# Final Report

Chicago O’Hare Airport

Air Toxic Monitoring Program

June – December, 2000

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Bureau of Air

May 2002i 

# Table of Contents

Section Page No.

Executive Summary ii

1.0 Air Monitoring Program Description

1.1 Background 1

1.2 M onitoring Objectives 2

1.3 Monitoring Network 2

1.4 Laboratory Methods and Quality Assurance 4

2.0 Sampling Results

2.1 Reporting Units 5

2.2 Program Data 5

3.0 Findings

3.1 Chicago Area Measurements 6

3.2 Geographic Area Analysis 6

3.3 Comparison of Results to Other U.S. Cities 10

3.4 O’Hare Airport Impact 11

4.0 Conclusions 16

5.0 References 17

Appendix I. Description of Air Monitoring Sites 21

Appendix II. List of Toxic Air Pollutants 26

Appendix III . Project Sampling Data 27

Appendix IV. Meteorological Summary of Sampling Days 40

Appendix V. General Information for Selected Target Compounds 44ii 

# Executive Summary

O’Hare International Airport (O’H are) is one of the world’s busie st airports and the subject of much interest regarding the environmental im pact airport operations have on the surrounding community and the Chicago area in general. As part of its fiscal year 2001 air monitoring program, the Illinois EPA measured the airborne levels of various air contaminants in the vicinity of O’Hare as well as at other locati ons in the Chicago area. The purpose of this measurement program was to collect information th at would help assess th e relative impact of airport related emissions and levels of airborne contaminants charac teristic of larg e urban areas. This monitoring program will supplement a nati onal program designed to assess and minimize the impact of toxic air contaminants in urban ar eas. The national program is referred to as the National Integrated Urban Air Toxi cs Strategy (National Strategy).

The National Strategy was developed by the Unite d States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in response to requirements specified in the federal Clean Air Act. Under these requirements, USEPA is charged with assessing the impact of airbor ne levels of various air toxic compounds on human health in urban areas of the United States and taking action to reduce risks caused by unacceptable levels of such contamin ants. In July 1999, the USEPA released its National Strategy describing a fram ework for addressing air toxic emissions from stationary and
mobile sources such as O’Hare Airport. As part of the National Strategy, air monitoring programs are to be used to identify and meas ure compounds believed to present the greatest concern to public health in urban areas.

Federal and State funding was provided to allow the initiation of an urban air toxic monitoring program in calendar year 2000. The funding was adequate to support a limited air quality investigation of targeted compounds through a six month monitoring pr ogram with two sites located near O’Hare Airport and three other sites in the Chicago metropolitan area. The monitoring program began in June 2000 and focu sed on the urban air to xic compounds identified in USEPA’s National Strategy and on mobile source emissions associated with airport operations. The compounds sampled included vol atile organics, semi -volatile organics, carbonyls and trace metals. The monito ring program ended in December 2000.

The Chicago area toxics monitoring program, as deployed in 2000, was desi gned to provide data to meet four objectives:

1) Measure the concentrations of sp ecific compounds of concern;

2) Assess the geographic vari ability of various compounds in the Chicago area and perform a comparison of levels measured at the two O’Hare sites to those recorded at the remaining three Chicago area locations;

3) Compare Chicago area results to data colle cted for other large U.S. cities; and

4) Determine if the emissions associated with O’Hare Airport have a measurable impact on air quality in areas adjacent to the airport.iii 

### In order to measure the concentrations of th e target compounds, comprehensive sampling was conducted on sixteen days through the six mont h period of June through December 2000, using a once every twelve days sampling schedule. The sampling results were summarized for each of the five monitoring sites and tabulated into two categories, Urban Air Toxic compounds and Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). The Urban Ai r Toxics compounds are those identified by USEPA in the National Strategy that present the gr eatest threat to public health in urban areas, including known or suspected cancer risks fro m compounds such as benzene, formaldehyde, chromium and dioxins. The HAPs are compounds required to be regulated by USEPA under the
Clean Air Amendments of 1990 that are known or suspected to cause cancer or have other
serious health effects but are not included in the list of Urban Air Toxic compounds covered under the National Strategy. The HAPs measured included such compounds as ethyl benzene, styrene, toluene, xylenes and various polyc yclic aromatics such as naphthalene and phenanthrene. The tabulated da ta included the individual daily sampling results along with the overall average concentration found for each target compound.

The program’s sampling sites were located to provi de air toxic measurements at different points across the Chicago metropolitan area, thereby allo wing for a comparison of the levels found at O’Hare Airport to those found in different parts of the metropolitan area. In addition to the two
sites located near O’Hare in Bensenville and Sch iller Park, sites were also located in Northbrook, just north of the urban core, at Washington School in highly industrialized Southeast Chicago, and in Lemont, just downwind of major refi neries and chemical complexes and on the southwestern edge of the metropolitan area.

A review and analysis of the accumulated mon itoring results obtained from the five site monitoring network provided the following findings:

1. The average concentrations measured at O’Hare Airport for many of the target compounds were found to be comparable with the concentrations found at the other Chicago area sites;

2. The highest concentrations of several target urban air toxic compounds were found to be spread between several sites but generally the highest levels for many of the air toxics were found to occur in Southeast Chicago;

3. The lowest concentrations of most targ et compounds were measured at Lemont.

A comparison of measured levels of urban air t oxics in Chicago to th ose found in other large cities served as a point of reference to what woul d be considered “typical urban” concentrations. USEPA’s Aerometric Storage and Retrieval Sy stem (AIRS) was accessed to obtain the air quality data collected from monitoring sites natio nwide. A review of information submitted to
AIRS found that data for certa in air toxic compounds had been reported for a number of large urbanized areas. Based upon a co mparison of the results from the Chicago area monitoring program to that collected for other la rge U.S. cities data, it was found that:

1. Concentrations of several of the princi pal urban air toxics, such as acetaldehyde, benzene, and formaldehyde, compared to th e metropolitan areas of Atlanta, Detroit, Houston and Milwaukee, were found to be comparable or lower in the Chicago metropolitan area.iv 

### 2. The acetaldehyde and formaldehyde levels measured near O’Hare Airport were comparable or lower than levels measur ed in Atlanta, Detroit and Houston.

