD-ROM and open the interface by clicking
Filetree, the file name of the main table.
Select the source category of interest in the interface by clicking with a mouse or
moving the cell pointer to the source category followed by hitting the key Enter.
Click the facility name listed in the summary table to access facility data.
Click the button located at the up-right corner of the first worksheet in the facility file
to return to the summary table, or click the bar located under the facility inventory in
the summary table of summary files to return to the introductory screen.
The emission source categories listed in the Source Category Interface have been linked to
source category summary files. By clicking a source category, the user will open the summary
table worksheet in the summary file for that category. A more detailed description and discussion
of each source category is provided in U.S. EPA(2000). An example of a summary table is shown
in Table 1. This summary table lists the average emission factors and average TEQ emission
factors of congener-specific and total CDD/CDF data. The facility names in the summary files
have been further linked to facility data files in the Database. The user can further access
individual facility data by clicking the corresponding facility names. The other
March 2001
-------
X Microsoft Excel - Fileiree
£ilc Edit View Insert Fotattt Tools Data Wjfidow Help
D & H
Arial
N\INT
i^^^^^^^^^^
_^^^^^^^^_2^^^^^^^^
SUMMARY
DIOXiN-LIKE COMPOUNDS 1C
ON FACTORS BY SC
I
CE CATEGORY
SOURCE CATEGORY
COMBUSTION SOURCE OF CDD/CDF:WASTE INCINERATION
Municipal Solid Waste Incineration >»
Hazardous Waste Incineration »:=
Medical Waste Incineration >:
Crematoria
Sevvaae Incineration
"ire Combustion
Combustion of Wastewater Si
>>
at Bleached Chemical Pu
rftMBIi^XlQM SOIIBCES OE CDB^CM- BOWMEnSMERGY
ERF ACE /
P Mills
GEMEAATIHN
__
ur
Ready
NUM
Figure 5. Source Category Interface
March 2001
-------
Table 1. A Sample of Summary Table in the Source Category Summary File
X Microsoft Excel - No aptd
Fie Edit View Insert Format Tools Data Window Help
D
100% *
Times New Roman
*.o .00
j ,00 +.0
Favorites T Go T
•—
\\CORP2\ENV_OPS\ENV_OPS\COMMON\3766-008\3486-012\I-TEF: -
Al jj B | Congener-hipecific and Total Emission Factor/TEQ Emission Factor tor Medical Waste Incineration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
A
B
without Air
Pollution Control Device
Congener- Specific and Total Emission Factor/TEQ Emission Factor for Medical Waste Int
All 3 facilities (ngflcg)
Data
4D 2378
5D 12378
6D 123478
6D 123678
6D 123789
7D 1234678
8D 12346789
4F 2378
5F 12378
5F 23478
6F 123478
6F 123678
6F 123789
6F 234678
7F 1234678
7F 1234789
8F 12346789
4D Total
5D Total
Average Emission Factor
(ngperkg
processed)
(ND=0)
50.6246
238.4363
313.3423
417.3794
539.9241
3304.8169
4178.6403
242.5086
772.5877
1061.1568
2677.9219
2078.3440
197.7000
2326.4227
7980.5156
1576.3957
9320.9849
733.1726
1782.7250
(ngperkg
processed)
(ND=1/2LOD)
50.8187
238.7338
314.6967
417.9778
541.2223
3304.8169
4178.6403
242.5086
772.5877
1061.1568
2677.9219
2078.3440
197.7000
2326.4227
8009.4301
1576.3957
9320.9849
733.3173
1782.7250
Average TEQ Emission Factor
(ngperkg
processed)
(ND=Q)
50.6246
119.2182
31.3342
41.7379
53.9924
33.0482
4.1786
24.2509
38.6294
530.5784
267.7922
207.8344
19.7700
232.6423
79.8052
15.7640
9.3210
(ngperkg
processed)
(ND=1/2LOD)
50.8187
119.3669
31.4697
41.7978
54.1222
33.0482
4.1786
24.2509
38.6294
530.5784
267.7922
207.8344
19.7700
232.6423
80.0943
15.7640
9.3210
3 Facilities W Act. Level Less tha
Data
4D 2378
5D 12378
6D 123478
6D 123678
6D 123789
7D 1234678
8D 12346789
4F 2378
5F 12378
5F 23478
6F 123478
6F 123678
6F 123789
6F 234678
7F 1234678
7F 1234789
8F 12346789
4D Total
5D Total
Average Emission
(ngperkg
processed)
(ND=Q)
68.1309
267.9765
346.4856
507.1574
494.2692
4668.8728
4875.0240
294.5708
820.4208
1140.7055
2383.7040
2443.8214
193.0556
2227.4655
7570.3947
1890.5541
15902.1712
1021.5414
2225.6611
(ng
pro
(ND=
i
t.
]
;
i
^
*•
]
i;
]
;
it. J_ JL M\ Table. MVIs with No APCDs^ |mission Fattor (ND=OJ J_ Emission FjttiJ~iJ~ ] jj
Ready
Facility
Return to Medical W. Incine:
Facility Name
Roval Jubilee Hospital Incin«
Saint Hospital
3 aint A s M e die al C enter
U3C Medical Center
C ao e F e ar M
C
L M H o
ii J if
! 1 f
March 2001
-------
worksheets included in summary files can also be accessed by clicking worksheet tabs located at
the bottom of the screen.
The Source Category Interfaces were created in Excel 97® and, as such, will only operate
using Excel 97®, or a later version. Any attempt to use these interfaces with earlier versions of
Excel® will result in disabling the interfaces.
2.3 FACILITY DATA FILES
Upon opening a facility data worksheet, Excel 97® will inform the user that the worksheet
contains links and will ask the user if they wish to re-establish the links. The user should only re-
establish the links in a worksheet if they intend to update the worksheet with new available test
data or changed TEF values in the chemical data worksheet (Chemid) and then recalculate EFs
and TEQs. The user should keep in mind that re-establishing links may take a few minutes,
depending on the speed of their computer.
The links in the worksheets retrieve congener-specific data contained in a chemical data
worksheet. This chemical worksheet contains information on the chemical's name, abbreviations,
and toxic equivalency factors so that the chemical data only needs to be entered once.
Excel® creates the link between this chemical worksheet and facility data files through the
Vlookup function. The Vlookup function searches the chemical data in the chemical worksheet,
matches the corresponding row, and inserts a particular congener's Toxic Equivalency Factor, a
2378 Toxicity flag, the Congener flag, and the Homologue flag to the facility data file.
A workbook for each facility contains three worksheets (see Section 3.3 for more details).
The user can move around in a worksheet by using the arrow keys on the keyboard or by using
the mouse and the vertical and horizontal slide bar located at the right and bottom of the screen,
respectively. The user can move from worksheet to worksheet by moving the mouse to the
appropriate tab in the lower portion of the screen and pressing the mouse button.
The EF and TEQ worksheets were created through the use of Excel®'s Pivot Table
function. A pivot table is an interactive worksheet table that enables the user to summarize and
analyze data from existing tables1. Pivot tables were created from the facility data worksheets to
determine the average, maximum, and minimum EF and TEQ values and count of test runs for
each congener identified. For more information on Excel®'s Pivot Table command, please consult
Excel®'s Help screens.
Chester, Thomas. Mastering Excel 5 for Windows. Sybex, Inc. Alameda, CA. 1995
9 March 2001
-------
2.4 USER NOTES
Users can conduct data analysis directly on the files contained on the CD-ROM.
However, any analysis or changes to the data cannot be saved back to the CD-ROM, but must be
saved to a separate disk or drive.
The summary files on the CD-ROM were created by using the Data Consolidate command
provided by Excel 97®. Data from the EF and TEQ worksheets were pulled from each of the data
files and consolidated into the summary files. For more information on Excel 97®'s Data
Consolidate command, please consult Excel 97®'s Help screens.
3. DATABASE STRUCTURE
3.1 OVERALL STRUCTURE
The overall structure of the database is a series of linked spreadsheets contained within
Excel® "workbooks". This structure was selected over several others because of its versatility for
entering data from the original test reports, standardizing the data, and calculating emission
factors. An overarching criterion for the design of this database was that the data storage and
calculations using the data be transparent to users of the database. ORD believes that this
transparency is better achieved through the use of spreadsheets which allows the user to follow
the calculations, than through the use of a custom database application.
Version 3.0 of the National Database consists of two databases which differ only in the
toxicity equivalency factor (TEF) scheme used. One database uses the International TEF
approach (U.S. EPA, 1989d); the other uses the 1998 World Health Organization approach (Van
den Berg et al., 1998) (see Table 2).
Each of the two databases consists of approximately 270 spreadsheet files, distributed
among over 30 directories and subdirectories. Figure 6 illustrates the directory structure. Each
directory/subdirectory was given a unique name to indicate the type of emission source that was
being analyzed. For instance, the directory name "CK-NHW" was used for Cement Kilns Burning
Non-Hazardous Waste. Table 3 lists the directories/subdirectories which make up the National
Database and the category/sub category to which directory refers.
10 March 2001
-------
Table 2. TEF Schemes for CDD/CDFs
International TEF Scheme
CDD Congeners
2,3,7,8-TCDD
,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
TEF
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.0001
CDF Congeners
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
TEF
0.1
0.05
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.0001
1998 World Health Organization Scheme
CDD Congener
2,3,7,8-TCDD
,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
TEF
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.001
CDF Congener
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
TEF
0.1
0.05
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
11
March 2001
-------
.t View Go Favorites Tools Help
~ :•.•'••!;•_ Op i Cut Copy Paste Undo Debte Properties ; Views
J:VENV OPSt
-------
Table 3. Database Directory Breakdown
Directory
Ck-HW&T
Ck-nhw
Cre
Hwi-97
Kbl
Misc-cat
MSW-last
Mwi-last
Peg
Pfms
Pnm
Pref
Sal
Snm
Ssi
Tc
Wei
Wrs
Subdirectory
HwGt450F
HwLs450F
Boi
Ck
Inc
Lwa kiln
Fb-rdf
Mb-ref
Mb-rk
Mb-ww
Mod-ea
Mod-sa
Rdf
Subdirectory
Comm_inc
Site_inc
Category
Cement Kilns Burning Hazardous Waste with inlet temp of
APCD> 450F
Cement Kilns Burning Hazardous Waste with inlet temp of
APCD< 450F
Cement Kilns Burning Nonhazardous Waste
Crematoria
Hazardous Waste Incinerators
Boilers - Haz Waste
Cement Kilns - Haz Waste
Incinerators - Haz Waste
Commercial Incinerators
On-site Incinerators
Lightweight Aggregate Kilns
Kraft Black Liquor Recovery Boilers
Miscellaneous Sources
Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators
Fluidized Bed - refuse-derived fuel
Mass burn - refractory -wall
Mass burn - rotary kiln
Mass burn - water-wall
Modular excess-air
Modular starved-air
Refuse derived fuel
Medical Waste Incinerators
Power Energy Generation
Primary Ferrous Metal Smelting
Primary Non-ferrous Metal Smelting
Petroleum Refining Catalyst Regeneration
Secondary Aluminum Smelting
Secondary Non-ferrous Metal Smelting
Sewage Sludge Incineration
Tire Combustion
Industrial Wood Incineration
Combustion of Wastewater Sludge at Bleached Chemical Pulp
Mills
13
March 2001
-------
Each directory/sub directory contains two types of files: summary files (typically one) and
data files. The summary file was constructed to provide a consolidated view of the facilities
within a particular emission source category. The data files in each directory/subdirectory contain
raw data and calculations for determining emission factors (EFs) for CDD/CDFs both in chemical-
specific units and dioxin toxicity equivalent (TEQ) units.
