### UNITED STAT ES E NVIRONM ENTAL PROTECTION AGENC Y

US EPA Region 5 Air and Radia

tion Divisi on Chicag o, I L 60604

DATE: Apr il 25, 2005

SUBJECT: Residual Risk Test for the F err oalloy s Production Source Categ ory

FROM: J aime Jul ian, Marg are t Sieffer t, Rae Trine , Geor g e B ollweg U.S. EPA Region 5 Air

and Radiation Division (AT-18J)

TO: Dave Guinnup, L eade r

Risk and Ex posure Asse ssment Group (C404-01) Emission S tandar ds Division Offic e of A ir Quality

Planning a

nd Standards (O AQPS) Resear ch Tria

ng le Park, NC 27711

Introduction

The purpose of this memorandum is to describe methods and re sults of the residual risk test for the Fe rroa lloy s Production source c ateg ory (“F err oalloy s Production”).

The re sidual risk test is conducted by U.S. EPA at the beg inning of the re sidual risk rule development pr ocess. The purpose of the re sidual risk test is to determine whethe r the sourc e cate g ory can be shown at the outset not to require a re sidual risk rule on the ba sis of data a lrea dy in U.S. EPA’s possession and a re latively simple and hea lth-protective a naly sis. Under the require ments of the Clean A ir Act of 1990, U .S. EPA will not promulga te additional emission standards f

or a sour ce c ateg ory

if exist ing ma x imum achievable control tec hnology (MACT) standards pr ovide an “ ample mar g in of safe ty ” to protec t public health and a re suf ficient to
preve nt adver se environme ntal impacts (CAA sec tion 112(f)(2) (A))

.

The re sidual risk test is not i ntended to be a n exhaustive assessment. Rather, it is an initial attempt to determine if e noug h is known to eliminate the source cate g ory as one of ong oing

conce rn or to justify

pursuing its continued evalua tion. U.S. EP A’s fa ilure to remove a sourc e cate g ory from the r esidual risk proc ess at this stag e in no way sug g ests that a re sidual risk rule is inevitable, only

that we lac k sufficie nt data at this tim e to foreg o such a r ule.

There are curr ently

two known fa cilities in the Fer roalloy s Production source c ateg ory , both in Washington County , Ohio. The pre sent exercise e valuated only one pollutant (mang anese ; Mn) rele ased f rom what is believe d to be the lar g er ( i.e. g rea ter Mn emissions) of these two fac iliti es. Results below show noncanc er ha zard well above a hazar d quotient (HQ) of 1 in this facility ’s
g eog raphic vicinity , supporting the idea that U.S. EPA does not cur rently have suf ficient information to remove Fe rroa lloy s Production from consider ation for a residual r isk rule.

### 2

Met hods and Resul ts

1. Scope and approac h

This Fer roalloy s Production residual risk test foc uses on human hea lth (it ex cludes “ ecolog ical” or “e nvironmental” e ffe cts) by estimating pote ntial human health nonca ncer hazard a ssociated with air pollutant emissions. The Fe rroa lloy s Production source c ateg ory includes two known

source s subject to MACT, both in W ashing ton County , Ohio: the Erame t Marietta f acility (“Er amet”) located ne ar Ma rietta OH , and Globe Me tallurg ical, I nc. (“ Globe”) , near

Be verly OH.

The pre sent assessment e valuated only Erame t based on infor

mation describe d below. Globe (B ever ly OH) is about 16 miles N/NW of Eramet (see F igure 1a ) and star ted re levant produc tion in J anuar y 2005. I t is not further eva luated her e. We believe that if ava ilable evidenc e shows potentially

eleva ted risks or hazar ds associate d with emissions from either fac ility , the risk test

memo can a dequate ly

demonstrate tha t U.S. EPA does not curre ntly have suf ficient infor

mation to remove the Fe rroa lloy s Production source c ateg ory from conside ration for

a re sidual risk rule.

An Eramet fac ility

schema tic is included as Attac hm ent 1 . U.S. EPA’s 2002 Tox ic Relea se I nventory (TRI ) indicate s that Erame t remains the lar g est emitter of a irborne Mn c ompounds in the U.S.; substantial 2002 air emissions of ammonia (168,300 lbs), chr omium (14,600 lbs), and

merc ury (527 lbs) fr om Eramet a

re a lso list ed in this TRI repor t. Ohio EPA air monitoring da ta for Mn fr om 2000-2004 show ave rag e Mn air c oncentr ations reg ularly exceeding U.S. EPA’s inhalation Refer ence Concentra tion (RfC; 0.05 μ g /m 3 

### ) at a site less than 5 miles north-northea st of the fa cility

( F igure 8 ).

Be cause available air monitoring data showe d eleva ted Mn air c oncentr ations, the residua l risk test air dispersion modeling exercise e valuates only Mn air emissions from Era met. Not included here are assessment of pote ntial canc er r isk from Era met’s air e missions , pollutants other than Mn, potential environmental ( “ec ologic al”) eff ects a nd, except for the br ief mention of Globe

, other Mar ietta source s. These w ere not pursued for this residual risk test beca use re sults below show that Mn-re lated human he alth noncanc er ha zard associa ted with Erame t’s emissions could
not be eliminated a s a conc ern. We show that inhala tion hazard for the “individual most exposed” (i.e. a

hy pothetical individual living nea r the fa cility

at the ce ntroid of a populate d census block) exceeds the r eleva nt refe renc e cr iterion (i.e. a hazard quotient [HQ] gre ater than 1, descr ibed more f

ully in section 4 below). We be lieve that the potential ha zard associa ted with Mn alone satisfies the risk test and supports moving to the ne x t phase of the residual r isk assessment proc ess.

2. Air Dispersion Modeling of Eramet’s Mn air em issions

Air dispersion modeling of Mn air e missions from Era met was done throug h a contr act administered by

the Ag ency

for Toxic Substances and D isease Re g istry (ATSDR). ATSDR beca me involved sepa

rate ly from U.S. EPA afte r re ceiving a May 2000 petition from U.S. Senator Mike De Wine to evaluate potential he alth eff ects of a ir pollution following complaints from re sidents in the Marietta, OH vicinity . Among other issues, ATSDR was inter ested in improving outdoor a ir pollutant monit oring that it found insufficient to addr ess the petition from

### 3

Senator De Wine. This int ere st led ATSDR to enlist t he support of Response , Eng ineer ing, a nd Analy tical Contract ( REAC) and Environmenta l Response Tea m Center (ERTC) to conduc t air dispersion modeling for Ma rietta a ir pollution sources. Due in pa rt to Erame t’s larg e ong oing TRI -re ported Mn air

emissions, it s involvement in a leng thy history of complaints, and loca l Mn air monitoring data that f

reque ntly exceede d ATSDR’s chronic inhalation Minimal Ri sk L evel for Mn (0.04 μg /m 3 

### ), air dispe rsion modeling of Erame t’s Mn relea ses to air see med a r easona ble starting point. One purpose of the modeling was to inform the siting proce ss for additional air monitors should t hey

become available . ATSDR and U.S. EPA also discussed U.S. EPA’s use of ATSDR’s modeling f

or the F err oalloy s Production residual risk test.

Attac hm ent 2 (an A

pril 5, 2004 memorandum fr om Howar d Schmidt (REAC) to S ella B urche tte (ERTC); see be low) desc ribes the a ir dispersion modeling and its results. The CAL PUFF air dispersion model was use d to predict a nnual ave rag e Mn air c oncentr ations in a 20 km square
g rid ce ntere d on Erame t. As descr ibed in the first par ag raph of Attachment 2, CAL PUFF was used primar ily

for its ability

to better a ddress c omplex terra in than models rely ing on ste ady -state straig ht-line transport a ssumptions (i.e. the I ndustrial Source Complex [ I SC] models). This CAL PUFF modeling use d site-spec ific emissions, source c hara cter istics and fac ility lay out information that ca

me primarily

from Era met throug h Clean Air Ac t Section 114 I nformation Requests. A re ceptor

modeling g rid schema tic for the f acility vicinity is shown in Attac hm ent 2, F igure 5 . Hourly

meteorolog ical data

from 1999 we re obta ined from the A MP-Ohio tower depicted in F igure 6 , with a windrose f or those data

display ed in F igure 7

.
Clarify ing inf

ormation on air disper sion modeling a pproac h, input and results is provided in Attac hm ents 4A, 4B, 5A and 5B below. The se Attac hments addre ss technica l questions that

arose afte r completion of the mode ling that wa s conducte d under c ontrac t.

3. Air dispersion modeling results

The CAL PUFF model predic ts a long term Mn conc entra tion of ~ 1 μg/m 3 

### at locations more tha n a mile north of Er amet (F igur e 1), corr esponding to HQ = 20 ( section 4, Table 1 below). O n a November

2004 visit t o Marietta, a

small neig hborhood wa s observe d on Township Road 125 approximately

1-2 miles N/NE of Er amet, ver ify ing tha t residents live ver y close to or within the 1 μg/m 3 

### Mn isopleth. Residences may also be pre sent in or nea

r the a rea of still higher

off- site

conce ntrations (2-3 μg /m 3 

### ) shown just north of and ~1/4 mile off -site. Table 1 indicates that most (42 of 44) individuals living whe re mode led Mn ≥ 1 μg/m 3 

### are actua lly in are as whe re modeled Mn ≥ 2 μg/m 3



### .
4. Computing the Mn hazard quotient ( HQ)

We assume that the re sidual risk test is satisfied if emissions from a fa cility in the source
cate g ory can be rea sonably

expected to re sult in an indivi dual nonca ncer hazard g rea ter than the targ et-org an-spe cific ha zard index (TOSHI ) of 1.0. A T OSHI is the sum of the HQs of a ll pollutants of conce rn that af fec t the same tar g et org an. The HQ is a mea sured or modeled estimate of a

pollutant ex posure divided by an exposure that is believe d to be without appre ciable risk of adve rse he alth eff

ects. Give n available information, it seemed r easona ble to focus on deriving an inhalation HQ f or Mn using Erame t emissions i nformation and a ir dispersion

### 4

modeling. I

n the pre sent ca se, no “TO SHI ” other than the sing le HQ wa s derived. We evaluate d noncanc er ha zard by calc ulating the inhalation HQ for Mn in inhabited census blocks, using 2000 Ce nsus data. He re, the HQ is equa l to the model predicte d annual a vera g e Mn air conc entra tion divided by the U.S. EPA inhalation Refer ence Concentra tion (RfC) for Mn (0.05 μg /m 3 

