CORPORATION
203-024-81-08
DCN: 87-203-024-81-02
AIR TOXICS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA
FINAL REPORT
Contract No. 68-02-3899
Work Assignment 81
Submitted to:
Raymond Nye, Project Officer
Air Programs Branch
Air and Toxics Division
EPA Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Prepared by:
Ronald J. Dickson
Scott H. Peoples
William Rogers Oliver
Radian Corporation
10395 Old Placerville Rd.
Sacramento, CA 95827
March 30, 1987
II
-------
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION Report no. 2.
PAGE EPA 910/9-87-159
3. P 889-21789?
4. Title and Subtitle
Air Toxics Technical Assistance for the State of Alaska.
Final Report.
5. Report Oate
March 30, 1987
6.
7. Authors) .
Ronald J. Dickson, Scott H. Peoples, William Rogers olxver
8. Performing Organization Rept. No:
9. Performing Organization Nam* and Address
Radian Corporation
10395 Old Placerville Rd.
Sacramento, CA 95827
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. ContractCQ or Grant(G) No.
(C) 68-02-3899
-------
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1. Introduction 1-1
2. Summary 2-1
3. Recommendations for Inventory Refinement 3-1
Activity Data 3-1
Residential Wood Combustion 3-1
Airport Emissions 3-1
Slash Burning and Forest Fires 3-2
Municipal Wastewater Treatment 3-2
Asphalt Distribution and Usage 3-2
4. Identification of Air Toxics Emission Sources 4-1
Facilities in the Point Source Emission Inventory 4-1
Information Used to Identify Point Sources of Air Toxics 4-4
Information Used to Identify Area Sources of Air Toxics 4-7
5. Survey of Sources 5-1
Prioritization of Sources for Survey 5-1
Survey Approach 5-3
Summary of Survey Results 5-3
Autobody Paint Shops 5-3
Battery Manufacturing 5-5
Cooling Towers 5-5
Electroplating 5-5
Ethylene Oxide Sterilization 5-5
Industrial Incineration 5-5
Military Facilities 5-5
Paint Manufacturing.. 5-6
Sewage Sludge Incineration 5-6
6. Estimation of Air Toxics Emissions 6-1
Point Source Emission Estimates 6-1
Airport Operations 6-2
Asphalt Cement (Hot Mix) Plants 6-4
Barrel Burning 6-4
Battery Manufacturing 6-4
Chemical Manufacturing 6-6
Combustion Sources 6-6
Cooling Towers 6-7
Dry Cleaning 6-3
Electroplating 6-8
Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers 6-9
iii
-------
-------
RADIAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
6. (cont.) Gasoline Evaporation 6-9
Industrial Incineration 6-10
Municipal Solid Waste Incineration 6-10
Paint Manufacturing 6-10
Portland Cement Manufacturing 6-11
Pulp and Paper Mills 6-11
Refinery Fugitives 6-11
Sewage Sludge Incineration 6-14
Surface Coating 6-15
Area Source Emission Estimates 6-16
Asphalt Distribution and Usage 6-16
Asphalt Cement (Hot Mix) 6-16
Cutback Asphalts 6-16
Emulsified Asphalts 6-18
Dry Cleaning 6-18
Mobile Sources 6-18
Pesticide Application 6-20
Petroleum Marketing 6-20
Residential Wood Combustion 6-24
Slash Burning and Forest Fires 6-26
7. Ranking of Point and Area Sources 7-1
Ranking Methodology 7-1
Ranking Results 7-5
8. Source Testing and Ambient Air Monitoring of Air Toxics 8-1
Source Testing Techniques 8-1
Organic Source Testing 8-1
Inorganic Source Testing 8-2
Ambient Air Monitoring Techniques 8-2
Organic Monitoring 8-2
Inorganics Monitoring. 8-8
Analytical Techniques 8-8
Organics Analysis 8-8
Inorganics Analysis 8-11
Quality Control 3-11
9. References for Emission Inventory 9-1
Appendix A - Point Source Emission Estimates A-l
Appendix B - Emission Factor Documentation B-l
Appendix C - Area Source Emission Estimates C-l
Appendix D - Surface Coating VOC Speciation Data D-l
Appendix E - Detailed Listing of Point Source Ranking E-l
Appdenix F - Air Toxics Questionnaires F-l
Appendix G - Emission Source Categories Associated with
Selected Non-Criteria Pollutants G-l
iv
-------
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 Summary of Air Toxics Emission Estimates by Emission
Source Type for Point and Area Sources in Alaska 2-2
2-2 Summary of Air Toxics Emission Estimates by Pollutant
for Point and Area Sources in Alaska 2-7
2-3 Point Source Categories Ranked According to Relative
Health Risk 2-12
2-4 Area Source Categories Ranked According to
Relative Health Risk 2-15
4-1 Criteria for Inclusion of Facilities on the List of Air
Toxics Point Sources 4-2
4-2 Potential Air Toxics Emission Source Types Not Included on
the List of Air Toxics Point Sources 4-5
4-3 Fifty-Six Selected Non-Criteria Pollutants 4-6
5-1 _ Prioritized List of Emission Sources for Survey 5-2
5-2 Percentage of Surveys Returned 5-4
6-1 Percentage of Total PAH Associated with Soot Particles as
a Function of Flue Gas Temperature 6-3
6-2 Total Hydrocarbon Emissions by Airport and Plane Type 6-5
6-3 VOC Emissions Estimates for Alaskan Petroleum Refineries..6-12
6-4 Estimated Emissions for Asphalt Distribution and Usage....6-17
6-5 Perchloroethylene Emission Estimates for Dry Cleaning 6-19
6-6 Estimated Mobile Source Emissions for Gasoline
Consumption .6-21
6-7 Estimated Mobile Source Emissions for Diesel Consumption..6-22
6-8 Estimated Pesticide Use in Alaska, 1984 6-23
6-9 Estimated Emissions for Petroleum Marketing 6-25
6-10 Summary of Estimated Pollutant Emissions from
Residential Wood Combustion 6-27
v
-------
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
6-11 POM and Manganese Emissions from Slash Burning 6-28
7-1 Toxicity Weighting Data for Air Toxics Emitted In Alaska.. 7-3
7-2 Point Source Categories Ranked According to Relative
Health Risk 7-6
7-3 Facilities with Ranking Factors Greater than 5,000 7-9
7-4 Ranking Factors for Area Source Categories 7-10
8-1 Summary of Source Testing Methods for Organic Air Toxics.. 8-3
8-2 Summary of Ambient Sampling and Analysis Methods
for Toxic Organics 8-5
8-3 Summary of Toxic Organic Compounds for Which Ambient
Sampling and Methods have been Evaluated 8-7
8-4 Summary of Analytical Methods for Organic Air Toxics 8-9
B-l Summary of Emission Factors for Chrome Plating B-10
C—1 Asphalt Use in Alaska C-3
C-2 Wood Use Survey Results C-5
C-3 Number of Occupied Year-Round Housing Units for
Five Alaska Boroughs - 1980 C-6
C-4 Summary of Estimated Residential Wood Combustion Rates.... C-9
C-5 Summary of Estimated Pollutant Emissions from
.Residential Wood Combustion C-10
C-6 POM and Manganese Emissions from Slash Burning C-12
VI
-------
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Due to public concerns regarding the possible hazards associated with air
toxics, state and local air agencies are being encouraged by the EPA to
develop and strengthen their own air toxics program. State and local programs
are generally designed to complement the federal air toxics program.
. The development of an inventory of air toxics is a logical first step in
an air toxics program. Once the various sources of air toxics have been
identified and quantified, prioritization of individual contaminants and
source categories can be performed. Ambient monitoring, source sampling, and
emission control strategies can be developed for the important contaminants
and source categories.
Radian, under contract to EPA, has developed an air toxics emission
inventory for the state of Alaska. This inventory identifies point and area
sources of air toxics and quantifies emissions where possible. The emission
sources have been ranked in terms of the relative health risk that they
represent. Source testing and ambient air monitoring guidance are also
presented.
The structure of this document is listed below:
• Section 2.0 summarizes the emission estimates and presents the
ranked list of sources;
• Section 3.0 presents recommendations for future inventory modifi-
cations that are beyond the scope of this initial inventory;
• Section 4.0 presents the methodology used to identify sources of air
toxics;
• Section 5.0 discusses the survey approach and results used to help
compile the inventory;
• Section 6.0 documents the data, information, and methodologies used
to estimate emissions,
• Section 7.0 presents the methodology used to rank the sources in
terms of the relative health risk that their air toxics emissions
represent; and
• Section 8.0 presents an overview of source testing and ambient air
monitoring for air toxics.
1-1
-------
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
SECTION 2
SUMMARY
Under contract to the EPA, Radian developed an air toxics emission
inventory for the state of Alaska. This inventory focuses on both point
(i.e., specifically identified facilities) and area sources. The area source
inventory does not identify facilities, but instead consists of aggregated
amission totals for a geographic area. The following activities were per-
formed in compiling the inventory:
• a literature review was conducted,
• a list of air toxics point sources was developed,
• a survey of facilities was conducted through use of questionnaires,
and
• air toxica amissions were estimated for point and area sources.
The primary result of these activities was the development of an air
toxics emission inventory. The inventory is based on a variety of sources of
information. Activity data were obtained for time periods ranging from 1979
to 1986. The exact sources of information and the time periods for which they
were derived are discussed in Section 5 and 6. A summary of point and area
source emissions by source type for the state of Alaska is presented in Table
2-1. Xfris same information is presented by air toxic compound in Table 2-2.
A detailed list of the point source emissions by source type is presented in
Appendix A.
Threshold limit values were then used to rank the emission sources. This
ranking of sources will allow EPA and state officials to focus on those
sources that represent the greatest health risk to the general population.
Results of the ranking procedure are summarized in Tables 2-3 and 2-4.
In reviewing the point source emission inventory and the ranking of
sources, the reader must be cautious in drawing conclusions. In particular,
caution should be taken in drawing conclusions about the health risk that a
particular air toxics emission source represents. A quantitative evaluation
of the relative health risks that different air toxics emission sources
represent cannot be made from the emission inventory and ranking procedure for
the following reasons:
• the uncertainty that exists in some of the air toxics emission
estimates is large;
• some of the emission estimates may change in the near future (for
example, new regulations that mandate decreasing the lead content in
gasoline will result in significantly lower emissions of EDB and EDC
from gasoline evaporation); and
• pollutant exposures (i.e., the ambient concentrations experienced by
the general population) which are needed to quantitatively evaluate
risk have not been calculated.
2-1
-------
RADIAN
coR*oa«TiaN
TABLE 2-1.
SUMMARY OF AIR TOXICS EMISSION ESTIMATES BY EMISSION
SOURCE TYPE FOR POINT AND AREA SOURCES IN ALASKA
Emissions
Emission Source Type Pollutant (lbs/yr)
Airport Operations PAH N/A
Dioxins N/A
Formaldehyde N/A
Xylene 120,000
Benzene 5,900
Asphalt Distribution & Usage Benzene 2,900
Formaldehyde 150
PAH 29
Toluene 35,000
Xylene 68,000
Battery Manufacturing Lead 130
_ Arsenic N/A
Cadmium N/A
Manganese N/A
Coal Combustion Arsenic 770
Beryllium 23
Cadmium 230
Chromium 660
Radionuclides 1,300
Formaldehyde 1,600
Manganese 2,200
Mercury 10
Nickel 660
PAH 12
Cooling Towers Chromium 0
Nickel 0
Chloroform 29,000
Distillate Oil Combustion Chromium 260
Formaldehyde 1,500
Manganese' 150
Nickel 5,200
PAH 8
Radionuclides N/A
2-2
Continued
-------
RADIAN
TABLE 2-1. (Gont.)
SUMMARY OF AIR TOXICS EMISSION ESTIMATES BY
EMISSION SOURCE TYPE FOR POINT AND AREA SOURCES IN ALASKA
Emissions
Emission Source Type Pollutant (lbs/yr)
Dry Gleaners (Area Sources) Perchloroethylene 300,000
Dry Cleaners (Point Sources) Perchloroethylene 52,000
Freon 113 N/A
Electroplating Chromium 8
Nickel <0.1
Ethylene Oxide Sterilization Ethylene Oxide 1,800
Gasoline Evaporation Benzene 81,000-
Ethylene Dibromide 6
_ Ethylene Dichloride 44
Hot Mix Asphalt Production Benzene 3,900
Formaldehyde 220
PAH 38
Mobile Sources Benzene 420,000
Formaldehyde 1,500,000
Toluene 1,600,000
Xylene 39,000
POM N/A
Municipal Solid Waste Arsenic 17
Incineration Beryllium 0.4
Cadmium 110
Chromium 680
Lead 2,600
Manganese 260
Nickel 570
PAH 5
Furans < 1
PCB <1
Dioxins <1
Continued
-------
RADIAN
TABLE 2-1. (Cont.)
SUMMARY OF AIR TOXICS EMISSION ESTIMATES BY
EMISSION SOURCE TYPE FOR POINT AND AREA SOURCES IN ALASKA
Emissions
Emission Source Type Pollutant (Ibs/yr)
Paint Manufacturing Toluene N/A
Pesticide Application Formaldehyde 16,000
Petroleum Marketing Benzene 49,000
EDB 1.8
EDC 12
Toluene 33,000
Xylene 9,900
Portland Cement Manufacturing Chromium 0.2
¦ Nickel 0.1
Pulp & Paper Mills Chloroform 63,000
Reciprocating Diesel Engine Chromium 240
Manganese 140
Nickel . 4,700
PAH 48
Formaldehyde 3,400
Refinery Fugitives Benzene 6,900
Toluene 20,000
Xylene 30,000
Continued
-------
RADIAN
CORPOaATIOM
TABLE 2-1. (Cont.)
SUMMARY OF AIR
TOXICS EMISSION ESTIMATES BY
EMISSION SOURCE TYPE
FOR POINT AND AREA SOURCES IN
ALASKA
Emissions
Emission Source Type
Pollutant
(lbs/yr)
Residential Wood Combustion
Acetaldyhyde
20,000
Benzene*
3,300
Cresols
47,000
Dioxins*
<0.1
Formaldehyde
41,000
Phenol
59,000
-
POM
41,900
Residual Oil Combustion
Chromium
2
Formaldehyde
9
Manganese
1
Nickel
38
PAH
<0.
Radionuclides
N/A
Sewage. Sludge Incineration
Arsenic
2
Beryllium
N/A
Cadmium
2
Chromium
8
Lead
27
Manganese
N/A
Mercury
2
Nickel
8
PAH
11
Dibenzofuran
9
Slash Burning**
Manganese
780
POM
15,000
Turbine Diesel Engine
Chromium
1,100
Manganese
620
Nickel
22,000
PAH
31
Formaldehyde
23,000
Continued
-------
RADIAN
CORPOHMTIOM
TABLE 2-1. (Cont.)
SUMMARY OF AIR TOXICS EMISSION ESTIMATES BY
EMISSION SOURCE TYPE FOR POINT AND AREA SOURCES IN ALASKA
Emissions
Emission Source Type Pollutant (lbs/yr)
Waste Oil Combustion Arsenic 35
Cadmium 11
Chromium 54
Lead 540
Manganese N/A
Nickel N/A
PAH 22
Formaldehyde 4,100
Wood Combustion Aldehydes N/A
PAH 30,000
Waste Water Emissions*** Chloroform 63,000
N/A - Emission estimates are not available at this time. A discussion of the
information that is needed to estimate emissions is presented in Section
Six.
* Emission estimates for these species only include the contributions from
wood-burning stoves; emission factors for fireplaces were not available.
** These estimates are for the Fairbanks and Anchorage areas only.
*** These estimates are for pulp and paper mills.
2-6
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
TABLE 2-2.
SUMMARY OF AIR TOXICS EMISSION ESTIMATES
BY POLLUTANT FOR POINT AND AREA SOURCES IN ALASKA
Emission Source Emissions
Pollutant Type (lb/yr)
Acetaldehydes Industrial Wood Combustion N/A
Residential Wood Combustion 20,000
Arsenic Battery Manufacturing N/A
Coal Combustion 780
Municipal Waste Incineration 17
Sewage Sludge Incineration 2
Waste Oil Combustion 35
Benzene Airport Operations 5,900
Asphalt Distribution Usage 2,900
Gasoline Evaporation 81,000
Hot Mix Ashpalt Production 3,900
Mobile Sources 420,000
- Petroleum Marketing 49,000
Refinery Fugitives 6,900
Residential Wood Combustion* 3,300
Beryllium Coal Combustion 23
Municipal Waste Incineration 0.4
Sewage Sludge Incineration N/A
Cadmium Battery Manufacturing N/A
Coal Combustion 230
Municipal Waste Incineration 110
Sewage Sludge Incineration 2
Waste Oil Combustion 11
(a)
Chromium Chrome Plating 8
Coal Combustion 670
Cooling Towers 0
Distillate Oil Combustion • 260
Municipal Waste Incineration 680
Reciprocating Diesel Engine 240
Residual Oil Combustion 2
Portland Cement Manufacturing 0.2
Sewage Sludge Inceration 8
Turbine Diesel Engine 1,100
Waste Oil Combustion 54
2-7
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
TABLE 2-2. (Cont.)
SUMMARY OF AIR TOXICS EMISSION ESTIMATES
BY POLLUTANT FOR POINT AND AREA SOURCES IN ALASKA
Emission Source Emissions
Pollutant Type (lb/yr)
Chloroform Cooling Towers 29,000
Pulp and Paper Mills 63,000
Cresols Residential Wood Combustion 47,000
Dibenzofuran Municipal Solid Waste Incineration <1
Sewage Sludge Incineration 9
Dioxins Airport Operations N/A
Municipal Waste Incineration <1
Residential Wood Combustion <1
Ethylene Dibromide Gasoline Evaporation 6
Petroleum Marketing 1.8
Ethylene Dichloride Gasoline Evaporation 44
Petroleum Marketing 12
Ethylene Oxide Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers 1,600
Formaldehyde Airport Operations N/A
Asphalt Distribution & Usage 150
Coal Combustion 1,800
Distillate Oil Combustion 1,500
Hot Mix Asphalt Production 220
Mobile Sources 1,500,000
Pesticide Application 16„000
Reciprocating Diesel Engine 3,400
Residential Wood Combustion 41,000
Residual Oil Combustion 9
Turbine Diesel Engine 23,000
Waste Oil Combustion- 41,000
2-8
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
TABLE 2-2. (Cont.)
SUMMARY OF AIR TOXICS EMISSION ESTIMATES
BY POLLUTANT FOR POINT AMD AREA SOURCES IN ALASKA
Emission Source Emissions
Pollutant Type (lb/yr)
Freon 113
Dry Cleaning
N/A
Furans
Municipal Waste Incineration
N/A
Pathological Incineration
N/A
Lead
Battery Manufacturing
130
Municipal Waste Incineration
2,600
Sewage Sludge Incineration
27
Waste Oil Combustion
540
Manganese
Battery Manufacturing
N/A
Coal Combustion
2,200
Distillate Oil Combustion
150
Municipal Waste Incineration
260
-
Reciprocating Diesel Engine
140
Residual Oil Combustion
1
Sewage Sludge Incineration
N/A
Slash Burning*
780
Turbine Diesel Engine
620
Waste Oil Combustion
N/A
Mercury
Coal Combustion
11
Sewage Sludge Incineration
Nickel
Coal Combustion
670
Cooling Towers
0
Distillate Oil Combustion
5,200
Electroplating
<0.1
Municipal Waste Incineration
570
Portland Cement Manufacturing
0.
Reciprocating Diesel Engine
4,700
Residual Oil Combustion
38
Sewage Sludge Incieration
8
Turbine Diesel Engine
22,000
Waste Oil Combustion
N/A
2-9
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
TABLE 2-2. (Cont.)
SUMMARY OF AIR TOXICS EMISSION ESTIMATES
BY POLLUTANT FOR POINT AND AREA SOURCES IN ALASKA
Emission Source Emissions
Pollutant Type (lb/yr)
PAH/POM
Airport Operations
N/A
Asphalt Distribution & Usage
29
Coal Combustion
12
Distillate Oil Combustion
8
Hot Mix Asphalt Production
38
Mobile Sources
N/A
Municipal Waste Incineration
5
Reciprocating Diesel Engine
48
Residential Wood Combustion
41,900
Residual Oil Combustion
<0.1
Sewage Sludge Incineration
11
Slash Burning
15,000 .
Turbine Diesel Engine
31
Wood Combustion
30,000
Waste Oil Combustion
22
Perchloroethylene
Dry Cleaning (Area Sources)
300,000
Dry Cleaning (Point Sources)
52,000
PCB
Municipal Waste Incineration
<1
Phenol
Residential Wood Combustion
59,000
Radionuclides
Coal Combustion
1,400
Distillate Oil Combustion
N/A
Residual Oil Combustion
N/A
Toluene
Asphalt Distribution
35,000
Mobile Sources
1,600,000
Petroleum Marketing
33,000
Paint Manufacturing
80
Refinery Fugitives
20,000
Xylene
Airport Operations
120,000
Asphalt Distribution
68,000
Mobile Sources
390,000
Petroleum Marketing
9,900
Refinery Fugitives
30,000
2-10
-------
RADIAN
coaPoaaTioi)
TABLE 2-2. (Cont.)
Footnotes:
N/A - Emission estimates are not available at this time. A discussion of the
information that is needed to estimate emissions is presented in Section
Six.
(a) - Chromium emissions are calculated as total chromium.
* Benzene emissions are estimated for wood-burning stoves; emission
factors for fireplaces were not available.
** The estimate is for the Fairbanks and Anchorage areas only.
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-3.
POINT SOURCE CATEGORIES RANKED ACCORDING TO RELATIVE HEALTH RISK
I
Source Type
Ranking Factor
Number of
Facilities
Comments
1. Municipal Solid Waste 1,100,000
Incineration
2. Diesel Turbine Engines 250,000
3. Industrial Wood Combustion 150,000
4. Distillate Oil Combustion 58,000
8 Includes only those facilities burning
more than 300 tpy.
14 Includes only those facilities that are
emitting more than 2 tpy of PM or VOC.
5 Ranking does not take into account
aldehyde emissions, which are unknown.
13 Includes only those facilities that are
emitting more than 2 tpy of PM or VOC.
5. Reciprocating Diesel
Engines
6. Coal Combustion
7. Waste Oil Combustion
55,000
42,000
7,900
58 Includes only those facilities that are
emitting more than 2 tpy of PM or VOC.
7 Ranking factor based on 1979 activity
data.
8 Ranking factor does not include three
facilities. Activity data for these
four facilities are unknown.
8. Gasoline Evaporation
2,700
23 Ranking factor based on 1979 activity
data.
Continued
-------
TABLE 2-3.
POINT SOURCE CATEGORIES RANKED ACCORDING TO RELATIVE HEALTH RISK (Continued)
Source Type
Ranking Factor
Number of
Facilities
Comments
9. Pulp and Paper Mjills
1.300
2
Ranking accounts for emissions from
wastewater treatment.
10. Ethylene Oxide
Sterilization
900
10
Ranking factor assumes all emissions
are emitted at the hospital, which is
not necessarily the case. A portion of
the EtO is emitted from sewer lines.
11. Battery Manufacturing
900
1
Ranking does not take into account
arsenic and chromium emissions.
12. Cooling Towers
600
2
Chloroform emissions from two other
cooling towers are unknown. Ranking
factor also does not include smaller
cooling towers used for comfort cooling.
13. Municipal Sewage
Incineration
500
1
Ranking based on Anchorage water and
sewer facility only. Other incinerators
in the state were found to have insigni-
ficant air toxics emissions.
14. Airports
480
6
Ranking based on six largest commercial
airports. Emissions from military
installations and non-commercial flights
are not accounted for.
Continued
-------
TABLE 2-3.
POINT SOURCE CATEGORIES RANKED ACCORDING TO RELATIVE HEALTH RISK (Continued)
Source Type
Ranking Factor
Number of
Facilities
Comments
15. Hot Mix Asphalt Production 460
16. Residual Oil Combustion 430
17. Oil Refinery Fugitives 330
18. Perchloroethylene Dry 160
Cleaning
19. Electroplating 40
20. Portland Cement Manufacturing 6
21. Paint Manufacturing <1
22. Freon Dry Cleaning 0
29
Ranking factor does not include six
facilities from the south east portion
of the state. The activity data for
these facilities are unknown.
Includes only facility emitting more than
2 tpy of PM or VOC.
Ranking based on emission estimates
calculated from production data obtained
primarily from the Oil and Gas Journal.
See also area source rankings.
Emission estimate for two of four
facilities available.
Emissions are unknown. However, ranking
factor expected to be a small value due
to low toxicity of CFC-113.
Notes:
a) Sources are ranked according to their relative toxicity using threshold limit values.
b) Point source ranking factors are not directly comparable to area source ranking factors due to
the diverse, widespread nature of area source emissions.
-------
TABLE 2-4.
RANKING FACTORS FOR AREA SOURCE CATEGORIES
I
Area Source
Anchorage Fairbanks Juneau
Ketchikan
Gateway Sitka
Asphalt Distribution
and Usage
380
120
43
24
18
Dry Cleaning
660
120
75
28
30
Mobile Sources
690,000
210,000
80,000
44.000
30.000
Petroleum Marketing
1.100
350
130
73
50
Residential Wood Combustion
8.600
200.000
120.000
68.000
41.000
Slash Burning
73.000
1.900
NA
NA
NA
Kenai Peninsula = 8.000 and Matanuska-Susitna Valley = 65.000
Notes:
a) Ranking factors are based on threshold limit values.
b) Area source ranking factors are not directly comparable to point source ranking factors due to
the diverse, widespread nature of areas source emissions.
c) NA indicates not applicable.
-------
RADIAN
CORPO**TIOH
In order to calculate the risk associated with these emissions, the dispersion
potential of each source must be taken into account. This is done using air
quality modeling to predict ground level concentrations. Air modeling and
integrating the subsequent predicted ground level concentrations with the
exposed population were not performed in this study.
2-16
-------
hadian
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INVENTORY REFINEMENT
This section identifies and discusses those portions of the inventory that
represent the highest priority for improvement in the future. These improve-
ments are beyond the scope of this initial inventory. Specific recommen-
dations for improving the Alaska inventory are discussed here, rather than
more general recommendations such as improving emission factors for different
types of sources.
Activity Data
For several of the point sources, activity data (i.e., production rates,
material throughput, criteria pollutant emissions, etc.) were taken from the
National Emissions Data System (NEDS). The last update for NEDS in the State
of Alaska occurred in 1979. Consequently, these seven year old activity data
may not accurately reflect the current air toxics emissions in the state.
Residential Wood Combustion
There is a large amount of information available from the wood use surveys
conduct-ed in Fairbanks and Juneau. Only a portion of this information was
used to derive the emission estimates in this inventory. It is likely that a
thorough review of the "available information would allow a more precise
specification of the types of combustion devices and fueling characteristics
used, and would lead to the use of more accurate and specific emission
factors.
Information on the relative fuel use rates of both fireplace and stove
users in Fairbanks and Anchorage were not available from the survey summaries
received from the ADEC. This information would lead to more accurate
estimation of activity rates. In addition, the activity data used for
Anchorage may not accurately reflect the residential wood combustion emissions
for this area. The recent popularity of wood stoves and the growth in number
of housing units in Anchorage since 1980 may result in an underestimation of
the number of wood stoves and the amount of wood burned. An updated wood use
survey for Anchorage "may provide more accurate emission estimates.
Finally, survey information specific to Ketchikan and Sitka could be used
in the development of more accurate emission estimates for those cities.
Airport Emissions
The activity data for airports, referred to as landing and take off
cycles, are only directly available for the major carriers. Commuter and
charter flights are not included in this inventory. Activity data for these
3-1
-------
RADIAN
smaller planes could be obtained by contacting each airport control tower.
Including the emissions from these smaller planes would provide a more accu-
rate estimation of emissions from the major airports.
Air toxics emissions from landing and takeoff cycles at the military bases
are not included either. These sources could be surveyed to determine activ-
ity data and to determine representative plane types so that air toxics
emissions could be estimated.
Slash Burning and Forest Fires
Additional research on the extent of slash burning and forest fires in
Alaska would be very helpful. More importantly, information on the vegetation
mass loading rates typical of various areas in the state would allow the use
of much more precise emission factors and calculation of refined emission
estimates.
Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Air toxics are emitted from publicly owned treatment works (POTW) that
receive wastewater containing volatile hazardous constituents. Because the
state of Alaska does not contain industry that typically uses solvents, we
expect that air toxics emissions from Alaskan POTW are insignificant. There
may be,_ however, significant emissions of chloroform from the chlorination of
organic species in the treated wastewater. These assumptions could be veri-
fied by sampling raw and treated water samples to establish constituent
concentrations. Mass transfer relationships could then be used to estimate
emissions.
Asphalt Distribution and Usage
Emissions for this category were estimated using 1980 U.S. Department of
Energy data. It appears that these data do not accurately reflect the
quantity of asphalt currently consumed. If specific information regarding the
quantities of asphalt cement, cutback asphalts and emulsified asphalts, are
available from the Alaska Department of Transportation, they should be used in
the inventory.
Mobile Source Emissions
Air toxics emissions for off-highway mobile sources have not been account-
ed for in this inventory. Criteria pollutant inventories compiled for other
geographic areas have shown that off-highway mobile sources are a significant
source of emissions.
3-2
-------
RADIAN
SECTION 4
IDENTIFICATION OF AIR TOXICS EMISSION SOURCES
This section provides a description of the criteria that were used to
determine whether air toxics sources were included in the emission inventory
as point sources, area sources, or not included at all. This section also
describes the information and references that were used to identify sources of
air toxics.
FACILITIES IN THE POINT SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY
Emissions of air toxics from facilities were either included in the point
source inventory (with each facility specifically identified), or they were
included in the area source inventory. The area source inventory does not
identify facilities, but instead consists of aggregated emission totals. In
order to determine which facilities should be included in the point source
inventory, it was necessary to develop criteria for inclusion. Ideally, these
criteria would be based on the magnitude of the health risk that each facility
represents. If these types of criteria were to be developed, the following
information would be required:
• the emission rate of each air toxic compound,
• the downwind concentrations that result from these emissions for
each air toxic compound,
• the population that is exposed to these concentrations, and
• the relative toxicity of each air toxic compound.
For this inventory, it is not possible to take these factors into account
quantitatively. However, these factors were kept in mind when developing the
criteria for inclusion of facilities in the point source inventory. For
example, there are numerous gasoline evaporation and reciprocating diesel
engines located throughout the state of Alaska. To keep the number of'
facilities to a manageable size, only those sources with PM or VOC emissions
of two tons per year or greater are included in the inventory. This cutoff
allowed more effort, to be focused on the highest priority sources. By
focusing on a smaller number of sources, a more complete and accurate
estimation of emissions from these sources can be obtained.
Table 4-1 presents the criteria that were used for selecting point
sources. The reference materials that were used are discussed in greater
detail in the following subsection. The source categories that were con-
sidered as area sources in this study are discussed in Section 6. Finally, a
list of source categories that may emit small quantities of air toxics, but
were judged not to be significant sources of air toxic compounds in this
inventory, are presented in Table 4-2.
4-1
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
TABLE 4-1.
CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION OF FACILITIES ON THE LIST
OF AIR TOXICS POINT SOURCES
INDUSTRY OR EMISSION SOURCE
CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION
SOURCES OF IDENTIFICATION
Airport Operations
Asphalt Cement
Barrel Burning
Battery Manufacturing
Chemical Manufacturing
Coal Combustion
Cooling Towers
Distillate Oil Combustion
Dry Cleaning
Electroplating
Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers
Gasoline Evaporation
Incinerators
Internal Combustion-Diesel
Airports w/ major carrier
service
Stationary facilities
All facilities
All facilities
All facilities with
potential air toxics
emissions
PM or VOC emissions
> 2 ton/yr
Petroleum refineries,
boilers greater than
100 MM Btu/yr
PM or VOC emissions
> 2 ton/yr
Facility in NEDS/CDS
All facilities
All facilities
PM or VOC emissions
> 2 ton/yr
Major facilities
PM or VOC emissions
> 2 ton/yr
Dept. of Transportation
ADEC
ADEC
Telephone Book Yellow
Pages
NEDS, SRI Directory of
Chemic al Produc e rs,
ADEC
NEDS/CDS
Survey/NEDS
NEDS/ADEC
NEDS/CDS
Telephone Book Yellow
Pages
Survey
NEDS/CDS
NEDS/CDS/ADEC
NEDS/CDS/ADEC
Continued
4-2
-------
RADIAN
TABLE 4-1.
CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION OF FACILITIES ON THE LIST
OF AIR TOXICS POINT SOURCES (cont.)
INDUSTRY OR EMISSION SOURCE
CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION
SOURCES OF IDENTIFICATION
Military Facilities
All facilities
Paint Manufacturing
Portland Cement Manufacturing
Pulp and Paper Mills
Refinery Fugitives
Residual Oil Combustion
Surface Coating
Waste Oil Combustion
Wood Combustion
Include only facility
Include only facility
All facilities
All facilities
PM or VOC emissions
> 2 ton/yr
36 auto body paint shops
picked at random
All facilities
PM or VOC emissions
> 2 ton/yr
Map of Major Army, Navy
and Air Force
installations in the
Dr S. (Defense Mapping
Agency)
Telephone Book Yellow
Pages
CDS
NEDS/CDS
Assumed to be present
at all oil refineries
NEDS/CDS/ADEC
Telephone Book Yellow
Pages
ADEC
NEDS/CDS
4-3
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
INFORMATION USED TO IDENTIFY POINT SOURCES OF AIR TOXICS
The first step in performing this inventory was to develop a list of
compounds to be considered as air toxics. Various lists of air toxics have
been developed by several states and the EPA. Radian has reviewed these lists
and developed a consensus list which incorporates 56 constituents as shown in
Table 4-3. This list was used as the starting point for this project because
it is based on a broad base of information and opinions as to what air toxics
are important. A fairly large list of air toxics assures that a particular
contaminant relevant to Alaska is included in the inventory.
Some of the references that were used to identify point sources of air
toxics are listed in Table 4-1. However, the primary basis for identifying
both point and area sources of air toxics was a cross-referenced list of air
toxics and emission sources that Radian developed during a number of previous
air toxics emission inventory studies. This cross-referenced list of air
toxics and emission sources is presented in Appendix G for each of the 56
selected pollutants.
The list of air toxics and emission sources presented in Appendix G was
used in conjunction with a number of other documents and information sources
to identify facilities in Alaska that potentially emit air toxics. These
sources are described below.
• NEDS - The National Emission Data System (NEDS) is an inventory of
- criteria pollutant emission sources. Generally, facilities are
included in this inventory if they have emissions of 25 ton/yr or
more of any criteria pollutant. For Alaska, however, .NEDS identi-
fies facilities with criteria emissions as low as one ton per year.
NEDS provides a detailed breakdown of emissions by emission source
for each facility that is included in the inventory. Information
that can be used to estimate air toxics emissions such as activity
data (e.g., throughput, fuel usage, production rate, etc.) are
included in NEDS.
• The Alaska Petroleum and Industrial Directory - This document
provides a list of a large percentage of the manufacturing and
retail companies in Alaska. The directory is organized alphabeti-
cally by manufacturing or retail operation. Other than a fairly
detailed listing of the products that a facility markets, there is
little information that can be used to positively identify or
quantify emissions of air toxics. Nonetheless, facilities
potentially emitting air toxics were identified from this document.
4-4
-------
RADIAN
TABLE 4-2.
POTENTIAL AIR TOXICS EMISSION SOURCE TYPES
NOT INCLUDED ON THE LIST OF AIR TOXICS
POINT SOURCES*
Crude Oil Evaporation
Distillate Oil Evaporation
Jet Fuel Evaporation
Kerosene Evaporation
LPG Combustion
Natural Gas Combustion
Pathological Incineration
Process Gas Combustion
Concrete Batching
Sand and Gravel Operations
Stoddard Solvent Dry Gleaning
Stone Quarrying
* These sources were excluded because in general they have insignificant
emissions of air toxics.
4-5
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
TABLE 4-3.
FIFTY-SIX SELECTED NON-CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Acetaldehyde
Ethyleneimine (Aziridine)
Acrolein
Ethylene oxide
Acrylonitrile
Formaldehyde
Allyl chloride
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Arsenic
Hydrazine
Asbestos
Lead arsenate
Benzene
Maleic anhydride
Benzidine
Manganese
Beryllium
B-Naphthylamine
Bis (chloromethyl)ether
Nickel
Cadmium
Nitrobenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
CFC 113 (Freon 113)
Nitrosomorpholine
Chlorobenzene
Parathion
Chloroform
Phenol
Chloroprene
Phosgene
Chromium
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Cresols
Polycyclic Organic Matter (includes
Dibromoethane (Ethylene
Benzo(a)pyrene)
dibromide)
Propylene oxide
1,4-Dichloroethane
Radionuclides
3,3-Dichlorobenz idine
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)
Dichloromethane
Toluene
(Methylene chloride)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl chloroform)
Dimethyl sulfate
Trichloroethylene
Dioxane
Vinyl chloride
Dioxins
Vinylidene chloride
Epichlorohydrin
Xylene
4-6
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
• CDS - The Compliance Data System (CDS) is a computerized list of
facilities currently under permit. The purpose of this data base is
to track each facility's permit status. Typically there is enough
information contained in this data base to determine whether or not
the facility may emit air toxics. The information in CDS for the
state of Alaska is generally more up-to-date than NEDS and was used
to supplement information from NEDS.
• The SRI Directory of Chemical Producers - This document provides a
list of the chemical manufacturing companies and facilities in the
United States. The document is organized in several ways including
chemical compound (or class of compounds), county, and city. This
document is very useful in identifying chemical manufacturing
facilities. However, no information such as production capacity is
provided that could be used to quantify emissions of air toxics.
• Telephone Book Yellow Pages - There are some facilities that poten-
tially emit air toxics that are not significant emitters of criteria
pollutants and not included in NEDS. For these types of facilities,
such as chrome plating shops, the Yellow Pages is a valuable source
of information.
From the draft inventory, the ADEC was able to identify additional
relevant facilities that were not identifiable from these data sources. At
the same time, the ADEC also flagged erroneous facilities that were obtained
from NEBS. These facilities were removed from the data base.
INFORMATION USED TO IDENTIFY AREA SOURCES OF AIR TOXICS
The information sources that were used to identify area sources of air
toxics in Alaska are described below:
• the list of air toxics and emission sources presented in Appendix G,
• lists of area sources of air toxics that have been included in other
air toxics emission inventories (e.g., the Washington Toxics Air
Contaminant Study (Radian, 1985)), and
• the reports to the Scientific Review Panel on air toxics published
by the California Air Resources Board staff.
From this information, the following area sources of air toxics for the state
of Alaska were identified:
• ashpalt distribution and usage,
• dry cleaning,
• mobile sources,
• pesticide application,
• petroleum marketing,
• residential wood combustion, and
• slash burning and forest fires.
4-7
-------
Emissions from these sources are estimated for Anchorage, Fairbainks, Juneau,
Ketchikan Gateway and Sitka. These five areas comprise almost 67 percent of
the Alaskan population.
4-8
-------
M9IJIN
CORPORATION
SECTION 5
SURVEY OF SOURCES
A summary of the survey activities and results are discussed in this
section.
PRIORITIZATION OF SOURCES FOR SURVEY
One of the first tasks in this project was to develop a list of facili-
ties to be included in the point source emission inventory. Once the list of
point sources was developed, each emission source type on the list was evalu-
ated in terms of the usefulness of obtaining additional information through
facility surveys. Based on this evaluation, an initial prioritized list of
sources for survey was developed. This prioritization took into account the
following considerations:
• The need for survey data. The only emission sources that were
included on the prioritized list were sources where survey data were
required in order to estimate air toxics emissions.
• The results of obtaining survey data. If obtaining survey data
would allow the estimation of air toxics emissions, the source was
_ prioritized higher than sources for which additional information
beyond survey data would be required.
• The expected relative importance of the emission sources. Sources
that were expected to have high emissions for the more toxic com-
pounds were prioritized highest.
• The number of facilities to be surveyed. Source types with fewer
facilities were prioritized higher so that multiple source types
could be surveyed.
These considerations represented a large number of competing factors to
take into account in prioritizing sources for survey. Thus, relatively
subjective judgements were made as to the importance of survey activities for
various emission source types. The resulting initial prioritized list of
source types is presented in Table 5-1.
The prioritized list of sources for survey was reviewed by individuals
from EPA and the ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation).
Based on the comments received, a final decision was made on the number and
types of sources to be surveyed. Table 5-1 shows that 33 autobody paint shops
and 12 cooling towers were added to the survey effort.
The survey effort for cooling towers was limited to petroleum refineries
and boilers greater than 100 million Btu per hour. These criteria reduced the
number of facilities requiring surveying to 12.
5-1
-------
RADjAN
TABLE 5-1.
PRIORITIZED LIST OF EMISSION SOURCES FOR SURVEY
Emission Source Category
Number of Facilities Requiring
Surveying
Initial Prioritized List
Industrial Incineration
Sewage Sludge Incineration
Military Facilities
Electroplating
Ethylene Oxide Sterilization
Paint Manufacturing
Battery Manufacturing
45
4
7
4
32
1
2
Source Categories Added
Cooling Towers
Autobody Paint Shops
TOTAL
12
33
143
-------
RADIAN
Throughout the state of Alaska, there are over a hundred facilities that
may be involved in painting cars. In order to keep the survey effort to a
manageable size, 33 of these facilities were sent questionnaires. Twenty-two
of these facilities were in Anchorage, six were in Fairbanks, and five were in
Juneau.
Survey Approach
Nine different questionnaires, and a cover letter were developed for the
following source categories:
• industrial incineration,
• sewage sludge incineration,
• electroplating,
• ethylene oxide sterilization,
• paint manufacturing,
• battery manufacturing,
• cooling tcwers,
• surface coating, and
• degreasing.
These questionnaires and the questionnaire cover letter are presented in
Appendix F.
Prior to mailing the surveys, facilities not under permit in Alaska were-
telephoned to inform personnel about the survey and to identify an individual
to which to address the survey. For the remaining facilities, facility
addresses and plant contacts were obtained from the ADEC. The cover letter
for the survey requested that the survey be returned approximately one month
after the receipt of the survey. Follow-up calls were made to those facil-
ities that had not returned the surveys. In a few cases follow-up calls were
made to clarify information provided in the returned questionnaires.
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS
The percentage of questionnaires returned is presented in Table 5-2 by
source category. The number of surveys that were returned are summarized
below.
Autobody Paint Shops
Questionnaires were sent to 33 autobody paint shops. Originally, two
questionnaires were returned, only one of which was completed. In our fol-
low-up telephone calls to these facilities, we were informed by nine facili-
ties that they never received the questionnaire. However, prior to sending
out the questionnaires, each autobody paint shop was contacted to establish a
facility contact and to confirm a mailing address.
It appears that many of these facilities discarded the questionnaire for
fear of possible regulatory repercussions. A second questionnaire was sent to
the 31 facilities who did not respond. A new cover letter was included urging
5-3
-------
TABLE 5-2.
PERCENTAGE OF SURVEYS
RETURNED
Emission
Source
Number of
Facilities
Surveyed
Number of
Surveys
Returned
Percentage of
Surveys
Returned
Industrial Incineration
46
3
7
Sewage Sludge
Incineration
2
" 2
100
Military Facilities
7
4
57
Electroplating
3
2
67
Ethylene Oxide
Sterilization
32
26
81
Paint Manufacturing
1
1
100
Battery Manufacturing
2
0
I*
100
Cooling Towers
13
6
46
Autobody Paint Shops 33 10 30
5-4
-------
RADIAN
them to participate in this study. An additional eight facilities responded
to the second mailing.
Battery Manufacturing
Questionnaires were sent to two facilities. Both facilities returned the
questionnaire, but only one of these facilities actually manufactures batter-
ies.
Cooling Towers
Thirteen cooling tower questionnaires were sent out; responses from six
facilities have been received. At the outset of the survey activities, it was
anticipated that the petroleum refineries in Alaska would operate cooling
towers. It turns out that none of the five petroleum refineries actually have
a cooling tower.
Electroplating
From the telephone book yellow pages, three electroplaters were identi-
fied in Alaska. Two of these facilities returned the questionnaire.
Ethylene Oxide Sterilization
Ba«ed on information obtained form the Alaska Department of Health and
Social Services, there are 20 community or private hospitals, 6 U.S. public
health services, and 6 military hospitals operated in the state. Only 10 of
the 26 facilities returning questionnaires have ethylene oxide sterilizers.
Industrial Incineration
The initial review of NEDS identified 46 industrial incineration facili-
ties located throughout the state. A questionnaire was developed and deliv-
ered to each facility in order to identify the types of wastes being inciner-
ated. This questionnaire would have provided the necessary information to
calculate inorganic air toxics emissions. As it turned out, only one of the
facilities identified through NEDS really incinerated industrial waste.
The remainder of the incinerators were either no longer in service or
municipal waste or sewage sludge were being burned. Data and information
obtained on these two source categories have been incorporated into the
inventory. Although a completed industrial incineration questionnaire was not
received, all incinerators listed in NEDS were accounted for.
Military Facilities
There are seven military installations listed by the defense mapping
system for the state of Alaska. The possible source categories each facility
may have are electroplating, surface coating, and degreasing. These question-
naires were delivered to Clam Lagoon, the Army (Fort Richardson), and the Air
5-5
-------
RADIUM
COROOHJtTION
Force (Elemendorf). Four sets of completed questionnaires were returned.
From the completed questionnaires, no significant sources of air toxics were
identified.
Paint Manufacturing
There is one paint manufacturing facility in Alaska. This facility has
returned a completed questionnaire.
Sewage Sludge Incineration
Initially, four facilities were identified for this source category.
However, it was subsequently learned that only two of the four incinerators
are currently operating. Completed questionnaires for both facilities were
received.
An additional facility was identified through the industrial incineration
surveys that were sent out. Sufficient information was obtained from this
facility to estimate toxic organic emissions.