3.2 SUMMARY FILE STRUCTURE
As discussed earlier, summary files located in each directory/subdirectory display
consolidated data from each of the facilities within a particular emission source category. The
nomenclature used for the summary files is typically:
***-sum.xls
where, *** indicates an abbreviation for the category or subdirectory in which the file is located.
In the case of the municipal solid waste incinerator and medical waste incinerator categories,
summary files were based on the type of air pollution control device, and are so named. For
example, a summary file of facilities with a dry scrubber and fabric filter would be called: ds-
ff.xls.
Figure 7 presents an example of the second sheet in a summary file for the source category
"cement kilns not burning hazardous waste." There are typically five sheets in a summary file.
They are: Emission Factor (nondetects (ND)=0); Emission Factor (ND=half limit of detection
(LOD)); TEQ Emission Factor (ND=0); TEQ Emission Factor (ND=half LOD); and Table. The
Emission Factor and TEQ Emission Factor sheets present the average emission factor and
corresponding TEQ emission factor for each congener (from all of the facility test runs) from the
emission factor and TEQ worksheets within each data file. These sheets were formed using the
"Data Consolidate" command in Excel 97®. The Table worksheet presents the average emission
factor and corresponding TEQ emission factor for each congener across all facilities in the
summary file. The Table sheet was created by linking the values from the last row of data in the
four sheets mentioned above. In addition, the Table worksheet includes the facility inventory
from which the users can link to individual facility data files. This facility inventory was created
for the database in the Excel 97® version only.
14 March 2001
-------
X Microsoft Excel - Cknhwsum
File Edit ¥iew Insert Foimat Tools Data Window Help
D
Times New Roman
» 8
* B
i
*.0 .00
J .00 + .0
pj 100% » (?)
-r
-------
The user should note that the number of significant figures displayed in this worksheet and
other worksheets in the database do not necessarily reflect the level of certainty in the data. EPA
recommends using no more than three significant figures for any emission factor estimates derived
from these data.
In some cases, the summary files contain profile worksheets (for ND=0 and ND=half
LOD). These sheets present the ratio of a specific congener's emission factor relative to the total
CDD/CDF emission factor for a specific facility in the summary file.
3.3 DATA FILE STRUCTURE
Data files located in each directory/subdirectory are the repositories of the raw data
compiled from various facility test reports and other sources. Data files also contain some
calculations and manipulations of data to determine EFs. Data files were named using the
following nomenclature:
1. The first 2-3 characters of the name represent the category or subcategory (e.g., CK
for cement kiln);
2. The next 2 characters represent the state abbreviation where the facility is located; and
3. The remaining letters are comprised of the first 3-4 characters from the facility name.
For example, the file CKARASH.XLS was derived from
CK - cement kiln,
AR - Arkansas, and
ASH - Ash Grove Cement Company.
Data files normally contain three separate worksheets: the facility data worksheet; the EF
worksheet; and, the TEQ EF worksheet.
3.3.1 Worksheet 1 - Facility Data
The first worksheet, the facility data worksheet, in each data file contains the raw data
obtained from a facility's test report or similar source. The raw data were used to calculate
congener and homologue group emission factors and the corresponding TEQ emission factors,
generally in units of ng/kg of material combusted, for each congener in each test run. This
spreadsheet is "linked" to other data containing standard chemical names, abbreviations, and toxic
equivalency factors. In some cases, the emission factors could not be calculated because the
16 March 2001
-------
facility data were incomplete (e.g., missing activity level, or volumetric flow rate). Table 4
provides a listing of the data fields contained in the facility data worksheet. For the category of
cement kiln burning hazardous waste, one additional column for the inlet temperature of the air
pollutant control device was created for facilities with available data. Figure 8 presents an
example of the facility data worksheet.
3.3.2 Worksheet 2 - Emission Factor (EF)
The second worksheet, the EF worksheet, is based on data from the facility data
worksheet and presents the average, maximum, and minimum EF as well as the count of test runs
for a particular congener at the given facility. Excel®'s Pivot Table function was used to create
this worksheet. Table 5 provides a listing of the data fields calculated in this worksheet. Figure 9
presents an example of an EF worksheet. Many of the EF worksheets include a row that
calculates congener profiles, which are the ratio of a specific congener's emission factor relative
to the total emission factor (for all homologue groups) for that facility.
In several cases, insufficient data were available in the facility data worksheet to properly
perform the EF analysis. In these cases, the EF worksheets were not developed. For those cases
where the EF worksheets were developed, the pivot tables need to be "refreshed" (a command
provided by Pivot Table) should the source data be revised.
3.3.3 Worksheet 3 - TEQ Emission Factors
The third worksheet, the TEQ emission factor worksheet, is based on data from the
facility data worksheet and presents the average, maximum, and minimum TEQ emission factors
as well as the count of test runs for a particular congener at the given facility. Excel®'s Pivot
Table function was used to create this worksheet. Table 6 provides a listing of the data fields
calculated in this worksheet. Figure 10 presents an example of a TEQ worksheet.
As was the case with the congener EF Worksheet, there were several cases where not
enough data were available in the facility data worksheet to properly run the TEQ emission factor
analysis. In these cases, the worksheets were not developed. For those cases where the TEQ
worksheets were developed, as with the EF Worksheet, the pivot tables need to be "refreshed"
should the source data be revised.
3.3.4 Miscellaneous Worksheets
Some of the data files contain several miscellaneous worksheets not yet discussed. These
include profile worksheets which may be contained in the summary files or in the facility data files.
17 March 2001
-------
Table 4. Data Fields for Facility Data Worksheet
Field
EPA ID Number
Facility
City
State
Latitude
Longitude
Release Media
Number of Incinerators
Total Annual Combustion Capacity
Activity Level
Source Category
Source Subcategory
Technology Design Category
Technology Design Subcategory
Air Pollution Control Device 1
Air Pollution Control Device 2
Pipe or Stack Number
Stack Height
Stack Diameter
Stack Flow (Volumetric Flow Rate)
Stack Flow (Volumetric Flow Rate)
Units
unitless
unitless
unitless
unitless
degrees, minutes, seconds
degrees, minutes, seconds
unitless
Combustion Units
tons per day
kilograms (kg) or liters (L) per unit time
unitless
unitless
unitless
unitless
unitless
unitless
unitless
feet (ft)
inches (in)
dry standard cubic feet per minute (dscfrn)
dscfm standardized to 7% O2
Comments/Explanation
air, water, or land
applicable for releases to air
applicable for releases to air
applicable for releases to air
applicable for releases to air
applicable for releases to air
applicable for releases to air
applicable for releases to air
applicable for releases to air
applicable for releases to air
18
March 2001
-------
Table 4. Data Fields for Facility Data Worksheet (continued)
Field
Stack Exit Velocity
Stack Temperature (Exit Temperature)
Stack O2
Stack CO2
Stack Moisture
Chlorine Content of Waste Feed
Pipe Flow
Run ID
Test Date
Report Date
COC (Chain of Custody) Date
Substance
Detect - Non-Detect Flag
Emission Amount - Concentration as Reported
Concentration Units (as Reported)
Standardized Emission Amount
Standardized Units
Emission Rate, as Reported
Conversion Factor
Units
feet per second
degrees Fahrenheit (°F)
percent (%)
percent (%)
percent volume (%V)
percent (%)
cubic feet per second
unitless
unitless
unitless
unitless
unitless
unitless
see next field
units vary depending on data source
see next field
ng/dscm @ 7% O2
units vary depending on data source
units necessary to convert "Emission Rate, as
Reported" to pounds per hour
Comments/Explanation
applicable for releases to air
applicable for releases to air
applicable for releases to air
applicable for releases to air
applicable for releases to air
applicable for releases to water
CDD/CDF congeners
When "Concentration as Calculated" is
shown, it indicates that a concentration
has been calculated from raw data
reported.
applicable for releases to air
19
March 2001
-------
Table 4. Data Fields for Facility Data Worksheet (continued)
Field
Emission Rate
Concentration (ND=0)
Concentration (ND=l/2 LOD)
Toxic Equivalency Factor (TEF)
TEQ Emission Factor (ND=0)
TEQ Emission Factor (ND=1/2LOD)
2378 Toxicity Flag
Congener Flag
Homologue Flag
Emission Factor (ND=0)
Emission Factor (ND=1/2LOD)
Receiving Stream
Reach Number
Data Source Reference
Comments
Units
pounds per hour (Ibs/hr)
ng/dscm @ 7% O2
ng/dscm @ 7% O2
unitless: developed from Lookup file
varies depending on activity level units
varies depending on activity level units
unitless: developed from Lookup file
unitless: developed from Lookup file
unitless: developed from Lookup file
varies depending on activity level units
ng/kg processed
unitless
unitless
unitless
unitless
Comments/Explanation
applicable for releases to air
applicable for releases to air
"Y" indicating a toxicity equivalency
factor (TEF) is available
applicable for releases to water
applicable for releases to water
20
March 2001
-------
•"^yf mir* £i 13 i r^i i
Ji^ IHMJXNMnl JaBEei - UncttCfU
I.8!]
File Edit ?iew
| D aO
j Times New Roman
F3
1
2
3
4
5
^A
i
EPA ID
Number
Insert Format
'8 * B
I _
Facility
Company
I Company
Company
Company
Company
7 Company
8 Company
___
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
III
MLJL
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
^ M\_C*l*w*i[;|s_Cemeii^CoLReddiig
Tools
I I
C
City
Redding
Redding
Redding
Redding
Redding
Redding
Redding
Redding
Redding
Redding
Redding
Redding
Redding
Redding
Redding
Redding
Redding
Redding
Redding
Redding
Redding
Redding
cAJr
Data Window Help
: : :: :
•jf™.;,, ;BSg" ™BSS p-3-B Hrp
DBF
Longitud
State Latitude e
CA ^___^
CA |
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
Emission Factors /JfliQs?
* /- 14 14 m 1 4
Of *.0 .00 .£=
xb i .00 +.0 =F- =r-
G H I
Total
Number of Annual
Release Incinerate Combustion
Media rs Capacity
Air
[Aii
Air
Air-
Air
Air
Air
Ail-
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Aii
Air
Aii
Ait-
Ail
Ak
Aii
A* i,| |
\ 100%
J
Activity
Level
(kgflir)
77084
77084
77084
77084
77084
77084
77084
77084
77084
77084
77084
77084
77084
77084
77084
77084
77084
77084
77084
77084
77084
77084
770S4
- A -
K
Source
Category
TO
WI
TO
WI
TO
WI
TO
WI
TO
WI
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
WI
TO
TO
WT
-JiLl xj
L
Source
Subcategory
CK
CK
CK
CK
CK
CK
CK
CK
CK
CK
CK
CK
CK
CK
CK
CK
CK
CK
CK
CK
CK
CK
CK H
ED _T
Return to
Summary
Table
jBiaa.
-------
Table 5. Emission Factor (EF) Worksheet Contents
Data Analysis
at Non-Detect (ND) = 0
at
Average Emission Factor (EF)
Maximum EF
Minimum EF
Count of EFs
ND = 1/2 LOD
Average EF
Maximum EF
Minimum EF
Count of EFs
Typical Units
ng/kg processed
ng/kg processed
ng/kg processed
ng/kg processed
ng/kg processed
ng/kg processed
22
March 2001
-------
X Microsoft ISMi - Choral
File Edit Sew Insert Fomat Tools Data Window Help
D ^ S
Courier
A23
w 10 w U JT IDT HH-"" 'ijjr "iill 1^'a-tj ^] ^^"
» Ratio Analysis for F3rofiles (ND=1/2 LOD)
I II
4-.0 .00
.00 +.0
100% -
- <8» - A ^
1
2
3
4
^J_.