### ):

HQ = mode l predicte d Mn air conc entra tion (μg/m 3 

### ) / RfC (μg/m 3 

### )

The use of

the HQ be low assumes that model-pr edicted a nnual ave rag e Mn conc entra tions are

rea sonable surr og ates for long te rm inhalation exposure conc entra tions. The Mn RfC is available on U.S. EPA’s I nteg rate d Risk I nformation Sy stem (I RI S) databa se (se e http:// www.e pa.g ov/iris/subst /0373.htm ), whe re its der ivation, assumptions and lim itations are
prese nted. As desc ribed in sec tion I .A.2 of the I RI S Mn file, risk assessment for Mn ne eds to consider both its nutritional essentiality (as a n enzy matic cof actor ; section I .A.4) a

nd tox icity

that varie s with ex posure r oute, including potential olfac tory bulb uptake (se ction I .B.4) . The c ritical eff ect f or the inhala tion RfC i s neurobe haviora l functional impairment (se ction I .B.1) , assessed in the Roels et al. (1992) critica l study as dec reme nts in visual reac tion tim e, ey e-ha nd coordina

tion and hand ste adiness in exposed vs. control worke rs (sec tion 1.B.2). The lack of adequate
repr oductive and de velopmental toxi city information is discussed in section 1.B .5 of the I RI S Mn file. The Mn RfC compr ises an unce rtainty fac tor of 1000: 10 for se nsitive indivi duals;10 for use of a L OAEL ; and 10 for database limit ations (less-than- chronic periods of e x posure; lac k of developmenta l data; potential but unquantified diff ere nces in toxi city

of diffe rent for

ms of Mn).

Nea l Fann ( OAQPS) overla y ed modeled Mn c oncentr ations with census data to ge nera te the results in Table 1 be low. The a naly sis is described in a 5/4/04 memora ndum from Nea l Fann to Marg are t Sieffer

t and Geor g e B ollweg ( Attac hm ent 3 ).

TABLE 1. Estim ated number of i ndi vidu als exposed at various Mn HQs

( A )
M o d e l e d a n n u a l a v e r a g e M n

c o n c e n t r a t i o n ( μ g / m 3 ) ( B )
H a z a r d Q u o t i e n t ( C ) C u m u l a t i v e N u m b e r o f
I n d i v i d u a l s W h o s e H a z a r d Q u o t i e n t i s e q u a l t o o r g r e a t e r t h a n v a l u e i n ( B )

≥ 0

. 0 5 1 7 8
, 2 0 0

≥ 0

. 1 2 3 9
, 5 4 6

≥ 0

. 2 4 1 1
, 2 0 5

≥ 0

. 4 8 1
, 7 3 9

≥ 0

. 6 1 2 3 2 3

≥ 0

. 8 1 6 2 6 6

≥ 1 2 0 4 4

≥ 1

. 5 3 0 4 4

≥ 2 4 0 4 2

### 5

5. Mn air monitoring data

Ohio EPA has a meta ls air monitor located a bout 4.5 miles north-northeast of E rame t (shown as a small flag

, Attac hm ent 2, F igures 1-4 ) at the Washing ton County Caree r Center . Monthly

Mn

aver ag e conc entra tions based on eve ry -six -day samples for N ov. 2000-De c. 2004 ar e shown in Fig ure 8. The monitored ave rag e Mn conc entra tion for all monthly data points as of D ece mber 2004 is 0.19 ± 0.27 μg/m 3 

### (mea n ± standard de viation [ SD] ; n=50)

. The fig ure indica tes that about 75% (38 of

50) of monthly

aver ag es excee d the Mn RfC (0.05 μg/m 3 

### ). Note tha t the long
term modeled

annual a vera g e Mn conc entra tion at the monitoring loca tion is 0.29 μ g /m 3 

### (Attac hment 2, Discussion) base d on 1998-2002 emissions information, in roug h ag ree ment with the long term monitored value

.

A sec ond air monitor ~1/4 mi W /NW of the fac ility beg an oper ating in late 2004. I ts init ial monthly data ( n=3) show Mn c oncentr ations = 0.53 ± 0.44 μg/m 3 

### (mea n ± SD).

6. Assumptions, limit ations and uncertainties

(1) the pr esent e x erc ise focuse d on evalua ting potential Mn inhala tion ex posure a ttributable to one of two know n U.S. Fer roalloy s Production fac iliti es (i.e. E rame t) in the Washington County

, OH vicinity . I t excluded other routes of exposure, other pollutants emitted by Erame t (e.g

. chromium; mercur

y ), and the potential for a dditional Mn ex posure f rom the sec ond fac ility ;

(2) a ir dispersion modeling of estimated Mn e missions from Era met may undere stimate actua l

near -sourc e Mn air c oncentr ations beca use fug itive air emissions (nea rly 2/3 of Era met’s 2002 TRI emission estimates) wer e lar g ely excluded from the a ir dispersion modeling exercise;

(3) HQ s descr ibed above wer e der ived by “over lay ing” two g eog raphic information sets (modeled Mn a ir conc entra tion estimates and y ear

2000 census da ta) to estimate Mn inhala tion exposure. This relies on the simplify ing a ssumption t hat long term Mn inhalation exposure

conce ntration is the same a s modeled Mn conc entra tion. This assumpti on seems re asonable
g iven ava ilable air monitoring , modeling a nd historic (TRI ) emissions relea se informa tion;

(4) a November

2004 site visit i ndicated tha t occupied r esidenc es ar e pre sent betwe en the Er amet fac ility and the monitor at the Washing ton County Caree r Center . Mn air conc entra tion is l ikely highe r at such r esidenc es than a t this m onitor due to their proximi ty to the emission source. I nitial results from a sec ond, near -fa cility monitor support this l ikelihood;

(5) industrial point source air pollutant emitters other tha n Erame t are located in the study are a, raising the likelihood of additional air pollutant inhalation exposures for ne ar- source residents;

(6) de spite scientific unc erta inty reg arding Mn inhalation tox icity at environme ntally

rele vant

conce ntrations, use of the Mn RfC to der ive HQs a s in the prese nt exercise re prese nts curre nt
prac tice for

residual r isk evaluation and se ems rea sonable.

Most of these conside rations sug g est that quantitative metrics in the c urre nt exercise undere stimate rather

than over estimate nea

r-sourc e human e x posure a nd risk from air

pollutant rele ases in the vicinity

of Era met.

### 6

Conclusion

The pre sent ana ly sis used (1) re asonable Mn emissions and source loc ation data; (2) results from

a re levant dispersion modeling exercise; (3) the U.S. EPA Mn RfC as a re fer ence value f or deriving an HQ; ( 4) 2000 Census information; and ( 5) ava ilable Mn air monitoring data. This analy sis supports the likelihood of long ter m Mn inhalation HQs g rea ter than 1.0 f or many residents ne ar the Erame t Marietta f acility , with HQ>10 likely for se vera l hundred re sidents. We there fore cannot r ecommend e liminating the F err oalloy s Production source c ateg ory from consideration for a r esidual risk rule. We r ecommend instea d that U.S. EPA pursue additional rele vant data, a ssessment and other analy sis to address the re sults described a bove and the potential for r esidual hazard/r isk associated w ith the Fer roalloy s Production source c ateg ory

.

[see Attachments a

nd Fig ures be low]

### 7



## ATTACHME NTS AND FIGURES
R e s i d u a l R i s k T e s t f

o r t h e F e r r o a l l o y s P r o d u c t i o n S o u r c e C a t e g o r y

Attac hm ent 1 - Era

met Marietta f

acility schema tic

Attac hm ent 2 - Air disper sion modeling de scription and F igur es; April 5, 2004 memora ndum to Sella Bur chette f

rom Howa

rd Schmidt

• Figure 1 (M od eled ann ual averag e Mn groun d-level air concent ration near Eram et f acility )

• Figure 1 a (Mod eled ann ual averag e Mn groun d-level air concent ration , Marietta OH vicinit y )

• Figure 2 (M od eled ann ual averag e Mn dry dep ositio n n ear Eram et)

• Figure 3 (M od eled ann ual averag e Mn groun d-level air concent ration and to po graphy , Marietta OH vicinit y )

• Figure 4 (Annu al ave rage Mn dry deposit ion and to po grapy , M arietta OH vic init y )

• Figure 5 (Recepto r m od eling grids and pl otti ng do m ains, M arietta OH vic init y )



### F igure 6 - AMP-Ohio (R.H. Gor such) we ather tower/mete orlog ical station

F igure 7 - Windrose for Mar ietta meteor ologic data use d in Eramet/ATSDR air disper sion modeling

F igure 8 - Mn air c oncentr ations monitored at Washington County (OH) Caree r Center

near Erame t-Marie tta, Nov. 2000-De c. 2004

Attac hm ent 3 - Methods for estimating Ma

rietta OH population expos ure to a irborne Mn; May 4, 2004 memorandum to Ge org e B ollweg and Mar g are t Sieffer t from Neil F ann

Attac hm ent 4A - Reg ion 5 (R5) response to U.S. EPA int erna l reviewcomments on Attachment 2 ( Air dispersion modeling descr iption; 5 April 2004 Memorandum to Sella Bur chette f

rom Howa

rd Schmidt)

Attac hm ent 4B - Miscellaneous U .S. EPA int erna l reviewcomments and R5 re sponses perta ining to the June 9, 2004 Draf t Residual Risk Test Memo

Attac hm ents 5A (first re ply) and 5B (second reply) - R5 questions and contrac tor response s to R5 request for

clar ification of a ir dispersion modeling alg orithms

### 8

ATTACHMENT 1 - Era met Marietta F acility

Schematic

### 9

ATTACHMENT 2

Air dispersion modeling description

DATE: 05 April 2004

TO: Sella Bur chette, E RTC W ork Assig nment Manag er

FROM: Howar d Schmidt, R EAC Senior Atmospheric Mode ler

THROUGH: J eff

Br adstree t, REAC Air Group L eade r

SUBJECT: Dispersion Modeling for Er amet Mar ietta, I nc., Mar ietta, OH 3 rd 

### Revision

Dispersion modeling was pe rfor med to estimate the loca

tions of potential mang anese air a nd
g round-leve l impacts from daily opera tions at the Erame t Marietta, I nc. fa cility

(“the fac ility ”) in Marietta, O H. The f

acility is located a djace nt to the Ohio River in an ar ea of complex terrain wher e the Ohio River va lley influence s the dispersion of pollutants from the f acility . CAL PUFF

was c hosen as the mode l for this exercise for its abilit y to handle this ty

pe of topog raphic al situation. The United States Environmental Protec tion Age ncy ’s (U.S. EPA) Guideline on Air Quality Models provides for the use of CAL PUFF on a ca se-by -ca se basis for air qua lity estimates involving c omplex meteorolog ical flow c onditions where stea dy -state stra ight- line transport a ssumptions are inappropria te. This U.S. EPA standard is noted in the Fede ral Register Volume 68, Number

72 dated 15 Apr il 2003.