In order to assess the possible impact of emissi ons from O’Hare Airport on adjacent areas, two monitoring sites were deployed on di fferent sides of the airport. This configuration allowed for the collection of sampling data on wind persistent days that would align one site to be upwind, unaffected by the airport, and the other to be downwind and subject to airport emissions. The
difference in concentrations found between the tw o sites on those wind-p ersistent days allowed for an approximation of the airport’s impact. Of the sixteen sampling days, five days had such wind-persistent conditions. An analysis of th e results from those five days found the downwind site to record levels of some target com pounds from 20-85% higher than the upwind site. The compounds with measurable differences in cluded acetaldehyde, benzene, formaldehyde, polycyclic organics, toluene and lead. All of those compounds have been associated with emissions from airport operations. An impact from the airport was not unexpected since airport operations are sources of various air contaminan ts. The concentrations measured downwind of O’Hare were at levels considered to be “typical ” of an urban area and in some cases lower than
values measured in other cities.

Based upon the review of the air toxics monitori ng data collected near O’Hare Airport, from other Chicago area sites, and from USEPA’s AIRS database, th e following conclusions were
reached:

1. The levels of air toxic compounds found near O’Hare and other si tes in the Chicago metropolitan area were comparable or lowe r than those found in other large U.S.
cities.

2. The highest levels of most air toxic co mpounds measured in the Chicago area were found in Southeast Chicago.

3. An analysis of data collected from the s ites at O’Hare found that emissions from the Airport have an impact on the air quality in adjacent communities, but that impact did not result in levels higher than thos e found in a typical urban environment.

The data collected through this study’s air mon itoring program indicated that the toxics air quality in the vicinity of O’Hare Airport is comparable to the air quality in other parts of Chicago and comparable to the air qual ity in other major urban areas. There are continuing and ongoing efforts, such as through USEPA’ s National Strategy, to identify, assess and reduce risk from air
toxics in and around urban areas.1



## Section 1.0 Air Monitoring Program Description

1.1 Background

Ambient air monitoring for a limited number of air toxic compounds has been conducted in Illinois for many years. Measurement of airborne particulate metals, some of which
are considered haza rdous air pollutants (HAPs), has been done statewide since the early 1970s. In the early 1990s, the Photochemical (Ozone) Assessment Monitoring (PAMS) program began collecting data for volatile organic compounds, which included a number of compounds consi

dered to be urban air toxics; e.g., benzene and formaldehyde. The PAMS program has been limited to the Chicago metropolitan area. Beyond these two programs, air toxic monitoring efforts have been minimal due to a lack of any specific regulatory require ments.

In July 1999, as part of its national program to reduce ambient levels of air toxics, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) released its National Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (National Strategy). Reference 1. The Nati onal Strategy presented a framework for addressing air toxic emissions from stationary sources and mobile sources such as Chicago’s O’Hare Airport. An integral part of National Strategy called for the establishment of air monitoring programs to begin
coll ecting data needed to characterize the ambient concentrations of certain compounds known to present the greatest concern for public health in urban areas.

A preliminary assessment of the air toxic emissions from O’Hare Airport and the resulting health ef

fects created by the toxic emissions in surrounding communities was sponsored the City of Park Ridge, Illinois, in early 2000. Reference 2. The Park Ridge Study concluded that toxic emissions from O’Hare had a widespread impact and presented an associat ed health risk to residents in the communities surrounding O’Hare. The Park Ridge Study also identified the need for better assessment of the data used in the study and recommended that comprehensive air monitoring be conducted around O’Hare and in impact ed communities. These data could then be used to conduct a more complete and comprehensive air quality analysis.

In the fall of 1999, federal and state funding became available to allow the initiation of an urban air toxic monitoring program in Illinois. The funding was adequate to support a preliminary air quality investigation of targeted compounds through a six month monitoring program with two sites near O’Hare Airport and at three other sites in the Chicago metropolitan area. The monitoring program began in June 2000 and focused on the urban air toxic compounds identified in USEPA’s National Strategy and on mobile source emissions associated with airport operations. The compounds of interest included volatile organics, semi

- volatile organics, carb onyls and trace metals. The monitoring program ended in December 2000.2



### 1.2 Monitoring Objectives

The Chicago area air toxics monitoring network deployed in 2000 was designed to provide data to meet the following objectives:

1. Determine ambient concentratio ns of specific compounds of concern;
2. Describe pollutant levels at various locations across the area, assess their geographic variability and perform a comparison of the levels of air toxics found at O’Hare Airport to other sites in the Chicago area;
3. Provid e monitoring results consistent with nationally available air toxics information that would allow for a comparison of Chicago area results to data collected for other large U.S. cities; and
4. Determine if the target compound emissions from O’Hare Airport hav e a measurable impact on air quality in the surrounding communities.

To meet the above objectives, the focus was on the compounds identified by USEPA as Urban Air Toxics and on other compounds known to be emitted by mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks and aircraft). Particular attention was placed on those compounds associated with aircraft operations; e.g., takeoff, landing, refueling and idling.

1.3 Monitoring Network

The monitoring program consisted of five sampling sites located as shown in Figure 1 that were operated to collect calendar day samples (24

- hour integrated samples) on a once every 12 day schedule throughout the period of June through December 2000. Air monitoring sites were located with two near O’Hare Airport, in Bensenville and Schill er Park, one site in Northbrook just downwind (North) of the urban core, at Chicago

Washington in highly industrialized Southeast Chicago, and in Lemont, an area impacted by refineries and on the southwestern edge of the metropolitan area.

The site select ions were made based upon a review of historical meteorological data from the National Weather Service and from air quality data collected as part of the Illinois air monitoring network. The sites selected at O’Hare were located to fall into two areas
whe re predominant winds would provide the greatest frequency of impact from airport operations. The location of other significant emission sources, such as expressways, major arterial streets and industrial sources of organic compounds, was also a
considerat ion in the final site selections. The sites were also located in areas with population exposure; e.g., non

- remote areas along the fenceline, to allow the estimation of target compound concentrations in public areas adjacent to the airport.

A complete de scription of each of the five sampling sites is provided in Appendix I. The descriptions provided include location details (address, building), immediate site locale, distance from influencing sources (roadways, airports, industry), landmarks and a photog raph showing the site exposure. All of the sites were established in USEPA’s Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) complete with the required site description information.