6
7
8
9
IllI
11
IllI
JL3_
14
15
_16_
1?
18
19
20
h
Data
Average of Emission Factor (ng per kg produced) (ND=0)
Max of Emission Factor (ng per kg produced) (ND=0)2
Min of Emission Factor (ng per kg produced) (ND=0)3
Count of Emission Factor (ng per kg produced) (ND=0)4
Sum of Average Total Congeners
Data
B
Substance
4D 2378
0.003461846
0.020771075
0
6
8.067172599
Average of Emission Factor (ng per kg produced) (ND =1/2 LOD)
MaK of Emission Factor (ng per kg produced) (ND=1/2LOD)2
Min of Emission Factor (ng per kg produced) (ND=1-X2XOD)3
Count of Emission Factor (ng per kg produced) (ND=1/2LQD) 4
Sum of Average Total Congeners
Ratio Analysis for Profiles (ND=0)
Substance
4D 2378
0.009579858
0.020771075
0.001227825
6
8.073239197
4D 2378
0.000429128
21
22 '
23
24
Ratio Analysis for Profiles (HD=l/2 LOD)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^m
—
4D 2378
,0.001186619
C
5D 12378
0.008991914
0.027694767
0
6
D T
6D 123478
0.0046157
0.0276947
5D 12378
0.013747317
0.027694767
0.00245565
6
5D 12378
0.00111463
5D 12378
0.001702825
6D 123478
0.0115512
0.0276947
0.002455
6D 123478
0.000572
6D 123478
0.0014308
25
JIJL ~
27
JSii^^
Ready
fSJUM
Figure 9. Example of an Emission Factor Sheet in a Facility Data File
23
March 2001
-------
Table 6. TEQ Emission Factor (EF) Worksheet Contents
Data Analysis
at
at
Non-Detect (ND) = 0
Average TEQ
Maximum TEQ
Minimum TEQ
Count of TEQs
ND = 1/2 LOD
Average TEQ
Maximum TEQ
Minimum TEQ
Count of TEQs
Typical Units
ng/kg processed
ng/kg processed
ng/kg processed
ng/kg processed
ng/kg processed
ng/kg processed
24
March 2001
-------
X - Cfccaeal
File Edit ¥iew Insert Fotmat Tools Data Window Help
D
14 14 100% - ; (?|
Courier
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
A18
Data
Average
Max of
Min of
«r
of
TEQ
TEQ
» 10 » B I II lH :Hi HO) $ 9
• =SUM(B12:R12)
A
s j tag +3 | IF IF i _ - & - A. -
TEQ Emission Factor (ng/kg processed) (HD=0)
Emission Factor (ng/kg processed)
Emission Factor (ng/kg processed)
Count of TEQ Emission Factor (ng/kg processed
Sum of
(ND=0)2
(ND=0)3
) (HD=0)4
B i C i D ~
Subst..anc.e
4D 2378 5D 12378 6D 1234'
0.003461846 0.004495957 0.00046
0.020771075 0.013847384 0.00276
0 0
6 6
Average Total Congeners
0.079141638
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
_2JL
21
__
24
25
Sill
Average
Max of
Min of
of
TEQ
TEQ
TEQ Emission Factor (ng/kg process
Emission Factor (ng/kg processed)
Emission Factor (ng/kg processed)
ed) (HD=l/2 LOD)
(ND=l/2 LOD) 2
(ND=l/2 LQD)3
Count of TEQ Emission Factor (ng/kg processed) (HD=l/2 LQD)4
Sum of
I
Substance
4D 2378 5D 12378 6D 1234'
0.009579858 0.006873658 0.00115
0.020771075 0.013847384 0.00276
0.001227825 0.001227825 0.00024
6 6
Aver acre Total Conveners
M ^\~~~~~C^^^msiS: Cement Co. Redding CA j( Emission Factors )\ TEQs/
Ready
0.092248722|
S^Ae-^.^^^^^^^mmmmmmmim^^^^^ X |
PivotTatole •* [p] '-£.5 J57
^ ^ =3 c-i .; T^i T="l Wi —
-^"^ -^^^ •^^<
.!..!.!
i ..tip
MUM
Figure 10. Example of a TEQ Sheet in a Facility Data File
25
March 2001
-------
4. CALCULATIONS AND QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES
4.1 STANDARDIZATION
Data underwent a process of standardization after they were extracted from the original
test reports and before they were entered into the National Database. Three areas in particular
were standardized — chemical names, treatment of detects and non-detects, and concentration
units of measure.
Chemical names were standardized by matching compounds to a "master" list of dioxin-
like compounds. These standard values are linked to the "master" spreadsheets, allowing other
parameters (e.g., TEFs, homologue groups) to be retrieved into the facility-specific spreadsheet.
Measured CDD/CDF concentrations are presented in the test reports in a number of ways
(e.g., ng/sample, ng/dscm, ng/dscm @ 12% CO2, etc.). For comparison purposes, stack gas
concentrations were generally standardized to units of ng/dscm at 7 percent oxygen. As needed,
the volumetric flow rates were standardized to dry standard cubic feet per minute (dscfm) at 7
percent oxygen using the following equation:
(20.9% O - test run 0 )
flow (dscfm) =
(20.9% a - 7% a)
Figure 11 presents sample calculations that demonstrate the estimation of a proxy
concentration for a nondetected congener and standardization of that concentration to ng/dscm @
7% O2.
Two sets of data were generated to address congeners that were reported as nondetected
in the test reports. In the first set, nondetected congeners were assigned a value of zero; while in
the second set of data, nondetected congeners were assigned a proxy concentration of half the
detection limit for that congener.
26 March 2001
-------
Non-detect Concentration Sample Volume
Congener Flag (ng/sample) (dscm/sample) Percent O,
2378 TCDD ND 0.05 4.5 10
Proxy concentration for nondetected 2378 TCDD:
0.05 ng/sample ^ 2 = 0.025 ng/sample
Concentration (ng/dscm):
0.025 ng/sample -^ 4.5 dscm/sample = 0.006 ng/dscm
The general equation for standardization to 7% O2 is:
(20.9% 0, - 7% 0,)
ng/dscm @ 7%0, = Sample Cone, (ng/dscm)
(20.9% 02 - Sample % 02)
Standardized concentration (ng/dscm @ 7% O2):
ng/dscm @ 7%0 = 0.006 (ng/dscm)
(20.9% 02 - 7% 02)
j^ - u.uuu i iibyuauini * ^^^^^^^^^=^^^^^^^^^
2 (20.9% 0, - 10% CL)
= 0.006 (ng/dscm)
(13.9% 02)
(10.9% 02)
= 0.006 (ng/dscm) * 1.28
= 0.008 ng/dscm @ 7%02
Figure 11. Sample CDD/CDF Concentration Standardization Calculation
4.2 CALCULATION OF EMISSION FACTORS
Congener- and homolog-specific emission factors are calculated for each facility in units of
nanograms emitted per kilogram of material combusted/processed. These emission factors are
based on sample concentration, volumetric air flow rate, and activity level (i.e., material
throughput). Test runs from single or multiple test reports are averaged for each facility. Two
sets of emission factors are presented to reflect nondetected congener concentrations valued at
zero, and those estimated at half the detection limit. Figure 12 shows the process for estimating
an emission factor for a nondetected congener concentration valued at half the detection limit
(when the concentration is valued at zero, the emission factor for that congener is zero). The
27 March 2001
-------
calculation of TEQ emission factors involves an additional equation that multiplies the congener-
specific emission factor by the TEF for that congener.
Concentration Concentration Volumetric Activity
(ng/dscm @ 7% O,) (ng/dscm (Si, 7% CM Flow Rate (dscf/min) Level
Congener ND = 0 ND = '/2 LOP (kg/hr)
2378 TCDD 0 0.025 237 48.5
The general equation for estimation of emission factor is:
,, Cone, (ng/dscm) * Flow Rate (dscf/min) * cf(min/hr)
ng/kg = —
cf(—) * Activity Level (kg/hr)
m3
Substituting values from the above table and using 1A LOD concentration:
,, 0.025 (ng/dscm) * 237 (dscf/min) * 60 (min/hr)
ng/kg = —
35.31 (—) * 48.5 (kg/hr)
m3
355'5 = 0.208 ng/kg
1712.5
Figure 12. Sample Emission Factor Calculations
In some cases, oxygen content data in the stack exhausts were not provided. Without
knowing the oxygen content, standardized emission concentrations and volumetric air flow rates
can not be calculated. However, in several cases, non-standardized reported flow rates and non-
standardized reported emission concentrations along with reported activity levels were used to
calculate emission factors (EF) and TEQ emission factors (TEQ-EF) assuming that the reported
concentrations and flow rates were at the same oxygen content.
4.3 QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES
EPA conducted a data quality audit of the September 1997 draft version of the National
Database under a contract with Research Triangle Institute (RTI). To conduct the audit, RTI
28 March 2001
-------
was provided with a copy of the draft National Database on CD-ROM and the draft User's
Manual. The draft data base consisted of over 100 Megabytes (Mb) of data in more than 270
individual worksheets. RTI randomly selected 58 of the hard-copy and computer-readable data
sources used to construct the data base. These data sources included EPA reports, reports from
State environmental agencies, and independent laboratory reports, among others. RTI personnel
audited 64 (28%) of the site-specific worksheets using these source documents. The audit
searched for data input errors, errors present in the source documents and how these errors were
addressed in the data base, spreadsheet formula errors, and cosmetic and other minor problems.
The audit report (RTI, 1998) recommended a series of corrective actions all of which were
subsequently addressed in developing Version 1.1 of the National Database.
5. ANNUAL CDD/CDF EMISSION CALCULATIONS
Because only a few U.S. facilities in most source categories have been tested for
CDD/CDF emissions, an extrapolation is needed to estimate national emissions for most source
categories. Many of the national emission estimates developed from this database that are
presented in EPA's Sources of Dioxin-Like Compounds in the United States (U.S. EPA, 2001),
were, therefore, developed using a "top down" approach. The first step in this approach is to
derive from the available emission test data an emission factor (or series of emission factors)
deemed to be representative of the source category (or segments of a source category that differ
in configuration, fuel type, air pollution control equipment, etc.). As described in Section 4.2, the
emission factor relates mass of CDD/CDFs released into the environment per some measure of
activity (e.g., kilograms of material processed per year, vehicle miles traveled per year, etc.). The
emission factor was then multiplied by a national value for the activity level basis of the emission
factor (e.g., total kg of material processed in the United States annually).
Although no categories had estimates developed in Volume 2 from a true "bottom up"
approach (i.e., estimates developed using site-specific emissions and activity data for all individual
sources in a category and then summed to obtain a national total), existing facility-specific
emissions testing and activity level data for some source categories in the database (e.g.,
municipal solid waste incinerators) supported a semi- "bottom up" approach. In this approach,
facility-specific annual emissions were calculated for those facilities with adequate data. For the
untested facilities in the class, a subcategory (or class) emission factor was then developed by
averaging the emission factors for the tested facilities in the class. This average emission factor
was then multiplied by the measure of activity for the non-tested facilities in the class. Emissions
were summed for the tested facilities and non-tested facilities. In summary, this procedure can be
represented by the following equations:
29 March 2001
-------
'-total 2^ '-tested,/ + 2^ '-untested,!
total ^ ^tested,/ + 2^ ("/ * "/'untested
Where: Etotal = annual emissions from all facilities (g TEQ/yr)
Etested,i = annual emissions from all tested facilities in class i (g TEQ/yr)
EUntested,i = annual emissions from all untested facilities class i (g TEQ/yr)
Ef; = mean emission factor for tested facilities in class i (g TEQ/kg)
Aj = activity measure for untested facilities class i (kg/yr)
Some source categories are made up of facilities that vary widely in terms of design and
operating conditions. For these sources, as explained above, an attempt was made to create
subcategories that grouped facilities with common features and then to develop separate emission
factors for each subcategory. Implicit in this procedure is the assumption that facilities with
similar design and operating conditions should have similar CDD/CDF release potential. For most
source categories, however, the specific combination of features that contributes most to
CDD/CDF or dioxin-like PCB release is not well understood. Therefore, how to best
subcategorize a source category was often problematic. For each subcategorized source category
in this report, a discussion is presented about the variability in design and operating conditions,
what is known about how these features contribute to CDD/CDF or dioxin-like PCB release, and
the rationale for subcategorizing the category.