Meteorolog ical Da ta

Data f or this project wa s acquire d from a va riety of sourc es in order

to supply the CAL PUFF model with ample and a ccur ate surf ace , upper a ir, and pre cipitation information. Properly formatted a

nd repr esenta tive data a ids in the functionality of the model a

nd the eve ntual
g ener ation of potential impacts fr om the fac ility

.

Two surfa ce da

ta stations were used in this study . Hourly data f rom 1999 rec orded by

the Americ an Municipal Power – Ohio (AMP-Ohio) we ather tower in Mar ietta, OH wa s provided to the Response, Eng ineer ing, a nd Analy tical Contract ( REAC) by repr esenta tives from the Ag ency for Toxic Substances and D isease Re g istry (ATSDR). Ac cording to information in a modeling protocol fr om AMP-Ohio provided by ATSDR, the wea ther towe r wa s located a pproxi mately

2.5 kilometers (km) nor

th-northwest of the fac ility . Universa l Transve rse Me rca tor (UTM) coordina tes of the mete orolog ical tower used in the study

are (414700, 4317900). Data provided by this weather

tower inc luded wind spee d, wind direc tion, and ambient air te mpera ture.

I n order to complete a mode ling study , additional wea ther da ta (total sky cover , ceiling heig ht, dew point temper ature , wet bulb temper ature , station atmospheric pre ssure, a nd rela tive

### 10

humidity ) wa s neede d to supplement the wea ther da ta from the A MP-Ohio weathe r tower . Wet bulb tempera ture wa s calc ulated for eac h hour base d on a set of phy sical meteor ologic al equations. The r emaining data wa s acquire d for Par kersbur g , WV through the Northea st Reg ional Clim ate Cente r at Corne ll University . This location was c onsidered the closest and most repre sentative da ta for Ma rietta, OH . The Parke rsburg , WV data was ne cessa ry to complete a data set in CD-144 forma t; acce ptable for wea ther da ta used a s input for the CAL PUFF model.

CAL PUFF has the a

bility to acc ept weather da ta from multiple locations to enhanc e the a bility of the model to more a ccur ately calc ulate re sults. I n addition to the AMP-Ohio data, surf ace

wea ther obser

vations from Wheeling , WV were added to the mode l. Data wa s obtained fr om the website of the National Climatic Data Cente r (NCDC) f or the y ear

1999. Simi lar to the AMPOhio, some manipulation was nee ded to put the data in a format suitable f

or input to CAL PUFF

.
Any missing or suspicious surfa ce or upper a ir data w as re place d using c riteria se t forth in the U.S. EPA’s Procedure

s for Substi tuting Values for Missi ng NW S Mete orological Data for Use in Regulatory Air Quality Mode ls

.
An attempt was ma de to estimate the pote ntial gr ound-leve l impacts from the ope ration of the fac ility . Due to the lac k of complete set of 1999 nea rby hourly prec ipitation data, wet deposition flux was not obtainable . The ne are st complete set of pr ecipitation data w as found in Columbus, OH and this wa s not adequa te for the study

.

The ne are st repre sentative uppe r air data for 1999 w as ac quired for Pitt sburg h, PA from an online data sourc e provide d by the National Oc eanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA ) For eca st Sy stems L abora tory (F SL ). The data was obta ined in orig inal FSL raw insonde forma t that can be used by

CAL PUFF without any

user f ormatting

.
Geophy sical Da ta Severa l ty pes of g eophy sical data

are require d as input to CAL PUFF . I n g ener al, a 20 x 20 kilometer (km) g rid was pr oduced w ith rece ptors place d ever y one km. The g rid was of fset in a northerly direc tion from the source to enable mor e re ceptor s to be locate d on the Ohio side of the Ohio River. At ea ch re ceptor , eleva tion, land use, and land c over da ta was pr ovided to the model. A sec ond g rid was pr oduced to pr ovide a f iner mesh g rid nea

rer the source . This gr id was
cente red on the source with rec eptors spac ed eve ry 200 meters ( m) a distance of eig ht kilometers in all directions. I n addition, a flag icon has be en plac ed on all g rids to note the location of the

near est state mang anese monitor.

Dig ital Elevation Model (DEM) data wa s acquire d from the United States G eolog ical Survey (USGS) website. The 1-deg ree Clarksburg -W.DEM used in CAL PUFF corr esponds to the 3-arcsecond ( 1:250,000 scale) USGS topogra phic map ser ies that are available for a ll of the contig uous United States and most of Alaska . The DEMs a re e x presse d in ge og raphic coordina tes (latitude and long itude) and most ar e re fer ence d to the World Geodetic Survey
sy stem of 1972 (WGS72). Howeve r, some ar e re fer ence d to the WGS s y stem of 1984 (WGS84).

The Clarksbur g 1:250,000 scale L and Use and L and Cover ( L UL C) map was obta ined from the GeoCommunity ’s GI S Data De pot. This series wa s compiled to portray the L evel I I cate g ories of

### 11

the L UL C classification sy stem. The L evel I I cate g ories of this L UL C classification sy stem provide the use r with a ba sic fra mework to whic h third and four th level ca teg ories may

be adde d.

Modeling results are plotted on aer ial photogr aphs of the r eg ion near by the fa cility . The Dig ital Orthophoto Quadr ang le Quar ters (D OQQs) use d in the fig ures a re a s follows:

TAB L E 1. DOQQ s Used in Study ATSDR – Eramet Fe bruar y 2004

Qu adra ngl e Nam e 

### Quad rant Year P hotographed Fleming , OH N W 

### 1994 Fleming , OH NE 1994 Fleming , OH SW 1994 Fleming , OH SE 1994 Marietta, O H NW 1996 Marietta, O H SW 1996 Parker sburg , WV NW 1996 Parker sburg , WV NE 1996 Parker sburg , WV SW 1996 Parker sburg , WV SE 1996 Valley Mills, W V NW 1996 Valley Mills, W V SW 1996

A g eore fer ence d aer ial photogr aph wa s used to identify the UTM coor dinates for point sources with missi ng data a

nd to confirm the UT M locations of point source s used in the study provided by Erame t to ATSDR. R EAC personne l found that all UTM coor dinates provided by Erame t

wer e er roneous to some de g ree and we re c hang ed up to 100 m to repre sent a c orre ct UTM pair

.

Source Char acte rization I nformation used to c hara cter ize the numerous potential source s of mang anese at the Era met fac ility was provide d to REAC by ATSDR. Key

documents include:

1. Response to Fourth Reque st to Provide Information Pursuant to the Cl ean Air Act, Appendix B, E

mission Inventory for Fe e Emission Reporting, Eramet Marie tta, Inc., date 13 July 2001

2. Response to Fifth Reque st to Provide Information Pursuant to the Cl ean Air Act
, Attachment A.1.a , Emissions I nformation; Attachme nt A.1.b, Stack Geog raphic Coordinates; and Attac hment C, Tox ic Relea se I nventory I nformation, Era

met Marietta, I nc., date d 11 J une 2003

3. Response to Fifth Reque st to Provide Information Pursuant to the Cl ean Air Act
, Attachment C, Toxic Release I nventory I nformation, Era

met Marietta, I

nc., 27 June 2003

### 12

A total of 65 proc esses a

re ide ntified in key

document 1 listed above . These pr ocesse s were

narr owed down to those dire ctly rela ted to mang anese and fur ther na rrowe d down to those having the g rea test potential impact on the ar ea ne arby the fa cility . Subsequent to numerous

conver sations with REAC Air Group L eade r Jeffre y Br adstree t, Ph.D., twelve point sources w ere eventua lly

identified as ha

ving the g rea test potential impact. The point source s were selec ted due to the likelihood of the hig hest potential impact, while a rea source s were omitted due to their
very low emission rates and likelihood that any impacts would be within the boundar ies of the fac ility or ver y close to the fe nceline. T he point source proce sses chosen inc lude:

· 

### SP020BAG1 – Mn Metal Proce ssing - Packing Dust Collector (including Ohio EPA proce sses 158 throug h 162)

· 

### SP020BAG2 – Mn Metal Proce ssing - Ba ll Mil l Dust Coll ector (includes Ohio EPA proce sses 78 and 79)

· 

### P025 – EM Briquetting Sy stem

· 

### P026 – Mn Mil ling Sy stem – Ba ll Mil l (includes Ohio EPA proc ess 114)

· 

### P901SC R – Furna ce #1 ( SiMn) Melting - Wet Scrubbe r

· 

### P901BAG – F urnac e #1 (SiMn) Melting – Taphole B ag house

· 

### P908 – Furna ce #12 ( Fe Mn)

· 

### P909 – Furna ce #18 ( Fe Mn)

· 

### P909 – Furna ce #18 ( four dr aft stac ks)

Emission rate ca lculations are derive d from five y ear s of data c overing 1998 throug h 2002 provided to REAC from ATSDR. Table 2, Ave rage PM 1 0 

### Emission Rate Calculations , is
prese nted as the initial step in arr iving a t a mang anese emission rate for eac h point source
proce ss. The ca lculation of ave rag e mang anese emission rates and a ll source pa rame ters for

eac h point source pr ocess is pre sented in Table 3, Eramet Mangane se Point Source Em ission Data

.