# # Y # Y # Y # Y

# Y

Lemont Chicago Washington H.S. Northbrook

Bensenville Schiller Park

290 294 90

55 294

290

57 80

94 and 90

90 and 94

294 and 80 88 290

90

94 294 88

57 94

355

55

355 290

Cook and DuPage County Boundaries

Interstates Chicago O'Hare International Airport 

# # Y Air Monitoring Sites 

# Chicago Area Toxic Network

Legend
N

0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles June-December, 2000 Illinois EPA Bureau of Air 

# Figure 14



### Each monitoring site deployed four separate sampling systems to collect a wide

- range of compounds on each sampling day. The samplers and analytical methods selected were consistent with those designated and approved by USEPA. The systems deployed included a VOC canister system with sample analysis by method TO

- 15, DNPH cartridge sampler with analysis by method TO

- 11A for carbonyls, high volume air sampler with filter analysis by atomic absorption for metals and PUF sampler with analysis by TO

- 13A method for semi

- volatile organics. Appendix II provides a listing of

s pecific compounds, considered either as an Urban Toxic or HAP, obtained for each of these sampling and analysis methods.

The sampling schedule utilized provided that 24

- hour samples were collected on a calendar day basis once every 12 days. The schedule overlapped the national one

- in

- six day schedule used for the particulate and PAMS networks. The collected samples coincided with samples collected on the same days in other states. Sampling commenced on June 17, 2000, and ended on December 26, 2000, pro viding a total of 16 sampling days.

1.4 Laboratory Methods and Quality Assurance

All of the analytical methods used have been recognized and approved by USEPA. The
four methods used were as follows:

1. volatile organics (53 compounds)

- TO

- 15, gas chromat ography with mass spectroscopy (confirmation) 2. carbonyls (14 compounds)

- TO

- 11a, high pressure liquid chromatography
3. semi

- volatile organics (18 cmpds)

- TO

- 13a gas chromotagraphy and mass spectroscopy analysis 4. particulate metals (8 comp ounds)

- atomic absorption

The above analytical methods provide analyses for additional compounds not shown in Appendix II. For example, there are 18 compounds listed under Appendix II, Volatile Organics (Category I), but Method TO

- 15 tests for 53 com pounds. This report provides the results for all compounds reported by the analytical method.

For the purposes of this report, values are reported according to the Method Detection Limit (MDL). The MDL, as defined by USEPA, is the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the target compound concentration is greater than zero, and is determined from analysis of a sample in a matrix containing the target compound. Analytical results were reported as zero for
those values below the MDL.

Quality assurance activities were conducted in a manner consistent with the PAMS and particulate sampling programs. This included flow audits, some duplicate sampling for5



### precision (metals, VOCs), replicate analyses (VOCs) and independent performance audits (blind samples) for metals, VOCs and carbonyls. The maintenance and calibration procedures used were those provided in the Illinois Quality Assurance Plan for use in the Illinois air monitoring network and those that have been approved by USEPA.



## 2.0 Sampling Results

2.1 Reporting Units

This report provides both summaries of the accumulated sampling results and data tables that present the individual sample values. Because of the nature of the toxic compounds;
i .e., gases and solid particles, the results are expressed in different units. The volatile organic compound and carbonyl data in this report has been reported in parts per billion by volume (ppbv). It is important to note that PAMS data are typically rep orted in parts per billion by carbon (ppbc) and that the PAMS data used in this report have been converted from ppbc to ppbv.

Data for the semi

- volatile organic compounds and particulate metals have been reported in the units of nanograms per cubic meter , with the exception that the dioxins and furans data have been reported in picograms per cubic meter due to their extreme low concentration. Nanograms are 10
- 9 

### grams and picograms are 10
- 12 

### grams.

The data available from USEPA’s AIRS database is reporte d in many different units and care should be taken when using AIRS data to note the units reported with each value. For example, particulate metals can be reported in micrograms per cubic meter, nanograms per cubic meter or picograms per cubic meter.

2.2 Program Data

The Chicago O’Hare air toxics monitoring program began in June 2000, and concluded in December 2000. During the seven month period, 24

- hour integrated samples were collected on 16 calendar days. The results obtained for each individual co mpound on the 16 sampling days for each of the five monitoring sites have been summarized and are provided in Appendix IIIA through Appendix IIIF. The sampling results for each site have been presented in two categories, “Urban Air Toxic Compounds” which include compounds designated in USEPA’s National Strategy and “Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS)” listed by USEPA as air toxic compounds which potentially can have adverse public health impacts. For example, Appendix IIIA lists the individual daily sampling results for Urban Air Toxic compounds measured at Bensenville and Appendix IIIB lists the daily HAPS values measured at Bensenville.

The focus of the data analysis included in this report was placed on the compounds designated as Urban Air Toxics and on other HAPS known to be emitted by mobile sources with emphasis on those associated with airport operations. These “target” compounds include those identified in the Park Ridge Study as the chemicals that contribute most significantly to risks associated w ith O’Hare aircraft emissions.6



## Section 3.0 Findings

3.1 Chicago Area Measurements

A primary objective of the Chicago urban area air toxics monitoring program was to determine ambient concentrations of specific “target” compounds of concern at vario us locations in the metropolitan area. The accumulated sampling data at each site then allowed for a determination of the typical concentrations that might be expected in each area. The data collected at each site have been summarized in Table 1 that pro vides the average concentration for each target compound at each of the five sampling sites. The values reported represent the arithmetic average of the results obtained on each of the 16 sampling days.

Of the target compounds, only vinyl chloride and 1 ,1,2,2

- tetrachloroethylene were not found at a concentration above the sampling methods MDL and have values reported as zero. Acrolein was detected only on one day at two sites, Northbrook and Chicago

Washington, in a concentration that would allow a mini mal average to be reported. Essentially, the average concentration of acrolein was zero at all five sites. While these three compounds are considered to be important urban air toxic compounds and may be found in significant concentration in some urbanize d areas; e.g. Southern California, they do not appear to be in measurable levels in the Chicago Metropolitan Area.