5-6
-------
RADIAN
SECTION 6
ESTIMATION OF AIR TOXICS EMISSIONS
This section presents a discussion of the point and area source emission
estimates. A brief description of each source is provided along with a
detailed explanation of the methodology used to calculate emissions.
POINT SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
As described in Section 4. a list of point sources to be included in the
point source emission inventory was developed. The literature was reviewed
for each emission source type in the inventory to determine the most accurate
and technically sound emission estimation method. The majority of emission
estimation methods consisted of using emission factors in conjunction with one
of the following types of information.
• Volatile organic compounds (VOC) and/or particulate matter (PM)
emissions. With the exception of oil refinery fugitives, these
data were obtained from the 1979 version of NEDS, which was the
most recent version available when Radian began this inventory.
Oil refinery fugitive emissions were calculated by Radian.
-• Activity data (i.e., fuel consumption, production rate, etc.). In
general, these data were also obtained from the 1979 version of
NEDS. Activity data for municipal solid waste incineration, hot
mix asphalt plants, and certain diesel generators were obtained
from the ADEC.
• Survey results. In almost all cases, these data were for the 1985
calendar year.
Where different emission factors were available for a particular emis-
sion source type, selection of an emission factor was based on the following
priorities:
• emission factors that are widely accepted and have been used in
other studies were given high priority; and
• emission factors that have not achieved wide acceptance but were
judged to be technically sound were also given high priority.
The documentation for the emission factors is presented in Appendix B.
Preference was given to the development of uncontrolled emission factors so
that facility specific control efficiencies could be applied. Once emission
factors and activity data were obtained, they were entered into a computerized
emission inventory and air toxics emissions were calculated.
6-1
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
For several of the source categories, emission estimates were calculated
using material balances from data and information obtained from survey ques-
tionnaires. In other instances, source test data were available. In these
two instances, the emission estimates were entered directly into the computer-
ized data base of emission estimates. Corresponding activity data and emis-
sion factors are reported as not available.
Many of the emission sources located in the state of Alaska are poten-
tial emitters of polycyclic organic matter (POM). Polycyclic organic matter
generally defines organic species with structures having two or more fused
aromatic rings (i^e., rings which share a common border). Wherever possible,
emissions were estimated for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) rather
than POM. The family of PAH consists of the following 14 compounds or classes
of compounds: naphthalene, phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, acenaphtha-
lene, chrysene, benzo (a) anthracene, cyclopenta (c, d) pyrene, the benz-
pyrenes, indeno (l,2,3-c,d) pyrene, benzo (g,h,i) perylene, coronene, and some
of the alkyl derivatives of these compounds.
Particulate matter control devices have varying degrees of success in
controlling PAH emissions. PAH contained in the flue gas entering the control
device will be present in both the solid and gas phase. Consequently, the
control device is only partially effective in removing PAH. Table 6-1 illus-
trates how flue gas temperature affects PAH removal. Because it was not
possible to take into account the flue gas temperature at each facility in
compiling the inventory, we assumed that particulate matter control devices
did nQt remove any PAH. This assumption will provide a slight overestimation
of PAH emissions.
Results from the emission inventory are presented in several formats
with varying levels of detail. In Tables 2-1 and 2-2 within Section 2,
emissions are summarized for the entire state of Alaska. In Appendix A, point
source emissions are grouped by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code
and source category.
A brief discussion of each point source and the specific 'methodology
used to calculate emissions are presented below.
Airport Operations
Emissions from- airports result primarily from combustion of jet fuel
during landing and takeoff operations. The landing/takeoff cycle includes the
idling, takeoff, climb, and approach phases. The contaminants of concern
include benzene, xylene, formaldehyde, PAHs, and dioxins. Airport activity
data were obtained from the annual Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
compilation of airport activity of certified route carriers for 1984. This
method excludes charter and private plane activity. Activity data were not
available for these smaller planes.
The activity data reported in the inventory are tons per year of total
hydrocarbon emissions. Total hydrocarbon emissions were calculated by
6-2
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
TABLE 6-1.
PERCENT OF TOTAL PAH ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT PARTICLES
AS A FUNCTION OF FLUE GAS TEMPERATURE
Compound
40°C
55°C
85 °C
200°C
Naphthalene
56
6.5
4.3
0.11
Methylnaphthalene
39
a
20
0.00
Biphenyl
89
77
48
0.46
Biphenylene
88
70
66
0.09
Fluorene
98
94
b
2.1
Phenanthrene and Anthracene
90
92
71
4.6
4H-cyclopenta- (d,e,f)phenanthrene
97
b
85
2.3
Fluoranthene
99
b
82
38
Pyrene and Benzacenaphthylene
99
b
83
33
a GC/MS analysis not available.
k Too much background from contaminants to determine accurate values.
Source: G. Prado, Formation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Premised
Flames, Chemical Analysis and Mutagenicity. in: Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons Chemical Analysis and Biological Fate,
Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Battelle Press, Columbus, OH. 1981.
6-3
-------
RADIAN
summing the number of landing/takeoff cycles for each plane type, multiplying
by the total emissions per cycle for each plane type (ARB, 1982a), and then
summing the emission totals to obtain an annual hydrocarbon emission estimate
for each airport. Table 6-2 contains the calculated activity data.
A TOC species profile (CARB, 1982b) for jet exhaust was used to speciate
the hydrocarbon emissions. Information was available for benzene, xylene, and
formaldehyde. The formaldehyde emission factor was not used because it was
developed for a specific plane type and cannot be generalized for the full
range of plane types or total emissions. No emission factors were found for
PAHs and dioxins in the literature that was surveyed.
Asphalt Cement (Hot Mix) Plants
Asphalt binders are heated and mixed with aggregate for use as paving
material. During this heating and mixing, emissions of benzene, PAH, and
formaldehyde may result.
Asphalt cement plants have been identified as sources of benzene,
formaldehyde, and PAH emissions. These plants operate in either a batch or
continuous mode. Emission factors are the same for both operation types.
Activity data were obtained from the Alaska DEC as reported to the DEC
by the asphalt plant operators. The data supplied were tons of asphalt
produced annually. Emission factors are based on tonnage produced, and are
therefore directly applicable for the estimation of emissions.
Barrel Burning
At Prudhoe Bay, ARCO Alaska, Inc. operates a barrel burning process in
which crushed drums are incinerated in an open pit drum incinerator using a
gas flare. The purpose of the incinerator is to destroy residual liquids con-
tained in the empty crushed drums prior to shipment to the North Slope Borough
landfill. Listed hazardous wastes, except those adhering to the drum walls,
are not permitted in the incinerator.
A review of the operating permit for this operation indicates that the
liquid wastes entering the incinerator are primarily oils and greases. All
liquids are drained from the drums prior to crushing. The possible air toxics
from this operation - include metals, formaldehyde. PAH, and dioxins/furans.
However, there is little information available in the literature on the
combustion products of an incineration operation of this type. Emissions from
this operation must be source tested in order to determine the air toxics
emissions.
Battery Manufacturing
The manufacture of storage batteries involves the production of lead
plates which are then placed and aligned in a plastic case. During battery
manufacture, particulate matter is emitted from such production operations as
6-4
-------
TABLE 6-2.
TOTAL HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS BY AIRPORT AND PLANE TYPE
(Units are lbs/yr)
Plane
5i£e
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Juneau
Dead
Horse
Ketchikan
Sitka
B 707
14.840
B 727
156.992
57,133
34.850
4.717
24.407
15.967
B 737
89,152
37.112
8.826
21.611
5.134
3.136
B 747
148,523
905
B 767
3,280
108
DC 8
104.494
15,757
DC10
56,237
141
L 100
20.288
6.697
DC 6
20.660
HS 125
1,526
C 441
721
F 27
11,838
L 188
5,578
TOTAL
634,129
117,853
43.676
30.767
29,541
19.103
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
lead paste mixing, lead oxide production, and lead reclaim furnaces. Air
toxics from battery manufacturing include lead, arsenic, and cadmium. There
is one battery manufacturing facility in the state of Alaska.
This facility, Alaska Husky Battery, purchases lead oxide as a raw
material rather than formulating it on site. The production operations at
this facility that generate particulate are lead paste mixing, grid casting,
and battery assembly. Emission factors for lead were obtained from AP-42.
Emission factors or particulate speciation data for arsenic and cadmium were
not available. The emission factors from AP-42 were combined with production
data supplied in a questionnaire to estimate emissions.
Chemical Manufacturing
A review of the SRI Directory of Chemical Manufacturers indicates there
are three chemical plants in Alaska. Of these, the Unocal Chemical facility
is the only one of importance in terms of air toxics. This facility
manufactures urea and ammonia. Urea is manufactured by reacting ammonia and
liquid carbon dioxide at elevated temperatures and pressures to form ammonium
carbonate. This chemical decomposes at lower pressures to urea and water. It
was initially thought that this facility may emit formaldehyde. However,
formaldehyde emissions are associated with urea-formaldehyde resin manufacture
and are not expected to be present at the Unocal Chemical facility.
In addition to ammonia emissions, the ADEC reports that the Unocal
Chemical facility also emits arsenic as a result of the burning of a waste-
product that contains arsenic. Source testing data from this facility are
shown in Appendix A under SIC code 2873.
The other two chemical plants located in the state of Alaska are Liquid
Air Corporation and Big Three Lincoln Alaska. Both facilities manufacture
acetylene and operate air separation- plants for the production of oxygen and
nitrogen. There are no known air toxics emissions associated with these
chemical manufacturing operations.
Combustion Sources
In the state of Alaska, there are numerous potential sources of air
toxics emissions from the combustion of several diff-erent fuels. In order to
keep the number of facilities to a manageable size, only those combustion
sources with particulate matter (PM) or volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions equal to or greater than two tons per year are included in the
inventory. Waste oil combustion sources are an exception to this cut-off,
where all known sources have been included.
Through a review of NEDS and discussions with the ADEC, we have iden-
tified the following combustion sources:
6-6
-------
RADIAN
• eight facilities burning coal,
• one facility burning residual oil,
• seventeen facilities burning distillate oil,
• four facilities burning waste oil,
• thirty seven facilities operating reciprocating diesel engines,
• one facility operating a diesel turbine, and
• six facilities burning wood.
These fuels are used throughout the state to generate electricity, produce
process steam, or for the operation of petroleum pipelines. Air toxics that
may be emitted from the combustion of these fuels include a wide variety of
both metals and toxic organics.
With the exception of one facility burning waste oil, air toxics
emissions from these combustion sources were estimated using emission factors.
Activity data were obtained from NEDS and ADEC. Waste oil burned at the
Unocal chemical facility is known to contain more arsenic than is typically
found in waste oil. The arsenic emissions from this facility were adjusted to
account for the higher arsenic levels. Other air toxics emissions from this
source were estimated using the emission factors for a nonindustrial boiler as
described in Appendix B.
Emissions from the Mitkoff Lumber silo burner were estimated using the
emission factors developed for wood-fired boilers due to the lack of any other
data. These emission factors may understate the emissions from this silo
burner because the combustion efficiency of the silo burner is expected to be
lower than that of a boiler. Increased combustion efficiency should provide
lower hydrocarbon emissions, and thus, lower air toxics emissions.
Cooling Towers
The potential air toxics from a cooling tower are chromium, nickel, and
chloroform. Chromium and nickel compounds can be used as scale and corrosion
inhibitors in a cooling tower. Source testing has shown that these elements
are emitted to the atmosphere as part of the cooling tower drift. Chemical
additives comprised of nickel and chromium are in limited use today as a
result of the development and use of organophosphates. This appears to be the
case for the cooling towers surveyed in Alaska.
In addition to scale and corrosion inhibitors, various chemicals are
added to cooling towers to control biological growth. The most prevalent
biocide is chlorine, which ultimately results in chloroform emissions.
Cooling tower questionnaires were sent to the following facilities:
• all six of the petroleum refineries,
• all facilities listed in NEDS as operating boilers greater than 100
million Btu per hour,
6-7
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
• the Unocal Chemical Division chemical facility, and
• the Phillips Petroleum natural gas liquifying facility.
Each facility was requested to submit information detailing the types and
quantities of chemicals used in their cooling circuits. In addition, the
questionnaire requested information on the volume of cooling water used. From
this information, it is possible to estimate emissions using emission factors
presented in the EPA "Locating and Estimating" document for chloroform (U.S.
EPA, 1984e). These emission factors, however, overstate the quantity of
chloroform that could be emitted by each facility. That is, the emission
factors predicted chloroform emissions that exceeded the quantity of chlorine
used in the system. Consequently, the information and data presented in the
questionnaires were used to calculate emissions. A material balance was
performed around each system by calculating the amount of chlorine removed
through the system as blowdown and cooling tower drift. The chlorine content
of the drift was assumed to be the same as the blowdown. The difference
between the chlorine used in the system and that leaving through blowdown and
drift was assumed to be converted to chloroform.
Dry Cleaning
Dry cleaning operations use one of three solvents: tetrachloroethylene
(also referred to as perchloroethylene, or PCE), CFC 113 (freon), or Stoddard
solvents. Stoddard solvents consist primarily of paraffins and no air toxics
have .been identified in Stoddard solvents. Tetrachloroethylene and CFC 113
are considered air toxics.
Four, dry cleaning operations have been identified in Alaska which use
one of these solvents. The point source inventory includes only large
operations and not smaller shops and cleaners. These smaller operations are
accounted for in area emission estimates.
Emission estimates were obtained from the NEDS for two of the plants,
both of which use PCE. No data were available for the other two plants, both
of which use CFC 113. The plants using CFC 113 are both associated with
federal installations, for which data appear to be limited.
Electroplating
Electroplating is a process in which metal in solution is electrically
deposited (plated) onto a metal object. Plating solutions typically contain
nickel, chromium, cadmium, or zinc. Chromium and nickel are the most
prevalent air toxics emitted during electroplating. Through a search of the
telephone book yellow pages, we have identified four electroplaters in Alaska.
The size of plating baths and the total current used at each electro-
plating facility were solicited through surveys. Only two of the surveys were
returned. Emission factors for chromium and nickel were developed from data
presented by several investigators and are described in Appendix B.
6-8
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers
Many hospitals throughout the U.S. utilize ethylene oxide (EtO) to
sterilize reusable medical equipment. Ethylene oxide is used when the heat or
humidity necessary for steam sterilization would degrade the material to be
sterilized. Emissions from the sterilization procedure may be composed of
pure EtO or a mixture of EtO with other gases, such as freon or carbon diox-
ide. These emissions are vented to the atmosphere through a water-sealed
pump, which also produces an EtO laden liquid steam. Because most or all of
the EtO in this liquid stream eventually revolatilizes. we have assumed that
all of the EtO used in sterilizers is emitted to the atmosphere.
Information on ethylene oxide use at Alaskan hospitals was acquired
through a survey of all state hospitals. The results of this survey indicate
that most Alaska hospitals do not use EtO for sterilization. However, 10
hospitals which do use ethylene oxide were identified.
Gasoline Evaporation
In the state of Alaska, there are numerous facilities with VOC emissions
from gasoline evaporation that are large enough to be included in NEDS.
Facilities that are included in NEDS and have VOC emissions from gasoline
evaporation greater than two tons per year are considered point sources in the
inventory. We have identified 24 facilities that meet these criteria.
~ The most important air toxics associated with gasoline evaporation are
benzene, ethylene dibromide, and ethylene dichloride. These latter two
compounds are associated with leaded gasoline only.
Air toxics emissions from gasoline evaporation were estimated using the
VOC emission estimates contained in NEDS for each facility. The VOC- emissions
were speciated to provide an air toxics emission rate.
The VOC speciation data that were used to estimate emissions of EDB and
EDC were obtained from data and literature published in 1984. At that time,
the allowable lead content of gasoline was 1.1 grams per gallon. In January
of 1986, the allowable lead, concentration was reduced by EPA to 0.1 grams per
gallon. This reduction in lead content will result in a proportional decrease
of EDC and EDB emissions. These organic compounds are added to gasoline to
scavenge and remove lead from the engine. Consequently, reducing the lead
content of gasoline has reduced the EDB and EDC emissions. The emission
factors used in this inventory reflect the gasoline lead limitations promul-
gated in January of 1986. Finally, it should be noted that EPA has proposed a
complete phase out of leaded gasoline by 1988. If this rule is promulgated as
proposed, emissions of EDB and EDC from gasoline evaporation would be elimi-
nated.
6-9
-------
RADIAN
Industrial Incineration
From NEDS and CDS, 46 industrial incinerators burning nonhazardous waste
were initially identified. According to the ADEC, there are no hazardous
waste incinerators in the state.
Questionnaires were used to gather information on each incinerator
identified in NEDS. We were able to determine the disposition of each indus-
trial incinerator listed in NEDS. Of the 46 listed, only one facility was
found to be burning an industrial waste. This facility, the Alyeska Pipeline
Service Company in Valdez, reported burning an oily waste. Insufficient
information was presented to calculate emissions. The other incinerators
listed in NEDS either no longer exist, or they are actually sewage sludge or
municipal solid waste incinerators. Questionnaire information obtained from
these other incinerator types are included in the inventory as appropriate.
Municipal Solid Waste Incineration
There are numerous incinerators used throughout the state to reduce the
quantity of municipal waste requiring land disposal. The largest facilities
have been included in the inventory. Source tests of municipal waste inciner-
ators have shown the presence of PAH, furans, dioxins, PCBs, and various toxic
inorganics.
-Emission factors for this source were developed for single chamber,
multiple chamber, and controlled air -incinerators in order to estimate emis-
sions. Activity data, or the amount of waste burned, for each incinerator
were obtained from the ADEC.
After reviewing the draft emission estimates, the ADEC calculated and
supplied to Radian facility-specific particulate matter control factors. The
control factors take into account the particulate matter emission rate used in
developing the emission factors and the actual measured particulate emissions
from each incinerator. In essence, developing control factors in this manner
speciates the actual particulate emissions of each facility, yielding more
accurate emission estimates.
A control factor of 0.65 was used for the North Slope Borough
incinerator to account for the differences in actual particulate emissions and
those used to develop the emission factor. Particulate emissions for this
incinrator are currently uncontrolled, but an electrostatic precipitator will
be installed for particulate control in 1988.
Paint Manufacturing
From the telephone book yellow pages, one paint manufacturing operation
was identified in Alaska. From a completed questionnaire, it was determined
that this facility emits 80 pounds of toluene.
6-10
-------
Portland Cement Manufacturing
Alaska Basic Industries of Anchorage is the only Portland cement manu-
facturing operation in the state of Alaska. This particular facility,
however, does not operate a kiln. Clinker, produced in a cement kiln, is
transported to Anchorage via boat from Japan and Seattle. Once received in
Anchorage, the clinker is ground to produce cement. Two ball mills are
located on site with a baghouse to control particulate emissions. Air toxics
of concern from this facility are nickel and chromium.
Emission factors for a wet process cement grinder were used to estimate
emissions for this facility. Dry process emission factors were not used
because they include emissions from the grinding of raw materials that are fed
to the kiln, a process which does not occur at Alaska Basic Industries. In
the wet process, as the name suggests, raw materials are ground in the pre-
sence of water, eliminating particulate emissions. Wet process grinding
emission factors account for the emissions that occur from the grinding of
clinker, which is the process conducted by Alaska Basic Industries.
The activity data, the amount of clinker ground, was obtained from the
ADEC. With this information, and assuming the baghouse is 99.8 percent
efficient in controlling particulate matter, it was estimated that 0.14 pounds
of nickel and .024 pounds of chromium are emitted each year.
These emission estimates do not include nickel and chromium emissions
that -result from truck and rail loading operations and the main load out silo.
According to CDS, these three operations emit 32 pounds per year of particu-
late. Unfortunately, the chromium and nickel content of this particulate is
unknown.
Pulp and Paper Mills
Based on information from ADEC, two pulp and paper mills in the state of
Alaska use chlorine bleach. These mills, both of which produce dissolving
sulfite pulp, are located in Ketchikan and Sitka. As a result of the use of
chlorine bleach, chloroform emissions are produced, primarily during waste-
water treatment.
Emissions were estimated using activity data obtained from the ADEC and
reported emission factors.
Refinery Fugitives
Petroleum refinery fugitive emission sources include valves, flanges,
pumps, compressor seals, process drains, and cooling towers. They are not
associated with a specific process, but occur throughout the refinery. The
emissions of concern are volatile organic compounds, including benzene,
toluene, and xylene.
6-11
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
TABLE 6-3.
VOC EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR ALASKAN PETROLEUM REFINERIES
Refinery
Process Unit
Fugitive Emissions
(lb/day)
Total
Fugitive
(lb/day)
Refinery
Emissions
(ton/yr)
ARCO - Kuparuk
Crude Distillation
Refinery Total
880
880
160
ARCO - Prudhoe Bay
Crude Distillation
Refinery Total
880
880
160
Chevron U.S.A. - Kenai
Crude Distillation
Asphalt Production
Refinery Total
880
81
960
180
MAPCO Petroleum. Inc. - North Pole
Crude Distillation
Aroaatics Extraction
Asphalt Production
Refinery Total
91
1,200
80
2,200
400
Petro Star Inc. - North Pole
Crude Distillation
Refinery Total
880
880
160
Tesero Petroleum Corp. - North Pole
Crude Distillation
Catalytic Reforming
Catalytic Hydrocracking
~Catalytic Hydrotreating
Hydrogen Production
Refinery Total
900
940
770
860
650
4,100
750
Arctic Energy - Fox
Crude Distillation
Vacuum Distillation
Lubes Processing
Asphalt Production
Refinery Total
880
360
590
¦80
1,900
350
Continued
6-12
-------
TABLE 6-3.
70C EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR ALASKAN PETROLEUM REFINERIES (Continued)
Refinery
Process Unit Total Refinery
Fugitive Emissions Fugitive Emissions
(lb/day) (lb/day) (ton/yr)
Alyeska Pump Station #6
Crude Distillation
Vacuum Distillation
Lubes Processing
Asphalt Production
Refinery Total
Alyeska Pump Station #8
Crude Distillation
Vacuum Distillation
Lubes Processing
Asphalt Production
Refinery Total
Alyeska Pump Station #10
Crude Distillation
Vacuum Distillation
Lubes Processing
Asphalt Production
Refinery Total
870
360
590
80
880
360
590
80
880
360
590
80
1.900
350
1.900
350
1,900
350
6-13
-------
iSADIAil
The beat method for estimating refinery fugitive air toxics emissions is
to speciate hydrocarbon emissions. Fugitive hydrocarbon emissions for the
Alaska refineries were not available; therefore, these emissions were
calculated as a part of this inventory.
Table 6-3 presents the estimates of fugitive emissions from each process
unit in each refinery as well as refinery totals. The estimates were made
based on models obtained from "A Model .for Evaluation of Refinery and Synfuels
Hydrocarbon VOC Emission Data" (Radian, 1983). With the exception of the
Alyeska and Arctic Energy facilities, production information was obtained from
the Oil and Gas Journal (1986 Annual Refining Survey). Production data for
the two Alyeska and Arctic Energy facilities were obtained from the ADEC.
Four major assumptions were necessary to calculate fugitive hydrocarbon
emission estimates. They are as follows:
• It is assumed that gas oil hydrotreating is performed at the Tesoro
Petroleum Corporation refinery in North Pole rather than middle
distillate or naphtha hydrotreating.
• Since no specific information is available on production for the
topping plants at the Arctic Energy refinery or the Alyeska pump
stations, it is assumed that the refineries are "typical" topping
classification refineries as described in the 1985 California Oil
"" Scenario Study (Bonner & Moore Associates, Inc., 1985).
• Combustion emissions are calculated for each unit based on 100%
capacity. If a process unit is run at a level below 100%, the
combustion emissions estimate can be scaled linearly. A review of
the results for combustion emissions with respect to fugitive
emissions will illustrate the minor impact combustion emissions
have relative to fugitives (<4% in all cases). Therefore, errors
due to lack of knowledge of combustion processes will be minimal.
• It is assumed that fugitive emissions from ancillary units (product
storage, utilities, wastewater treatment and blcwdown/flare) are
included in the estimates for the primary process units.
All of the Alaska refineries were defined as topping refineries except
the Tesoro Petroleum. Corporation refinery in Kenai. which has cracking and
reforming capabilities. The topping refineries have lower emission factors
than the more complex refineries. Air toxics emissions were calculated by
using speciation data (emission factors) that were applied to the VOC emission
estimates (activity data). Appendix B presents the development of the emis-
sion factors.
Sewage Sludge Incineration
Sewage sludge incinerators typically destroy biological treatment sludge
and wastewater "scum." There are three sewage sludge incinerators in the
state.
6-14
-------
RADIAN
Organic air toxics from these incinerators are expected, but the extent
to which inorganics are emitted is highly dependent upon the amount of indus-
trial wastewater received at the facility. In order to estimate inorganic
emissions from these facilities, questionnaires were used to obtain informa-
tion on the mass of sludge incinerated and the associated inorganics content.
Data and information contained in one of the completed questionnaires was used
to perform a material balance around the incinerator to estimate emissions.
The other two facilities did not have any metal concentration data for either
the raw sludge or incinerator ash. However, these two facilities, Standard
Alaska Production Company on the North Slope and the Wrangell Wastewater
Treatment Plant, do not receive industrial wastewaters. Consequently, the
metals emissions from these two facilities are expected to be minimal.
Emission factors were used to estimate PAH and dibenzofuran emissions.
These emissions for the two incinerators listed above were found to be less
than a pound per year. Emissions of less than a pound per year are considered
insignificant. These two facilities, therefore, are not included in the
computerized emission inventory. Emission estimates from the Anchorage
incinerator are presented under SIC- code 4952 in Appendix A.
Surface Coating
This operation involves the application of paint, varnish, lacquer, or
paint thinner for decorative or protective purposes. The paint "vehicle"
consists of organic solvents that facilitate application. A large percentage
of the paint is volatile and evaporates upon application. With the exception
of autobody paint shops, no large scale surface coating operations were
identified in Alaska. There are 58 autobody paint shops in Anchorage, 12 in
Fairbanks and six in Juneau. Questionnaires were sent to 33 of these shops
and nine were returned. Of these nine questionnaires, two responses were not
used due to the inordinate amount of paint consumed as compared to the other
facilities. The seven remaining sets of data were then averaged to obtain a
"typical" facility consumption rate. This rate was then used to calculate
total 70C emissions rates for Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau.
The typical (or average) autobody paint shop in Alaska applies approxi-
mately 250 gallons of surface coating material per year. Using an auto body
painting emission factor of 5.275 pounds of solvent per gallon of coating
material (ARB, 1982), the solvent emissions from a typical shop are estimated
to be 1,300 pounds per year. Emissions were then calculated as 37.7 tons of
solvent per year in Anchorage, 7.8 tons per year in Fairbanks, and 3.9 tons
per year in Juneau.
VOC speciation data could be used to estimate emissions on a facility-
by-facility basis. However, the solvent composition of paint is highly
variable, even within the broad classifications typically used. Speciation
data, as reported by Oliver et al. (1985), are shown in Appendix D for various
surface coating materials.
6-15
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
Estimates of potential emissions from each of the area sources identi-
fied in Section 4 were developed. This section contains a condensed descrip-
tion of the information sources and methodology used to develop those esti-
mates. The emission estimates are summarized in Section 2; a complete de-
scription of the emission estimation process is contained in Appendix C.
Asphalt Distribution and Usage
The use of asphalt may result in the emissions of the following air
toxics: formaldehyde, polycyclic organic matter, benzene, toluene, and xylene.
There are three different asphalt types, each of which has different emission
characteristics. The different types are asphalt cement, cutback asphalts,
and emulsified asphalts.
Activity data were compiled from two sources: the Department of Energy's
Energy Data Reports: Sales of Asphalt in 1980. and 1980 U.S. Census Data. The
DOE report provides asphalt consumption estimates by state. The census data
were used to allocate to the five most populous boroughs a percentage of the
total state asphalt consumption. Emission estimates for the five most
populous boroughs are presented in Table 6—4. Activity data for this emission
source are presented in Appendix C. Emissions from each of the asphalt types
are discussed in greater detail below.
Asphalt Cement (Hot Mix) —
Application of asphalt cement results in the emission of 0.8 pounds
total hydrocarbon per ton of asphalt applied (CARB, 1982a). Unfortunately,
VOC speciation data for these emissions are unavailable. Therefore, it is
assumed that VOC speciation data for asphalt plant emissions are applicable to
asphalt usage.
Cutback Asphalts —
Three types of cutback asphalts are used: rapid cure, medium cure, and
slow cure. Slow cure cutbacks are also known as road oils. None of the air
toxics included in this study were identified in emissions from slow cure
cutback asphalt. Analysis of emissions from medium cure asphalts showed
toluene and xylene were 6.4% and 12.3%, respectively, of the total hydrocarbon
emissions (Radian, 1985). Total hydrocarbon emissions from cutback asphalts
were estimated to be 250 lb/ton asphalt (CARB 1982a). Unfortunately, the
quantity of each type of cutback asphalt is not specified in the DOE report.
Therefore, the total cutback asphalt quantity reported by DOE was assumed to
be medium cure asphalt. This quantity was used in conjunction with 1980
consumption statistics to estimate amissions from cutback asphalt usage in
Alaska.
6-16
-------
RAMAN
TABLE 6-4.
ESnMED EKESSICNS FOR ASPHALT DISIKTBUTICN AM) USA®
Activity Data
Asphalt Type Pollutant (Tons of Asphalt Applied) Qaissions (lb/yr)
Anchorage Asphalt Cement Berzene 24,265 1,368
Formaldehyde 24,265 97
PAH 24,265 19
Cutback Asphalt Toluene 1,433 22,928
Xylene 1,433 44,136
Road Oils MEA* 85 N/A
anulsified Asphalt N/A 3,688 N/A
Fairbanks Asphalt Cement Benzene 7,492 577
Formaldehyde 7,492 30
PAH 7,492 6
Cutback Asphalt Toluene 442 7,073
Xylene 442 13,614
Road Oils NIA* 26 N/A
Bnulsified Asphalt N/A 1,139 N/A
Juneau ~ Asphalt Canent Benzene 2,740 211
Formaldehyde 2,740 11
PAH 2,740 2
Cutback Asphalt Toluene 162 2,592
Xylene 162 4,990
Road Oils NIA* 10 N/A
Etoulsified Asphalt N/A 416 N/A
Ketchikan Asphalt Canent Benzene 1,566 121
Gateway Formaldehyde 1,566 6
PAH 1,566 1
Cutback Asphalt Toluene 92 1,472
Xylene 92 2,834
Road Oils NIA* 6 • N/A
3nulsifiad Asphalt N/A 238 N/A
Sitka Asphalt Canent Benzene 1,062 82
Formaldehyde 1,062 4
PMi 1,062 1
Cutback Asphalt Toluene 63 1,008
^rlene 63 1,940
Road Oils NIA* 4 N/A
anulsified Asphalt N/A 161 N/A
* f-b air toxics were identified with this asphalt type.
6-17
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
Emulsified Asphalts —
These are essentially water-based asphalts and therefore have signif-
icantly lower hydrocarbon emissions than the other asphalt types. Air toxics
emissions may occur from emulsified asphalts, but no information regarding air
toxics on these emissions was identified in the literature reviewed.
Dry Cleaning
Area source estimates for dry cleaning include the smaller dry cleaning
operations which are not covered in the point source estimates. There may be
double counting because some of the smaller operations may contract with the
larger plants that are included in the point source inventory or may serve as
branch outlets which collect the clothes for cleaning at the central plant.
The only emission factor found for this source was 1.3 lb solvent/-
capita/year (U.S. EPA. 1984a). Therefore population data were used to calcu-
late emissions. Use of this emission factor assumes dry cleaning activity for
Alaskans to be similar to the rest of the nation, which, as for any state, may
or may not be accurate.
Generally, smaller operations use PCE as their dry cleaning solvent
(U.S. EPA, 1984a). For this area source estimate, PCE was assumed to be the
only solvent used. This may result in an overestimation of emissions because
some -operations contract with or serve as outlets for large Stoddard plants.
Area source emissions were calculated for Alaska's five largest population
centers. Table 6-5 presents the emission estimates for dry cleaning.
Mobile Sources
Mobile sources that may potentially emit air toxics include cars,
motorcycles, light trucks, and heavy duty commercial trucks, as well as
off-highway mobile sources such as farm equipment, merchant vessels, locomo-
tives, lawn and garden implements, snowmobiles, outboard motors, transport-
refrigeration units, and helicopters. By far the most significant mobile
source of emissions are on-highway vehicles including cars, motorcycles, and
trucks.
Activity data for on-highway vehicles were compiled from total annual
vehicle mileage estimates obtained from the Alaska Department of
Transportation and U.S. Census Bureau Data. Total state automobile mileage
for 1985 was estimated to, be 3,788 x 10^ miles; total truck mileage was
estimated to be 1,090 x "10 miles. These mileage rates were apportioned to
the five largest cities according to population. Furthermore, it was assumed
that all truck miles correspond to diesel consumption.
Total hydrocarbon emissions from automobiles were calculated using an
emission factor of 2.5 g/mile (Radian, 1985). Speciation data were compiled
from SAI, 1982; and EPA, 1980. These data are presented in Appendix B.
6-18
-------
RADIAN
TABLE 6-5.
PERCHLOROETHYLENE EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR DRY CLEANING
Activity Data Estimated Emissions
Area (Residential Population*) (lb/yr)
Anchorage
170,247
220,000
Fairbanks
31,920
41,000
Juneau
19,528
25,000
Ketchikan-Gateway
7,198
9,400
Sitka
7,303
10,000
* 1980 Census Data
6-19
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
Tables 6—6 and 6—7 present the on—highway mobile source emission estimates for
gasoline and diesel powered vehicles, respectively.
Pesticide Application
The application of pesticide results in emissions of some of the air
toxics that are being investigated in this study. However, there are many
pesticides that are toxic which were not included in the list of air toxics in
the interest of keeping the list manageable. The compounds that are on the
list that are potentially emitted from pesticide applications are listed
below:
• arsenic,
• carbon tetrachloride,
• 1,4-dichlorobenzene,
• dibromoethane,
• dichloroethane,
• dioxins,
• lead arsenate,
• paratheon, and
• formaldehyde.
An EPA publication, Alaska Pesticides Prof ire', EPA 910/9-86-139, gives
reported and estimated pesticide use by type and quantity. The estimated
pesticide use in 1984 is presented in Table 6-8.
A review of this information and analysis of the most commonly used
pesticide types indicate that the only significant use of a potentially air-
toxics-emitting pesticide is the use of formaldehyde in fish hatcheries
operations. A total of 1766 gallons were used in 1984.
Petroleum Marketing
Petroleum marketing sources include evaporation from automobile fuel
tank refilling and from service station operations. The air toxics associated
with petroleum marketing include benzene, ethylene dibromide, ethylene dichlor-
ide, toluene, and xylene. Emission factors for these contaminants were
developed from the literature and are presented in Appendix B.
The activity data were based on total gasoline sales in Alaska for 1984
(DOE, 1986) and population data for 1980 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1980). Total
state gasoline consumption was obtained from the Department of Energy's Energy
Data Report for 1980. Consumption was apportioned to the boroughs on the
basis of population data.
The emission estimates, however, may contain some error due to assuming
that gasoline consumption is proportional to population. Many towns in Alaska
have small road and street networks and therefore display different vehicle
use characteristics. Juneau and Sitka are good examples where there are only
77 and 14 miles of paved road, respectively. Population-based gasoline
6-20
-------
3IADIAN
(BMOMmil
TABLE 6-6.
ESTIMATED MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS FOR ON-HIGHWAY GASOLINE VEHICLES
Activity Data
Pollutant (Million-Vehicle Miles) Emissions (lb/yr)
Anchorage
Benz ene
Formaldehyde
Toluene
Xylene
POM
Fairbanks
Benz ene
Formaldehyde
Toluene
Xylene
POM
Juneau
Benz ene
Formaldehyde
Toluene
Xylene
POM
Ketchikan
Benz ene
Formaldehyde
Toluene
Xylene
POM
Sitka
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Toluene
Xylene
POM
1629
198,000
520,000
950,000
244,000
NA
508
60,000
158,000
292,000
74,000
NA
186
22,000
58,000
106,000
28,000
NA
106
14,000
32,000
60,000
16,000
NA
72
8,000
22,000
42,000
10,000
NA
6-21
-------
TABLE 6-7.
ESTIMATED MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS FOR ON-HIGHWAY DIESEL VEHICLES
Pollutant
Activity Data
(Million-Vehicle Miles)
Emissions (Ib/yr
Anchorage
Benzene
473
76,000
Formaldehyde
488,000
Toluene
72,000
Xylene
12,000
POM
NA
Fairbanks
Benz ene
146
24,000
Formaldehyde
150,000
Toluene
22,000
Xylene
4,000
POM
NA
Juneau
Benzene
53
8,600
Formaldehyde
56,000
Toluene
8,000
Xylene
1,400
-
POM
NA
Ketchikan
Benzene
30
5,000
Formaldehyde
32,000
Toluene
4,600
Xylene
800
POM
NA
Sitka
Benzene
21
3, 400
Formaldehye
22,000
Toluene
3,200
Xylene
600
POM
NA
6-22
-------
TABLE 6-8.
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USE IN ALASKA, 1984
Group Gallons Pounds
Fungicides 4,100 240
Wood Preservatives — 500
Disinfectants 27,400 47,500
Biocides 59,600 —
Rodenticides — 480
Insecticides 7,300 3,800
Herbicides 7,000 58,000
TOTAL 105,400 109,720
6-23
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
consumption estimates assume vehicle use proportionate to population, which
may not be accurate in some cases. Appendix B illustrates the emission
factors used to estimate emissions from petroleum marketing. As with gasoline
evaporation point sources, the phase out of lead was taken into account in the
development of emission factors for ethylene dibromide and ethylene dichlor-
ide. Emission estimates for petroleum marketing are shown in Table 6-9.
Residential Wood Combustion
Pollutant emissions from residential wood combustion (RWC) sources have
caused impaired air quality in several Alaskan cities. For example it has
been estimated that RWC sources contributed 80 percent of the fine particle
mass observed at a site in Juneau in January and February of 1984 (Cooper et
al., 1984). This area source is of special concern, because it emits several
air toxics, including acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, benzene, phenol, cresol,
POMs, and dioxins. Residential wood combustion also results in the emission
of certain toxic metals; however, the emission factors for these elements are
very small. For that reason, metals emissions are considered insignificant
and are not included in this inventory.
Estimates of the extent of wood use in residential stoves and fireplaces
in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau were derived from wood use surveys con-
ducted by air pollution control districts in those cities. The results of
these surveys were used to derive estimates of the fractions of homes using
wood as fuel and the total amount of wood burned in stoves and fireplaces.
These—values were then combined with U.S. Department of Commerce census data
from 1980 to yield estimates of the total amount of wood consumed in each type
of combustion device.
The average wood consumption rate per wood stove in Anchorage was
assumed to be equal to the average fireplace consumption rate of 0.35 cords
per year. Compared to other geographic areas in Alaska, 0.35 cords of wood
consumed per wood stove may seem low. However, this activity data was chosen
based on a consideration of the economics of burning wood in Anchorage.
Because of the unavailability of natural gas in Anchorage, it is cheaper to
heat homes in Anchorage that other parts of Alaska. In addition, wood is more
expensive in Anchorage due to its relative scarcity as compared to other
areas. These two factors are believed to depress the demand for wood stove
heat in Anchorage.
Survey data for Sitka and Kitchikan were not available. Because Juneau,
Sitka, and Ketchikan are all in the southeast part of the state, the survey
results for Juneau were assumed to apply to Sitka and Ketchikan as well. The
survey results and wood use estimates are described further in Appendix C.
The activity data derived from the surveys and census data were combined
with emission factors (see Appendix B) to estimate emissions. Table 6-10
presents the emission estimates for each city.
6-24
-------
HAOIAN
TABLE 6-9.
ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FOR PETROLEUM MARKETING
Pollutant
Activity Data
(Million-Gallons)
Emissions (Ib/yr)
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Juneau
Ketchikan
Sitka
Benzene
EDB
EDG
Toluene
Xylene
Benz ene
EDB
EDC
Toluene
Xylene
Benzene
EDB
EDC
Toluene
Xylene
Benz ene
EDB
EDC
Toluene
Xylene
Benz ene
EDB
EDC
Toluene
Xylene
97.05
39.98
39.98
97.05
97.05
29.96
12.34
12.34
29.96
29.96
10.96
4.52
4.52
10.96
10.96
6.26
2.58
2.58
6.26
6.26
4.25
1.75
1.75
4.25
4.25
32,220
1.15
7.66
21,252
6,440
9,942
0.33
2.39
6,562
1,988
3,636
0.16
0.82
2,400
728
2,078
0.08
0.49
1,372
416
1.410
0.08
0.33
930
282
Note: EDB -- Ethylene Dibrcmide
EDC = Ethylene Dichloride
6-25
-------
RADIAN
CORPOaATION
Slash Burning and Forest Fires
Combustion of vegetation such as that which occurs during slash burning
and forest fires can produce a variety of air toxic emissions. However,
emission factors for this source are not well characterized. In addition,
data on the total acreage burned are not readily available. For these rea-
sons, emission estimates for each region of Alaska have not been developed.
However, preliminary estimates of emissions for slash burning have been
developed for the Fairbanks and Anchorage (Mat-Su/Kenai) areas. These
estimates are based on information received from the ADEC staff on the acreage
permitted for slash burning. Emission factors used for POMs and manganese
were reported by McMahon and Tsoukalas (1978) and Ward and Hardy (1984). The
estimates are shown in Table 6-11.
6-26
-------
RADIAN
TABLE 6-10.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
FROM RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTION
Estimated Emission Rate (lb/yr)
Pollutant
Anchorage^
Fairbanks
North Star
Juneau
Ketchikan
Sitka
Acetaldehyde
490
11,000
4,400
2,500
1,500
£
Benzene
83
1,900
690
390
240
Cresols
1,200
27,000
9,900
5,600
3,400
Dioxins3
0.00034
0.0078
0.0022
0.0012
0.00076
Formaldehyde
970
22,000
9,200
5,200
3,200
Phenol
1,500
34,000
12,000
7,000
4,300
POM
1,000
24.000
9,000
4,900
3,000
a) Emission estimates for these species only include the contributions from
wood-burning stoves - emission factors for fireplaces were not available.
b) The recent popularity of wood stoves and the growth in the number of
housing units in Anchorage since 1980 may result in an underestimation of
the number of wood stoves and the amount of wood burned.
6-27
-------
SZADIAJN
CORPORATION
TABLE 6-11.
POM AND MANGANESE EMISSIONS FROM SLASH BURNING
Emission Rate lb/year)
Area POMs Manganese
Fairbanks 290 "15
Anchorage
Kenai Peninsula 1,600 83
Matanuska-Susitna Valley 13,000 680
6-28
-------
RADIAN
COHPOSilTION
SECTION 7
RANKING OF POINT AND AREA SOURCES
This section presents the methodology and results of ranking the point
and area sources according to their relative health risk.
The ranking procedure presented below simply ranks sources. Quantitative
health implications cannot be determined from this information. The ranking
method' does not account for the dispersion of pollutants, which is greatly
affected by stack parameters (e.g., gas temperature, stack height, etc.) and
local meteorology. Furthermore, the ranking does not account for exposure
pathways or dose response relationships which influence the actual exposures
to air toxics and the associated risks. However, this ranking procedure
provides the necessary focus for future consideration in reducing, if
necessary, the health risk associated with the chemicals identified in the
inventory.
Ranking Methodology
To rank the point sources, the magnitude of the emissions and the rela-
tive toxicity of the emissions are taken into account. A ranking factor for
each source was developed by multiplying the emissions of each source by a
measure, of the toxicity of each pollutant emitted.
The same approach was used for area sources; however, it should be recog-
nized that point and area sources were not directly comparable in this rank-
ing. Point sources impact the general population immediately surrounding the
source. On the other hand, area sources are much more dispersed, potentially
resulting in vastly different exposure levels to the general population.
Because of this difference in exposure levels, area sources are ranked sepa-
rately from point sources.
There are two ways in which the relative toxicity of the pollutants can
be taken into account. One way is to use potency slope values developed by
EPA's Carcinogenic Assessment Group. These values, expressed in the units of
time per mass of pollutant per mass of body weight, refer to the slope of a
dose response curve. The dose—response relationship represents the individual
risk of contracting- cancer at a specified dose level in a test group of
animals. Using a statistical model, this relationship is extrapolated to very
low doses (associated with environmental exposure) to represent the individual
risk of contracting cancer in humans.
Potency slope values do not exist for 13 of the 26 air toxics compounds
inventoried in the state of Alaska. Many o£ these 13 compounds are not
considered carcinogens, which accounts for the lack of potency slope data.
A second approach would be to use Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) as a
measure of relative risk. Because TLVs exist for each of the pollutants in
7-1
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
this study, the TLVs were chosen over potency slope values to provide a more
thorough ranking.
TLVs are expressed as airborne concentrations and are intended to protect
most workers from adverse health effects when exposed to certain chemicals
eight hours per day, five days per week. Obviously this exposure rate can be
quite different than the exposure rate to ambient concentrations of air
toxics. In fact, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygien-
ists (ACGIH), which recommends TLVs, states that TLVs are not intended for
uses other than the evaluation of workplace exposures by industrial hygien-
ists. That is, TLVs are not intended to evaluate community air pollution, or
extended, uninterrupted periods of exposures.
In recognition of these caveats, it should be noted that TLVs are not
used in this study for the evaluation of airborne contaminants. TLVs are used
as relative toxicity indicators for ranking emission sources. The assumption
implied here is that lower TLVs indicate that those particular chemicals are
more toxic. Table 7-1 presents the TLV values.
In summary, the sources were ranked by multiplying the emission estimate
for each pollutant times the TLV for that pollutant. When more than one
pollutant is emitted by a source type, the products of these two values were
summed together. This concept is illustrated below:
Ranking factor = 5 (emissions.) (1/TLV-)
<-¦ 1 1
i=l
Where i = each individual pollutant and
n = number of pollutants emitted by each source type
In order to use TLVs, 1/TLV must be used. Increased emission levels indicate
increased health impact, whereas higher TLV values indicate decreased health
impact. For this reason, 1/TLV was used.