### 13

TAB L E 2. Aver ag e PM 1 0 

### Emission R ate Calc ulations

ATSDR – Eramet

F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 4

E m i ss i o n Rat e (t o n /y r) Po i n t So urce Nam e 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 A v g 98- 02

P020 Mn Me t al

Pr o ces si n g a 0.34 0.42 0.33 0 0 0.36

SP020T OTAL

- Packi n g and Bal

l Mi l l b 0.13 0.16 0.13 0 0 0.14

SP 020BA G1 - Packi

n g Dust Co l l ecto r c 0.08 0.10 0.08 0 0 0.09

SP 020BA G2 - Bal l

Mi l l Dust Co l l ecto r c 0.05 0.06 0.05 0 0 0.05

P025 "EM" Bri quet t i

n g Sy stem 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.12

P026 Mn Mi l l i

n g sy stem 0.203 0.146 0.122 0.129 0.134 0.15

P901 Furna ce #1 ( Si Mn

) 158.34 286.76 256.95 218.76 199.36 224.03

P901S CR F urna ce #1W et Scr ub b er d 109.57 198.44 177.81 151.38 137.96 155.03

P901BAG

Furn ace #1Taph o l e Bagh o use d 48.77 88.32 79.14 67.38 61.40 69.00

P908 Furna ce #12 ( Fe Mn ) 35.49 82.91 95.64 82.95 65.41 72.48

P909 Furna ce #18 ( Fe Mn ) 108.77 111.31 103.73 114.06 102.09 107.99

a: Pro ces s ceas ed 10/00, ave rages b ase d o n 1998 - 2000 dat a

b : PM f ro m P020 at t ri

b ut ed t o packi

n g dust co l l ecto r an d bal

l m i l l co l l ecto r - rat i o bas ed o n em i ss i o n r epor t f ro m 2000

c: PM f ro m SP 020TOTAL at t ri

b ut ed t o i n di

v i dual pr o ces s - rat i o bas ed o n

em i ss i o n i n v en t o ry r epor t f ro m 2000

d: PM f ro m P901 at t ri

b ut ed t o i n di

v i dual pr o ces s - rat i o bas ed o n

em i ss i o n i n v en t o ry r epor t f ro m 2000

### 14

TAB L E 3. Era met Mang anese Point S ource Emission Data

ATSDR – Eramet

F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 4

A v g PM 1 0 A

v g PM 1 0 A

v g Mn

Em i s Rate Em

i s Rate Em i s Rate Fl o w Exi t St ack St ack St ack St ack Gas Gas Po i n t So urce Nam e x y 1998-2002 i 1998-2002 1998-2002 b Rate Vel Di a Di a Ht Ht Tem p Tem p

ut m c ut m

c t o n

/y r g/s g/s acf m m /s f t f

, g m f

t m Deg F Deg K

P020 Mn Me t al

Pr o ces si n g a SP 020BA G1 - Packi

n g Dust Co l l ecto r d 455196 4358382 0.09 0.003 0.001 6,500 10.51 2.00 0.61 50 15.24 77 354

SP 020BA G2 - Bal l

Mi l l Dust Co l l ecto re 455141 4358364 0.05 0.001 0.001 15,000 20.23 2.19 0.67 54 16.46 165 512.4

P025 "EM" Bri quet t i

n g Sy stem 454680 4358258 0.12 0.003 0.002 9,825 11.13 2.39 0.73 38 11.58 77 354

P026 Mn Mi l l i

n g sy stem 454746 4358313 0.15 0.004 0.002 25 0.03 2.19 0.67 6 1.83 77 354.0

P901 Furna ce #1 (Si Mn

) P901S CR F urna ce #1W et Scr ub b er 455178 4358022 155.03 4.496 2.023 137,000 13.85 8.00 2.44 123 37.49 140 467.4

P901BAG

Furn ace #1Taph o l e Bagh o use 455112 4358000 69.00 2.001 0.900 75,000 21.77 4.72 1.44 96 29.26 120 431.4

P908 Furna ce #12 ( Fe Mn ) 454726 4357895 72.48 2.102 0.946 169,500 17.13 8.00 2.44 123 37.49 140 467.4

P909 Furna ce #18 ( Fe Mn ) h 454446 4357749 107.99 3.132 1.409 10,500 25.56 1.63 0.50 110 33.53 105 404.4

P909NE DR Furn ace #18 NE draf t st ack

h 454483 4357759 71.2 2.065 0.929 29,568 8.37 4.78 1.46 110 33.53 85 368.4

P909NWDR

Furn ace #18 NW

dr af t st ack

h 454441 4357750 71.2 2.065 0.929 33,104 9.37 4.78 1.46 110 33.53 85 368.4

P909S EDR Furn ace #18 SE dr af t st ack

h 454486 4357747 71.2 2.065 0.929 36,893 11.28 4.60 1.40 110 33.53 85 368.4

P909S W DR Furn ace #18 SW draf t st ack

h 454455 4357738 71.2 2.065 0.929 39,070 11.94 4.60 1.40 110 33.53 85 368.4

a: Pro ces s ceas ed 10/00, ave rages b ase d o n 1998 - 2000 dat a

b : Mn em i ss i o m r at e ba sed o n

45% gr ade o re

c: Ina ccurat e UTMs pro v i ded by E ram et ; est i

m at ed l o cati o n s b ase d o n

E ram et aut o cad drawi

n g and A rcVi ew geo ref

eren ced m ap

d: Inc l udes OEPA sub

pro ces ses 158 t h

ro ugh 162

e: Inc l udes OEPA sub

pro ces ses 78 & 79

f : Rel eas e ch aract eri sti c giv en as 4. 5 f t 2 - co n v ert ed t o an equi

v al en t ci rcul ar di am

et er vi a d=2*(4. 5/pi )1/2

g: No st ack di am

et er pr o v i ded, bal

l m i l l dust co l l ecto r di am

et er f ro m SP 020BA G used

h : Cor rect ed i

n f o rm at i o n f o r draf t st ack f l o w rat es f

ro m 2003 t esti n g pr o v i ded separatel y t o REAC f

ro m ATSDR

I: E m i ss i o n r at e f o r P909 dr af

t st acks t aken

f ro m 2000 Oh i o E PA

E m i ss i o n I n v en t o ry f o r Fe e Em i ss i o n

Repo rt i n g



### Discussion

Fig ure 1 pr esents ave rag e annua l mang anese g round-leve l air conc entra tions nearby

the Era met fac ility . Maxi mum values in excess of 6.00 μ g /m 3 

### are located w ith the 3.00 μ g /m 3 

### isopleth located on the fac ility

with an axis of higher

conce ntrations extending almost due north of the site. Fig ure 1a

utiliz es the same data a s Fig ure 1, but is re prese nted on a diff ere nt scale to include the c ritical 0.05 μ g /m 3 

### value that r epre sents the Refe renc e Conce ntration (RfC) for
mang anese . Fig ure 2 pr esents annua l aver ag e mang anese dry deposition values nea

rby the Erame t fac ility . Maxi mum values in excess of 40,000 μ g /m 2 

### /y r ar e noted on the f

acility with isopleths ex tending northea st of the fa cility . A sharpe r g radie nt and dec rea se in values is noted south and west of the fac ility . Fig ures 3 a nd 4 demonstrate the eff

ect of topogr aphy

on the re lease

### 15

of conta minants from the Era met fac ility . Br ighte r shade s of white re prese nt relatively highe r eleva tions and darke r colors r epre sent rela tively lower e levations. I n both the air c oncentr ation and deposition ca ses, contours e x tend almost due north throug h an ar ea of rela tively lower eleva tion with higher

points both t o the ea st and west. F igur e 5 is a visual of the two plotting domains used in the study . The re ctang ular g rid extends 20 km in each dire ction from its cente r with eac h g ridpoint repre sented by a fla g on the fig ure. The tight cluster of flag s repr esents the finer g rid employ ed ar ound the source to better re prese nt the eff ects of topog raphy

.

A re d flag on eac h fig ure r epre sents the location of a n air monitor on State Route 676 with a UTM pair of

(456755, 4365021). A r equest wa s made by ATSDR to provide the ave rag e mang anese air c oncentr ation and deposition at this location. Aver ag e mang anese air

conce ntration at the monitor is 0.29 μ g /m 3 

### and deposition at the monitor is 2567 μ g /m 2 

### /y r.

### 16

F igure 1

### 17

F igure 1a

### 18

F igure 2

### 19

F igure 3

### 20

F igure 4

### 21

F igure 5

### 22

F igure 6

Location of

AMP -Ohio (R.H. Gor such) m ete orological station/w eather tower (r ed fl ag ~2.5 km north-northwest of E ram et M ariet ta facility), near Mar ietta OH

### 23

F igure 7

Wind rose for Mar ietta m ete orologic data used in E ram et/ATSDR air dispersion m odeling

### 24

F igure 8

M n a i r c o n c e n t r a t i o n s m o n i t o r e d a t W a s h i n g t o n C o u n t y ( O H ) C a r e e r C e n t e r , N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0

- D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 4

### 25

ATTACHMENT 3

D a t e : M a y 4
, 2 0 0 4
T o : G e o r g e B o l l w e g , M a r g a r e t S i e f f e r t F r o m : N e a l F a n n R e : M e t h o d s f

o r e s t i m a t i n g M a r i e t t a O H p o p u l a t i o n e x p o s u r e t o a i r b o r n e M n

O v e r v i e w

T o e s t i m a t e t h e c u m u l a t i v e n u m b e r o f i n d i v i d u a l s e x p o s e d a t e a c h l e v e l o f r i s k

, I u s e d a G e o g r a p h i c a l I n f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m ( G I S ) t o e s t i m a t e t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f m a n g a n e s e a t t h e c e n s u s b l o c k c e n t r o i d s w i t h i n t h e 2 0 x 2 0 k i l o m e t e r

m o d e l i n g a r e a o f t h e E r a m e t f a c i l i t y

. T h e r e c e p t o r g r i d d i d n o t m a t c h t h e c e n t r o i d s o f t h e c e n s u s b l o c k s ; t h i s m a d e i t

n e c e s s a r y t o e s t i m a t e b l o c k c o n c e n t r a t i o n b y a s s o c i a t i n g e a c h b l o c k c e n t r o i d w i t h t h e n e a r e s t m o d e l i n g r e c e p t o r

.

M e t h o d o l o g

y

E P A t y p i c a l l y u s e s c e n s u s b l o c k c e n t r o i d s ( t h a t i s , t h e g e o g r a p h i c c e n t e r o f t h e c e n s u s b l o c k ) a s m o d e l i n g r e c e p t o r s t o

e s t i m a t e p o p u l a t i o n e x p o s u r e ; t h e c e n t r o i d s r e p r e s e n t t h e f i n e s t r e s o l u t i o n o f p o p u l a t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n i n t h e m o d e l i n g

r a d i u s

. H o w e v e r , t h e E r a m e t C a l P u f f m o d e l i n g g r i d d i d n o t m a t c h t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e b l o c k c e n t r o i d s , m a k i n g i t n e c e s s a r y
t o e s t i m a t e b l o c k c o n c e n t r a t i o n s

. T o d o t h i s , I u s e d A r c G I S 8 t o “ s p a t i a l l y j o i n ” e a c h c e n s u s b l o c k c e n t r o i d w i t h t h e

n e a r e s t r e c e p t o r p o i n t

.