All of the other target compounds were found in concentrations above the MDL at all five sites. The compounds of most interest, including a cetaldehyde, benzene, chromium formaldehyde, polycyclic organics and dioxins, were found at concentrations well above the MDL. USEPA identified benzene, formaldehyde, chromium and dioxins in their National Strategy as those compounds that present the grea test risk to public health in urban areas. The Park Ridge Study identified acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, benzene and napthalene (a major component of polycyclic organics) as those chemicals that contribute most significantly to risks associated with aircraf t emissions. The concentrations of these compounds found, as shown in Table 1, serve to demonstrate the levels at which they might be expected to occur in the Chicago metropolitan area. The following sections describe the results of additional data analy ses needed to assess the significance of the presence of these compounds.

3.2 Geographic Area Analysi s

In order to better understand the significance of the measured concentrations, a comparison of the results found from site to site provided insight into the urban nature of the some toxic compounds and identified compounds or areas that showed notable differences. The monitoring network design placed the sampling sites in areas with differing emission source impacts, thereby allowing an analysis of t he results found in
different areas across the urbanized area. The Bensenville and Schiller Park sites were located near O’Hare Airport in areas impacted by airport operations and the traffic in the surrounding expressways and major arterial streets. The Northbrook site was located just north and downwind of the urban core (Chicago Loop) in a high population density area7



### impacted by emissions generated throughout the urbanized area. The Chicago

Washington site was located in highly industrialized Southea st Chicago in an area impacted by numerous large point source (industrial) emissions. The Lemont site was located on the southwestern edge of the metropolitan area in an area impacted by refineries and chemical manufacturing facilities.

The review of th

e monitoring results for each of the target compounds, as recorded at each monitoring site, provided the following findings:

1. The average concentrations of target compounds measured at the O’Hare Airport sites were found to be comparable to those measured at the other metropolitan area sites.

This fact is readily seen from the data presented in Table 1 and from Figures 2a and 2b which graphically display the five site results for various target compounds. As the figures show, the highest concentration of the individual target compounds was found to vary between different sampling sites. For example, highest levels of benzene were found at Chicago

- Washington, while highest acetaldehyde levels were at Bensenville and highest formaldehyde
levels at Schiller

Park. Generally, the levels of the target compounds were found to be comparable between the five sites. For example, benzene averages ranged from 0.33 to 0.69 ppbv, acetaldehyde from 0.60 to 1.07 ppbv, formaldehyde from 1.67 to 3.54 ppbv and polycyclic organics (PAHs) levels ranged from 140 to 298 nanograms per cubic meter.

2. Of the five monitoring sites, the highest levels of more target compounds was found at the Chicago

- Washington site found than any other site.

Using a difference of 20% to indicate a significantly higher value (that is, the highest average found was at least 20% higher than the average found at any other site), the Chicago

- Washington site was found to have the highest levels of seven target compounds including benzene, chromium, pol ycyclic organics and dioxins. Table 2 presents a listing by site of target compounds that were found to be 20% higher at one site. Four of the five sites recorded the highest concentration of at least one compound, with Schiller Park recording the highes t level of three targets, Bensenville with three targets and Northbrook recording the highest levels of one target.

Taken as a group of target compounds, these data indicate that the highest concentration of air toxic compounds in the Chicago area was fou nd in industrialized Southeast Chicago, not around O’Hare Airport.

3. Two target compounds, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde, were found to be higher at the O’Hare Airport sites than at any of the other Chicago area sites.

### Figure 2a Comparison of Results by Site

Site Listing

B - Bensenville
S - Schiller Park C - Chicago Washington
N - Northbrook
L - Lemont

8 Formaldehyde

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

B S C N LAverage (ppb) Acetaldehyde

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

B S C N LAverage (ppb)

Chromium

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

B S C N LAverage (ng/m3) Nickel

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

B S C N LAverage (ng/m3)

Benzene

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

B S C N LAverage (ppb)

### Figure 2b Comparison of Results by Site

Site Listing

B - Bensenville
S - Schiller Park C - Chicago Washington
N - Northbrook
L - Lemont

NA - Samples not taken for these compounds

9 Perchloroethylene

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

B S C N LAverage (ppb) Trichloroethylene

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40

B S C N LAverage (ppb)

PAHs

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

B S C N LAverage (ng/m3)

NA Dioxin

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

B S C N LAverage (pg/m3)

NA

Toluene

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00

B S C N LAverage (ppb)10 

### The highest acetaldehyde levels wer e measured at Bensenville with an average of 1.07 ppbv compared to the next highest average of 0.88 ppbv recorded at Schiller Park and Lemont. The highest formaldehyde level recorded was at Schiller Park at 3.54 pp bv compared to the next highest value of 2.16 ppbv measured at Bensenville. These data indicated that the highest levels of aldehydes found during this monitoring study occurred around O’Hare Airport.

The major source of aldehyde emissions in any large metropolitan area has been shown to be from mobile sources: cars, trucks and aircraft. The area in and around O’Hare Airport has a concentration of cars and trucks on the expressways (I

- 90 and I

- 294), major arterials (Mannhiem, Irving Park and Higgins Roads) and in traffic entering and leaving the airport. Airport operations including aircraft t akeoffs, landings, taxiing, refueling and support equipment emissions are also sources of aldehydes. With the accumulation of these emissions in the area, elevated concentrations of aldehydes in the su rrounding area would not be unexpected and was likely the influencing factor in the levels measured at Bensenville and Schiller Park.

4. The lowest concentrations of most target compounds were measured at the
Lemont site.

While it is near major emission sources such as refineries and chemical plants, Lemont is located southwest of the Chicago urban area and lies predominantly upwind of it, measuring levels entering the area from downstate and outside the area impacted by the Chicago area em issions. As a result, it would be expected, as the monitoring data showed, that air toxic levels in Lemont are lower than the other monitoring sites located in the urbanized area.

3.3 Comparison of Results to Other U.S. Cities

A comparison of the mea sured levels of certain target air toxic compounds found in Chicago to those found in other large U.S. cities provided a point of reference to what concentrations might be considered as “typical” for an urban area. The comparative analyses also identifi ed any unusual or atypical compound measurements for the Chicago

area.