For several of the pollutants (primarily dioxins/furans, PAH, and
chromium) the emission factors used in this inventory estimate gross emissions
for several species of pollutants (i.e., benzo(a)pyrene is a constituent of
PAH). The ranking methodology then multiplies the emissions by a TLV that was
developed for a specific constituent that comprises only a portion of the
emission estimate. For example, total dioxin and furan emissions were
estimated for municipal waste incineration, but only a portion of these
emissions are known to be the higher toxic 2,3,7,8 TCDD. A similar situation
exists with PAH where benzo(a)pryene is a primary concern and with chromium
where chromium in the hexavalent rather than the trivalent oxidation state is
the primary concern. Unfortunately, insufficient information exists to
accurately speciate the emissions estimates. Therefore, using TLVs developed
for specific pollutants overstates the ranking factor calculated for sources
of dioxins/furans, PAH, and chromium (for combustion sources only). In the
case of dioxins/furans, the TLV is expected to overstate the ranking factor by
80 to 90 percent. For chromium emissions resulting from combustion sources,
hexavalent chromium is believed to comprise less than 10 percent of the total
7-2
-------
CORPOIXTISI
TABLE 7-1.
TOXICITY WEIGHTING DATA FOR
AIR TOXICS EMITTED IN ALASKA
TL7 Potency Slope
3 -1
Metals (mg/m ) (mg/kg/day)
Acetaldehyde
180
N/A
Arsenic
0.2
50
Benzene
30
0.029
Beryllium
0.002
2.6
Cadmium
0.05
6.1
Chromium
0.05
41
Chloroform
50
0.081
Cresols
22
N/A
Dibenzofuran
N/A
N/A
Dioxins
— Q a
30 x 10 ya
1.56 x 105
Ethylene Dibromide
1.0b
41
Ethylene Dichloride
40
0.091
Ethylene Oxide
2
N/A-
Formaldehyde
1.5
N/A
Freon 113
7,600
N/A
Lead
0.15
N/A
Manganese
5
N/A
Mercury
0.05
N/A
Nickel
0.1e
2.1d
PAH/POM
0.2°
11.5f
Perchloroethylene
335
0.051
PCB
0.5
4.34
Phenol
19
N/A
Uranium
0.2
N/A
Toluene
375
N/A
Xylene
435s
N/A
7-3
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
TABLE 7-1 (Continued)
Footnotes:
£
Concentration recommended by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, as
cited in "Health Effects of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenze-P-Dioxin and Related
Compounds," prepared by the Epidemiological Studies and Surveillance
section. Department of Health Services, Berkeley, California, February
1986.
k Concentration recommended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health. See NIOSH recommendations for Occupational Safety and Health
Standards, Julyl9, 1985, Vol. 34/No. 15.
TLV for soluble compounds, as nickel.
^ Nickel as the subsulfide.
e TLV for coal tar pitch volatiles, as benzene solubles.
f
Potency slope for benzo(a)pyrene.
® 0-,m-,p-isoners of xylene.
7-4
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
chromium emissions; thus, overstating the ranking factor by at least 90
percent. Insufficient information is available to make a similar statement
for PAH.
As a final point, a specific emission factor for dibenzofuran was used
for sewage sludge incineration. This is a compound dibenzofuran and not the
family of highly toxic chlorinated furans. A TLV for dibenzofuran is not
available. The emission of this compound are not included in the ranking of
sources.
Ranking Results
Detailed results of the point source ranking are shown in Appendix E. A
summary of these results is shown in Table 7-2 by source category. Tables 7-3
and 7-4 present the individual results of the point and area source ranking.
Table 7-3 indicates the highest priority point sources are combustion
sources. We believe this may be somewhat misleading because the dispersion
potential of these sources were not taken into account. Combustion sources
often have taller stacks and elevated stack gas temperatures than
noncombustion sources, resulting in greater dispersion.
7-5
-------
TABLE 7-2.
POINT SOURCE CATEGORIES RANKED'ACCORDING TO RELATIVE HEALTH RISK
Source Type
Ranking Factor
Number of
Facilities
Comments
1. Municipal Solid VJaste 1,100.000
Incineration
2. Diesel Turbine Engines 250,000
3. Industrial Wood Combustion 150,000
4. Distillate Oil Combustion 54,000
8 Includes only those facilities burning
more than 300 tpy.
14 Includes only those facilities that are
emitting more than 2 tpy of PM or VOC.
5 Ranking does not take into account
aldehyde emissions, which are unknown.
13 Includes only those facilities that are
emitting more than 2 tpy of PM or VOC.
5. Reciprocating Diesel
Engines
6. Coal Combustion
7. Waste Oil Combustion
8. Gasoline Evaporation
69,000
47.000
23,000
2,700
58 Includes only those facilities that are
emitting more than 2 tpy of PM or VOC.
7 Ranking factor based on 1979 activity
data.
8 Ranking factor does not include three
facilities. Activity data for these
four facilities are unknown.
23 Ranking factor based on 1979 activity
data.
Continued
-------
TABLE 7-2.
POINT SOURCE CATEGORIES RANKED ACCORDING TO RELATIVE HEALTH RISK (Continued)
Source Type
Ranking Factor
Number of
Facilities
Comments
9. Pulp and Paper tyills
1.300
Ranking accounts for emissions from
wastewater treatment.
10. Ethylene Oxide
Sterilization
900
10 Ranking factor assumes all emissions
are emitted at the hospital, which is
not necessarily the case. A portion of
the EtO is emitted from sewer lines.
11. Battery Manufacturing
900
Ranking does not take into account
arsenic and chromium emissions.
12. Cooling Towers
13. Municipal Sewage
Incineration
600
500
Chloroform emissions from two other
cooling towers are unknown. Ranking
factor also does not include smaller
cooling tower used for cooling.
Ranking based on Anchorage water and
sewer facility only. Other incinerators
in the state were found to have insigni-
ficant air toxics emissions.
14. Airports
480
Ranking based on six largest commercial
airports. Emissions from military
installations and non-commercial flights
are not accounted for.
Continued
-------
TABLE 7-2.
POINT SOURCE CATEGORIES RANKED ACOORblNG TO RELATIVE HEALTH RISK (Continued)
Source Type
Ranking Factor
Number of
Facilities
Comments
n
o
a
o
a
ft
4
0
1
—J
I
00
15. Hot Mix Asphalt Production 460
16. Residual Oil Combustion 430
17. Oil Refinery Fugitives 330
18. Perchloroethylene Dry 160
Cleaning
19. Electroplating 140
20. Portland Cement Manufacturing 5
21. Paint Manufacturing 21
22. Freon Dry Cleaning 0
29
Ranking factor does not include six
facilities from the south east portion
of the state. The activity data for
these facilities are unknown.
Includes only facility emitting more than
2 tpy of PM or V0C.
Ranking based on emission estimates
calculated from production data obtained
primarily from the Oil and Gas Journal.
See also area source rankings.
Emission estimate for two of four
facilities available.
Emissions are unknown. However, ranking
factor expected to be a small value due
to low toxicity of CFC-113.
Notes:
a) Sources are ranked according to their relative toxicity using threshold limit values.
b) Point source ranking factors are not directly comparable to area source ranking factors due to
the diverse, widespread nature of area source emissions.
-------
RADIAN
csKPaaaTioM
TABLE 7-3.
FACILITIES WITH RANKING FACTORS GREATER THAN 5,000
Source Type
Facility
Ranking
Factor
Coal Combustion
U.S. Army Ft. Wainwright-Fairbanks
30,000
Golden Valley Electric Assn-Healy
6,200
Distillate Oil Combustion
U.S Navy ADAK Navel Air Stn-ADAK
25,000
U.S. Army Ft. Wainwright-Fairbanks
30,000
Golden Valley Electric Assn-Healy
6,200
Municipal Waste Incineration
North Slope Borough
480,700
Channel Landfill-
¦Juneau
450,000
City of Sitka
84,000
Hacor-Anchorage
33,000
USAF Shenrya AFT-Shemya
29,000
City of Whittier
9,900
Alyeska Pipeline/Pump Station #3-
Sagavanirtok
9,000
USAF King Salmon
AFT
8,400
Reciprocating Diesel Engines
Kodiak Electric Assn-Kodiak Island
7,100
Turbine Diesel Engines
Alyeska Pipeline
Pump Station #11-
Copper Center
41,000
Alyeska Pipeline
Pump Station #10-
Black Rapids
40,000
Alyeska Pipeline
Pump Station #7-
Livengood
38,000
Alyeska Pipeline
Pump Station #8-
Fairbanks
37,000
Alyeska Pipeline
Pump Station #9-
Delta
34,000
Alyeska Pipeline
Pump Station #6-
Yukan River
34,000
Alyeska Pipeline
Station #5-
Propsect
19,000
Alyeska Marine Terminal-Valdez
7,600
Wood Combustion
Ketchikan Pulpco-Ketchikan
84,000
Alaska Pulp Corp-
-Sitka
34,000
Wrangel Forest Products-Wrangell
28,000
7-9
-------
TABLE 7-4.
RANKING FACTORS FOR AREA SOURCE CATEGORIES
Area Source
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Juneau
Ketchikan
Gateway
Sitka
Asphalt Distribution
380
120
43
24
18
and Usage
Dry Cleaning
660
120
75
28
30
Mobile Sources
690,000
210,000
80,000
44,000
30,000
Petroleum Marketing
1,100
350
130
73
50
Residential Wood Combustion
8,600
200,000
120,000
68,000
41,000
Slash Burning
73,000C
1,900
NA
NA
NA
Notes:
a) Ranking factors are based on threshold limit values.
b) Area source ranking factors are not directly comparable to point source ranking factors due to
the diverse, widespread nature of areas source emissions.
c) NA indicates not applicable.
d) Kenia Peninsula = 8,000 and Matanuska-Susitna Valley = 65,000
-------
SECTION 8
SOURCE TESTING AND AMBIENT AIR MONITORING OF AIR TOXICS
The measurement of airborne pollutants is a complex subject. The scope
of this study prevents a detailed discussion of source testing and ambient air
monitoring of air toxics. This section provides a brief overview and summary
of the methods and techniques used to measure air toxics. We first discuss
sampling and monitoring techniques and conclude with a summary of analytical
methods.
Information presented here will be useful in selecting appropriate sam-
pling and analytical methods. However, the applicability of any given method
should be carefully investigated before it is used. A separate bibliography
pertaining to the measurement of airborne pollutants is provided at the end of
this section for further reference.
SOURCE TESTING TECHNIQUES
Organic Source Testing
Source testing of organic emissions can be conducted using one of two
generic methods: fixed volume grab sampling or concentration of organics
using sorbent trap. Fixed volume grab sampling usually involves employing one
of the following specific methods:
• syringe,
• flow-through bottle,
• evacuated canister,
• Tedlar bags (EPA Method 3), or
• EPA Method 25.
These methods are typically used for non-combustion or low moisture content
combustion emissions. Further, they have the advantages of low cost, appli-
cable to high organic content emissions, and can provide useful information
when short-term emission events need to be defined.
A major disadvantage for fixed volume grab sampling is that this method
does not provide extremely low detection limits. In those instances requiring
low detection limits, concentration of organics using the following specific
methods may be employed:
• Volatile Organic Sampling Train,
• Modified Method 5,
• High Volume Modified Method 5, and
• Source Assessment Sampling System.
These methods are commonly used for the measurement of combustion emissions.
A sorbent is used to collect and concentrate the organic constituents. The
8-1
-------
sorbent is then transported to the laboratory, where the constituents are
desorbed and analyzed. Table 8-1 summarizes organic source testing tech-
niques.
Inorganic Source Testing
Source testing for inorganic pollutants primarily involves collecting
particulate matter and then analyzing the collected sample for its individual
constituents. EPA Method 5, Determination of Particulate Emissions from
Stationary Sources, is the accepted basic method for measuring inorganic
emissions (40 CFR Part 60, App. A).
Method 5 utilizes a glass fiber filter maintained at approximately 120°c
to capture particulate matter. The sample then flows through a series of
impingers containing distilled water to capture additional inorganic material.
In the case of mercury and arsenic, which may pass through the sampling train
in the gaseous phase, special sorbents may be used in the impingers to absorb
these compounds out of the flue gas. For mercury, potassium permanganate may
be used when sampling combustion emissions (40 CFR, Part 60, App. B, Method
101A). In the case of arsenic, impingers containing nitric acid, hydrogen
peroxide, and sodium hydroxide have been used (U.S. EPA, 1978a).
AMBIENT AIR MONITORING TECHNIQUES
Organic Monitoring
In April, 1984, EPA published a methods compendium to provide regional,
state, and local environmental regulatory agencies, as well as other interest-
ed parties, with specific guidance on the determination of selected toxic
organic compounds in ambient air (U.S. EPA, 1984). The methods compendium
consists of five methods which are considered to be of primary importance in
toxic organic monitoring efforts. Table 8-2 presents a description of the
five ambient monitoring methods. Detailed descriptions of- the methods are
available in the methods compendium. A summary of the toxic organic compounds
that have been evaluated by each method is presented in Table 8-3.
Analysis of Table 8-3 indicates that many of the toxic organic compounds
compiled in the Alaska air toxics inventory have been evaluated by one or more
of the methods included in the compendium. In addition, some of the compounds
that have not been "specifically evaluated have similar characteristics to
evaluated compounds. We expect that these compounds may also be evaluated by
the methods described in the compendium although the applicability of any
given method should be carefully considered before use.
For example, Radian is currently using the PUF method to monitor for
dioxins and furans in Southern California. To assure that dioxins/furans in
the gaseous state are monitored, the method has been modified slightly by
sandwiching a layer of XAD resin between layers of polyurethane.
-------
TABLE S-1.
Stapling
Method
Description
UJHrtARY OF SOURCE TESTING HETHOOS FOR ORQANIC AIR TOXICS
I
Applicable
aourca type
Appi1ceble
coapound type
Appl(cable
analytical aethod(a)
Seapl Ing aethod
Ilaltatlona
Syrl nga
Instantaneous grab
Non-coabuatlon (storage
tanks, spray bootha,
paint baka ovena, ate.).
Volatile*, C -C
1 10
0O-FID /HQ
Saapla alia and therefor*
detectable concentra-
tion ara llaltad by
contalnar e1ze| _> 1 ppa.
Floa-through
bottle
Instantaneous grab
aa abova.
VoletUee, C "C
60~FIfl/M8
Baaa •• abova
Evacuated
oanleter
Intagratad grab
Low uolsture contant
cc^buatfon emissions
{builera, dry control
1nclnaratora, ato.).
Volatllae, C -C
1 10
8O-PI0
8aae aa abova
Tadtar bag
(EPA Method 3)
Intagratad grab
aa abova.
Volatllae, ^
6O-FI0/H8
Sag 8*splee ara auhject to
ebeorptlve loaaaa of
eaaple ooaponente»
EPA Hathod 28
Tho atage Intagratad grab
train consisting of cold
trap folloaed by evacuated
8.8. tank.
kfster-oooLad sample gaa.
Including condensate, Is
passed through dual
irr-aerlee aorbent trape.
Tanax Q.C. In first tuba
followed by Tanax G. C,
backad-up by charcoal In
second tuba.
Non-ccaibuatlon and to*
Moisture contant ooabustlon
&aiaa1ona as above.
Combustion euUalone
(hollars, hazardous asste
Inclnaratora, ate.).
Volattlaa and aaal-
volattlas, C4-C
1 18
Volattlaa and eaal-
voletilee, C -C ,
°r«,. 1
Oxidation/
reduction to
CH followed
by 8C/FI0.
80-MS,
OO-ECD,
QO-fID
Seapl e alia la Mai tad by
tank votu
CO_
and H O oan produoa
a 1 giilMeant Interfererr-
cee. Syetea la ooapleft/
cuaberaoae.
Seaple alza 1a Halted to
SO 11 tare par pair of
aorbant tubaa. 8or-
bant tubea ara
auacaptlbla to oontaal-
nation froa organlca In
aabiant air during
Inetelletlon and raaoval
froa train.
Modified
Hathod 5
Water-cooled seaple gas,
alth condensate Is passed
through single aorbent trap.
Sorbent type dependent on
ct»pound{e) of Interest.
Coabuution aaluslona as
for VQST.
8ea1-volatllaa,
PCSs, other
haloyenated
organlca,
C -C ,
7 16'
Circtio
GO-ECO,
0O-HECO,
QO-K3
Single trap ayataa doaa not
provide ohack for breek-
through. Fit* rata
Halted to approxlaately
1 cfa.
Continued
-------
TABLE 8-1.
SUMMARY OF SOURCE TESTING METHODS FOR ORGANIC AIR TOXICS (Continued)
Sanpling
¦ethod
Description
Appl1cable
source type
i
Appl1 cable
compound typa
Applicable
analytical aethod(s)
Sampling Method
limitations
H1 gh vol una
Modified
Method 5
8fiapla gaa la passed through
candanaers where Moisture la
reaaoved bafora passing
through two aorbant traps*
primary followed by back-up.
Flow rates of up ,to 5 cf»
are achievable. Sorbant typa
dependent on compounds of
interest.
Coabuation Missions,
Saoil-volati las, GC~ECOr
PCBa, other GO-ttECD,
haloganatad GO-HS
orgenica,
W ClrCt1D
High flow rate results In
high aaiipllng train
preeaura drop requiring
large pu*p capacity.
SASS train
CO
I
Sanpla Gas passes through a
cold trap followed by an
XAQ-2 aorbant trap. Train la
all stainless steel
construction.
Coabuation amissions
(boilarsj hazardous waste
Incinerators}.
9e»i-voletlles, and
other
non-halogenat ed
organlcBp
GO-EGD,
GO-HECD, QO-HS
Syatea la complex, large
and oiabarsone. Recovery
of orgenica from cold
trap can be difficult,
S.S. construction aiakes
train components highly
auaoeptlble to corrosion
fro» acid gases*
especially HCL.
GO-FID - gas chroaatography with flaae ionization detector.
b
QQ-MS - gae chroaatography-wass spectrometry.
c
GO-PID - gas chroosatogrephy-photo1on1zat1on detector.
d
VOST - voletlle organic sampling train.
6 Sorbents include Florlail $ XAD-2 resin, and Tenax-GC among the aoat commonly used.
Source: Polcyn, 1B65
-------
TABLE 8-2.
SUMMARY OF AMBIENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS FOR TOXIC ORGANICS
I
n
o
n
«
o
*
»
0
1
Method
Number
Method
Description
- Types of
Compounds Determined
TO-1
TO-2
co
I
Cn
Tenax GC Adsorption and
GC/MS Analysis
Carbon Molecular Sieve
Adsorption and GC/MS
Analysis
Volatile organic compounds are adsorbed
onto Tenax® resin. Highly volatile
compounds and inorganic constituents pass
through resin. Collected sample is placed
in a heated chamber and purged with inert
gas. Inert gas transfers organics to a
cold trap and subsequently to a GC column.
Volatile organic compounds are adsorbed
onto carbon molecular sieve (CMS)
adsorbent. Major inorganic constituents
pass through adsorbent. Collected sample
is purged with dry air to remove moisture
and then purged with helium at 350-400 C.
Desorbed compounds are collected in
cryogenic trap and then flash evaporated
into GC/MS system.
Volatile, nonpolar organics
(e.g. aromatic hydrocarbons,
chlorinated hydrocarbons)
having boiling points in the
range of 80 to 200°C.
Highly volatile, nonpolar
organics (e.g. vinyl
chloride, vinylidene
chloride, benzene, toluene)
having boiling points in the
range of -15 to + 120°C.
TO-3 Cryogenic Trapping and
GC/FID or ECD Analysis
A collection trap is submerged in either
liquid oxygen or argon. Ambient air is
emitted to the collection device. Once
collection is complete a carrier gas
sweeps the contents of the trap onto the
head of a cooled GC column.
Simultaneously, the crygen is removed and
the trap is heated to assist sample
transfer.
Volatile, nonpolar organics
having boiling points^in the
range of -10 to +
200°C.
Continued
-------
TABLE 8-2.
SUMMARY OF AMBIENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS FOR TOXIC ORGANICS1 (Continued)
Method
Number
Method
Description
Types of
Compounds Determined
TO-4
TO-5
High volume PUF Sampling
and GC/ECD Analysis
Dinit rophenylhydrazine
Liquid Impinger Sampling
and HPLC/UV Analysis
A modified high volume sampler is used. A
glass fiber filter with a polyurethane
(PUF) backup absorbent cartridge is used
to collect sample. Soxhlet extraction is
used to recover sample from filter and PUF
cartridge.
Sample is drawn through impingers
containing HC1, DNPH reagent, and
isooctane. The sample is evaporated to
dryness under a stream of nitrogen and
dissolved in methanol.
Organochlorine pesticides
and PCBs
Aldehydes and Ketones
Source: EPA, 1984
-------
TABLE 0-3.
SUMMARY OF TOXIC ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FOR WHICH AMBIENT SAMPLING
AND METHODS HAVE BEEN EVALUATED
Method T0 1 TO-2 TO~3 TO-4 TO-5
Compounds Evaluated:
u>
I
~-4
Benzene
ToL uene
Ethyl Benzene
Xy lane(a)
Cunene
nr-Heptane
1-Haptene
Chloroform
Carbon Tetrachloride
1.2-01chloroethane
1,1,1-Trlchloroathana
Tetrachloroathylene
TrlchLoroethylena
1,S-Di chlorapropena
1.3-01chloropropane
Ch lorobanzana
Bromof arm
Ethyl ana D1bromide
Bromobenzene
Vinyl Chloride
Acrylonltrlla
Vinylidana ChLorldu
Mathylene Chloride
Allyl Chloride
ChL o reform
1,2-D1chLoroethane
1, 1,1-Trlchloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Toluene
VlnyLldene Chlolde
Chloroform
1,2-D1 chloroethane
Me thy I chloroform
Benzene
Tri chloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylane
Chlorobenzene
Aldrln
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Chlordana
Chlorobl pheny I a
4,4'DI-
2,4,5 Tr1-
2,4',5 Trl-
2,2',5,5' Tatra-
2,2,,4,4',5,5' Hexa-
Formaldehyda
Acataldehyda
Acrolein
Acetone
Crotonaldehyda
laobutyraLdahyde
Methyl Ethyl Keton
BenzaLdahyda
Pentanal
o-Tolualdahyda
m-Tolualdehyde
p-Tolualdahyda
Hexanal
Source: EPA, 1984
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
Inorganics Monitoring
Metals are generally present in the ambient air as constituents of
particulate matter. Some metals such as arsenic, mercury, and selenium may
also be present in the vapor phase under normal ambient conditions. Sample
collection and analysis methods for both particulate and vapor phase metals
are briefly discussed below.
Sample collection methods for inorganic air toxics are similar to those
used for the criteria pollutant particulate matter. Suspended particulates in
the ambient air are collected on a filter for 24 hours using a high volume air
sampler. The filter is then transported to a laboratory for subsequent
analysis.
Airborne mercury (Hg) occurs as a number of volatile chemical species
including elemental Hg, HgCl^ and alkylated mercury compounds. Consequently,
the particulate bound fraction of mercury in the atmosphere is often less than
10% of the total (Brauman, 1983). Arsenic is another toxic metal with a
significant vapor component in the form of arsenic trioxide or methylated
arsenic. Significant undersampling of mercury and arsenic may occur if the
particulate filtration sample collection technique is used alone.
Volatile forms of mercury and arsenic can be collected by adding a series
of adsorbents to the particulate sampling train. The adsorbent can be en-
closed in a tube or impregnated into a standard filter medium. The tubes or
impregnated filters are mounted in plastic holders and..positioned downstream
from the particulate filter. With this arrangement, particulate matter and
vapor phase metals are collected from the same sample.
ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES
Organics Analysis
There are numerous analytical techniques that can be used to quantify
organic constituents in a collected sample. The more common and accepted
analytical methods are summarized in Table 8-4. Selection of the appropriate
analytical method is based on determination of the following factors (Polcyn,
1985) :
• Which constituents are of greatest interest?
• What is the needed level of detection?
• What is the minimum sample size required to achieve desired detec-
tion levels?
• What, if any, interfering compounds may be present?
• Which sampling techniques are compatible with the preferred analyti-
cal method(s)?
8-3
-------
T/^LE 8-4.
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR ORGANIC AIR TOXICS
Analytical Method
Compound
Appl1cabl11ty
"•'a
(pg/ni )
Sampl e
Preparation
Method Notes
Gas Chromatography (GO)
Flame Ionization detec-
tion (FID)
Non-haloganatad VOC, poly- 5-10
nuclear aromatic hydrcar-
bons (PAHa)
Acrolein, acryLonltrlle 25-100
acatonltrlle
Direct Injection, Liquid
Liquid extraction
Response varies with dif-
ferent compounds - not
suitable for aixturea of
numerous [ >3) compounds.
Photolanlzatlon detec-
tion (PID)
Aromatic VOC
0.1-1
Direct IrjBCtlon
Excellent flald screening
method but at higher de-
tection level.
Hall electrolytic con-
ductivity detection
(IIECO)
Haloganated VOC
1-10 Soxhlet extraction, purge
and trap
Very halogen Bpeclflc.
It la very CBpabla of achiev-
ing vary low-detactlon
levels even when Mixtures
of numerous chlorinated
compounds ara present.
Electron capture detec-
tion (EC01
Chlorinated hydrocarbons,
polychlorlnatsd b1phenyls
(PCB), organochlorlna
pesticides, cycloketones,
phthalata esters, nltro-
aromatlcs
1-1000 Soxhlat extraction, purge
and trap
Also highly halogen spe-
cific.
Continued
-------
TABLE 8-4.
I
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR ORGANIC AIR TOXICS [Continued]
Analytical Method
Compound
Applicability
,dl"3
(pfl/m )
Sample
Preparation
Mathod Notes
Gas Chramatography-naes
spactratiatry (GC/M3)
High Performance liquid
b
chromatography (HPLC)
VOC, senl-VOC, PCB, halo-
gana, PCDD,' PCDF, etc.
PAH
100-1000 Soxhlet extraction, purge
and trap
0.1-1 Liquid-liquid extraction,
eoxhlet extraction
Ideal for Identifying and
quantifying Individual
compounds In a Mixture of
niesarous conpounda.
Highly specific for cer-
tain polynuclear aronatic
hydrocarbons.
AtmoBpharlc pressura
chemical Ionization maBS
spectrometry (APCI-MS)
VOC, serai-VOC, PCB, halo-
gens, PCDD, PCDF, etc.
100
Direct 1r\J action
Can be mounted In mobile
laboratory for on-site
analysis. Mobile capa-
bility has been demon-
strated.
IOL - instrument detection limit; values given (in plcograraa/cublc mater) are ranges based on the nadian value for the
ranga of applicable compounds listed.
With flourescensa dotector.
Source: Polcyn, 19B5.
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
The moat versatile analytical tool listed in Table 8-4 is gas chromato-
graphy with mass spectrometry (GC/MS). This method is capable of detecting
organic compounds independent of their chemical or electrical characteristics.
A GC/MS computer library will rapidly and automatically identify thousands of
compounds by mass character rather than by chemical composition.
Inorganics Analysis
Inorganic sample analysis is generally a two step process which typically
consists of nitric acid digestion. Following digestion, the sample can be
analyzed using standard atomic absorption (AA) or inductively coupled plasma
emission spectroscopy (ICPES). in general, ICPES is a less costly analytical
method than atomic absorption. However, for arsenic, lead, mercury, and
selenium, the detection limit of ICPES is generally insufficient. Consequent-
ly, atomic absorption is used for these four metals.
Alternately, the sample can be analyzed using x-ray fluorescence (XRF)
analysis. This technique involves the bombardment of a thin layer of sample
by high energy x-rays. Excited atoms of a particular metal then emit fluores-
cent x-ray radiation with a characteristic wavelength. The intensity of this
radiation can be used to determine the concentration of the constituent.
Analysis of chromium represents a special case. Hexavalent chromium is
much more toxic than chromium in the trivalent oxidation state. Therefore, it
is often necessary to determine the fraction of chromium present in the
hexavalent oxidation state. Total chromium can be determined using the
techniques listed above, but hexavalent chromium requires a different method.
Under acidic conditions, hexavalent chromium is reduced to the trivalent
state. As a result, alkaline digestion rather than acidic digestion must be
used. Butler, et al. (1986) summarized this method for particulate matter in
a recently published journal article. A similar method is presented in Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes (U.S. EPA, 1982a).
QUALITY CONTROL
Appropriate quality control procedures must be established and maintained
to ensure reliable analytical results. This generally involves developing a
quality assurance project plan (U.S. EPA, 1980). Such a plan documents in
detail the quality assurance procedures that will be used in collecting and
analyzing the samples. If more than one site is to be sampled, site specific
test plans should be developed documenting the activities that will be per-
formed at each location.
It is essential that a quality assurance project plan address the follow-
ing items:
• Pre-test Quality Control. Sample collection equipment and sample
containers should be appropriately cleaned, packaged, and stored to
prevent contamination. This involves a combination of washing.
8-11
-------
RADIAN
solvent rinsing, and baking the sample containers in the case of
organic sampling.
• On-site Quality Control. To prevent sample contamination, duplicate
samples, field blanks, and control samples must be used. To prevent
loss, each sample must be labeled, handled, and stored properly.
• Transportation Quality Control. Sample custody must be established
to ensure the proper transfer of samples from field personnel to
laboratory personnel. This requires written documentation detailing
the custody, location, method of transfer, time and data of collec-
tion and transfer, and a description of the samples (number of
samples, size, type, field preservation, etc.).
• Laboratory Quality Control. Proper handling, storage, and prepara-
tion techniques must be established and maintained. Laboratory
blanks and surrogate spiking must also be used.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allie, S. and R. Ranchoux, 1980. Stack Sampling of Organic Compounds.
Application to the Measurement of Pollution Control Devices Efficiency,
presented at 73rd APCA Annual Meeting. Montreal, June 1980.
APCA, 1983. Measurement and Monitoring of Non-Criteria (Toxic) Contaminants
in Air, SP-50, Air Pollution Control Association, Pittsburgh, PA, 1983.
Beltis, K.J., et al., 1984. Stack Sampling and Analysis of Formaldehyde,
EPA-600/9-84-015, PB84-234525, EPA: Washington, D.C., 1984, pp. 56-64.
Butler, F.E., et al., 1986. Chromium Analysis at a Ferrochrome Smelter,
Chemical Plant and a Refractory Brick Plant, Journal of Air Pollution
Control, May 1986.
Cooke, M. et al., 1984. Dioxin Collection from Hot Stack Gas Using Source
Assessment Sampling System and Modified Method 5 Trains - An Evaluation,
EPA-600/9-84-015, PB84-234525, EPA: Washington, D.C., 1984, pp. 42-55.
DeRoos, F.L. and A.K. Wensky, 1984. Feasibility of Using Solid Adsorbents for
Dioxin Sampling, EPA—600/S7-84—060, August 1984.
Guzewich, D.C. et al., 1983. Air Sampling Around a Hazardous Liquid Surface
Impoundment, presented at 76th APCA Annual Meeting, Atlanta, June 1983.
Haile, C.L. and E. Baladi, undated. Methods for Determining the Total Poly-
chlorinated Biphenyl Emissions from Incineration at Capacitor—and Trans-
former Filling Plants, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1780, Task 2.
8-12
-------
MDIAN
Hansen, E.M., 1984. Protocol for the Collection and Analysis of Volatile
POHCs Using 70ST. SPA-600/8-84-007, PB84-170042. EPA: Washington. D.C.
1984.
Harris, J.C. et al.. 1984. Sampling and Analysis Methods for Hazardous Waste
Combustion, EPA-600/8-84—002, PB84-155845, EPA: Washington, D.C., 1984.
Hijazi, N.H., et al., 1982. A Methodology for Monitoring Air Pollutants on
Industrial Landfill Sites, presented at 75th APCA Annual Meeting, New
Orleans, June 1982.
Howe, G.B., et al., 1982. Validation of EPA Reference Method 25—Determina-
tion of Total Gaseous Nonmethane Organic Emissions as Carbon, presented
at 75th APCA Annual Meeting, New Orleans, June 1982.
Johnson, L., 1983. Protocol for the Collection and Analysis of Volatile POHCs
using VOST, draft document prepared by Envirodyne Engineers, Inc. for
U.S. EPA/IERL/RTP, August 1983.
Jungclaus, G. and P. Garman, 1982. Evaluation of a Volatile Organic Sampling
Train, draft final report, Midwest Research Institute, EPA Contract No.
68-01-5915, 1982.
Jungclaus, G.A., et al., 1984. Development of a Volatile Organic Sampling
Train (VOST). EPA-600/9-84-015, PB84-234525, EPA: Washington, D.C.,
1984, pp. 1-27.
Keith, H., 1984. Identification and Analysis of Organic Pollutants in Air.
Butterworth Publishers, 1984.
Lane, D.A., 1982. Mobile Mass Spectrometry—A New Technique for Rapid Envi-
ronmental Analysis, Environ. Sci. Technol. 16:38A (1982).
Levins, P.L., et al., 1979. Measurement of PCB Emissions from Combustion
Sources, EPA-600/7-79-047, 1979.
Polcyn, A.J. and H.E. Hesketh, 1985. A Review of Current Sampling and
-Analytical Methods for Assessing Toxic and Hazardous Organic Emissions
from Stationary Sources, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Associa-
tion, January 1985.
Rechsteiner, C., et al., 1981. Sampling and Analysis Methods for Hazardous
Waste Incineration, Arthur D. Little, Inc., EPA Contract No. 68-02-311,
EPA/IEKL-RTP, 1981.
Reinke, J.M. and R.W. Devlin, 1980. Intercomoarison of the Total Carbon
Analysis Flame Ionization Detection and Gas Chromatographic Methods for
Measuring Solvent Vapor Emissions, presented at 73rd APCA Annual Meeting,
Montreal, June 1980.
8-13
-------
Riggin, R.M., 1983. Technical Assistance Document for Sampling and Analysis
of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air. EPA-600/4-83-027, 1983.
Sakuma, T., et al., 1982. The Rapid Analysis of Gaseous PAH and Other Combus-
tion Related Compounds in Hot Gas Streams by APCI/MA and APCI/MS/MS,
Sciex, Inc., Thornhill, Ontario, 1982.
Scheil, G.W. and F.J. Bergman, 1980. Evaluation of Volatile Organic Carbon
Analyzer for Measuring Stack Emissions, presented at 73rd APCA Annual
Meeting, Montreal, June 1980.
Schlickenrieder, L.M., et al., 1985. Modified Method 5 Train and Source
Assessment Sampling System Operators Manual. EPA-600/8-86-003,
PB85-169878, EPA: Washington, D.C., 1985.
Stanley, J.S., et al., 1982. Sampling and Analysis Protocol for Assessing
Organic Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources in Exposure Evalua-
tion Division Combustion Studiesc Midwest Research Institute, EPA Con-
tract No. 68-01-5915, 1982.
Thurn, K.E., et al., 1979. Gas Sample Storage, EPA-600/7-79-095, PB298-350,
EPA:. Washington, D.C., 1979.
U.S. EPA, 1977. Manual of Analytical Methods for the Analysis of Pesticide
Residues in Human and Environmental Samples, U.S. EPA, 1977.
U.S. EPA, 1978a. Trace Element Study at a Primary Copper Smelter, EPA-600/-
2-78-065a, March 1978.
U.S. EPA, 1978b. Procedures Manual: Level 1 Environmental Assessment, (2nd
Edition), EPA 600/7-78-201, October 1978.
U.S. EPA, 1979. Measurement of Volatile Organic Compounds, U.S. EPA, 0AQPS,
1979.
U.S. EPA, 1980. Interim Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality
Assurance Project Plans, QAMS-005/80, Office of Monitoring Systems and
Quality Assurance, December 1980.
U.S. EPA, 1982a. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste—Physical/Chemical
Methods, SW-846, 2nd Edition, U.S. EPA, 1982.
U.S. EPA, 1982b. EPA Test Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of Municipal
and Industrial Wastewater, EPA-600/4-82-057, U.S. EPA, July 1982.
U.S. EPA, 1983. Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Incinerator Permits,
Publication SW-966, EPA Contract No. 86-01-0092, U.S. EPA, Office of
Solid Waste and Mitre Corporation, Washington, D.C., 1983.
U.S. EPA, 1984. Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic
Compounds in Ambient Air, EPA-600/4-84-041, April 1984.
8-14
-------
RADIAN
SECTION 9
REFERENCES FOR EMISSION INVENTORY
Alfheim, Ingrid and Thomas Ramdahl, Environmental Impact of Residential Wood
Heating in Scandinavia, 77th Ann. Mtg. of Air Pollution Control
Association, San Francisco, California, June 24-29,1984.
American Wood Preservers Association (AWPA), 1982. Wood Preservation
Statistics, November 1982.
Anderson, M.E., et al, 1982. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions From
Sources of Chloroform (Draft Final Report), GCA Corporation, EPA Contract
No. 68-02-3510, September 1982.
Anderson, M.E., et al, 1983a. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions From
Sources of Ethylene Dichloride, GCA Corporation, EPA Contract No.
68-02-3510, February 1983.
Anderson, M.E., et al, 1983b. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions From
Sources of Carbon Tetrachloride (Revised Draft Final Report), GCA Corpor-
ation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3510, December 1983.
Archer, S.R., et al, 1979a. Status Assessment of Toxic Chemical—
Arsenic, EPA-600/2-79-210b, December 1979.
Archer, S.R. et al, 1979b. Status Assessment of Toxic Chemicals—
Asbestos, EPA-600/2-79-210c, December 1979.
Archer, S.R. et al, 1979c. Status Assessment of Toxic Chemicals—
Benzidine, EPA-600/2-79-210e, December 1979.
Archer S.R., et al, 1979d. Status Assessment of Toxic Chemicals—PAH.
EPA-600/2-79-210i, December 1979.
Butcher, Samuel S. and Edmund M. Sorensen, 1979. A Study of Wood Stove
Emissions, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 29, 7, 1979.
Bridle, T.R., 1982. Assessment of Organic Emissions from the Hamilton Sewage
Sludge Incinerator. Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario,
Canada. 1982.
California Dept. of Food and Ag, 1984. Pesticide Use Report, Annual 1983.
California Department of Food and Agriculture.
California Dept. of Health Services, 1985. Expenditure Plan for the
Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act of 1984, January 1985.
California Manufacturers Association, 1985. 1985 California Manufacturers
Register, Sacramento, California.
9-1
-------
IXJIDIJIN
CARB, 1982a. Methods for Assessing Area Source Emissions in California,
December 1982.
CARB, 1982b. Letter from Paul Allen of the Air Resources Board Describing
Sources of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) species profile developed by
ARB staff, December 16, 1982.
CARB, 1984. Report to the Scientific Review Panel on Benzene, November 1984.
CARB, 1985a. Draft Report to the Scientific Review Panel on Asbestos,
September 1985.
CARB, 1985b. Report to the Scientific Review Panel on Chromium,
September 1985.
CARB, 1985c. Report to the Scientific Review Panel on Chlorinated Dioxins
and Dibenzofurans, September 1985.
CARB, 1985d. Report to the Scientific Review Panel on Ethylene Dibromide,
April 1985.
CARB, 1985e. Report to the Scientific Review Panel on Ethylene Dichloride.
May 1985.
CARBa 1985g. Status Report Regarding the Toxic Air Contaminants Program,
January 1985.
CARB, 1985h. Assessment of Used Solvent and Used Oil as Fuel in California,
January 1985.
CARB, 1985i. State of California Air Resources Board Technical Support
Division, Instructions for the Emission Data System Review and Update
Report, Appendix III, Source Classification Codes and EPA/AP-42 Emission
Factors, Revised, March 1985.
CARB, 1986. Information from the Air Resources Board's Emission Data
System (EDS).
Cattone, Lawrence E,, Robert McCrillis, and Peter Westlin, 1985. Summary Test
Report of the Test Method Evaluations and Emissions Testing for Rating
Woodstoves. U.S. EPA, Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory and
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. Contract No. 68-02-3996.
Cooper, John A., Clifton A. Frazier, and Lyle C. Pritchett. 1984. Character-
ization of Air Quality Impacts from Residential Wood Combustion in Juneau
and Fairbanks, Alaska. Final Report. Prepared for the Department of
Environmental Conservation, State of Alaska. June 20, 1984.
9-2
-------
gJIPIAIi
Crecelius, A.E., et al, 1974. "Contamination of Soils Near a Copper Smelter
by Arsenic, Antimony and Lead", Water, Air, Soil Pollution, Vol. 3, pp.
337-342, September 1974.
Daley, Peter S., 1977. Pollutant Generation by Air Force Electroplating Oper-
ations. Civil and Environmental Engineering Development Office, Tyndall
Air Force Base, Florida, CEEDO-TR-77-10, June 1977.
DeAngelis, D.G., et al, 1979. Source Assessment: Residential Combustion of
Coal, EPA-600/2-79-019a, Monsanto Corporation, January 1979.
DeAngelis, D.G., et al, 1980. Source Assessment: Residential Combustion of
Wood, EPA-600/2-80-042b, Monsanto Corporation, March 1980.
DeAngelis, D.G., D.S. Ruffin, and R.B. Reznik, 1980. Preliminary Characteri-
zation of Emissions from Wood-fired Residential Combustion Equipment,
prepared from EPA Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, prepared by Monsanto Research Corporation,, Dayton,
Ohio, EPA-600/7-30-040, March 1980. -
Delleny, R.D., et al., 1981. Radian Corporation,, State of California Energy
Resources Conservation and Development Commission, Methodology for the
Evaluation of Non-Criteria Pollutants from Coal Technologies, February,
1981.
Department of Energy, 1981. Energy Data Reports; Sales of Asphalt in 1980.
D0E/EIA-0112 (80).
Department of Energy, 1986. State Energy Data Report; Consumption Estimates
1960-1984. DOE/EIA-0214 (84).
Diamond, Philip, 1969. Air Pollution Potential from Electroplating Oper-
ations. Environmental Health Laboratory, McCleilan Air Force Base,
California, AD-752-523, April 1969.
Dorigan. J., et al, 1976. Air Pollution Assessment of Nitrobenzene, Mitre
Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1495, May 1976.
Doyle, D.A. and J.D. Lauber, 1985. "The Smoldering Question of Hospital
Wastes." Pollution Engineering, July 1985, pp. 35-39.
Enterline, P.E., et al, 1976. Cancer Among Arsenic Exposed Workers in a
Copper Smelter. Toxic Substances Specialty Conference, Cambridge MA,
November 7, 1976.
Entropy, Environmentalists, Inc., 1986. Emission Test Report: Carolina
Plating Company, Greenville. South Carolina. Prepared for U.S. EPA,
Emission Measurement Branch, Emission Standards and Engineering Division,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, January 1986.
9-3
-------
irowpotumoM
Faoro, R.B.. et al, 1981. "Trends in Benzo(a) Pyrene 1966-1977, Journal
of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 31, pp.62-64, 1981.
Franklin Associates, 1985. Composition and Management of Used Oils Generated
in the United States, prepared for SPA, November 1985. (PB85-180297)
Fuller, B., et al, 1977. Environmental Assessment of PCBs in the Atmos-
phere, EPA-450/3-77-045, Mitre Corporation, November 1977.
Fuller, B., 1976. Air Pollution Assessment of Tetrachloroethylene, Mitre
Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1495, February 1976.
GCA Corporation, 1976a. Assessment of Benzene as a Potential Air Pollution
Problem, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1337, January 1976.
GCA Corporation, 1976b. Assessment of Ethylene Dichloride as a Potential Air
Pollution Problem, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1337, January 1976.
GCA Corp. 1976d. Assessment of Maleic Anhydride as a Potential Air
Pollution Problem. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1337, January 1976.
Gerstle, R.W. et al, 1982. "Atmospheric Emissions of Metals From Sewage
Sludge Incineration", Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
Vol. 32, No. 11, November 1982.
Glotfelty, D.E., 1978. "The Atmosphere as a Sink for Applied Pesticides",
Journal of the Air- Pollution Control Association, Vol. 28, pp.917-921,
1978.
Hall, R.E., and D.G. DeAngelis, 1980. "EPA's Research Program for
Controlling; Residential Wood Combustion Emissions." Journal of the Air
Pollution Control Association, 30(8) p. 862-867, August 1980.
Hartman, M.W. and G.D. Rives. 1985. Literature Review and Survey of
Emissions from Residential Wood Combustion and Their Impact. EPA Report
No. 660/2-85-047. U.S. EPA. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. April 1985.
Hushon, J., et al, 1978. Air Pollution Assessment of Vinylidene Chloride,
Mitre Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1495, February 1978.
Kelly, M.E., et al, undated. Analysis of Applicable TSP ar>d VOC Regulations
in Indirect Control of Selected Compounds (Draft Final Report), Radian
Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3818, undated.
Kelly, M.S., 1983. Sources and Emissions of Polycyclic Organic Matter
(POM), Radian Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3818, December 13, 1983.
9-4
-------
RADIAN
CORMMTION
Knight, C.V., et al., 1983. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Associated
Organic Emissions for Catalytic and Noncatalytic Wood Heaters. In:
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Formation, Mechanism, and
Measurement. Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, 1982. Columbus. Ohio. M. Cooke and A.
Dennis, eds.; 3attelle Press, Columbus, Ohio. 1983.
KVB, 1980. An Inventory of Carcinogenic Substances Released into the
Air of California. Contract No. 1-068-32-221-12, March 1980.
Lao, R.C. et al., 1983. Investigation of PAH and Polychlorinated Organic
Pollutant Emissions from Wood Combustion Sources. In: Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Formation, Mechanism, and Measurement.
Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons, 1982, Columbus, Ohio. M. Cooke and A. Dennis,
eds.; Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio. 1983.
Lipari, Frank, Jean M. Dasch, and Williams F. Scruggs, 1984. Aldehyde
Emissions from Wood-burning Fireplaces, Environmental Sci. Technical.,
18. 5, 1984.
McMahon, C.K.. and S.N. Tsoukalas, 1978. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
in Forest Fire Smoke. In: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Analysis,
Chemistry, and Biology, Proceedings of the Second International Symposium
on Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Columbus, Ohio, 1977. P.W. Jones
and R. I. Freudenthel. eds. Haven Press, New York, 1978. pp. 61-73.