M y s p e c i f

i c s t e p s w e r e a s f

o l l o w s :

1

. C a l c u l a t e t h e l o c a t i o n s o f t h e c e n s u s b l o c k c e n t r o i d s w i t h i n t h e m o d e l i n g a r e a

. T h e U S c e n s u s b u r e a u d o e s

n o t p r o v i d e t h e g e o g r a

p h i c c e n t r o i d s o

f c e n s u s b l o c k

s a n d u s e r s m u s t u s e a G I S t o c a l c u l a t e t h e s e c o o r d i n a t e s

. 2

. C r e a t e a “ s

p a t i a l j o i n ” b e t w e e n t h e b l o c k c e n t r o i d s a n d t h e m o d e l i n g g r i d

. T h i s p r o c e d u r e j o i n s e a c h b l o c k

c e n t r o i d (

a n d i t s c o r r e s

p o n d i n g p o

p u l a t i o n d a t a

) w i t h t h e c l o s e s t r e c e p t o r ( a n d i t s m o d e l e d e s t i m a t e o f

m a n g a n e s e f

o r t h a t r e c e

p t o r l o c a t i o n

)

. 3

. E l i m i n a t e b l o c k c e n t r o i d s t h a t a r e f u r t h e r t h a n 1 0 0 m e t e r s f r o m t h e m o d e l i n g r a d i u s

. T h e s p a t i a l j o i n
p r o c e d u r e j o i n s e a c h b l o c k c e n t r o i d i n t h e G I S w i t h a r e c e

p t o r , i r r e s

p e c t i v e o f d i s t a n c e

. E l i m i n a t i n g b l o c k s
t h a t a r e f

u r t h e r t h a n 1 0 0 m e t e r s f r o m t h e n e a r e s t r e c e

p t o r p o i n t e n s u r e s t h a t t h e G I S o n l y p r o v i d e s a m b i e n t

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o

f m a n g a n e s e a t c e n s u s b l o c k s w i t h i n t h e m o d e l i n g d o m a i n ( a p p r o x i m a t e l

y 4 0 k m )

. 4

. C a l c u l a t e p o

p u l a t i o n e x

p o s u r e

. U

s i n g a s p r e a d s h e e t

, I c a l c u l a t e d t h e c u m u l a t i v e n u m b e r o f i n d i v i d u a l s

e x p o s e d a t e a c h l e v e l o f r i s k

. S p e c i f i c a l l y , I u s e d t h e “ S U

M I F ” f u n c t i o n i n M S E x c e l t o c a l c u l a t e t h e

c u m u l a t i v e n u m b e r o

f i n d i v i d u a l

s e x p o s e d a t v a r

y i n g l e v e l s o

f m a n g a n e s e c o n c e n t r a t i o n

. 1

I n t h e a b s e n c e o f a m o d e l i n g g r i d t h a t e x a c t l y m a t c h e s t h e l o c a t i o n s o f t h e c e n s u s b l o c k c e n t r o i d s , t h i s m e t h o d i s t h e m o s t

a c c u r a t e m e t h o d t h a t i s r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e

.

S o u r c e s o

f I n p u t D a t a

· M o d e l R e c e

p t o r s

. T h e A T S D R c o n t r a c t o r s u

p p l i e d m e w i t h t h e m o d e l i n g r e c e p t o r s f r o m t h e C a l

P u f f

m o d e l i n g r u n s

.

· C e n s u s D a t a

. I

d o w n l o a d e d t h i s d a t a f r o m t h e c e n s u s b u r e a u ( w w w

. c e n s u s

. g o v

) a n d c a l c u l a t e d t h e l o c a t i o n s o

f t h e c e n s u s b l o c k c e n t r o i d s i n A r c G I S

.

· S o f t w a r e

. I u s e d A r c G I

S 8

. 3 f o r a l l G I S w o r k a n d M S E x c e l 2 0 0 2 f o r a l l c a l c u l a t i o n s

.

1 S e e a t t a c h e d s p r e a d s h e e t i n f i l e M n A m b i e n t D a t a

. x l s f o r c a l c u l a t i o n s

.

### 26

ATTACHMENT 4A

Region 5 (R5) response to U.S. EPA internal revie w c o m m e nt s on Attac hm ent 2 (Air disp ersion

m odeling description; 5 April 2004 Mem orandum from How ard Schm idt to Sella Burchette )

P urpose of th is Attac hm ent

U.S. EPA’s internal revie w of the J une 9, 2004 Dra ft Residual Risk Test for th e Fe rroa lloy s Production Source Categ ory (“r isk test memo”) sug g ested the need for elabor ation and clar ification of sever al aspec ts of the air dispersion modeling descr iption (Attac hment 2). Be cause Attachment 2 is part of a co m p l et ed co n trac t enter ed into by the Ag ency for Tox ic Substances and Disease Reg istry (ATSDR), its technica l analy sis is also complete and not open to modification. The purpose of Attachment 4A is to respond to U.S. EPA’s internal revie w co m m e nts (numbere d below) and
p r o v id e th e n e e d e d elabor ation/clarific ation to support Attachment 2' s usability in the risk test me mo

.

1. Reasons for and advantages of usin g CAL PUF F rather than som e other m odel for air disp ersion m odeling of

Eram et M ariet ta’s M n air em ission s

R5 response : the first para g raph of Attachment 2 (quoted below) provides rationale for CAL PUFF

use for purposes of the risk test memo. The mention of “straig ht-line transport assumptions” is likely to refe r to assumptions in the I ndustrial Source Complex (I SC) model that seem inconsistent with the terr ain in the vicinity

of Era met and support the use of CAL PUFF as an a lternative:

“Disper sion modeling was perf ormed to estimate the locations of potential mang anes e air and
g round-leve l impacts from daily opera tions at the Erame t Marietta, I nc. fac ility (“the fac ility ”) in Marietta, OH. The fac ility is located adjac ent to the Ohio River in an are a of complex terra in wher e the Ohio River valley influence s the dispersion of pollutants from t h e fa cility

. CAL PUFF was chosen as the model for this exercise for its ability to handle this ty pe of topogr aphica l situation. The Un i ted States Environmental Protection Ag ency ’s (U.S. EPA) Guideline on Air Quality Mod el s provides for the use of CAL PUFF on a case -by -ca se basis for ai r q u al ity estimates involving complex meteorolog ical flow conditions wher e steady -state straig ht-line transport assumptions are inappropria te. This U.S. EPA standard is noted in the Fede ra l R eg i s t er Vo lume 68, Number 72 dated 15 Apr il 2003.”

2. Response to U.S. EP A internal re view q uestions:

• Why w ere only 1999 me t data used?

• Isn’t it preferable to use m et data average d over the sam e tim e period as the em ission s data?

R5 response : curr ently

, the standard proce dure as detailed in the Guideline on Air Quality Models is to use either a) the most rec ent five y ear s of data from the most repr esenta tive/closest National Weather Service station ( g ener ally at an airport) or b) one y ear of onsite meteorolog ical data. The latter option is pref

era b l e i f o n s i t e data is available

, as it would be the most repr esenta tive of the

### 27

actua l conditions at the site. This approa ch assumes that in any 5 y ear period at a repr esenta tive site,

o r an y one-y ear period onsite, one is likely to see most ever y possible ty

pe of meteorolo gi ca l condition that could rea sonably be expected at the location in question; thus, the y ear of the data is of littl e conseque nce unless there is cer tain knowledg e a substantial meteoro l o gi c al anomaly

occur red during the one-y ear or five-year measure ment period. Whil e this has been the stance taken
most often in the rec ent past, there are curr ently ong oing discussions reg arding the use of mesoscale meteorolog ical data for complex wind and/or long- rang e transport issues. Howeve r, one y ear of site specific meteorolog ical d a ta is adequate for this ty pe of modeling, based on curr ently acc epted
proce dures.

3. ORD-6/22/04 com m ent (from Kat ie Warwick) o n J u n e 9, 2004 draft risk test m em o, Attac hm ent 2: Attachment 2

- Geophy sical Data - Please ref er to the predominant wind direc tion as to the re ason why

there are more re ceptor s in Ohio.

R5 response : J ennife r Fr eed (ATSDR) addre ssed this during the J une 23, 2004 Workgr oup call. The

rec eptor g rid surrounding the fac ility was offse t to include the maxi mum impact are a and thus ensure that the modeling results include the are as of highe st conce ntration. For stack emissions, the maxi mum impact area is often most influence d by the pre dominant wind direction, which for this location is from the south. Additionally

, it was done to ensure t h at t h e re ce p t o r g rid include the l o c ation of the monitor site, which is located to the north of the fac ility

. Thus, the rec eptor distribution that was used was chosen to a ddress the predominant wind direc tion ( from the south);
to include the are a of highe st l i k el y Mn air conce ntrations and deposition; and to include the monitoring site loca tion.

4. P rovide algorithm s used to derive em ission rate s in T ables 2 and 3 in Attachm ent 2

R5 response : the alg orithms are available i n t h e E x ce l sprea dsheet “Era met Mn Source Data” (attac hed separ ately

): the “Avg Emis Rate” tab contains Tabl e 2 ; t h e “Point Source Data” tab contains Table 3. Be cause ATSDR’s contra ct with their modeler was complete, we wer e unable to
compre hensively question all input to the alg orithms. Wit hin the constraints of our limit ed acc ess to the modeler, we did ask sever al questions reg arding the basis for these estimates (see Attac hm ents 5A and 5B ) and we did rec eive response s. Although a few of the modelers’ response s

are unclea r and/or inacc urate (e.g

. the 1/24/05 reply that beg ins “A second reque st was submitt ed by EPA Ohio...” [this is incorre ct; the request was submitt ed by R5] ), many

assumptions may

follow from the overa ll modeling objectives (asse ssing g round level air conce ntrations downwind from the fac ility

, not nece ssarily close to the fac ility boundary ; e.g

. fug itive emissions exclusi o n ) and ATSDR’s interest in siting air monitors. Although U.S. EPA’s interest includes near by residents as well as those further downwind, the modeling shows substantial potential hazard in inhabited are as.

5. Com m ent from 6/22/04 ORD/Katie Warwick w ritte n com m ents:

p. 4 - Monitoring Data - We are unclea r about what the modeled conce ntration repr esents -- a five
y ear aver ag e, corr esponding to the monitor period? Or something else? We sug g est providing a plot which shows the M n m onitor conce ntration over time. This would convey the varia bility of

conce ntration rela tive to the long- term ave rag e.