As discussed above, each source emission calculation required estimates of an "emission
factor" and the "activity level." For each emission source, the quantity and quality of the available
information for both terms vary considerably. Consequently, it is important that emission
estimates be accompanied by some indicator of the uncertainties associated with their
development. For this reason, a qualitative confidence rating scheme was developed as an
integral part of the emission estimate in consideration of the following factors:
• Emission Factor - The uncertainty in the emission factor estimate depends primarily
on how well the tested facilities represent the untested facilities. In general,
confidence in the emission factor increases with increases in the number of tested
facilities relative to the total number of facilities. Variability in terms of physical
design and operating conditions within a class or subclass must also be considered.
The more variability among facilities, the less confidence that a test of any single
facility is representative of that class or subclass. The quality of the supporting
documentation also affects uncertainty. Whenever possible, original engineering test
reports were used. Peer reviewed reports from the open literature were also used for
developing some emission factors. In some cases, however, draft reports that had
30 March 2001
-------
undergone more limited review were used. In a few cases, unpublished references
were used (such as personal communication with experts) and are clearly noted in the
text.
Activity Level - The uncertainty in the activity level estimate was judged primarily on
the basis of the extent of the underlying data. Estimates derived from comprehensive
surveys (including most facilities in a source category) were assigned high confidence.
As the number of facilities in the survey relative to the total decreased, confidence also
decreased. The quality of the supporting documentation also affects uncertainty. Peer
reviewed reports from the open literature (including government and trade association
survey data) were considered most reliable. In some cases, however, draft reports that
had undergone more limited review were used. In a few cases, unpublished references
were used (such as personal communication with experts) and are clearly noted in the
text.
The confidence rating scheme, presented in Table 7, presents the qualitative criteria used
to assign a high, medium, or low confidence rating to the emission factor and activity level terms
for those source categories for which emission estimates can be reliably quantified. The overall
"confidence rating" assigned to an emission estimate was determined by the confidence ratings
assigned to the corresponding "activity level" term and "emission factor" term. If the lowest
rating assigned to either the activity level or emission factor terms is "high," then the category
rating assigned to the emission estimate is high (also referred to as "A"). If the lowest rating
assigned to either the activity level or emission factor terms is "medium," then the category rating
assigned to the emission estimate is medium (also referred to as "B"). If the lowest rating assigned
to either the activity level or emission factor terms is "low," then the category rating assigned to
the emission estimate is low (also referred to as "C"). It is emphasized that this confidence rating
scheme should be interpreted as subjective judgements of the relative uncertainty among sources,
not statistical measures.
31 March 2001
-------
Table 7. Confidence Rating Scheme for U.S. Emission Estimates
Confidence Rating
Activity Level Estimate
Emission Factor Estimate
Categories/Media for Which Releases Can Be Reasonably Quantified
High
Medium
Low
Derived from comprehensive survey
Based on estimates of average plant activity level and
number of plants or limited survey
Based on data judged possibly nonrepresentative
Derived from comprehensive survey
Derived from testing at a limited but reasonable number
of facilities believed to be representative of source
category
Derived from testing at only a few, possibly
nonrepresentative facilities or from similar source
categories
Categories/Media for Which Releases Cannot Be Reasonably Quantified
Preliminary Estimate
Not Quantified
Based on extremely limited data, judged to be clearly
nonrepresentative
No data available
Based on extremely limited data, judged to be clearly
nonrepresentative
1 ) Argument based on theory but no data, or
2) Data available indicating formation, but not in a
form that allows developing an emission factor
For many source categories, either emission factor information or activity level
information were inadequate to support development of reliable quantitative release estimates for
one or more media. For some of these source categories, sufficient information was available to
make preliminary estimates of emissions of CDD/CDFs; however, the confidence in the activity
level estimates or emission factor estimates was so low that the estimates cannot be included in
the sum of quantified emissions from sources with confidence ratings of A, B and C. These
preliminary estimates were given an overall confidence class rating of D ( Table 8, "Preliminary
Estimate" column). As preliminary estimates of source magnitude, they can be used, however, to
help prioritize future research and data collection. The actual magnitude of emissions from these
sources could be significantly lower or higher than these preliminary estimates. Although EPA
has chosen not to include them in the more thoroughly characterized emissions of the national
inventory, some of these poorly characterized sources have the potential of being major
contributors of releases to the environment. As the uncertainty around these sources is reduced,
they will be included in future inventory calculations. For other sources, some information exists
which suggests that they may release dioxin-like compounds; however, the available data were
judged to be insufficient for developing any quantitative emission estimate. These source
categories were assigned a confidence category rating of "E" and also were not included in the
national inventory (Table 8, "Not Quantifiable" column).
32
March 2001
-------
The emission factors developed for the emissions inventory in Volume 1 are intended to
be used for estimating the total emissions for a source category rather than for individual facilities.
EPA has made uncertainty determinations for each of these emission factors based, in part, on the
assumption that by applying them to a group of facilities, the potential for overestimating or
underestimating individual facilities will to some extent be self compensating. This means that in
using these emission factors one can place significantly greater confidence in an emission estimate
for a class than can be placed on an emission estimate for any individual facility. Given the limited
amount of data available for deriving emission factors, and the limitations of our understanding
about facility-specific conditions that determine formation and control of dioxin-like compounds,
the current state of knowledge cannot support the development of emission factors that can be
used to accurately estimate emissions on an individual facility-specific basis.
33 March 2001
-------
Table 8. List of Known and Suspected CDD/CDF Sources
Emission Source Category
I. COMBUSTION SOURCES
Waste Incineration
Municipal waste incineration
Hazardous waste incineration
Boilers/industrial furnaces
Medical waste/pathological incineration
Crematoria
Sewage sludge incineration
Tire combustion
Pulp and paper mill sludge incinerators
BioGas combustion
Power/Energy Generation
Vehicle fuel combustion
- leadedb
- unleaded
- diesel
Wood combustion - residential
- industrial
Coal combustion - residential
- industrial/utility
Oil combustion - residential
- industrial/utility
Other High Temperature Sources
Cement kilns (haz waste burning)
Cement kilns (non haz waste burning)
Asphalt mixing plants
Petro. refining catalyst regeneration
Cigarette combustion
Carbon reactivation furnaces
Kraft recovery boilers
Manufacture of ball clav products
Contemporary Formation
Sources
Quantifiable
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Preliminary
Estimate
/
/
/
/
Not
Quantifiable
/
Reservoir
Sources
Quantifiable
Preliminary
Estimate
Not
Quantifiable
34
March 2001
-------
Table 8. List of Known and Suspected CDD/CDF Sources (continued)
Emission Source Category
Minimally Controlled or Uncontrolled Combustion
Combustion of landfill gas in flares
Landfill fires
Accidental fires (structural)
Accidental fires (vehicles)
Forest, brush, and straw fires
Backyard barrel burning
Uncontrolled combustion of PCBs
II. METAL SMELTING/REFINING
Ferrous metal smelting/refining
- Sintering plants
- Coke production
- Electric arc furnaces
- Ferrous foundries
Nonferrous metal smelting/refining
- Primary aluminum
- Primary copper
- Primary magnesium
- Primary nickel
- Secondary aluminum
- Secondary copper
- Secondary lead
Scrap electric wire recovery
Drum and barrel reclamation
III. CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING
(Releases to the Environment)
Bleached chemical wood pulp and paper mills
Mono- to tetrachlorophenols
Pentachlorophenol
Chlorobenzenes
Chlorobiphenyls (leaks/spills)
Ethvlene dichloride/vinvl chloride
Contemporary Formation
Sources
Quantifiable
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Preliminary
Estimate
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Not
Quantifiable
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Reservoir
Sources
Quantifiable
Preliminary
Estimate
Not
Quantifiable
35
March 2001
-------
Table 8. List of Known and Suspected CDD/CDF Sources (continued)
Emission Source Category
Dioxazine dyes and pigments
2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid
Municipal wastewater treatment
Tall oil-based liquid soaps
IV. BIOLOGICAL AND PHOTOCHEMICAL
PROCESSES
V. RESERVOIR SOURCES
Natural
- Land
-Air
- Water
- Sediments
Anthropogenic Structures
- PCP Treated Wood
Contemporary Formation
Sources
Quantifiable
Preliminary
Estimate
/
Not
Quantifiable
/
/
/
/
Reservoir
Sources
Quantifiable
Preliminary
Estimate
/
Not
Quantifiable
/
/
/
/
36
March 2001
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
This bibliography presents references cited in the text of this report as well as references cited in
the National Database. (File names in parentheses indicate the specific files in the National
Database^)
Advanced Technology Systems, Inc. (1995) Report on measurement of hazardous air pollutants from
aluminum melt furnace operations at Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation. Project No. IKM-
0226. (salwvrav.xls)
AGES. (1992) Applied Geotechnical and Environmental Services Corp. Source sampling report -
comprehensive emissions testing; blast furnace, May/June 1992, Franklin Smelting & Refining
Corp. Valley Forge, PA: AGES. Report No. 42614.01-01. (snmpafra.xls)
Air Monitoring Specialists, Inc. (1995) Stationary source sampling report. Emissions testing for
hexavalent chromium hydrogen chloride, metals, particulate, 4-8 PCDD/PCDF. Volume 1.
Common Incinerator Stack. Waste Converters, Inc., Joppa, MD. Richmond, VA: Air Monitoring
Specialists, Inc.
Air Nova, Inc. (1993) Rahway Hospital emission compliance test report. Log No. 01-89-4195. NJ Stack
No. 001. Pennsauken, NJ: Air Nova, Inc. (mwinjrah.xls)
AirSource Technologies (1994a) Report for the test burn on Kiln No. 1, Ash Grove Cement Company,
Chanute, Kansas. AirSource Project No. 412017.
AirSource Technologies (1994b) Report for the test burn on Kiln No. 2, Ash Grove Cement Company,
Chanute, Kansas. AirSource Project No. 412017.
Alliance Technologies Corporation (1989) Field test report NITEP III Mid-Connecticut Facility,
Hartford, Connecticut. Volume II. Appendices, (mswctrrf.xls)
Am Test-Air Quality, Inc. (1994) Ash Grove Cement Company. Main cement kiln stack. Seattle,
Washington, September 26-27, 1994. (ckwaash.xls)
Am Test-Air Quality, Inc. (1995) Ash Grove Cement Company. Cement kiln precipitator stack. Montana
City, Montana, September 29-30, 1994. (ckmtash.xls)
Ash Grove Cement Company (1994) Final Report. RCRA trial burn for Kiln Nos. 1 and 2. Volume I.
Chanute, Kansas, Waste-Derived Fuel Facility.
Ash Grove Cement Company (1995) Report of RCRA trial burn for kiln No. 2. Volume I of IV.