Maybank, J., 1978. "Spray Drift from Agricultural Pesticide Applications",
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 28, No. 10,
October 1978.
Menzel. J., et al., 1984, The Regulation of Hazardous and Toxic Substances in
Waste Oils Used as Fuels, paper #84-11.1, 77th Annual Meeting of the
APCA, June 1984.
Misenheimer, D.C., et al, 1983. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions From
Sources of F-ormaldehyde, GCA Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3510.
December 1983.
Morales, J.A., et al, 1979. "Forest Fires: An Important Source of Benzo(a)
Pyrene in the Caracas Valley", -Tournal of the Air Pollution Control
Association. Vol. 29, pp.1072-1073, 1979.
National Research Council, 1983. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Evaluation
of Sources and Effects. Committee on Pyrene and Selected Analogues-
Board on Toxicology and Environmental Health Hazards, Commission on Life
Sciences. National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C., 1983.
9-5
-------
RJUDlAi!
CORPORATION
Nebel, G.J., 1979. "Benzene in Auto Exhaust". Journal of the Air Pollution
Control Association. Vol. 29, pp.391-392, 1979.
Oliver, W.R., SAI and S.H. Peoples, Radian Corp. 1985. Improvement of the
Emission Inventory for Reactive Organic Gases and Oxides of Nitrogen in
the South Coast Air Basin, prepared for California Air Resources Board,
May 1985.
Oshner, J.C., et al, 1979. Status Assessment of Toxic Chemicals—
Trichloroethylene, EPA-600/2-79-210m, December 1979.
Ostojic, N., 1979. End use of Solvents Containing Volatile Organic
Compounds, EPA-450/3-79-032, TRC Corporation, May 1979.
Peters, J.A., et al., 1981. An Environmental Assessment of POM Emissions
from Residential Wood-fired Stoves and Fireplaces. In: Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Chemical Analysis and Biological Fate,
Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons, 1980, Columbus, Ohio. M. Cooke and A. Dennis, eds. ;
Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio. 1981.
Peters, J.A., 1982. POM Emissions From Residential Wood-burning; An
Environmental Assessment. In: Proceedings of the 1981 International
Conference on Residential Solid Fuels - Environmental Impacts and
Solutions. Portland, Oregon. June 1-4, 1981. J. A. Cooper and D. Malek,
eds.; Oregon Graduate Center, Beaverton, Oregon, 1982.
Powers, William E. and Seth Forester, 1985. Source Emission Testing of the
Building 195 Plating Shop at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. Portsmouth, VA.
p. 11-18, March 1985. Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity,
Ports A , California, NEESA, p. 1-124, May 1985.
Prado, G., 1981. Formation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Premixed
Flames. Chemical Analysis and Mutagencity. In: Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons Chemical Analysis and Biological Fate, Proceedings of the
Fifth International Symposium on Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons,
Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio 1981.
Radian Corporation, 1988. Assessment of Atmospheric Emissions from Petroleum
Refining. EPA-600/2-80-075, April, 1980.
Radian Corporation, 1982. Preliminary Study of Sources of Inorganic Arsenic.
EPA-450/5-82-005, August 1982.
Radian Corporation, 1983a. Review and Development of Chlorinated Dioxins and
Furans Emissions Data, EPA Contract No. 69-02-3513, March 1983.
Radian Corporation, 1983b. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions From Source
of Chromium (Draft Final Report), EPA Contact No. 68-02-3513, September
1983.
9-6
-------
MDIAN
CORPORATION
Radian Corporation, 1983c. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions From Sources
of Acrylonitrile (Revised Draft Final Report), EPA Contract No.
68-02-3513, October 1983.
Radian Corporation, 1983d. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions From Sources
of
Nickel (Draft Final Report), EPA Contract No. 68-02-3513, November 1983.
Radian Corporation, 1983e. Review and Development of Chlorinated Dioxins and
Furans Emissions Data. Prepared for EPA, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3513, March 1983.
Radian Corporation, 1984a. Evaluation of Air Emissions from Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities in Support of the RCRA Air
Emission Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), EPA Contract No. 68-02-3171,"
January 11, 1984.
Radian Corporation, 1984b. Review of Lists of Non-Criteria Air Pollutants and an
Assessment of Ambient Air Guidelines Based on Threshold Limit Values,
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3513, January 12, 1984.
Radian Corporation, 1984c. Potential Sources of Air Toxics Emissions in Virginia,
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3513, February 29, 1984.
Radian Corporation, 1985. Washington Toxic Air Contaminants Study, Revised Final"
Report, February 1, 1985.
Runion, H.E., 1975. "Benzene in Gasoline", American Industrial Hygiene
Association Journal, Vol. 36, pp.338-350.
Sittig, M., (Ed.), 1975. Environmental Sources and Emissions Handbook,
Noyes Data Corporation, 1975.
Sittig, M., 1981. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals, Noyes Data
Corporation, 1981.
Snowden, W.D., et al., 1975. Source Sampling Residential Fireplaces for
Emission Factor Development. EPA Report No. 450/3-76-010. U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. August 1975.
Systems International, 1983. 1983 Directory of Chemical Producers, 1983.
Systems Applications, Inc. (SAI), 1982. Human Exposure to Atmospheric
Concentrations of Selected Chemicals, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3066,
February 10, 1982.
Systems Applications, Inc. (SAI), 1985. Improvement of the Emission
Inventory for Reactive Organic Gases and Oxides of Nitrogen in the South
Coast Air Basin, Final Report, May 1985.
9-7
-------
mMkmsm
CORPORATION
Taylor, A.W., 1978. "Post-Application Volatilization of Pesticides Under
Field Conditions", Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
Vol. 28, No. 9, September, 1978.
Tennessee Valley Authority, 1983. Wood-fired Boiler Test Report - Stick
3urner, TVA Report No. TVA/OP/ECR-84/4. Energy Use Test Facility,
Chattanooga, Tennessee, August 1983.
Tierney, D.R., et al, 1979a. Status Assessment of Toxic Chemicals - Acry-
lonitrile, EPA-600/2-79-210a, December 1979.
U.S. EPA, 1980. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Species Data Manual.
Second Edition, EPA-450/4-80-015, July 1980.
U.S. EPA, 1981. Arsenic Emissions from Primary Copper Smelters - Background
Information for Proposed Standards, Preliminary Draft, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, February 1981.
U.S. EPA, 1982a. Health Assessment Document for Carbon Tetrachloride
(Draft), EPA-600/8-82-001, March 1982.
U.S. EPA, 1982b. Health Assessment Document for Acrylonitrile (Revised
Draft), EPA-600/8—82-007, November 1982.
U.S. EPA, 1982c. Health Assessment Document for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane.
^(Methyl Chloroform) (Revised Draft), EPA-600/8-82-003, November 1982.
U.S. EPA, 1983. Health Assessment Document for 1,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-Tri-
fluoroethane (Chlorofluorocarbon CFC-113), EPA-600/8-82-002f, September
1983.
U.S. EPA, 1984a. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Including
Supplements 1-13, 1984.
U.S. EPA, 1984b. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of
Formaldehyde, EPA-450/4-84-007e, March 1984.
U.S. EPA, 1984c. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of
Chromium, EPA-450/4-84-007g, July 1984.
U.S. EPA, 1984d. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of
Nickel. EPA-450/4-84-007f. March 1984.
U.S. EPA, 1984e. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of
Chloroform. EPA-450/4-84-007c, March 1984.
U.S. EPA, 1984f. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of
Ethylene Dichloride, EPA-450/4-84-007d, March 1984.
U.S. EPA, 1984g. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of
Carbon Tetrachloride, EPA-450/4-84-007b, March 1984.
9-8
-------
HJIDIAN
CORPORATION
U.S.
EPA, 1985a. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions
from
Sources
of
Phosgene, EPA—450/4-84-007i, September 1985.
U.S.
EPA, 1985b. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions
from
Sources
of
Manganese, EPA-450/4-84-007h, September 1985.
U.S.
EPA, 1985c. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions
from
Sources
of
Eoichlorohydrin, EPA-450/4-84-007i, September 1985.
U.S.
EPA, 1985d. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions
from
Sources
of
Vinylidene Chloride. EPA-450/4-84—007k, September 1985.
U.S. EPA, 1986. Alaska Pesticides Profile, SPA 910/9/86-139, March 1986.
- U.S. EPA, Undated. Emission Characterization of Heavy-Duty Diesel and
Gasoline Engines and Vehicles, EPA 460/3-85-001, p. 20.
Wainwright, P.B., et al, 1982. A POM Emissions Study for Industrial Wood-
Fired Boilers, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources, April
1982.
Walker, P., 1976a. Air Pollution Assessment of Benzene, Mitre Corporation,
EPA Contract No. 68-02-1495, April .1976.
Walker, P., 1976b. Air Pollution Assessment of Toluene, Mitre Corporation,
2PA Contract No. 68-02-1495, May 1976.
Walker, P., et al, 1976c. Environmental Assessment of Atmospheric Nitro-
samines, Mitre Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1495, February 1976.
Ward, Darold E. and Colin C. Hardy, 1984. Advances in the Charcterization and
Control of Emissions from Prescribed Fires. Presented at the 77th Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, San Francisco, Calif-
ornia, June 24-29, 1984.
Westerholm, Roger and Others, 1986. Chemical Analysis and Biological Testing
of Emissions from a Heavy Duty Diesel Truck With and Without Two Dif-
ferent Particulate Traps, Advances in Diesel Particulate Control,
International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, Michigan, February 1986,
p. 78.
White, D.M., et al, 1982. Correlation of Coal Properties with Environmental
Control Technology Needs for Sulfur and Trace Elements. Radian Corporation,
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3171, December 1982.
9-9
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
POINT SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
A-l
-------
-------
ALASKA AIR TOIICS SIUfiT
POINT SOURCE MISSION INVENTORY
SIC
SIC DESCRIPTOR
EMSSION SOURCE
A£C 1PKUCAF1M6 DIESEL EN6
reciprocatjw fiusa tm
REClPROCATIWi 01ESEL EMS
flECJPRQCAHW DIESEL EN6
RECIPROCATING 01ESEL EN6
FACILITY NAME-AREA
POLLUTANT
ro
1041 6OLD NlNiKfi
Ull CRUDE OIL AND GAS PROMT I DM
1311 CRUDE Oil AMD GAS PfiOOUCUON
Ull CRUDE OIL ANO CAS PRODUCTION
IMI CRUSf OIL Akti GAS PRUDUCIION
AX SOLO CO-HOHE
STA&>.W ALASKA PROD CQ-IMWW
AHQCO PRODUCTION Cfl-KENAl PENINSULA
AhOCQ/CAKER-CQOK 1W.ET
AKfiCQ/iSUCE-COOi: IMLET
CHAOdtUn
NAN6ANCSE
NICKEL
m
FMHALflEHlDE
CKnDAIUrl
immsz
NICKEL
PAH
FOfiftAlKtUDE
CHROHlUfl
HANSANESE
NICKEL
PAH
fttUIALDEHVDE
CWOfliUft
HAN&ANESE
NICKEL
m
FOfirtAlKHiCE
CHROMUH
MMANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FKftALDEHVtt
NOIESi N/A - NOT AVAILABLE
CQNf - THIS DATA IS CONFIDENTIAL
.Reproduced from
best available copy.
PA6E I
EMISSION FACTOR
ACTIVITY
OAIA
M
FAC
ROL
OR
EMISSIONS
LIS/YEAR
.000007
.000004
.own
.0000014
.0001
L6/6AL
LI/BAL
LI/6AL
LI/6AL
LI/BAL
. IAB000
J*8000
U0OOO
U8OO0
1&8000
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
LI/BAL
LI/6AI
LI/6AL
LI/BAL
tl/GAL
310000
311000
318000
318000
318000
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
LI/BAL
LI/ML
LI/BAL
U/6AL
LI/ML
CONF
CONF
cm
CQNF
CDNf
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
L#/6AL
LI/BAL
LI/BAL
LI/6AI
LI/BAL
150000
150000
i50000
150000
15000ft
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
LI/BAL
LI/BAL
LI/fiAL
LI/6AL
LI/BAL
490000
490000
490000
490000
490000
-------
ALASKA AIR IOXICS SIUOV
POIST SOURCE EMISSION INVENTtMl
PA6E
SIC SIC DESCRIPTOR EJ1JSSI0M SOURCE
1311 CRUDE OIL AMD 6AS PRODUCTION REClPROCAtllffl B1ESEL ENS
>
I
Co
1311 CRUDE OIL AMD GAS PRODUCTION
1511 CRUDE Oil m CAS PRODUCTION
1311 CRUDE OR AMD 6AS PRODUCTION
1311 CRUDE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION
RECIPROCATE DIESEL EM
RECIPROCATE DIESEL EM
RECIPROCAIItt OIESEL EN8
REC1PR0CAIIH6 DIESEL ENfi
FACILITY NANE-AREA
AftCO/UNfi SALMM-COOK 1MLCT
AIL^HC RICHFIELD CO-KENAI PENINSULA
POLLUTANT
EM9SI0N FACTOR
SHELL/C-COOK ilUE!
UMOCAL/BRANITE POINT-COOK Mil
UtttCAL/BfiAYLlNfi-COBK INLE!
CHRONIUA
HMSANCSE
NICKEL
PAH
FORMALDEHYDE
CMftOfllUH
HANSAICSE
NICKEL
PAH
FORMALDEHYDE
CHROfllUA
HAN6ANCSE
NICKEL
PAH
FORMALDEHYDE
CHROMIUM
NANGAKSE
NICKEL
PAH
FORMALDEHYDE
CHROHIliH
HAN6ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FORMALDEHYDE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
.00000?
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
LI/6AL
II/6AL
LB/SAL
LI/BAL
LI/fiAL
LB/SAL
LI/6AL
LB/6AL
Li/fiAl
LI/GAL
LB/SAL
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
LB/BAL
LB/SAL
LB/BAL
LI/BAL
LI/6AL
LB/BAL
LI/fiAL
LB/BAL
LI/6AL
LI/BAL
LI/BAL
LI/BAL
ACTIVITY
DAIA
170000
170000
170000
170000
170000
CONF
CONF
CONF
CONF
CONF
310000
SIOOOO
510000
SIOOOO
S10000
tooooo
100000
100000
100000
100000
SIOOOO
SIOOOO
310000
SIOOOO
SIOOOO
CONTROL EMISSIONS
FACTOR LBS/YEAR
1.2
O.tl
24
0.24
17
3.6
2.0
71
0.71
SI
0.70
0.40
14
0.14
3.6
2.0
71
0.71
31
A
0
a
«
o
n
»
H
0
1
NOTES: N/A - NOT AVAILABLE
CONF - THIS OATA 15 CONFIDENTIAL
-------
ALASKA AIR TOXICS SlUDf
POIMT SOURCE £ftiSSIOM INVENTORY
Sit OESCftiPIOft
EMISSION SOURCE
FACILIU MADE-AREA
ARCTIC RICHFIELfi CG-BARRON
SIAiiiMfl ALASKA PRODUCTION CG-8ARRQN
CiIT OF KQfilAK PISH PROCESSING PlNT-
>
I
iiii CRUOE Oil AND fiAS PRODUCT 10* NOOfi CQnflOSTItti
1629 HEAVY CONSTRUCTION
20/7 ANIBAL\HAfilN£ FATS\QILS
207? ANiBALvMfiiNE FAISMLS
REC1PRQCATIN8 DIESEL EN8
WASTE OIL CMBuSfiON
HASTE Oil C08&UST10N
fiREAI LMDS SEAFQOO-UNALASKA
AlDEHfflES
PAH
CHROMIUM
HANSANESE
mem
PAH
fOfHttLKHYOE
ARSENIC
CASH!UK
CHROfllUn
LEAD
(UttANcSE
NICKEL
PAH
FORIfALHIUK
ARSENIC
CAiiniun
CWQM1W1
LEAfi
KAN6ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
f«IW.J>EHlfK
NOTES: N/A - KQT AVAILAfilt
CONf - THIS DATA IS COitfiD£NllAL
PA6E 3
EMISSION FACTOR
ACTIVITY CON
OAfA PAC
AOL EMISSIONS
OR LBS/VEAR
UNKNOMN
.16
,000007
.000004
.OWH
.OOCOOM
.0001
.000042
.000017
.000083
.00083
ItttfOUN
IMKtiDUN
i.ko;
.000031
.000042
.000017
.000003
,00063
UtKKOON
UNKNftiN
i.K-07
.000031
Li/ TON WOO
Li/BAt
LI/SAL
LI/6AL
IB/6AL
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
Li/WL
LB/SAL
LI/GAL
L8/6AL
LI/WL
LB/6AL
LI/6AL
LB/6AL
LB/SAl
IB/6AL
LI/6AI
1000
1000
wm
267000
28/000
287000
287000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-------
ALASKA AIR IOUCS SIUD*
mi 4
POINT SOURCE EMISSION INVENTOR*
SIC
SIC DESCRIPTOR
2077 ANlHAL\fWftlNE FATS\QILS
242) SAW HILLS
2421 SAM HILLS
2421 SAN HILLS
I 2421 SAN HILLS
Ui
2611 PULP HILLS
EMSSIOM SOURCE
FACILITY NAftE-AAEA
NASIE OIL CQfiUISTIQN
RECJPRQCAIIN6 DIESEL EN6
NttJD CQfifiUSIiDJi
nooo cdhbushon
nood cqiibustion
DISTILLATE OIL COMBUSTION
ICICLE SEAfOODS-SEiiARD
MAXELL FGtfSI PROfiUClS-WAIifiELL
HJIKOf LUftSEA CQ-Nfts&SELL
PACIFIC FQftESEf PRGWJCTS-KAINES
NftfWELL FOOT PftflfoJCTS-NRMttU
ALASKA PULP CQRP-SIIKA
ACTIVIT*
CONTROL
EMISSIONS
POLLUTANT
EMISSION FALIOS
DATA
FACTOR
LBS/ttAR
AftSENJC
.090042
LB/SAL
150000
6.3
CUHIWI
.000017
LB/SAL
150000
1
2.5
CHfiMlUH
.0000*3
LB/6AI
130000
1
12
LEAD
.00083
ll/GAL
150000
1
120
HAN6ANESE
IMKXQNN
130000
1
NICKEL
UtKHOUN
150000
1
PAH
t.BE-07
LB/SAL
150000
1
<0.1
FORHALDENUDE
.000033
LI/BAL
150000
1
5.0
CHROHlUtt
.000007
LI/6AL
125000
I
0.B8
nmmu
.000004
LB/6AL
125000
1
0.50
NICKEL
.00014
LB/6AI
125000
1
IB
PAH
.0000014
LB/fiAL
125000
1
0.17
FQfcWLBEHVDE
.0001
LI/BAL
125000
1
12
ALOEHYDES
UNxra
2245
(
PAH
.16
li;ion mood
2245
1
360
ALDEHYDES
W&m
1710
i
PAH
.16
LB/ION UOOfi
1710
I
270
ALDEHYDES
IM^iMN
33000
1
PAH
.u
LB/ION NOOD
35000
1
5600
CHRMIUH
.000007
LB/6AL
12221000
.2
17
FOflWLDEHtfiE
.000033
LB/fiAl
12221000
1
400
AAWAtfSE
.000004
LB/ML
12221000
.2
f.B
NICKEL
.00014
IB/6AL
12221000
.2
340
PAH
l.K-07
IB/6AL
12221000
1
2.2
RA9IQNUCUDES
UKfcftWN
12221000
.2
A
0
«
v
o
a
»
H
0
t
NOTES: N/A - NOT AVAILABLE
CONf - THIS OATA IS CKtflOENTlAL
-------
ALASKA AIR 101 ICS SlUCl
pour mm emission \nmmx
PASE 5
SiC
SIC MStftlPIOR
Illtlti XliliiailltlltX!
€ltissia« SOURCE
iiltiliilucCtlltiiiitailiitaiiiiiiiii;
fAIilil'r «ME-AREA
PQUU1AAI
HUSSION FACiOfi
flCllVllJ
BAfA
CflNlf
EACH
261J PULffUUS
2611 PULP fltUS
26!I PULP URLS
2m pulp nuts
2851 PAINT m ALLIE0 PfiGDUCIS
H/J JMMSCMiS FEMUME&
2673 NITRQEEnOuS fERULItfJiS
2111 P£IROLEUN fttUMKfi
2911 PEfMLEWI SEflNJNfi
NOOO COW U ON
M CUMUiillK
HASH urn E»1SS1QNS
mu ^ate* mmim
PAJJII HAMfAUUgilS
tmrn imm
HASTE OIL COMUSMOft
ALASKA PULP CflfiP-SIIKA
mum imrs
COQLiMo IWEfiS
ALDEHYDES
PAH
KtlCHlKAN PUlPCQ-KErCHUAM
mcki chehjcal mimn-tim peninsula
AL0£HVD£S
PAH
Alaska pulp hup-si tka cuofiflfosn
mmim FmpaHzrcHfKAM cnlhofoiui
auum pain? mwmmmm* im-mmm xmum
U**Al CHEItUL I1V1SJM-IENA1 PENINSULA CWMIM
mm
ZVLM&m
tmnit
tmm
mmm
LEAS
KAM6MSE
NICKEL
?m
mmm
mm
CHLMDFMfi
EHBQrtltK
NICKEL
ttLMQfmn
PHILLIPS PEIMIEUJI KEJWl
IESM0-AIASKM-KENA1 PENINSULA
UIUNQNN
.U
UNKNOUN
.16
.146
.146
wm noes
LI/ION MOOD
11/All WIIED m
ll/AU HUES I0H
SURVEY SAIA
LI/LB EHimi
.000042 ii.^u
UNfcNOiM SEE TEXT
.000017 LI/SAL
.000081 LI/6AL
.00083 ll/BAL
UKKNftiN
UNKNDiiN
.000U5 LB/SAL
.033
Li/9AL
UUNiN
I LI/LI Eillflli)
Li/LI EflinEQ
12000
42000
105 WO
105000
mm
20 2m
i/A
i/A
m
i/A
mm®
mm
125000
125000
123000
125000
125000
125000
125000
N/A
m
N/A
M/A
N/A
N/A
NOIESt N/A - H01 AVAILABLE
C0NF - THIS 0ATA IS CflftflOEKIlAi
-------
ALASKA AIR TOUCS STUDY
PA6E 6
POINT SOURCE CHJSS1QM INVENTOR!
SIC
SIC DESCRIPTOR
EMSSIQN SOURCE
1
fACUITY NMC-MEA
POLLUTANT
EMISSION FACTOR
ACTIVITY
DATA
CONTROL EMISSIONS
FACTOR LBS/YEAR
Wii
PEIROLEUfl REFINING
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
TESORO-M.ASJCAN-KEMA1 PENINSULA
BENZENE
20
LB/TON IHC
3128
1 *3000
ETHYLENE DiBROftlOE
.OGU
LI/ION IHC
3128
I 5.
ETHYLENE BICHLORIOE
.011
LB/ION THC
3128
1 34
2911
PETRGLEUfl REFININIj
COHP1EI REFINERY FUGITIVES
fESOM PETROLEUM CORP-KENA1 FENINSULA
BENZENE
7.2
LB/TON THC
751
1 5400
TOLUENE
21
LB/ION IHC
751
i nooo
ULENE
31
LB/ION IHC
751
1 23000
2911
PE TROLtLtfl REF1NIN6
TOPPING REFINERY FUGITIVES
ASCQ-KitfARUK
BENZENE
.72
LB/ION THC
no
1 120
TOLUENE
2.1
LI/TON THC
no
1 340
ULENE
3.1
LB/TON THC
no
1 500
2911
PETR0LEW1 REFINING
TQPPIKfi REFINERY FUGITIVES
vtca-mbM MY
BENZENE
.72
LB/TON THC
no
1 120
TOLUENE
2.1
LB/TON IHC
no
1 340
ULENE
3.1
LI/TON IHC
no
1 500
2911
PETRQLEUrt REFIN1N6
TOPPING REFJMERV FUGITIVES
ARCTIC ENERGY-FOX
BENZENE
.72
LB/TON THC
350
1 250
fOLlEK
2.1
LB/TON IHC
350
1 740
ULENE
3.1
LB/ION THC
350
I 1100
2911
PETROLEUM REfINIM6
I0PPIH6 REFINERY FUGITIVES
CHEVRON USA-KENA1 PENINSULA
BENZENE
.72
LB/ION THC
175
1 130
TOLUENE
2.1
LB/TON IHC
J 75
1 370
ULENE
3.1
LB/TON THC
175
1 540
2911
PETROLEUM REF1N1N6
TOPPING REFlNEflY FUGITIVES
IWCO PETROLEUM CORP-JSGRTH POLE
IEN1ENE
.72
LB/TON THC
400
1 290
TOLUENE
2.1
LB/TON IHC
400
1 840
ULENE
3.1
LB/ION IHC
400
1 1200
2911
PEIROLEUfl REFJNiNG
TOPPING REFINERY FUGITIVES
PETRO STAR INC.'NORTH POLE
IENZENE
.72
LB/TON IHC
no
1 120
TOLUENE
2.1
LB/ION THC
no
1 340
ULENE
3.1
LB/TON IHC
no
1 500
NOTES; N/A - NOT AVAILABLE
CQMF - THIS DATA IS CONFIDENTIAL
-------
ALASKA A1H IOIJCS SlUOT
PA6E 7
POINT SOURCE EHiSSION INVENTOR!
A
0
B
B
SIC
SlL OESCKIPIUR
EMISSION SOURCE
I
FACILITY NAIIE-AREA
POLLWANI
EMISSION FACTOR
AC 11VIi Y
0A1A
CON
FAC
ROL
OR
EHISSIONS
LBS/YEAR
2911
PEIROLtUft REf1N1M3
RECimtAUHfi DIESEL ENfi
mO PEIRQLEUI1 CORP-NGRIH POLE
CHRONlUH
.000007
LB/ML
434000
1.0
HAMSANESE
.000004
LI/6AI
434000
I.;
NICKEL
.00014
LB/6AI
434000
41
PAH
.0000014
LI/6A1
434000
0.41
FDKHALDEhfDE
.0001
LB/BAL
414000
43
2951
PAVJMB HIXIUfiES m SLOCKS
HOT m A^ikU! PRODUCTION
AtftiftASE SANA 1 8flAV£L-ANCH0RA6E
mum
.0027
U/TON
PROD
204000
mo
FMhALDEHKDE
.00015
LI/fDM
PROD
204000
31
PAH
.000024
LI/TOM
P8QD
204000
3.3
2951
PAVIMS ttlllUftES AMD BLOCKS
HOT HJ1 ASfliAU PRODUCTION
ASSOCIATES ASPHALT PAVlNS-AMCHQfiAGE
KNZENE
.0027
U/TON
proo
51000
HO
FOfiMLOEHirK
.00015
U/TON
PROD
51000
1.1
m
.000024
LI/TON
PROfl
51000
1.3
2951
PAVIK6 fllllURES AJtO ROCKS
HOI nil ASPHALT PRODUCTION
ASSCCUltD SANO 1 6RAVEL 13-KHCMkM
IEN2ENC
.0027
LB/TON
PROD
10507
28
FOfiftALDEHibE
.00015
LI/TON
PROD
10507
1.4
m
.000024
LI/TON
PROD
10507
0.27
2951
PAVIN6 HUTUfiES AMD BLOCKS
HOT nil ASPHALT PRODUCTION
ASSOCIATED SAND 1 GRAVEL 114-HBURfl,KETCH,SITKA BENZENE
.0027
LB/TON
PROD
75249
200
FOfiMLDEHTDE
.00015
Li/(ON
PROD
75249
11
m
.000024
U/TON
PROD
7524?
2.0
2951
PAV1N6 HUIURES AMD BLOCKS
HQ) nil ASPHALI PRODUCT ION
ASSOCIATED SAND % 6RAVEL 815-JUNEAU
mum
.0027
U/TON
PROD
19484
53
FOfiMLDEHtDE
.00015
U/TON
PROD
19484
3.0
m
.000024
Li/TON
PROD
19484
0.51
2951
PAVING MJHURES AMD BLOCKS
IIUI f(ll ASPHALT PRODUCTION
ftft£CH.tt ENIERPRlS£-KOf>lAK
mum
.0027
U/TON
PfiOO
8400
21
FOfilULDEHiDE
.00015
Li/TON
PROB
8400
1.3
PAH
.000024
LI/TON
PROD
8400
0.22
MOILS; N/A - HOT AVAILABLE
COMf THIS DATA IS COtfltMUAL
-------
ALASKA AIR TOXICS SlUOt
POINl SOURCE EflJSSlDN INVENIORY
SIC SIC DESCRIPTOR EA1SS108 SOURCE
2^51 PAVIN6 HIIIURES AND BLOCKS HOI fill ASPHALT PRODUCTION
FACILITY NAItf-AREA
POLLUTANT
2951 PAV1N6 KII(IMS AND BLOCKS HOT All ASPHALT PRODUCTION
> 2951 PAVIN6 ill I Iuh£S AND SLQCiCS
I
VO
HOT nil ASPHALT PRODUCTION
2951 PAV1N6 HlllURCS ANO SLOCKS HOI (111 ASPHALT PRODUCTION
BR IDSEilATER-FAIRBANKS
2951 PAV1N& fUIIURES AND BLOCKS HOI Nil ASPHALT PRODUCIIQN CENTRAL PAVJJt6/R£B SAHR-ANCHGRA6E
2951 PAVIN6 HlITUftES AND BLOCKS HOT Itil ASPHALT PRODUCTION EARIHJBVERS Of FA1RBAMKS-ANCH0RA6E
EAR!litk)V£RS Of FAIRBANKS-FAIRBANKS
2951 PAVING ftlHURES AND &LQCKS HOI fill ASPHALT PRODUCTION EARTHBOVERS Of FAIRBANKS-FAIRBANKS
HARLEI'S IRUCKIN6-S0LD0TIM
KNIK CONSIRUCTION-LlfNDEN
2951 PAV1N6 HilTURES AMD BLOCKS HOI MX ASPHALT PRODUCTION KB CONTRACTU* CO-ANCHORASE
BENJENE
FOfiMLfiEHYDE
PAH
BENltNE
FDMWLDEHIDE
m
mum
FORMLDEHIfOE
PAH
IEX2EHE
FORMALDEHYDE
PAH
BEN2ENE
FORHAICEHYDE
PAH
8EN2EKE
FOSHALDEHYSE
PAH
BENZENE
FORMALDEHYDE
PAH
SEMEME
FOfWIALDEHYDE
PAH
NOIESi N/A • NOT AVAILABLE
CONF - THIS DATA IS CONFIDENTIAL
PA6E B
ACTIVITY CONTROL EMISSIONS
EMSSION FACTOR DATA FACTOR LBS/YEAR
.0027 LI/TON PROD 21/04 I 59
.00013 LB/ION PROD 21704 1 3.3
.00002* Li/TON PROO 21704 1 0.56
.0027 LB/ION PROD 28000 1 76
.00015 ll/TON PROD 28000 1 4.2
,000026 LB/TON PROD 28000 1 0.71
.0027 LB/ION PROD 24741 J 67
.00015 LB/ION PROD 24741 1 3.7
.000026 LB/TON PROD 24741 J 0.64
.0027 LB/ION PROD 5679 1 15
.00015 LB/ION PROD 5679 1 0.85
.000026 LB/ION PROD 5679 I 0.15
.0027 LB/ION PROD 23018 I 62
.00015 LB/ION PROD 23018 1 3.5
.000026 LB/ION PROD 23018 1 0.60
.0027 LB/TON PROD 95108 1 260
.00015 LB/TON PROD 95108 1 14
.000026 LB/ION PROD 95108 1 2.5
.0027 LB/TON PROD 11438 t 31
.00015 LB/TON PROS 11438 1 1.7
.000026 LB/TON PROO 11438 1 0.30
.0027 LB/TON PROO 58224 1 160
.00015 LI/TON PROO 58224 1 8.7
.000026 LI/TOM PROD 58224 I 1.5
-------
ALASKA AIR rOIICS STUDt
PA6E 9
POINT SOURCE EMISSION INVENTOR
SIC SIC DESCRIPTOR
> 2951 PAV1NS ftiHLWES AMfi BLOCKS
i
2951 PAVING hiUlirtfcS AXO BLOCKS
EMISSION SOURCE
f ACUITY NAflE-AfiEA
POLLUiANF
CHlSSiON FACIQJt
2951 PAVINS HIlIUftES AMfi BLOCKS HOT Ml A6FHALI PlflfiUCNON
2951 PAVINS flUIURES AND SLOCKS HOT flU ASPHALT PfiOfiUCIlON
2951 PAVING HJUURES AW) BLOCKS HO? fill ASP1W.I PWWCTION
2931 PAVIN6 MHUflES AN® SLOCKS HOI Mil ASPHALT PRODUCTION
2951 PAVINS flitlURES AND BLOCKS HO? J1JI ASPHALT PRODUCTION
HOT nil ASPHALT PRODUCT JON
HOT Nil ASPHALT PRODUCTION
mm PAVING C0RP-AKCH0RA6E
PAVIKG PROQiCIS'FAIDSANKS
ftULm ASPHALT PAVIKS-ANCHQR«£
RASCO lW>fAJRIANKS
RASfiUSSEN'S CO-ANCHGtfAfiE
2951 PAVINS HliTUfiES ANf) BLOCKS HOI Hll ASPHALT PRODUCTION
fiU Sfctf-JUNEAU
fiOOttS l *A*Uft~ANCH0RA8£
RO&CRS I BA»L£fi-AlCHO$cA6£
IEMENE
fDfiRAW£K*D£
PAH
KJUENE
fOfiftALDEMOE
PAH
IENZEX
FQtiMlDCHVK
PAH
IEMENE
fOfWAlfiEMSE
PAH
lEUEK
FOMALDEMOE
PAW
KJUENE
f«MLDEH»D£
PAH
B£NZ£NE
FOfUUl&EHtOE
PAH
IEN2ENE
fORMLDEHlOE
PAH
.0027
.00015
Mm
.002 7
.ooois
.000026
.0027
.00015
.000026
.0027
.00013
.000026
.0027
.00015
.000026
.0027
.00015
.000026
.0027
.00015
.000026
.0027
.00015
.000026
LI/ION PftOO
LI/ION PROS
18/10# PfiOO
LI/ION PfiOO
11/TON P800
li/tqk mm
LB/ION PfiOO
LI/ION PfiOO
LI/ION Pftfifi
LI/TON PfiOfi
11/ION PflOD
LI/TON PflOfi
LI/ION PfiOO
LI/ION PROS
11/IPX PROD
11/TON PfiOO
LI/ION PfiOD
LI/ION PftQD
11/TON PfiOO
11/ ION PfiOfi
11/ TON MOD
LI/ION PflOfi
LI/ION PfiOfi
LI/TON PfiOfi
ACI1VW
DATA
N/A
N/A
N/A
31851
34651
34851
52000
52000
52000
22167
22167
2216?
300
500
500
N/A
N/A
N/A
12402
12482
12412
1260
3260
3260
CON
FAC
EMISSIONS
LIS/UAfi
94
3.2
O.N
140
7.1
1.4
60
3.3
0.38
1.4
<0.1
<0.1
34
1.9
0.32
8.8
0.49
<0.1
A
0
ft
«
0
fl
»
*
0
z
NOIESl N/A • #01 AVAILABLE
CONF - THIS OAIA IS COJifIBENflAL
-------
ALASKA AIR IOXJCS STUDY
PAGE 10
POINT SOURCE MISSION INVEMfOftV
SIC SIC DESCRIPTOR
EMISSION SOURCE
FACILITY NME-MEA
POLLUTANT
EMISSION FACTOR
activity
OA FA
CONIROL EMSS10NS
FACTOR LIS/VEAfi
2951 PAVIN6 fllirUfiES AKD SLOCKS HOT nil ASPHALT FfiOMlCfiQM
ROGERS I BAUER-ANCHORAGE
IENJENE
FORMALDEHYDE
pah
.0027
.00015
.CM 02 A
LI/ION PROD
LI/ION ffiOO
LI/TON PRO!
31717
31717
31717
4.1
1.82
2951 PAVING HiirUfitS AMD SLOCKS HOT nil ASPHALT PRODUCTION
RUBERS k IAILER-AMCHQRASE
IEN2ENE
FORMALDEHYDE
PAH
.0027
.00015
.000026
LI/TON PROS
LI/(ON PROD
LI/TON PROO
203333
203353
203333
330
31
9.3
2951 PAVING flJlilMS AND BLOCKS HOI HU ASPHALT PRODUCTION
RQ@£KS k lAlLER-ANCKORABE
IEN2ENE
FOAHALOEHYDE
PAH
.0027
.00013
.000026
LI/TON PROD
LI/fON PROD
LI/TON PROD
11000
81000
81000
220
12
2.1
2951 PAV1N& fillJUfiES AND BLOCKS HOT Nil ASPHAL1 PRODUCTION
RIMERS k lAILER-FAJRIANKS
IENIEME
FORHALDEHYDE
PAH
.0027
.00013
.000024
LI/TON PROD
LI/TON PROD
LI/TON PROD
92700
92700
92700
230
14
2.4
2951 PAVING flUTURES AND BLOCKS HOT flU ASPHALT PRODUCTION
TRAMS-ALASKA CONSTRUCTION-EAGLE RIVER
IEN2ENE
FORtlALDEHYDE
PAH
.0027
.00015
.000026
11/TON PROD
LI/TON PROD
LI/TON PROD
2233
2235
2253
6.1
0.34
<0.1
2951 PAVING MHURES AND BLOCKS
I
HOI HI* ASPHALT PRODUCTION
IRANS-ALASKA CONSTRUCTION-FAIRBANKS
IEN2ENE
FORHAIDEHYDE
PAH
.0027
.00013
.000026
LI/TON PROD
LI/ION PROS
LI/TON PROD
44311
44311
44311
120
6.7
1.2
2951 PAVING 111 HURLS AND BLOCKS
HOT Nil ASPHALT PRODUCTION
VALLEY ASPHALT Cfl-PALHER
IEN2ENE
fOAHALOEHlDE
PAH
.0027
.00015
.000026
LI/TON PROD
LI/ION PROD
LI/TON PROD
19987
19987
19917
54
3.0
0.52
2951 PAVING H1UURES AND BLOCKS HOI Hll ASPHALT PRODUCTION
NEL-ASKA C0RP-VALDE1
KN2ENE
FORMALDEHYDE
PAH
.0027
.00013
.000026
LI/TON PROD
LI/ION PROD
LI/TON PROD
N/A
N/A
N/A
MOIESj N/A - MOT AVAILABLE
CONE THIS DATA IS CONFIDENllAL
-------
ALASKA AIR fOUCS STUD*
POINT SOURCE EMISSION INVENTOR*
SIC SIC DtSCftlf'iuft
£niSSiOM SOURCE
rAciLiir nane-area
POLLUTANT
>
I
2951 PAVING AUTURES AND ROCKS HOT AH ASPHAU production
2951 PAVING HlHUfiES AMD fllQCKS HOI All ASPHALt PRODUCTION
2951 PAVING flillUIRtS AND BLOCKS HOT All ASPHALT PRODUCTION
2951 PAVING fllHURLS AND SLOCKS
3241 CEfltNi MANUFACTURE
3275 READY AUED CONCRETE
3471 PLAT1N6 t POLISHING
3471 PLATING I PQU5MJK6
3471 PLATING I PGLISHIN6
3471 PLATIN6 I F0L1SH1N6
HDI Ail ASPM.I PRODUCTION
C£fl£Nl SRJXDER-WEI PROCESS
RECIPROCATE DIESEL EN6
ELECTRQPLAUNSCHfcQAIUfl
EtECIfiOPLAUNG-CHRQAIUH
ELECTROPLATlNtrCHftOftlUfl
CHfiOflE ft A fl W6 - CECDRAT J V£
MILDER CQNSTRUCTI0N-ANCH0RA6E
Nll&ER CONSTRUCTION CO-ANCHORASE
Ulim CONSTRUCTION C0-ANCHQRA6E
NIlSOm CONSTRUCTION-CORDOVA
ALASKA &AS1C IN&USIR1ES-ANCHOIW6E
PAVJN6 PRODUCTS INC-FAIRBANKS
AA KECH^ICAL'AMCHORABE
ENSJ»£ ££Eft CO., INC-AiiCHORAfiE
SHGtfELfiCSB HYDRAULICS-FAIRBANKS
ALASKA ELECTROPLATING 1 BUflPER REP.-ANCH0RA6E
BENZENE
FORRALDEHtfDE
PAH
BENZENE
FORHALDEHlDE
PAH
BEN2ENE
FORMALDEHfDE
PAH
BEN2ENE
FQRAAIDEKTDE
PAH
CHAOflJUfl
NICKEL
CHROffJUfl
MM6ANCSE
NICKEL
PAH
FWIttLDEHtOE
CHRMIUn
CHKOHIUfl
CNROHIWI
CHROfUUfl
NOTES: N/A - NOT AVAILABLE
COMF - THIS DATA IS COMfJDENUAL
PASE 11
EMISSION FACTOR
ACIIV1TV
DATA
CM
FAC
SOI
OR
EAlSSIONS
LBS/tfAR
.0027
.00015
.000024
.0027
.00015
.000026
.0027
.00015
.000026
.0027
.00015
.000026
LI/TON PROD
LB/ION PROD
LB/TON PROD
L8/I0N PROD
LB/ION PROD
LB/TON PROD
LB/TON PROD
ll/ION PROD
LB/TON PROD
LB/TON PROO
LB/TON PROD
IB/TON PROD
15000
15000
15000
90000
90000
90000
103&OO
101400
103600
N/A
N/A
N/A
.0034
.002
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
.0000073
.0000075
.0000075
.0000075
LB/TON PROD
LB/TON PROD
LB/6AL
LB/fiAl
LB/SAL
LI/6AL
LI/6AL
LB/HRiAtf
LB/HRiAW
LB/HfitAHP
U/HfitMP
34686
34606
200000
200000
200000
200000
200000
N/A
210000
N/A
762000
.002
.002
.03
.03
.03
-------
ALASKA AIR T0I1CS SIUDV
POINT SOURCE EMISSION 1NVENIOR*
SIC SIC DESCfttPTOR
EMISSION SOURCE
FACILITY MARE-AREA
POLLUTANT
EMISSION FACTOR
3491 BATTERY MANUFACTURING
BATTERY M&IFACTlftlNB
ALASKA HUSKY BATTERY INC-AMCH0RA6E
LEAD
ARSENIC
CA0N11M
nmmsi
I
UMKMDMN
mum
LB/LI EHITTEfi
ACTIVITY
DATA
130
130
130
130
PA6E 12
CONTROL EMISSIONS
FACTOR IBS/YEAR
130
A
0
a
1
o
¦
»
4
0
s
4461 MAINE CARSO KANOLlkO
RESIDUAL OIL COtt&USTION
COOK IfcLET PIPELINE-KENAI PENINSULA
CHRONIUH
F0WMLBEHY8E
MN&AHE6E
NICKEL
PAH
RADIONUCLIDES
.000007
.000033
.000004
.00014
I.IE-07
mum
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
LB/SAl
LB/6AL
273000
275000
273000
275000
275000
27SOOO
1.1
9.1
1.1
38
<0.1
4562 AIRPORTS 1 AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE AIRPORTS
AtfHQftAoE INTERNAT1G&AL-ANCH0RA6E
PAH
0101 IMS
FORMALDEHYDE
XYLENE
BENZENE
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNCiiN
282
13.4
LB/TON THC
LB/TON THC
317
317
317
317
317
4200
4562 AIRPORTS I AIRCRAFT «A|NJEHAHCE AIRPORTS
DEAD tniRSE AIRPQRT-PEADHQRSE
>
I
PAH
01011MS
FDMALDCHVOE
1YLENE
BENZENE
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
2B2
13.4
LB/TON THC
IB/TON THC
15
IS
15
15
15
4300
210
4562 AIRPORTS t AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE AIRPORTS
FAIRJi&KS INTERNATIONAL-FAIRBANKS
PAH
010! IMS
FOftMLOEmOE
XYLENE
BENZENE
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
282
13.4
LB/TON THC
11/TON THC
59
59
59
59
59
17000
790
NOIESi N/A - NOT AVAILABLE
CONF - THIS DATA IS CONFIDENTIAL
-------
ALASKA AIR JQIILS STUB*
POINT SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY
Pftbt 13
>
t-<1
4>
SIC
SIC DESCRIPTOR
EMSSION SOURCE
i
f ALU. ill NAME-AREA
POLLUTANT
EMISSION FACTOR
ACTIVITY
DATA
CON
FAC
flOL
OR
EMISSIONS
LBS/tEAR
4582
A1RPORIS t AlRCRAFI flAlNTEfiAHCE
AIKPORIS
JIMAU AIRPORT-JUNEAU
PAH
UNKNOWN
22
01Q1IMS
UBKHw*
22
fOtiHALSEHYOE
UNKNOWN
22
1VLENE
282
LB/TON
IHC
22
6100
BENZENE
13.4
11/TON
IHC
22
290
4582
AIRPORTS t AIRCRAFT NAJNIENANiE
AIRPORTS
KETCWKfU INIERNATiONAL-kETCHIKM
PAH
UNKNOWN
15
DI81INS
UNKNOWN
IS
fOfifWLDEHtOE
UNKNOWN
IS
xylene
282
LS/1SN
THC
IS
4200
BENZENE
13.4
LB/ION
IHC
IS
200
4582
AIRPORTS I AlRCRAfI flAlMIENAHCE
AIRPORTS
SiTKA AlJiPOftT-SlIKA
PAN
UNKNOWN
10
D1QIINS
UNKNOWN
10
FMMLDEWBE
mum
10
HUNE
282
LB/TON
THC
10
2700
BEN2ENE
13.4
LB/TON
IHC
10
130
4612
CRUDE PEIfcOLEUn PIPE LIMES
DISTILLATE OIL COMBUSTION
ALASKA PIPELINE PUflP STATION ill COPPER CENTER
CHfiOHlUN
.000007
LB/6AL
i 33608
0.94
fORftAlDEHlrflE
.000033
Li/Wl
133698
4.4
HAN6ANCSE
.000004
LB/SAL
133808
0.S4
NICKEL
.00014
LB/6AI
133808
1?