### 28

R5 response : the comment addre sses air m o n i t o ri n g data and its prese ntation, and air dispersion modeling estimates. The air monitoring data have been plotted as sug g ested and are now prese nted as F igur e 8 (r eplac ing the conce ntration table in Section 4, Results and discussion).

The m odeling data repr esents the an n u al aver ag e conce ntrations based on one y ear of on-site meteorolog ical data for cale ndar y ear 1999 and an aver ag ed emission rate from the five y ear period spanning 1998-2002. The period of the meteorolog ical data falls within the period of the emissions data; howeve r, this is not require d for a modeling study

. Wit hout expli citly as k i n g the modeling
contra ctor why the meteorolog ical data was chosen, one can assume that the 1999 was the only y ear , or the most re cent y ear , that onsite data was available

. The 1998-2002 emissions da ta is w hat was repor ted by the Era met in response to a request for information from U.S. EPA. The ave rag e wa s used (ra ther than the worst-c ase emissions y ear , or the most rec ent y ear , etc.) beca use of the interest in the chronic nature of the exposure in que stion. An aver ag e is a better repr esenta tion of the ty pe of exposure expected ove r a long er time fr ame than a single y ear

.

The m onitoring data curr ently repr esent 50 months (Nove mber 2000 - Dec ember 2004) of ever y

six -day sampling. Although there is not exact corr espondenc e betwee n the time period of the emissions data used for air dispersion modeling and the time period of the air monitoring data, there i s o v er l ap (2000-2002)

. For purposes of residual risk assessment, both air dispersion mod el i n g estimates and air monitoring measure ments are used here t o i n form the issue of potential human
exposure to industrial air pollution - in the prese nt case , to Erame t’s air rele ases of Mn. As reque sted in the comment, we r eplac ed the tabula r pre sentation of Mn air c oncentr ations with Fig ure 8.

### 29

ATTACHMENT 4B

Misce llaneous U.S. EPA internal revie w com m ents and R5 responses regar din g June 9, 2004 Draft Residual RiskTest Me m o

1. Ann J ohnson (OPEI ) 7/8/ 0 4 wr i tten comments: “...it would be nice to g et a table of the 65
proce sses, the emissions fr om those proce sses, and their distances from the fenc eline...” Ann also asked during the 6/23/04 ca l l if we have Mn emissions estimates for all 65 proce sses. [not e: 65
proce sses are mentioned in Attachment 2, Source Charac terization, item 3, as the overa ll g roup from which a subse t of 12 wer e chose n for Mn a ir dispersion modeling .]

R5 response : All of the 65 proce sses are listed at the end of this attachme nt, 45 of which are called “insig nif i cant”

. USEPA Reg ion 5 does not have emissions and dis tance -to-fe nceline information for all these source s, and obtaini n g t h i s information would involve substantial additional work. ATSDR’s modeling contra ctor asser ted that “those [emiss ion source s] having the g rea test potential impact on the are a near

by the fac ility ” wer e co n s i d er ed i n their modeling exercise. Although a compre hensive emissions eval u at i o n s eems appropr iate for a ref ined assessment, the HQ=1 was convincing ly exceede d based on ATSDR’s ana l y s i s t h a t focuse d on the selec ted subset of Mn

em i s sion source s. I ncluding more source s could lead to a bigg er HQ but wouldn’t c h an ge t h e conclusion of the risk test memo, reduc ing the need for compre hensive emissions c hara cter ization for pr esent purpose s.

2. Provide alg orithms used to derive e mission rates in Tables 2 and 3 in Attac hment 2

### 30

R5 response : The al go r ithms are available in the Ex cel sprea dsheet “Era met Mn Source Data” (a t t ac hed separ ately

): the “Avg Emis Rate” tab contains Table 2; the “Point Source Data” t a b contains Table 3.

### 31

I n revie wing the emission estimates of Attachment 2, Tables 2 and 3, R5 direc ted sever al questions
to ATSDR’s modeling contra ctor (see Attachments 5A and 5B)

. Our revie w of these response s indicates that values in Tables 2 and 3 are rea sonable if one acc ept s t h e m o d el ing objectives and judgme nts of the modeler. Emission repor ts cited in Table 2 footnotes wer e revie wed and extracted values wer e verifie d

. Ho weve r, ATSDR’s modeling objectives led the modelers to exclude
proce sses that might be rele vant for e stimation of near- source conce ntrations.

For example, the first row of Table 2 (“P020 Mn Metal Processing ”) l i s t s an aver ag e 1998-2002 estimate of 0.36 tons/y ear from this overa ll proce ss. The second row of Table 2 (“SP020 TOTAL

- Packing and Ba ll Mill”) g iv es a 0

. 14 tons/y ear aver ag e for 1998-2002, comprised of two subproce sses (0.09 and 0.05 tons/y ear ) that wer e actua lly car ried forwa

rd into Table 3 and modeled. Thus, of t h e 0.36 tons/y ear emitted from the overa ll proce ss only 0.14/0.36 or about 39% was included in the dispersion model. Other exclusions resulting from the modeling objectives and modeler’ s judgme nts could lead to potential undere stimates of long term conce ntrations closer in to the fa cility

.

3. ORD-6/22/04 Katie Warwick written comments: “

. . . B e l o w a r e s o m e c o m m e n t s f r o m t h e O R D s t a f

f o n t h e d r a f t R e s i d u a l R i s k T

e s t f o r t h e F e r r o a l l o y s P r o d u c t i o n S o u r c e C a t e g o r y , d a t e d J u n e 9
, 2 0 0 4

. W e a p p r e c i a t e h a v i n g
t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e v i e w t h i s d r a f t d o c u m e n t

. I n g e n e r a l

, t h e m e m o r a n d u m i s w e l l w r i t t e n , c o n c i s e , a n d c l e a r

. H o w e v e r ,
w e r e c o m m e n d t h a t t h e m e m o p r o v i d e m o r e d e t a i l a b o u t y o u r n e x t s t e p s , i

. e

. , w h a t t y p e o f d a t a w i l l y o u p u r s u e , w h a t

s o u r c e s w i l l y o u l o o k a t , w h a t p o l l u t a n t s w i l l y o u e x a m i n e , e t c

.



### R5 response : We believe the “next steps” discussion is outside the scope of the risk test memo, the
purpose of which is to deter mine whether the source cate g ory can be shown a t t h e o u t s et not to require a residual risk rule on the basis of data alre ady in U.S. EPA’s possession an d a re latively simple and health-pr otective analy sis. We ag ree that a “bra instorming” session reg arding next steps should occur a fter the risk test memo is completed.

4. p

. 9

- A t t a c h m e n t 2

- T a b l e 1

- - H o w h a s t h e v i c i n i t y c h a n g e d s i n c e t h o s e d a t e s [ 1 9 9 4 ; 1 9 9 6 ]

- e

. g

. , m a j o r d e v e l o p m e n t , r e s i d e n c e s , e t c

. ?



### R5 response : census data (2000) are the most rec ent available a n d we re used for risk test memo purposes. A November 2004 visit to Marietta OH verifie d that homes/residenc es are prese nt within

a mile or two N and NE of Erame t althoug h the immediate are a appea rs sparse ly populated. During

our November 2004 visit we hear d anec dotal discussion of the potential for incre asing development along State Route 7 near

Erame t that may

acc ompany

rec ent improvements to that hig hway

.

5. p

. 1 9

- A t t a c h m e n t 3

- - O v e r v i e w

- l a s t s e n t e n c e

- - W h y w a s t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n a s s i g n e d t o n e a r e s t r e c e p t o r r a t h e r t h a n
i n t e r p o l a t i n g t o t h e c e n t r o i d ? 

### ...”

R5 Response: Nea l Fa

nn OAQPS-REAG) response : “I assig ned conce ntrations from the rec eptor
g ri d t o the near est census block centr oid beca use the distance betwee n the two was uniformly minuscule (on the or der of a fe w meter s, at most).”

6. Scott J enkins (OAQ PS-REAG): risk test memo needs more detail in its descr iption of the Mn

em ission rate s. Show calc ulations, provide more info on dry deposition (is this inform at i o n i s available from model input files? ).

### 32

R5 Response: More detail on emission rate issues is provided in Attachments 4A, 5A and 5B. Wit h
reg ard to dry deposition: even the prese nt restr i ct e d scope (potential inhalation exposure only ) showed HQs substantially g rea ter than 1.0, reduc ing (we believe) the n ee d f or either a broade r or

more in-dep t h s co pe in the residual risk test memo. The deposition information was included for completene ss and without comment as part of the April 5, 2004 ai r dispersion modeling memorandum (Attac hment 2). We ag ree th at we t an d dry deposition are rele vant conce rns for a ref ined risk assessment.

### 33

65 processe s list requested in Attac hm ent 4B, Com m ent 1

The following proce sses are listed in Erame t’s permit (fr om OhioEPA Final Titl e V Permit, issue date 12/18/02; eff

ective date 1/08/02; expiration date 12/18/07). This information was reque sted in
comments of the Fe rroa lloy s Production workg roup ( “...it would be nice to g et a table of the 65
proce sses, the emissions from those proc esses, a nd their distance s from the fe nceline...” ).