Louisville, Nebraska, Waste-Derived Fuel Facility.
Battelle (1988) Final report on PCDD/PCDF and PAH analyses of modified method 5 and ash samples
from Red Wing/Compliance Test to Northern States Power Company. Columbus, OH: Battelle.
Calcagni, J.; Ciolek, M.; Mulrine, P. (1998) Dioxin emissions from U.S. sinter plants. Abstract.
Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. (Sininltv.xls, sinohwci.xls)
37 March 2001
-------
Cambridge Environmental Inc. (1995a) Comments on Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds:
Review Draft. Submitted to EPA's Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. January 12,
1995. (ssi-a.xls, ssi-c.xls, ssi-b.xls, ssi-d.xls, ssi-e.slx, ssi-f.xls, ssi-g.xls, ssi-grs.xls, ssi-h.xls, ssi-
i.xls, ssi-j.xls, ssi-k.xls}
Cambridge Environmental Inc. (1995b) Addendum to comments on Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like
Compounds: Review Draft. Submitted to EPA's Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.
May 11, 1995. (ssi-l.xls, ssi-m.xls}
CARB (1987a) California Air Resources Board. Evaluation test on a hospital refuse incinerator at Saint
Agnes Medical Center, Fresno, CA. Engineering Evaluation Branch, Monitoring and Laboratory
Division. Technical Report ARB/SS-87-01. (mwicastg.xls)
CARB (1987b) California Air Resources Board. Evaluation test on a hospital refuse incinerator at
Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. Engineering Evaluation Branch,
Monitoring and Laboratory Division. Technical Report ARB/SS-87-11. (mwicaced.xls)
CARB (1988a) California Air Resources Board. Evaluation retest on a hospital refuse incinerator at
Sutler General Hospital, Sacramento, CA. Engineering Evaluation Branch, Monitoring and
Laboratory Division. Technical Report ARB/ML-88-026. (mwicasut.xls)
CARB (1988b) California Air Resources Board. Evaluation test on a refuse incinerator at Stanford
University Environmental Safety Facility, Stanford, California. Engineering Evaluation Branch,
Monitoring and Laboratory Division. Technical Report ARB/ML-88-025. (mwicasta.xls}
CARB (1989) California Air Resources Board. Evaluation test on a small hospital refuse incinerator
Saint Bernardines Hospital, San Bernardino, California. Engineering Evaluation Branch,
Monitoring and Laboratory Division. Technical Report ARB/ML-89-028. (mwicastb.xls}
CARB (1990a) California Air Resources Board. Evaluation test of the Kaiser Permanente Hospital waste
incinerator in San Diego. Engineering Evaluation Branch, Monitoring and Laboratory Division.
Technical Report ARB/ML-90-030. (mwicakai.xls)
CARB (1990b) California Air Resources Board. ARE evaluation test conducted on a hospital waste
incinerator at Los Angeles Co. - USC Medical Center Los Angeles, California. Engineering
Evaluation Branch, Monitoring and Laboratory Division. Test Report C-87-122. (mwicausc.xls}
CARB (1990c) California Air Resources Board. Evaluation test on a wood waste fired incinerator at
Koppers Company, Oroville, California. Engineering Evaluation Branch, Monitoring and
Laboratory Division. Test Report No. C-88-065. (wcicakop.xls)
CARB (1990d) California Air Resources Board. Evaluation test on twin fluidized bed wood waste fueled
combustors located in central California. Engineering Evaluation Branch, Monitoring and
Laboratory Division. Test Report No. C-87-042. (wcicacon.xls)
CARB (1990e) California Air Resources Board. Evaluation test on a wood waste fired incinerator at
Pacific Oroville Power Inc. Engineering Evaluation Branch, Monitoring and Laboratory Division.
Test Report No. C-88-050. (wcicapac.xls)
38 March 2001
-------
CARB (1990f) California Air Resources Board. Evaluation test on two propane fired crematories at
Camellia Memorial Lawn Cemetery. Engineering Evaluation Branch, Monitoring and Laboratory
Division. Test Report No. C-90-004. (crecacam.xls)
CARB (1990g) California Air Resources Board. Compliance testing for non-criteria pollutants at a
landfill flare. Confidential Report No. ERC-2. Engineering Evaluation Branch, Monitoring and
Laboratory Division. [As reported in U.S. EPA, 1995e.] (land-gas.xls)
CARB (1990h) California Air Resources Board. Evaluation test on a wood waste fired incinerator at
Louisiana Pacific Hardboard Plant, Oroville, CA. Test Report No. C-88-066. Engineering
Evaluation Branch, Monitoring and Laboratory Division. [As reported in NCASI, 1995.]
CARB (1991a) California Air Resources Board. Emission test of the Modesto energy project tires-to-
energy facility. California Air Resource Board. Engineering Evaluation Branch, Monitoring and
Laboratory Division. Project No. C-87-072. (tccamod.xls)
CARB (1991b) California Air Resources Board. Evaluation test of a hospital refuse fired incinerator at
American Environmental Management Corporation. Engineering Evaluation Branch, Monitoring
and Laboratory Division. Test Report No. C-89-001. (carb-92a.xls) (mwicaame.xls)
CARB (1992a) Dioxin/furan estimates from a secondary aluminum facility. Confidential Report No.
ERC-9. Engineering Evaluation Branch, Monitoring and Laboratory Division. [As reported in
U.S. EPA, 1997b.] (carb-92b.xls)
CARB (1993) California Air Resources Board. Emissions measurement of toxic compounds from a
cupola baghouse at a steel foundry. Confidential Report No. ERC-61. Engineering Evaluation
Branch, Monitoring and Laboratory Division. [As reported in U.S. EPA, 1995e.] (fefondry.xls)
CARB (1999) California Air Resources Board. Determination of emissions from the No. 3 reformer at
Tosco Refining Company San Francisco Area Refinery at Avon. Project No. C-96-0396.
Engineering and Laboratory Branch, Monitoring and Laboratory Division, (prcatosc.xls)
Carlson Associates (1994) Dioxin/furan emissions from sewage sludge incinerators. Comments
submitted 12 December 1994, to EPA's Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
concerning the draft document entitled "Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds." (ssi-
8.xls, ssi-9.xls)
City of Hampton, VA (1988) Letter from City of Hampton, Virginia, Refuse-Fired Steam Generating
Facility to J. Topsale, EPA Region 3.
Clean Air Engineering, Inc. (1988) Report on compliance testing performed at Northern States Power
French Island Station Unit 1. Volume 1. Palatine, IL: Clean Air Engineering, Inc. Project No.
4244/2. (mswwinsp.xls)
Clean Air Engineering, Inc. (1990) Report on compliance testing conducted for Hamot Medical Center,
Infectious Waste Incinerator, Volume 1. Palatine, IL: Clean Air Engineering, Inc. Project No.
5123. (mwipaham.xls)
39 March 2001
-------
Clean Air Engineering, Inc. (1992) Report on diagnostic testing. Conducted at: Continental Cement
Company, Inc., Hannibal, Missouri. Palatine, IL: Clean Air Engineering, Inc. Project No. 6394.
Clean Air Engineering, Inc. (1994a) Report on compliance testing performed for Ogden Martien Systems,
Inc. Conducted at 1-95 Energy/Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 through 4 SDA Inlets and
Stacks. Lorton, VA. Volume 1. Palatine, IL: Clean Air Engineering, Inc. Project No. 7185-2.
(mswvai95.xls)
Clean Air Engineering, Inc. (1994b) Report on air emissions testing performed for Ogden Martin
Systems, Inc. conducted at Greater Detroit Resource Recovery Facility Unit 12 SDA inlet, ID fan
outlet and stack, Detroit, Michigan. Palatine, IL: Clean Air Engineering, Inc. Reference No.
X1044-38-2. (mswmiogd.xls)
Clean Air Engineering, Inc. (1994c) Report on polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated
dibenzofurans testing conducted at Continental Cement Company, Inc., Cement Kiln Stack,
Hannibal, Missouri. Palatine, IL: Clean Air Engineering, Inc. Reference No. 164-6831.
DEECO, Inc. (1994) Emission measurements for PCDD/PCDFs, from a dry process cement kiln #3.
Cary,NC: DEECO, Inc.
ECOSERVE, Inc. (1990a) Pooled air toxics source test program for kraft pulp mills. Report Number
One. Gaylord Container Corp. Antioch, California. Pittsburg, CA: ECOSERVE, Inc.,
Environmental Services, (kblcagay.xls)
ECOSERVE, Inc. (1990b) Pooled air toxics source test program for kraft pulp mills. Report Number
Two. Simpson Paper Company. Anderson, California. Pittsburg, CA: ECOSERVE, Inc.,
Environmental Services, (kblcaspa.xls)
ECOSERVE, Inc. (1990c) Pooled air toxics source test program for kraft pulp mills. Report Number
Three. Simpson Paper Company. Fairhaven, California. Pittsburg, CA: ECOSERVE, Inc.,
Environmental Services, (kblcaspf.xls)
ECOSERVE, Inc. (1990d) Pooled air toxics source test program for kraft pulp mills. Report Number
Four. Louisiana Pacific Corp. Samoa, California. Pittsburg, CA: ECOSERVE, Inc.,
Environmental Services, (kblcalou.xls)
Electric Power Research Institute. 1994. Electric utility trace substances synthesis report. Palo Alto, CA:
Electric Power Research Institute, (peg 102.xls, peg 116.xls, peg-118.xls, peg.119.xls,
peg 122.xls, peg 22.xls, peg bal.xls, peg bos.xls, peg car.xls, peg coa.xls, peg nil.xls,
peg spr.xls, pwg yat.xls)
EMC Analytical, Inc. (1994) Emission study performed for Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio,
Waste to Energy Facility, Boiler No. 6, Columbus, Ohio. March 16-18, 1994. Gilberts, IL: EMC
Analytical, Inc. Proj ect No. 35001. (msw ohcol. xls)
Energy and Environmental Research Corp. (1991) Michigan Hospital incinerator emissions test program.
Final Report. Volume III: Site Summary Report University of Michigan Medical Center
Incinerator. Irvin, CA: Energy and Environmental Research Corporation, (mwimiuni.xls)
40 March 2001
-------
Energy and Environmental Research Corp. (1993) Field evaluation of emissions reduction techniques for
municipal waste combustors using natural gas. City of Columbus, Solid Waste Reduction Facility,
Unit 6. Orrville, OH: Energy and Environmental Research Corporation, (ms\vohcol.xls)
Energy and Environmental Research Corp. (1995) Emissions testing of Ash Grove Cement Company,
Foreman, Arkansas, waste-derived fuel facility, cement kiln no. 3. Volume 1. Final Report.
Morrisville, NC: Energy and Environmental Research Corporation. EPA Contract No. 68-D2-
0164. (ckarashl.xls)
Energy Systems Associates (1987) Air emission tests at Commerce Refuse-to-Energy Facility, May 26 -
June 5, 1987, Volume I. Test Results. Tustin, CA: Energy Systems Associates 20522-449.
(mswcacrf.xls)
Energy Systems Associates (1988a) Results of air emission tests during the waste-to-energy
demonstration program at the Commerce Refuse-to-Energy Facility. Volume 1. Technical Report.
Tustin, CA: Energy Systems Associates No. 20534-621. (mswcacrf.xls)
Energy Systems Associates (1988b) Air emissions tests at the Hampton Refuse-Fired Steam Generating
Facility. April 18-24, 1988. Volume I. Test Results. Tustiu, CA: Energy Systems Associates
No. 29906-554. (mswvaham.xls, mswvahrf.xls)
Engineering Sciences, Inc. (1989) A report of emission compliance testing of the Regional Waste
Systems, Inc., Greater Portland Resource Recovery Facility. Fairfax, VA: Engineering Sciences,
Inc. (mswmerrf.xls)
Engineering-Science, Inc. (1990) Report of air pollution source testing for California AB2588 at RMC
Lonestar Cement Company, Davenport, California. Pasadena, CA: Engineering Science, Inc.