The other U.S. cities data was extracted from USEPA’s AIRS database that contains air quality data collected and reported nationwide. The most recent data reported to AIRS
was almost exclusively 1999, as no 2000 data had yet been reported, and was used for reference in this report. The averages reported from AIRS were based upon sampling periods of six to twelve months, consistent with and comparable to the six month average data comp iled from the June

- December 2000 sampling in Chicago.11



### A review of the information submitted to AIRS found that data for a limited number of the target air toxic compounds, obtained primarily from PAMS monitoring networks, had been reported for several la rge urbanized areas, including Atlanta, Detroit, Houston, Milwaukee and New York City. The target compound data reported for these cities included acetaldehyde, benzene, formaldehyde, toluene and xylenes. The AIRS data used in the comparative analysis ha s been summarized in Table 3. A review and analysis of the available information concluded the following:

1. Compared to other major metropolitan areas; e.g., Atlanta, Detroit, Houston and Milwaukee, concentrations of key “target” air toxic compounds were
f ound to be comparable or lower in the Chicago metropolitan area. The comparative analysis indicated that the levels found at the Chicago area sites were typical of those found in the other large urban areas.

The data from Table 3 and the corresponding co mpound data from Table 1 has been graphically displayed in Figure 3. The highest formaldehyde levels were found in Atlanta and Detroit, 5.72 and 5.13 ppbv respectively, compared to 3.54 ppbv at Schiller Park, the highest Chicago area site. The highest

ac etaldehyde levels were found in Atlanta and Houston, 2.40 and 1.69 ppbv, compared to 1.07 ppbv at Bensenville. The highest benzene levels were found in Houston and Detroit, 0.97 and 0.70 ppbv, compared to 0.69 ppbv at Chicago

- Washington. The highest leve ls of toluene were found in New York City at 1.34 ppbv, compared to 1.99 ppbv at Bensenville. The highest levels of xylenes were found in Atlanta at 1.22 ppbv compar ed to 0.90 ppbv at
Bensenville.

2. The comparative analysis shows that target air toxic com pounds measured in the Chicago area to be typical of other large urban areas. The concentrations of some key target compounds were found to be significantly higher in cities
like Atlanta and Houston. The acetaldehyde and formaldehyde levels
measured at O ’ Hare, while the highest of Chicago area sites, were well below those found in Atlanta, Detroit, and Houston.

3.4 O’Hare Airport Impact

In order to assess the possible impact of O’Hare Airport emissions in areas adjacent to the airport, two monitoring sites were deployed on different sides of the airport. This allowed for collection of sampling data on days with persistent winds that impacted one
site but not the other. Essentially, one site was upwind, unaffected by the airport, and the other site was downwind of the airport and subjected to its emissions. See the following diagram. The difference in the results obtained from the downwind site (impacted by emissions) and the upwind site (unaffected) provides an indication of the increased levels of target compounds associated with the airport’s emissions. For example, the downwind site measured a compound concentration at 1.50 ppb and the upwind site repor ted only 1.00 ppb, providing a difference of 0.50 ppb (1.50 minus 1.00) or that levels were found to be 50% higher at the downwind site (0.50 divided by 1.00).12 

### WIND



# X Upwind 

## Site X

Downwind 

## Site

Of the sixteen sampling da ys, five days did have wind

- persistent conditions that allowed for a upwind /downwind analysis. The sampling data obtained for each of the five days for key target compounds has been presented in Figure 4 along with wind roses (wind frequency distribution

) that depict the associated wind direction data. Figure 4 also provides for each target compound the average value obtained from the five samples for the wind positive site and the wind negative site and the calculated percent difference (wind positive to wind negative). The Figure 4 wind roses illustrate the site impacts, Bensenville located southwest of the airport impacted by winds from the north to east, and Schiller Park located east of the airport impacted by winds from the southwest to
northwest

.

The data analysis demonstrated that O’Hare Airport emissions had an impact in the areas adjacent to the airport for several key target compounds, including acetaldehyde, benzene, formaldehyde, polycyclic organics and lead. All these compounds are Urban Air Toxics and have been identified as associated with airport operations. The downwind concentration of acetaldehyde was found to be 45.6% higher than upwind, formaldehyde was 32.8% higher, benzene was 34.1% higher, polycyclics (PAHs) were 65.9% higher

and lead was 87.5% higher. An impact from airport operations was not unexpected as airport operations, including aircraft takeoffs, landings, taxiing, refueling and use of support equipment, result in significant emissions of volatile organics and
target air toxic compounds. The resulting airport emissions should have had, as the monitoring data shows, some impact in the areas adjacent to the airport. While the downwind concentrations were found to be higher, the results showed that the levels
found at O’Hare Airport are still in the “typical urban” range and lower than levels found in other large urban areas.

Appendix IV provides a detailed summary of the meteorological conditions which were present on each of the sampling days. The appendix also incl udes a summary table that provides for each sampling day the frequency distribution of hourly wind data, which has also been plotted in a wind rose shown in Figure 5. As can be seen from that summary table, the most prevalent wind directions on sampling d ays were winds from the west southwest, west and the northeast. These three wind directions provided the opportunity for frequent impact of airport emissions on the two O’Hare area monitoring sites. 

## EMISSION
SOURCE

### Figure 3 Comparison of Results to Other U.S. Cities

Site Listing

A - Atlanta
D - Detroit
H - Houston
M - Milwaukee
NY - New York
B - Bensenville
S - Schiller Park C - Chicago Washington

13 

### Formaldehyde

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

A D H M NY B S CAverage (ppb) 

### Acetaldehyde

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

A D H M NY B S CAverage (ppb)

Benzene

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

A D H M NY B S CAverage (ppb) Toluene

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

A D H M NY B S CAverage(ppb)

Xylene

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40

A D H M NY B S CAverage (ppb)