PAH
l.tt-07
LB/6AL
133608
<0.1
-
RADIONUCLIDES
UNKNOWN
133808
4612
CRUDE PEJfiGLEUH PIPE LIMES
DISTILLATE OIL COrtiUSTJON
ALASKA PIPELINE PUrtf STATION 17-lJttNGOOfi
CHROflllifl
.00000?
LB/6AL
nooo
0.51
,
FQflHAlOfHK&E
.000033
LB/6AL
73000
2.4
MNfiANESE
.000004
LB/6AI
73000
0.29
NICKEL
.00014
LI/6AL
73000
10
PAH
J.BE-0?
LI/6AL
73&00
<0.1
RADIONUCLIDES
UNKNOWN
73000
NOTES; H/A - NOT AVAILABLE
CONf - THIS DATA IS CDtfFIflENIIAL
-------
ALASKA AIR TOXICS STUDY
PA6E 14
POJNI SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY
SIC SIC DESCRIPTOR
EMISSION SOURCE
FACILITY NANE-AREA
POLLUTANT
EnISSIOS FACTOR
ACTIVITY
DATA
CONTROL EMISSIONS
FACTOR US/YEAR.
4612 CRUDE PETROLEUM PIPE LIMES DiSULUIE OIL CGHBUSTION
4612 CRUDE PETROLEUM PIPE LINES RUNICIPAL INCIHER^TION-SC
ALASKA PIPELINE PUfiP STATION IB-fAJfiBANKS CHROfllUA
FMMIDEHIDE
HAN6ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
RADIONUCLIDES
ALYESJCA PIPELINE/PI^ STATION I3-SAMVANIRI0K ARSENIC
BERYLLIUM
CJUMIUN
CHRMIOII
LEAI
»t»fiufCf
nwHOwwi3t
NIUU
m
FURANS
PCI
11011*5
.000007
.000033
.000004
. OOOl 4
I.K-07
UWKNM
.0018
.000043
.012
.074
.a
.027
.042
.00012
.000003
.000002
.0000002
L6/6AI
LI/CAL
LI/EM.
LI/ML
LI/6M.
11/10*
11/ION
ll/IUi
LI/IIW
LI/TON
LI/ION
11/10*
11/ION
LI/IW
11/10*
LI/ION
34000
54000
54000
34000
34000
34000
100
300
300
100
300
300
300
300
300
304
300
0.31
I.I
0.22
<0.1
0.34
<0.1
J.i
22
¦7
I.I
If
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
4412 CRUDE PETRQLEUfl PIPE L1M£S
TOPPING fit!IMS) fUGlllVES
ALYESKA PiPELlNC/PUNP STATION 110-ILACK RAPIDS IEN2ENE
TOLUENE
IVtiNE
.72
2.1
3.1
LI/TON THC
11/ION THC
LI/ION IHC
350
350
350
230
MO
1100
4612 CRUDFPETROLEWt PIPE LINES
I0PP1N6 REFINERY FU6JTIVES
ALKESKA PIPELINE/PUMP STATION «B-fAJftBA«S BCN2ENE
TOLUENE
IYLENE
.72
2.1
3.1
LB/ION THC
LI/ION THC
LI/ION IHC
ISO
350
350
250
740
1100
NOTES; N/A - NO! AVAILABLE
CQNF - THIS DATA IS COMfI0ERI1AL
-------
ALASKA AIR TOXICS STUD*
POIMf SOURCE MISSION INVENTOR
SIC SIC DESCRIPTOR ErtiSSIGJI SOURCE fAULW MAHE-AREA POLLUTANT
4612 CRUDE P£ IRUL E U#1 PIPE LIKES TURBINE OiESEL EJS8 Airt^A ftARINE TERHIiiAL-VALflEi CHROfllUA
HAN6ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FQfiftALDEHfOE
4612 CRUDE PETRQLEUii PIPE L1K£5 TURBJHE QJ£S£L AiV£5M PIPELINE PUItf STATION UO-ILACK RAPIDS CHfiOfllUfi
,, iuhsanese
nickel
PAH
FOfiWLOEHIDE
4612 CRUDE P£rfcOL£U#i PIPE LIMES TURBINE DIESEL EKO ALVESKA PIPELINE PUftf STAllON Ill-COfPER lEMTEH OtftQtllUtt
HAKSANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FOftHALOEHWE
cmotuwi
MtfSANESE
NICKEL
PAH
fttHALDEHIDE
CNROfUUH
ftAWAKESE
NICKEL
PAH
FQRttALDEHlOE
NOlESi N/A - MUf AVAILABLE
CONf - THIS DAIA IS CDtirlDENUAL
<612 CRUDE PEIftOLEiJft PIPE LINES TUftBINE DIESEL EK6 ALASKA PIPELINE PUflP STATION IS-htOSPECI
>
I
h-*
4612 CRUDE PEIROUUI PIPE LIMES TURBINE DIESEL ExS AUESXA PIPELINE fUNP STATION MWQH RIVER
PASE IS
ACTIVITY CONTROL EMISSIONS
EMISSION FACTOR fiAtA FACTOR LfcS/tfAR
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000002
.00013
L8/6AL
LB/6AL
LI/fiAL
LI/6AL
LI/GAL
4600000
4600000
4600000
4600000
4600000
32
18
440
0.92
690
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000002
.00015
L8/6AL
LI/fiAL
LI/SAL
LI/6AL
LB/SAL
24226000
24226000
24226000
24226000
24226000
170
17
3400
4.fl
3600
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000002
.00015
LI/8AL
LB/SAL
LI/6AL
LB/6AL
LI/SAL
23266810
23266810
25266810
25266810
23266810
180
100
3500
3.1
3800
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000002
.00013
L8/6AL
LI/6AL
LI/6AL
LI/6AL
LI/fiAL
11320000
U520000
11520000
11320000
11520000
81
46
1600
2.3
1700
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000002
.00015
LI/ML
LI/fiAL
LI/6AL
LI/6AL
LI/6AL
20660000
20660W0
20660000
20660000
20660000
140
83
2900
4.1
3100
-------
ALASKA AIR TOIICS STUDY
POINT SOURCE EMISSION INVENIOAV
I
SIC SIC DESCR1P10R EltiSSlQit SOURCE FACILITY NANE-AfiEA POLLU1AM
4612 CRUDE PEfRQLEUB PIPE L1NE5 TURBINE DIESEL E*6 ALYESKA PIPELINE PUftF STATION I7-LIVEH6000 CHAOfliUtt
nmME.ii
NICKEL
PAH
FORMLDEHYDE
CHROfflUfl
IIAN&ANESE
NICKEL
m
FORfttLDENVDE
4612 CRUDE PETROLEUM PIPE LIMES TUftfHNE DIESEL EK6 ALYE5XA PIPELINE PliHP STATION C9-DELIA CKKDHIIW
HM6ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FOfUlALOEHlDE
chrohwh
HAtfANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FORMLKHVDE
CHRQfllUft
MANGANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FORftALOEHYDE
NOTES: N/A - NDF AVAILABLE
COW - THIS DAIA IS COtif1DENUAL
4412 CRUDE PElRQLEJn PIPE LIKES TURBINE DIESEL EJ*6 ALYESKA PIPELINE PUHP STAUON IB-fAlRBANKS
4612 CRUDE PEIFrOLEUfl PIPE LINES TURBINE DIESEL ENS ALYES*A/PUtf STATION »l-DEAD»OfiS£
>
I
H-•
4612 CRUDE PETROLEUM PIPE LINES IURBJNE OUSEL EK6 ALYESKA/PUiP STATION 12-SAfiNQN
PA6E 16
EMISSION FACTOR
ACTIVITY
DA1A
.000007
LB/6AL
2JOMOOO
.000004
LB/SAL
23000000
.00014
LB/6AL
23000000
.0000002
LB/6AI
23000000
.00015
LB/6AL
23000000
.000007
LB/GAL
22750000
.000004
LB/SAl
22750000
.00014
LB/6AL
22750000
.0000002
LB/6AL
22750000
.00013
IB/WL
22750000
.000007
LB/6AL
20674000
.000004
LB/SAL
20674000
.00014
LB/6AL
20674000
.0000002
LB/6AL
20674000
.00015
LB/SAL
20674000
.000007
LB/GAL
114000
.000004
LB/6AL
114000
.00014
LB/BAL
114000
.0000002
LB/6AL
114000
.00015
LB/6AL
114000
.000007
LB/BAL
50000
.000004
LB/SAL
50000
.00014
LI/6AL
50000
.0000002
LB/BAL
50000
.00015
LB/6AL
50000
CON
FAC
AOL
EMISSIONS
LBS/YEAR
160
92
3200
4.&
3400
160
91
3200
4.5
3400
140
as
2900
4.1
3100
0.80
0.46
16
<0.1
17
0.35
0.20
7.0
(0.1
7.S
n
6
0
5
-------
ALASKA AIR TDX1CS SIUOV
POINT SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY
SIC DESCRIPTOR
EMISSION SOURCE
FACILITY NAME-AREA
ALYESKA/PUHP STATION 13-SASAVMIRTQK
Air£Sa/PUIP STATION I4-AT1SUM RIVER
fcQLttN VM.LEY £ A5SN-HEALY
POLLUTANT
4612 CRUDE PETROLEUM PIPE LINES
4612 CRUDE P£IROLtUrt PIPE LIMES
4911 ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION
TURBINE DIESEL ENS
TURBINE DIESEL EX6
COAL COMBUSTION
>
I
4911 ELECttlCHl PRODUCTION
COOL1M TONERS
AJiCWRAft L16HI AW) PDUER-ANCHMASE
CHROMIUM
JMN&ANtSE
NICKEL
PAH
FORMALDEHYDE
CHROMIUM
HAN&ttCSE
NICKEL
PAH
FORMALDEHYDE
ARSENIC
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
RADIONUCLIDES
FORMALDEHYDE
MAN6ANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
m
CHROMIUM
NICKEL
CHLOROFORM
NOTES] N/A - NOT AVAILABLE
CONf - THIS DATA IS COMflDENTIAL
PAEE 17
ACTIVITY CONTROL EMISSIONS
EMISSION FACTOR DATA FACTOR LBS/YEAR
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000002
.00015
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
LI/6AL
LS/6AL
LB/SAL
267172
267172
267172
267172
267172
1.9
1.1
17
<0.1
40
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000002
.00015
LB/6AL
LI/&AL
LI/SAL
LI/fiAL
LB/6AL
50000
50000
50000
soooo
50000
0.35
0.20
7.0
(0.1
7.5
.02B
.00083
.0083
.024
.0027
.0032
.077
.00036
.024
.000024
LB/ION
IB/ION
LB/TON
LB/ION
IB/TON
LB/TON
LB/TON
LB/ION
LB/TON
LB/ION
160000
160000
160000
liO&OO
160000
160000
160000
160000
160000
160000
.023
.025
.025
.025
I
1
.025
.025
.025
1
110
3.3
33
96
430
510
310
1.5
96
3.8
UNKNOWN
LB/LB EMITTED
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
-------
ALASKA AIR TOXICS STUDY PA6E 18
POINT SOURCE EfllSSIQN INVENTORY
SIC
SiC DESCRIPTOR
EMSSIQH SOURCE
FACILITY NAME-AREA
POLLUTANT
ERISSiQN fACTOR
ACIIVHY
DATA
CON
FAC
ROL MISSIONS
OR IBS/YEAR
>
I
4911 ELECTRICITY PRODUCT LOW
4911 ELECTRlClTr PftdOUCUOM
4911 ELECTRiClTf PRODUCTION
4911 ELECTRltUr PRODUCTION
4911 ELECTRlClIf PRODUCTION
RECIPROCATING DIESEL E*6
RECJPR0CAT1H6 DIESEL EM6
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENS
RECIPRQCAT1N6 DIESEL EN6
AEC1PROCAHN6 DIESEL EN6
AX VILLAGE ELECTRIC CQ-QP-AHBUR
A* VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP-EEK
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-QP-EL1II
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC COQP-fORTUNA LEOGE
AK VILLA6E ELECTRIC CQ-OP-6AJIBELL
CHROMM
RAMSANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FORMALDEHYDE
CKRQHIUR
HANSANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FORAAtllEHYDE
CHROHIIM
HAN6ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FQfiHALOEHYDE
CHRORIUN
HANEANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FMRALDEHYBE
CHfiQfltlM
HANSANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FOfiRALOEHYOE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014 '
.0001
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
U/6AL
LB/BAl
Lft/BAl
IB/SAL
U/fiAL
LB/6AL
L6/6AL
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
Lft/BAl
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
L6/6AL
LI/ML
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
LB/BAL
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
LB/GAL
LB/SAL
LB/6AL
LB/SAL
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
74200
74200
74200
74200
74200
71600
71600
71 iOO
71600
71600
24300
24300
24100
24300
24300
72400
72400
72400
72400
72400
66900
66900
66900
66900
66900
NOTES: N/A - HDI AVAILABLE
CQNf - THIS DATA IS CONFIDENTIAL
-------
ALASXA Alft IOUlS SlUOr
PAGE 19
POJftf SOURCE ENJSS1GN INVENTQRr
SIC DESCftlPlGR
EfllSSJQN SOURCE
FACILITY NAflE-AflEA
POLLUTANT
EfllSSION FACTOR
ACIJvllr
DATA
COM
FAC
RDL EfllSSJONS
Oft 165/YEAR
4911 ELECTRIC J T Y PftODUC FIQH
RECiPRQCATJNfi DIESEL £N8
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CQ-OP-fiMONENS BA¥
CHAOfllUH
HAN6ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
fttHALKHVOE
.000007
.000004
.OWH
.0000014
.0001
L8/6AL
LB/6AL
Lfl/fiAL
LB/6AI
LI/6AL
233000
233000
233000
233000
233000
<911 ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION
ftECiPRQCATlNo DIESEL £*6
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC C0QP-6RAYLIN6
CHftOMiM
RAN6ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FORMAL DEWfiE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
LB/6AL
LB/BAL
LB/SAL
LB/SAL
Lfi/SAL
233000
233000
233000
233000
233000
49U ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION
REC1PR0CAI1N6 OJESEL LHo
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP-HOL* CROSS
CHftOfllUII
AAN6ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FOfifWLWHiDE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
LB/SAL
LB/6AL
LB/SAL
LB/SAL
L8/6AL
252300
252300
252300
252300
252300
4911 ElECIRlCilr PRODUCTION
fiEUPROCAIING DIESEL EH6
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP-KATAfi
>
I
O
CHftWIWl
HAJtfANESC
NICKEL
PAH
FOKAALOEHVDE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
LB/6AL
LB/SAL
LB/6AL
LB/SAL
Lfi/SAL
2(0900
240900
240900
240900
240900
4911 ELECTRICITY PRQDUCUOK
HEC1PR0CAT1N6 OJESEL EN6
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-QP-KIANA
CMONlUfl
MANGANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FORMALDEHYDE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
LB/GAL
LB/SAL
IB/6AL
LB/fiAL
LI/6AL
anooo
5U000
saooo
516000
5)6000
NOTES; N/A - NOT AVAILABLE
CQKF - THIS DATA IS CMFitEKHAL
-------
ALASKA AIR rOKCS STUDY
POINT SOURCE EHISSION INVENTORY
SIC SIC DESCftlFIOK
EMISSION SOURCE
FACILITY NArtE-AREA
POLLUTANT
4911 ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION RECIPR0CATIN6 DIESEL EN6 AK V1LLASE ELECTRIC CO-OP-K1VALMA
CHROfliUJI
HANSANESE
NICKEL
PAH
fOfitlAlOtmOE
4911 ELECTRJCHt PRODUCTION ftEClPKQCAHN6 OlESEL ENS A* VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP-KOYlK
CHRON1UH
HAJiGAHtSE
NICKEL
PAH
FQRHALOEHYOE
4911 ELECTRIC 11Y PRODUCTION RECIPRQCAT1N6 DIESEL EN6 AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-QP-IIINTQ
CHRDHIUfi
HANSANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FQflrtALOEHYDE
4911 ELECTRIC 11r PRODUCTION RECIPROCATING DIESEL EN6 AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CD-OP-M VILLAGE
>
I
ro
CHROfllUfl
HANSARESE
NICKEL
PM
FQfiftALOEHtQE
4?U ELECTRIC 11r PkODUCI10M RECIPROCATING DIESEL EN6 AK ViLLASE ELECTRIC CQ-QP-NEN STUYANOK
CHROfllWI
MANGANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FGfiNALOEHVDE
NOTES: N/A - HOT AVAILABLE
CONF - THIS DATA IS CONFIDENTIAL
PACE 20
sste«*a«ss
ACTIVITY
CONTROL
EfliSSlQNS
ENISSION FACTOR
OATA
FACTOR
LBS/YEAR
.000007
L8/6AL
2V3500
1
2.1
.000004
IB/6AL
293500
1
1.2
.00014
L8/6AI
2*3500
I
41
.0000014
LI/6AL
213500
1
0.41
.0001
LI/SAL
293500
1
29
.000007
LB/6AL
236500
1
1.7
.000004
LB/6AL
231500
1
0.95
.00014
LI/6AL
2J6500
1
33
.0000014
LI/6AL
236500
1
0.33
.0001
LB/6AL
236500
J
24
.000007
L6/6AL
161200
1
I.I
.000004
LB/SAL
161200
1
0.64
.00014
LI/6AL
161200
1
23
.0000014
L8/6AL
161200
0.23
.0001
LI/6AL
16(200
1
16
.000007
L6/6AL
666800
1
4.8
.000004
LI/6AL
666800
1
2.7
.00014
LB/6AL
686800
I
96
.0000014
LB/SAL
664000
1
0.96
.0001
LB/6AL
666800
1
69
.000007
L8/6AL
207612
I
1.5
.000004
LI/6AL
207612
1
0.63
.00014
L6/6AL
207612
1
29
.0000014
LB/SAL
207612
I
0.29
.0001
LB/ML
207612
I
21
n
Q
s
2
-------
ALAGtA AIR IOUCS STUD*
POINT SOURCE EMISSION INVEMJOftV
PAGE 21
SIC
SIC DESCRIPTOR.
ErtiSSIO* SOURCE
FAUHI* NAflEAREA
POLLUTANT
EMISSION FACTOR
ALTIVIJY
OAT A
CON
FAC
flOL EMSSIONS
OR US/r£AR
4911 ELECTRlClIr PROOUCIION
REC1PRQCAIIN6 DIESEL ENS
At VILLAGE ELECTRIC CQ-QP-NQAIAK
CHftONIUfl
KAH6ANESE
NICKEL
PAN
FORHALOEKVOE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0040014
.0001
LB/6AL
L6/6AL
LB/6AL
LI/6AL
LB/6AL
43A200
434200
434200
436200
434200
4911 ELECTRIC!IY PRODUCTION
RECJPMCAIIN6 DIESEL EM6
AH VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-QP-NQOWU
CHROfllllH
AANEANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FOfiflALOEHlOE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
LB/6AL
LI/6AL
LB/6AL
LI/fiAL
LB/6AL
519500
519500
519500
519500
519500
4911 ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION
HEClPMCAUNfi DIESEL ENG
At VILLAGE ELECTfllC COQP-NULAIO
CHAOtllUH
HAM6ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
fORHALOEHYflE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
L6/6AL
LB/6AL
LI/6AL
LI/SAL
L6/6AL
194200
394200
394200
394200
394200
4911 ELECTRlClTr PRODUCTION
RECIPROCATING DIESEL EN6
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP-NUNAPHCHtK
>
I
N)
ho
mmun
flMftAiCSE
NICKEL
PAH
fOfttlALOEHrtt
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
LB/6AL
LI/6AL
LB/6AL
LI/SAL
LB/SAL
523000
523000
523000
523000
323000
4911 ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CC-QP-OLO HAABGfl
CHftOHlUN
HAN6ANE3E
NICKEL
PAH
fORflALDEHKDE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
LB/6AL
LI/6AL
LB/6AL
LJ/6AL
LB/6AL
246800
248800
24B800
246800
24BBOO
NOUS; N/A * NOT AVAILABLE
CONf - THiS DATA IS COHf1CENI1AL
-------
ALASKA AID lOUCS STUDY PA6E 22
POINT SOURCE EMISSION INVENTOR!
J ACIIVJ1V CONTROL EMISSIONS
SIC SIC DESCRIPTOR MISSION SOURCE FACILITY NAflE-AftEA POLLUTANT EMISSION fACIQA DATA FACTOR LBS/YEAH
4911 ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION
RECIPROCATING 01ESEL EN6
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP-SEL«lK
CHROtllUil
AM6AJCSE
NICKEL
PAH
FORMLQEHKOE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.OOOOOt4
.0001
LB/6AL
LI/6AI
LI/6AL
LJ/fiAL
LI/6AL
339600
339600
339600
339600
339600
3.8
2.2
76
0.76
34
4911 ELECTRIC 11r PRODUCTION
REC1PRQCATIN6 OlESEl EN6
A#. VlLLASE ELECTRIC £0-Of-SHAVELUK
chrmiim
MANBAtfSE
NICKEL
PM
fOMUlDiHM
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
LB/SAL
LB/6AL
L8/6AL
LI/GAL
LB/6AL
143700
143700
143700
143700
143700
1.0
0.37
20
0.20
14
4911 ELECTRIC!1T PRODUCTION
ItEClPAflCAHNfi DIESEL EN6
AK VILLAGE ELECIAIC CO-DP-SHlSttHAREf
CHROMIUM
AAN6ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
fDfilttlDEHKOE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
LB/fiAL
U/fiAL
L6/6AL
LB/6AL
LI/6AL
494900
494900
494900
494900
494900
3.3
2.0
69
0.69
49
>
I
N>
LO
4911 ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION
4911 ELEC1RICIIY PRODUCTION
RECIPROCALS DIESEL ENS
RECIPROCATING DIESEL EN6
AK YlLLASE ELECTRIC CO-OP-SHUNfiNAK
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CQ-BP-STEIIIKS
CHROHJUH
HAN6ANESE
NICKEL
m
FORMLDEHVDE
CHROMIUM
AAN6ANE5E
NICKEL
PAH
FORAALflEWDE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
L8/6AL
Ll/BAL
L8/6AL
11/SAL
Ll/BAL
LI/6AL
LI/6AL
LB/SAL
LI/6AL
LB/BAL
392400
392400
392400
392400
392400
278600
276600
276600
276600
278600
2.7
1.6
33
0.35
39
2.0
1.1
39
0.39
28
NOIES; N/A - NOT AVAILABLE
CONF - THIS DATA IS CONFIDENTIAL
-------
RADIAN
A-24
-------
ALASKA AIR TOXICS STUDY
mm source eiussiqn mveniorv
SIC DESCfiIP I Oft
EfllSSlQN SOURCE
fAClLiIf NAHE-AAEA
POLLUIANl
49)1 ELECTRICITY PRQDUCTIQ*
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENfi
COPPER VALLEY E ASSN-VALDEI,BLENtfftL LEN
CHHOHJUH
HAN6ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FORHALAEHVOE
4911 ELECTRIC 11 r PRODUCTION
RECIPROCAL DIESEL £NG
CORDOVA ELEC COOP, INC-CQRDOVA
CHfiWiun
flAN&ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FOfiAAlDEHIDE
4911 ELECIRICllr PRODUCTION
RECIPROCAT1N6 DIESEL EN6
fia&tK VALLEY E ASSN-FA1R8ANKS
CHfiOnlUfl
NANSANESE
NICKEL
PM4
FQRHALDEHYDE
>
I
hO
L/l
4911 ELECIRICllr PRODUCTION
4911 ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENfi
ftECIPftOCATIDIESEL ENB
GOLDEN VALLEY E ASSN-YUKQN
HAINES LIGHT I POUER-HAJNES
CHRQHlUfl
HAN6ANESE
K1CKEL
PAH
FORflALDEHYOE
CHRQHIUn
HANSANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FORftALDEHWE
NOTES: N/fi - NOI AVAILABLE
COMf - THIS DATA IS CONFIDENTIAL
FABC 24
EH1SSIOM FACTOR
.600007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
LB/SAL
18/EAL
L6/6AL
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
L8/&AL
LI/6AL
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
LI/6AL
L6/6AL
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
IB/SAL
L8/6AL
LB/6AL
U/BAL
L8/6AL
LI/SAL
IB/Ml
16/ML
LB/6AL
LB/ML
LB/6AL
L8/6AL
ACT1VIU
DATA
250000
250000
250000
250000
250000
1350000
1350000
J 350000
1350000
1350000
1715000
1715000
1715000
1715000
1715000
100000
I00000
100000
100000
100000
470000
670000
470000
470000
470000
COM
FAC
AOL EMISSIONS
OR IBS/YEAfi
l.B
1.0
3S
0.35
25
9.4
5.4
190
1.9
140
12
6.9
240
2.4
170
0.70
0.40
14
0.14
10
4.7
2.7
94
0.94
47
n
o
-------
ALASKA Aifi lOiiLS STUDY
PAGE 25
PQINI SOUfiCE £Hi&SIOM INVENIORY
sic oescftjpiQR
ERlSSiON SOURCE
fACUlU NAflEAREA
EfllSSlQN FACIQR
AC 11VI[V
DAI A
CON 11
fACII
4911 ELECIRKI It PRODUC1IGN
flEClPftOCAUN6 DIESEL £N6
KEICHI^hH PUBLIC uriLlH-KEICHUAN
CHftUftiUf!
HANBAHE S£
NICKEL
PAH
FOftttALDEHIfOE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
L6/6AL
LB/BAL
LB/6AL
2690000
2490000
2690000
2690000
2690000
4911 ELECIftKI I r PfiDOUCHOM'
8EC1P80CATIKC DIESEL EN6
K0D1AK UtlifllC ASSN K0C1M ISLAND
CHROfllUfl
ffANGANESE
NICKEL
PAH
fOfti«LDEH*DE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
LB/ML
L8/6AL
LB/6A1
LB/MI
LI/ML
4420000
4420000
4420000
4420000
4420000
4911 ElECmCUr PAQDUCT1QM
RECIPROCATING DIESEL EN6
K0T2E&JE El£C ASSN-KOWK
CHftDfllUH
HAN&ANfSE
NICKEL
PAH
FDfirWLDEHiDE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
LB/6AL
LI/6AL
LB/GAL
L&/6AL
LB/GAL
i 180000
IISOOOO
1160000
11BOOOO
11BCOOO
>
I
CTN
4911 ElECIHlClIr PftODUCIlGN
4911 ELECIRlCllr PRODUCTION
REC1PMJCAUN6 DIESEL ENS
ftEClPkOCATlWC DIESEL ENS
NAKNEK ELEC-BRISrU. BAY
MQfiE JQlfil UflLlIJES-Nflr*
CHROfllUN
HAN6ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FOWIALDEHfDE
LHfturilUrt
AAN6ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FOfifWLDEHtOE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
LB/GAL
LB/6AL
LB/&AL
LB/GAL
LB/6AL
LB/GAL
LB/SAL
LB/GAL
LB/GAL
LB/GAL
1090000
1090000
1090000
1090000
1090000
I4BQ000
1480000
14B0000
1460000
I4B0&00
HOIES; It/A - NOT AVAILABLE
CDNF - THIS DATA IS CONFIDENTIAL
-------
ALASKA AIR IOUCS SlUtr
PAGE 26
PQIN1 SOURCE EMISSION INVENT DAY
SIC SIC DESCftIP I OR
EMSSiDN SOURCE
FACILIT* NAflE-AftEA
POLLUTANT
EMISSION FACTOR
ACT IVIT If
DATA
coin
f AC TI
4911 ELtCIftlClIr PRODUCTION
RECJPRQCAUN6 DIESEL ENG
NUSHASAK ELEC COOP-BRISTOL BAt
CHftOHllM
HANGANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FOflHAlOEHVDE
.000007
.000004
.00011
.0000014
.0001
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
LB/SAL
LB/GAL
860000
660000
660000
860000
860000
4911 ElECIRlCUt PRODUCTION
REC1PRQCAIIMG DIESEL ENS
PEIERS8UK6 fiUMI LIGHT I PHR-PElEftSBUfiG
CHfiOHlUn
NANGAWSE
NICKEL
PAH
FOfilWLDEMOE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
L&/6AL
LB/SAL
LB/GAL
LB/GAL
LB/GAL
1030000
1030000
1030000
1030000
1030000
4911 ELECIfilCl 11 PRODUCIION
RECIPROCATE OIESEL EN6
NRAfiGELL LISHl i POMER-fcfiANfiELL
CHROMUR
HANGANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FORrtALOEHVDE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
L6/6AL
LB/fiAL
LB/6AL
LB/GAL
LB/6AL
930000
930000
930000
930000
930000
>
I
4911 ElELIftlLI 11 FROOUUION
4911 ELECIRlCllT PRODUCTION
RECIPROCATING OIESEL EN6
1URSINE OIESEL EN6
SKA6MAI PONER t IEUPKQ&-SKA6HAV
GOLOEN VALLEY E ASSN-FAIRWlliKS
CNfiOll UH
MANGANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FORMALDEHYDE
CHRQftlUH
MANGANESE
NICKEL
PAH
fORNALDEHVDE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000014
.0001
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000002
.00015
L&/6AL
LB/6AL
LB/GAL
LB/GAL
LB/6AL
LB/GAL
LB/GAL
LB/GAL
LB/GAL
LB/GAL
252000
252000
252000
252000
252000
1850000
1850000
1050WO
1850000
1850000
NOIES; N/A - NOT AVAILABLE
CONf - THIS DATA IS CONFIDENTIAL
-------
ALASKA AIR TOXJCS STUDY
PA6E 27
POINT SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY
SIC QESCHIPlOfc
EMISSION SOURCE
f ALU I f T NAAEAREA
POLLUTANT
EWSSIQN FACTOR
activity
DA IA
CONTI
f AC II
49J1 ElECIRlCUr rftClDUCllDH\OfHEft SVCS COAL COffBUSUOM
MUNICIPAL UllLIHES SYS FAIRBANKS
ARSENIC
fiERlLUUH
CADrtllffl
chromium
RADIONUCLIDES
FDRMALOEHiDE
MANGANESE
HERCUfil
NICKEL
PAH
.028
.00063
.0083
.024
.0027
.0032
.077
.00036
.024
.000024
LB/ION
LB/TON
L6/I0N
LB/ION
LB/IQN
LB/ION
LB/ION
LB/ION
IB/TON
LB/IDN
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
4931 ELECIRIC1!r PftODUCFIQWVOIH£ft SvCS TURBINE DIESEL EH6
AUNiClPAL UTILITIES SYS-FAIRBAUKS
CHROMIUM
MANGANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FORMALDEHYDE
.000007
.000004
.00014
.0000002
.00015
IB/6AL
LB/SAL
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
LB/8AL
30000
30000
30000
30000
30000
4952 SEWERAGE SYSTEMS
SLUDGE INCINERATION
ANCHORAGE MATER AND SEWER ANCHOftABE
N5
00
ARSENIC
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM .
CHROfllUM
LEAH
manganese
ItERCURY
NICKEL
PAH
OJBENiOfURAN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
SURVEY DATA
SURVEY DATA
SURVEY DATA
SURVEY DATA
SURVEY DATA
SURVEY OAIA
SURVEY OAIA
SURVEY DATA
SEE HIT
SEE TEH
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MIES; N/A - MOT AVAILABLE
conf - this data is confidential
-------
ALASKA AJfi TOXICS STUD*
fAbh 28
P01N1 SOURCE MISSION INVENTOR*
SIC
SIC DESCRIPTOR
EMISSION SOURCE
FAClim NAflE-AfiEA
ACUVlIt
CONTROL
EMISSIONS
POLLUTANT
EMSSIQN FACTOR
OAIA
FACTOR
LBS/fEAR
ARSENIC
.00061
L8/I0N
18566
.65
to
BERYLLIUM
.000021
LB/ION
16566
.65
0.2S
CADfllWI
.0055
LB/TQM
16566
.65
66
CHROMWl
.034
LB/TON
16566
.65
410
LEAD
.13
LB/ION
1B566
.65
1600
NAN6ANESE
.013
LB/TON
10566
.65
160
NICKEL
.029
LB/ION
18566
.65
350
PAH
.00012
LB/ION
1B566
1
2.2
fURANS
.000003
LB/ION
18566
1
<0.1
PCS
.000002
LB/TON
18566
1
(0.1
OJOlIMS
.0000002
LB/ION
10566
1
<0.1
ARSENIC
.00064
LB/ION
18200
.08
1.2
BEftULIUI
.000021
LB/ION
18200
.08
<0.1
CAOHJUfl
.0055
LB/ION
18200
.08
8.0
CHfiomun
.034
LB/1QN
18200
.08
50
LEAD
.13
LB/ION
J6200
.08
190
NAN6ANESE
.013
LB/ION
18200
.08
19
NICKEL
.029
LB/ION
18200
.08
42
PAH
.00012
LB/ION
18200
1
2.2
fURANS
.000003
LB/TON
18200
1
<0.1
PCB
.000002
LB/TON
18200
1
<0.1
DIQUNS
.0000002
LB/ION
18200
1
<0.1
ARSENIC
.00084
LB/TON
47/4
.06
0.24
BERVLUUH
.000021
LB/TON
4774
.06
<0.1
CAomufl
.0055
LB/ION
4774
.06
1.6
[HfiOfljun
.034
LB/ION
4774
.06
9.7
LEAD
.13
LB/TON
4774
.06
37
NAN8ANESE
.013
LB/TON
4774
.06
3.7
NICKEL
.029
LB/ION
4774
.06
8.3
PAH
.00012
LB/ION
4774
1
0.57
FUfiANS
.000003
LB/ION
4774
1
<0.1
PCB
.000002
LB/ION
4774
1
<0.1
DIOUNS
.0000002
LB/ION
4774
1
(0.1
4953 MASTE DISPOSAL
MUNICIPAL iNClNERAnON-IIC
NORIH SLOPE BQfiOUBH-flORiH SLOPE
4953 WASTE DISPOSAL
MUNICIPAL 1NC1NERAHON-HC
CHANEL LANDFILL-JUNEAU
>
I
ro
vO
4953 HASTE OISPQSAL
HUN1CIPAL 1NCJNERAI1QH-HC
CJIf Of SITKA-SHM
NO IE Si N/A HOF AVAILABLE
CONf - THIS DATA IS CONf IDEIiTlAL
-------
ALASKA AIR TDIICS STUDY PAGE 29
POINT SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY
SIC
SIC DESCRIPTOR
EMISSION SOURCE
fAClLlTY NAME-AREA
i
PQLLUTANI
EMISSION FACTOR
ACTIVITY
DATA
CDNIROL
FACTOR
EltlSSlONS
LBS/YEAft
4953
MAST£ OlSfUSAL
MUNICIPAL 1M£IM£AAI IOH-SC
CITY Of HHITfER-NHITIER
ARSENIC
.0016
L8/TQN
392
(0.1
BERYLLIUM
.000045
LB/ION
392
(0.1
CAON1UA
.012
LB/ION
392
0.47
CHflONlUK
.074
LB/TON
392
2.9
LEAD
.29
LB/TON
392
II
MANGANESE
.027
LI/TON
392
1.1
NICKEL
.01,2
LB/TON
392
2.4
-
PAH
.00012
LB/ION
392
1
<0.1
FORMS
.000003
LB/TON
392
1
(0.1
pea
.000002
LB/TON
392
1
(0.1
OIOIJNS
.0000002
LB/ION
392
1
(0.1
5171
PEIROLEUfl BULK STATIONS
PCE OR) CLEANING
CHEVRON OSA INC-COfiMVA
PERCHLQROEIHYLEKE
1
LB/LB USED
8000
1
BOOO
517 i
PETROLEUM BUL* STATIONS
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
CKVfiON USA INC-ALEUTIAN ISLANDS
BENZENE
20
LB/TON
THC
16
1
320
ETHYLENE DIBROfllOE
.0016
LB/TON
IHC
16
1
(0.1
ETHYLENE BICHLORIDE
.Oil
LB/TON
THC
16
1
0.18
5171
PETROLEUM BULK STATIONS
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
CNEVRON USA iNC-ANCHORAGE
BENZENE
20
LB/TON
IHC
160
1
3200
ETHYLENE OlBfiOftiOE
.0016
LB/TON
THC
160
1
0.26
ETHYLENE BICHLORIDE
.011
LB/TON
IHC
160
1
t.B
5171
PETROL y)ft BULK STATIONS
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
CHEVRON OSA INC-flRISTOl BAY
BENZENE
20
LB/TON
IHC
9
1
100
ETHYLENE DIBRM1DE
.0016
LB/TON
IHC
9
I
(0.1
ETHYLENE MCHLOfilDE
.011
LB/TON
THC
9
1
(0.1
5171
PETROLEUM BULK STATIONS
6AS0L1NE EVAPORATION
CHEVRON L>SA INC-COflMVA
BENZENE
20
LB/ION
IHC
4
1
BO
ETHYLENE DlBflOflJDE
.0016
LB/TON
IHC
4
1
<0.1
ETHYLENE BICHLORIDE
.on
LB/TON
IHC
4
1
(O.i
NOTES: N/A - NO! AVAILABLE
CONF - THIS DATA IS CONFIDENTIAL
-------
ALASKA AjR IGUCS SIUDt pAot 30
PDiNl SOURCE EMS510N INVENfORl
SIC
SIC DESCRIPTOR
EMISSION SOURCE
FACILITY NAUE-AHEA
i
POLLUTANT
EHIS510N FACTOR
ACUVIIY .
DATA
CON
FAC
ROL
OR
EMISSIONS
LBS ,'VEAR
5t/i
peikoleuh m staiions
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
CHEVRON USA 1MCFAIRBAKKS
BENZENE
20
LB/TON
THC
J7
740
ETHYLENE
DIBROfllDE
.0016
LB/ION
(HC
J7
(0.1
ETHYLENE
fiiCHLORICE
.Oil
LB/ION
THC
37
0.41
51 ? 1
PEIfiOLEU/1 BULK SI AT IONS
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
CHEVRON USA INC-JUNEAU
BENZENE
20
LB/ION
THC
26
520
ETHYLENE
DlBfiOftlDE
.6016
LB/ION
I HC
26
(0.1
EIHYLENE
BICHLORIDE
.011
LB/ION
THC
26
0.29
5171
PEIKOlEUH BULK SIAIIONS
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
CHEVRON USA INC'KENAI PENINSULA
BENZENE
20
LB/TON
THC
9
iao
ETHYLENE
DIBROMDE
.0016
LB/TDN
I HC
9
(0.1
ETHYLENE
BICHLORIDE
.011
LB/TON
THC
9
<0.1
5171
PEIftULEUR &UL^ STATIONS
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
CHEVRON USA J MC KEICHlXAfi
BENZENE
20
LB/ION
THC
9
ISO
ETHYLENE
DIBRDfllDE
.0016
LB/TON
THC
9
<0.1
EIHYLENE
BICHLORIDE
.011
LB/TON
IHC
9
<0.1
5171
PEIR0LEUJ1 fcULK SIAI10NS
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
CHEVRON USA INC-KOBUfc
BENZENE
20
LB/ION
IHC
12
240
ETHYLENE
DiBROHIDE
.0016
LB/ION
IHC
12
<0.1
EIHYLENE
BICHLORIDE
.011
LB/ION
IHC
12
0.13
5171
FEIRQLtUII bUU SIAI1QHS
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
CHEVRON USA (HC-K0D1AK ISLAND
BENZENE
20
LB/ION
IHC
V
180
ETHYLENE
DI6R0HIDE
.00)6
LB/TON
IHC
9
W.l
EIHYLENE
BICHLORIDE
.011
LB/ION
IHC
9
(0.1
5171
FElROLEUfl bUL> SlAllOKS
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
CHEVRON USA INC NDflE
BENZENE
20
LB/ION
IHC
22
440
ETHYLENE
DIBR0R10E
.0016
LB/TON
IHC
22
10.1
ETHYLENE
BICHLORIDE
.011
LB/TON
THC
22
0.24
5171
PETROLEUH feUL», SIAUONS
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
CHEVRON USA INC-SH.AGNAY
BENZENE
20
L8/T0N
THC
17
140
ETHYLENE
DIBRDfllOE
.0016
LB/TON
IHC
17
iO.I
EIHYLENE
BICHLORIDE
.011
LB/ION
IHC
17
0.19
NOIES; N/A - NDI AVAILABLE
CQNf - THIS DATA IS COHfIDEMIAL
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
A-32
-------
ALASKA AIR TOXICS STUDY
POINT SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY
PA6E 12
SfC
SIC DESCRIPTOR
EMISSION SOURCE
FACILITY NAflE-AftEA
1
POLLUTANT
EMSSION FACTOR
ACTIVITY
DATA
CON
FAC
ROL EMISSIONS
OR LfiS/iEAR
7216
DRY CLEAN 1 NO
PCE DRY CLEANING
SNON WHITE LEY I CLNRS-ANCHORAfiE
PERCHLOROETHYLENE
i
LB/LB USED
44000
44000
8062
HOSPITALS
EIHYLENE OUDE SIERJL1IERS
ALASKA NATIVE MEDICAL CENTER-ANCHORAGE
ETHYLENE OUDE
1
LB/LB USED
230
230
8062
HOSPITALS
ETHYLENE OXIfiE STERILIZERS
BARILETT HEKGRIAL HQSPtTAL-JUNEAU
ETHYLENE OlIfiE
1
LB/LB USED
187
190
8062
HOSPITALS
EIHYLENE OWE STERILIZERS
BASSE IT ASflY HOSPITAL-FT MiNtftlfiHt
ETHYLENE OUDE
i
LI/LB USED
3!
31
8062
HOSPITALS
ETHYLENE OXIDE STERILIZERS
CENTRAL PENINSULA HQSPITAL-SQLBQTNA
ETHYLENE OUDE
I
LB/LI USED
50
SO
8062
HOSPITALS
ETHYLENE OXIDE STERILIZERS
FAIRBANKS REHORIAL HOSPITAL-FAIRBANKS
ETHYLENE QUITE
i
LI/LB USED
307
310
8062
HOSPITALS
ETHYLENE OUDE STERILIZERS
HUHANA H0SP1TAL-ANCH0RA8E
ethylene oxide
i
LB/LB USES
26*
270
80fc2
HOSPITALS
ETHYLENE OIIDE STERILIZERS
KETCHIKAN SEVERAL HOSPITAL-KETCHIKAN
ETHYLENE OIIDE
I
LI/LB USED
101
too
8<>62
HOSPITALS
ETHYLENE OXIDE STERILIZERS
PROVIDENCE H05PiIAL-ANCH0RA6E
EINYLENE DUDE
i
LB/LB USED
40 5
400
B«62
HOSPITALS
ETHYLENE OHOE SIERILIZERS
USAF RESIDHAL HOSPITAL-ELflENDORF AFB
ETHYLENE DUDE
i
LB/Lfl USED
101
100
8062
HQSP1IALS
ETHYLENE OUDE STERILIZERS
VALLEY HOSPITAL-PALfltR
ETHYLENE Hi IDE
i
LB/LB USED
V4
94
BufcZ
HOSPITALS
PATHOLOGICAL INCINERATION
Fftl COMITY HOSPITAL-FAIRBANKS
FURAN5
UNKNONN
22
BIQ11NS
UNKNOUN
22
HYOROSEN CHLORIDE
IMNQNN
22
OTHERS TO BE DETERfllNED
UNKNONN
22
0211
EL£N£«TARi\S£COWAHI
SCHOOLS
DISTILLATE OIL CQflBUSUQN
FA! N S BOROUSH SCHOOL DISI-FAIRBANKS
CHftQfllUfl
.000007
LB/6AL
304700
2.1
FQRHALDEHYDE
.000033
LB/BAL
304700
10
NAN6ANESE
.000004
LB/6AL
304700
1.2
NICKEL
.00014
LB/6AL
304700
43
PAH
I.BE-07
LB/6AL
304700
<0.1
RADIONUCLIDES
mm*
304700
8211
ELEM£NTARr\S£CONOARY
SCHOOLS
DISTILLATE OIL COMBUSTION
FA! N S BOflOUBH SCHOOL SI SI-FAIRBANKS
CHflOflJUfl
.000007
LB/6AL
173000
1.2
•
FORHALBEHVDE
.000033
LB/SAL
173000
5.7
HAN6ANESE
.000004
LB/6AL
173000
0.6
NICKEL
.00014
LB/6AL
173000
24
PAH
l.BE-07
LB/SAL
173000
<0.1
RADIONUCLIDES
UNKNOWN
173000
NOTES: N/A - NOT AVAILABLE
CONf - THIS DATA 15 CONflDENilAL
-------
alasu m roxics sruor
PO1Ml SOURCE ENISSIQN INVENTOR*
SIC
SIC DESCRIPTOR
EffiSSIQN SOURCE
FACIUI* NAH£-AfiEA
P,GLLUIANT
822! C0tL£6ESxfHQFESSIQ«AL SCHOOLS COAL tOftSUSUtW
UNt v£8bi 11 Of ALASKA-fAJfifiANKS
ARSENIC
lEfiiLLIUH
tmw
monm
ummcLim
FORMALSEHVOE
HAN6ANE5E
MORS
NICKEL
ftt
822! C OL LEGES'-F&Of E SSI CflAL SCHOOLS NASIE OIL COftfiUSnGH
SHfLDQK MrtW CfUESE SIKA
ARSENIC
CA&AIIM
CHROHIUfl
LEAD
HAM6ANESE
NICKEL
m
FOfiHALOEHlfBE
£> 9621 REG\AOHlN, UP l?MSP, PJiOGftArtS COAL COflBUSUDH
UJ
4N
DOT IHE kk RAIIRQAQ-F AlMAKS
mmi
minim
CAflRlUfl
CNfiOftlOH
RADIONUCLIDES
FMiMLOEMK
ffANSAHESE
«£«*
NICKEL
PAH
MOIESi N.'A - no; available
COftf - IlilS OAIA IS CQNFMNUAL
PA6E JJ
es=i:s,s=3
ACflMIi*
CONlflOL
EfimiAKS
EMISSION FACTOR
BAM
FACIOk
LBS/YEAR
.028
L6/IQH
35?00
,03
30
.00083
LI/ION
55700
.03
6,61
.000 J
LI/(ON
55700
.03
0.9
.024
IB/TIM
35?0O
.03
2b
,002?