(ckcarmc.xls)
ENSR Consulting and Engineering (1995) Central Wayne County Sanitation Authority, Dearborn
Heights, Michigan. Emission testing report. Westmont, IL: ENSR Consulting and Engineering.
Document No. 8700-295-400. (mswmicwc.xls)
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. (1987a) Stationary source sampling report. Dioxins/furans emissions
compliance testing. Volume I. Signal Environmental Systems, Inc., Claremont Facility,
Claremont, New Hampshire. Research Triangle Park, NC: Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.
Reference No. 5553-A. (mswnhses.xls)
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. (1987b) Stationary source sampling report, Signal RESCO Pinellas
County Resource Recovery Facility, St. Petersburg, Florida. Research Triangle Park, NC:
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. Reference No. 5286B. (mswflrrf.xls)
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. (1989) Stationary source sampling report. Volume I. Text and
Appendix A. Wheelabrator Concord Company, LP, Resource Recovery Facility, Penacook, New
Hampshire, Units 1 and 2. Research Triangle Park, NC: Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.
Reference No. 6302/6401. (mswnhwhe.xls)
41 March 2001
-------
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. (1990) Honolulu Resource Recovery Facility, Ewa Beach, Oahu, Hawaii.
Units No. 1 and 2 RDF Boilers. Research Triangle Park, NC: Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.
Reference No. 6544. (mswhihrr.xls)
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. (1991) Stationary source sampling report. Volume I. Camden County
Resource Recovery Facility, Camden, New Jersey, Units 1, 2, and 3. Research Triangle Park, NC:
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. Reference No. 10183. (mswnjcam.xls)
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. (1992a) Stationary source sampling report. Baltimore RESCO
Company, Baltimore Maryland. Unit No. 1. Research Triangle Park, NC: Entropy
Environmentalists, Inc. Reference No. 10759. (mswmdbal.xls)
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. (1992b) Stationary source sampling draft report. 1-95 energy/resource
recovery facility, Lorton, VA, Units No. 1, 2, 3, and 4. Volume II. Appendices B through E.
Research Triangle Park, NC: Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. Reference No. 11211.
(mswvai95.xls)
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. (1992c) Stationary source sampling final report. Alexandria Resource
Recovery Facility, Alexandria, VA. Volume I. Research Triangle Park, NC: Entropy
Environmentalists, Inc. Reference No. 10922. (mswvaale.xls)
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. (1993) Stationary source sampling report. Volume 1. Text and
Appendices. Wheelabrator Claremont, L.P., Claremont, New Hampshire. Units No. 1 and 2.
Research Triangle Park, NC: Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. Reference No. 11683.
(mwnhses.xls)
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. (1994) Wheelabrator Falls Resource Recovery Facility, Morrisville,
Pennsylvania. Volume 1. Text and Appendix A. Research Triangle Park, NC: Entropy
Environmentalists, Inc. Reference No. 12918B. (mswpawhe.xls)
Entropy, Inc. (1994a) Stationary source sampling report. Norfolk Naval Shipyard Waste Combustor,
Portsmouth, Virginia. Dioxin/Furan emissions testing. Unit No. 3 boiler outlet and stack.
Volume I. Text and Appendices. Research Triangle Park, NC: Entropy, Inc. Reference No.
12858A. (mswvanns.xls)
Entropy, Inc. (1994b) Stationary source sampling report. Norfolk Naval Shipyard Waste Combustor,
Units No. 1 and 2. Portsmouth, Virginia. Dioxin/Furan emissions testing. Unit No. 3 boiler outlet
and stack. Volume I. Text and Appendices. Research Triangle Park, NC: Entropy, Inc.
Reference No. 13199A. (mswvatms.xls)
Entropy, Inc. (1995a) Boiler emissions report. Norfolk Naval Shipyard Waste Combustor, Unit No. 4
SDA inlet and stack, Portsmouth, Virginia. Volume I. Text and Appendices. Research Triangle
Park, NC: Entropy, Inc. Reference No. 14234. (mswvatms.xls)
Entropy, Inc. (1995b) Stationary source sampling report. Volume 1. Text and Appendix A.
Wheelabrator Concord Company, L.P., Penacook, New Hampshire. Units 1 and 2. Research
Triangle Park, NC: Entropy, Inc. Reference No. 13749. (mswnhwhe.xls)
42 March 2001
-------
Entropy, Inc. (1995c) Stationary source sampling report. Baltimore Resco Co. Unit No. 3 ESP Outlet.
Volume 1. Text and Appendix A. Research Triangle Park, NC: Entropy, Inc. Reference No.
14003.
Environmental Laboratories, Inc. (1994a) Compliance test report for a PCDD/PCDF emission test
program performed at the Harrisonburg, VA RRF. Farmingdale, NY: Environmental
Laboratories, Inc. File No. 94682. (mswvarrf.xls)
Environmental Laboratories, Inc. (1994b) Emission test report for PCDD/PCDF and carbon monoxide at
the Pulaski Highway Incinerator, Unit #5, Baltimore, MD. Farmingdale, NY: Environmental
Laboratories, Inc. (mswmdphi.xls)
Environmental Laboratories, Inc. (1994c) Emission test report for carbon monoxide, chromium (total and
hexavalent), dioxin/furan, hydrogen chloride, trace metals, particulate matter, mercury at the
Pulaski Highway Incinerator, Units 3 and 4, Baltimore, MD. Farmingdale, NY: Environmental
Laboratories, Inc. (mswmdphi.xls)
Environmental Laboratories, Inc. (1995) Compliance test report for particulate matter, trace metals,
hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, mercury, and hexavalent chromium emissions at the Pulaski
Highway Incinerator, Units No. 1 and 2, Baltimore, MD. Farmingdale, NY: Environmental
Laboratories, Inc. (mswmdphi.xls)
Environmental Protection Programs Directorate (1983) Report on a stack sampling program to measure
the emissions of selected trace organic compounds, particulates, heavy metals, and HC1 from the
Royal Jubilee Hospital Incinerator, Victoria, BC. Pollution Measurement Division, Environmental
Protection Programs Directorate, (mwibcroy.xls)
Environmental Risk Sciences, Inc. (1995) An analysis of the potential for dioxin emissions in the primary
copper smelting industry. Vol. I and II. Environmental Risk Sciences, Inc. Prepared for the
National Mining Association, Washington, D.C. (pnmazcyp.xls, pnmnmhid.xls)
Environmental Sciences Services (1990) Final report Kent County Memorial Hospital incinerator
compliance test. Providence, RI: Environmental Sciences Services, (mwiriken.xls)
Envisage Environmental Inc. (1995) Test result summary for development of M.A.C.T. standards (for the
secondary Aluminum Smelting Industry). Testing Location Wabash Alloys, Wabash, Indiana.
(salinwab.xls)
ETS, Inc. (1989a) Compliance test report for Foster Wheeler Resource Recovery Facility, Charleston,
SC. Volume II. PCDD/PCDF and Metals Emissions. Roanoke, VA: ETS, Inc. Contract No.
89-217-T. (mswscrrf.xls)
ETS, Inc. (1989b) Compliance test report for Dutchess County Resource Recovery Facility. Volume 2.
Roanoke, VA: ETS, Inc. Contract No. 89-108-T. (mswnydut.xls)
ETS, Inc. (1993) Air emissions compliance test report for York County Resource Energy Systems, Inc.
Roanoke, VA: ETS, Inc. Contract No. 92-811-T. (mswpaerf.xls)
43 March 2001
-------
ETS, Inc. (1994) Air emissions test report for Harrisburg materials, energy, resource and recovery facility.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Galson Corporation (1995) Source Emission Testing. Emission Points EP00012 and EP00023 at Roth
Bros. Smelting Corp., Syracuse, New York. Galson Project No. GQ147. (salnyrot.xls)
Gertler, A.; Sagebiel, J.; Dippel, W.; Faring, R. (1998) Measurement of dioxin and furan emissions
factors from heavy duty diesel vehicles. J. of the Air and Waste Mgmt. Assoc. 48:276-278.
(diesel.xls)
Gertler, A.W.; Sagebiel, J.C.; Dippel, W.A.; Sheetz, L.H. (1996) A study to quantify on-road emissions of
dioxins and furans from mobile sources: phase 2. Reno, NV: Desert Research Institute.
(diesel.xls)
Gossman Consulting, Inc. (1995) Hazardous air pollutants test report. Lone Star Industries, Inc. Oglesby,
Illinois, (ckillon.xls)
Gossman Consulting, Inc. (1996) Hazardous air pollutants test report. Holnam, Inc. Florence, Colorado.
(ckcohol.xls)
Hagenmaier, H.; Dawidowsky, V.; Weber, U.B.; Hutzinger, O.; Schwind, K.H.; Thoma, H.; Essers, U.;
Buhler, B.; Greiner, R. (1990) Emission of polyhalogenated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans
from combustion-engines. Organohalogen Compounds 2:329-334. (nopb-gas.xls, pb-gas.xls}
Harding Lawson Associates (1992) Biennial toxic air emissions inventory report - Calaveras Cement
Company, Tehachape Plant, Kern County, California. Novato, CA: Harding Lawson Associates.
HLA Project No. 21598 001. (ckcacalt.xls)
Hutzinger, O; Essers, U.; Hagenmaier, H. (1992) Untersuchungen zur emission halogenierter
dibenzodioxine und dibenzofurane aus verbrennungsmortoren beim betrieb mit handelsublichen
betriebsstoffen. Universities of Bayreuth, Stuttgart and Tubingen, Germany. GSF-
Forschungszentrum, Munich, Germany, ISSN 0937-9932. (nopb-gas.xls, pb-gas.xls)
Interpoll Laboratories (1987) Results of the July 1987 emission performance tests of the Pope/Douglas
Waste to Energy Facility MSW incinerators in Alexandria, Minnesota. Circle Pines, MN:
Interpoll Laboratories. Report No. 7-2394. (mswnpdw.xls)
Interpoll Laboratories, Inc. (1988a) Results of the June 1988 air emission performance test on the MSW
incinerators at the St. Croix Waste to Energy Facility in New Richmond, Wisconsin. Volume 1.
Results of Exhaust Gas Testing. Circle Pines, MN: Interpoll Laboratories, Inc. Report No. 8-
2560. (mswwiwef.xls}
Interpoll Laboratories, Inc. (1988b) Results of the March 21-26, 1988, air emission compliance test on
the No. 2 boiler at the Red Wing Station Test IV (high load). Circle Pines, MN: Interpoll
Laboratories. Report No. 8-2526. (mswmnnsp.xls}
Interpoll Laboratories, Inc. (1988c) Air emission performance evaluation of fRDF cofiring of the No. 9
boiler at the MG & E Plant in Madison, Wisconsin. Volume 1. Results of Flue Gas Testing.
Circle Pines, MN: Interpoll Laboratories, Inc. Report No. 8-2539. (mswwimge.xls)
44 March 2001
-------
Interpoll Laboratories, Inc. (1989) Results of the April 26 and 27, 1989 non-criteria pollutant emission
testing on the No. 8 Recovery Boiler at the Potlach Corporation Northwest Paper Division in
Cloquet, Minnesota. Volume 1: Flue Gas Testing. Report Number 9-2757. (kblmnpot.xls)
Kaiser Cement Corporation (1992) Additional data for quantification of HAP's emissions from Kaiser
Cement Corporation's Permanente, California, facility. Pleasanton, CA: Kaiser Cement
Corporation, (ckcakai.xls}
Koogler & Associates (1990) Summary of particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile
organic compounds, furans and dioxins, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, metals, and visible
emission measurement. For Central Power and Lime, Inc. in Brooksville, FL. Gainesville, FL:
Koogler & Associates, (ckflcen.xls)
Lefarge Corporation (1995) PCDD/PCDF emission testing report - Fredonia, Kansas, Cement Plant.