“Emissions Unit I D (Company I D)/Emissions Unit Activit y Desc ription

1

. B 0 0 5 ( G r i z z l y G e n e r a t o r )

- D i e s e l g e n e r a t o r f o r g r i z z l y s i z i n g o p e r a t i o n 2

. F 0 0 1 ( R o a d s & P a r k i n g A r e a s )

- P l a n t w i d e r o a d w a y s a n d p a r k i n g a r e a s 3

. F 0 0 2 ( S t o r a g e P i l e s )

- P l a n t w i d e s t o r a g e p i l e s 4

. F 0 0 7 ( F u r n a c e 1 C a s t i n g )

- F u r n a c e # 1 c a s t i n g 5

. F 0 0 8 ( F u r n a c e 1 2 C a s t i n g )

- F u r n a c e # 1 2 c a s t i n g 6

. F 0 0 9 ( F u r n a c e 1 8 C a s t i n g )

- F u r n a c e # 1 8 c a s t i n g 7

. F 0 1 0 ( G r i z z l y S i z i n g )

- G r i z z l y s i z i n g o p e r a t i o n 8

. F 0 1 2 ( M e t O x y R e d P r o c e s s )

- M e t a l O x y g e n R e d u c t i o n p r o c e s s 9

. F 0 1 3 ( R a w M a t

- B l d g

. 5 2 )

- B u i l d i n g 5 2 c r u s h e r 1 0

. F 0 1 4 ( C 7 P C r u s h S y s 3 & 4 )

- C 7 P S y s t e m s # 3 & # 4

. C r u s h i n g , s i z i n g a n d p a c k i n g o f m a t e r i a l
1 1

. F 0 1 6 ( M e t a l P o w d e r s )

- F i n e s i z i n g a n d i m p a c t o r ( s y s t e m s # 5 & # 6 ) f o r m e t a l p o w d e r s 1 2

. F 0 1 7 ( S i m p l e x S y s t e m s )

- S i m p l e x m i x , m i l l i n g , f u r n a c e a n d p a c k i n g s y s t e m 1 3

. P 0 1 8 ( V a c u u m F u r n a c e 5 0 )

- V a c u u m F u r n a c e # 5 0
1 4

. P 0 2 0 ( M a n g M e t a l P r o c e s s )

- E l e c t [ r ] o l y t i c m a n g a n e s e p r o d u c t i o n 1 5

. P 0 2 2 ( C h r o m e M e t a l P r o c e s s )

- E l e c t [ r ] o l y t i c c h r o m m i u m p r o d u c t i o n 1 6

. P 0 2 5 ( E M B r i q u e t t i n g )

- E M b r i q u e t t i n g s y s t e m 1 7

. P 9 0 1 ( # 1 F u r n a c e )

- S u b m e r g e d A r c F u r n a c e 1 8

. P 9 0 8 ( # 1 2 F u r n a c e )

- S u b m e r g e d A r c F u r n a c e 1 9

. P 9 0 9 ( # 1 8 F u r n a c e )

- S u b m e r g e d A r c F u r [ n a ] c e 2 0

. Z 9 1 1 ( C 2 P A l l o y C r u s h i n g a n d S i z i n g )

- C 2 P a l l o y c r u s h i n g ”

F r o m p

. 1 1
, T i t l e V F i n a l P e r m i t , S p e c i f i c F a c i l i t y T e r m s a n d C o n d i t i o n s ; S t a t e O n l y E n f o r c e a b l e S e c t i o n :

“ T h e f o l l o w i n g i n s i g n i f

i c a n t e m i s s i o n s u n i t s a r e l o c a t e d a t t h i s f a c i l i t y :

1

. F 0 0 3

- b a r g e u n l o a d i n g ; 2

. F 0 1 5

- a c i d w a s t e t r e a t m e n t ; 3

. P 0 2 6

- m a n g a n e s e m i l l i n g ; 4

. P 9 1 2

- C 7 P b a g g e r ; 5

. P 9 1 3

- M O R p e l l e t i z e r ; 6

. P 9 1 4

- e l e c t r o l y t i c m a n g a n e s e f l a k e p a c k a g i n g ; 7

. Z 0 0 1

- c h i l l s p r a y p r e p ; 8

. Z 5 0 4

- f

u r n a c e 1 h o t m e t a l ; 9

. Z 5 1 7

- l a b e q u i p m e n t a n d h o o d s ; 1 0

. Z 5 1 8

- r e f

r i g e r a n t r e c l a i m & r e c y c l e ; 1 1

. Z 5 1 9

- 1 5
, 0 0 0

- g a l l o n d i e s e l t a n k ; 1 2

. Z 5 2 0

- 6
, 0 0 0

- g a l l o n d i e s e l t a n k ; 1 3

. Z 5 2 1

- r e f

r a c t o r y m i x & a p p l y ; 1 4

. Z 5 2 2

- u s e d l a d l e r e p a i r ; 1 5

. Z 5 2 3

- n e w l a d l e p r e p ; 1 6

. Z 5 2 4

- g u n i t e m i x & a p p l i c a t i o n ; 1 7

. Z 5 2 5

- p i g g i n g c o n v e y o r ; 1 8

. Z 5 2 6

- l a d l e p r e h e a t o p e r a t i o n ; 1 9

. Z 5 2 7

- s i m p l e x p a r t s c l e a n e r 1 ; 2 0

. Z 5 2 8

- e l e c t r o l y t i c c h r o m e p a r t s c l e a n e r 1 ;

### 34

2 1

. Z 5 2 9

- l o c o m o t i v e s h o p h y d r a u l i c p a r t s c l e a n e r ; 2 2

. Z 5 3 0

- e l e c t r i c s h o p p a r t s c l e a n e r ; 2 3

. Z 5 3 1

- l o c o m o t i v e s h o p p a r t s c l e a n e r 1 ; 2 4

. Z 5 3 2

- l o c o m o t i v e s h o p p a r t s c l e a n e r 2 ; 2 5

. Z 5 3 3

- m a c h i n e s h o p p a r t s c l e a n e r ; 2 6

. Z 5 3 4

- C 3 F s h o p p a r t s c l e a n e r ; 2 7

. Z 5 3 5

- e l e c t r o l y t i c c h r o m i u m s h o p p a r t s c l e a n e r 2 ; 2 8

. Z 5 3 6

- e l e c t r o l y t i c m a n g a n e s e s h o p p a r t s c l e a n e r ; 2 9

. Z 5 3 7

- C 1 F s h o p p a r t s c l e a n e r ; 3 0

. Z 5 3 8

- s o u t h s i d e s h o p p a r t s c l e a n e r ; 3 1

. Z 5 3 9

- s i m p l e x s h o p p a r t s c l e a n e r 2 ; 3 2

. Z 5 4 0

- l o c o m o t i v e s h o p p a r t s c l e a n e r 3 ; 3 3

. Z 9 0 4

- r a w m a t e r i a l s m i x h o u s e ; 3 4

. Z 9 0 5

- C 7 P c r u s h / s i z e s y s t e m 1 ; 3 5

. Z 9 0 6

- C 7 P c r u s h / s i z e s y s t e m 2 ; 3 6

. Z 9 1 0

- s u l f

u r b u r n i n g ; 3 7

. Z 9 1 2

- f

u r n a c e 1 s l a g h a n d l i n g ; 3 8

. Z 9 1 3

- f

u r n a c e 1 f

e e d s y s t e m ; 3 9

. Z 9 1 4

- f

u r n a c e 1 2 h o t m e t a l ; 4 0

. Z 9 1 5

- f

u r n a c e 1 2 s l a g h a n d l i n g ; 4 1

. Z 9 1 6

- f

u r n a c e 1 2 f

e e d s y s t e m ; 4 2

. Z 9 1 7

- f

u r n a c e 1 8 h o t m e t a l ; 4 3

. Z 9 1 8

- f

u r n a c e 1 8 s l a g h a n d l i n g ; 4 4

. Z 9 1 9

- f

u r n a c e 1 8 f

e e d s y s t e m ; a n d
4 5

. Z 9 2 1

- C 2 P p i c k i n g c o n v e y o r

. ”

### 35

ATTACHMENT 5A

R5 qu e s t io n s and contrac tor response to R5 request for clarification of air disp ersion m odeling algorithm s

F irst re ply

T o: Mi che ll e Col le dge, AT SDR Region V

Fro m : Howar d Sc hm idt , Loc kheed M ar ti n/RE AC Seni or Atmosphe ri c M ode le r

T hro ugh: Sel la Bur che tt e, EP A/ERT Wo rk Assi gnm ent Ma nager

Subj ect : Resp ons e t o EPA q ues ti ons on F ina l At m osp her ic Mo del ing Repo rt

Era m et Ma ri et ta , M ar ie tt a, OH

1. How wer e 65 pro ces ses ide nti fi ed in “key doc um ent 1” nar rowe d to 12 (ni ne of whic h ar e li st ed in bul le t poi nts unde r “Sou rc e Char act er izat ion ”) ? Alt hough “nu m er ous con versa ti ons ” in thi s nar rowi ng pro ces s ar e des cr ibe d, f

ew de ta il s a re given, re duc ing tr ans par enc y of a c ent ra l p ar t o f t he q uan ti ta ti ve est imates

.

T he unde rs too d obj ect ive of the m ode li ng exe rc is e was to ass ess the pot en t i a l gr o u n d le vel ambient ai r qua li ty impact of m angane se re la t e d e mi s s i o n s off si te

. T her ef ore the app roa ch
ta ken was to evalua te the pro ces ses for 1) emissi ons , 2) emissi ons of m angane se compounds and 3) emissi ons th at woul d i m pac t o ff si te

.

T he fi rs t st ep was to el iminat e tho s e p r o c e s s e s for whic h no or negli gible emissi ons wer e

re por te d. As not ed in the Apri l 5, 2004 m emorand um des cr ibi ng the m ode li ng exe rc is e, the pot ent ia l sou rc es wer e nex t re viewed for m angane se in the pro ces s. I f a pro ces s did not invol ve

ma n ga n ese , suc h as the Cum m ins Die sel Gene ra tor (B00 5), it was el iminat ed fr om fur the r

con si der at ion . At th is poi nt the fi el d of pos si ble sou rc es was now na rr owed to 28.

Expe ri enc e has sho wn tha t low le vel emissi ons , fugit ive and tho se emitt ed fr om ground le vel to

roo f vent le vel, woul d not have si gnifi can t impact s off si te

. T her ef ore the low le vel re le ase s

wer e el iminat ed fr om fur the r con si der at ion

. T his st ep re duc ed the fi el d of sou rc es to be m ode le d
to 12

. (REP LY F ROM JEF F B RADSTREET, L o ckhe ed Ma rt in/ REAC Air Resp onse Sec ti on Le ader )

2. T abl e 2: how we re ra ti os 0 .382 , 0.6 31, and 0.36 9 deri ved for rows 6- 8, e.g. fo r t he year 200 0 ( Colu m n D)? Same que st ion , P90 1 Fur nac e#1 – ho w wer e r at ios 0.69 2 an d 0.3 08 d er ived f or rows 15 a nd 1 6?

T he Mn Me ta l Pro ces si ng (P0 20) is a complex pro ces s. Only par ti cul ar por ti ons of tha t pro ces s

wer e ass ess ed to be pote nti al ly con tr ibu tor y to Mn emissi ons out si de the fe nce li ne of Era m et

. T he Pac king and Bal l M i l l pro ces s was ide nti fi ed as the por ti on of P020 tha t woul d fi t the

cr it er ia for bei ng inc lud ed as a Mn sou rc e. Addi ti ona ll y, as the Pac king and Bal l Mi ll por ti ons of P 0 2 0 h ave dif

fe re nt sou rc e cha ra ct er is ti cs, the y wer e m ode le d sep ar at el y and the ir

con tr ibu ti on to the overal l P020 pro ces s ra ti oed

. T his is spe ll ed out in the spr ead she et and not ed in foo tno te b.