Li/ISN
35?00
n
.0032
LB/ION
35?00
no
LI/ION
15700
.03
82
.mm
mm
55700
.03
0,41
.m
Ifc/ION
35700
,03
It
,000024
LI/1IW
35700
0.86
,000042
LB/BAl
150000
6.3
.oooou
LI/6AL
J50000
2.5
.000083
LB/SAL
150000
12
.00003
IB/&AL
156000
120
UWNOBN
150000
UM.N0NM
150000
IJE-O 7
tl/Ml
150000
-------
ALASKA AIR TOUCS SlUDl
POINT SOURCE EMISSION JNVENTOR*
PA6E 14
SIC
SIC OESCRIPIQR
ERJSSIOH SOURCE
FACILITY NAflEAREA
PQLIUIANI
HUSSION FACTOR
ACTIVIU
DATA
COW 11
F AC n
9621 R£6\ADMJM. OF fftAHSP. PftOGRAttS WASTE. Oil COHBUSUQK
ALASKA DO I -FAIRBANKS
ARSENIC
CAORIUff
CHROniUfl
LEAD
JtftNBAHESE
NICKEL
PAH
fDRAALDEHYQE
.000042
.00001?
.000083
.00083
UNKNONN
UNKNQNN
I.BE-07
.000033
LB/6AL
L6/6AL
LB/GAL
LB/SAL
L8/6AL
LB/SAL
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
K/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
9711 NATIONAL DEFENSE
AIRPORTS
USAF ElELSON AFfl-FAIRBAWXS
PAH
OIOIINS
FOfiftAiOEHlfOE
IVIENE
ItNiENt
UNKNONN
UNKNONN
UHKHQttM
232
13.4
LB/TON IHC
U/TON INC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
9711 NATIONAL DEFENSE
AIRPORTS
iiSAF ELfiEKDOtfF AfB-ANCHQflAS£
PAH
D JOHNS
fORIWLOEHfDt
lUEHE
BENZENE
UNKNOWN
UNKNONN
UNKNONN
282
13.4
LB/TON IHC
LB/TON IHC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
U>
Ln
9711 NATIONAL DEFENSE
coal coneusiiON
USAF CLEAR H£NS*N£NANA
ARSENIC
SEftYUIUH
CAOrtlLtft
CHfiOniun
RADIONUCLIDES
FORIIAl DEHrDE
HAN6ANESE
HERCUfi*
NICKEL
PAH
.028
.00083
.0083
.024
.0027
.0032
.077
.00038
.024
.000024
IB/ION
LB/ION
LB/ION
LB/ION
LB/ION
LI/ION
18/ION
LB/ION
LB/ION
LI/TON
CONF
CONF
CONF
CONF
CONF
CONF
CONF
CONF
CONF
CONF
NOTES: N/A - NOT AVAILABLE
CONF - THIS DATA IS CONFICENIIAL
-------
ALASKA AIR IQJJCS STUDY
PAGE 35
POINT SOURCE MISSION JMVEMTOftV
SIC DESCRINOR
EftiSSlON SOURCE
i
FflCUlT* NAME'AREA
POLLUTANT
EMSSION FACTOR
AC 11VI1V
DATA
CONTROL
FACTOR
EMISSIONS
US/YEAR
COAL CtMSUSTlON
USAf EIEL50N AfB-FAIRBAKKS
ARSENIC
.02b
18/TON
145000
.01
41
BEftlLLlUH
.00083
LB/TON
145000
.OJ
CADrtlWl
.0083
Lfi/TDN
142000
.01
12
CHROAIUA
.024
LB/ION
145000
.01
35
RADIONUCLIDES
.002?
LB/TON
145000
1
390
fQRKALOEHYDE
.0032
IB/TON
145000
1
440
NAN6ANESE
.077
LB/ION
145000
.01
110
•
NERCUR*
.00038
LB/TON
145000
.01
0.
NICKEL
.024
LB/ION
143000
.01
35
PAH
.000024
LB/TON
145000
I
3.
COAL COilbJSIIOM
US AtifiT FT. NAlWfilftU-FAIRBANKS
ARSENIC
.028
LB/TON
147100
.14
580
BERUIIUH
.00063
LB/TON
147100
.14
17
CAD/IIUft
.0063
LB/TON
14 ?100
.14
170
CHfiOfllLM
.024
LB/ION
147100
.14
490
RADIONUCLIDES
.002?
IB/TON
I47IOO
1
400
FMAALDEHrDE
.0032
LB/ION
147100
1
470
J1AN6ANESE /
.077
Lfi/IQN
147100
.14
160O
flEfiCURlf
.0003B
LB/TON
147100
.14
7.
NICKEL
.024
LB/TON
147100
.14
490
PAH
.000024
LB/TON
147100
1
3.
FKEON L'nr CLEAH1NG
US NAVT A2AK NAVAL AIR STATION-ADA*
FttON 113
1
LB/LB USED
N/A
1
DISTILLATE OIL COflBUSTION
USAf SliErtfA AFj-SHEDVA
CHRDMIUfl
.000007
LB/GAL
2640000
1
18
FQRMLKHVOE
.000033
LB/ML
2640000
1
87
fcAN6AN£SE
.000004
L0/6AL
iifoooo
1
11
NICKEL
.00014
LB/6AL
2640000
I
370
PAN
l.K-07
LB/6AL
2640000
1
0.
RADIONUCLIDES
UKKNOfciN
2i40000
1
9711
NAT10NAL GtFENSE
NATIONAL DEFENSE
>
I
LO
^ 9/11
NATIONAL DEFENSE
«•
NATIONAL DEFENSE
K,'A - NOT AVAILABLE
CONF - THIS DATA IS CONFIDENTIAL
-------
ALASKA AIR I0X1CS SlUOt
PA6E 36
POINT SOURCE EMISSION INV£MIOflY
SIC
SIC DESCRIPTOR
EMISSION SOURCE
FACILIJI NAM-AREA
POLLUTANT
EMISSION FACIOR
ACTIVITY CON
OAIA fAC
ROL EMISSIONS
OR LBS/r£AR
9711 NAflQNAL DEFENSE
9711 NATIONAL DEFENSE
9711 NATIONAL DEFENSE
I 9711 NATIONAL DEFENSE
OJ
DISTILLATE OIL CQftfiUSIION
DJSilLLAIE OIL CQHBUgMIM
DISTILLATE Oil COflfiUSIION
DISTILLATE OIL COfiCUSTlON
USAF CAFE MENENHAM AfS-PLATINUM
US AM? fl 6REELE*-DELTA
US ARAV FT R{CHARDS0N-AKCH0RA6E
US ARHV FT UAINtfUBHT-FAIftBAMKS
CHROMIUM
FORMALDEHYDE
MANGANESE
NICKEL
PAH
RADIONUCLIDES
CHROMIUM
FDRMALIiEHlfDE
MAN6ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
RADIONUCLIDES
CHROMUfl
FORMALDEHYDE
MANSANESE
NICKEL
PAH
RADIONUCLIDES
CHROMIUM
FORMALDEHYOE
MAN6ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
RADIONUCLIDES
.000007
.000033
.000004
.00014
1.8E-07
UNKNOHN
.000007
.000013
.000004
.00014
l.BE-07
UHKNONN
.000007
.000033
.000004
.00014
I.8E-07
UNKNONU
.000007
.000033
.000004
.00014
1.8E-07
UHKNONN
LB/6AL
LB/SAL
LB/BAL
LB/SAL
LB/6AL
LB/fiAL
LI/EAL
LB/SAL
L8/6AL
LB/ML
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
L6/6AL
LB/BAL
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
876000
678000
878000
B78000
878000
878000
2380000
2380000
2380000
2380000
2380000
2380000
1300000
1300060
1300000
1300000
1300000
1300000
3754000
3754000
3754000
3754000
3754000
3754000
NOTES: N/A - NOi AVAILABLE
CONF - THIS OAIA IS CONFIDENTIAL
-------
ALASKA AIR IUJJLS SlUDl
FAbfc V
tOlNl SOURCE EMISSION iNVExrOftl
SIC SIC DESCRIPTOR
EMSS1CN SOURCE
FACiLIT* NArtE-AfttA
PQlLlitANI
EfllSSlQN FACTOR
ACTIVITY
OAfA
CDNTI
FACTl
«??ll NATIONAL DEFENSE
OISTlLLAfE OIL CQKBUSTIO*
US NAVY SECUflm 6R0UP ACTIVITY-ADAK
CHHOniUH
FDRIt ALDEHYDE
HANGANESE
NICKEL
PAH
RADIONUCLIDES
.00000?
.000033
.000004
.00014
l.Bf-07
UNKNOUN
L6/6AL
Ll/CAL
IB/ML
LI/SAL
u/m
125QDOO
325AOOO
3256000
325BOOO
325BOOO
325BOOO
9711 NAIIONAL DEFENSE
DISTILLATE OIL COHBUSMON
US NAVY ADftfc NAVAL AIR STN'ADAK
CHftOfllUfl
fOftflALOEHlCE
HAN6ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
RADIONUCLIDES
.000007
.000033
.000004
.00014
l.BE 07
UNKNOWN
la/SAL
LB/6AL
LB/GAL
LB/BAL
LB/&AL
15993000
15993000
15993000
15993000
15993000
15993000
>
I
LO
00
9711 NATIONAL DEFENSE
9711 NATIONAL DEFENSE
DiSlILLAT£ OIL CO/IBUSTION
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
US COAST EUARD-KQOlAK
US AK«V FT MlNWHSW-FAIfiBANKS
CHfiOflJUft
FOflHALDEHYOE
HAM&ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
RADIONUCLIDES
KNJENE
ETHYLENE &IBHOMOE
EIHYLEKE BICHLORIDE
.000007
.000033
.000004
.00014
l.K-07
UHMDNM
20
.0016
.011
LB/6AL
L8/BAL
LB/6AL
LB/GAL
LB/GAL
LB/ION 1HC
LB/TON 1HC
LB/ION JHC
34B4653
3464*53
3404653
3404*53
3484653
3484&5J
9711 NATIONAL liETENSE
6AS0L1NE EVAPORATION
PETROLEitfi DIRECTORAIE-AKCHQRABE
BEN/ENE
ETHYLENE DJBRQHIDE
EIHYLEAE OICHLOftl&E
20
.0016
.011
16/TON iHC
LB/TON THC
lb/ m IHC
NOTES: N/A - NOT AVAILABLE
conf - this data is confidential
-------
ALASKA AIR TOXICS SlUDf PAGE 38
POlNI SOURCE EMISSION 1NVENIOR*
ssssssr
««¦«««»
""
=*"""««
Acuvir<
CON
ROL
EMISSIONS
stc
Sit DESCftiPIQR
EMISSION SOURCE
FACILIt* NAME AREA
PQLLUIAftI
EMISSION FACTOR
OAIA
FAC
OR
LBS/YEAR
17 il
NAIlONAt OEfENSE
6AS0L1KE
PETRGLEUfi DiRECIQRAlE NHinjtft
BENiENE
20
LB/TON
IHC
52
1000
EIHHENE BIBROMiOE
.0016
LB/ION
IHC
52
<0.1
EIHlLENE OiCHLORIDE
.on
IB/ION
IHC
52
0.57
mi
NAIJONAL DEFENSE
SASOifME evapqrauq*
US NAVY ADA* NAVAL AIR SIN-ADAK
BEN2ENE
20
LB/ION
IHC
iO
1200
EMLENE OlBfiDHiDE
.0016
LB/ION
IHC
bO
<0.1
imim IliCHLQRIBE
.011
LB/18N
IHC
60
0.66
9?n
NAI1QNAL DEFENSE
MUNICIPAL UClNEftAIJON'SC
USAF K1W6 SALHQN Af6
ARSENIC
.0018
LB/ION
291
0.52
BEfitUIUH
.000045
LB/ION
291
<0.1
CASMIUI
.012
LB/ION
291
3.5
CHROMIUM
.074
IB;ION
291
22
LEAD
.29
IB/ION
291
84
MAW6ANE5E
.02?
LB/ION
291
7.9
NICKEL
.062
LB/ION
291
18
PAH
.00012
LB/ION
291
<0.1
PURANS
.000003
LB/ION
291
<0.1
PCI
.000002
LB/ION
291
(0.1
D10I1NS
.0000002
IB/TON
291
<0.1
9/11
NATIONAL DEFENSE
HUNlClFAL IMC1MERAI1EM-5C
USAf SHEMYA AfS-SHEHYA
ARSENIC
.0016
LB/ION
1007
l.B
BERYLLIUM
.000045
LB/ION
1007
(0.1
CAOMIUM
.012
LB/ION
1007
12
CHROHlUfl
.074
L9/T0N
1007
75
LEAD
.29
LB/ION
1007
290
MANSANESE
.027
LB/ION
1007
27
NICKEL
.062
LB/ION
1007
62
PAH
.00012
LB/ION
1007
0.12
fURANS
.000003
LB/ION
1007
<0.1
PCB
.000002
LB/ION
1007
<0.1
DIOllkS
.0000002
LB/ION
1007
<0.1
NOUS; N/A - KOI AVAILABLE
CONF IHIS DATA IS CQNFIDENIIAL
-------
ALASKA AJfl I011CS STUDY
point source emission jnventoat
F'Ab£ 39
A
0
a
V
0
a
»
o
a
SIC DtSCHIPIGfi
EfllSSIQN SOURCE '
fAClLW NAHE-AfcEA
EfllSSlON f AC IUk
ACTIVITY
GATA
CO*
FAL
ROL EMSSIONS
OR IbiUM
9711 NATIONAL OEfEhSt
WASTE Oil COfl&USIiQN
US AF.I1V n HAlNNftl&HT FAIRBANKS
9/11 NATIONAL- DEFENSE
HASTE OIL COnBUSNON
US COAST 6UMJ-KQ01AK
ARSENIC
CAMIWt
CHRDH1UR
LEAC
AAN6ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FMHALDEHrDE
ARSENIC
CAMIUH
CHfiMlUR
LEAD
RM6ANESE
NICKEL
PAH
FOftHALOEKrDt
.000042
.000017
.000093
.0006}
UNKNOWN
IMNOUN
l.K-07
.000033
.000012
.000017
.000083
.OOOBJ
UNKNOWN
UNKNOUN
J.BE-07
.000033
LB/6AL
LB/6AL
LI/GAL
LB/GAL
18/6AL
U/6AL
LI/6AL
LI/SAL
L0/6AL
LB/fiAL
Li/EAL
LB/6AL
160300
160300
160300
160300
160300
160300
160300
160300
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
6.7
2.7
13
130
<0.1
5.3
2.5
1.0
5.0
SO
<0.1
2.0
-P-
o
MJIES: N/A - HOI AVAILABLE
CONf THIS OATA IS COJiFlQENUAL
-------
-------
HADIAN
COSSKMKJVTIOM
APPENDIX B
EMISSION FACTOR DOCUMENTATION
B-l
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
AIRPORT OPERATIONS
¦ The emission factor for benzene was calculated from CARB 1982b, which
provided a species profile for jet exhaust. Benzene comprised 0.067 percent
of the THC emissions.
EF = (.067) (2,000 lb)/ton THC
=13.4 lb/ton THC
The emission factor for xylene was also calculated from CARB 1982b.
Xylene comprised 14.1 percent of the THC emissions.
EF = (.141)(2,000 lb)/ton THC
= 282 lb/ton THC
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
ASPHALT CEMENT PLANTS
1. Benzene
The emission factor for benzene was calculated from data presented in
EPA, 1984a and EPA, 1980:
• VOC emission factor for asphalt production is reported as 0.028
lb/ton (U.S. EPA, 1984a, p. 8.1-7), and
m Benzene comprises 9.5% (by weight) of the VOC emissions from asphalt
production (U.S. EPA, 1980, p. 3.05-12).
This data yields the following emission factor:
EF = (0.028 lb/ton) (0.095)
= 0.0027 lb benzene/ton of asphalt
2. PAH
The emission factor for PAHs was taken directly from U.S. EPA 1984a, p.
8.1-7.
3. Formaldehyde
The emission factor for formaldehyde was taken directly from U.S. EPA
1984a, p. 8.1-7.
B-3
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
ASPHALT DISTRIBUTION AND USAGE
1. Asphalt Cement (Hot Mix)
According to CARB, 1982a, the application of hot mix asphalt emits 0.8
pounds of VOC per ton as asphalt applied. To speciate these emissions,
speciation data for emissions from an asphalt plant were used (U.S. EPA,
1984a, p. 8.1-7).
Species % of Total Hydrocarbon
Benzene 9.6
Formaldehyde 0.5
PAH 0.1
This data yields the following emission factors
Emission Factor
Species (lb/ton)
Benzene 0.077
Formaldehyde 0.0040
PAH 0.0008
2. Cut Back Asphalt
The emission factors for toluene and xylene were taken directly from
Radian 1985, p.32.
3-4
-------
RADIAN
COAL COMBUSTION
1. Inorganics
Emission factors for
presented by Delleny, 1981.
document:
inorganic emissions were developed from data
The following information was obtained from this
» Average trace element composition of western coals, page 11. These
data were originally obtained from the Coal Research Section of Penn
State. The data are part of the Penn State coal database. Where
individual elemental data were missing in the Penn State data base,
data from the Illinois Geological Survey of 1975 were used.
• Partition coefficients, or the percent of trace metals entering the
combustor that end up in the fly ash, were taken from page A-8.
Data is presented for 2 tangentially-fired pulverized coal boilers
and 1 cyclonic boiler. The data from all three were averaged
together.
The emission factors developed from this data are presented in the following
table.
Metal
Avg. Concentration
(lb/10 lb coal)
Avg. Partition
Coefficient %
Uncontrolled
Emission Factor
(lb/ton)
Arsenic 15
Beryllium 0.59
Cadmium 5
Chromium 15.5
Manganese 55.8
Mercury 0.19
Nickel 14.9
Radionuclides* 0.6 + 1.45
92
70
83
77
69
99
32
67
0.028
0.00083
0.0083
0.024
0.077
0.00038
0.024
0.0027
Sample emission factor calculation for arsenic:
(15 lb/106 lb) (2000 lb/ton) (0.92) = 0.028 lb/ton
Sum of thorium and uranium, respectively.
3-5
-------
uMkmmm
2. Formaldehyde
Various emission factors for formaldehyde are presented in U.S. EPA,
1985b. The following emission factors are given:
ng/J
Pulverized Coal
0.048
Chain Grate Stoker
0.060
Spreader Stoker
0.095
Underfed Stoker
0.53
Hand Stoked
0.027
Due to the number of coal combustion sources in the inventory, it is not
possible to use the specific individual amission factors listed above.
Compared to the others, the EF for the underfed stoker is quite high;
therefore, this value will be excluded. An average of the other 4 values
yields an emission factor of 0.058 ng/J. This value can be converted to a
mass basis by assuming coal has a heating value of 12,000 Btu per pound.
(0.058 ng/J)(1 gm/109 ng)(1 lb/454 gm)(1055 J/Btu)(12,000 Btu/ton)(2000 lb/ton)
= 0.0032 lb/ton
3. PAH
An emission factor for PAH was obtained from Kelly, 1983. This document
presents the following range of emission factors for POM:
7 x 10 ® to 4 x 10~5 lb/ton (Controlled by ESP)
It will be assumed, for the purposes of obtaining an emission factor, that PAH
is equivalent to POM. Furthermore, the mid-point of this range or 2.4 x 10-^
will be used as the emission factor.
B-6
-------
MDIAN
DISTILLATE OIL COMBUSTION
Emission factors for distillate oil combustion were taken directly from
Radian 1984b. The emission factor for PAH was assumed to be equivalent to the
emission factor for POM.
Emission Factor
Pollutant (lb/10^ gal)
Chromium 0.007
Formaldehyde 0.033
Manganese 0.004
Nickel 0.14
PAH 0.000175
B-7
-------
ISASDIJtil
eavonmM
DRY CLEANING
1. Area Sources
The emission factor for dry cleaning area sources was taken directly from
U.S. EPA, 1984a. According to this document, 1.3 lb solvent/capita/year is
used. Perchloroethylene (PCE) was assumed to be the only solvent used.
2. Point Source
Emission factors were not used for dry cleaning point sources. Actual
emissions estimates are provided in NEDS.
B-3
-------
RADIAN
ELECTROPLATING
1. Chromium
Based on our analysis of the process by which metals emissions are gener-
ated during electroplating and our analysis of the available data on emis-
sions, we feel that emission factors expressed as the mass of metal emitted
per ampere per hour best incorporate the available data and best predict emis-
sions. In addition, such emission factors are able to explain the difference
in emissions which have been observed between industrial (hard) and decorative
plating operations. It appears that those differences are caused primarily by
variations in the current density used in the two types of electroplating
operations.
Several studies measured uncontrolled chromium emissions and
electroplating current simultaneously (Entropy Environmentalists, 1986; Powers
and Forester, 1985; Daley, 1977; Diamond, 1969). Emission factors reported in
and derived from these studies are shown in Table B-l. Although emission
factors for both hexavalent and total chromium are shown in one case, only
total chromium emission factors were used.
_3
Th^ values shown in Table B-l range from 1.7x10 g Cr/hr/Ampere. to
5.0x10 g Cr/hr/Ampere. In emission calculations, the avgrage of the values
reported in the table, 3.4x10 g Cr/hr/Ampere (7.5 x 10 Ib/Cr/hr/Ampere),
was used.
2. Nickel
Emission factors for nickel have not been identified. However, Daley
(1977) simultaneously measured uncontrolled nickel.emissions and current for a
nickel striking operation. A striking operation is an electrodeposition
operation in which a very thin film of metal is plated into a base material to
facilitate further plating with another metal or with the same metal. Th^
emission factor measured by Daley for the nickel strike operation is 2.25x10
gm Ni/hr/ampere. For lack of any available data for actual nickel plating
operations,. this factor was used to estimate emissions.
3. Cadmium
Uncontrolled cadmium emissions and electroplating current were simul-
taneously measured by Powers and Forester (1985), and Daley_^1977). Emission
factors repprted in or derived from these studies are 4.5x10 gm cd/hr/ampere
and 5.0x10 gm cd/hr/ampere, respectively. Since both of these factors round
off to 5.0x10 gm cd/hr/ampere, this factor was used in the cadmium emission
calculations.
The emission factor reported by Daley was taken from Table 7. Derivation
of the emission factor from the Powers and Forester data is presented below.
B-9
-------
RADIAN
TABLE B—1.
SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHROME PLATING
Reference
Number
Type of of Data
Plating Points
Emission Factor
EF (g/hr/A)
Entropy Envrionmentalists, 1986 Hard
1.7x10 3 - 3.4x10 3 (Crt)
8.0xl0"4 - 1.7xl0~3 (Cr+6)
Powers and Forester, 1985
Hard 3 2.1xl0~3 - 5.0xl0""3 (Cr*)
Daley, 1977
Hard
33
5.0x10 3 (CrC)
grams per hour per ampere of current
B-10
-------
Powers and Forester (1985) present data that can be used to calculate an
emission factor for cadmium plating in terms of mg cd/hr/ampere. The emission
factor will be calculated based on data presented in the report for Line A.
Line A contained several heavy metal plating operations including a silver
strip, zinc plate, brass plate, and cadmium plate. Apparently, the combined
emissions from Line A were determined. However, cadmium emissions will only
result from the cadmium plating operation since this is the only operation in
which cadmium is present in the plating bath (see Table 1, Page 6, for both
compositions). Therefore, the cadmium rate from the line was used to calcu-
late a cadmium emission factor for cadmium plating.
The following data were reported:
©
@
@
Test
Run #
Current
in Cadmium
Plate Tank
(Amos)
Air
Flow Rate
From Line A
(SCFM)
Total
Amount of
Cadmium Collected
in Sampling System
(mg)C
Volume of
Air
Sampled
(mV
240
300
300
7,665
7,681
7,390
©
Test
Run #
Cadmium
Concentration
(mg/m )
0.0015
0.0013
0.0034
2.057
2.053
1.981
©
Cadmium -
Emission Rate
(lb/hr)e
Cadmium
Emission
Factor r
(lb/amo-hr)L
1 0.00073 0.000021 8.8x10 "
2 0.00063 0.000018 6.0x10 ®
3 0.0017 0.000047 1.6x10
AVG = 1.0x10 ^ lb/amp-hr
= 0.045 mg/amp-hr
a Data from Table 5, Page 10
b Data from Table 8, Page 24
c Data from Table 17, Page 36
d Cadmium concentration =(Y)/(T) ^
e Cadmium amission rate = QjxWx m x 1 lb x 60 aiin
f Cadmium emission factor =(6}/(5^)
35.315 ft 453600 mg hr
3-11
-------
RADIAII
ETHYLENE OXIDE STERILIZERS
In most hospitals, ethylene oxide (EtO) is removed from the sterilization
chamber by a water sealed pomp. The pump emits some EtO directly to the air;
the remaining EtO is sent into the sewage system in solution. However, the
slow reaction rate of EtO in water under near-neutral pH conditions, combined
with its highly volatility, causes most of the dissolved EtO to volatilize
from the water. For this reason, we have assumed a unit "emission factor" -
the entire amount of EtO used is assumed to be emitted.
B-12
-------
HADIAN
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
1. Benzene
The emission factor for benzene was calculated from data and information
obtained from CARB, 1984. See pages 1-2 and F—3. The following information
was used:
• The emissions from gasoline marketing consist of 1.0 weight
percent benzene; and
• For gasoline evaporation, a ton of TOG equals a ton of THC.
This information yields the following emission factor:
EF = (1 lb benzene/100 lb THC)(2000 lb/1 ton) (1 ton THC/1 ton TOG)
= 20 lb benzene/ton TOG
2. Ethylene Dibromide
The following information is available to calculate on ethylene dibromide
(EDB) emission factor:
• EDB emission factor for leaded gasoline is 2.1 x 10 ^ lb/lb THC
(CARB, 1984; page F-3.)
• 41.2% of the estimated THC emissions from gasoline.evaporation
are from leaded gasoline.
In 1984, the allowable lead content of gasoline was 1.1 gram/gal.
Effective January, 1986, the allowable lead content of gasoline was
reduced to 0.1 gm/gal. A corresponding decrease in EDB content will
also be seen. This information yields the following emission
factor:
EF = (2.1 x 10~5 lb EDB/lb THC)(2000 lb/ton)(0.412) (0.1)
Tmy
= 0.0016 lb EDB/ton THC
3. Ethylene Dichloride
The emission factor for ethylene dichloride (EDC) was developed using the
amission factor for EDB calculated above and the information and data
presented by KVB Inc., 1980. See pages 3-99, and 3-100. The following
information is given:
B-13
-------
jgJiplJlil
eOWOMIMM
• The weight ratio for EDB to EDC is 0.294:0.304.
• The vapor pressure of EDC at 77°F is 77 Torr, while the vapor
pressure of EDB at this same temperature is 12 Torr.
Correcting for the relative volatilities and using the given weight ratio
yields the following emission factor:
EF = (0.0016 lb EDB/ton TOG)(0.304 lb EDC/0.294 lb EDB)(77 torr/12 torr)
= 0.011 lb EDC/ton TOG)
B-14
-------
COaPOIlTION
MOBILE SOURCES
1. Gasoline Combustion
An amission factor for gasoline combustion can be developed by combining
the total hydrocarbon emission factor with hydrocarbon speciation data. Total
hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline engines, 2.5 gm/mile, was taken directly
from Radian, 1984. Speciation data (as weight %) for car exhaust is shown
below:
Compound
SAI, 1982
1
EPA, 1980
2
3
Average
Benzene
ND
1.0
3.9
1.8
2.2
Formaldehyde
ND
6.9
4.7
ND
5.8
Toluene
12
9.6
12
9.1
10.6
Xylene
3.4
3.0
3.6
0.8
2.7
These data yield the following emission factors:
Benzene = (2.5 g/mile)(1 lb/454 g) (0.022) = 1.2 x 10 ^ lb/mile
Formaldehyde = (2.5 g/mile)(1 lb/454 g)(0.058) = 3.2 x 10 ^ lb/mile
Toluene" = (2.5 g/mile)(1 lb/454 g)(0.106) = 5.8 x 10 ^ lb/mile
Xylene = (2.5 g/mile)(1 lb/454 g)(0.027) = 1.5 x 10^ lb/mile
2. Diesel Combustion
The same methodology as was used for gasoline consumption was used for
diesel consumption. Total hydrocarbon emissions from a diesel vehicle were
estimated to be 3.85 g/mile (U.S. SPA, 1984a). Speciation data (as weight %)
for diesel exhaust is show below:
Hyrdocarbon Composition of Vehicle Exhaust
(Percent by Weight)
Compound Weight
Benzene 1..9
Formaldehyde 12.2
Toluene 1.8
Xylene 0.3
These data were obtained from U.S. EPA, 1984a; and U.S. EPA, 1980. These data
yield the following emission factors:
B-15
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
Benzene = (3.85 g/mile)(1 lb/454 g)(0.019) = 1.6 x 10 ^ lb/mile
Formaldehyde = (3.85 g/mile)(1 lb/454 g)(0.122) = 1.0 x 10~^ lb/mile
Toluene = (3.85 g/mile)(1 lb/454 g)(0.018) = 1.5 x 10 ^ lb/mile
Xylene = (3.85 g/mile)(1 lb/454 g)(0.003) = 2.5 x 10~5 lb/mile
B-16
-------
RADIAN
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE INCINERATION
Based on Radian's experience with waste to energy facilities it is our
judgement that the emission factors developed for the Irwindale Resource
Recovery facility are the most comprehensive set of emission factors avail-
able (see California Energy Commission Docket 84-AFC-5).
1. Metals
The Irwindale emission factors are actually a compilation of emission
factors from several modern MSW incinerators with high efficiency air
pollution control devices. However, the types of controls and corresponding
efficiencies for these facilities is unknown. Consequently, the best use of
the Irwindale data is to use this data to speciate particulate matter from a
MSW incinerator. Speciation data compiled for the Irwindale project for
selected metals are presented below:
Reported emission factor* Fraction of Particulate Matter
Parameter
(ur/MJ)
(Wt %)
Arsenic
0.94
0.012
Beryllium
0.023
0.0003
Cadmium
6.20
0.079
Chromium
38.5
0.49
Lead
149
1.9
Manganese
14.1
0.18
Mercury
107
Nickel
32.2
0.41
* Controlled
emission factors; degree of control is
unknown.
Particulate matter emission factors for municipal waste incineration were
obtained from the following document:
State of California Air Resources Board Technical Support Division,
Instructions for the Emission Data System Review and Update Report,
Appendix III, Source Classification Codes and EPA/AP-42 Emission
Factors, Revised, March 1985.
PM Emission Rate
SCC Incinerator Design (lbs/ton burned)
5-02-001-01 Multiple Chamber 7.0
-02 Single Chamber 15.0
-03 Controlled Air 1.4
B-17
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
With PM emission factors, air toxic emission factors can be calculated as
shown below. Where the incinerator design is unknown, we will use the single
chamber emission factors in order to develop worst-case emission factors.
Multiple Chamber Single Chamber Controlled Air
Parameter
(lb/ton)
(lb/ton) .
(lb/ton)
Arsenic
0.84 x 10~3
1.8 x 10~3
0.168 x 10~3
Beryllium
0.021 x 10~3
0.045 x 10~3
0.004 x 10~3
Cadmium
5.5 x 10~3
0.012
1.1 x 10"3
Chromium
0.034
0.074
6.8 x 10~3
Lead
0.13
0.29
0.027
Manganese
0.013
0.027
2.5x 10~3
Nickel
0.029
0.062
5.7 x 10"3
Example Calculation:
Uncontrolled Arsenic emissions from a Multiple Chamber Incinerator
= (0.012 lb As/100 lb PM)(7 lb PM/ton MSW) = 0.84 x 10~3 lb As/ton MSW
2. Organics
Emissions data for various organic constituents are also presented in the
Irwindale data. For these parameters, however, speciation data are not
provided, only emission factors expressed as ug/MJ. These emission factors
will be converted to a mass basis by assuming MSW has a heating value of 5,000
Btu/lb.
Irwindale Emission Converted Emission
Factors Factors
Parameter (ug/MJ) (lb / ton)
PAHs 5.02 0.12 x 10~3
PCBs ' 0.10 0.002 x 10"3
PCDDs 0.068 0.0002 x 10~3
PCDFs 0.15 0.003 x 10~3
B-18-
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
Sample Calculation for PAHs:
(5.02 ug/106J)(1055 J/Btu)(5000 Btu/lb)(lgm/106ug)(1 lb/454gm)(2000 lb/ton)
= (5.02 ug/10°J)(23.2)
= 0.12 x 10~3 lb/ton
B-19
-------
RADIAN
OIL REFINERY FUGITIVES
Oil refinery fugitives consist of emissions from leaking, valves,
flanges, pumps, etc. In a study for SPA, Radian performed a detailed analysis
for the composition of oil refinery fugitives. This study concluded that for
a model refinery, fugitive emissions consisted of 0.72 percent benzene and 3.1
percent xylene. The model refinery was a large integrated refinery with
cracking, reforming, and aromatics extraction operations. These estimates
were made using the following procedures (Radian, 1980):
• The composition of various process streams were analyzed. The
results of these analyses are shown in Table 1.
« The emissions from each process unit were allocated to various
process streams in order to estimate the composition of emissions
from that process unit. An example of this calculation is shown in
Table 2 for a fluid catalytic cracking unit.
• The emissions from all process units in a model refinery were
aggregated to estimate the overall composition of refinery
fugitives. The results of this calculation are shown in Table 3.
In order to apply these emission factors for benzene and xylene to
refinerj.es in Alaska, we must account for the fact that none of the Alaska
refinereis have aromatics extraction. We must also account for the fact that
the refineries in Alaska do not have process units that produce streams with
relatively high benzene and xylene concentrations, such as cracking and
reforming.
Radian has reviewed the existing literature and found a wide variety of
benzene emission factors for refinery fugitives from approximately 0.01 to 1.0
percent. Given the large amount of uncertainty that exists,_ Radian has
selected the following conservative approach that should result in an
overestimation of emissions.
• For refineries that have cracking or reforming operations, we
assumed emission factos that are 50 percent of Radian's results.
Benzene 0.36 percent = 7.2 lb benzene/ton THC
Xylene 1.55 percent = 31.0 lb xylene/ton THC
Toluene 1.05 percent = 21.0 lb toluene/ton THC
B-20
-------
• For refineries without cracking or reforming operations, we assumed
emission factos that are one order of magnitude below the emission
factors listed directly above.
Benzene 0.036 percent = 0.72 lb benzene/ton THC
Xylene 0.155 percent = 3.1 lb" xylene/ton THC
Toluene 0.105 percent = 2.1 lb toluene/ton THC
The determination of whether refineries have cracking or reforming
operations was made using the 1986 issue of the Oil and Gas Journal's Annual
Refining Survey. If refineries were not included in the survey it was assumed
that they did not have cracking or reforming operations.
It should be noted that the selection of emission factors that are 50
percent of Radian's results for refineries with cracking or reforming
operations (but without aromatics production) and the selection of emission
factors that are an order of magnitude lower for refineries without cracking
or reforming operations is subjective. However, these decisions represent a
best engineering judgement based on an evaluation of the stream composition
data presented in Table 1.
B-21
-------
Reproduced from
est available copy.
JSP
TABLE i. SUMMARY OF STREAM QUALITY DATA (PPMW,f
W
ro
£onpoun
»
6
6
3J,500
0
••7
lylauta
HO
1,62)
12
16
22
1 JO, 900
0
1,621
Ot bar Alky Itapienaa
MM
it.m
•»
61
161
124,400
0
16,524
HapiHlialaaa
MO
1,461
100
4
2*
2,400
0
1,46)
Anlbftc«n«
140
i
56
J
12
0
0
5
Slphesyl
120
628
0
0
9
0
0
621
Oilier fliA'a
>.11(10
14,96)
5,501
220
66)
700
0
14,98)
»-ii«*aas
IS,000
38,lit
0
0
0
24,000
0
28,8)8
' Olhtt IUsmi
ill,HO
m.iii
ai2.su
>49,671
M.m
156.000
650,000
499.61)
Oltlloi
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cjrclaalkanaa
58.JOO
*22,508
100,000
$0,000
$0,000
0
0
422,SOt
Oihar Ctn£jiaii
Itdlitud Ptaaunt
Carhuuyl
: 500 pp>
Tlilola
: 25,000 tpm
suiiu*a
: 6.oao pp«
Qulnullima
: 200 rpm
tf ildilica
Pyridine#
Thiols
8ulfl4aa
PylIdlnaa
Thiols
SuUidta
: SI,000 Ptm
Qulnollooa
fyrldlnaa
Thiol.
SuKid.a
Qulnallata
: 9 ft"
ryclilln**
Thiol*
SulfIda*
Qutosltftna
H, : )50.000
Continued
-------
TABLE
1, (Continued)
Compound or
functional fAAlly
liydrotruttd
IKJ.IIa
UUtllUt*
Kef ln«ry Llqu«fled
full fctrolcM AroMtlci
Cm Ci« (LfC) liKimti Iituct
Itaian* Tolu«n« Xylaiis*
03
I
ro
LO
lenztne
0
0
0
50
17,640
$93,000
1,000
0
Ioiututf
5
0
0
75 0
256,700
2,000
992,600
1,000
illtylbonien«
9
0
0
300
110,670
0
4,000
162,420
Xylartai
52
0
0
1,500
564,590
0
1,000
629,560
Otliar AlkyIbcnxened
IIS
0
0
2.100
4ft,000
0
0
5,000
ftUphtlialen*
100
0
0
50
100
0
0
100
AAthiaceno
54
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
llphinyl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oth.r IfiJA'a
5,507
0
0
50
100
0
0
100
n-IUmine
0
0
0
61,000
100
3,000
0
0
Other Alk«n«*
667,436
920,000
1,000,000
912,000
1,900
0
1,200
2,600
OI«f Itia
0
60,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
CydoiUtnei
100,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Compound*
lad(c4tAil freacai
Sulfide*
~ 6,000 ftf*a
tii : 20,o&o
Thiol*
Sulfld**
Thiol*
Sulfide*
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 1. (Continued)
Cottfiound or
Functional Faaily
IPG
Ollflm
Alhylati
Cx«ck«4
Naphtha
rcc .
Light Cyclt
Caa & Oil
rcc
Hiavy CycU
Caa 4 Oil
Heavy
Aroaitlca
Citract
(SOj Plant)
AlphaIt
Ul
Separator
Skla Oil
Vacuu*
luid
l«iai«ni
0
0.1
2,860
0
740
0
0
»?
0
Toluene
0
0.1
#9,780
40
10,000
0
0
1,113
0
0
0.1
21,430
0
1,200
0
0
661
0
Xylci)«i
0
1.1
1/1,450
610
11,800
0
0
J.510
0
Other Alkylbcm«n51
I
N«phthslea«
0
0.)
10,950
99,000
14,000
0
0
990
0
Anlhr«c
Cycloilkmei
0
11
6&,aao
41,200
150,000
5,000
I
i
Other C(wp«un4»
IfldJcatid fraaant
Thiol*
Pyridine*
Thiol*
Sulf liiil
Qulnollaaa
fhanola
Carbostyla
fyrldinti
Thiol*
fiulfldaa
qulnolluea
Fyrldinta
Carbonyla
Thiols
Sulfides
Qulnollnea
'Compositions are estimated to 2 or 3 significant figures. Additional
significant figures are a result of calculational procedures, and they
should not be j. i ven any importance.
L
The symbol L means that the component has been indicated to be present, but
the exact concentration is unknown.
-------
TABLE 2. FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING - FUGITIVE EMISSION CHARACTERIZATION
l
to
Ui
Sire««
Ighttd Contribution of *«c|i Component to Unit Kfliiitona, In ppou
Alwou. Caa Oil
1
0
0
0
0
l
0
0
0
2
0
9495
0
500
0
Fuel Gaa
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
276000
IfcfWH)
0
6000
IXC OleMiiu
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
92000
IJS000
0
0
Crocked Uuphdia
45
1296
40401
9644
;mi
J09562
4928
2916
5124
91850
26811
3O096
0
Lt. CycU Cam Uil
1
0
0
0
6
267
590
101
102
6245
0
1906
168
412
0
llvy. C'yclu 4Juu Oil
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
Tiaal
K»i Bit.
fUl*
uyiu
im
40401
9644
;m9
109810
5518
10 J
102
9161
5)24
471251
211201
11008
6000
59. 8
.076
2.42
.577
4.61
6.57
.11 .006
.004
.548
.118
28.18
11.95
I.as
.159
-------
TAUJ.K 3. SUMMARY OF HYDROCARBON SPECIliS EMISSIONS FROM
FUC I'l'i VK SOURCES
Coan|>oitau kg/hr ppm kg/hr PP*m kg/hr ppuw kg/hr
Benzene
7.200
2.6
21,000
0.4
700
0.4
1,900
1.6
Toluene '
21,000
8.2
24,000
0.4
2,200
1.1
11.000
9.7
Etliy llieiizcna
5,600
2.2
4,500
0.1
590
0.1
2,800
2.6
Kylenea
11.000
12.1
26,000
0.4
2,100
1.1
15,000
13.6
Other A IkyIbenzenea
42,000
16.6
15,000
0.6
7,900
4.1
21,000
21.1
Niiplillta 1 cno
1,700
0.7
1,400
0.02
2,900
1.5
2,400
2.2
Anthracene
20
0.01
1
0.0
190
0.2
220
0.2
DJpheuyl
2)0
0.1
110
0.0
1,800
0.9
1,100
1.0
Other I'NA'a
7,700
1.0
1,100
0.05
1,500
0.8
4,200
1.9
niloiine
16,000
6.1
9,700
0.2
1.
7,100
6.5
Oilier Alkanea
654,000
255.9
678.000
11.1
980,000
502.4
840,000
769.6
01 el Inn
46,000
18.1
10,000
0.5
i
i
20,000
18.6
Cyclualkaneu
115,000
52.9
82,000
1.4
i
I
59,000
54.3
Hydrogen
31,000
12.1
82,000
1.4
I
i
15.000
11.7
TOTAI-S 391.2 16.8 512.6 920.8
* Fugitive emissions from valves, pumps, compressors, flanges, drains, and cooling Cowers.
** Components marked wltli "i" are Indicated present, but no quantifiable concentration data
were available.
-------
RJII9IAN
CORPORATION
PETROLEUM MARKETING
1. The emission factor for benzene was calculated from data in SAI, 1982;
Radian, 1985; and CARB, 1984.
• Total hydrocarbon emissions from petroleum marketing are estimated
to be 0.00474 lb/lb gasoline (SAI, 1982).
• Gasoline density is approximately 7.0 lb/gallon (Radian, 1985).
• The emissions from gasoline marketing consist of 1.0 weight percent
benzene (CARB, 1984).
This yields the following emission factor:
EF (Benzene) = (0.000474 lb/lb gasoline) (7 lb/gal) (.01)
—A
= 3.32 x 10 lb/gal gasoline
2. The emission factor for EDB was calculated from data in SAI, 1982;
Radian, 1985; and CARB, 1984.
• Total hydrocarbon emissions from petroleum marketing are estimated
to be 0.00474 lb/lb gasoline (SAI, 1982).
• Gasoline density is approximately 7.0 lb/gallon (Radian. 1985).
• The emission from gasoline marketing consits of 8.7 x 10 weight
percent EDB (CARB, 1984).
• 41.2% of the estimated THC emissions are from leaded gasoline.
« Allowable lead content for gasoline decreased from 1.1 g/gal to 0.1
g/gal.
This yields the following emission factor:
EF (EDB) = (0.00474 lb/lb gasoline) (7 lb/gal)(8.7 x 10~6) (.412) (0.1/1.1)
= 1.08 x 10
3. The emission factor for toluene was calculated from data in SAI, 1982;
Radian, 1985; and SAI, 1984.
• Total hydrocarbon emissions from petroleum marketing are estimated
to be 0.00474 lb/lb gasoline (SAI, 1982).
• Gasoline density is approximately 7.0 lb/gallon (Radian, 1984).
« The emissions from gasoline marketing consist of 0.66 weight percent
toluene (SAI, 1984).
B-27
-------
RADIAN
COROORATIOM
This data yields the following emission factor:
EF (Toluene) = (0.00474 lb/lb gasoline)(7 lb/gal)(.0066)
= 2.19 x 10 ^ lb/gal gasoline
EF (Benzene) = (0.000474 lb/lb gasoline)(7 lb/gal)(.01)
= 3.32 x 10 ^ Ig/gal gaoline
EF (EDB) = (0,99474 lb/lb gasoline)(7 lb/gal)(8.7 x 10~5)
= 2.89 x 10 ^ lg/gal gasoline
4. The emission factor for xylene was calculated from data in SAI, 1982;
Radian, 1984; and SAI, 1984.
• Total hydrocarbon emissions from petroleum marketing are estimated
to be 0.00474 lb/lb gasoline (SAI, 1982).
• Gasoline density is approximately 7.0 lb/gallon (Radian, 1985).
• The emissions from gasoline marketing consist of 0.20 weight percent
xylene (SAI, 1984).
This data yields the following emission factor:
EF (Xylene) = (0.00474 lb/lb gasoline) (7 lb/gal) (.0020)
= 6.64 x 10-5 ib/gai gasoline
5. The emission factor for EDC was calculated from data in SAI, 1982,
Radian, 1984, and KVB, 1980.
• The emissions from gasoline marketing consist of 5.7 x 10" 3 weight
percent EDC (KVB, 1980).
• 41.2 % of the estimated THC emissions are from leaded gasoline.
• Allowable lead content for gasoline was decreased from 1.1 g/gal to
0.1 g/gal.
This data yields the following emission factor:
EF (EDC) = (0.00474 lb/lb gasoline)(7 lb gal)(5.4 x 10"5)(.412)(0.1/1.1)
= 7.15 x 10 ® lb/gal gasoline
B-28
-------
PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING
The emission factors for a wet cement grinder are shown below.