Southfield, Michigan: Lefarge Corporation.
Lemieux, P. (2000) Barrel burn experiment results. E-mail from P. Lemieux (EPA/ORD) to D. Cleverly
(EPA/ORD) dated September 7, 2000.
Marklund, S.; Andersson, R.; Tysklind, M.; Rappe, C.; Egeback, K.E.; Bjorkman, E.; Grigoriadis, V.
(1990) Emissions of PCDDs and PCDFs in gasoline and diesel fueled cars. Chemosphere
20(5):553-561. (pb-gas.xls)
MD Air and Radiation Management Administration (1995) FAX. Summary of source test results, Units
1-3, Montgomery County Resource Recovery Facility. Air and Radiation Management
Administration, Maryland Department of the Environment, (mswmdmon.xls)
Mitsubishi Cement Corporation (1992) Report of air pollution source testing, Mitsubishi Cement
Company, Lucerne Valley, California, (ckcamit.xls)
MRI (1985) Midwest Research Institute. Emissions test report: City of Philadelphia Northwest and East
Central municipal incinerators. Volume 1. Technical Report. Kansas City, MO: MRI Project
No. 8281-L(1). (mswpainc.xls}
MRI (1988a) Midwest Research Institute. Emission testing at an RDF municipal waste combustor.
Draft Final Report. Kansas City, MO: MRI Project No. 8910-L(02).
MRI (1988b) Midwest Research Institute. Report of the emission test at the energy from waste (EFW)
facility, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Niagara Falls, New York. Final Report. Kansas City,
MO: MRI Project No. 8876-L. (mswnyocc.xls)
NCASI (1995) National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement. NCASI
summary of PCDD/F emissions from wood residue and black liquor combustion. Attachment to
comments submitted on January 13, 1995, to EPA's Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment concerning the draft document entitled "Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like
Compounds." (wcixxwbf.xls, wcixxwbe.xls, wcixxwbb.xls, wcixxcba.xls, wrsxxcbc.xls,
wrsxxcbd.xls, wrsxxcba.xls, wcixxbfi, wcixxbf4.xls, kblcarjb.xls, kbllarfe.xls, kblmirfg.xls,
kblmnrfc.xls, kblncrff.xls, kblnyrfd.xls}
45 March 2001
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (1986a) Preliminary stack test report on
Oneida County ERF, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air
Resources, (mswnyone.xls)
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (1986b) Emission source test report.
Preliminary stack test report on Cattaraugus County Energy Facility, New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Resources, (mswnyerf.xls)
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (1986c) Emission source test report.
Preliminary report on Occidental Chemical Corporation EFW. New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Resources.(mswnyocc.xls)
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (1989) Final Report. Results from the
analysis of MSW incinerator testing at Peekskill, New York. Volume I. (mswnywes.xls)
Ogden Martin Systems, Inc. (1994a) Environmental test report regarding Lee County Solid Waste
Resource Recovery Facility. Fairfield, NJ: Ogden Martin Systems, Inc. Report No. 884.
(mswfllee.xls)
Ogden Martin Systems, Inc. (1994b) Entropy Environmentalists Inc. report of compliance testing.
Environmental test report regarding Alexandria/Arlington Resource Recovery Units 2 and 3.
Fairfield, NJ: Ogden Martin Systems, Inc. Report No. 673. (mswvaale.xls)
Ogden Martin Systems, Inc. (1994c) Environmental test report. Executive Summary. Volume 1. Greater
Detroit Resource Recovery Facility. Fairfield, NJ: Ogden Martin Systems, Inc. Report No. 834.
(mswmiogd.xls)
Ogden Martin Systems, Inc. (1994d) Environmental test report. Executive Summary. Volume 1.
Greater Detroit Resource Recovery Facility. Fairfield, NJ: Ogden Martin Systems, Inc. Report
No. 793. (mswmiogd.xls)
Ogden Martin Systems, Inc. (1995a) Environmental test report regarding Union County Resource
Recovery Facility. Executive Summary. Fairfield, NJ: Ogden Martin Systems, Inc. Report No.
902. (mswnjrrf.xls)
Ogden Martin Systems, Inc. (1995b) Environmental test report regarding Union County Resource
Recovery Facility. Executive Summary. Fairfield, NJ: Ogden Martin Systems, Inc. Report No.
963. (mswnjrrf.xls)
Ogden Martin Systems, Inc. (1995c) Environmental test report regarding Onondaga County Resource
Recovery Facility. Executive Summary. Volume I. Fairfield, NJ: Ogden Martin Systems, Inc.
Report No. 928. (mswnyono.xls)
Ogden Projects, Inc. (1988) Environmental test report regarding Alexandria/Arlington Resource Recovery
Facility Units 1, 2, and 3. Emeryville, CA: Ogden Projects, Inc. Report No. 144B.
(mswvaale.xls)
46 March 2001
-------
Ogden Projects, Inc. (1989a) Air emissions test results from the Stanislaus County, California Resource
Recovery Facility. International Conference on Municipal Waste Combustion. Conference
Proceedings Vol. 2. (mswcarrf.xls)
Ogden Projects, Inc. (1989b) Environmental test report regarding Babylon Resource Recovery Facility,
Units 1 and 2. Emeryville, CA: Ogden Projects, Inc. Report No. 193. (mswnybab.xls)
Ogden Projects, Inc. (1989c) Environmental test report regarding Indianapolis Resource Recovery
Facility. Emeryville, CA: Ogden Projects, Inc. Report No. 221. (mswinrrf.xls)
Ogden Projects, Inc. (1989d) Recon Systems, Inc. stack sampling report, August 9, 1989, regarding
Alexandria/Arlington Resource Recovery Facility, Unit 2. Volume 2 and Executive Summary.
Emeryville, CA: Ogden Projects, Inc. Report No. 209B. (mswvaale.xls)
Ogden Projects, Inc. (1996a) Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility. Dioxin/furans audit
data. Fairfield, NJ: Ogden Projects, Inc.
Ogden Projects, Inc. (1996b) Montgomery County Resource Recovery Facility. Compliance test report.
Fairfield, NJ: Ogden Projects, Inc. Report No. 2023.
Pennsylvania Bureau of Air Quality Control (1990a) Data file on Hershey Medical Center, Deny
Township, Dauphin County, from the Bureau of Air Quality Control, Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, (mwipaher.xls)
Pennsylvania Bureau of Air Quality Control (1990b) Data file on Brookville Hospital, Brookville,
Jefferson County, from the Bureau of Air Quality Control, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
(mwipabro.xls)
Pennsylvania Bureau of Air Quality Control (1990c) Data file on Harrisburg Materials, Energy,
Recycling, and Recovery Facility from the Bureau of Air Quality Control, Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania Bureau of Air Quality Control (1994a) Data file on Montenay Montgomery County
Resource Recovery Facility, Plymouth Township, Montgomery County, from the Bureau of Air
Quality Control, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (mswpamon.xls)
Pennsylvania Bureau of Air Quality Control (1994b) Data file on Lancaster County Solid Waste
Management Authority, Conoy Township, Lancaster County, from the Bureau of Air Quality
Control, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (mswpalan.xls)
Pennsylvania Bureau of Air Quality Control (1994c) Data file on Harrisburg Materials, Energy,
Recycling, and Recovery Facility Harrisburg, Dauphin County. Bureau of Air Quality Control,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (mswpahme.xls)
Pennsylvania Bureau of Air Quality Control (1995) Data file on Waste Resource Energy, Inc. Delaware
County Resource Recovery Facility, Chester, Delaware County, from the Bureau of Air Quality
Control, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (mswpawre.xls)
47 March 2001
-------
Radian Corporation (1986) Draft emission test report. Dioxin/ftiran and total organic chlorides emission
testing. Saugus Resource Recovery Facility, Saugus, MA. Research Triangle Park, NC: Radian
Corporation, (mswmasgs.xls)
Radian Corporation (1987a) Final test report - Site 12. Sewage Sludge Incinerator SSI-C. National
Dioxin Study Tier 4: Combustion Sources. Research Triangle Park, NC: Radian Corporation.
(ssixxsl2.xls)
Radian Corporation (1987b) Emission test report dioxin/ftiran emission testing, Refuse Fuels Associates,
Lawrence, Massachusetts. Research Triangle Park, NC: Radian Corporation, (mswmarfal.xls,
mswmarfa2.xls)
Radian Corporation (1988) Data analysis results for testing at a two-stage modular MSW incinerator:
Oswego County ERF, Fulton, New York. Draft final report, Volume I. Research Triangle Park,
NC: Radian Corp. (mswny-oc.xls)
Radian Corporation (1989a) Municipal waste combustion multipollutant study, emission test report, mass
burn refractory incineration, Montgomery County South, Ohio. Volume 1. Summary of Results.
Research Triangle Park, NC: Radian Corporation, (mswohmcs.xls)
Radian Corporation (1989b) Results from the analysis of MSW incinerator testing at Peekskill, New
York. Volume I. Final Report. Research Triangle Park, NC: Radian Corporation.
(mswnywes.xls)
Radian Corporation (1989c) Compliance test report for the Hempstead Resource Recovery Facility,
Westbury, New York. Research Triangle Park, NC: Radian Corporation, (mswnyrrf.xls)
Radian Corporation (1989d) Municipal waste combustion multipollutant study, emission test report,
Maine Energy Recovery Company Refuse Derived Fuel Facility, Biddeford, Maine. Volume I:
Summary of Results. Research Triangle Park, NC: Radian Corporation, (mswmemai.xls)
Radian Corporation (1989e) Final Report. Emissions associated with the combustion of pulp and paper
mill primary sludge in a cement kiln (for Simpson Paper Company and Calaveras Cement
Company). Sacramento, CA: Radian Corporation, (ckcacal.xls)
Radian Corporation (199la) Medical waste incineration emission test report: Lenoir Memorial Hospital,
Kinston, North Carolina. Vol. I. Research Triangle Park, NC: Radian Corporation. EMB
Project No. 90-MWI-05. (mwinden.xls}
Radian Corporation (1991b) Results of dioxin testing on the catalytic reformer unit #1 exhaust Texaco
Refinery; Bakersfield, California. Radian Corp: Sacramento, CA. August 8, 1991.
(pracatexa.xls)
Radian Corporation (1994) Organic emissions speciation and risk assessment report: Lafarge
Corporation, Alpena, Michigan, plant. Herndon, Virginia: Radian Corporation.
Radian Corporation (1995) Final Report. Haps test program report for Capitol Aggregates, Inc. San
Antonio, Texas. Austin, TX: Radian Corporation (cktxcap.xls)
48 March 2001
-------
Radian Corporation (1996) HAPS test report for Lehigh Portland Cement Company, Union Bridge,
Maryland facility. Austin, TX: Radian Corporation (ckmdleh.xls).
Riggs, K.B.; T.D. Brown; M.E. Schrock. 1995. PCDD/PCDF emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Organohalogen Compounds 24:51-54. (peg yat.xls, peg spp.xls, peg nil.xls, peg coa.xls,
peg bal.xls, peg bos.xls, peg car.xls)
Riverside Cement Company (1992) NESHPS additional information for Riverside Cement Operations.
