p. 1



# OAR Box 1846
Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 1 ) ll-A-1 8

Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 7

Printed 11/18/20087:30:14 AM Sheet 1 of 93P. 2 

## IT-fVl S



# DRAF T

APPLICATIO N O F TH E HAZARDOU S AI R POLLUTAN TEXPOSUR E MODE L (HAPEM ) T O MOBIL E

SOURC E POLLUTANT

S

b y Te d Johnson , Ro

yA

. Paul , an d James E

. Cape l Internationa l Technolog yCorporatio n Ai rQualit yService s 371 0 Universit

yDrive , Suite 20 1 Durham , Nort h Carolin a 27707-6208

Contrac t Numbe r68-DO-0062 Wor k Assignmen t Numbe r6 JT N 830013-06 Richar d B

. Atherton , Projec

t Directo r Offic e of Ai rQualit

yPlannin g an d Standard s Ai rQualit yManagemen t Divisio n U

. S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1

PennyM

. Carey , Work

Assignmen t Manage r Emission s Contro l Technolog yDivisio n U

. S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y An n Arbor , Michiga n 48105 January , 199

2P. 3



### ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

S Thi s repor

t describe s th e developmen t o f a ne wversio n o

fth e Hazardou s Ai r Pollutan t Exposur

e Mode l (HAPEM ) an d its applicatio n t o pollutants emitte d b ymobil e sources

. Thi s effor

t was conducte d b

yI TAi rQualit

yService s (ITAQS) fo rth e Offic e o f Mobil e Source s (OMS) o f th e U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(EPA)

. Mr

. Jo e Somer s an d Ms

. Alv

a Edward s o

fth e Emission s Contro l Technolog yDivisio n (ECTD) o f OM S provide d th e primar ytechnica l supervisio n fo rthi s project

. Ms

. PennyCare y o f ECTD provide d administrative direction

. Projec t wor k was funde d unde rContrac t No

. 68-DO-0062 wit h th e Ai rQualit y Managemen t Divisio n (AQMD) of EPA' s Offic e ofAi rQualit

yPlannin g an d Standards

. Mr

. Richar

d Atherto n o

f AQM D was th e Projec

t Director

. Mr

. Thomas McCurd yo f AQM D coordinate d betwee n AQM D an d ECTD i n th e developmen t an d us e o f exposure modelin g techniques

. Th e origina l versio n ofHAPE M was develope d b y ITAQS fo rth e Pollutan t Assessmen t Branc h o f AQMD

. Mr

. Te d Johnso n o

f ITAQS develope d th e genera l methodolog yincorporate d i n HAPE M an d was th e principa l autho ro fthi s report

. Mr

. Jame s Cape l was th e principa l programme ro n th e project

. Inez VanArsdal l develope d th e carbo n monoxid e dat a bas e fo r334 cities

. Mr

. Ro yPau l serve d a

s th e ITAQS projec

t manager

.P. 4



### DISCLAIME R

Thi s repor

t was prepare d byInternationa l Technolog yCorporation , Ai rQualit y Services , unde rContrac

t Numbe r68-DO-0062 , Work Assignmen t Numbe r6

. I t ha s bee n reviewe d b

yth e Offic

e o f Mobil e Sources , U

. S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , an d approve d fo rpublication

. Approva l fo rpublicatio n doe s not signif ytha t th e content s necessaril yreflec t th e view s an d policie s o

fth e U

. S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency

. Mentio n of trad e names o rcommercia l product s i s no t intende d t o constitut e a n endorsemen t o f thei ruse

.

in



# LP. 5



### TABL E O F CONTENT

S
Acknowledgemen t i i Disclaime rii i Figure s v Table s v i
1. 0 Executiv

e Summar

y1 2. 0 Introductio n 3 3. 0 HAPE M Methodolog y5 4. 0 Recommendation s fo rFurthe rResearc h 3 8 References 4 0 Appendi xA4 1 Appendi xB 48

I V 

# fcP. 6



### FIGURE S
1

. Excerpt Fro m Sampl e HAPE M Outpu t Listin g Cance r Incidence byCohor

t an d Stud yAre a Tota l 25 2

. EExcerp

t Fro m Sampl e HAPE M Outpu t Presentin g StudyAre a Exposur e Distributio n an d Identifyin g th e Cohor t Wit h Highest Annua l Averag e Exposur e 26 3

. Excerpt Fro m RED E Printou t Listin g .Exposur e Estimate s fo r Philadelphi a Entere d as Inpu t Dat a 3 1 4

. Excerpt Fro m RED E Printou t Listin g Area-specifi cExposur e Estimate s fo rPittsburgh , Pennsylvani a 33 5

. Excerpt Fro m RED E Printou t Listin g Exposur e Estimate s fo r th e Regio n Represente d byPhiladelphia , Pennsylvani a 3 4P. 7



### TABLES

1

. Cit yCenter s an d Residentia l Zone s Define d fo rMode l StudyAreas 9
2

. Residentia l Populations , Exposur e Periods , an d Cohor

t Counts fo rMode l Stud yAreas 1 0 3

. Carbo n Monoxid e Monitor s Selecte d t o Represen t Mode l StudyAreas 1 1 4

. Numbe ro

f Cohort s Define d fo rPhiladelphi a Base d o n 9 Demographi c Groups , 7 Hom e Districts , an d 8 Work Districts 1 6 5

. Percentag e o

f Tim e Spen t i n Eac h Combinatio n o fGeographi c Locatio n an d Microenvironmen t b ya Philadelphi a Cohor

t Selecte d

a t Rando m Fro m Eac h Demographi cGrou p 1 8 6

. Microenvironmen t Factor s 2 0
7

. Averag e Benzen e Exposure s b yStudyAre a 28 8

. Summar

yStatistic s b yRegio n fo rPollutan t Adjustmen t Rati o Base d o n Dat a Reporte d b

yCitie s wit h Carbo n Monoxid e Monitor s 2 9 9

. Estimate d Cance rIncidence Rates Associate d Wit h Estimate d Benzen e Exposur e b yRegio n 35 10

. Estimate d Benzen e Exposur e o f Rura l U

. S

. Populatio n Base d o n Exposur e Estimate s fo rFarmington , Ne wMexic o an d Paducah , Kentuck y35
11

. Estimate d Benzen e Exposur e fo rUrban , Rural , an d Tota l U

. S

. Population s 3 7 12

. Averag e Benzen e Exposure s b yRegio n 3 7

V IP. 8



### 1. 0 EXECUTIV E SUMMAR Y
Th e Hazardou s Ai rPollutan t Exposur e Mode l (HAPEM ) i s a computer-base d mode l whic h provide s estimate s o f huma n exposur

e t o ai rpollutio n an d characterize s th e healt h risks associate d wit h thes e exposures

. HAPE M was originall ydevelope d b y th e U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc yas a mean s fo revaluatin g heart h risk s associate d wit h hazardou s pollutants emitte d bystationar ysources

. Thi s repor

t describe s a ne

wversio n o

f HAPEM , designate d HAPEM-MS , whic h i s applicabl e t o hazardou s an d non-hazardou s pollutants emitte d fro m mobil e sources

. To appl yHAPEM-M S t o a particula rstud yarea , th e analys t divide s th e area' s populatio n int o a comprehensive set ofcohorts

. Th e member s of eac h cohor

t ar e assume d t o hav

e simila ractivit

ypattern s an d exposure s ove ra one-yea rperiod

. Eac h cohor t i s identifie d wit h respec t t o th e distric

t wher e its member

s live , th e distric

t wher e theywork , an d variou s demographi ccharacteristics , suc h a s ag e an d typ e o

fwork

. Detaile d censu s an d commutin g dat a ar e use d t o estimate th e siz e o feac h cohort

. HAPEM-M S use s detaile d activit ydiar ydata fro m a stud yconducte d i n Cincinnati , Ohio , t o develo p a n activit ypatter n fo reac h cohort

. Thi s activit ypatter n specifie s th e fractio n of tim e spen t b yth e cohor

t i n eac h o

ffive microenvironments withi n eac h exposure district

. Th e pollutan t concentratio n i n eac h microenvironmen t i s assume d t o b e a linea rfunctio n o f th e ambien t (outdoor

) concentratio n withi n th e district

. Th e ambien t concentratio n i n eac h distric t i s derive d fro m fixed-sit e monitorin g dat a specifi ct o th e district

. I n a typica l application , HAPEM-M S i s use d initiall yt o estimate carbo n monoxid e (CO) exposure s expecte d i n a stud yare a unde rexistin g conditions

. Thes e exposure s ar e the n multiplie d bya n adjustmen t facto rt o simulate th e CO exposure s expecte d unde ra particula rcontro l scenario

. Th e adjustmen t facto ri s th e rati o ofa mobil e sourc e emissio n facto r(gm/mile ) representin g th e contro l scenari o t o a facto r
1P. 9



### representin g existin g conditions

. Thes e emissio n factors ar e determine d throug h applicatio n o f th e MOBILE 4 mode l t o th e stud yarea

. Th e HAPEM-M S use rca n estimate exposur e t o Pollutan t X , a hazardou s pollutan t emitte d bymobil e sources , byassumin g that th e concentratio n ofPollutan t X i s proportiona l t o that of CO

. I n analyse s of thi s type , th e use rprovide s a proportionalit

yconstan t fo rth e pollutan t an d a risk facto rindicatin g th e pollutant' s potentia l fo rcausin g cancer

. HAPEM-M S wil l the n calculat e bot h th e annua l average ) exposur e of eac h cohor

t t o Pollutan t X an d th e estimate d annua l cance rincidence associate d wit h that exposure

. Thes e estimate s ar e summe d ove ral l cohort s t o provid e exposure an d cance rris k estimate s fo rth e entire stud yarea

. Thi s repor

t provide s a detaile d descriptio n o f th e HAPEM-M S methodolog yan d th e results of a three-ste p modelin g effor t conducte d unde rth e directio n ofOMS

. I n Ste p 1 , HAPEM-M S was use d t o estimate th e distributio n ofannua l averag e carbo n monoxid e (CO) exposure s i n eleve n urba n stud yareas an d tw o rura l stud yareas

. I n Ste p 2 , thes e C O distribution s wer e converte d t o benzen e distribution s byassumin g that th e annua l benzen e exposur e attributabl e t o mobil e source s was proportiona l t o annua l C O exposure

. I n Ste p 3 , th e Regiona l Exposur e Distributio n Estimato r(REDE ) progra m was use d t o extrapolat e th e benzen e exposur e distribution s associate d wit h th e eleve n urba n stud yareas t o 33 4 Metropolita n Statistica l Areas , t o eleve n regiona l urba n populations , an d t o th e entire U.S

. urba n population

. Th e tw o rura l exposur e distribution s wer

e extrapolate d t o th e U. S rura l population

. Th e EP Auni t ris k

facto rfo rbenzen e was use d t o conver t estimate d benzen e exposure s t o annua l cance rincidence rates

. Th e resultin g annua l incidence rate s wer e 0.32 9 cas e pe rmillio n person s fo rth e U.S

. urba n population , 0.184 cas e pe r millio n person s fo rth e U.S

. rura l population , an d 0.29 6 cas e pe rmillio n person s fo r th e genera l U.S

. population

.P.1 0



### 2. 0 INTRODUCTIO N Withi n th e U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(EPA) , th e Office ofMobil e Source s (OMS) has responsibilit yfo rassessin g healt h risk s associate d wit h huma n exposur e t o ai rpollutants emitte d b ymobil e sources

. I n accordance wit h thi s responsibility , OM S continuall yevaluate s an d update s its exposur e an d ris k
assessmen t capabilitie s t o reflec t th e curren t state ofknowledge

. Recently , OM S directe d I TAi rQualit yService s (ITAQS) t o develo p a modelin g methodolog ycapabl e of estimatin g annua l averag e carbo n monoxid e (CO) exposure s i n urba n an d rura l areas unde rspecifie d contro l scenarios

. Th e annua l averag e C O exposure s woul d b e use d t o estimate annua l averag e exposure s t o variou s hazardou s pollutant s associate d wit h mobil e sources

. I n eac h case , OM S woul d assum e that th e annua l averag e exposur

e t o a particula rhazardou s pollutan t (hereafte rreferre d t o as "Pollutan t X" ) was proportiona l t o annua l averag e C O exposur

e unde rth e sam e contro l scenario

. Researcher

s identifie d tw o existin g model s whic h appeare d t o b e applicabl e t o th e specifie d task : th e Nationa l Ambien t Ai rQualit yStandard s Exposur

e Mode l (NEM) 1 

### an d th e Hazardou s Ai rPollutan t EExposur e Mode l (HAPEM) 2



### . Thes e model s ar e simila ri n that bot h simulat e th e movement s ofpopulatio n group s betwee n hom e an d wor k location s an d throug h variou s microenvironments

. The ydiffe ri n th e tim e resolutio n use d i n expressin g exposur e estimates

. NE M provide s minute-by-minute exposure estimate s whic h ca n b e average d ove rlonge rtim e periods , whereas HAPE M provide s onl yannua l averag e exposur e estimates

. HAPE M include s a facilit yfo r estimatin g cance rincidence ; NE M doe s not currentl yinclud e suc h a facility

. A s th e OM S tas k require d estimate s of annua l averag e exposur e an d correspondin g cance r incidence , HAPE M was judge d th e mor e appropriat e model

.P.1 1

A specia l versio n o

fHAPE M applicabl e t o pollutant s associate d wit h mobil e
sources wa s subsequentl y developed

. Thi s model , denote d HAPEM-MS , wa s teste d b y usin g i t t o estimate benzen e exposures base d o n th e 10-ste p methodolog y describe d i n Sectio n 3

. Recommendation s fo r furthe rrefinements o fthi s mode l are presente d i n Sectio n 4

.P.1 2



### 3. 0 TH E HAPE M METHODOLOGY

Thi s sectio n provide s a descriptio n o f th e methodolog yuse d t o appl yHAPEM

M S t o benzene

. Thi s genera l procedure i s applicabl e t o othe rhazardou s pollutants i n exposur e assessments whic h assum e that exposur e t o th e hazardou s pollutan t i s proportiona l t o exposur

e t o carbo n monoxid e emitte d b ymobil e sources

. 3. 1 Overvie

w Th e primar

ygoal s o f th e modelin g effor

t include d 1 ) estimatio n o fbenzen e exposure s fo reac h o

f 334 Metropolita n Statistica l Areas define d b yth e Burea u of Censu s (BOC) i n 198

8 an d 2 ) estimatio n o

f benzen e exposure s withi n th e U.S

. rura l population , define d a

s al l person s residin g outsid e th e 34 4 Metropolita n Statistica l Areas

. Th e modelin g effor t employe d th e followin g ten-ste p methodology

. 1

. Selec

t representative urba n an d rura l areas

. Thes e areas constitut e th e Mode l Urba n Areas (MUAs) an d Mode l Rura l Areas (MRAs) , jointl y referre d t o as th e Mode l StudyAreas

. 2

. Defin e th e population-at-ris k withi n eac h Mode l StudyArea , divid e eac h Mode l StudyAre a int o exposur e districts , an d specif

ya n exposur

e period

. 3

. Divid e th e population-at-ris k into cohorts

. 4

. Estimate th e fractio n o ftim e spen t b

yeac h cohor

t i n eac h combinatio n o

f geographi clocatio n an d microenvironment

. 5

. Estimate th e annua l averag e C O exposur

e o feac h cohort

. Estimate th e annua l averag e exposur

e t o Pollutan t X b

yassumin g Pollutan t X concentratio n i s proportiona l t o CO concentration

. 6

. Extrapolate th e Pollutan t X cohor t exposure s t o th e population-at-ris k withi n eac h Mode l StudyAre a an d estimate th e associate d risk

.P.1 3

7
. Defin e a geographi c regio n represente d b y eac h MUA

. Withi n eac h region , determin e th e populatio n an d pollutan t adjustmen t rati o fo reac h cit y o fsignifican t size

. 8

. Appl y th e exposur e distributio n an d cance rincidence rate o feac h MU A t o eac h cit

y i n th e associate d geographica l region

. Su m exposur e an d incidence estimates ove ral l cities i n th e regio n t o determin e th e regiona l exposur e distributio n an d cance r incidence

. Su m th e regiona l estimates t o determin e th e exposur e distributio n an d cance rincidence fo r th e U

. S

. urba n population

. 9

. Appl y th e averag e exposur e distributio n an d incidence rate estimate d fo r th e MRA s t o th e U.S

. rura l population

. 10

. Combin e urba n an d rura l estimates o fexposur

e an d incidence t o produc e a nationa l exposur e estimate

. Thi s approac h provides exposur e an d incidence estimates fo reac h o fth e 33 4 Metropolita n Statistica l Area s (Ste p 8) , fo r regiona l urba n population s (Ste p 8) , fo rth e tota l U.S.