## Figure 4 Wind Persistence Days Upwind/Downwind Anal ysis

Downwind Upwind
Percent Compound 7/23 8/16 9/21 11/20 12/14 Avg 7/23 8/16 9/21 11/20 12/14 Avg Difference Formaldehyde 2.56 3.32 1.64 0.94 3.09 2.31 1.72 3.04 1.89 0.32 1.73 1.74 32.8% Acetaldehyde 1.29 1.33 0.56 0.36 1.73 1.05 0.53 0.76 1.00 0.23 1.10 0.72 45.6%
Benzene 0.90 0.24 0.19 1.07 0.60 0.50 0.09 0.13 1.07 0.45 34.1% PAH(s) 311 175 48 126 440 220 220 10 37 46 350 133 65.9%
Lead 30 60 10 20 30 30 10 10 20 20 20 16 87.5%
Toluene 2.50 0.31 0.16 1.63 1.15 1.00 0.21 0.10 2.52 0.96 20.1%
Chromium 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 7 2 3 3 4 30.0% Xylenes 1.20 0.25 0.15 1.33 0.73 0.60 0.07 0.02 1.61 0.58 27.4%

axis represents percent of time

14 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW

Bensenville Downwind Sampling Days

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW

Calm - 1.4%

Schiller Park Downwind Sampling Days15 

## Figure 5 Wind Rose O'Hare Toxic Project June - December, 2000 Sampling Days Only

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW

Calm = 0.5 %

Axis represents percent of time16



## Section 4.0 Conclusions

Based upon the review of the air toxics monitoring data collected near Chicago O’Hare Airport and from other Chi cago area monitoring sites and data from USEPA’s AIRS database, the following conclusions were reached:

1. The levels of air toxic compounds found near O’Hare Airport and at other sites in the Chicago metropolitan area are “typical” or lower that those level s found in other large U.S. cities.

2. Of the Chicago area sites, the highest levels of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were found at the O’Hare Airport sites. However, the concentrations found were at levels comparable or lower than those found in other larg e U.S. cities.

3. Of the Chicago area sites, the highest levels of most air toxic compounds was not found near O’Hare Airport, but in industrialized Southeast Chicago.

4. An analysis of data from the sites near O’Hare Airport found that emissions from the airp ort have an impact on air quality in the areas adjacent to the airport. However, the airport’s impact did not result in levels higher than those found in a typical urban environment.

The data collected through this study’s air monitoring program indicat ed that the toxics air quality in the vicinity of O’Hare Airport is comparable to the air quality in other parts of Chicago and comparable to air quality in other major urban areas.

T here are continuing efforts to identify, assess and reduce risk from air toxics, especially
in urban area

s. For example, USEPA has completed a nationwide study of potential inhalation exposures and health risks associated with 32 HAPs and from diesel particulate matter based on 1996 air emissions inventories, known as the National

- Scale Air Toxics
Assessment

(NATA). This study has not yet been released to the public, but it will serve as a basis for characterizing risk associated with these compounds on a county by county level throughout the U.S. As a continuing part of the federal Clean Air Act requiremen ts to identify, assess and reduce risk from toxic pollutants, USEPA has also developed the National Strategy. Part of the National Strategy is to develop a plan that will attain a 75% reduction in the incidence of cancer attributable to exposure to HAPs e mitted by stationary sources, to attain a substantial reduction in public health risks posed by exposure to HAP emissions from area sources, and to address disproportionate impacts of air toxics across urban areas. USEPA has announced that part of the reg ulatory actions to implement this strategy will include, among others, the development and implementation of maximum achievable control technology or MACT standards to reduce emissions of HAPs from major source categories beyond those already required unde r section 112 (d) of the Clean Air Act, developing area source standards, and regulating motor vehicle emissions and fuels. Moreover, the Chicago Area Cumulative Risk Initiative (CRI) is an ongoing community

- based effort to assess cumulative air pollutio n hazards and to then17 

### develop strategies to reduce risks posed by exposure in the Cook County, Illinois and Lake County, Indiana. USEPA and the Illinois EPA are cooperating in this effort, and an assessment of the risks identified is expect ed to be released in the Summer of 2002.

In addition to these efforts, the development and implementation of MACT standards required under Section 112 (d) of the Clean Air Act are ongoing. For example, USEPA has published over 70 air toxic MACT sta ndards affecting over 113 categories of industrial sources, with va rying implementation schedul es. By May 15, 2002, USEPA will have published 106 MACT standards affect ing a total of 174 categories of industrial sources. After publishing a MACT for a source category, the Clean Air Act also requires USEPA to assess and address the remaining risk from these source categories after the implementation of the MACT standard and within eight to ni ne years after the development of the initial standard. This effort is now ongoing for the earliest MACT
standards. In addition to the efforts to a ddress stationary sources , USEPA continues to
address toxic emissions from motor vehicles and fuels, a major component of toxic emissions from O’Hare. USEPA has also pr omulgated the final rule for “Control of
Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources” under Section 202(l) of the
Clean Air Act.



## Section 5.0 References

1. USEPA, “National Air Toxics Program: The Integrated Urban Strategy”, Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 137/ Monday, July 19, 1999. 2. City of Park Ridge, “Preliminary Stu dy and Analysis of Toxic Air Pollutant Emissions from O’Hare International Airpor t and the Resulting Health Risks Created by these Toxic Emissions in Surrounding Residential Communities, Volumes I-IV, August, 2000. 3. USEPA, “Unified Air Toxics Website ”, Technology Transfer Network (TTNWeb).Lemont

acetaldehyde 0.88
acrolein 0.00

arsenic 1 0.70
benzene 0.45 beryllium 1 0.10 1,3-butadiene 0.02

cadmium 1 2.00
carbon tetrachloride 0.06
chloroform 0.01

chromium 1 2.90 ethylene dichloride 0.00 formaldehyde 1.67

lead 1 14.4

manganese 25.1 methylene chloride 0.23

nickel 1 4.60 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 0.00 perchloroethylene 0.05 trichloroethylene 0.03
toluene 0.77 vinyl chloride 0.00 xylenes (O,M,P) 0.56 polycyclic organics (PAH) 1 NA dioxins (2,3,7,8 total) 2 NA

2 values expressed in in picograms per cubic meter (pg/m 3 ) *values are averages expressed in parts per billion by volume (ppbv) unless otherwise indicated 4.50 7.10 9.20



## Table 1 Air Toxic Target Compound Results* June - December, 2000

Northbrook Compound

1.07 0.88 0.72 0.60 Bensenville Schiller Park Chicago-Washington

0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

1.10 1.00 1.00 0.70
0.55 0.50 0.69 0.33

0.30 0.50 0.46 0.30
0.08 0.11 0.12 0.02

2.20 2.70 2.60 2.10
0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07
0.18 0.44 0.55 0.14

0.25 0.26 0.15 0.25
2.16 3.54 1.90 1.67

22.7 16.7 31.5 12.0
25.7 31.5 139.9 17.5
0.46 0.07 0.47 0.27

7.00 8.60 6.80 5.30
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.52 0.34 0.52 0.61