Riverside, CA: Riverside Cement Company, (ckcariv.xls}
RTI (1998) Research Triangle Institute. Data quality audit of EPA's national database of sources of
environmental releases of dioxin-like compounds in the U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-D4-0091,
Work Assignment No. 98-01. November 25, 1998.
Schreiber, Grana & Yonley, Inc. (1994a) Emissions update report relating to BIF emissions controls.
Prepared for: Continental Cement Company, Inc., Hannibal, Missouri. Fenton, Missouri:
Schreiber, Grana & Yonley, Inc.
Schreiber, Grana & Yonley, Inc. (1994b) Correspondence from Robert J. Schreiber, Jr., President,
Schreiber, Grana & Yonley, Inc. to Joe Wood, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting data from dioxin testing conducted at Continental Cement Company, Inc. before and
after the ESP. (ck con.xls)
Schwind, K-H.; Thoma, H; Hutzinger, O.; Dawidowsky, N.; Weberuss, U.; Hagenmaier, H.; Buehler, U.;
Greiner, R.; Essers, U.; Bessey, E. (1991) Emission halogenierter dibenzodioxine (PXDD) und
dibenzofurane (PXDF) aus verbrennungsmotoren. UWSF-Z. Umweltchem. Oekotox. 3, 291-298.
[English translation] (nopb-gas.xls, pb-gas.xls)
Scott Environmental Technology, Inc. (1985) Sampling and analysis of chlorinated organic compound
emissions from the Hampton Waste-to-Energy System. Plumsteadville, PA: Scott Environmental
Technology, Inc. No. 1516-02-0385. (mswvahrf.xls)
Scott Environmental Technology, Inc. (1991) Emission compliance test of a municipal waste combustor,
Harford County, MD. Plumsteadville, PA: Scott Environmental Technology, Inc. No. 1442-02-
1091. (mswmdwep.xls)
Sverdrup Corp. (1991) Chemetco, Inc., compliance testing, final report. St. Louis, MO: Sverdrup Corp.
April 19, 1991. (snailche.xls)
Team Environmental Services, Inc. (1995) Certification of compliance source test report using tire derived
fuel. Riverside Cement Company, Oro Grande Facility. August 25, 1995. (ckcarn.xls)
Technical Services, Inc. (1993a) Source test report. Boca Raton Hospital, Boca Raton Florida, Dioxin
Emissions, April 1-2, 1993; September 16-17, 1994. Jacksonville, FL: Technical Services, Inc.
(mwiflboc.xls)
Technical Services, Inc. (1993b) Source test report. JFK Hospital, West Palm Beach Florida, Dioxin
Emissions, June 22-23, 1993. Jacksonville, FL: Technical Services, Inc. (mwifljjk.xls)
49 March 2001
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1987a) National dioxin study Tier 4 - combustion sources.
Engineering analysis report. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. EPA-450/4-84-014h. (drum-bar.xls, ssixxsl2.xls, scrpwire.xls, sec-copp.xls,
snmdcepa.xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1987b) Municipal waste combustion study. Characterization of
the municipal waste combustion industry. Washington, DC: Office of Air and Radiation.
EPA/530-SW-87-021b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1987c) Municipal waste combustion multipollutant study.
Emission test report. Marion County solid waste-to-energy facility. Ogden Martin Systems of
Marion, Inc. Brooks, Oregon. Volume 1: Summary and Results. Research Triangle Park, NC:
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EMB Report No. 86-MIN-03. (mswormar.xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1988a) Municipal waste combustion multipollutant study.
Shutdown/startup emission test report. Marion County solid waste-to-energy facility. Ogden
Martin Systems of Marion, Inc. Brooks, Oregon. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. EMB Report No. 87-MIN-04A. (mswormar.xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1988b) Municipal waste combustion multipollutant study.
Characterization emission test report. Marion County solid waste-to-energy facility. Ogden
Martin Systems of Marion, Inc. Brooks, Oregon. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. EMB Report No. 897-MIN-04. (mswormar.xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1988c) Municipal waste combustion multipollutant study.
Emission test report. Wheelabrator Millbury, Inc. Millbury, Massachusetts. Research Triangle
Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EMB Report No. 88-MIN-07.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1988d) Municipal waste combustion multipollutant study.
Summary report. Signal Environmental Systems, Inc. North Andover RESCO, North Andover,
MA. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EMB Report
No. 86-MIN-02A. (mswmanar.xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1988e) Municipal waste combustion multipollutant study.
Summary report. Marion County Solid Waste-to Energy Facility Ogden Martin Systems of
Marion, Inc. Brooks, Oregon. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. EMB Report No. 86-MIN-03A. (mswormar.xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989a) Municipal waste combustion miltipollutant study: refuse-
derived fuel. Uncontrolled CDD/CDF, metals and particulate emissions test report. Mid-
Connecticut Resource Recovery Facility, Hartford, Connecticut. Research Triangle Park, NC:
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EMB Report No. 88-MIN-09. (mswctrrf.xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989b) Municipal waste combustion multipollutant study:
Refuse-derived fuel. Summary Report. Mid-Connecticut Resource Recovery Facility, Hartford,
Connecticut. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EMB
Report No. 88-MIN-09A. (mswctrrf.xls)
50 March 2001
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989c) Municipal waste combustion multipollutant study.
Emission test report, Maine Energy Recovery Company Refuse Derived Fuel Facility, Biddeford,
Maine. Volume I and II. Washington, B.C.: Office of Research and Development. EPA-600/8-
89-064a and EPA-600/8-89-064b. (mswmemai.xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989d) Interim procedures for estimating risks associated with
exposures to mixtures of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and
1989 update. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/625/3-89/016.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1990a) Medical waste incineration emission test report. AMI
Central Carolina Hospital, Sanford, North Carolina. Volume I. Research Triangle Park, NC:
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EMB Report No. 90-MWI-5. (mwincen.xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1990b) Emissions testing of a precalciner cement kiln at
Louisville, Nebraska. Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste, Waste Treatment Branch.
(ckneash.xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1990c) Emissions testing of a wet cement kiln at Hannibal,
Missouri. Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste, Waste Treatment Branch.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1990d) Summary report on USEPA/Industry Cooperative Dioxin
Study. "The 104 Mill Study." Washington, DC: Office of Water Regulations and Standards. July
1990. (pulpetal.xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1990e) Emissions of metals, chromium and nickel species, and
organics from municipal wastewater sludge incinerators. Volume I: Summary report. EPA
Contract No. 68-CO-0027, Work Assignment No. 0-5. (ssi-8.xls, ssi-9.xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1991a) Medical waste incineration emission test report.
Morristown Memorial Hospital, Morristown, New Jersey. Volume I. Research Triangle Park,
NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EMB Report No. 91-MWI-8. (mwinjmor.xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1991b) Medical waste incineration emission test report. Borgess
Medical Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan. Volume I. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. EMB Report 91-MWI-9. (mswmibor.xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1991c) Medical waste incineration emission test report: Cape
Fear Memorial Hospital, Wilmington, NC; Volume I-III. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards. EMB Report 90-MWI-05. (mwinccap.xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1991d) Medical waste incineration emission test report: Jordan
Hospital, Plymouth, Massachusetts. Volume 1. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. EMB Report 90-MWI-6. (mswmajor.xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992a) Secondary lead smelter emission test report. East Perm
Manufacturing, Lyon Station, PA. Volume 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EMB Report 92-
SLS-3. (snmpaeas.xls)
51 March 2001
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1993a) Emission test report. Field test of carbon injection for
mercury control Camden County Municipal Waste Combustor. Washington, DC: Office of
Research and Development. EPA-600/R-93-181. (mswnjcam.xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1995a) Final emission test report FiAP emission testing on
selected sources at a secondary lead smelter. Schuykill Metals Corporation, Forest City, Missouri.
Volume 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EMB Report 93-SLS-2. (snmmosch.xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1995b) Final emission test report F£AP emission testing on
selected sources at a secondary lead smelter. Tejas Resources, Inc., Terrell, TX. Volume 1. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. EMB Report 93-SLS-l. (snmtxtej.xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1995c) Secondary aluminum plant emission test report.
Rochester Aluminum Smelting Corporation, Rochester, New York. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EMB Report 95 -SAL-01. (salnyroc. xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1995d) Volume II: HWC emissions database. Appendix A:
cement kiln detailed data listing. Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, (many files within hwi 97 directory)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1996) EPA OSW hazardous waste combustion data base.
Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste, Waste Management Division, (many files within
hwi 97 directory)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997) Locating and estimating air emissions from sources of
dioxins and furans. Draft final report. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Contract No. 68-D2-0160. (fefondry.xls, sec-copp.xls)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2001) Exposure and human health reassessment of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and related compounds. Part I: Estimating exposure to
dioxin-like compounds. Volume 2: Sources of dioxin-like compounds in the United States.
Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/P-00/001Ab.
Van den Berg, M.; Birnbaum, L.; Bosveld, A.T.C.; Brunstrom, B.; Cook, P.; Feeley, M.; Giesy, J.P.;
Hanberg, A.; Hasegawa, R.; Kennedy, S.W.; Kubiak, T.; Larsen, J.C.; van Leeuwen, F.X.R.;
Liem, A.K.D.; Nolt, C.; Peterson, RE.; Poellinger, L.; Safe, S.; Schren, D.; Tillitt, D.; Tysklind,
M.; Younes, M.; Warn, F.; Zacharewski, T. (1998) Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for PCBs,
PCDDs, PCDFs for humans and wildlife. Environmental Health Perspectives. 106:775-792.
Vermont Air Pollution Control Division (1996) Source emission test at Safety Medical Systems,
Colchester, VT. Waterbury, VT: State of Vermont, Agency of Natural Resources, Air Pollution
Control Division, (mwivtsaf.xls}
Westinghouse Electric Corporation (1989a) Dutchess county resource recovery facility. Dioxin and furan
emission test results. Pittsburgh, PA: Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Resource Energy
Systems Division, (mswnydut.xls}
52 March 2001
-------
Westinghouse Electric Corporation (1989b) Dutchess county resource recovery facility. Emission
compliance test report, June 15, 1989. Volume 1. Executive Summary. Pittsburgh, PA:
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Resource Energy Systems Division, (mswnydut.xls)
Weston (1986) Source emission test report dioxins and dibenzofurans performed for Vicon Recovery
Systems, Inc. West Chester, PA: Weston, Inc. No. 2721-02-01. (mswmarrf.xls)
Weston (1988a) Emission test report, Pigeon Point, DE. West Chester, PA: Weston. (mswde-pp.xls)
Weston (1988b) GE-Penobscott Energy Recovery Company Facility, Orrington, ME, source emission
compliance test report incinerator Units A and B. West Chester, PA: Roy F. Weston, Inc. Project
No. 0046-40-01. (mswmegep.xls)
Weston (1993) Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions Study International Paper, Georgetown, South
Carolina. Roy F. Weston, Inc. Weston Work Order No. 00157-025-001. (kblscint.xls)
Weston (1994) Emission test report. Grosse Pointes Clinton Refuse Disposal Authority, Clinton
Township, Michigan. Morrisville, NC: Roy F. Weston, Inc., Work Order No. 06607-003-001,
rev. 1. (mswmigro.xls)
Woodman Engineering, Inc. (1990) Test report emission tests Regional Waste Systems, Portland, Maine.
Wayland, MA: Woodman Engineering, Inc. (mswmerws.xls)
York Service Corporation (1992) Final report for an emission compliance test program on boilers A and
B at Adirondack Resource Recovery Facility, Hudson Falls, New York. Standord, CT: York
Services Corporation. Project No. 4942-02. (mswnyarr.xls)
March 2001
------- |