. urba n populatio n (Ste p 8) , fo r th e tota l U.S

. rura l populatio n (Ste p 9) , an d fo r th e tota l U.S

. populatio n (Ste p 10)

. Th e genera l methodolog y i s quit e flexible

. Onl y mino r progra m change s are require d t o develo p exposur e an d incidenc

e estimates fo rothe rpopulation s o fspecia l interes t t o OMS , suc h a s th e nin e citie s whic h ar

e currentl y usin g reformatte d gasoline

. Subsectio n 3. 2 provides a detailed descriptio n o feac h o fth e te n steps usin g benzen e a s Pollutant X

. Sectio n 4 presents recommendation s fo rfurthe rresearch

. 3. 2 Applicatio n t o Benzen e
3.2. 1 Selec

t Representativ

e Urba n an d Rura l Area s Th e followin g 1 1 urba n study area s served as sampl e cities , o rMode l Urba n Area s (MUA's) , i n th e modelin g effort

.P.1 4

Bosto n Denve r Housto n Lo s Angeles Minneapolis/St

. Pau l

Ne wYor k Cit y Philadelphi a Phoeni x St

. Loui s Spokan e Washington , D

. C

Thes e 1 1 urba n area s ha d bee n selecte d previousl y fo ra n applicatio n o fpNE M t o C O base d o n perceive d geographica l representativenes s an d th e availabilit y o fsufficient carbo n monoxid e monitorin g data

. T o selec t representativ

e rura l area s fo r th e modelin g effort , researchers firs t compiled a lis

t o fal l C O monitorin g site s whic h me

t th e followin g two criteria

.

1 ) Th e sit

e reporte d vali d annua l averag e C O concentration s fo r1988 , base d o n th e completenes s criteri a employe d b y EPA' s Aerometri c

AInformatio n Retrieva l Syste m (A|RS)

.

2 ) Th e sit

e wa s no

t locate d withi n a Metropolita n Statistica l Area defined b y th e BOC

.

Nin e sites me

t bot h criteria

. Sixo

fthes e wer

e foun d t o be located i n counties associate d wit h Metropolita n Statistica l Areas , an d on e was foun d to hav e reporte d hig h C O concentration s suggestin g hig h traffi c density

. Thes e site s wer e considered unrepresentativ

e o frura l lan d use an d wer e droppe d fro m furthe rconsideration

. Th e remainin g two sites were locate d i n Paducah , Kentucky , an d Farmington , Ne wMexico

. Th e lan d use surroundin g eac h o fthes e site

s was considered t o b e generall y representativ

e o frura l areas . Consequently , lan d withi n a 1 0 km radiu s o feac h sit

e
wa s designate d a s a Mode l Rura l Area (MRA)

. 3.2. 2 Defin e Population-At-Risk, EExposur e Districts , an d EExposur e Period Th e population-at-ris k

i n eac h Mode l Study Area was defined a s al l residents o f
a specified residentia l zone . Fo r th e urba n areas , thi s zon e wa s define d s o a s t o includ e mos

t o fth e highly urbanize d lan d area . I n som e cases , thi s zon e coul d b eP.1 5



### best describe d a s al l censu s tract s withi n a specifie d distance ofa "cente rpoint " locate d withi n th e centra l busines s district

. I n th e remainin g cases , i t coul d best b e describe d a s on e o rmor e countie s surroundin g th e cente rpoint

. Th e residentia l
zone s define d fo rth e rura l areas include d al l censu s tract s withi n 1 0 k m o fth e fixed

sit e C O monito rselecte d t o represen t eac h area

. Tabl e 1 provide s a descriptio n ofeac h residentia l zone

. Th e locatio n of eac h cente rpoin t i s define d i n term s ofth e Universa l Transvers e Mercato r(UTM ) coordinat e system

. Thi s syste m locate s geographi cpoint s as distance s nort h an d east ofa n origi n specifi ct o a define d quadrant , th e designate d UT M zone

. Tabl e 2 lists th e numbe rof person s livin g i n eac h residentia l zon e accordin g t o th e 1980 census

. Population s rang e fro m ove r2 6 millio n (Ne wYor k City) t o les s tha n 30,00 0 (Farmington)

. Th e workers withi n eac h residentia l zon e wer e assume d t o commut e t o wor k place s locate d withi n a commutin g zone , define d as al l censu s tract s locate d withi n 5 0 k m of th e cente rpoin t (Tabl e 1)

. Th e 5 0 k m radiu s ensure d that eac h commutin g zon e woul d includ e al l potentia l wor k place s withi n th e associate d residentia l zon e an d th e most probabl e wor k

place s outsid e th e residentia l zone

. I n general , al l exposure s of th e population-at-ris k

wer e assume d t o occu rwithi n th e commutin g zon e whe n person s wer

e a t wor k an d withi n th e residentia l zon e a t othe rtimes

. Aset of fixed-sit e C O monitor s wer e selecte d t o represen t th e ambien t C O level s i n eac h Mode l Stud yArea

. Calenda ryea r1988 was identifie d as th e best recen t yea rwit h respec

t t o th e genera l qualit

yof dat a reporte d bythes e monitors

. I t was use d as th e exposure perio d fo ral l stud yareas except Washington

. Two ofth e downtow n Washingto n monitor s reporte d insufficien t 1988 dat a t o b e use d i n th e exposure analysis

. As al l of th e Washingto n monitor s reporte d sufficien t dat a fo rth e followin g year , 1989 was specifie d as th e exposur e perio d fo rth e Washingto n stud y area

. Tabl e 3 list s th e C O monitor s selecte d t o represen t eac h Mode l Stud yArea , th e exposure perio d (calenda ryear) , th e numbe rof one-hou rvalue s reporte d byeac h monito rdurin g th e exposur e period , an d th e annua l averag e C O valu e fo rthat year

.

8P.1 6



### TABL E 1 . CIT YCENTER S ANDRESIDENTIAL ZONE S DEFINE DFO RMODE L STUDYAREA S

Landus e classifi catio n Urba n

Rura l

= Mode l study

are a Bosto n Denve r

Housto n Lo s Angele s Minneapolis / St . Pau l Ne w Yor kCit y

Philadelphi a
Phoeni x St . Loui s
Spokan e Washington , D C

Farmington , N

M Paducah , K

Y UTM " coordinate s o f are a

cente r

Zon e 

### 1 9 1 3

1 5 1 1 1 5
1 8

1 8
1 2 1 5

1 1 1 8

1 2 1 6 Northin g 4691.578 1 4399.132 8

3294.033 0 3769.403 8 4979.863 3

4510.867 2

4422.230 5

3705.668 9 4279.125 0

5278.195 3 4308.437 5

4068.05 0 4105.45 0 Eastin g

330.690 2 500.446 0

271.492 9 384.993 2 477.297 9

585.726 8

487.579 6

400.296 4 743.512 7

468.793 5 324.014 9

748.200 0 357.850 0 Descriptio no f

residentia l zon e 2 0 k m radiu s Adam s Co. , Denve r Co. , Jefferso nCo. , Arapaho e Co . 2 0 k m radiu s 2 5 k m radiu s Hennepi nCo. , Ramse y

Co .
Berge nCo. , Esse xCo. , Unio nCo. , Hudso nCo. , BronxCo. , King s Co. , Ne w Yor kCo. , Queen s Co. , RichmondCo . Camde nCo. , Glouceste r Co. , Philadelphi a Co . 2 0 k m radiu s St . Loui s City , St . Loui s Co . 1 0 k m radiu s Distric t o f Columbia , Montgomer y

Co. , Princ e George' s Co. , Alexandria , Fairfax , Fall s Church , Manassas , Manasse s Park , Arlington , Fairfa xCo . 1 0 k m radiu s 1 0 k m radiu s 

### Universa l Transvers e Mercato rP.1 7



### TABL E 2 . RESIDENTIAL POPULATIONS , EXPOSUR E PERIODS , ANDCOHOR T COUNT S FORMODE L STUDYAREA S
Landus e classifi catio n Urba n

Rura l Mode l stud y are a
Bosto n Denve r Housto n Lo s Angele s Minn./St . Pau l New Yor kCit y Philadelphi a Phoeni x St . Loui s Spokan e Washington , O.C . Farmi ngto n Paduca h 198 0 Residentia l populatio n 1.742.72 1 1.387.51 1 1.671.04 1 15.807,65 3 1.385.75 9 26.392,23 6 8,645,44 6 1,120,89 3 1.417.50 5 196,77 3 2,754,62 5 26,91 9 95,51 8 Exposur e

perio d 198 8 188 8 198 8 198 8 198 8 198 8 198 8 198 8 198 8 198 8 198 9
198 8 198 8 Numbe r o f

home district s 4 6 6 1 0 7 1 3 7 8 8 4 1 1 1 1 Numbe r o f

wor k district s 5 7 7 1 1 8 1 4 8 9 9 5 1 2 2 2 Numbe r

o f cohort s 8 4 16 2 16 2 39 0 

### a o 62 4 

### a o 26 4 216 4 8 4 46 2 1 2 1 2



## 1 0


# LP.1 8

TABL E 3

. CARBO N MONOXID E MONITOR S SELECTE D T O REPRESEN TMODE L STUDYAREA

S

Mode l stud

yarea Boston

Denve r

Farmingto

n Housto n

Lo s Angele s

Minneapoli s Year

198 8

198 8

198 8 198 8

198 8

198 8 Monito

r I D 25025000 2 25025001 6 25025002 1 08031000 2 08031001 4 08031001 3 08059000 2 08005000 2 35045000 6 48201002 4 48201004 7 48201103 4 48201103 5 48201103 7 06037000 2 06037011 3 06037100 2 06037110 3 06037120 1 06037130 1 06037240 1 06037400 2 06037500 1 27053005 6 27053005 8 27053005 9 27123004 4 27123004 8 27123005 0 Numbe r

o f 1- h value s 698 0 824 0 867 3 866 8 864 9 844 8 865 9 819 0 853 5 777 5 829 4 782 6 848 1 828 9 828 1 837 7 817 0 830 5 832 0 826 7 834 3 834 9 832 9 799 7 872 3 864 8 850 4 790 0 839 4 Annua l average carbon

monoxid e concentration , pp m

1.5 8 1.51 0.9 8 2.1 9 1.6 5 1.9 3 1.2 0 0.5 3 0.7 4 0.7 8 1.21 0.8 6 0.7 7 0.9 3 1.2 2 1.4 6 2.5 6 2.1 8 1.5 5 3.1 7 1.7 6 1.5 3 1.6 6 0.8 3 1.4 6 2.8 4 2.0 7 1.2 0 2.3 6



### 1 1 (continued )P.1 9



### TABL E 3

. (continued )

Mode l stud

y area N e w Yor k

Paduca h Philadelphi

a

Phoeni x

St . Loui s Yea r

198 8

198 8 198 8

198 8

198 8 Monito

r ID 34004000 4 34003500 1 34013001 1 34017100 2 34039000 3 36047007 1 36047007 6 36061001 0 36061005 8 36061006 2 36061008 2 36081005 4 21145102 3 34007000 3 34007100 1 42101000 4 42101002 9 42101004 7 42101005 1 04013001 3 04013001 9 04013100 4 04013200 1 04013200 4 04013300 2 04013300 3 29189000 1 29189000 6 29189300 1 29189500 1 29189700 1 29510008 0 29510008 3 Numbe r

o f 1- h value s 846 7 854 8 851 1 841 7 836 8 758 8 701 3 662 8 814 2 813 6 768 2 664 8 830 0 825 0 823 2 812 9 810 2 668 6 678 1 866 2 817 0 785 4 819 1 835 8 860 2 869 1 856 1 840 3 852 0 793 6 837 8 858 4 824 4 Annua l averag e carbon monoxid e concentration , pp m

2.0 6 1.2 3 1.0 2 2.3 9 2.2 3 2.9 1 0.9 2 1.2 0 3.0 3 3.3 4 4.6 3 1.0 3 0.6 5 0.7 3 0.3 8 0.9 9 1.1 4 1.4 6 2.11 1.3 0 2.1 8 1.3 7 1.1 2 0.9 5 1.6 6 1.5 0 0.6 8 0.5 0 0.8 9 0.6 4 0.8 6 1.2 0 1.5 5

1 2 (continued )P.2 0



### TABL E 3

. (continued )

1 Mode l stud

y area Spokan e

Washington , D.C . Yea r

198 8

198 9 Monito

r ID 53063002 7 53063002 8 53063002 9 53063004 0 11001001 7 11001002 3 24031100 8 24033000 1 51013002 0 51059001 8 51059100 4 Numbe r

o f 1- h value s 862 5 872 7 874 3 865 6 721 3 713 8 829 0 861 0 842 0 869 7 846 0 Annua l averag e carbon monoxid e concentration , pp m

2.2 0 2.1 3 2.0 4 3.6 2 1.5 6 1.7 5 1.5 4 1.3 3 0.7 8 0.9 6 0.6 6

Eac h Mode l StudyAre a was divide d int o a nonoverlappin g se t ofexposure districts

. Eac h exposure distric t was define d as a collectio n ofcensu s tracts

. Th e maximu m numbe ro

f exposur e district s define d fo ra particula rMode l Stud yAre a was ; n + 2 , wher

e n was th e numbe rof fixed-site CO monitor s selecte d t o represen t th e Mode l StudyArea