1. Chromium
The emission factor for chromium was taken directly from SPA, 1984c. See
page 167.
2. Nickel
The emission factor for nickel was taken from a finishing grinding mill
after an air separator (EPA, 1984d. See page 128). A fabric filter was used
to control emissions. A removal efficiency of 99.8% was used to calculate the
uncontrolled EF:
EF = (0.004 lb/100 ton)/0.002
= 0.002 lb/ton of product
B-29
-------
IZJUDIAIN
PULP AND PAPER MILLS
The emission factor for chloroform emissions from pulp and paper mills
was taken from Anderson (1982). Anderson reported several emission factors,
based upon product type. Since both mills identified in Alaska produce
dissolving sulfite pulp, emission factors for that product were used. Two
emission factors were presented by-Anderson.
5
• 0.069 kg CC1/ per 10 gm product, emitted during wastewater
treatment, and
• 0.0035 kg CCl^ per lO^gm product, emitted after wastewater
treatment.
To account f^pr total chloroform emissions, the sum of these factors, 0.073 kg
CCl^ per 10 gm product (0.146 pound per ton), was used. In these emission
factors, the product weight is expressed in terms of air dried product, with a
10 percent moisture content.
B-30
-------
MDIAN
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENGINES AND DIESEL GAS TURBINES
In the Alaska air toxic emission inventory, emission source codes have
been established for the following oil combustion sources:
• residual oil (ROC),
• distillate oil (DOC),
• diesel gas turbines (TRB), and
• diesel reciprocating engines (RCP).
Residual and distillate oil are used to fire various boilers in the state.
Emission factors for these sources will be taken from the Radian Virginia/San
Joaquin emissions inventory. In these two inventories, it was assumed that
residual and distillate oil combustion have similar emission factors.
Emission factors for diesel engines are presented below.
1. Metals
?or the combustion of diesel, the same metals emission factors developed
for ROC and DOC will be used. This transfer of data is based on the fact that
diesel is analogous to distillate oil. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume
that the metals emissions will be independent of the method of combustion.
That is, all trace metals present in the feed will be entrained in the flue
gas exiting the combustion unit.
2. PAH
Based on information presented in AP-42, there appears to be significant
difference in the amount of VOC and PM emitted by TRB and RCP sources. This
indicates there should also be a difference in PAH and formaldehyde emissions.
The VOC emission factors for TRB and RCP are shown below:
VOC PM
TRB 4.77 5.00 lbs/1,000 gals burned
RCP 32.10 33.50 lbs/1,000 gals burned
These emission factors suggest that RCP sources will emit greater amounts of
PAH than TRB sources.
PAH emission data for diesel engines were obtained from Westerholm, 1986,
p. 78. Emissions data are presented for two fuels burned by a 4 stroke diesel
engine with no emissions trap. A total of nine data points are available.
The average of the reported total hydrocarbon emission factor is 3.4 g/km.
The average PAH emission factor is 145 mg/km. We will assume that the RCP
engines in Alaska are also 4 stroke engines.
B-31
-------
With this information, the fraction of PAH to HC emissions can be
calculated:
(145 mg PAH/Km)/(3.4 gm HC/Km) = 4.26 mg PAH/gm HC
(42.6 mg PAH/gm HC)(1 gm/106 mg) = 4.26 x 10~5
A PAH emission factor for TSB and RCP can be calculated as follows:
(4.77 lb/1000 gals)(4.26 xl0~5) = 0.203 lb/106 gals
(3.210 lb/1000 gals)(4.26 xl0~5) = 1.37 lb/106 gals
The accuracy of these emission factors is highly uncertain. The PAH
emission factors for oil combustion are presented below for comparison:
ROC = 0.175 lb/106 gals
DOC = 0.175 lb/106 gals
TRB = 0.203 lb/106 gals
RCP = 1.37 lb/106 gals
The resulting emission factors are in pretty good agreement. Although the
accuracy is somewhat uncertain, these factors will account for the expected
differences in PAH emissions and allow for better risk ranking of sources.
3. Formaldehyde
An emission factor for formaldehyde was developed from data taken from
the following document:
U.S. EPA, Emission Characterization of Heavy-Duty Diesel and Gasoline
Engines and Vehicles, EPA 460/3-85-001, p. 20.
The following emission factors are presented for a 4 stroke engine:
mg/kw-hr
Total HC _ 603
Formaldehyde 19.44
Using these values, the ratio of total HC to formaldehyde is:
19.44 = 0.00322
603
B-32
-------
RADIAN
This ratio yields the following formaldehyde emission factors:
(4.77 lbs VOC/IOOO gals)(0.0322) = 0.15 lb/103 gals
(32.10 lbs VOC/IOOO gals)(0.0322) = 1.0 lb/103 gals
Again, the accuracy of these emission factors is highly uncertain. The
formaldehyde emission factors for oil combustion are presented below for
comparison:
ROC = 0.033 lb/103 gal
DOC = 0.033 lb/103 gal
TRB = 0.15 lb/103 gal
RCP = 1.0 lb/103 gal
B-33
-------
KADI JIN
RESIDUAL OIL COMBUSTION
Emission factors for residual oil combustion were taken directly from
Radian, 1984c. These emission factors are presented under distillate oil
combustion.
B-34
-------
HADIAH
coa»oa*TioH
RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTION
1. Acetaldehyde
Aldehyde emissions from wood-burning stoves have been reported by
DeAngelis et al., (1980) and Alfheim and Ramdahl (1984). DeAngelis et al.
reported an acetaldehyde emission factor of 0.1 g/kg for both baffled and
nonbaffled stoves. Alfheim and Ramdahl reported emissions of 0.016 g/kg
during normal high-temperature burning in an airtight stove, and 0.78 g/kg
under starved combustion conditions, which often occur during the night. The
value reported by DeAngelis et al. (0.1 g/kg; or 0.2 lb/ton) was used in this
inventory.
Acetaldehyde emissions from fireplaces have been measured by Lipari et
al. (1984). In an extensive study of aldehyde emissions under varying fuel
and combustion conditions, they observed emissions which ranged from 0.08 to
0.20 g/kg, with an average value of 0.117 g/kg (0.234 lb/ton). We have used
the average value in calculations of fireplace emissions of acetaldhyde.
2. Benzene
Alfheim and Ramdahl (1984) reported emissions of 0.017 g/kg (0.034
lb/ton) from an airtight stove during normal operation, and 1.3 g/kg (2.6
lb/ton) during starved combustion conditions. The emission factor for normal
conditions was used in this inventory.
3. Cresols
Average values of 0.24 g/kg (0.48 lb/ton) and 0.054 g/kg (0.108 lb/ton)
were reported by DeAngelis et al., (1980) for cresol emissions from stoves and
fireplaces, respectively.
4. Dioxins
The concentration of total chlorinated dioxins in fly ash of wood stoves
in the western United States has been reported by Radian (1983). Dioxin
concentrations ranging from 4.374 to 10.737 ppb were observed. For the
purpose of emission estimation, it was assumed that the dioxin fraction in
emitted particulates-is equal to that in fly ash, and that the average fly ash
dioxin concentration is 7.6 ppb. An average emission factor for particulates
of 9.2 g/kg was taken from Butcher and Sorenson (1979). • (It should be noted
that a wide range of particulate emission factors have been reported by
various investigators.) By combining the dioxin fraction with the particulate
emission factor, a dioxin emission factor for wood stoves of 69.92 ng/kg (1.40
x 10 ' lb/ton) was derived.
B-35
-------
RADIAN
5. Formaldehyde
DeAngelis et al. (1980) reported an emission factor of 0.2 g/kg (0.4
lb/ton) for stoves. Alfheim and Ramdahl (1984) reported emissions of 0.05
g/kg during normal high-temperature burning, and 0.99 g/kg during starved
combustion conditions. The values reported by DeAngelis et al., were used to
estimate emissions.
Formaldehyde emissions from fireplaces were reported by Lipari et al.
(1984). Reported values range from 0.09 to 0.71 g/kg, with an average of 0.37
g/kg (0.74 lb/ton). For emission calculations, the average value was used.
6. Metals
Emission factors for metals were reported by DeAngelis et al. (1980) for
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, manganese, mercury and nickel. Reported values
ranged from 3.6x10 to 1.7x10 g/kg (7.2 x 10 to 3.4 x 10 lb/ton).
These values were judged to be insignificant; emission estimates for metals
were not developed.
7. Phenol
Average values of 0.16 and 0.023 were reported by DeAngelis et al. (1980)
for residential wood stoves and fireplaces, respectively. In a more recent
test of several wood stoves for emissions of phenol and POM, Cattone et al.
(1985) reported phenol emission factor for fireplaces of 0.050 to 1.10 g/kg,
with an average value of 0.302 g/kg.
In calculations of emission estimates, the average value of Cattone et
al. (0.302 g/kg; or 0.604 lb/ton) was used for wood stoves, and the value of
0.023 g/kg (0.046 lb/ton), from DeAngelis et al., was used for fireplaces.
8. POM
POM emissions form wood stoves and fireplaces have been reported by
several investigators (National Research Council, 1983; Peters et al., 1981;
Peters, 1982; DeAngelis et al., 1980; Hall and DeAngelis, 1980; Hartman and
Rives, 1985; Snowden, et al., 1975; Lae, et al., 1983; Knight, et al., 1983).
Total POM emissions .(particulate and gaseous) from wood stoves were reported
to range from 0.096 to 451.2 mg/kg. However, it appears that the test methods
used to measure the lowest reported emissions .may not have effectively mea-
sured gaseous POM emissions. If that data set is excluded, the range of
reported values is 8.0 to 451.2 mg/kg, with an average value of 211.8 mg/kg
(0.423 lb/ton). The average value was used in calculating emission estimates.
The investigators listed above reported that the total POM emissions from
residential fireplaces range from 24.9 to 36.5 mg/kg, with an average value of
32.5 mg/kg (0.065 lb/ton). The average value was used in further
calculations.
B-36
-------
1ADIAN
wpo—rw
SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION
1. Metals
Metals emissions will be estimated through material balances based on
information received in questionnaires.
2. PAH Emissions
To date, the only known PAH emission factors for sewage sludge
incineration are contained the following document:
T. R. Bridle, Assessment of Organic Emissions from the Hamilton Sewage
Sludge Incinerator. Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, Canada.
1982.
The results of the source test are presented below:
PAH
Acenapthylene
Pyrene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Run 1
(lb/ton)
0.00024
0.00034
0.00076
0.000004
Run 2
(lb/ton)
0.00032
0.00050
0.00082
0.0016
0.000014
Average
(lb/ton)
0.00028
0.00042
0.00079
0.0016
0.000009
TOTAL
0.0031 lb/dry ton
These emission factors are based on the dry weight of sludge. Furthermore, a
wet scrubber was used to control emissions and both particulate and gaseous
PAH were measured.
3.
Dibenz ofuran
An emission factor for dibenz ofuran can be developed from the same data
used to calculate the PAH emission factor listed above. The fol-lowing emission
factors are reported for the two runs: 0.0022 and 0.0026 lb/ton of dry sludge.
An average value of 0.0024 lb/dry ton will be used.
B-31
-------
SLASH BURNING AND FOREST FIRES
1. POM
Emission factors for POM have been reported by McMahon and Tsoukalas
(1978). £hese factors ^ere reported for vegetation mass loadings ranging from
0.5 kg/m to 2.4 kg/m (0.1 to 0.5 pound per square foot), and for fires
advancing both with and against the wind. Total POM emissions reported ranged
from 7.63 mg/kg to 171.8 mg/kg (0.153 to 0.344 lb/ton). The average value
(0.180 lb/ton) was used to estimate emissions.
2. Manganese
Manganese emission factors were reported by Ward and Hardy (1984). The
values reported ranged from 0.2 mg/kg to 9.2 mg/kg (0.0004 to 0.0184 lb/ton).
The average value (0.0094 lb/ton) was used to estimate emissions.
B-3S
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
WASTE OIL COMBUSTION
1. Metals
According to the ADEC, the following facilities in Alaska burn waste oil:
• Sheldon Jackson College in Sitka — 150,000 gal/year
• Seward Fisheries 150,000 gal/year
• Ft. Wainwright — 171,000 gal/year
• Alaska DOT & Public Facilities in Fairbanks — unknown volume
Regulations regarding the combustion of waste oil were promulgated (50 FR
49164) in November of 1985. Boilers and furnaces classified as non-industrial
are limited to burning waste oil with the following characteristics.
Maximum Concentration
Metal (ppm)
Arsenic 5
Cadmium 2
Chromium 10
Lead 100
In contrast, a national study of waste oil found the following mean metals
concentrations:
Number of Mean Concentration
Metal Observations (ppm)
Arsenic 1507 4.63
Cadmium 710 1.3
Chromium 721 22.6
Lead 765 706.0
This data was obtained from the following document: .
Franklin Associates, Composition and Management of Used Oils Generated
in the Unites States, prepared for EPA, November 1985. (PB85 - 180297)
As another point of reference, virgin No. 6 fuel oils has the following metal
concentrations:
Concentration Range of
Metal 16 Samples (ppm)
Arsenic 2.0-6.1
Cadmium <1
Chromium 1.0 — 1.6
Lead 1.3 — 9.6
Nickel 12.0 - 68.0
3-39
-------
RJIidlJlii
CORPOI1TION
This data was taken from the following source:
J. Menczel et al.. The Regulation of Hazardous and Toxic Substances in
Waste Oils Used as Fuels, paper #84-11.1, 77th Annual Meeting of the
APCA, June 1984.
For the facilities listed above, the correct metals concentration data must be
chosen. The promulgated regulations listed above define industrial boilers as
follows:
"...has been modified from the proposal to define an industrial boiler as
any boiler located on site of a manufacturing facility."
Utility boilers are defined as follows:
"EPA defined utility boilers at proposal as boilers used to produce
electric power, steam, heat or cooled air, or other gases of fluids for
sale. Owners and operators of utility boilers are burners regulated in
the same way as owners and operators of industrial boilers."
Given these regulatory definitions, it appears that none of the major waste
oil burners in Alaska are manufacturing facilities or utilities.
Consequently, emission factors based on the regulatory limits for
non-industrial boilers seem most appropriate. However, emission factors for
industrial and non-industrial boilers will be developed for waste oil. The
emission factors for metals are presented below.
B-40
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
Non-Industrial Boilers
Metal
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Concentration
(ppm)
5
2
10
100
Emission Factor
(lb/gal)
4.2
1.7
8.3
8.3
10
10
10
10
-5
-5
-5
-4
Industrial Boilers
Concentration Emission Factor
Metal (ppm) (lb/gal)
Arsenic 4.63 3.9 x
Cadmium 1.3 1.1 x 10
Chromium 22.6 1.9 x 10
Lead 706 0.0059
Example calculation:
Arsenic emissions for non-industrial boiler burning waste oil =
(5 mg/1 ) (3.785 1/gal) (2.2 lb/106 mg) = (5 mg/1) (8.33 x 10~6)
= 4.2 x 10~5 lb/gal
The specific gravity of waste oil is typically between 0.9 and 0.95. This
slight difference from water was ignored in calculating the emission factors.
As shown above, the major differences between industrial and non-industrial
waste oil combustion appear for chromium and lead.
B-41
-------
RADIAN
2. Organics
For organics. Franklin Associates report the following concentrations:
Compound
Number of Samples
Mean Concentration
(ppm)
1,1.-trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Te t rac hio roe thylene
PCBs
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Benz (a)-anthracene
Benz (a)-pyrene
PAH
236
218
215
422
38
47
40
27
66
2013.0
471.0
651.0
56.7
80.5
1711.0
6510.0
66.7
A certain portion of these organics will be destroyed in the boiler. At the
same time, other air toxics will be formed as products of incomplete combus-
tion. A 99.99% destruction and removal efficiency is certainly achievable for
these organic compounds in large boilers. Applying a 4-9 DRE to xylene would
give the following emission factor:
(6510 mg/L) (3.785 L/gal) (2.2xl0~6 lb/mg) (1-0.-9999)
= 5.4 x 10~6 lb/gal
A facility burning 150,000 gallons per year would thus emit 0.81 Ibs/yr of
xylene. This emission rate is considered insignificant. Therefore, with the
exception of PAH and formaldehyde organic emissions from waste oil combustion
will be ignored. PAH and formaldehyde emission factors will be transferred
from residual oil combustion since waste oil closely resembles No. 6 fuel oil.
B-42
-------
WOOD COMBUSTION
1. PAH
Emission factors for wood combustion were taken from the following
document:
Tennessee Valley Authority, Wood-fired Boiler Test Report - Stick Burner,
TVA Report No. TVA/OP/ECR-84/4. Energy Use Test Facility, Chattanooga,
Tennessee, August 1983.
The emission for this source test were uncontrolled. The fuel used in the
tests was white oak and mixed logs. The following POM emission factors are
available:
65 mg/kg
83 mg/kg
87 mg/kg
Average =78 mg/kg
= 0.16 lb/ton
This emission factor represents both particulate and gaseous POM. It will be
assumed that POM equals PAH in this case.
2. Al-dehydes
Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde emissions are expected from industrial wood
combustion; however, an emission factor is not available. The aldehyde
emission factors for residential wood combustion could be transferred. But
the combustion characteristics of a fireplace are expected to be very
disimilar to a boiler.
3. Metals
Emission factors for metals are not available.
B-43
-------
RADIAN
eoapounoN
APPENDIX C
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
C-l
-------
ASPHALT DISTRIBUTION AND USAGE
Activity data for asphalt distribution and usage were obtained from the
Department of Energy's Energy Data Reports; Sales of Ashpalt in 1980.
This data is presented in the attached Table C-l. The total mass of for
each type of asphalt was apportioned to the major cities based on population.
-------
TABLE C-l.
ASPHALT USE A ALASKA. 1980
(Units in Tons)
Asphalt Type
Alaska
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Juneau
Ketchikan
Sitka
Asphalt Cement
55.911
24,265
7,492
2.740
1.455
1.062
Cutback Asphalt
3.302
1,433
442
162
92
63
Emulsified Asphalt
8.497
3.688
1.139
416
238
161
Road Oils
196
85
26
10
6
4
-------
MPjAM
RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTION
Emission factors were calculated for several pollutants produced by
residential wood combustion (see Appendix B). These emission factors are
specific to either wood stoves or fireplaces. In addition, some of the values
apply only to normal or to starved combustion conditions. All emission factors
are expressed in terms of mass pollutant per kilogram or ton of wood burned.
In order to calculate emission estimates, the following additional
information is required:
• the total amount of wood burned in fireplaces and in stoves, and
• the breakdown between day and night fuel use (it is assumed that
daytime burning corresponds to normal combustion conditions, while
overnight burning corresponds to starved combustion conditions).
This information was obtained form wood use surveys and from U.S. census data.
The derivation of the activity estimates used and the calculation of
emission estimates are described below.
Activity Data
Estimates of the extent of wood use in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and .Juneau
were derived from wood use surveys conducted in 1984 and 1985 by the Environ-
mental Services Division (ESD) of Fairbanks North Star Borough and the Anchor-
age Air Pollution Control Agency, as well as one survey of wood use in the
Mendenhall Valley (Juneau). The Juneau survey results were assumed to apply
to Sitka and Ketchikan as well.
The survey results are shown in Table C-2. In order to estimate the
total wood use in stoves and fireplaces, these results were combined with U.S.
Department of Commerce census data on the number of households in each city.
The census data are displayed in Table C-3.
Estimates of the total amount of wood burned in fireplaces in each city
were calculated using the following equation:
Total Wood
3urned in
Fireplaces
Total Number
Number of
Households
Fraction of
Households
Using Wood
Fraction of Wood-burning
Households with
Fireplaces
Average amount
of Wood Burned
Fireplaces
C-4
-------
TABLE C-2.
WOOD USE SURVEY RESULTS
CITY: Fairbanks Anchorage Juneau
Parameter
Households using Wood
51
63.3
56.1
(percent of all households)
Device Type
(percent of wood-burning households)
Fireplace
24.0
92.1
25.0
Stove
68.0
7.9
73.5
Other
7.9
0.0
1.5
Amount of Wood Burned
2.8
0.35
2.95!
(cords/year, average)
0.62
Time of Day Wood Burned
(percent of wood-burning households)
Day
12.7
NRC
NR
Night
53.7
NR
NR
Continuous
28.6
NR
NR
a) Wood stove consumption
b) Fireplace consumption
c) Not reported
-------
RADIAN
TABLE C-3.
NUMBER OF OCCUPIED YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITS
FOR FIVE ALASKA BOROUGHS - 1980
Boroughs Total Occupied Year-Rotmd Housing Units
Anchorage 60,470
Fairbanks North Star 18,224
Juneau 7,035
Ketchikan 3,985
Sitka 2,440
C-6
-------
RADIAN
Example calculation - wood use rate - Fairbanks - fireplaces
Total Wood = Number of x Fraction Using x Fraction of Wood x Average Amount
Burned Households Wood Users of Wood Burned
w/Fireplaces w/Fireplaces
1. Number of households = 18,224 (See Table C-3).
2. Fraction using wood = 0.51 (See Table C-2).
3. Fraction of wood-uses with fireplaces = 0.24 (See Table C-2).
4. Average amount of wood burned in fireplaces.
» Assume ratio of (amount used in average stove) = (Amount used in
average fireplace) is the same as that reported for Juneau = 2.95
0.62
• In Fairbanks, 24% of respondents used fireplaces; 76% used stoves or
"other"
• Average (overall) in Fairbanks was 2.8 cord/year
Let x = average amount used in fireplaces.
Then 2.95 x = 4.76 x = average amount used in stoves
0.62
Overall average 2.8 cord = 0.24 x + 0.76 (4.76x)
year
=> x = 0.72 = average amount used in fireplaces
4.76x. = 3.43 = average amount used in stoves
5. Total Wood Burned
= (18,224 households) (0.51/house) (0.24) (0.72 cords) = 1606 cords/year
year
(1606 cord/yr.) ~(2100 kg/cord) = 3.37 x 10^ kg/yr.
Example calculation - POM emissions - Fairbanks - fireplaces
(Emissions) = (Fireplaces wood use) (POM emissions factor-fireplaces)
= (3.37 x 106 kg/yr) (0.033 g/kg) = 1.1121 x 105 g/yr
= 111 kg/year.
C-7
-------
RUDIAN
A similar equation was used to estimate wood stove fuel use. In the case of
Fairbanks, the estimates were further refined to estimate daytime and
nighttime wood use. Based on the information shown in Table C-2, the values
calculated using equation (1) were multiplied by 0.32 to determine daytime
use, and by 0.68 to determine nighttime use. These values were derived by
apportionating the continuously operated wood buners to daytime use and
nighttime use. The continuously operated wood burners were assumed to operate
under daytime conditions two-thirds of the time and under nighttime conditions
one-third of the time.
Separate wood use estimates for stoves and fireplaces were not available
for Fairbanks and Anchorage. The relative use rates for fireplaces and stoves
were assumed to be the same in Fairbanks as in Juneau (fireplace use: stove
use = 0.210). The ADEC indicated that the average wood use in Anchorage
should be applied to woodstoves and fireplaces. Thus the following wood use
values were used:
City
Fairbanks
Anchorage
Finally, a factor of 4,600 lb/cord was used to convert wood volume to
mass. An example calculation, using the data for fireplaces in Fairbanks, is
included at the end of this Appendix.
Emission Calculation"
The activity data, in units of kg wood burned, were combined with the
emission factors described in Appendix B to calculate estimated pollutant
amissions. A sample calculation, for POM emissions from wood stoves in
Fairbanks, is included at the end of this Appendix.
Total emissions from stoves, fireplaces and "other" devices were summed;
it was assumed that stove emission factors applied to the "other" category as
well. Tables C-4 and C-5 contain summaries of these analyses. Table C-4
presents the wood usage rates which were used to calculate emissions. The
emission estimates derived using these values are show in Table C-5.
Device
Fireplaces
Stoves
Fireplaces
Stoves
Average Wood Use
0.72 cords/year
3.43 cords/year
0.35 cords/year
0.35 cords/year
C-8
-------
ummAM
CORPORATION
TABLE C-4.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED RESIDENTIAL
WOOD COMBUSTION RATES
Borough
Wood Use
Stove3
(lb/yr)
Fireplace
Anchorage
4.9
X
io6
5.6
x 107
Fairbanks North Star
1.1
X
108
7.4
x 107
Juneau
4.1
X
io7
2.9
x 106
Ketchikan
2.4
X
108
1.6
x 10^
Sitka
' 1.5
X
I-4
O
00
1.0
x 106
a) Stove wood combustion includes wood burned in unknown devices.
b) The recent popularity of wood stoves and the growth in the number of
housing units in Anchorage since 1980 may result in an underestimation of
the number of wood stoves and the amount of wood burned.
C-9
-------
RADIAN
TABLE C-5.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
FROM RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTION
Estimated Emission Rate (Ib/yr)
Pollutant
Anchora^e^
Fairbanks
North Star
Juneau
Ketchikan
Sitka
Acetaldehyde
490
11,000
4,400
2,500
1,500
Benzene3
3,000
1,900
690
390
240
Cresols
1,200
27,000
9.900
5,600
3,400
Dioxinsa
0.00034
0.0078
0.0022
0.0012
0.00076
Formaldehyde
970
22,000
9.200
5,200
3,200
Phenol -
1.500
34,000
12.000
7,000
4,300
POM
1,000
24,000
9,000
4,900
3,000
a) Emission estimates for these species only include the contributions from
wood-burning stoves - emission factors for fireplaces were not available.
b) The recent popularity of wood stoves and the growth in the number of
housing units in Anchorage since 1980 may result since an underestimation
of the number of wood stoves and the amount of wood burned.
C-10
-------
SLASH BURNING AND FOREST FIRES
Activity Data
Information on slash burning conducted in the Fairbanks and Anchorage
areas was obtained from ADEC staff. These estimates were based upon permit
data:
(These estimates do not take into account proposed projects. Several projects
involving slash burning have been proposed; if carried out, they could account
for more slash burning than the current estimated total.) Information on the
extent of slash burning projects in Southeast Alaska was not readily available
and was not obtained. Similarly, information on the acreage burned by forest
fires was not readily available and was not obtained. However, it is expected
that the amount of vegetation consumed by forest fires could be equal to or
greater than that burned by planned fires in some areas.
Emission Calculations
Emissions were calculated using the emission factors for POMs and manga-
nese documented in Appendix B. Those emission factors are related to mass of
vegetation burned. The values of acreage burned, described above, were
converted to mass values using mass loadings identified in a Kenai National
Wildlife Refuge Memorandum (1986) to the ADEC. The more conservative value of
8 tons/acre was used for the conversions.
Total emissions calculated in this way are displayed in Table C-6.
Fairbanks Area -
200 acres/year
Anchorage Area -
Kenai Peninsula -
Matanuska-Susitna Valley -
Total -
1,100 acres/year
9,000 acres/year
10,100 acres/year
C-ll
-------
RADIAN
TABLE C-6.
POM AND MANGANESE EMISSIONS FROM SLASH BURNING
Emission Rate (lb/year)
Araa POMs Manganese
Fairbanks 290 15
Anchorage
Kenai Peninsula 1,600 83
Matanuska-Susitna Valley 13,000 680
C-12
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
APPENDIX D
SURFACE COATING VOC SPECIATION DATA
D-l
-------
HjySIAN
CES EBOFILE NUMBER 712
INDUSTRIAL SURFACE OQATING - COMPOSITE ENAMEL
SAP GAD
CHEMICAL
WEIGHT
mnR
NAME
PffRPFW
43232
HEPTANE
1.56
43248
CYCLOHEXANE
2.27
43551
ACETONE
5.57
43552
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
2.36
43560
METHYL ISCBUTYL KETDNE
1.57
43433
ETHYL ACETATE
3.96
45202
TOLUENE
15.90
43435
N-BUTYL ACETATE
9.41
45203
ETHYISENZENE
2.36
45102
ISOMERS OF XYLENE
11.56
45204
0-XYLENE
11.53
50075
C5 ESTER
5.51
50077
HEPTANONE
3.62
50076
2-METHYI/-3-HEXANONE
16.44
45104
ISOMERS OF ETHYLTOLDENE
0.38
45107
ISOMERS OF TPIMETHYIBENZENE
Q.5Q
TOTAL
100.00
D-2
-------
RJUBIilN
CES PROFILE NDMBEB 713
MXJSTSLAL SDRFACE COATING - COMPOSITE FRIMER
SAROAD CHEMICAL WEIGHT
CODE mSE 2BBC2ZT
43232 HEPTANE 1.94
43261 METHYLCiCLOHEXANE 2.50
45202 TOLUENE 44.30
43108 ISCMERS OF NGNANE 3.45
50059 DIMETHYLCYCLCBEXANE 6.26
43277 214-DIMETHYLHEXANE 11.09
43435 N-BUTYL ACETATE 8.42
50091 DIMETHYLHEPTANE 1.04
50061 ETHYLCYCLOHEXANE 2.08
50060 TRIMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE 2.43
45102 ISCMERS OF XYLENE 1.45
45204 0-XYLEKE 2.23
43271 2,4-DIMETHYLPENTANE 2.66
50074 BUTYL CELD3SOLVE 10.13
TOTAL 99.98
D-3
-------
RADIAN
CES HK3FILE NUMBER 714
INDUSTRIAL SURFACE COATING - COMPOSITE ADHESIVE
SAFCAD
CHEMICAL
WEIGHT
nnnp.
NAME
PERCENT
43551
ACETONE
13.28
43231
HEXANE
0.90
43122
ISOMERS OF PENTANE
56.03
43552
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
11.17
43262
METHYLCYCLOPENTANE
3.22
50080
3UTAMDI0L
11.17
43560
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
0.80
45202
TOLUENE
3.42
TOTAL
99.99
D-4
-------
33J1DIAN
CES HlOFILE NUffiER 711
INDUSTRIAL SURFACE COATING - COMPOSITE LACQUER
SARQAD
CHEMICAL
WEIGHT
fnnp
NAME
PERCENT
43232
HEPTANE
10.16
43261
METHYLCYCLQHEXANE
15.24
43277
2,4-DIMETHYLHEXANE
0.76
50057
ETBYLCYCLOPENTfiNE
1.68
50058
TOIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
1.29
50090
METHYLHEPTENE
1.14
45202
TOLUENE
44.56
43108
ISOMERS OF NCNANE
2.04
43107
ISOMERS OF OCTANE
2.39
43435
N-BUTYL ACETATE
14.89
43288
ETHYLCYCLOHEXANE
0.79
50060
IB IMEHJYLCYCLOHEXANE
0.81
45102
ISOMERS OF XYLENE
1.04
45204
0-XYLENE
2.14
TOTAL 99.93
D-5
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
APPENDIX E
DETAILED LISTING OF POINT SOURCE RANKING
E-l
-------
HEALTH RISK
RANKING BY EMISSION SOURCE
FACILITY/LOCATION RANKING FACTOR
NORTH SLOPE BOftoDGII ITORTH SLOPE" HB6/12
CHANNEL LANDFILL.-JUNEAU 450071
CITY OF SITKA-SITKA XI8027
KETCHIKAN PULPCQ- KETCHIKAN 84000
ALYESKA PIPELINE PUMP STATION #U-COPPER CENTER • 41483
ALYESKA PIPELINE PUMP STATION #10-BLACK RAPIDS 39774
ALYESKA PI PEL INE PUMP STATION #7-LIVENOOOD 37761
ALYESKA PIPELINE PUMP STATION #8-FAIRBANKS 37351
ALYESKA PIPELINE PUMP STATION #9-DELTA 33943 ,
ALYESKA PIPELINE PUMP STATION #6-YUK0N RIVER 33920
ALASKA PULP CORP-SITKA 33600
HACOR-ANCHORAGE 32097
US ARMY FT. WAINWRIGHT-FAIRBANKS 30481
USAF SHEMYA AFB-SHEMYA 29110
WRANGELL FOREST F'RODUCTS-WRANGELL ' 28000
US NAVY ADAK NAVAL AIR STN-ADAK 25008
ALYESKA PIPELINE PUMP STATION #5-PR0SPECT 18914
CITY OF WHITIER-WHITIER 9862
ALYESKA PIPELINE/PUMP STATION' #3-SAGAVANIRT0K 8678
USAF KING SALMON AFB- B40B
ALYESKA MARINE TERMINAL-VALDEZ 7552
KODIAK ELECTRIC ASSN-KODIAK ISLAND 7136
GOLDEN VALLEY E ASSN-HEALY 6217
US ARMY FT WAINWRIGHT-FAIRBANKS 5870
US COAST GUARD-KODIAK 5449
US NAVY SECURITY GROUP ACT IVITY-ADAK 5095
KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITY-KETCHIKAN 4343
USAF SHEMYA AFB-SHEMYA 4128
ALASKA PULP CORP-SITKA 4046
UNOCAL CHEMICAL DIV ISION-KENAI PENINSULA 3866
W US ARMY FT GREELEY-DELTA 3722
flj BETHEL UT IL CORP -BETHEL 3067
GOLDEN VALLEY E ASSN FAIRBANKS 3037
GOLDEN VALLEY E ASSN- FAIRBANKS • 2769
USAF EIELSON AFLi FAIRBANKS 2450
NOME JOINT UTILITIES-NOME 2389
CORDOVA ELEC COOP, INC-CORDOVA 2180
TESORQ-ALASKAN-KENAI PENINSULA 2091
US ARMY FT RICHARDSON-ANCHORAGE 2033
KOTZEBUE ELEC A5SN-K0BUK 1905
ALASKA ELEC L&P-JUNEAU 18B1
MITKOF LUMBER CO-WRANGELL 1796
NAKNEK ELEC-BRISTOL BAY 1760
PETERSBURG MUNI LIGHT & F'WR-F'ETERSBURG 1663
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA-FAIRBANKS 1640
WRANGELL LIGHT S< POWER-WRANGELL 1501
NUSHAGAK ELEC COOP-BRISTOL BAY 1388
USAF CAPE NENENHAM AFS-PLATINUM 1373
PACIFIC FORESET PRODUCTS-HAINES 1368
US ARMY FT WAINWRIGHT-FAIRBANKS 1245
ICICLE SEAFOODS-SEWARD 1165
SHELDON JACKSON COLLEGE-SITKA 1165
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP-MT VILLAGE 1109
HAINES LIGHT & POWER -HAINES 1082
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO- Op-SELAWIK 871
ALASKA HUSKY BATTERY INC-ANCHORAGE B67
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP -NUNAPITCHUK B44
EMISSION SOURCE
MUNICI PAL™ 1NC INFRA M OTnFHC
MUNICIPAL INCINERATION MC
MUNICIPAL INC1NERATION-MC
WOOD COMBUSTION
TURBINE DIESEL ENG
TURBINE DIESEL ENG
TURBINE DIESEL ENG
TURBINE DIESEL ENG
TURBINE DIESEL ENG
TURBINE DIESEL ENG
WOOD COMBUSTION
MUNICIPAL INCINERATION-SC
COAL COMBUSTION
MUNICIPAL INCINERATION-SC
WOOD COMBUSTION
DISTILLATE OIL COMBUSTION
TURBINE DIESEL ENG
MUNICIPAL INCINERATION-SC
MUNICIPAL INCINERATION-SC
MUNICIPAL INCINERATION-SC
TURBINE DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
COAL COMBUSTION
DISTILLATE OIL COMBUSTION
DISTILLATE OIL COMBUSTION
DISTILLATE OIL COMBUSTION
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
DISTILLATE OIL COMBUSTION
DISTILLATE OIL COMBUSTION
WASTE OIL COMBUSTION
DISTILLATE OIL COMBUSTION
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
TURBINE DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
COAL COMBUSTION
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
DISTILLATE OIL COMBUSTION
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
WOOD COMBUSTION
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
COAL COMBUSTION
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
DISTILLATE OIL COMBUSTION
WOOD COMBUSTION
WASTE OlL COMBUSTION
WASTE OIL COMBUSTION
WASTE OIL COMBUSTION
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
BATTERY MANUFACTURING
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
-------
HEAL IJI RISK RANKING BY EMISSION SOURCE
f AC IL i [ Y / LOCA fI UN RANKING FACTOR
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC " CO - OF,:-NOORV IK 039"
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO -OP -KIANA 83 5
UNOCAL/GRAYL ING-COOK INLET 823
SHELL/C-CDGK INLET 823
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO-BARROW 800
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP SHISHMAREF 799
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP TOGIAK 799
AMOCO/BRUCE -COOK INLET 791 (
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP-GAMBELL 754
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-QP-NOATAK 704
MAPCO F ETROL.EUM CQRP-NORTH POLE 701
ALASKA PULP CORP- SITKA 672
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-QP-NULATO 636
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OF-SHUNGNAK 634
KETCHIKAN PULF'CO KETCHIKAN 590
ANCHORAGE WATER AND SEWER-ANCHORAGE 553
UNOCAL CHEMICAL DIVISION-KENAI PENINSULA 520
STANDARD ALASKA PROD CO-BARROW 513
DOT THE AK RAILROAD-FAIRBANKS 483
PA I N S BOROUGH SCHOOL. DIST-FAIRBANKS 476
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CQ-OP-KIVALINA 474
US COAST GUARD -KODIAK 466
STANDARD ALASKA PRODUCTION CO-BARROW 463
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP-STEBBINS 450
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP AMBLER 443
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO OP-FORTUNA LEDGE 440
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP-TDK SOOK BAY 440
ALYESKA/PUMP STATION #3-SAGAVANIRTOK 439
m AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP-EEK 438
I COOK INLET PIPELINE -KENAI PENINSULA 430
w SKAGWAY POWER & TELEPHONE- SKAGWAY 407
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP-HOLY CROSS 407
COPPER VALLEY E ASSN-VALDEZ,GLENNALLEN 404
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-DP-OLD HARBOR 402
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP KATAG 3B9
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO OF'-KOYUK 382
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP-GOGDNEWS BAY 376
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC C0-0P-GRAYLIN6 376
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO OPELIM 362
ANCHORAGE INTERNATIONAL-ANCHORAGE 347
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP-NEW STUYAHOK 335
TESORO PETROLEUM CORp-KENAI PENINSULA 276
ARCO/KING SALMON-COOK" INLET 274
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP-WALES 274
AK GOLD CO-NOME 271
FAI N S BOROUGH SCHOOL DIST-FAIRBANKS 271
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP-MINTO 260
AMOCO/BAKER COOK INLET 242
AK VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP-SHAYELUK 232 .
ALYESKA PIPELINE PUMP STATION #11-COPPER CENTER 209 '
WRANGELL FOREST PRODUCTS--WRANGELL 202
PROVIDENCE HOSPII AL-ANCHORAGE 202
ALYESKA/PUMP STATION #1-DEADHORSE 187
UNOCAL/GRANITE POINT COOK INLET 161
GOLDEN VALLEY E ASSN-YUKON 161
TESORO -ALASKAN-ANCHORAGE 161
EMISSION SOURCE
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL. ENG
WOOD COMBUSTION
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
WASTE WATER EMISSIONS
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
WASTE WATER EMISSIONS
SLUDGE INCINERATION
COOLING TOWERS
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
COAL COMBUSTION
DISTILLATE OIL COMBUSTION
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
WASTE OIL COMBUSTION
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
TURBINE DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RESIDUAL OIL COMBUSTION
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
AIRPORTS
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
COMPLEX REFINERY FUGITIVES
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
DISTILLATE OIL COMBUSTION
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
DISTILLATE OIL COMBUSTION
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
ETHYLENE OXIDE STERILIZERS
TURBINE DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
-------
HEALTH RISK RANGING BV EMISSION SOURCE
FACILITY/LOCATION RANKING FACTOR
FAIRBANKS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL-FAIRBANKS : T5^f
HUMANA HOSPITAL ANCHORAGE 134
SNOW WHITE LDY S< CLNRS ANCHORAGE 131
ALASKA NATIVE MEDICAL CENTER-ANCHORAGE 115
ALASKA ELECTROPLATING S< BUMPER REP.-ANCHORAGE 114
ALYEGKA PIPELINE PUMP STATION #7 -LIVENGOOD 114
CHEVRON USA INC -ANCHORAGE 107
BARILET1 MEMORIAL HOSPITAL-JUNEAU 94
ALYEGKA PIPELINE PUMP STATION #8 -FAIRBANKS 84 I
AL.YESKA/PUMP STATION #4ATIGUN RIVER Sl2
AL.YESKA/PUMP STATION #2-SAGW0N 82
TEXACO ANCHORAGE 68
ANCHORAGE SAND ?< GRAVEL-ANCHORAGE 65
ROGERS S< BABLER-ANCHORAGE 65
FAIRBANKS INTERNATIONAL-FAIRBANKS 64
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM-KENAI 58
USAF REGIONAL HOSPITAL-ELMENDORF AFB 50
KETCHIKAN GENERAL HOSPITAL-KE,TCHIKAN 50
VALLEY HOSPITAL PALMER 47
CHEVRON USA INC-VALDEZ,CHITINA,WHITTIER 44
US NAVY ADAK NAVAL AIR STN-ADAK 40
F'ETROLEUM DIRECTORATE-WHITTIER 35
WILDER CONSTRUCTION CO-ANCHORAGE 33
ENGINE GEER CO., INC-ANCHORAGE 32
ROGERS & BABLER-FAIRBANKS 30
HARLEY S T RUCK ING-SOLDOTINA 30
WILDER CONSTRUCTION CO-ANCHORAGE 29
ROGERS h BABLER-ANCHORAGE 2h
CHEVRON USA INC--FAIRBANKS 25
CENTRAL PENINSULA HOSPITAL-SOLDOTNA 25
I JUNEAU AIRPORT-JIJNEAU 24
¦P" ASSOCIATED SAND ?< GRAVEL # 1 4-F'TBURG,KETCH, SI TKA 24
CHEVRON USA INC CORDOVA 24
F'ETROLEUM DIRECTORATE-ANCHORAGE 23
M-B CONTRACTING CO-ANCHORAGE 19
DEAD HORSE AIRF'ORT-DEADHORSE 17
QUALITY ASPHALT PAVING-ANCHORAGE 17
MUNICIPAL UTILITIES SYS FAIRBANKS 17
CHEVRON USA INC -JUNEAU 17
AMOCO PRODUCTION CO-KENAI PENINSULA 16
KETCHIKAN INTERNATIONAL-KETCHIKAN 16
ASSOCIATED ASPHALT PAVING-ANCHORAGE 16
BASSET I ARMY HOSPITAL -FT WAINWRIGHT 16 '
MAPCO PETROLEUM CORP-NORTH POLE ' 15
CHEVRON USA INC-NOME 15
TRANS-ALASKA CONSTRUCTION-FAIRBANKS 14
ARCTIC ENERGY-FOX 13
ALYESKA PIPELINE/PUMP STATION W10-BLACK RAPIDS 13
ALYESKA PIPELINE/PUMP STATION #8-FAIRBANKS 13
SITKA AIRPORT-SITKA 11
PAVING PRODUCTS-FAIRBANKS 11
PAVING PRODUCTS I NC-FAIRBANKS 11
CHEVRON USA INC- SKAGWAY 11
CHEVRON USA INC ALEUTIAN ISLANDS 11
ROGERS !< D ABLER'-ANCHOR AGE 10
CENTRAL PAVINO/RED SAMM-ANCHORAGE 9
EMISSION SOURCE
ETHYLENE OXIDE STERILIZERS
PCE DRY CLEANING
ETHYLENE OXIDE STERILIZERS
CHROME PLATING- DECORA!IVE
DISTILLATE OIL COMBUSTION
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
ETHYLENE OXIDE STERILIZERS
DISTILLATE OIL COMBUSTION
TURBINE DIESEL ENG
TURBINE DIESEL ENG
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
AIRPORTS
COOLING TOWERS
ETHYLENE OXIDE STERILIZERS
ETHYLENE OXIDE STERILIZERS
ETHYLENE OXIDE STERILIZERS
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
ELECTROPLATING-CHROMIUM
HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
ETHYLENE OXIDE STERILIZERS
AIRPORTS
HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
PCE DRY CLEANING
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
AIRPORTS
HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
COAL COMBUSTION
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
AIRPORTS
HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
ETHYLENE OXIDE STERILIZERS
TOPPING REFINERY FUGITIVES
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
TOPPING REFINERY FUGITIVES
TOPPING REFINERY FUGITIVES
TOPPING REFINERY FUGITIVES
AIRPORTS
HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
RECIPROCATING DIESEL ENG
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
GASOLINE EVAPORATION
HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
-------
HLAKHI RISK RANI 1NU BY EMISSION SOURCE
F AC I L I f Y/L UCA F I UN RAWING FACTOR
~Tr^O^ATRBnNR!T~ "— 9
EARTHMOVERS OF" F A iRBANt S~ ANCHORAGE 8
CHEVRON USA INC- KODUK Q
RASCO INC FAIRBANKS 7
EARTHMOVERS OF FAIRBANKS FAIRBANKS 7
BRIUOEWATER FAIRBANKS 7
PETRO STAR INC. - NORTH POLE 6
CHEVRON USA KENAI F'ENINSULA 6 ,
ARCO F'RUDHOE BAY 6
ARCO KUPARLJK 6
ASSOC IA I ED BAND ?< GRAVEL #15-JUNEAU 6
ALASKA BASIC INDUSTRIES-ANCHORAGE 6
VALLEY ASPHALT CO PALMER 6
CHEVRON USA INC-BRISTOL BAY 6
CHEVRON USA INC KENAI PENINSULA 6
CHEVRON LJSA INC-KETCH! KAN 6
CHEVRON USA INC KODIAK ISLAND
WILDER CONST RUC TION~ANCHORAGEr 5
MUNICIPAL UTILITIES SYS-FAIRBANKS 5
I.NIK CONSTRUCTION LYNDEN 4
GERS ¦?- BABL.ER- ANCHORAGE 4
US ARMY FT WA I NWF
-------
APPENDIX F
AIR TOXICS QUESTIONNAIRES
-------
ctp n ctp
DEPT. OF EMmOKMMIAL COXSERVATIOX
BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
P.O. BOX 0, JUNEAU, AK 99811-1800
(907) 465-2666
July 18, 1986
Dear Sir or Madame:
Public concern about exposure to toxic substances has prompted the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to develop a national strategy for
controlling routine emissions of toxic air contaminants. This strategy
includes a directive to states to examine their own needs for controlling
and regulating emissions of toxic air contaminants. In response to this
directive, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation is conduct-
ing an inventory of toxic air contaminants and volatile organic compounds
which may be emitted into Alaska's air.