0.00 0.00 0.00 1.37 0.66 0.65 0.59 3.50

172.0 171.0 298.0 140.0 1.99 1.02 0.97 0.80
0.00
0.42

1.399 1.464 2.389 1.956

1 values expressed in nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m 3 ) 0.90 0.61 0.53

18

### Lemont

none

*Concentration of the target compound was found to be at least 20% higher than all other sites. Northbrook

perchloroethylene 

## Table 2

Urban Air Toxic Compounds Sites with Highest Concentration*

benzene formaldehyde acetaldehyde Chicago-Washington Bensenville Schiller Park

chloroform nickel trichloroethylene
chromium toluene xylenes

dioxins lead

manganese polycyclic organics

19

## Table 3

Air Toxic Data for U.S. Cities

1999 AIRS Data 1



### Atlanta Detroit Houston New York Milwaukee Chicago 3



### Pollutant (GA) (MI) (TX) City (WI) Study

acetaldehyde 2.40 1.29 1.69 0.96 1.02 1.07
benzene 0.52 0.70 0.97 0.53 0.38 0.69

1-3 butadiene NR 0.10* 0.52 NR 0.13 2 

### 0.12 formaldehyde 5.72 5.13 4.14 2.96 2.50 3.54 xylenes (m/p) 1.22 0.34 0.47 0.92 0.53 2 

### 0.90

toluene 0.98 0.84 1.06 1.34 0.84 2 

### 1.99

1 all values reported in parts per billion volume (ppbv) *value reported from Midland, MI NR - Not Reported

2 values reported in 1998 Wisconsin DNR Report

3 highest value reported at any of the five Chicago Study sites

2021 

## Appendix I Description of Monitoring sites

Bensenville

This monitoring site is located on the Village of Bensenville sewage treatment plant at 711 E. Jefferson. Industrial/commercial areas are located east of the site (0.5

–1.0 km). Immediately sout hwest are residential areas. A large railyard is located 0.5

–1.0 km northeast to east. The closest runway at O’Hare Airport is located 2.5 km to the northeast. Irving Park Road is 1.2 km to the north and Mannheim Road is 1.7 km to the
southeast at its closest point. The Chicago loop is approximately 25 km to the southeast. The following picture is from Bensenville looking northeast.22



### Schiller Park

This monitoring site is located on a trailer at 4743 Mannheim Road just south or
Lawrence Ave. and between Mannheim Road and I

- 294. The closest runway at O’Hare Airport is 0.5 km to the northwest. The immediate vicinity is mostly commercial.
Residential areas are located east across I

- 294. Mannheim Road is 30 m to the wes t and
I

- 294 is 100 m to the east. The Chicago loop is located approximately 21 km to the southeast. The following picture is from Schiller Park looking northwest.23



### Chicago

–Washington High School

This monitoring si

te is located on Washington High School at 3535 E. 114 th 

### Street in the Lake Calumet industrial region. Residential areas are located east of the site (from north to south). Industrial areas are located west (northwest to southwest) of the site. The
Indi ana border is approximately 1 km to the east. The Chicago loop is approximately 23 km to the northwest. The following picture is from Washington H.S. looking northwest.24



### Northbrook

The village of Northbrook is located in northeast Cook County. This monitoring site is
located at the Northbrook Water Filtration Station at 750 Dundee Road. A forest preserve is located immediately south with residential areas further south (southeast to southwest). Residential areas are als o immediately to the west. Commercial areas are located along Dundee Road and to the east. A major expressway (I94) is located 1 km to the east and north. O’Hare Airport is located 18 km to the southwest and the Chicago loop is located 32 km to the sout heast. The following picture is from the Northbrook site looking northeast.25



### Lemont

The village of Lemont is located in southwest Cook County approximately 38 km from the Chicago loop. This monitoring site is located on Lemont High School at 800 Porter Street. The building is situated on the edge of the bluffs overlooking the Des Plaines River valley. The area surrounding the site is residential to the south (southwest to southeast) and to the immediate north (down th e bluff). Several industrial and commercial facilities are located along the Des Plaines River to the west and southwest in the valley. The following picture is from the Lemont site looking north.26 

## Appendix II Toxic Air Pollutants

HAPs Analytical
Method HAPs Analytical
Method Category I Volatile Organics (VOC) Category IV Semi

- volatiles

benzene TO

- 14A/TO

- 15 acenaphthene TO

- 13A
carbon tetrachloride TO

- 14A

- TO

- 15 acenaphthylene TO

- 1 3A
chloroform TO

- 14A/TO

- 15 anthracene TO

- 13A chloroprene TO

- 14A

- TO

- 15 benzo(ghi)perylne TO

- 13A 1,4

- dichlorobenzene TO

- 14A

- TO

- 15 fluoranthene TO

- 13A ethylene dibromide TO

- 14A

- TO

- 15 fluorene TO

- 13A ethylene dichloride TO

- 14A

- TO

- 15 naphthalene TO

- 13A
he xachlorobenzene TO

- 14A

- TO

- 15 phenanthrene TO

- 13A methyl bromide TO

- 14A

- TO

- 15 pyrene TO

- 13A methyl chloride TO

- 14A

- TO

- 15 benz(a)anthracene TO

- 13A styrene TO

- 14A

- TO

- 15 benzo(a)pyrene TO

- 13A tetrachloroethylene TO

- 14A

- TO

- 15 benzo(b)fluoranthene TO

- 13A

to luene TO

- 14A

- TO

- 15 benzo(k)fluoranthene TO

- 13A trichloroethylene TO

- 14A

- TO

- 15 chrysene TO

- 13A vinyl chloride TO

- 14A

- TO

- 15 dibenz(a,h)anthracene TO

- 13A xylenes TO

- 14A

- TO

- 15 indeno(1,2,3

- cd)pyrene TO

- 13A 1,3

- butadiene TO

- 14A

- TO

- 15 2,3,7,8

- Tetrachlorodibe nzo
- p acrylonitrile TO

- 14A

- TO

- 15

- dioxin (and congeners and TCDF congeners) TO

- 13A



## ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Category II Carbonyls Category V Metals

acetaldehyde TO

- 11A antimony & compounds IO

- 3.5
acrolein TO

- 11A arsenic & compounds IO

- 3.5 formaldehyde TO

- 11A beryllium & compounds IO

- 3.5 cadimum & compounds IO

- 3.5 chromium & compounds* IO

- 3.5 lead & compounds IO

- 3.5 manganese & co mpounds IO

- 3.5 mercury & compounds IO

- 3.5 nickel & compounds IO

- 3.5

*Chromium determined from a filter is total chromium, not chromium VI. Chromium VI oxidizes when sampled on a filter.