. On e exposur e distric t was define d a

s a circula rare a surroundin g eac h of th e n monitorin g locations ; on e exposur e distric t was define d as th e remainin g lan d are a withi n th e residentia l zon e (if any) ; an d on e exposur e distric t was define d a

s th e remainin g lan d are a withi n th e commutin g zone

. Th e step-by-ste p procedure use d fo rdefinin g th e exposur e district s an d fo r assignin g monitorin g dat a t o eac h distric t i s presente d below

. 1

. Identif

yth e "cit ycenter " as a specifi clocatio n an d determin e its UTM coordinates

. Th e cit

ycente rshoul d b e locate d i n o rnea rth e are a o f highest traffi cdensit

yi n th e centra l busines s distric t ofth e city

. 2

. Defin e th e "residentia l zone " as a collectio n o fcensu s tract s includin g an d surroundin g th e cit

ycenter

. Al l cohort s ar

e assume d t o liv

e withi n th e residentia l zone

. Avoi d extendin g th e residentia l zon e int o areas fa r

1 3P.2 1

fro m fixed-sit

e monitors

. D o no

t includ e censu s tracts tha t are mor

e tha n 5 0 k m fro m th e cit

y center
. 3

. Defin e th e "commutin g zone " a s al l censu s tracts withi n 5 0 km o fth e cit y center
. Al l cohorts are assume d t o wor k withi n th e commutin g zone . 4

. Identif

y th e fixed-sit

e monito r tha

t bes t represents stree

t canyo n location s (Monito r SC)

. 5

. Defin e th e hig h C O distric t a s al l censu s tracts that ca n b e characterize d
a s havin g stree

t canyon s an d al l censu s tracts i n th e centra l business district

. Ambien t C O level s i n th e hig h C O distric t are determine d b

y Monito r SC

. 6

. Defin e a distric

t fo r eac h remainin g fixed-sit e monito ra s al l censu s tracts withi n 1 0 k m o

fth e specified monito rtha t fal l withi n th e residentia l zone . Ambien t C O level s i n eac h o fthes e district

s are determine d b

y th e associate d monitor

. 7
. Defin e th e inne r residua l distric t a s al l censu s tracts withi n th e residentia l
zon e tha t are no t included i n on e o

fth e district

s defined i n Steps 5 an d 6

. Ambien t level s i n thi s distric t are determine d b

y averagin g th e concentration s a

t al l fixed-sit

e monitors

. 8

. Defin e th e oute r residua l distric t a s al l censu s tracts withi n 5 0 km o fth e cit y cente r (i.e. , withi n th e commutin g zone ) that are no t included i n on e o fth e district

s defined i n Step s 5 , 6 , an d 7
. Ambien t level s i n thi s distric t
are determine d b

y averagin g concentration s a t al l fixed-sit

e monitors

. Th e rational e behin d thi s procedur e i s discussed i n Reference 3

. 3.2. 3 Divid e th e Population-At-Ris k Into Cohorts
Eac h population-at-ris k

was divided int

o a non-overlappin g se t o fcohorts

. Eac h cohor t wa s assume d t o contai n person s wit h identica l exposures durin g th e specified calenda r year . Eac h cohor t wa s identified a s a distinc t combinatio n o

f1 ) demographi c group , 2 ) hom e district , an d 3 ) wor k distric t (ifapplicable)

.



### 1 4P.2 2



### Th e demographi cgrou p specifie d th e ag e an d wor k statu s ofth e cohor

t (Tabl e 4)

. Thi s informatio n provide d a mean s of linkin g cohor t exposur e t o activit

ypatterns , whic h ar e assume d t o var

ysignificantl ywit h ag e an d wor k status

. Th e hom e distric t
was define d as th e exposur e distric t containin g th e cohort' s residence

. Th e wor k district was similarl ydefine d as th e exposur e distric t containin g th e cohort' s place of employmen t (i f applicable)

. Specifyin g th e hom e an d wor k distric t of eac h cohor

t provide d a mean s of linkin g cohor t exposur e t o ambien t pollutan t concentration s a t hom e an d at work

. Tabl e 4 lists th e numbe ro fcohort s associate d wit h eac h demographi cgrou p fo rPhiladelphia , a Mode l Stud yAre a wit h 7 hom e district s an d 8 wor k districts

. I n thi s example , eac h of th e si xnonworkin g demographi cgroup s i s associate d wit h 7 cohorts , on e fo reac h possibl e hom e district

. Eac h ofth e thre e workin g demographi c group s i s associate d wit h 5 6 cohorts , on e fo reac h ofth e 7 x8 possibl e combination s o f hom e district an d wor k

district

. Th e tota l numbe ro fcohort s i s (6 x7) + (3 x56 ) o r 210

. 3.2. 4 Estimate Tim e Spen t byCohort s i n Eac h Combinatio n ofLocatio n an d

Microenvironmen t
HAPEM-M S provide s a n algorith m fo restimatin g th e fractio n of tim e eac h cohor t spend s at hom e an d at wor k i n user-specifie d microenvironments

. Th e algorith m accomplishe s thi s tas k byassemblin g a n exposur e even t sequence fo reac h cohor t spannin g th e exposure period

. I n th e applicatio n describe d here , eac h sequence consiste d of 36 5 person-days sample d fro m a n activit ydiar ydat a bas e prepare d byITAQS

.

1 5P.2 3



### TABL E 4 . NUMBE RO F COHORT S DEFINE DFO RPHILADELPHI A

BASE DON

9 DEMOGRAPHI C GROUPS , 7 HOM E DISTRICTS , AND8 WORKDISTRICT S
| Demographi c grou p I 1 . Childre n0 t o 5 2 . Childre n6 t o 1 3 3 . Childre n1 4 t o 1 8 year s 4 . Worker s wit hlo

w probabilit y

o f outdoo r wor k
5 . Worker s wit hmoderat e probabilit y o f outdoo r wor k 6 . Worker s wit hhighprobabilit y o f outdoo r wor k
7 . Nonworkin g adult s unde r 3 5 year s 8 . Nonworkin g adult s 3 5 t o 5 4 year s 9 . Nonworkin g adult s 55 + year s Include s commuting cohorts ? No No No

Ye s

Ye s

Ye s No No No Numbe r o f cohort s

associate dwit h group 7 7 7

5 6

5 6

5 6 7 7 

## 7 21 0

Th e activit

ydiar ydat a bas e was constructe d fro m dat a collecte d durin g th e Cincinnat i Activit

yDiar yStudy

4



### . Durin g thi s stud yove r90 0 subjects complete d three

da ydiarie s an d detaile d backgroun d questionnaires

. Eac h person-da yofCincinnat i diar ydat a was classifie d accordin g t o fou rindices : demographi cgrou p (Tabl e 4) , seaso n (summe ro rwinter) , da ytyp e (weekda

yo rweekend) , an d temperature rang e (hig h o rlow)

. Th e demographi cgrou p inde xwas determine d byth e demographi c characteristics o f th e subjec t fillin g ou t th e diary

. Th e seaso n an d da ytyp e indice s wer e base d o n th e calenda rdat e of th e diar ydata

. Th e temperature rang e indexwas base d o n th e dail ymaximu m temperatur e i n Cincinnat i o n that date

. Additiona l informatio n concernin g th e classificatio n procedure i s provide d b yJohnso n e t al 1



### . T o adjust fo rth e effects ofloca l climate o n activities , a sequence ofdail y

1 6P.2 4

maximu m temperature s wa s obtaine d fo reac h Mode l Study Are a fo rth e specified exposur e perio d (198 8 o r1989)

. Based o n thes e data , eac h calenda rda y o fth e exposur e perio d wa s assigned t o on e o fth e temperatur

e range s used i n classifyin g th e Cincinnat i diar

y data

. Th e algorith m the n constructed a n exposur e even t sequenc e fo r eac h cohor t i n th e Mode l Study Are a b y selectin g a person-da y o f Cincinnat i diar

y dat a fo r eac h calenda rda y accordin g t o th e demographi c grou p o fth e cohor t an d th e season , da

y type , an d temperatur e rang e associate d wit h th e calenda r day

. Eac h exposur

e even t sequence consisted o fa series o

fevents wit h duration s fro m 1 t o 6 0 minutes

. Eac h exposur e even t assigned th e cohor t t o a particula r combinatio n o

fgeographi c locatio n an d microenvironment

. Th e geographi c locatio n
wa s eithe r th e hom e o r wor k distric t associated wit h th e cohort

. Th e home/wor k assignmen t was base d o n th e activit y descriptio n fo rth e even t appearin g i n th e associate d activit

y diary

. Fiv e microenvironment

s wer e specified : 0 Indoor

s - residence 0 Indoor

s - othe r location s 0 Outdoors - nea rroa d
0 Outdoors - othe r location s 0 Insid e Moto rVehicle

. Th e microenvironmen t assignmen t was base d o n a microenvironmenta l descriptio n for th e even t appearin g i n th e associated activit y diary

. Th e exposur

e even t sequences wer e analyze d t o determin e th e fractio n o ftim e spen t b y eac h cohor

t i n eac h combinatio n o fgeographi c locatio n an d microenvironment

. Tabl e 5 list s thes e fraction s a s percentages fo rnin e cohorts , on e selecte d a

t rando m fro m eac h demographi c group . Th e fraction s reflec t dail y maximu m temperature dat a reporte d fo r Philadelphi a durin g 1988

.



### 1 7TABL E 5

. PERCENTAG E O F TIM E SPEN TI N EAC H COMBINATIO N O F GEOGRAPHI C LOCATIO N AN D MICROENVIRONMEN TB YA PHILADELPHI ACOHORTSELECTE D A T RANDO M FRO M EAC H DEMOGRAPHI C GROU P

Demographi c group ' 

# 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Percentag e o f tim e Hom e dist r


### l b
82. 4 69. 4 65. 8 62. 0 61. 7 67. 4 76. 6 80. 2 85. 3 

### 2 6. 2 16. 4 21. 3 

### 5. 9 7. 7 4. 5 11. 3 10. 2 

### 6. 4 3 3. 3 5. 7 3. 3 1. 6 1. 9 1. 8 2. 8 1. 9 2. 3 c t
4 4. 8 5. 1 4. 5 2. 4 3. 1 2. 3 2. 7 2. 8 2. 5 5 3. 3 3. 3 4. 9 5. 2 7. 7 5. 5 6. 6 4. 9 3. 5 Wor kdistric t


### 1 0 0 0 1. 7 0. 5 0. 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 19. 7 13. 5 

### 6. 6 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0. 3 1. 3 1. 7 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0. 4 1. 7 5. 7 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0. 8 0. 9 4. 0 0 0 0 "Define d i n Tabl e 4

. Microenvironmen t (define d i n Tabl e 6)

. 3.2. 5 Annua l Averag e Cohor t [Exposure

s Tii e annua l averag e exposur e o feac h cohor

t wa s estimate d b

y th e expressio n


### C(d,h,w) = £F(d,h,w,i,j) x M(i) xA'(j) ( l )

where C(d,h,w) = Annua l averag e pollutan t concentratio n t o whic h th e cohor t was

expose d

d = Demographi c grou p identifie r

h = Hom e locatio n identifie r

w= Wor k

locatio n identifie r(ifapplicable)



### 1 8P.2 6



### F(d,h,w,i,j ) = Fractio n oftim e spen t byth e cohor t i n microenvironmen t i at locatio n j
M(i ) = Microenvironmen t facto rassociate d wit h microenvironmen t i
A'(j ) = Adjuste d annua l averag e ambien t pollutan t concentratio n fo r

locatio n j

.

Th e summatio n was carrie d ou t fo ral l value s of i an d j

. Value s fo rF(d,h,w,i,j) , th e fractio n oftim e spen t i n microenvironmen t i an d distric t j , wer e develope d i n th e previou s step

. Th e pollutan t concentratio n i n microenvironmen t i i n distric t j was assume d t o b e proportiona l t o a monitor-base d pollutan t leve l determine d fo rth e district

. Th e proportionalit yfacto ri s denote d b yM(i)

. Th e Denve rPersona l Monitorin g Study 5 

### was identifie d as a goo d sourc e o fdat a fo restimatin g M(i ) values

. I n thi s study , eac h of454 subjects carrie d a persona l exposure monito r(PEM ) whic h measure d th e C O concentration s t o whic h th e subjec t
was expose d ove ra two-dayperiod

. Th e duration s ofth e measure d exposure s varie d fro m on e t o 6 0 minutes

. Th e condition s associate d wit h eac h exposur e (time , location , microenvironment , etc. ) wer e recorde d i n a n activit

ydiar ycarrie d byth e subject

. Th e stud ywas conducte d ove ra four-mont h perio d durin g th e winte rof 1982-83

. Analysts classifie d th e Denve rPE M measurements accordin g t o th e five microenvironments liste d i n Tabl e 6

. Th e PE M C O concentration s associate d wit h a particula rmicroenvironmen t wer e regresse d against simultaneou s C O concentration s reporte d byfixed-sit e monitor s t o determin e a regressio n equatio n fo rth e microenvironment

. Th e regressio n line s wer e constraine d t o pas s throug h zero s o that eac h regressio n equatio n i s characterize d bya slop e valu e onl y(i.e. , intercept = zero)

. PE M value s obtaine d at location s wit h operatin g ga s stove s o rsmoker s wer e omitte d fro m th e regressio n analysi s t o bette remphasiz e th e effec t ofmobil e source s o n exposure

. 1 9_£.££ -

Two sets o

fregressio n analyses were conducted

. I n th e firs t set , PE M values identified a s havin g bee n obtaine d at location s withi n 1 0 k m o fa Denve r fixed-sit

e monito r were regresse d against th e CO concentration s reporte d b y th e specified monitor

. I n th e secon d set , PE M values identified a s havin g bee n obtaine d a t distances greate rtha n 1 0 k m fro m th e nearest monito rwere regresse d against th e averag e CO concentratio n fo r al l monitors

. Th e availabl e dat a bas e fo rth e firs t se t o fanalyses wa s substantiall y large rtha n that availabl e fo r th e secon d set
. As th e slope valu e determine d fo reac h microenvironmen t by th e secon d se t o fanalyses wa s roughl y equa l t o tha t determine d b y th e firs t set , th e decisio n wa s mad e t o use th e firs t se t o fregressio n slopes t o estimate correspondin g M(i ) values

. Thes e M(i ) values were applie d i n al l districts , includin g district

s where ambien t level s were represente d b y monitorin g dat a fro m a singl e monito ran d district s wher e ambien t level s were represente d by th e averag e o f al l monitors

. Thes e M(i ) values are listed i n Tabl e 6

. A differen t set o

fmicroenvironmen t factor s wer e used i n a n earlie rC O exposur e analysi s conducte d b

y Johnso n an d Paul 6

. Th e earlie rfactors were base d o n a 198 3

TABL E 6

. MICROENVIRONMEN TFACTOR

S Cod e 1 2 3 4 5 ''Numbe r o fPE M value s usee Microenvironmen t Indoor s - residenc e Indoor s - othe r Outdoors - nea rroa d Outdoors - othe r Insid e moto r vehicl e J t o calculat e microenvironm e n 8 11,72 5 2,62 4 30 3 20 5 3,72 6 n t factor