As part of this inventory, the Department requests that you complete the
attached questionnaires for operators of facilities which handle or have
the potential to emit toxic substances in Alaska. The number and type of
questionnaires mailed were based on a general classification of your
facility.. If some of the forms or specific questions do not apply or no
information is available, please indicate this in your response. Your
cooperation in completing the questionnaires as comprehensively as possible
will be appreciated. If necessary, please make copies of forms in order
to provide information on all activities at your facility.
Radian Corporation has been contracted to identify the potential sources
of toxic air contaminants, prepare questionnaires and compile quantitative
amission estimates. Return all completed forms no later than August 15,
1986, to Mr. Ronald Dickson, Radian Corporation, 10395 Old Placerville
Road, Sacramento, CA 95827.
Please clearly and specifically identify any information you would consider
confidential and give a brief explanation for this designation. Informa-
tion identified as confidential will be treated as such by the Department
and contractor personnel.
General questions regarding the inventory purpose and process can be
directed to Mr. Jon Sandstedt at (907) 465-2666. Technical questions
regarding proper completion of the forms or emission estimation procedures
may be directed to Mr. Ronald Dickson of the Radian Corporation at (916)
362-5332.
Leonard D. Verrelli
Air Quality Program Manager
F-2
LV:clb
-------
RADIAN
comonnWM
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
AIR TOXICS QUESTIONNAIRE
Facility Name:
Address:
Individual to be contacted with questions regarding this form:
Name:
Title:
Phone Number:
* Emission Source:
* To be completed by ADEC
F-3
-------
RADIAN
coctPonjvnoM
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
INDUSTRIAL INCINERATION QUESTIONNAIRE
PREFACE
Purpose
The purpose of this questionnaire is to gather information and data on
the emission of air toxics from the incineration of industrial wastes.
Equipment Specification
This section is intended to gather general process information about the
incinerator. Please describe the type of incinerator used, e.g., dual chamber
fixed hearth. Also prepare a block diagram that shows the flow of material
into and out of the incinerator. This block diagram is intended to be a
material_ balance of the operation.
Waste Characteristics
Please complete this section for each -waste incinerated. Make multiple
copies of this section as necessary. Question 3 should be completed after
reviewing Table 1. Any constituents from Table 1 that are incinerated should
be recorded under Question 3.
Residual Characteristics
Residual characteristics will be used with the information gathered in
the previous section to perform a material balance. Please provide all
available information that will be useful.
F-4
-------
RADIAN
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
INDUSTRIAL INCINERATION QUESTIONNAIRE
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION
1. Please provide a block diagram of the incinerator showing the feed equip-
ment, incinerator, ash handling equipment, and air pollution control
equipment. This diagram should show all material entering and leaving
the system.
2. Type of incinerator:
3. Operating schedule: hr/day day/wk wk/yr
4. Operating temperature: °F
5. Type of auxiliary fuel used: - '
Quantity of auxiliary fuel used: .
6. Incinerator dimensions:
7. Flue gas flow rate: CFM (dry basis, standard conditions)
8: Air pollution control equipment:
1 2
Control Device Pollutant Controlled Efficiency Basis for Efficiency
Efficiency should be expressed on a weight removal basis.
Describe the basis for estimating efficiency (i.e., source test, vendor
guaranty, etc.).
F-5
-------
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
1. Waste^" type # :
2. Quantity of waste: jjj incinerated:
3. If available, please provide data on the constituents listed in. Table 1
that are present in the waste:
Basis for
Concentration
Constituent Concentration (ppm) Estimate
Use a separate sheet for each type of waste incinerated. Number each
waste consecutively starting with 1.
Describe the basis for the estimate (i.e., analytical tests, safety data
sheets, etc.).
F-6
-------
RESIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS
1. Mass of particulate emitted from the incinerator: lbs/hr
2. Mass of volatile organic compounds emitted from the incinerator:
lbs/hr
3. If available, please provide information on the constituents listed in
Table 1 that are present as particulate:
Basis for
^ Concentration
Constituent Stack Gas Concentration Estimate
4. If available, please provide information on the constituents listed in
Table 1 that exit the incinerator as gases or vapors:
Constituent
Stack Gas Concentration
Basis for
Concentration
Estimate
5. Mass of Ash generated by incinerator: lbs/hr
^ Express concentration as milligrams per dry standard cubic feet per
minute-
2
Describe the basis for the estimate (i.e., source tests, material
balances, etc.).
F-7
-------
RADIAN
6. Constituents listed in Table 1 that are present in the ash:
Basis for
Concentration
Constituent Ash Concentration (ppm) Estimate
Describe the basis for the estimate (i.e., source tests, material
balances, etc.).
F-8
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
TABLE 1. FIFTY-SIX SELECTED NONCRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Allyl chloride
Arsenic
Asbestos
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzyl chloride
Berryllium
Bis(chloromethyl)ether
Cadmium
Carbon tetrachloride
CFC 113 (Freon 113)
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chloroprene
Chromium
Cresola
Dibromoethane (Ethylene
dibramide)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
Dichloroethane (Ethylene
' dichloride)
Dichloromethane (Methylene
chloride)
Dimethyl sulfate
Dioxane
Oioxins
Epichlorohydrin
Ethyleneimine (Aziridine)
Ethylene oxide
Formaldehyde
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hydrazine
Lead arsenate
Maleic anhydride
Manganese
Mercury
B-Napthylamine
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
Nitrosomorpholine
Farathion
Phenol
Phosgene
Folychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs)
Polycyclic Organic Matter
(includes Benzo(a)pyrene)
Propylene oxide
Radionuclides
Tetrachloroethylene
(Perchloroethylene)
Toluene
1.1,1-Trichloroethane
(Methyl chloroform)
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
7inylidene chloride
Xylene
F-9
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION QUESTIONNAIRE
PREFACE
Purpose
The purpose of this questionnaire is to gather information and data on
the emission of toxic metals from the incineration of municipal sewage sludge.
Equipment Specification
This section is intended to gather general process information about the
incinerator. Please describe the type of incinerator used, e.g., multiple
hearth, fluidized bed. Also prepare a block diagram that shows the flow of
material into and out of the incinerator. This block diagram is intended to
be a material balance of the operation.
Waste Characteristics
In Question 1, please indicate the type and concentration of metal wastes
that are received at the sewage treatment plant. This information will help
prepare a material balance around the incinerator.
Residual Characteristics
Residual characteristics will be used with the information gathered in
the previous section to perform a material balance of heavy metals.
F-IO
-------
RADIAN
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION QUESTIONNAIRE
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION
1. Please provide a block diagram of the incinerator showing the feed
equipment, incinerator, ash handling equipment, and air pollution control
equipment. This diagram should show all material entering and leaving
the system.
2. Type of incinerator:
3i Operating schedule: hr/day day/wk wk/yr
4. Operating temperature of primary chamber: °F
Operating temperature of secondary chamber: °F
5. Type of auxiliary fuel used:
Quantity of auxiliary fuel used: -
6. Incinerator dimensions:
7. Flue gas flow rate: CFM (dry basis, standard
conditions)
3. Air pollution control equipment:
1 2
Control Device Pollutant Controlled Efficiency Basis for Efficiency
Efficiency should be expressed on a weight removal basis.
Describe the basis for estimating efficiency (i.e., source test, vendor
guaranty, etc.).
F-ll
-------
RADIAN
- COKPOMJKTVOffl
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
1. If available, please provide information on the metals content of the
treatment system influent:
METAL CONCENTRATION (ppm)
Arsenic
Berryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel ___________
2. If available, please provide the metals concentration of the incinerator
feed (PPM, dry basis):
OTHER
SLUDGE SCUM WASTES
ARSENIC
BERRYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
3. Moisture content of sludge: %
F-12
-------
cowpfwmww
4. Mass of sludge incinerated: lbs/day Ibs/yr
5. Mass of scum incinerated: lbs/day lbs/yr
6. Quantity of other wastes incinerated: lbs/day lbs/yr
Types of other wastes:
RESIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS
1. Mass of ash generated: lb/hr lb/yr
2. If available, please provide the metals content of the ash:
METAL CONCENTRATION (ppm)
Arsenic
BerryIlium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
3. If available, please provide the mass of particulate emitted from the
incinerator:
lb/hr- lb/yr
4. If available, please provide the mass of volatile organic compounds
emitted from the incinerator:
lb/hr lb/yr
F-13
-------
KAD1AN
5. If available, please provide the mass of metal constituents emitted from
the incinerator:
METAL LB/HR BASIS FOR EMISSION RATE1
Arsenic •
Berryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Describe the basis for the emission rae (i.e., source tests, material
balances, etc.).
F-14
-------
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
ELECTROPLATING QUESTIONNAIRE
PREFACE
Purpose
The purpose of this questionnaire is to gather information and data on
the emission of chromium, nickel, and cadmium from electroplating operations.
General Information
The first page of the questionnaire is designed to identify the type(s)
of electroplating in use. Please complete this page as accurately as
possible.
Operating Characteristics
Please complete this section separately for each tank in use. Three
copies of this section are provided. If there are more than three tanks in
use, please make additional copies as necessary.
F-15
-------
RADIAN
COCEPOKJKTKMI
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
ELECTROPLATING QUESTIONNAIRE
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Is chrome plating performed at this facility? Yes No
If yes, what type of plating is performed?
Decorative
Hard Plating
Chromic Acid Anodizing
2. Is nickel plating performed at this facility? Yes No
3. Is cadmium plating performed at this facility? Yes No
F-16
-------
RADIAN
TANK OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS1
Type of plating operation .
Plating Tank (1, 2, 3, etc.).3
Operating Schedule: Hr/day day/yr
Surface area of plating tank: square feet
Typical range of total current: ampres.
Type of pollution control equipment:
' «
Estimated control efficiency:
Basis for removal efficiency:
5
Complete this page separately for each electroplating tank in use. Make
additional copies of this page if necessary.
Please use the descriptors provided under the general information section
on the previous page.
Please number each tank in use starting with the #1.
Efficiency should be expressed on a weight removal basis.
Describe the basis for estimating efficiency (i.e., source test, vendor
guaranty, etc.).
F-17
-------
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
ETHYLENE OXIDE STERILIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE
PREFACE
Purpose
The purpose of this questionnaire is to gather information that can be
used to estimate emissions of ethylene oxide from hospital sterilization
activities.
General Instructions
In order to accurately estimate ethylene oxide emissions from your
hospital, we need information relating to the entire hospital (questions 1 and
2) as well as specific information on each ethylene oxide sterilizer used
(questions 3 through 11). Please make and fill out a separate copy of
questions 3 through 11 for each ethylene oxide sterilizer at your hospital.
F-18
-------
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
ETHYLENE OXIDE STERILIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE
Is ethylene oxide used as a sterilant at your hospital? Yes No
If ethylene oxide is not used, please answer question 1(a) and return
this questionnaire. If ethylene oxide is used, please answer the
remaining questions.
1 (a). Is material from you hospital sterilized with ethylene oxide at
a contract sterilization facility? " Yes No
If yes, please name the facility which does your ethylene oxide
sterilization:
How many beds are there in your hospital (approximately)?
As compared to other hospitals, do any conditions exist at your hospital
which may lead to a higher or lower than average use of materials
sterilized with ethylene oxide (such as an above average amount of
surgery)?
Yes No
If yes, please explain:
F-19
-------
If more than one ethylene oxide sterilizer is used at your hospital, please
make a separate copy of the remaining questions for each sterilizer used.
4. Sterilizer number: (1. 2, 3...)
type: (table-top)
(built-in)
5. Sterilizer manufacturer and model:
6. Sterilizer volume: Cubic feet:
7. Average number of sterilization cycles per day (approximate):
8. Type of sterilant gas mixture used:
12% ethylene oxide and 88% freon-12 by weight
100% ethylene oxide
10% ethylene oxide and 90% carbon dioxide by weight
. other. Please indicate the sterilant gas mixture used:
9. Size of container sterilant gas is received in:
70 lb net weight cylinder
75 lb net weight cylinder
160 lb net weight cylinder
67 gram cartridge (3M Sterigas® 2-67)
100 gram cartridge (3M Sterigas® 4-100)
134 gram cartridge (3M Sterigas® 4-134)
other. Please indicate size:
F-20
-------
10. Please indicate the number of sterilant containers used:
monthly: , and
annually: .
11. Is a non-recirculating water-sealed pump used to evacuate the steril-
ization chamber?
(yes/no)
If no, please describe the type of pump used for sterilization chamber
evacuation:
12. Are any emission control devices used to reduce ethylene oxide emissions
to the outdoor air?
(yes/no)
If yes, please indicate the type and efficiency of control:
scrubber
catalytic filter
¦ carbon adsorption columns
other. Please describe the control device used:
Efficiency1: %
2
Basis for Efficiency :
Efficiencies should be expressed on a weight removal basis.
Describe the basis for the efficiency estimate (i.e., source test, vendor
guarantee, etc.).
F-21
-------
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
PAINT MANUFACTURING SURVEY
1. Please provide as an attachment, a block diagram of the paint manufac-
turing process showing materials storage equipment, feed equipment,
mixing tanks, and all air pollution control devices. This diagram should
show all materials entering and leaving the system.
2. Operating mode: Batch or Continuous
3. Operating schedule: hr/day day/wk wk/yr
or: hrs/batch batches/yr
4. Please complete Table 1 for each pigment used by the facility.
5. Please complete Table 2 for each solvent used as a paint additive.
6. Please complete Table 3 for each solvent used in tank cleaning oper-
ations.
7. Describe tank cleaning procedures:
8. List the quantity of waste generated from tank cleaning and describe the
treatment/disposal practices for this waste:
F-22
-------
RADIAN
cowpomwow
9. Please provide the following information for each air pollution control
device used at the facility:
1 2
Control Device Pollutant Controlled Efficiency"1" Basis for Efficency
Efficiencies should be reported in terms of weight percent removal of the
pollutant controlled.
Describe the basis for estimating efficiency (i.e., source test, vendor
guaranty, etc.).
F-23
-------
TABLE 1. PIGMENT USE INFOMATION
PIGMENT USE2
PIGMENT NAME PIGMENT COMPOSITION LBS/DAY L3S/7R FUGITIVE DUST EMISSION LOSSES
By weight percent, list the major constituents of the pigment.
List the daily and annual pigment use for the facility.
As a percentage of the total pigment use, estimate fugitive dust emission losses that
occur during the handling of the dry pigment.
F-24
-------
TABLE 2. SOLVENT ADDITIVE INEORMAHCN
SOLVENT USE 2
SCLVEWT NAME SCLVENP OMOSmCN LBS/DAY LBS/YR
i SOLVENT
SCLVENT OCNttNT ,
EVAPORATIVE MIXING PAINT HCDUCIlCtf Ob' PAINT
LOSSES (%) mffEKAlURE (°F) LBS/DAY IBS/TO (WEIQff %)
\
to
Ln
* By weight percent, list the major constituents of the solvent.
2
List the daily arei annual solvent use for the facility.
As a percentage of the total solvent use, estimate solvent losses due to evaporation.
^ List the mixing temperature used during solvent addition.
List the daily and anrual paint production associated with the solvent.
^ If available, please list tte weight percent of solvent contained in the paint.
-------
TABLE 3. CLEANING SOLVENT USE INFORMATION
SOLVENT
SOLVENT USE" EVAPORATIVE
SOLVENT NAME SOLVENT COMPOSITION LBS/DA? LBS/YEAR LOSSES (%)3
By weight percent, list the major constituents of the solvent.
List the daily and annual solvent use for the facility.
As a percentage of the total solvent use, estimate solvent losses due to evaporation.
F-26
-------
HHDIAN
CORPOIUflOII
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
LEAD BATTERY MANUFACTURING QUESTIONNAIRE
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. List the types of batteries manufactured at this facility:
Automotive: Industrial:
Other (describe):
2. Provide the following production data for each battery type listed in
Question 1:
Automotive battery production: Batteries Batteries
Tear Day
Industrial battery production: Batteries Batteries
Year Day
Other battery production: Batteries Batteries
Year Day
3. List the average or typical lead content for each battery type:
Automotive batteries: lb. lead/battery
Industrial batteries: lb. lead/battery
Other batteries: lb. lead/battery
Note: Lead content refers to the total quantity of lead in the
battery including elemental lead in battery grids and ter-
minals, and lead compounds in the active material of battery
plates.
4. List the percent of each battery type manufactured using open formation
and closed formation processes:
Automotive batteries: % Open Formation % Closed Formation
Industrial batteries: % Open Formation % Closed Formation
Other batteries: % Open Formation % Closed Formation
F-27
-------
RADIAN
PROCESS INFORMATION
A. GRID CASTING
1. For each battery type, list the percent lead and the percent of alloying
metals contained in the battery grids:
Automotive batteries:
Industrial batteries:
Other batteries:
_% Lead
%
(List metal)
%
(List metal)
% Lead
%
(List metal)
%
(List metal)
% Lead
%
(List metal)
%
(List metal)
B.
' 1<
2.
LEAD OXIDE PRODUCTION
Is lead oxide produced on-site?
Yes
No
For on-site lead oxide production, identify the process used to produce
the lead oxide :
Barton
Other
Ball Mill
3. If fabric filters are used to control air emissions from on-site lead
oxide production, list the air to cloth ratio (4:1, 3:1, or 2:1) of the
filter:
Air to cloth ratio:
F-23
-------
RADIAN
COCtVKMKJVVVON
C. LEAD RECLAIM
1. Is a lead reclaim furnace used at this facility? Yes No
2. If a lead reclaim furnace is used, approximately what percent of the
total lead processed at the facility is reclaimed in the furnace? %
D. FORMATION
1. Provide the following information for closed formation processes:
Automotive batteries: Length of charging cycle Hours
Charging rate Amps
Industrial batteries: Length of charging cycle Hours
Charging Rate Amps
Other batteries: Length of charging cycle Hours
Charging- cycle Amps
E. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
1. Provide the following information for each air pollution control device
used at the facility:
Control Process1, Pollutant ^ 3
Device Controlled Controlled Efficiency Basis for Efficiency
Process controlled refers to manufacturing processes such as grid
casting, posting, formation, etc.
Report efficiency in weight percent removal of controlled parameter.
Describe the basis for estimating efficiency (i.e., source test, vendor
guaranty, etc.).
F-29
-------
RADIAN
CORMMTION
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF EN7IRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
COOLING TOWER QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Is a cooling tower (or towers) used at this facility? Yes No
If a cooling tower (or towers) is not used, complete only question one
and return this questionnaire. If a cooling tower is used, please answer
the remaining questions.
2. What type of cooling tower(s) is used?
Mechanical draft evaporative cooling tower
Natural draft evaporative cooling tower
Other, please describe:
3. In the space provided below, please list the chemical additives used the
cooling tower. If known, also record the quantity of each chemical used
and/or its concentration in the cooling water.
Concentration in
Chemical Additive Amount Used (lb/yr) the Cooling Water (ppm)
4. If a cooling tower is used in conjunction with electrical power
generation, what is the thermal energy input to the power plant:
BTU/hr
-------
What is the volume of cooling water used? gallons/hr
Is the cooling water recycled? Yes No
If yea, how much cooling water is removed through blowndown?
gallons/hr
What is the quantity of water recycled? gallons/hr
If known, please indicate the quantity of cooling tower drift as a
percent of the cooling water used:
%
F-31
-------
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
SURFACE COATING QUESTIONNAIRE
PREFACE
Purpose
The purpose of this questionnaire is to gather information and data
on the emission of air toxics from the application of paints, varnishes, and
other surface coating materials.
Operation Description
Please provide a written description of the surface coating
operation. For example, the description should indicate whether brushing,
rolling, spraying, flow coating, or dipping operations are used.
Separate copies of the questionnaire should be completed for each
surface coating operation in use.
Coating Material Characteristics
Only broad categories of surface coating materials are listed in the
questionnaire due to limited speciation data of volatile organic compounds
from surface coating. Please categorize your coating material within these
classifications as appropriate.
F-32
-------
RADIAN
coRPomnoN
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
SURFACE COATING QUESTIONNAIRE
OPERATION DESCRIPTION
1. Is surface coating used at this facility? Yes No
2. If yes, please briefly describe tbe surface coating operation:
3. Operating schedule: hr/day day/wk wk/yr
4. Are any air pollution control devices used to control volatile emissions?
Yes No
If yes, what control devices are used?
CONTROL DEVICE POLLUTANT CONTROLLED EFFICIENCY1 BASIS FOR EFFICIENCY2
Efficiency should be expressed on a weight removal basis.
Describe the basis for estimating efficiency (i.e., source test, vendor
guaranty, etc.).
"F-33
-------
HH0IIIM
CORPORATION
COATING MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS
1. Please provide the coating application rate for the following materials:
COATING MATERIAL VOLUME USED (gal/yr) BASE1
Lacquer '
Enamel
Primer
Adhesive
Water base paint
Oil base paint
2. Are powder coatings used at your facility? Yes No
If yes, please indicate which coating materials are powders:
COATING MATERIAL QUANTITY USED (Ib/yr)
SOLVENT USAGE
1. Are makeup solvents added to coatings to compensate for standing losses?
Yes No
Where appropriate, indicate whether the coating material is water or oil
based.
F-34
-------
RADIAN
MRPOMTION
If yes, list the solvent compounds used and their volumes:
SOLVENT VOLUME USED (gal/yr)
2.. Are any solvents used for facility and equipment cleanup?
Yes No
If yes, list the solvent compounds used and their volumes:
SOLVENT VOLUME USED (gal/yr)
3. Please describe the treatment/disposal practices for this waste:
F-35
-------
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
DEGREASING QUESTIONNAIRE
PREFACE
Purpose
The purpose of this questionnaire is to gather information and data on
the emission of air toxics from degreasing operations.
Operation Description
This section is intended to gather general information about the
degreasing operation. Please describe the types of degreasers and solvents
used and the total volume of each solvent purchased in 1985.
Spent Solvent Disposition
Please copy this section and complete it for each degreasing operation in
use.
F-36
-------
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL , CONSERVATION
DECREASING QUESTIONNAIRE
OPERATION DESCRIPTION
1. Is degreasing performed at this facility? Yea No
2. If yes, please indicate the type of degreasing unit used:
IN USE? SOLVENTS USED
Cold cleaner
Open top vapor ____________
Conveyorized, vapor ___________
Conveyorized, non-boiling
3. For each degreasing operation, record the volume of solvent purchased for
1985:
VOLUME OF SOLVENT PURCHASED
DEGREASING OPERATION TYPE OF SOLVENT USED (GAL/YR)
F-37
-------
SPENT SOLVENT DISPOSITION1
1. Degreasing Operation:
2. Is spent solvent generated? Yes No
3. If spent solvent is generated, is the solvent shipped off-site for
disposal? Yes No
If yes. how much solvent is shipped off-site? lbs/yr
What percent of the spent solvent is actually solvent? %
Please append any analytical data that documents the composition of the
spent solvent.
4. Is spent solvent reclaimed on-site? Yes No
If yes, how much solvent is reclaimed? lbs/yr
If yes, how much sludge is generated from the reclaiming operation?
Ib/yr
Please append any analytical data that documents the compositon of the
reclaimed solvent and still bottoms.
Please complete this section separately for each degreasing operation in
use.
F-38
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
APPENDIX G
EMISSION SOURCE CATEGORIES ASSOCIATED WITH
SELECTED NON-CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
G-l
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
EMISSION SOURCE CATEGORIES ASSOCIATED WITH
SB-ECTEO NONCniTEBIA POLLUTANTS
Pollutants
Identified Emissions Sources
References
Acetal dehyda
Acati c aci d production
Psntaery thri tol production
Peracetic acid production
Pyri denes manufacturing
Acetaldehyde production
GlyoxaL production
SAI, 1982
Acrolei n
Production of refined acrolein and glycerin
Methionine analogs (poultry feed supplements]
producti on
Production of acrylic acid intermediate
SAI, 1932
Sittig, 1981
Acryloni tri le
Acryloni tri le production
Acrylic, modacrylic fiber production
Production of A3S and SAN resins
Nitrile rubber and latex production
Adi poni tri L a producti on
Acrylamide production
Production of nitrile barrier resins
Radian, 1983c
Tierney, 1979a
U.S. EPA, 19828
AllyL chloride
Production of aLlyl chloride, epi chlorohydri n,
and glycerin (usually at the same plant]
SAI, 1982
Arseni c
End-use in pesticide, herbicides, and fungicides Archer, 1979a
Primary copper and zinc smelting
Glass manufacturing
Coal combustion
Primary and secondary lead smelting
Production of chemicals containing arsenic
[including insecticides, herbicides, and
wood preservatives]
Sewage sludge incinerators
Gray i ron f oundry
Crecelius, 1974
Enterline, 1976
Gerstle, 1982
Radian, 1982
Sittig, 1981
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
Pollutants
Identified Emissions Sources
References
Asbestos
Mining and milling of asbestos
Production of asbestos-containing products
(including brake linings, shingles and siding,
textiles, paper and felt, floor tile, and
cement pipe and sheet]
Installation of asbestos construction materials
Roadway surfacing
Building demolition and renovation
Archer, 1979b
Sittig, 1981
Benzene
Benzi di ne
Autanobila exhaust
Gasoline evaporation
Senzene producti on
Production of ethyIbenzene, styrene, phenol,
cyclohexana, maleic anhydride, aniline, chlor—
obenzanes, nitrobenzene, ethylene, and linear
alkyl benzene
Solvent usage in textile manufacturing, degr^as-
1 ng, organic synthesis, pharmaceutical synthe-
sis, aluninun alky Is, alchohols, and consumer
products
Coke producti on/coke ovens
Benzidines production
Production of commercial dyes (primarily azo,
mordant, and direct dyes]
Manufacturing of rubber chemicals
End-usa of dyes (mainly in textiles, paper, and
leather industries]
Archer, 1979c
Walker, 1976c
Benzyl Chloride
Benzyl chloride production
Butyl benzyl phthalate production
Quaternary ammoniun canpounds production
Benzyl alcohol production
3AI, 1982
Berrylli lto
CoaL combustion
Oil combustion
Gray iron foundry
BeryLliun metaL and alloy production
Coke production/coke ovens
Sittig, 1975
SAI, 1982
Rancitelli, 1974
G-3
-------
RADIAN
COOOIITIS*
Pollutants
Identified Bnissions Sources
References
[conti nued)
Waste incineration
Cement production
Ceramic plants
Rocket motor firings
3i s( chloranethy I ] ether
Ani on-exchange resin production Fishbein, 1979a
Textile manufacturing (segment using forraalde- Rohlack, Updated
hyde-contai ning reactants and resins in fabric
finishing and as adhssives}
Nonwoven industry (using thermosetting acrylic
emulsion polymers]
Cadni um
Primary cadniun smelting
Primary zinc and capper smelting
Iron and steel manufacturing
Secondary copper smelting
Primary Lead smelting
Coal combustion
Waste and sewage sludge incineration
Production of cadmiim paint pigments
Production of cadni um-bari un plastic stabilizers
Ni-Cd battery manufacturing
Cement producti on
Gerstle, 1982
Rancitelli, 1974
Sittig, 1975
Carbon tetrachloride
Miscellaneous solvent applications [as an oil,
wax, and fat extractant; in rubber cement; in
shoe and furniture polishes; in paints and
lacquers; in printing ink; in floor waxes, and
in stains]
Carbon tetrachloride production
Fluorocarbon gas production [F—11 and F-12)
Miscellaneous uses (pharmaceuti cal s manufactur-
ing, pesticide formulation, carbon tetrabromi de
manufacturing, chlorine production]
Anderson, 1983b
SAI, 1982
U.S. EPA, 1982a
G-4
-------
RADIAN
Pollutants
Identified Emissions Sources
1
References
CFC 113 (Freon 113]
Critical cleaning of electrical and mechani cal
assembl 1 es
Solvent applications (primarily degreasing,
cleaning and drying)
Solder flux removal
Dry cleaning
U.S. EPA, 1T983
Chlorobenzena
Chloroform
Chi oroprena
End-use as degreasing solvent (cold cleaners]
and intermediate in pesticides manufacturing
Chlorobenzene production
N1 trochlorobenzene production
Miscellaneous solvent end-uses (menufacturing
of artificial silk, plastics, floor polishes,
fluorocarbons, dyes, pesticides)
Evaporation from pulp/paper bleaching wastewater
Pharmaceuticals production
Chloroform production
EDC production
Cooling towers
F-22 producti on
Chi oroprena production and captive use in poly-
chloroprene synthetic rubber manufacturing
[neoprene, duprene]
SAI, 1982
Anderson, 19B2b
Fishbein, 1979a
KaLly, undated
Sittig, 1981
SAI, 1982
SAI, 1982
Sittig, 1981
Ch rami un
Steel producti on
Ferrochromi un production
Coal combustion
Chromiun chemicals production (primarily sodi un
chromata and sodi un dichranata)
Refractory production
~11 ccmbustion
Waste and sewage sludge incineration
Cement production
Cooling towers
Electroplati ng
Gerstle, 1982
Kelly, undated
Radian, 1983b
G-5
-------
Pot Lutants
1
Identified Emissions Sources
References
CresoLs
End-use as wire enamel solvent
End-uses as di si nfectant/cleani ng canpound, and
are flotation agent
Coke product!on/coka ovens
Cresol production
Cresylic acid production
F^ienolic resins production
Miscellaneous production [BHT, antioxidants,
pesticides, tricresyl phosphate)
SAX, 1982
~i branoethane
[Ethylene di bromide)
Evaporation of Leaded autcmotiva fuel
End-use as soil and grain fimigant
Sittig, 1981
1,4-Di chlorobenzene
[p—Di chlorobenzene)
End-uses as space deodorant and for moth control
1,4-0i chlorobenzene production
Pesticide production (as an intermediate)
Finishing of woven fabrics
HcCurley, 1980
SAI, 1982
3,3-Di chlorobenzi di ne
None documented
Di chloroathane
[Ethylene di chloride)
Methyl chloroform production
Dichloroethane production
Ethyl chLoride production
Ethyleneamines production
Vinylidene chloride production
Tri chloroethylene production
Vinyl chloride production
Evaporation of leaded automotive fuel
End-use as an extraction solvent [animal fats,
pharmaceuti cals)
End-use as a cleaning solvent [plastics, tex-
tiles, apparel)
Anderson, 1983a
GCA, 197Bb
SAI, 1982
Di chloromethane
[Methylene chLoride)
FormuLation and use of household paint and
varnish removers
End-use as a metal degreasing solvent
[primarily cold cleaners)
Aerosol vapor depressant
Plastics processing
Sittig, 1981
SAI, 1982
G-6
-------
RADIAN
coa»oa*TioN
Pollutants
Identified Emissions Sources
References
[continued]
Intermediate in dye and pharmaceutical
production
Extraction solvent for soils, fats, and waxes
Dimethyl sulfate
Manufacturing of methyl esters, ethers and
amines, dyes, drugs, perfune, phenol
derivatives, and pesticides
Solvent in the separation of mineral oils
Sittig, 1981
~i oxana
Solvent for cellulose acetate, dyes, fats
greasas, lacquers, mineral oil, paints poly-
vinyl polymers, resins, varnishes and waxes
Paint and varnish stripping
Wetti ng/di spersi ng agent in textile processing
dye baths, and stain and printing composi tions
Sittig, 1981
Di oxi ns
Hazardous and municipal waste incinerators, wire
reclamation incinerators, industrial boilers
wood stoves, fire-pLaces, residential furnaces,
forest fires, transformer fires, charcoal
production and internal combustion engines
End-use of pentachlorophenol (wood preservative]
Production of pentachlorophenol tri chlorophenol
and 2,4,5-T [herbicide]
Radian, 1383a
SAI, 1982
Epi chlorohy dri n
Epoxy rasin production
Epi chlorohy dri n and glycerin production
Production of miscellaneous epi chlorohy dri n
products [polyami de-api chlorohydri n resins,
epi chlorohy dri n elastomers, and surfactants]
Kelly, undated
Smith, 1983a
SAI, 1982
Ethyleneimine
(Azi ri di na]
Textile industry (used in flameproofi ng,
shri nk-proof i ng, stiffening, and waterproofi ng]
Sittig, 1931
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene oxide production
Production of ehtylene glycoL, di-, tri-, and
poly-ethylene glycoL, surface active agents,
and ethanolami nes
Sittig, 1981
Smith, 1983b
G-7
-------
RADIAN
Pollutants
Identified Emissions Sources
1
References
Formaldehyde
Production of ureat phenolic, and meLamins
resi ns
Production of pentaery thri tol, butanediol,
acetal resins, and hexamethylenetetramine
Formaldahyda production
Rasi n applications (primarily in construction
i-iaterials industries)
End-use in textile (textile treating], paper,
and coatings industries
Fuel combustion
Catalytic cracking (refineries)
Kelly, 1983
Misenheimar, 1983
SAI, 1982
U.S. EPA, 19B4
HexachLorocyclopentadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiena production
Manufacturing of flama retardants, pesticides,
and flame-retardant resins
SAI, 1982
Hydrazi ne
Used in chemical synthesis [anti corrosi ves,
dyes, textile agents, pesticides, pharma-
ceuti cals]
Used as a rocket fual
Sittig, 1981
Stechan, 1977
Lead arsenate
Manufacturing formulation, and application of
laad arsenate insecticide
Sittig, 1981
Malei c anhydri de
Maleic anhydride production
Production of phtalic anhydride and unsaturated
polyester resins
GCA, 197Bd
Manganese
Ferromanganese and si Li ccmanganese production
Iron and steel production
Gray iron foundry
CoaL combustion
Coke production/coka ovens
Chemical applications and battery production
Solid waste and sewage incineration
Coaling towers
Oi L combustion
GerstLe, 1982
Kelly, undated
Sittig, 1975
SAI, 1982
G-8
-------
RADIAN
Pollutants
Identified Bnissions Sources
References
Mercury
Mercury mining and processing
ChloreLkaLi manufacturing
Coal combustion
Copper and zinc smelting
Paint application
Inci nerati on
Coke production/coke ovens
Gerstle, 1982
Sittig, 1975
B-NaphthyIamine
Ni ekeI
Used only for research purposes
Oi I combustion [including diesel fuel]
Ferroalloys, iron and steel, and non-ferroalloy
production
Coal combustion
NickeL matte refining
Nickel mining and smelting
Secondary nickel smelting
Gray iron foundry
Coke production/coke ovens
Cement production
Cooli ng towers
Municipal and sewage sludge incinerators
Electroplati ng
Ni-Cd battery manufacturing
Gerstle, 1982
McCurlev, et al., 1980
Radian, 1983d
SAI, 1982
Ni tro benzene
End-use as solvent in cellulose ether
manufacturing (petroleun industry)
Nitrobenzene production and captive use to
produce aniline
~origan, et al., 1976
SAI, 1982
N-Ni trosodimethyLami ne
N-Ni trosodimethylami ne production
Uses as intermediate in production of dimethyl
formamide and dimethyl acetamide [industrial
solvents], lauryl dimethy lami ne oxide,
dimethyl hydrazine pesticides, and rubber
chemical accelerators
SAI, 1982
G-9
-------
RADIAN
CO«I>OK*TIOM
Pollutants
Identified Bnissions Sources
1
References
Ni troscworpholi na
Parathon
Phenol
End-use as a corrosion inhibitor in boiler
systems
Polish and wax formulating
Ni trosomorpholi na production
Production of rubber procassi ng chemicals
Manufacturing of optical brightenars [soap
and detargant industry]
Manufacturing, formulation, and application
of parathion insecticide
Ftianol production
Production of phenolic resins
CaproLactam and adipic acid production
Bi sphenot-A production
Production of nonylphenol, salicylic acid,
and dodecy I phenol
3AI, 1982
Sittig, 1981
SAI, 1982
Phosgene
Phosgene producti on
Production of toluene dii socyanate, polymeric
isocyanates, and polycarbonates
SAI, 1982
Polychl orinated bi phenyls
[ PCBs)
Disposal by incineration or burning of trans- Fuller, 1977
formers and capacitors containing PCBs SAI, 1982
Transformer leaks
Polycyclic Organic Matter
(includes Benzo(a) py rens)
Rasi denti al^fuel combustion [primarily wood
and coal)
Motor vehicles
Prescribed burning and wildfires
5
Municipal and industrial incineration
Coke producti on/coka avens
Other fuel combustion [burning coal refuse
piles, power plants, industrial boilers,
catalytic cracking
Carbon black and charcoal production
Asphalt production
Dye pigment manufacturing
Archer, 1979d
DeAngelis, 1980
Faoro, 1981
Kelly, 1983
Morales, 1979
Mosccwitz, 1978
Murphy, 1981
Wainwright, 1982
G-10
-------
RADIAN
COSPOaaTIOM
Pollutants
Identified Bnissions Sources
1
References
Propylene oxide
Propylene oxide production
Production of urethane polyols
Production of surfactant polyols, propylene
glycol, di- and tri-propylene glycols, and
glycol ethers
SAI, 1982
Radionucli des
Fossil fuel combustion
Uraniun mining and processing
Nuclear fuel fabrication, nuclear reactor
operation, and spent fuel reprocessing
Elemental phosphorous plants
Sittig, 1975
Tatrachloroethy lene
{Pe rchIoroethyIene]
Dry cleaning
Textile processing and refinishing
Metal cleaning and degreasing [solvent]
Tetr^chloroethylene production
Miscellaneous chemicals production (inter-
mediate]
Miscellaneous solvent applications [magnetic
tapes, plastics, rubber solutions, paint
removers, inks, solvent soaps, fats, and
oi Is]
Fishbein, 1979
Fuller, 197B
Sittig, 1981
Toluene
Automobile exhausts
Manufacturing and application of paint and
coati ngs
Manufacturing and use of adhesives, inks, and
pharmaceuti cals
Evaporation of gasoline
Coke production/coke ovens
Toluene production
Benzene production
Toluene diisocyanate production
Benzoic acid production
Production of vinyl toluene, benzyl chloride,
xylene, p-cresol, and benzBldehyde
SAI, 1982
Walker, 1976b
G-ll
-------
CORPORATION
Pol lutants
Identified Emissions Sources
References
1,1,1-Tri chloroethana
[Methyl chloroform]
Metal cleaning (degreasing] Fishbein, 1979
Various other solvent and cleaning applications Qshmer, 1979
End-use in aerosol formulations U.S. EPA, 1982c
1,1,1-Trichloroethana production
Production of vinyl chlroide, vinylidene chlorida
and ethane
Tri chloroethy lena
Matal degreasing (vapor degreasers and cold
cleaners)
Various other solvent and cleaning applications
Tri chloroethy I ena production
FVC producti on
Fishbein, 1979
Oshmer, 1979
SAI, 1982
U.S. EPA, 1982c
Vinyl chlorida
Vinylidene chlorida
Xy L ene
S
Vinyl chloride and FVC production
EthyLene di chloride production
Production af copolymer coating resins (saran,
cellophane, latex]
Manufacturing of niodacrylic fibers
Vinyldena chloride production
Methyl chloroform production
Mixed xylene solvent usaga (primarily in paints
and coatings)
Automobile exhaust
Gasoline evaporation
Xylene production
Terephthalic acid production
Si tti g, 19S1
Fishbein, 1979aa
Hushon, 1978
Kelly, undated
Tierney, 197Sb
GCA, 197Se
SAI, 1982
Listed in approximate decreasing order with respect to nationwide emissions.
None found in Literature specifically addressing emissions sources.
Includes o-, nr-,.and p-cresol as well as cresylic acid.
Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) is also called PoLycuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PNA or P^W).
The Less efficient the combustion process, the more POM emissions may result.
5
Includes o-, m-, p-xylene as well as mixtures of the three.
G-12
-------
RADIAN
cd>»oa*naii
Bibliography
G-13
-------
POSSIBLE REFERENCES
Anderson, M. E., et al.. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions From Sources of
Chloroform (Draft Final Report), GCA Corporation, EPA Contract No.
68-02-3510, September 1982.
Anderson, H. E., et al., Locating, ana Estimating Air Emissions From Sources of
Ethylene Dichloroide, GCA Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3510,
February 1983a.
Anderson, M. E., et al., Locating and Estimating Air Emissions From Sources of
Carbon Tetrachloride (Revised Draft Final Report, GCA Corporation, EPA
Contract No. 68-02-3510, December 1983b.
Archer, S. R. et al., Status Assessment of Toxic Chemicals — Arsenic, EPA-
600/2-79-210b, December 1979a.
Archer, S. R, et al., Status Assessment of Toxic Chemicals — Asbestos,
EPA-600/2-79-210c, December 1979b.
Archer, S. R., et al., Status Assessment of Toxic Chemicals — Benzidine,
EPA-600/2-79-210e, December 1979c.
Archer, S. R., et al.. Status Assessment of Toxic Chemicals — PAH, EPA-600/2-
79-2101, December 1979d.
CARB, Preliminary Data on Waste Oil Combustion Study, California Air Resourcer
Board, September 1984.
DeAngelis, D. G., et al., Source Assessment: Residential Combustion of Wood,
EPA-600/2-80-042b, Monsanto Corporation, March 1980.
Duncan, J. R., "Air Quality Impact Potential from Residential Wood Burning
Stoves," Paper 80-7.2 at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution
Control Association, 1980.
Fuller, B., Air Pollution Assessment of Tetrachloroethylene, Mitre Corpora-
tion, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1495, February 1976.
GCA Corporation, Assessment of Benzene as a Potential Air Pollution Problem,
EPA Contract No-. 68-02-1337, January 1976a.
GCA Corporation, Assessment of Ethylene Dichloride as a Potential Air Pollu-
tion Problem, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1337, January 1976b.
GCA Corporation, Assessment of o-Xvlene as a Potential Air Pollution Problem,
EPA Contract No. 68-02-1337, January 1976c.
G-14
-------
RADIAN
Gerstle, R. W., et al., "Atmospheric.Emissions of Metals From Sewage Sludge
Incineration," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 32,
No. 11, November 1982.
Greensberg, R. R., et al., "Composition and Size Distributions of Particles
Released in Refuse Incineration," Environmental Science & Technology,
Vol. 12, No. 5, May 197.8a.
Greensberg, R. R., et al., "Composition of Particles Emitted From the Nicosia
Municipal Incinerator," Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 12, No.
12, November 1978b.
Kelly, M. E., et al.. Analysis of Applicable TSP and VOC Regulations in
Indirect Control of Selected Compounds (Draft Final Report), Radian
Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3818, undated.
Kelly, M. E., Sources and Emissions of Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM), Radian
Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3818, December 1983.
Law, S. L., et al., "Sources of Metals in Municipal Incinerator Emissions,"
Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 13, No. 4, April 1979.
Misenheimer, D. C., et al.. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources
of Formaldehyde, GCA Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3510, December
1983.
Nebel, G. J., "Benzene in Auto Exhaust," Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, Vol. 29, pp. 391-392, 1979.
Oshsner, J. C., et al.. Status Assessment of Toxic Chemicals — Trichloro-
ethylene, EPA-600/20-79-210m, December 1979.
Ostojic, N., End Use of Solvents Containing Volatile Organic Compounds,
EPA-450/3-79-032, TRC Corporation, May 1979.
Radian Corporation, Preliminary Study of Sources of Inorganic Arsenic, EPA-
450/5-82-005, August.1982.
Radian Corporation, Review and Development of Chlorinated Dioxins and "Furans
Emissions data, EPA Contract No. 69-02-3513, March 1983a.
Radian Corporation, Locating and Estimating Air Emissions From Source of
Chromium • (Draft _ Final Report), EPA Contract No. 68-02-3513, September
1983b.
Radian Corporation, Locating and Estimating Air Emissions From Sources of
Nickel (Draft Final Report), EPA Contract No. 68-02-3513, November 1983d.
0-15
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
Radian Corporation, Evaluation of Air Emissions From Hazardous Waste Treat-
ment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities in Support of the RCRA Air
Emission Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), EPA Contract No. 68-02-3171,
January 1984a.
Radian Corporation, Review of Lists of Non-Criteria Air Pollutants and an
Assessment of Ambient Air Guidelines Based on Threshold Limit Values. EPA
Contract No. 68-02-3513, January 1984b.
Radian Corporation, Washington Toxic Air Contaminants Study, Technical Note
Documenting Results of Information Search (Task 1), September 1984d.
SAI, Improvement of the Emission Inventory for Reactive Organic Gases and
Oxides of Nitrogen in the South Coast Air Basin (Draft Final Report),
Systems Applications, Incorporated, August 1984.
SAI, Human Exposure to Atmospheric Concentrations of Selected Chemicals, EPA
Contract No. 68-02-3066, Systems Applications, Incorporated, February
1982.
SRI International, 1983 Directory of Chemical Producers, 1983.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
Species Data Manual, Second Edition, EPA-450/4-80-015, July 1980a.
United,States Environmental Protection Agency, Arsenic Emissions From Primary
Copper Smelters - Background Information for Proposed Standards (Prelimi-
nary Draft), Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1981.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Health Assessment Document for
Carbon Tetrachloride (Draft), EPA-600/8-82-001, March 1982a.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Health Assessment Document for
1.1.1-Trichloroethane (Methyl Chloroform) Revised Draft, EPA-600/8-82-
003, November 1982c.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Health Assessment Document for
1.1.2-Trichloro-l,2,2-Trifluoroethan e (Chlorofluorocarbon CFC-113),
EPA-600/8-82-002f, September 1983.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, Including Supplements 1-13, 1984a.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Locating and Estimating Air
Emissions From Sources of Formaldehyde, EPA-450/4-84-007e, March 1984b.
Wainwright, P. 3., et al., A POM Emissions Study for Industrial Wood-Fired
Boilers, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources, April 1982.
G-16
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
Walker, P., Air Pollution Assessment of Benzene, Mitre Corporation, EPA
Contract No. 68-02-1495, April 1976a.
Walker, P., Air Pollution Assessment of Toluene, Mitre Corporation, EPA
Contract No. 68-02-1495, May 1976b.
G-17
-------
-------
------- |