### 36

Simila rl y, P901 was bro ken down int o We t Scr ubbe r and T aph ole Baghouse and the ir ind ividu al

con tr ibu ti ons wer e pr opor ti ona ll y ident if ie d.

T he MS Exce l workshe et Poi nt Sour ce Data sho ws that the m ai n pro ces s the m sel ves wer e not

m ode le d (P0 2 0
, P901 Fur nac e #1)

, but onl y por ti ons tha t m et the m ode li ng cr it er ia wer e ide nti fi ed and inc lud ed. (REP LY F ROM HO WARD SCH MI DT, Lockh eed Ma rt in/ REAC Seni or At mo sphe ri c M odel er)

3. Wh y wer e ai r emissi ons for P020 Mn Me ta l Pro ces si ng (c eas ed ope ra ti on in 2000 ) inc lud ed for dis per si on

m ode li ng, whil e tho se for the ope ra ti ng m anga n e s e o x yg en re fi nin g pro ces s (M OR) wer e not ? Als o, knowing t h a t t h e t a p p ing emissi ons fr om the #18 fur nac e ar e duc te d to the same baghous e as the MOR emissi ons , how we re th e #1 8 f urn ace ta ppi ng em is si ons ac cou nte d f or in the m ode li ng.

T he P020 Mn Me ta l pro ces si ng was inc lud ed bec aus e the inf ormati on pro vided showe d that it had m angane se re la te d emissi ons for two of the fi ve m et eor olo gical years m ode le d. Em is si ons fr om th is sou rc e wer e on ly inc lud ed f or tho se years th at it di d op er at e.

T he i nfo rmati on p rovid ed o n t he P 010 MOR p roc ess in dic at ed t hat it was pr imari ly a f ugiti ve

s our ce, emissi on wer e re le ase fr om ess ent ia ll y groun d le vel. T hes e fugit ive emissi ons w o u l d
not si gnifi can tl y impact off si te , as st at ed abo ve, and wer e th e r e f o r e n o t inc lud ed. T he bag hous e emissi ons wer e eviden tl y emitt ed fr om a roo f top vent as no st ack inf ormati on was pro vided for thi s sou rc e. Roof top vent emissi ons w o u l d al so not si gnifi can tl y i m pac t off the si te a n d the re for e wer e not inc lud ed. (REP LY F ROM JEF F B RADSTREET, Lockh eed Ma rt in/ REAC Air Resp onse Sec ti on Le ader )

4. How was the par ti cl e si ze inf ormati on and re act ivit y for the dis pe r s i o n mo d e li ng cho sen ? We re the se numbers sou rc e spe ci fi c or some kind of def aul t value? I f def

aul t, is the re any ind ic at ion tha t the se numbers

ar e i n an y way

re pre sen ta ti ve of t he p ar ti cl es emitt ed b y Eramet?

T he values for par ti cl e si ze and re act ivit y wer e def aul ts f o u n d i n CALPUFF. T her e was no eviden ce in the doc um ent at ion tha t any pre vious engine er ing st udy had bee n complet ed to
pro vide thi s inf

ormati on and the budget to complet e thi s pro j ect woul d not have al lowe d for suc h

a st udy to be complet ed. For the same re aso n, a sen si ti vity ana lysis wit h varying par ti cl e si zes and re act ivit y values to ass ess pos si ble dif fe re nce s in loc at ion and m agnit ude of impact was not complet ed. (REP LY F ROM HO WARD SCH MI DT, Lockh eed Ma rt in/ REAC S e n ior Atm osph eri c M odel er)

5. Wh y was the avera ge emissi on ra te fr om 1998

– 2002 use d in the m ode li ng ra the r tha n the highes t of the fi ve years ? Wa s thi s to repr ese nt the lon g- te rm chr oni c av er age ra the r tha n the highest wors t- cas e y ear , or for some ot her re aso n?

Average emissi on ra te s for the per iod 1998 – 2002 wer e cho sen to re pre sen t lon g- te rm chr oni c ef fe ct s. (REP LY F ROM JENNIF ER F REED, ATSDR LT/US P ubli c H eal th S erv ic e an d HO WARD SCH MI DT, Lock hee d M art in/ REAC Seni or At mo sphe ri c M odel er)

### 37

ATTACHMENT 5B

R5 qu e s t io n s and contrac tor response to R5 request for clarification of air disp ersion m odeling algorithm s
Second reply

DAT E: J anu ar y 24, 200 5

T O: Mi che ll e Col le dge, AT SDR Region V

T HROUGH: Sel la Bur che tt e, ERT Wo rk Assi gnm ent Ma nager

FROM: Howar d Sc hm idt , Loc kheed M ar ti n/RE AC Atmosphe ri c M ode li ng Te am Leader

SUBJ ECT : Cla ri fi cat ion of Cer ta in Cal cul at ion s f

or Mo del ing fr om

Era m et Ma ri et ta

A s e c o n d r e q ues t was sub m it te d by EPA Ohio thr ough U.S. EPA Region V and EPA/ERT to pro vide a

c l a r if ic at ion in the ar ri val of par ti cul ar cal cul at ion s use d in the at m osp her ic m ode li ng st udy for E r a me t M a r i e t t a

. EPA Ohio que st ion s the use of “r at ios ” in the spr ead she et s det ai li ng the emissi on ra te s f o r pro ces ses P 0 2 0
, Mn Me ta l Pro ces si ng and P901
, Fur nac e #1. Looking bac k, I pro bab ly sho uld not have inc lud ed the sec ond w o r ks hee t wit hin the Mi cr oso ft Exce l spr ead she et ti tl ed AV G EMIS RAT E as it has

cau sed con fus ion

. My ori ginal int ent ion was for tha t spr ead she et to pro vide cl ar it y, whic h app ar ent ly it has
not . I wil l a ddr ess th e s pec if ic que st ion fo rwa rd to m e i n an email dat ed J anu ar y 14, 200 5.

I n genera l ter m s, the number used in row 6 of th e t abl e i n qu est ion (0 .382 ) is not a rat io, but si m ply shows the per cen ta ge tha t Pac king & Bal l Mi ll pro ces ses con tr ibu te to the overal l P020 pro ces s. Simila rl y, the numbers sho wn in rows 7 & 8 ar e the per cen ta ges tha t the Pac king Pro ces s and Bal l Mi ll Pro ces s con tr ibu te
to the overa ll Pac king/Ball Mi ll pr oce sse s.

I wil l e xpl ai n t he c om

ple te pr oce ss in det ai l.

1. Em is si on r at es in ton /yr f or pro ces s P0 20 wer e obt ai ned fo r t he year s 19 98 t hro ugh 2000 fr om th e 5th CAA Inf orma ti on Requ est

, Att ach ment B, Emis si on Rat es

. T he avera ge for the thr ee years was 0.36 ton s/ yr.

2. T hro ugh dec is ion s m ade by Air Resp ons e Sec ti on Lea der J ef fr ey Bra dst re et , the Bal l Mi ll Dust Coll ect or & Pac king Dust Coll ect or was dee m ed as si gnifi can t con tr ibu tor s to pro ces s P020

. Subp roc ess es 078 & 079

wer e cho sen for the Bal l Mi ll Dust Coll ect or and sub pro ces ses 158 thr ough 162 wer e cho sen for the Pac king Dust Coll ect or. T he pre vious dec is ion was ta ken fr om inf ormati o n pro vided in the 5th CAA Inf orma ti on Requ est , At tac hment

B, 20 00 Emi ssi on Fe e Re por ti ng

.

3. T he e m is si on s ubpr oce sse s ar e onl y pr ovided fo r t he year 200 0 f rom the abo ve m ent ion ed d ocu m ent

. However, thi s i nfo rmati on i s vit al in det er m ini ng t he por ti ons of eac h m ai n pro ces s re spo nsi ble for PM 10 emissi ons . T he d ocu m ent at ion sho ws tha t Subp roc ess es 078 & 079 tot al ed . 05 t ons fo r t he year 200 0 an d Subp roc ess es 158 thr ough 162 tot al ed .08 ton s for the year 2000 for a tot al of 0.13 ton s – or – 38.2 % of the
tot al emissi ons fr om

P020 fo r t he year 200 0. I ndi vidual ly, th e s ubpr oce sse s r epr ese nt 36.9 % and 63.1 %.

### 38

4. T hes e per cen ta ges wer e the n ass um ed to app ly for the years 1998 and 1999
, wher e onl y the tot al PM1 0 emissi on ra te for P020 wa s avail abl e. Wi tho ut thi s ass um pti on and bre aking down of the pro ces ses , m ode li ng would not have be en p oss ibl e.

5. T he fi nal st ep was to cal cul at e the amount of Mn wit hin the PM1 0 emissi ons

. T his inf ormati on was not
pro vided i n the doc um ent at ion

. T her ef ore , ind ust ry doc um ent at ion was obt ai ned fr om the int er net tha t sho wed manganese or e t o be app rox imatel y 45% M n htt p:/ /www.or is samini ng.com /mangan.htm

6. Mu lt ipl ying the PM1 0 emissi ons by 0.45 pro vided act ual Mn emissi ons tha t were use d as inp ut for the

m ode l.

I hope thi s det ai le d exp la nat ion wil l suf fi ce in pro vidin g eviden ce as to how emissi on ra te s wer e cal cul at ed for se veral pr oce sse s modele d f or Era m et Ma ri et ta

.

T her e is al so bri ef m ent ion in the email of J anu ar y 14, 2005 abo ut que st ion #3 fr om the doc um ent sen t fr om Lockhee d Ma rt in/ REAC on Dece m ber 29, 2004 per ta ini ng to the cho ic e of pro ces ses use d in the m ode li ng st udy and tho se not inc lud ed. All I can add is tha t thi s was not an obj ect ive exe rc is e, but ra the r sub j ect ive. I n the exp er t opi nio n of our environ m ent al engine er the pro ces ses fe lt to have the great est pot ent ia l impact
to off

- si te re cep tor s wer e inc lud ed in the m ode li ng st udy; tho se whic h wer e negli gible or dee m ed to pos e onl y a pot ent ia l t hre at to on- si te in te re st s we re omitt ed.