. Facto r

0.49 5 0.61 9 1.00 1 ! 0.75 8 1.55 4

surve y o fth e scientifi c literature

. Mos t o fth e relevan t researc h identified b y thi s surve

y consiste d o

fstudies where monitor s wer e place d at variou s location s insid e an d outsid e o

fselecte d buildings

. Data fro m studies o fthi s typ e are mos

t appropriate fo r



### 2 0estimatin g th e rati o o findoo r C O concentratio n t o th e concentratio n immediatel y outdoors

. Th e 198 3 surve

y faile d t o identif

y an y dat a base s obtaine d fro m studies simila r to th e Denve rPE M study , i n whic h C O concentration s were measure d simultaneousl y b y PEM' s an d b

y nearby fixed-sit

e monitors

. Studies o

fthi s typ e are th e preferre d sourc e
o fdat a fo restimatin g th e valu e o fM(i) , th e averag e rati o o fexposur

e i n microenvironmen t i t o th e simultaneou s outdoo rCO concentratio n at a nearby fixed site monitor

. Recommendation s fo rfurthe rresearc h concernin g th e estimatio n o fM(i ) factors are presente d i n Sectio n 4

. Th e adjuste d ai r qualit

y concentratio n i n Equatio n 1 wa s estimate d b y th e expressio n

A'(j) = k*D(j) *B (2 )

where D(j) = Mj) - B (3 )

AG ) i s th e ai r qualit

y assume d fo r distric

t j unde r"a

s is " conditions , an d B i s a userdefine d city-wid e backgroun d pollutan t concentration

. Th e effects o fcontrollin g mobil e
source emission s i s simulated throug h th e use o fth e adjustmen t facto rk

. Th e "a s is " ai rqualit

y valu e [AQ)

] i s assumed t o b e th e su m o ftwo components , that is ,

A(j) = D{j) *B << >

Th e D(j) ter m represents th e contributio n o femissio n sources tha

t ar e affecte d b

y th e contro l scenari o bein g modeled

. Th e backgroun d ter m (B ) represents th e contributio n
2 1P.2 9

i t 

### o f source s tha t are no t affecte d b yth e emissio n contro l scenario

. I n adjustin g A(j ) t o

simulat e th e effects o f controllin g mobil e sourc e emissions , onl yD(j ) i s multiplie d by th e adjustmen t facto rk

. Fo rexample , a city-wid e 2 0 percen t reductio n i n mobil e sourc e emission s woul d b e modele d bysettin g k equa l t o 0. 8 i n Equatio n 2

. Al l analyse s describe d i n thi s repor t use d unadjuste d ai rqualit ydata ; that is , k
wa s assume d t o equa l 1.0

. Consequently , th e A'(j ) ter m i n Equatio n 1 wa s equa l t o AQ)

- Th e valu e o f AQ

) varie s wit h district

. Fo rthos e district s wher e th e distric

t was define d aroun d a fixed-sit e monitor , th e valu e ofAG ) was se t equa l t o th e annua l averag e C O concentratio n reporte d fo rth e monitor

. I n th e remainin g districts , AQ ) was set equa l t o th e mea n of th e annua l averag e C O concentration s fo ral l monitors

. Th e above procedure provide s a n estimate ofth e annua l averag e C O exposure of eac h cohort

. HAPEM-M S provide s th e use rwit h th e optio n ofmultiplyin g eac h cohor t C O exposure bya constan t whic h wil l conver t th e C O concentratio n t o a correspondin g Pollutan t X concentration , base d o n th e assumptio n that exposure t o Pollutan t X i s directl yproportiona l t o C O exposure

. I n applyin g HAPEM-M S t o benzene , researcher s assume d that a constan t of 0.0033 woul d conver

t eac h C O exposur

e i n microgram s pe rcubi cmete rt o th e correspondin g benzen e exposur e i n th e sam e units

. Thi s conversio n facto rwas develope d b yanalyzin g moto rvehicl e exhaus t dat a obtaine d byth e America n Petroleu m Institut e (API ) fro m 6 1 test s of late-mode l automobiles 7



### . Benzen e emission s wer e foun d t o b e highl ycorrelate d wit h C O emission s (th e R-square d valu e equale d 0.80) ; th e media n rati o of benzen e t o C O was 0.0033

. 3.2. 6 Extrapolat e Cohor t Exposure s t o Population-At-Ris k Th e cohort-specifi cexposur e estimate s develope d i n th e previou s ste p wer e extrapolate d t o th e population-at-ris k byestimatin g th e siz e ofeac h cohort

. Throug h th e us e o f a specia l compute rprogram , cohor t siz e was estimate d directl yfro m censu s an d commutin g dat a specifi ct o eac h hom e district

. Thes e dat a wer e obtaine d fro m th e Burea u o f Censu s (BOC)

.
2 2P.3 0

•** * A two-ste p proces s wa s use d t o determin e cohor t population

. Rrst , th e populatio n o

feac h demographi c grou p residin g i n a particula rhom e distric t wa s calculate d usin g detaile d BO C data

. As nonworkin g cohorts ar e define d b y demographi c grou p an d hom e district , thi s ste p provide d th e population s o fal l nonworkin g cohorts

. Th e population s o fth e workin g cohorts were the n determine d b y furthe r dividin g th e population s o fth e workin g demographi c group s associate d wit h
eac h hom e district

. Th e formul a use d i n thi s ste p was :



### Com(d.h.w) = Pop(d,h) x F(h,w) (5 )

where
Com(d,h,w) = Numbe ro fperson s i n th e commutin g cohor t associate d wit h demographi c grou p d , hom e distric t h , an d wor k

distric t w
P(d,h ) = Numbe r o

fperson s i n demographi c grou p d i n hom e distric t h
F(h,w ) = Fractio n o

fal l worker

s residin g i n hom e distric t h wh o commut

e t o wor k distric t w .

Value s o fF(h,w ) were obtaine d fro m a n origin-destinatio n (O-D ) tabl e produce d b y a specia l commutin g model

. Thi s mode l ha s bee n describe d b y Johnso n et ai 2

. Th e populatio n exposur e estimat e fo ra particula r cohor t wa s converte d t o a n expecte d annua l cance rincidence [l(d,h,w) ] usin g th e expressio n



### I{d,h,w) = C(d,h,w) x P(d.h.w) x URE/70 (6 )

2 3P.3 1

where C(d,h,w) = Annua l averag e pollutan t concentratio n associate d wit h th e

cohor t
P(d,h,w ) = Estimated populatio n o fth e cohor

t

UR E = Lifetim e (70-year ) unit ris k

estimat e fo r th e pollutant

.

Th e curren t UR E fo r benzen e 8. 3 x10" 6 cas e pe r/ig/m 3

. Figur e 1 i s a n excerp

t fro m th e outpu t o

fth e Philadelphi a HAPEM-M S run . Th e tabl e i n th e printou t list s th e populatio n o

feac h cohort , th e annua l averag e benzen e exposur e estimate d fo r th e cohort , an d th e incidenc e valu e calculated b

y Equatio n 6 A t th e botto m o

fth e table , th e cohort-specifi c incidence values are summed t o yiel d a city-wid e incidence valu e o f2.406 6 cases . A

s thi s incidenc

e occurre d i n a n expose d populatio n o

f8,645,46 6 persons , th e incidenc e rate fo rPhiladelphi a i s estimate d a s 0.27 8 cas e pe rmillio n persons . Figur e 2 provides additiona l outpu t fro m th e sam e HAPEM-M S run . Th e to p tabl e i n th e printou t list s city-wid e exposur

e estimates fo rPhiladelphia

. Th e exposures
are expresse d as th e numbe ro fperson s wit h annua l averag e benzen e exposures abov e specified concentratio n values

. Thes e data ar e also presente d a s populatio n percentage s i n th e sam e table

. Belo wth e tabl e i s listed th e cohor t wit h th e highes

t
annua l averag e exposure . I n thi s case , th e cohor t i s defined a s member s o f Demographi c Grou p 6 (outdoo r workers) wh o bot h resid e an d wor k i n Distric

t 6

. Th e cohor t i s estimate d t o contai n 45 8 persons . Appendi xA contain s a facsimil e o fth e entir e printout

. Tabl e 7 presents th e averag e benzen e exposur e concentratio n estimated b y HAPEM-M S fo r eac h o

fth e 1 3 mode l study areas . Thi s valu e i s th e population weighte d averag e o

fth e individua l cohor

t exposures . Th e tabl e als o presents th e incidence rate estimate d fo r eac h area . Thes e values rang e fro m 0.17 2 cas e pe r millio n (Paducah ) t o 0.65 2 cas e pe r millio n (Spokane)

.



### 2 4P.3 2

Wtl

.
**• * "•Mtfia.tiar

. «i« k b y C*ar.fa » '"•••aaaaaaaaaaaaaa a

Annua l
Oi.tric t Bi.<ri«r t P^Utio * I M < Ua k <<i«/toaaS)aa-l )

1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9

1 9 1 9 t o > 0 t o n

1 9 1 9 1 9 t o t o t o tttt s

1199 0 U99 t 3298 7 *»* s 70 M U t 1 7 t * 

### u m 179 1 •19 - 9* t 919 0 1*1 3 t00 7 « U 1 9 U 1 U 7 1244 * 190 1 t70 S 79 7 I M 1» «

t9 t 40 S 3U9 4 S I M 715 0 272* 2 *1 M 401 4 tsos i 198 7 S5S 0 779 9 1U S 171 0 1*770 * 23S1 0 3240 3 I9* t •2 7 •7 0 • M M t9f H U7U 9

Stud y Ara a Total s •**!** « Stud y i m tha n l»po«jra i l.M * 1.43 3 1.M 7 1.47 S 1.7* 9 1.7 M l.* M 1.S7 * 1.I7 I 1.80 1 1.89 9 1.99 S 1.90 0 1.97 1 t.10 9 2.04 3 t.l M t.SS O t.4S t t.U» t.«8 9 1.91 * 1.97 S t.ll S 1.8* *

<.M 7 t.l M t.U 9 2.1X S t.M 9 2.44 4 2.74 4 t.«0 4 t.7* S t.ai 7 t.7* S t.92 0 S.O* * 1.1* 7 J . 10 * I.** 9 t.S9 0 t.7 U t.82 4 1.40 7 t.7S 9 t.84 7 2.M * t.«8 S t.39 *

2.3* 8 0.000008 ]

0.000008 1 0.000008 S 0.000008 S 0.000008 3 0.000008 S 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.«"» -

0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 1 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3

Stud y Ara a Canea r Incidane a Rat a •

l aI Stud y ATM i PHXUOUPMI A

- trio

Analysad i SAS I CAS I •
• r e f h^aaur a Pittrieta : 0.1781 7 na N oata * P" * **•• * P«raor»

. t.OMl t •.004 H o.oosi i o.ootss 0.0010 * 0.001* 9 0.0000 2 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 o.ootss 0.000* 0 0.000* 0 0.0014 * 0.0002 3 0.0003 * 0.0023 0 0.000J * 0.000 M o.ooias 0.0002 9 0.000* 3 0.0028 7

0.0089 8 0.0013 2 0.0021 3 0

. 0

. 0.0001 1 0.0097 9 0.001* 3 0.0023 3 0.008* 1 0.001* 1 0.0020 2 0.0082 2 0.0013 8 0.0020 0 0.0029 1 0.0004 8 0.0007 0 .0*33 * .0074 2 .0109 1 .0012 2 .0002 1 .0002 9 .0199 4 0.0087 2 0.04*7 1

•auaaaaa a t.40** 0

198 8 7

FIGUR E 1

. EXCERPTFRO M SAMPL E HAPE M OUTPU TCANCE R INCIDENC E

B YCOHOR TAN D STUDYARE A TOTA L


### 2 5P.3 3

sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssrrssssssss-is s
POLLUTAN

T CON C ug/m*«3 )
5.0 0 4.5 0 4.0 0 3.5 0 3.0 0 2.5 0 2.0 0 1.5 0 1.0 0 0.5 0 0.0 0 f o f Peopl e

• t o r Above
1 85 8 1 6182 2 1 11473 3 1 12328 4 45190 4 193081 6 837233 9 862843 3 863343 0 864544 6 864544 6 V. o f Peopl e

a i o r Above
0.009 9 0.715 1 1.327 1 1.426 0 5.227 1 22.333 3 96.841 0 99.803 2 99.861 0 100.000 0 100.000 0 (a ) Study

Area : PHILADELPHI A Scenari o Analyzed : BAS E CAS E - 198 8 Numbe r o f Exposur e Districts : 7

Cohor t having highes t annua l averag e exposure : Demographi c Group : 6 Hone District : 6 Work District : 6 Grou pPopulation : 45 8 Grou pAnnua l Averag e Exposure : 5.24 0 Stud y Area : PHILADELPHI A Scenari o Analyzed : BAS E CAS E - 198 8

FIGUR E 2

. EXCERPTFRO M SAMPL E HAPE M OUTPU TPRESENTIN G STUD Y AREA EXPOSUR E DISTRIBUTIO N AN D IDENTIFYIN G COHOR TWIT H

HIGHES TANNUA L AVERAG E EXPOSUR E



### 2 6P.3 4



### I t shoul d b e note d that th e exposur e an d incidence estimate s presente d i n Tabl e 7 were develope d usin g 1980 populatio n dat a an d 1988-8 9 C O monitorin g data

. Ideally , th e applicatio n of HAPEM-M S t o eac h are a woul d hav e use d 1988 populatio n dat a t o b e consisten t wit h th e principa l tim e perio d represente d byth e monitorin g data

. A s censu s dat a of th e require d detai l wer e availabl e fo r1980 bu t no t fo r1988 , analysts employe d 1980 dat a a t thi s stag e of th e methodology

. I t i s likel ythat th e 1988 populatio n i n eac h are a was large rtha n th e 1980 population

. I n thi s case , th e us e of1980 populatio n dat a wil l underestimat e th e numbe ro f person s i n 1988 wit h benzen e exposure s above a specifie d concentratio n level

. Cance rincidence (numbe rof cases ) wil l als o b e underestimated

. Th e exposure/incidenc e statistics presente d i n Tabl e 7 ma yb e approximatel ycorrect , however

. T o th e exten t that th e percen t chang e i n populatio n fro m 1980 t o 1988 was th e sam e fo ral l cohort s i n a n area , benzen e exposur e estimate s expresse d as average s an d percentage s wil l b e correctl yestimated

. Incidence estimate s expresse d
a s rate s (i.e. , numbe rof case s pe rmillio n persons ) wil l als o b e correctl yestimated

. Subsequen t step s of th e methodolog ydra wo n th e exposure an d incidence estimate s determine d bythi s step

. I n al l cases , thes e late rstep s employestimate s expresse d i n th e for m of averages , percentages , o rrates

. 3.2. 7 Develo p Data Bases fo rGeographi cRegion s ITAQ S develope d a list of334 citie s t o represen t th e U. S urba n population

. Thi s list include d al l citie s designate d byth e BOC as Metropolita n Statistica l Areas

. Th e population s of thes e citie s varie d fro m 58,00 0 t o 8,588,00 0 wit h a media n populatio n o f 240,000

. OM S divide d th e U.S

. int o 1 1 geographica l regions , on e pe rMUA , s o that
eac h of th e 33 4 citie s coul d b e assigne d t o on e region

. ITAQS develope d a dat a bas e listin g th e followin g dat a fo reac h ofth e 334 cities : Metropolita n Statistica l Are a identificatio n number , region , 1988 population , an d pollutan t adjustmen t ratio

. Th e pollutan t adjustmen t rati o was calculate d i n tw o ways

.

2 7P.3 5



### TABL E 7 . AVERAG E BENZEN E EXPOSURE S BYSTUD YAREA

Mode l stud yare a Bosto n Denve r Farmingto n Housto n Lo s Angele s Minn./St

. Pau l Ne wYor k Paduca h Philadelphi a Phoeni x St

. Loui s Spokan e Washingto n Averag e benzen e exposure , Mg/m 3 

### 3.2 1 3.5 0 1.6 4 2.0 9 4.42 4.0 3 3.1 4 1.4 5 2.3 4 3.1 4 2.00 5.50 2.6 9 Incidence rate , case s

millio n person s 0.38 1 0.41 5 0.19 5 0.24 8 0.52 4 0.478 0.372 0.172 0.278 0.372 0.237 0.652 0.31 9 pe r

Fo rcitie s possessin g adequate CO monitorin g data , th e pollutan t adjustmen t rati o was calculate d as th e rati o of th e mea n annua l averag e C O concentratio n reporte d fo rth e cit yt o th e mea n annua l averag e C O concentratio n i n th e associate d MUA

. Thes e ratio s are liste d i n Appendi xB

. Fo rcitie s withou t C O monitorin g data , th e pollutan t adjustmen t rati o wa s set equa l t o th e media n ofth e know n ratio s fo rth e regio n containin g th e city

. Tabl e 8 lists th e regiona l medians , means , an d standard deviations

. Th e combine d 1988 populatio n o f th e 33 4 citie s was 188,696,00 0 persons

. Th e remainin g 1988 U.S

. populatio n (57,107,00 0 persons ) was assume d t o resid e i n rura l
areas

.

28P.3 6



### TABL E 8

. SUMMAR

YSTATISTICS B

YREGIO N FOR POLLUTANTADJUSTMEN T RATI O BASE D O N DAT

AREPORTE D B

YCITIE S WIT H CARBO N MONOXID E MONITORS

Mode l stud y are a Bosto n Denve r Housto n Lo s Angele s Minn./St

. Pau l Ne wYor k Cit y Philadelphi a Phoeni x St

. Loui s Spokan e Washington , D.C

. Al l region s Associate d

regio n 5 6 1 0 3 4

2

8 7 1 1 1 9 Numbe rofcitie s i n

regio n
Tota l 4 6 1 1 8 4 2 4 3 5

5

1 6 7 6 3 1 7 2 6

334 Wit h moni

orin g dat a 2 0 8 2 3 2 1 1 4

5

1 1 7 3 0 1 3 1 3

16 5 Pollutan t adjustmen t ratio '

Media n 0.95 0 1.00 5 1.07 0 0.57 0 0.79 0

0.70 0

0.87 0 1.00 0 1.17 0 0.66 0 1.00 0

0.89 0 Mea n 0.87 7 1.10 7 1.13 3 0.61 2 0.773

0.75 0

0.90 5 1.06 1 1.13 6 0.736 1.08 8

0.94 0 Standar

d deviatio n 0.26 7 0.34 0 0.42 7 0.19 0 0.23 9

0.21 5

0.18 2 0.48 9 0.41 0 0.15 9 0.36 9

0.37 1 "Statistics base d o n citie s wit h monitorin g data

.

2 9P.3 7

3.2. 8 Estimat

e Urba n Exposures an d Incidence Value s fo rGeographi c Region s ITAQ S develope d th e Regiona l EExposur e Distributio n Estimato r(REDE ) progra m
a s a mean s o

fapplyin g th e exposur

e distributio n an d cance rincidence rat e determine d fo r a particula r MU A t o al l cities i n th e associate d region

. Th e progra m
use r enters th e MU A exposur e distributio n into RED E a s a se t o fpaire d pollutan t concentratio n an d percentag e values

. Eac h percentag e valu e indicates th e fractio n o f th e populatio n tha

t experience d annual-averag e exposures abov e th e specifie d pollutan t concentration

. Th e progra m use renters th e MU A cance rincidence rate (eithe r annua l o r lifetime ) into RED E a s th e numbe ro fcase s pe rmillio n persons . Thes e dat a ar e provide d a s outpu t b y HAPEM-MS

. Th e RED E progra m als o requires a file listin g th e populatio n an d pollutan t adjustmen t rati o associate d wit h eac h cit y i n th e regio n associate d wit h th e MUA

. Thi s fil e wa s create d durin g th e previou s ste p (Subsectio n 3.2.7)

. T o determin e th e exposur e distributio n fo r a particula rcity , th e progra m multiplie s
eac h concentratio n valu e o fth e MU A exposur

e distributio n b

y th e city-specifi c adjustmen t facto ran d eac h associate d percentag e valu e b y th e populatio n o

fth e city

. Th e progra m the n interpolates wher e necessar

y t o provid e exposur

e estimates a

t pollutan t concentratio n values specified b y th e user . T o determin e th e incidence valu e (numbe ro fcases ) fo ra particula rcity , th e progra m multiplies th e incidence rate (cases pe rmillion ) o fth e MU A b

y th e cit y populatio n i n millions

. Thi s produc t i s the n multiplied by th e pollutan t adjustmen t facto r t o accoun t fo rth e difference i n pollutan t level s betwee n th e cit y an d th e MUA

. Figur e 3 provides a n excerp t fro m a sampl e ru n o

fth e RED E progra m fo ra n analysi s o

fbenzen e exposure . Th e input exposur e distributio n an d incidence rate fo r Philadelphi a were obtaine d fro m th e HAPEM-M S ru n associate d wit h Figures 1 an d 2

. Thes e dat a are listed i n Figur e 3 unde rth e headin g "INPU TDATA"

. I n thi s cas e th e
use r entere d dat a int

o th e progra m indicatin g tha t 0.009 9 percen t o

fPhiladelphi a residents experience d annua l averag e exposures abov e 5 /.g/m 3 , 0.715 1 percen t



### 3 0P.3 8



## INPU T DAT A

POLLUTANT : benzen e MODE L CITY : Philadelphi a POLLUTANT POPULATIO N CONC . PERCENTAG E
6.0 0 5.0 0 4.0 0 3.0 0 2.0 0 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0

0.0 1 1

. 3 3 5.2 2 96.8 4 99.8 6 100.00


## MODE L CIT YINCIDENC E RAT E = .27 8 case(s ) per million

FIGUR E 3

. EXCERPTFRO M RED E PRINTOU TLISTIN G EXPOSUR E ESTIMATE S

FO R PHILADELPHI A ENTERE D AS INPU TDATA

.



### 3 1P.3 9

above 4.5 0 Mg/m 3 , an d s o on . Th e assumed incidence rate wa s 0.27 8 cas e pe r millio n persons . Figures 4 an d 5 presen t additiona l excerpts fro m th e Philadelphi a benzen e analysis

. Unde rth e headin g "AREA-SPECIFI C EXPOSUR E ESTIMATES" , th e printou t i n Figur e 4 presents th e result

s o fapplyin g th e Philadelphi a exposur e distributio n an d incidence rate t o Pittsburgh

. Simila rresult s were obtaine d fo reac h o f1 6 citie s i n th e regio n represente d b

y Philadelphia

. Unde rth e headin g "REGIONA L EEXPOSURE ESTIMATES" , th e printou t i n Rgure 5 presents summaries o fexposures an d incidence fo r th e entir

e region

. RED E outputs fo r th e 1 1 region s ar e availabl e fro m ITAQS

. Tabl e 9 summarizes incidence dat a fro m thes e outputs
. I n th e tabl e are listed th e 198 8 populatio n o feac h region , th e estimate d annua l cance rincidence , an d th e incidence rate
. Incidence rates
var y fro m 0.26 7 cas e pe rmillio n person s (Houston ) t o 0.48 4 cas e pe rmillio n person s (Spokane)

. Th e tota l cance rincidence fo ral l region s i s 62.1 7 cases . Th e correspondin g incidence rate i s 0.32 9 cas e pe r millio n persons . 3.2. 9 Estimat

e Rura l EExposure

s an d Incidence Value s HAPEM-M S wa s used t o determin e exposur e distribution s an d incidence rates fo r eac h o

fth e tw o representativ

e rura l area s (Farmingto n an d Paducah)

. Followin g th e direction s o

fOMS , thes e result

s wer e the n average d t o determin e a n overal l rura l exposur e distributio n an d a n overal l rura l incidence rate
. Tabl e 1 0 presents benzen e exposur e estimates fo r Farmingto n an d Paduca h togethe rwit h th e result s o fapplyin g th e overal l rura l exposur e distributio n fo r benzen e t o th e 198 8 rura l populatio n o fth e U.S. , previousl y estimate d t o b e 57,107,00 0 persons . Applyin g th e averag e incidence rate fo r Farmingto n an d Paducah , 0.18 4 case pe rmillion , t o th e rura l U.S

. populatio n yield s a rura l incidence o f10. 5 cases .



### 32P.4 0



## AREA-SPECIFI C EXPOSURE ESTIMATE S

URBA N ARE A ID = 628 0 POPULATIO

N = 209400 0 ADJUSTMENT RATI O =1.0 3 ESTIMATED INCIDENC E = .599595 9 case(s ) POLLUTANT CONC . POPULATIO

N 10.0 0 0 9.0 0 0 8.0 0 0 7.0 0 0 6.0 0 3 6 5.0 0 423 3 4.0 0 3734 0 3.0 0 27694 5 2.0 0 203151 3 1.0 0 209115 4 0.0 0 209400 0

FIGUR E 4

. EXCERPTFRO M RED E PRINTOU TLISTIN G AREEA-SPECIFI C BENZEN E EEXPOSURE ESTIMATE S FO R PITTSBURGH , PENNSYLVANI A (MSA cod e = 6280)

. CONCENTRATION S AP C I M

.. - /- 3 CONCENTRATION S AR E I N /<g/m 3

.

3 3P.4 1



### REGIONA L EXPOSUR E ESTIMATE S



### POLLUTAN T CONC
. 10.0 0 9.0 0 8.0 0 7.0 0 6.0 0 5.0 0 4.0 0 3.0 0 2.0 0 1.0 0 0.0 0 POPULATIO N

0 0 0 4 3 390 8 1822 5 15391 5 109652 0 994*61 0 1177194 0 1181300 0
Tota l populatio n = 1.1813E+0 7 Tota l incidenc e = 3.17613 9 case(s ) Avq

. incidenc e rat e = .268868 1 case(s)

. pe rmillio n

FIGUR E 5

. EEXCERP

TFRO M RED E PRINTOUTLISTIN G BENZEN E EXPOSUR E EXTIMATE S FO R REGIO N REPRESENTE D B YPHILADELPHIA , PENNSYLVANIA

. CONCENTRATION S AR E I N jig/m 3

.



### 34P.4 2



### TABL E 9 . ESTIMATE DCANCE RINCIDENC E RATE S ASSOCIATE DWIT H

ESTIMATE DBENZEN E EXPOSUR E B YREGION

Mode l urba n are a Bosto n Denve r Housto n Los Angele s Minn./St

. Pau l Ne wYor k Cit y Philadelphi a Phoeni x St

. Loui s Spokan e Washingto n 

### Al l Urbanize d populatio n

o f associate d regio n 19,051,00 0 4,386,00 0 38,227,00 0 27,929,00 0 18,490,00 0 12,618,00 0 11,813,00 0 4,620,00 0 30,323,00 0 6,280,00 0 14,959,00 0 188,696,00 0 Estimate d annua l incidenc e

Numbero f case s 6.4 8 2.0 6 10.2 0 11.4 7 6.2 3 4.2 5 3.1 8 1.9 8 8.1 1 3.0 4 5.1 7 62.1 7 Rate , case s pe r

millio n person s 0.34 0 0.47 0 0.26 7 0.41 1 0.33 7 0.33 6 0.26 9 0.42 8 0.26 7 0.48 4 0.34 6 0.32 9

TABL E 10

. EXPOSU R

Benzen e concentration , M9/m 3

2. 0 1. 8 1. 6 1. 4 1. 2 1. 0 0 ESTIMATE D BENZEN E EXPOSUR E O F RURA LU.S

. POPULATIO N BASE D O N E ESTIMATE S FO R FARMINGTON , NE WMEXIC O AN D PADUCAH, KENTUCK Y Populatio n a t o r above indicate d benzen e concentratio n Farmington '
Numbe r of person s 0 2,31 2 17,00 1 26,91 9 26,91 9 26,91 9 26,91 9 Percentag e

0
8.5 9
63.1 6
100.0 0
100.0 0
100.0 0 100.0 0 Paducah "

Numbe r of person s 0 0 6,47 5 64,88 8 95,51 8 95,51 8 95.51 8 Percentag e

0 0
6.7 8
68.0 4
100.0 0
100.0 0 100.0 0 Averag e

percentag e

0
4.3 0 34.9 7
84.0 2
100.0 0
100.0 0
100.0 0 Numbe ro f person s i n rura l U.S. 0

0 2,456,00 0 19,970,00 0 47,981,00 0 57,107,00 0 57,107,00 0 57,107,00 0
"Estimate d incidenc e rat e •0.19 5 case s p9r millio n persons . "Estimate d incidenc e ral e - 0.17 2 cases pe rmillio n persons . Estimate d incidenc e rat e •0.18 4 cases pe rmillio n persons , estimate d incidence •10.5 1 cases .



### 3 5P.4 3

3.2.1 0 Combin e Urba n an d Rura l EExposur e Estimates T o determin e th e exposur e distributio n an d incidence fo r th e entir e U.S. , th e estimates fo rth e 1 1 region s defined b y MUA' s (Subsectio n 3.2.8 ) were adde d to th e
rura l estimates develope d i n th e previou s ste p (Subsectio n 3.2.10)

. Tabl e 1 1 provide s thes e results fo r benzene

. Th e tota l incidence i s 72.6 8 cases i n a populatio n o f 245,803,00 0 persons , a n incidence rate o f0.29 6 cas e pe rmillio n persons . Table s 1 0 an d 1 1 provid e estimates o fannua l cance r incidence rate s associated wit h benzen e exposur

e fo r eac h o

fth e 1 1 regions , fo ral l urba n areas , fo ral l rura l
areas , an d fo rth e tota l U.S

. population

. T o facilitat e comparisons , thes e estimates ar e collecte d i n Tabl e 12

. Analyst s applied th e EP

A unit ris k

estimat e fo rbenzen e t o eac h incidence rate i n Tabl e 1 2 t o determin e a correspondin g annua l averag e benzen e exposur e concentration

. Th e equatio n used i n thi s calculatio n wa s

C = I R x70/URE , (7 )

where C i s th e estimate d annua l averag e benzen e exposure , I R i s th e estimated
annua l incidence rate (case s pe r millio n persons) , an d UR E i s th e unit ris k estimat e fo r benzene

. Tabl e 1 2 list

s th e resultin g values o fC unde rth e headin g "equivalent averag e benzen e exposure. "



### 3 6P.4 4



### TABL E 11 . ESTIMATEDBENZENE EXPOSURE FO RURBAN , RURAL , AN

D TOTA L U.S . POPULATION S

Benzen e concentration , M9/m 3
1 2 1 1 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Numbe ro fperson s at o rabov

e indicate d benzen e concentratio n Urba n areas 3

0

8,26 2 73,69 1 241,27 8 421,51 9 1,145,16 9 3,462,81 1 8,426,55 5 28,478,84 0 71,623,39 7 139,502,98 7 184,656,22 8 188,696,00 0 Rura l areas' 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57,107,00 0 57,107,00 0 Total c
0 8,26 2 73,69 1 241,27 8 421,51 9 1,145,16 9 3,462,81 1 8,426.55 5 28,478,84 0 71,623,39 7 139,502,98 7 241,763,22 8 245,803,00 0 Estimate d incidenc e = 62.1 7 cases . b Estimate d incidenc e = 10.5 1 cases . Estimate d incidence = 72.6 8 cases .



### TABL E 12 . AVERAGE BENZENE EXPOSURE S B YREGIO N

Mode l stud y are a definin g regio n

Bosto n Denve r Housto n Lo s Angeles Minn./St

. Pau l Ne wYor k Philadelphi a Phoeni x St

. Loui s Spokan e Washingto n Tota l urba n populatio n Tota l rura l populatio n Tota l U

. S

. populatio n Incidence rate , cases pe rmillio n person s 0.34 0 0.47 0 0.26 7 0.41 1 0.33 7 0.33 6 0.26 9 0.42 8 0.26 7 0.48 4 0.34 6
0.32 9 0.18 4
0.29 6 Equivalen t averag e benzen e esposure , J*g/m 3
2.8 7 3.9 6 2.2 5 3.4 7 2.8 4 2.8 3 2.2 7

•

J 3.6 1 2.2 5 4.0 9 2.9 2 2.7 7
1.5 5
2.4 9



### 3 7P.4 5



### 4. 0 RECOMMENDATION S FO RFURTHERRESEARC H Th e methodolog ydescribe d i n Sectio n 3 was develope d t o provid e reasonabl e exposure estimate s withi n th e schedulin g an d resource constraint s specifie d fo rthi s project

. Th e author

s of thi s repor

t recommen d that EP

A conside rrefinin g th e methodolog ywhe n additiona l resource s ar e available

. Fou rspecifi crecommendation s ar e discusse d here

. I n th e curren t methodology , monitorin g data an d activit ydat a (i.e. , tim e fractions )
ar e expresse d as annua l averages

. HAPEM-M S coul d bette raccoun t fo rseasona l an d diurna l pattern s i n exposur e if thes e monitorin g an d activit ydata wer

e average d by seaso n an d tim e o

f day

. Fo rexample , th e use o ffou rcalenda rquarter

s an d fou r diurna l period s (midnigh t - 6:0 0 a.m. , 6:0 0 a.m

. - noon , noo n - 6:0 0 p.m. , an d 6:0 0 p.m

. - midnight) woul d divid e th e yea rint o 1 6 (i.e. , 4x4 ) distinc t tim e periods

. Indexin g th e F(d,h,w,i,j ) an d A'(j ) term s i n Equatio n 1 accordin g t o thes e 1 6 tim e period s woul d greatl yimprov e th e tempora l resolutio n o f th e mode l withou t significantl yincreasin g progra m complexit yo rru n time

. Fiv e microenvironments ar

e specifie d i n th e curren t methodolog y(Tabl e 6)

. Thes e microenvironments ar e actuall yaggregat e microenvironments i n that eac h i s define d a s a combinatio n o

f microenvironments selecte d fro m a list o fove r3 0 "location " code s appearin g i n th e Cincinnat i activit ydiar ydata base

. Thes e code s coul d b e combine d i n othe rway s t o yiel d aggregat e microenvironments ofparticula r interest t o OMS

. Fo rexample , th e "indoor s - other " microenvironmen t coul d b e divide d int o tw o separate microenvironments , on e that contain s indoo rlocation s whic h
ar e likel yt o b e directl yaffecte d b ymoto rvehicle s (e.g. , indoor s - service station ) an d
on e that contain s indoo rlocation s whic h ar e unlikel yt o be directl yaffecte d b ymoto r vehicle s (e.g. , indoor

s • healt h car

e facility)

. Th e microenvironmen t factors [i.e. , th e M(i ) values ] specifie d byth e HAPEM-M S
use rhav e a significan t effec

t o n th e exposur

e estimate s produce d byth e model

. I n 38P.4 6



### th e exposur

e analyse s discusse d i n thi s report , th e valu e o fM(i ) fo reac h microenvironmen t was assume d t o b e constan t regardles s oftim e ofyea ro r geographica l location

. Th e M(i ) value s i n Tabl e 6 wer e estimate d usin g dat a obtaine d fro m on e cit

y(Denver

) ove ra four-mont h perio d durin g th e winte rof1982-83

. Althoug h th e Denve rstud ywas judge d t o b e th e best singl e source ofdat a fo r estimatin g M(i ) values , there i s som e degre e of uncertaint yas t o whethe rth e resultin g M(i ) estimate s ar

e applicabl e t o othe rareas an d othe rseasons

. Alternative source s o f dat a shoul d b e investigate d wit h th e goa l o fdeterminin g whethe rth e M(i ) value s presente d i n Tabl e 6 ar

e generall yapplicable

. HAPEM-M S ca n b e considere d a stochasti co r"probabilistic " mode l i n that i t contain s a sourc e o

f rando m variation

. Th e algorith m that determine s th e se t o f tim e fraction s fo reac h cohor

t [i.e. , th e F(d,h,w,i,j ) value s i n Equatio n 1 ] employ s a rando m numbe rgenerato rt o selec t data fro m th e Cincinnat i activit ydiar ydat a base

. Consequently , two run s o f th e algorith m wil l yiel d two differen t sets o ftim e fractions

. I n th e application s discusse d i n thi s report , i t has bee n assume d that th e exposur e estimate s produce d b

yHAPEM-M S ar

e fairl yrobust ; that is , th e estimate s ar e not sensitiv e t o th e rando m element s incorporate d i n th e tim e fractio n algorithm

. Thi s assumptio n shoul d b e teste d b ymakin g multipl e run s o fHAPEM-M S wit h al l othe r inputs hel d constan t an d comparin g th e results

.

3 9P.4 7



### REFERENCE S
1

. Johnson , T

. R. , R

. A

. Paul , an d J

. E

. Capel , 1991 , "Estimatio n ofCarbo n Monoxid e EExposure

s an d Associate d Carboxyhemoglobi n Level s i n Denve r Residents Usin g a Probabilisti cVersio n ofNEM, " prepare d byI TAi rQualit y Planin g an d Standards , U

. S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolina

. 2

. Johnson , T

. R „ J

. E

. Capel , an d D

. M

. Byrne , 1991 , Th e Estimatio n of Commutin g Pattern s i n Application s of th e Hazardou s Ai rPollutan t EExposur e Mode l (HAPEM), " Pape rNo

. 91-172.6 , presente d a t th e 84t h Annua l Meetin g o f th e Ai ran d Waste Managemen t Association , Vancouver , Canada

. 3

. Johnson , T

. R. , 1991 , Lette rt o To m McCurd y(Ma y1,1991) , Office o

f Ai rQualit

y Plannin g an d Standards , U

. S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolina

. 4

. Johnson , T

. R. , 1987 , " AStudyo

fHuma n Activit

yPattern s i n Cincinnati , Ohio, " Electri cPowe rResearc h Institute , Pal o Alto

. 5

. Johnson , T

. R. , 1984 , " AStudyo

f Persona l .Exposur

e t o Carbo n Monoxid e i n Denver , Colorado, " EPA-600/54-014, U

. S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolina

. 6

. Johnson , T

. R

. an d R

. A

. Paul , 1983 , Th e NAAQ S EExposur

e Mode l (NEM ) Applie d t o Carbo n Monoxide, " EPA-450/5-83-C04, U

. S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolina

. 7

. America n Petroleu m Institute , 1988 , "Exhaus t Benzen e Emission s fro m Late Mode l Vehicles, " Publicatio n No

. 841-44700 , Washington , D

. C

.

4 0P.4 8



### APPENDI XA SAMPL E OUTPU TO F HAPEM-M S

4 1P.4 9

Tabl a 1 . Sunmr y o f Cancer Risk b y Cohort ! • ) •i>ii.::fZ3iiiiiBti>i:iiii>i<iiiiiii<i»>:iis»sHi<itisiitfiiniit i tiiniui»>i » Cohor t Identificatio n Demographi c Hon * Hor k Cohort Cree p Distric t Distric t Populatio n Annua l Uni t Risk Incidence

Averag e Facto

r o f Cancer Exposure ((ug/e*«3Hw-1 ) I m case s <ug/m*«3 ) pa r year )
1 2 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 1 9 1 9 1 9 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 2222 3

3399 8 2599 2 3298 7 496 3 705 0 11 2 1 7 2 4 1192 1 179 3 254 8 639 2 96 2 136 6 939 0 141 3 200 7 635 1 95 5 135 7 1264 8 190 3 270 3 79 7 12 0 17 0 2296 3 1011 7 5200 5 208 6 270 3 139 8 15 8 2 6 5 0 91 0 5 0 28 8 8 9 1 5 2 8 6 0 1 0 1 9 5 6 9 1 8 2 9 5 9 293 3 

# i 1.56 4

1.63 3 1.65 7 1.67 5 1.76 9 1.78 8 1.48 8 1.57 4 1.57 2 1.80 1 1.89 9 1.99 3 1.90 0 1.97 5 2.10 9 2.06 3 2.16 6 2.35 8 2.45 2 2.52 8 2.68 9 1.91 6 1.97 3 2.11 3 1.86 4 1.96 9 2.10 7 1.65 5 1.59 0 1.54 0 0.82 1 0.84 3 0.86 0 1.07 0 1.09 9 1.23 6 0.87 4 0.91 8 0.95 4 1.19 8 1.24 2 1.34 6 1.27 4 1.32 0 1.45 6 1.50 1 1.48 0 1.64 0 1.80 8 1.82 8 2.08 3 

# M B
1.43 2 0.000008 3

0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000006 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000006 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000006 3 0.000008 3 0.000006 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000006 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3OOOOOOOOOOOOoooooo 0.0041 2

0.0065 8 0.0051 1 0.0065 5 0.0010 4 0.0014 9 0.0000 2 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0025 5 0.0004 0 0.0006 0 0.0014 4 0.0002 3 0.0003 4 0.0023 0 0.0003 6 0.0005 6 0.0018 5 0.0002 9 0.0004 3 0.0028 7 0.0004 5 0.0006 8 0.0001 8 0.0000 3 0.0000 4 0.0045 1 0.0019 1 0.0094 9 0.0002 0 0.0002 7 0.0001 4 0.0000 2 0.0000 0 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 0.0000 2 0.0000 3 0.0000 1 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 1 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 1 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 1 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0004 4 5.0000 8 0.0001 6P.5 0

4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 >
" 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 2

2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 0

2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 1 9 1 9 1 9 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 1 9 

# \l 9 2

1 5 2 9 124 0 53 1 271 0 50574 7 78207 4 59967 1 32711 2 4955 5 7305 9 456 3 69 1 101 9 60092 7 9103 5 13421 4 28129 0 4261 3 6282 5 16500 5 2499 7 3685 3 14736 4 2232 4 3291 3 37744 5 5718 0 8430 1 3902 0 591 1 871 5 51925 2 22656 8 119144 1 4068 5 6135 9 5124 5 2143 7 338 1 431 2 66 7 10 5 

## / w *. . «4 4 399 7 509 8 2711 7 427 7 545 4 1747 5 275 6 351 5 1025 8 161 8 206 3 4328 4

256 2 1.25 4 1.32 6 1.46 2 0.85 0 0.62 2 0.60 3 2.14 0 2.20 7 2.24 3 2.12 6 2.23 2 2.26 5 1.92 5 2.05 5 2.06 2 2.27 5 2.40 9 2.44 1 2.34 1 2.48 3 2.50 0 2.51 2 2.66 4 2.78 4 2.91 0 3.00 8 3.22 7 2.35 2 2.45 1 2.53 1 2.33 8 2.45 4 2.56 0 2.22 8 2.14 8 2.09 5 2.43 4 2.52 3 2.55 3 2.37 0 2.56 2 2.57 0 2.18 6 2.34 0 2.31 1 2.51 0 2.68 9 2.72 7 2.61 9 2.76 5 2.76 4 2.75 8 2.91 2 3.03 7 3.23 7 3.28 7 3.46 3 2.62 7 

# f:f. l 0.000008 3

0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000006 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3 0.000008 3OOOooooooooooooooo 0.0000 1

0.0000 0 0.0000 1 0.0001 3 0.0000 5 0.0002 6 0.1283 0 0.2046 8 0.1594 8 0.0824 6 0.0131 2 0.0196 2 0.0010 4 0.0001 7 0.0002 5 0.1620 7 0.0260 1 0.0388 4 0.0780 9 0.0125 5 0.0186 2 0.0491 5 0.0079 0 0.0121 7 0.0508 5 0.0079 6 0.0126 0 0.1052 5 0.0166 2 0.0253 0 0.0108 2 0.0017 2 0.0026 5 0.1372 1 0.0582 2 0.2959 1 0.0117 4 0.0183 6 0.0155 1 0.0060 2 0.0010 3 0.0013 1 0.0001 7 0.0000 3 0.0000 4 0.0075 4 0.0012 8 0.0016 5 0.0084 2 0.0014 0 0.0017 9 0.0057 2 0.0009 5 0.0012 7 0.0039 4 0.0006 3 0.0008 5 0.0134 8 0.0022 4 

# railOvro- w*o > ui*e>in*o>ui*O'Ui*o>ui*o^ui*WMM.oa>io>tn*o>ln«'a>tn«'o>in«-»bi*o>in«>o>iii«>o>ln«>Mrai-«^0 > s » *

wiuivilninuiUilnlnOiuilnuiuilnliiwilnlninlnliilnUiUiUilnuiinm*^^^ ^

NOJM M t->

NNNHH H N N OO-OvO «»»»tlUII|l«»«lllMMNNNMHH00OOaOOO044«»»»llltltl»»»IHIIIWNNMHHHO0OOO00 0

MMWOI»-*I> » •- •M •- •M r » i » * » r » r » o » M i n M M * •* *O0lO»O W«NO> M *«MMMIV>MOI»M0 > HH N W 4 O Mln O w o vow*-<>M»"ini-iOo-go««a>0 " «aaow«woiii<HMS4»sH»w«tiHsliiiiiNN « NHMOO^O^UI^UI ^ UlW fHO«IOM('»4HONWHNHHNS^WC'OHHOM40IIINCigilllN4Ul(l»»a^NH»«'MM»N»(tMHHIIINH O 0»- > O > UHOIO«NOWa«l>OaNOllll»SN4WHOIOH^OI4(>4S»I'NOI»NM»'ll1NNHOSHWHlnill»>l«H»IIIOgi « 

# iiiiiiiii. ^

OOO O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 

# Siiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliililiiiiiliiii i^«M'-«U|« t aMllineHO>MMHHNNaOHeO^NNNria , .SN H OK|N-CO«4IMIlrl»OHN4«^*ONMOO>vrMIHO'NNN»h N O«IMK|H^4I|HNOOOt'HNl0rlNl0riNMOOU|NOHaO»lll< t O O O r l <

M

_. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O

CJOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOJ-Or-IOOOrtO i OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O

MMnnMMlAnMMKII4MKIMIOMnMMMMnMMMMMMMnMn M (Ott>CO<OOCD<0<0<OCOQ>C04feCO<OCQCOC9CO<OCOCOa)tflCOCOCOCOtt<OIOCOCOf O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O ooooooooodddododoooooooooododoooo d I I I I I I o I I - o I I < s I I o I I * It • UC M H



# i «NOIQrlMHMS4»U|>'4««IONa04S.«»OU|«N«'N4UI « NI4«tfU|«e>4«aiAM«4«0«lt«N«'l>0«IMll<MOU)44<00 < M4i^lAU|MWUIHMMn4S«NnN*'OHin4ll|Na«M0l(l« n «««4NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNMMMMNNNNNNHN N

n i n M >

_

OOOOOOOi-lr4i-IC.NC.MrO I C M l^44IHMIH444)'»»OaOOO O HHHNN N

^ D *M B * A ^t k^ * 0 s O^ O*

* ^ ^ ^ ^ 9 s ^ ^ ^ ^ ^F

^ O * ^T * O ^ O* * ^T * O * O ^ O* * ©* • O * ©* ©" * ©* ^T * O * ( ^ O* " 0 s o ^ o*
- « o " r I I 8 3 N i

. • I « -

«Ne»'rtNM«U|««ll|«4l<l«4l4'«4U|««U|<0«in>««U)4NaO > 3 fc.

e M



### 5 1
< o o f

. - < C M

• L ,

i

. 

## s

9

. I f * « *

_ M U l •*• X M • a . 4 •- • <*J

_P.5 3

Cohor t havin g highes t annua l averag e exposure : Demographi c Sro-p : 6 Hon e District : 6 Hor kDistrict : 6 Grou pPopulation: 45 8 Grou pAnnua l Averag e Exposure : 5.24 0 Study Area : PHILADELPHI A Scenari o Analyzed : BAS E CAS E - 198 8P.5 4

Tabl e 2 . Numbe r o f Peopl e i nth e Study Are e Expose de t o r abov e selecte dPelluten t

Concentretions(e ) SSS3aS8S8B8SSSaSB38BSSSSsasSSS8SSaBSS8SS88BSS8SSSBB S

POLLUTAN T CON C (ug/tn*#3 )
5.0 0 4.5 0 4.0 0 3.5 0 3.0 0 2.5 0 2.0 0 1.5 0 1.0 0 0.5 0 0.0 0 f o f Peopl e

e t o r Abov e 65 8 6162 2 11473 3 12328 4 45190 4 193081 6 837233 9 862843 3 863343 0 864544 6 664544 6 '/. o f Peopl e

a t o r Abov e
0.009 9 0.715 1 1.327 1 1.426 0 5.227 1 22.333 3 96.841 0 99.803 2 99.861 0 100.000 0 100.000 0 (a ) Study

Area : PHILADELPHI A Scenari o Analyzed : BAS E CAS E - 198 8 Numbe r o f Exposur e Districts : 7P.5 5



### APPENDI XB CITIE S SELECTE D TO REPRESEN TU.S

. URBAN POPULATIO N

4 8P.5 6

Regio n Cod e

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MS A ID NSA/CMSA/PMS A

784 0 Spokane , W

A MS A 38 0 Anchorage , A

K 86 0 Bellingham , U

A 88 0 Billings , NT 108 0 Bois e City , I

D 115 0 Bremerton , U

A 240 0 Eugene-Springfield , O RMS A 304 0 Grea t Falls , MT 489 0 Nedford , O

R 591 0 Olynpia , U

A 644 0 Portland , O

RPMS A 674 0 Richtand-KenneMick-Pasco , U A 708 0 Salem , ORMS A 760 0 Seattle , U

A PMS A 820 0 Tacoma , U

A PMS A 872 5 Vancover , U

A PMS A 926 0 Yakima , U

A 560 0 New York , N YPMS A 87 5 Bergen-Passaic , N

JPMS A 364 0 Jersey

City , N JPMS A 564 0 Newark , N

JPMS A 848 0 Trenton , N

JPMS A 448 0 Lo s Angeles-Lon g Beach , C A PMS A 36 0 Anaheim-Sant a Ana , C A PMS A 68 0 Bakersfield , C

A MS A 162 0 Chico , C

A 284 0 Fresno , C

A MS A 332 0 Honolulu , H I MS A 494 0 Merced , C

A 517 0 Modesto , C

A MS A 577 5 Oakland , C

A PMS A 600 0 Oxnard-Ventura , C A PMS A 669 0 Redding , C

A 678 0 Riverside-Sa nBernard!o , C A PMS A 692 0 Sacramento , C

A MS A 712 0 Salinas-Seaside-Monterey , C A MS A 732 0 Sa nDiego , C

A MS A 736 0 Sa nFrancisco , C

A PMS A 740 0 Sa nJose , C

A PMS A 748 0 Sant a Barbara-Sant a Maria-Lompoc , C A MS A 748 5 Sant a Cruz , C

A PMS A 750 0 Sant a Rosa-Petaluna , C A PMS A 812 0 Stockton , C

A MS A 872 0 Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa , C A PMS A 878 0 Visalia-Tulare-Porterville , C A MS A 934 0 Yub a City , C

A 512 0 Minneapolis-St . Paul , MN-U I MS A 46 0 Appleton-Oshkosh-Neenah , U I MS A 62 0 Aurora-Elgin , I

L PMS A 101 0 Bismarck , N

D o p'8 8

35600 0 21900 0 11900 0 11600 0 20100 0 18100 0 27000 0 7800 0 14600 0 15700 0 118800 0 14600 0 27000 0 186200 0 55900 0 22600 0 18600 0 856700 0 129200 0 54200 0 188600 0 33100 0 858800 0 225700 0 52000 0 17400 0 61500 0 83800 0 17000 0 34100 0 200600 0 64700 0 14000 0 227800 0 138500 0 34900 0 237000 0 159000 0 143200 0 34300 0 22700 0 36600 0 45600 0 42100 0 29800 0 11800 0 238800 0 31300 0 35500 0 8600 0 Av

g An C O (PPm ) 2.5 0 -99.0 0 1.5 6 -99.0 0 1.5 8 1.5 9 1.4 8 1.6 4 2.5 0 -99.0 0 1.6 1 -99.0 0 1.2 2 2.0 3 2.0 8 2.0 9 2.0 6 2.4 4 1.6 5 2.3 9 1.7 0 0.9 5 1.7 9 1.5 8 1.0 2 0.9 7 0.9 9 0.8 3 -99.0 0 0.9 5 1.0 8 0.9 4 -99.0 0 1.3 5 1.3 3 0.7 1 1.3 8 1.6 0 1.2 8 0.6 8 0.3 7 1.2 7 0.8 4 1.1 7 0.9 1 -99.0 0 1.7 9 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 C

O Ratio s

1.0 0 -99.0 0 0.6 2 •99.0 0 0.6 3 0.6 4 0.5 9 0.6 6 1.0 0 -99.0 0 0.6 4 -99.0 0 0.4 9 0.8 1 0.8 3 0.8 4 0.8 2 1.0 0 0.6 8 0.9 8 0.7 0 0.3 9 1.0 0 0.8 8 0.5 7 0.5 4 0.5 5 0.4 6 -99.0 0 0.5 3 0.6 0 0.5 3 -99.0 0 0.7 5 0.7 4 0.4 0 0.7 7 0.8 9 0.7 2 0.3 8 0.2 1 0.7 1 0.4 7 0.6 5 0.5 1 -99.0 0 1.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0P.5 7

RegionMS A Cod e I DNSA/CMSA/PMS A

4 136 0 Ceda r Rapids , I A 4 160 0 Chicago , I L PMS A 4 168 0 Cleveland , O H PMS A 4 220 0 Dubuque , I

A 4 224 0 Duluth , MN-U I 4 229 0 Ea uClaire , UI 4 236 0 Erie , P

A MS A 4 252 0 Fargo«Noorheed , ND-M N 4 298 5 Gran

dForks , N

D 4 308 0 Gree nBay , U I 4 350 0 Iow

a City , I

A 4 362 0 Janesville-Beloit , U I 4 369 0 Joliet , IL PMS A 4 380 0 Kenosha , U I PMS A 4 387 0 La Crosse , UI 4 396 5 Lak e County , IL PMSA 4 436 0 Lincoln , N

E 4 444 0 Lorein-Elyria , OH PMS A 4 472 0 Madison , UI MS A 4 508 0 Milwaukee , U I PMS A 4 660 0 Racine , U I PMS A 4 666 0 Rapi dCity , S D 4 682 0 Rochester , M N 4 762 0 Sheboygan , U I 4 772 0 Siou

xCity , IA=N

E 4 776 0 Siou

xFalls , S d 4 698 0 St . Cloud , M N 4 816 0 Syracuse , N YMS A 4 840 0 Toledo , OH MS A 4 892 0 Waterloo-Ceda r Falls , I A 4 894 0 Uausau , U I 5 112 0 Boston , M

A PMS A 5 16 0 Albany-Schenectady-Troy , N YMS / 5 56 0 Atlanti c City , N JMS A 5 73 0 Bangor , ME 5 96 0 Binghamton , N YMS A 5 116 0 Bridgeport-Millford , C T PMS A 5 117 0 Bristol , C T PMS A 5 120 0 Brockton , M A PMS A 5 128 0 Buffalo , N

YPMS A 5 130 5 Burlington , V T 5 193 0 Danbury , C T PMSA 5 233 5 Elmira , N

Y 5 248 0 Fal l River , MA-R I PMS A 5 260 0 Fitchburg-Leominster , M A 5 297 5 Glen s Fells , N Y 5 328 0 Hartford , CT PMS A 5 361 0 Jamestown-Dunkirk , N Y 5 416 0 Lawrence-Heverhill , MA-N H PMS A 5 424 0 Lewiston-Auburn , N E Po p<8 8

17200 0 621600 0 184500 0 9100 0 24100 0 13800 0 27700 0 Av

g A n C O (Ppm ) 0.6 5 0.9 3 1.5 5 1.5 2 2.1 4 -99.0 0 1.1 9 C O Ratio s

0.3 6 0.5 2 0.8 7 0.8 5 1.2 0 -99.0 0 0.6 6 14800 0 7000 0 19100 0 8700 0 13600 0 37900 0 12300 0 9600 0 49500 0 21200 0 27000 0 35300 0 139800 0 17400 0 8200 0 10100 0 10300 0 11600 0 12600 0 18100 0 65000 0 61600 0 14800 0 11300 0 284500 0 9800 0 30900 0 8500 0 26000 0 44400 0 7900 0 18700 0 95900 0 12900 0 19100 0 9200 0 15400 0 9800 0 11600 0 75500 0 14100 0 38100 0 8700 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.4 6 -99.0 0 1.1 4 0.8 2 1.8 6 -99.0 0 1.7 5 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.3 6 1.1 8 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.3 6 0.7 1 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.3 9 -99.0 0 •99.0 0 0.6 3 1.2 3 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.6 1 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0

•99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 0.8 2 -99.0 0 0.6 4 0.4 6 1.0 4 -99.0 0 0.9 8 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 0.7 6 0.6 6 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.0 0 0.5 2 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.0 2 -99.0 0 •99.0 0 0.4 6 0.9 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.1 8 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0P.5 8

Regio n Cod e NS A

1 0 NSA/CMSA/PMS A

456 0 Lowell , MA-N

H PMS A 476 0 Manchester , N

H 501 5 Niddlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon , N JPMS A 502 0 Middletown , C T PMS A 519 0 Monmouth-Ocean , N JPMS A 535 0 Nashua , NH PMS A 538 0 Nassau-Suffolk , N YPMS A 540 0 New Bedford , M

A 544 0 Ne w Britain , C T PMS A 548 0 New Haven-Neriden , C T NS A 552 0 New London-Norwich , CT-R I MS A 570 0 Niagar a Falls , N

YPMS A 576 0 Norwalk , C T PMS A 595 0 Orang e County , N

YPMS A 606 0 Pawtucket-Uoonsocket-Attleboro , RI-M A PMS A 632 0 Pittsfield , N

A 640 0 Portland , NE 645 0 PortsmouthaOover-ROchester , NH-NE 646 0 Poughkeepeie , N

YMS A 648 0 Providence , R I PMS A 684 0 Rochester , N

YMS A 709 0 Salem-Gloucester , M A PMS A 800 0 Springfield , N

A NS A 804 0 Stamford , C T PMS A 868 0 Utica-Rome , N

YNS A 888 0 Uaterbury , C T 924 0 Uorcester , N

A NS A 208 0 Denver , C O PMS A 125 0 Boulder-Longmont , C O PMS A 135 0 Casper , U

Y 158 0 Cheyene , U

Y 172 0 Colorad o Springs , C O MS A 267 0 For t Collins-Loveland , C O 306 0 Greely , C O 652 0 Provo-Orem , UT 656 0 Pueblo , C O 672 0 Reno , N

V 716 0 Sal t Lak e City-Ogden , UT MS A 620 0 Phoenix , A Z MS A 20 0 Albuquerque , N

M MS A 232 0 E l Paso , T

XMS A 410 0 La s Cruces , N

N 412 0 La s Vegas , N

V NS A 749 0 Sant a FE , N

M 852 0 Tucson , A Z NS A 616 0 Philadelphia , PA-N JPMS A 24 0 Allentown-Bethlehem , PA-N JMS A 28 0 Altoona , P

A 84 5 Beave r County , P

A PMS A 324 0 Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle , P A NS A o p'8 8

26200 0 15000 0 97800 0 8600 0 96900 0 17700 0 263900 0 16800 0 14800 0 52400 0 25900 0 21700 0 12600 0 29400 0 32500 0 7900 0 21200 0 22000 0 26200 0 64700 0 98000 0 25900 0 52300 0 19200 0 31300 0 21600 0 41600 0 164000 0 21800 0 6500 0 7500 0 39400 0 18200 0 13600 0 24300 0 12800 0 24000 0 106500 0 203000 0 49300 0 58600 0 13200 0 63100 0 11200 0 63600 0 492000 0 67700 0 13300 0 19000 0 59100 0 Av

g A n C O (Ppm ) 1.3 6 1.7 7 1.4 1 -99.0 0 1.4 1 1.1 5 1.0 8 •99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.5 5 -99.0 0 0.4 4 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.3 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 0.8 4 0.6 8 -99.0 0 1.2 8 1.5 4 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.1 1 1.3 5 0.8 4 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.3 6 1.3 4 1.0 7 2.1 2 -99.0 0 1.9 9 1.9 0 1.2 8 1.1 5 1.6 9 0.6 6 2.5 6 0.8 5 1.3 2 1.0 9 0.9 4 -99.0 0 0.8 2 1.4 5 C O Ratio s

1.0 0 1.3 0 1.0 4 -99.0 0 1.0 4 0.8 5 0.7 9 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.1 4 -99.0 0 0.3 2 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 0.9 6 •99.0 0 -99.0 0 0.6 2 0.5 0 -99.0 0 0.9 4 1.1 3 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 0.8 2 1.0 0 0.6 2 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.0 1 0.9 9 0.7 9 1.5 7 -99.0 0 1.4 7 1.4 1 1.0 0 0.9 0 1.3 2 0.5 2 2.0 0 0.6 6 1.0 3 1.0 0 0.8 6 -99.0 0 0.7 5 1.3 3P.5 9

Region Cod e

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 MS A ID NSA/CNSA/PMS A

1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 368 0 Johnstown , P A NS A 400 0 Lancaster , P

A NS A 628 0 Pittsburg , P

A PMS A 668 0 Reading , P

A NS A 756 0 Scranton-Wilkes-Barre , P A NS A 761 0 Sharon , P

A 805 0 Stat e Colege , P

A 876 0 Vineland-Nillville-Bredgeton , N JPMS A 914 0 Uilliamsport , P

A 916 0 UiImington , DE-NJ-M DPMS A 928 0 York , P

A NS A 884 0 Washington , DC-ND-V A NS A 48 0 Asheville , NC 72 0 Baltimore , NDNS A 130 0 Burlington , NC 148 0 Charleston , U

V NS A 152 0 Charlotte-Gastonia-Roc kHill , NC-S C NS A 154 0 Charlottesville , V A 190 0 Cumberland , ND-U

V 195 0 Danville , V

A 256 0 Fayetteville , NC NS A 312 0 Greensboro-Win.Sal.-HighPt.,NC NS A 316 0 Greenville-Spertanburg , S C NS A 318 0 Hagerstown , N

D 329 0 Hickory , NC 340 0 Huntington-Ashland , UV-KY-O H NS A 360 5 Jacksonville , NC 366 0 Johnso nCity-Kingspt.-Briston.TN-V A NS A 464 0 Lynchburg , V

A 572 0 Norfolk-V

A Beach-Hewpor t News , V A NS A 602 0 Parkersburg-Narietta , UV-OH 664 0 Raleigh-Ourham , NC NS A 676 0 Richmond-Petersburg , V A NS A 680 0 Roanoke , V

A 808 0 Steubenville-Ueirton , OH-U V 900 0 Wheeling , UV-OH 920 0 UiImington , NC 336 0 Houston , TXPMS A 4 0 Abilene , T

X 12 0 Albany , G

A 22 0 Alexandria , L

A 32 0 Amarillo , T

X 40 5 Anderson , S C 45 0 Anniston.AL 50 0 Athens , G

A 52 0 Atlanta , G

A MS A 60 0 Augusta , GA-S C MS A 64 0 Austin , TXNS A 76 0 Bato nRouge , L

A NS A 84 0 Beaumnt-Por t Arthur , T XNS A o p'8 8

25100 0 41400 0 209400 0 32900 0 73700 0 12200 0 11600 0 13800 0 11800 0 57300 0 41000 0 373400 0 17300 0 234200 0 10600 0 26100 0 111200 0 12400 0 10200 0 10800 0 25600 0 92500 0 62100 0 11800 0 22200 0 32200 0 12600 0 44200 0 14500 0 138000 0 15400 0 68300 0 84400 0 22200 0 14800 0 17200 0 11700 0 324700 0 12200 0 11600 0 13800 0 19600 0 14300 0 12300 0 14500 0 273700 0 39600 0 74800 0 53700 0 36400 0 Av

g An C O (PP" ) 0.8 8 0.7 3 1.1 2 0.9 6 0.9 5 -99.0 0 •99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.0 9 0.8 2 1.0 2 -99.0 0 1.5 2 •99.0 0 0.6 6 1.2 2 -99.0 0 1.0 3 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.0 1 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.0 7 -99.0 0 0.9 1 -99.0 0 0.7 2 -99.0 0 1.8 1 0.7 2 -99.0 0 1.7 9 0.9 2 -99.0 0 0.9 1 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 0.7 6 -99.0 0 0.6 4 0.7 4 0.4 5 C O Ratio s

0.8 1 0.6 7 1.0 3 0.8 8 0.8 7 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.0 0 0.7 5 1.0 0 •99.0 0 1.4 9 -99.0 0 0.6 7 1.2 0 -99.0 0 1.0 1 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 0.9 9 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.0 5 -99.0 0 0.8 9 -99.0 0 0.7 1 -99.0 0 1.7 7 0.7 1 -99.0 0 1.7 5 0.9 0 -99.0 0 1.0 0 •99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 0.8 4 -99.0 0 0.7 0 0.8 1 0.4 9P.6 0

Regio n Cod e
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 NS A IDMSA/CMSA/PMS A

92 0 Blloxi-Bulfport , N S 100 0 Birmingham , A

L NS A 114 0 Bradenton , FL 114 5 Brazoria , T

XPMS A 124 0 Brownsville-Harlingen , T X 126 0 Bryan-Colleg e Station , TX 144 0 Charleston , S C NS A 176 0 Coluifcia , S C NS A 180 0 Colutbus , GA-A

L 188 0 Corpu s Christi , T XNS A 192 0 Dallas , TXPMS A 202 0 Dayton a Beach , F

L MS A 203 0 Decatur , A

L 218 0 Dothan , A

L 234 0 Enid , O K 265 0 Florence , A

L 265 5 Florence , S C 270 0 For t Myers-Cap e Coral , FL 271 0 For t Pierce , F

L 275 0 For t Walto nBeach , F L 280 0 For t Worth-Arlington , T X NS A

NS A

PMS A 268 0 Ft . Lauderdale-Hollywd-Poopan o Beach,F L 288 0 Gadsden , A

L 290 0 Gainesville , F

L 292 0 Galveston-Texa s City , TX 335 0 Houna-Thibodaux , L A 344 0 Huntsville , A

L 356 0 Jackson , M S NS A 360 0 Jacksonville , F

L NS A 381 0 KiIleen-Temple , T X 388 0 Lafayette , L

A 396 0 Lak e Charles , L

A 398 0 Lakeland-Winte r Haven , F L 408 0 Laredo , TX 420 0 Lawton , OK 442 0 Longview-Narshall , T X 460 0 Lubbock , T

X 468 0 Macon-Uarne r Robins , G A 488 0 NcAllen-Edinburg-Nission , PMS A

MS A

US A T XMS A 490 0 Nelbourne-Titusvilie-Pal m Bay , F L MS A 500 0 Miami-Hialeah , FL PMS A 504 0 Midland , TX 516 0 Mobile , A

L MS A 520 0 Monroe , L

A 524 0 Montgomery , AL NS A 534 5 Naples , F

L 556 0 New Orleans , L

A MS A 579 0 Ocala , F

L 580 0 Odessa , TX 588 0 Oklahom

a City , O KNS A Po p'8 8

20500 0 92300 0 18700 0 18500 0 26400 0 11700 0 51100 0 45600 0 24700 0 35800 0 247500 0 34800 0 13300 0 13100 0 5800 0 13600 0 11800 0 30900 0 23200 0 15100 0 129100 0 118700 0 10300 0 20800 0 21000 0 18300 0 23700 0 39600 0 89800 0 24000 0 21000 0 17200 0 39600 0 12900 0 11900 0 16700 0 22700 0 28700 0 38800 0 38800 0 181400 0 10700 0 48600 0 14400 0 30100 0 13900 0 130700 0 19000 0 12500 0 96400 0 Av

g A n C O (PP" ) -99.0 0 1.2 7 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 •99.0 0 -99.0 0 0.9 9 1.1 8 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 0.6 6 •99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 •99.0 0 •99.0 0 1.6 2 0.9 5 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 0.8 1 1.3 9 1.0 5 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 •99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.2 5 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.2 7 -99.0 0 •99.0 0 1.0 4 C O Ratio s

-99.0 0 1.4 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.0 9 1.3 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 0.7 3 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.7 8 1.0 4 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 0.8 9 1.5 3 1.1 5 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 •99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.3 7 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.4 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.1 4P.6 1

Region Cod e

1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I D NSA/CNSA/PNS A

596 0 Orlando , F

L NS A 601 5 Panam

a City , F

L 602 5 Pascagoula , N S 608 0 Pensacola , FL NS A 624 0 Pin e Bluff , A

R 720 0 Sa nAngelo , TX 724 0 Sa nAntonio , TXNS A 751 0 Sarasota , F

L NS A 752 0 Savannah , G

A 764 0 Sherman-Denison , TX 768 0 Shreveport , L

A NS A 824 0 Tallahassee , F

L 828 0 Tampa-St . Petersburg-Clearwater , F L NSA 836 0 Texarkana , TX-A

R 856 0 Tulsa , O KNS A 860 0 Tuscaloosa , AL 864 0 Tyler , TX 875 0 Victoria , TX 880 0 Waco , TX 896 0 Ues t Pal m

Beach-Boc a Raton-Delray Beach , F

L 908 0 Uichit a Falls , TX 704 0 St . Louis , NO-I L MS A 8 0 Akron , O H PMS A 40 0 Anderson , I

N 44 0 AnnArbor , N I PMS A 78 0 Battl e Creek , N I 87 0 BentonHarbor , NI 102 0 Bloomington , I

N 104 0 Bloomington-Normal , I L 132 0 Canton , O H NS A 140 0 Chaopaign-Urbana-Rantoul , I L 156 0 Chattanooga , TN-G A NS A 164 0 Cincinnati , OH-KY-I N PMS A 166 0 Clarksville-Hopkinsville , TN-K Y 174 0 Columbia , N O 184 0 Colunbus , O

M NS A 196 0 Davenport-Roc kIsl.-Noline , IA-I L NS A 200 0 Dayton-Springfield , O M NS A 204 0 Decatur , I L 212 0 De s Moines , I

A NS A 216 0 Detroit , N I PMS A 233 0 Elkhart-Goshen , I N 244 0 Evansville , In-K

YMS A 258 0 Fayetteville-Springdale , A R 264 0 Flint , NI NS A 272 0 For t Smith , AR-OK 276 0 For t Wayne , I

N NS A 296 0 Gary-Hammond , I

N PMSA 300 0 GrandRapids , N I MS A 320 0 Hamilton-Niddletown , O M PMS A o p'8 8

97100 0 12500 0 12800 0 35000 0 9100 0 9900 0 132300 0 26100 0 24400 0 13300 0 35900 0 22900 0 199500 0 11900 0 72800 0 14500 0 15300 0 7400 0 18800 0 81800 0 12500 0 246700 0 65300 0 13200 0 26800 0 13900 0 16700 0 10300 0 12500 0 40100 0 17200 0 43800 0 144900 0 15900 0 10600 0 134400 0 36400 0 94800 0 12400 0 39200 0 435200 0 15100 0 28100 0 11100 0 43100 0 18100 0 36700 0 61200 0 66500 0 28000 0 Avg An

C O (Ppm ) 0.9 7 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.1 6 2.2 7 •99.0 0 •99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 0.9 2 -99.0 0 0.8 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 0.6 1 -99.0 0 0.9 0 0.8 8 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 0.6 1 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.1 1 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.1 5 1.0 4 1.0 8 -99.0 0 0.7 2 0.8 0 -99.0 0 0.6 4 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.1 2 0.9 2 0.5 7 •99.0 0 C

O Ratio s

1.0 7 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.2 7 2.4 9 -99.0 0 •99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.0 1 -99.0 0 0.8 8 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 •99.0 0 •99.0 0 0.6 7 -99.0 0 1.0 0 0.9 8 •99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 0.6 8 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.2 3 -99.0 0 •99.0 0 1.2 8 1.1 6 1.2 0 -99.0 0 0.8 0 0.8 4 -99.0 0 0.7 1 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.2 4 1.0 2 0.6 3 -99.0 0RegionNS A Cod e I

DNSA/CNSA/PNS A

1 348 0 Indianapolis , I N NS A 1 352 0 Jackson , N I 1 358 0 Jackson , T

N 1 371 0 Joplin , NO 1 372 0 Kalamazoo , N I 1 374 0 Kankakee , IL 1 376 0 Kansa s City , N0-K S NS A 1 384 0 Knoxville , T N NS A 1 385 0 Kokomo , I

N 1 392 0 Lafayette-Wes t Lafayette , I N 1 404 0 Lansing-Eas t Lansing , N I NS A 1 415 0 Lawrence , K S 1 428 0 Lexington-Feyette , K YNS A 1 432 0 Lima , O H 1 440 0 Littl e ROck-N . Littl e Rock , A RNS A 1 452 0 Louisville , ICY-I N NS A 1 480 0 Mansfield , OH 1 492 0 Memphis , TN-AR-M S NS A 1 528 0 Nuncie , I

N 1 532 0 Muskegon , N I 1 536 0 Nashville , T N NS A 1 592 0 Omaha , NE-I A NS A 1 599 0 Owensboro , K Y 1 612 0 Peoria , I

L NS A 1 688 0 Rockford , I L MS A 1 696 0 Saginaw-Bay City-Midland , M I NS A 1 780 0 Sout hBend-Nishewaka , I N 1 788 0 Springfield , IL 1 792 0 Springfield , NO 1 700 0 St . Joseph , N O 1 832 0 Terr e Haute , I N 1 844 0 Topeka , K S 1 904 0 Wichita , K S NS A 1 932 0 Youngstown-Uarren , OH NS A Po p'8 8

123700 0 14900 0 7800 0 13600 0 21800 0 9800 0 157500 0 60000 0 9900 0 12500 0 42800 0 7600 0 34800 0 15700 0 51300 0 96700 0 12900 0 97900 0 12000 0 16100 0 97200 0 62200 0 8800 0 34000 0 28200 0 40600 0 24400 0 19200 0 23400 0 8500 0 13300 0 16500 0 48300 0 50200 0 Av

g A n C O (Ppm ) 1.0 7 •99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 0.9 1 1.4 1 -99.0 0 0.2 8 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.0 8 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.5 4 -99.0 0 1.1 3 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.5 2 1.1 0 0.9 9 1.7 2 2.0 2 0.5 2 0.9 3 1.2 4 0.6 6 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.0 6 -99.0 0 C

O Ratio s

1.1 9 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.0 1 1.5 7 -99.0 0 0.3 1 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.2 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.7 1 -99.0 0 1.2 6 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.6 9 1.2 2 1.1 0 1.9 1 2.2 4 0.5 8 1.0 3 1.3 8 0.7 3 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 -99.0 0 1.1 8 -99.0 0