### Appendix IIIA Bensenville Air Toxic Data *

6/17 6/29 7/11 7/23 8/4 8/16 8/28 9/9 9/21 10/3 10/18 10/31 11/8 11/20 12/14 12/26 Average Urban Air Toxic Compounds

acetaldehyde 0.43 1.29 1.82 1.33 1.62 1.02 1 1.53 1.19 1.31 0.45 0.23 1.1 0.63 1.07
acrolein 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0 0 0 0 0.00 acrylonitrile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
arsenic 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 0 4 0 1 0 1 1 1.1
benzene 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.09 0.61 1.51 0.42 0.22 0.13 1.07 0.5 0.55 beryllium (1) 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 1,3-butadiene 0 0 0 0 0.11 0.43 0 0 0 0.3 0.08 0.08 cadmium (1) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2.2
carbon tetrachloride 0 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.1 0.1 0.08 0.11 0.07
chloroform 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.18 chromium (1) 5 5 5 7 6 6 2 2 7 6 6 3 3 3 1 4.5 1,2-dibromoethane 0 0.5 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.10 1,2-dichloropropane 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 1,2-dichloropropene 0 0 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 1,2-dichloroethane 0 0 2.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 formaldehyde 1.2 2.56 4.17 3.32 4.03 2.31 1.89 3.01 1.72 1.98 0.81 0.32 1.73 1.14 2.16 lead (1) 10 10 30 30 60 20 10 20 30 20 40 10 20 20 10 22.7 manganese (1) 8 14 2 33 43 52 18 12 45 38 67 14 19 17 3 25.7 methylene chloride 0 0 1.6 0 0.38 2.34 0.26 0.16 0 0.26 0.07 0.46 nickel (1) 6 5 7 9 11 8 5 4 10 8 10 6 7 5 4 7.0 polycyclic organics(PAH) (1) 157 311 220 175 95 37 136 85 319 220 46 350 90 172 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 perchloroethylene 0.1 1.2 3.2 1.1 0 0.08 0.26 0 0.16 0 0.09 0 0.52 trichloroethylene 1 4.4 4.7 0 0.27 2.81 0 1.47 0 0.4 0.04 1.37 vinyl chloride 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 dioxins(2,3,7,8) (2) 0.156 0.742 0.584 2.09 1.58 2.24 1.53 1.7 0.228 2.59 1.33 2.36 1.06 1.399 furans(2,3,7,8) (2) 0.066 0.165 0.15 0.646 0.25 0.25 0.226 0.143 0.107 0.304 0.475 0.616 0.259 0.281

27

### Appendix IIIA Bensenville Air Toxic Data *

6/17 6/29 7/11 7/23 8/4 8/16 8/28 9/9 9/21 10/3 10/18 10/31 11/8 11/20 12/14 12/26 Average
Hazardous Air Pollutants

1,4-dichlorobenzene 0 0.2 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0.11 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 0 0.1 0.4 0 0.57 1 0.18 0.09 0 0.66 0.09 0.28 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 0.2 0.32 0.05 0.02 0 0.23 0.02 0.11 ethyl benzene 0.06 0.1 0.3 0 0.31 0.71 0.18 0.06 0.02 0.35 0.07 0.20
hexachlorobutadiene 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 methyl bromide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 styrene 0.2 0.2 0.06 0 0.06 0.26 0 0.07 0 0.06 0 0.08
toluene 0.6 1.1 2.1 2.5 5.6 0.21 2.87 5.28 1.17 1.19 0.1 2.52 0.68 1.99 xylenes 0.4 0.5 1.2 1.3 0.07 1.35 3.04 0.65 0.28 0.02 1.61 0.34 0.90 propionaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 crotonaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 butyraldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 isovaleraldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 valeraldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 tolualdehydes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 hexanaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 acenaphthene (1) 8.7 33.1 19.1 13 6.2 1.7 7.4 2.7 15.8 9.5 1.2 5.8 1.6 9.7 acenaphthylene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.4 19.2 0 9.8 0 2.7 anathracene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 benzo(ghi)perylene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 fluoranthene (1) 9.1 7.5 10.1 8.2 3.6 1.5 3.4 1.4 4.5 6 1.3 3.3 1.5 4.7 fluorene (1) 12.2 31.7 20.9 14 9.2 2.5 8.4 3.6 15.4 14.4 1.9 9.4 3.4 11.3 naphthalene (1) 75.1 144 89.5 88 49.5 20.8 89.7 64 238 127 37.2 294 73.5 106.9 phenanthrene (1) 46.8 90.5 70.2 42.9 25 9.5 25.4 13.3 36 35.9 4.9 22.3 8.7 33.2 pyrene (1) 0.7 3.8 5.9 5 2 1.1 2.1 0 3.3 5.1 0 3.5 1.2 2.6 benza(a)anthracene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 benzo(a)pyrene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 benzo(b)fluoranthene (1) 0 0 2.6 2.1 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 0 1 0 0.6 benzo(k)fluoranthene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 chrysene (1) 0 0.9 1.6 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 0 1.1 0 0.5 dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

28

### Appendix IIIB Schiller Park Air Toxic Data *

6/17 6/29 7/11 7/23 8/4 8/16 8/28 9/9 9/21 10/3 10/18 10/31 11/8 11/20 12/14 12/26 Average Urban Air Toxic Compounds

acetaldehyde 0.78 0.85 0.67 0.53 1.02 0.76 1.09 0.17 0.56 1.5 1.46 0.36 1.73 0.8 0.88
acrolein 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 acrylonitrile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 arsenic (1) 1 1 1 2 4 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1.0
benzene 0.08 0.6 0.5 0.49 0.24 0.8 0.61 0.66 0.29 0.19 1.07 0.50 beryllium (1) 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.5 1,3-butadiene 0 0.6 0 0 0 0.11 0.14 0 0.08 0 0.28 0.11 cadmium (1) 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 2 2 1 2 4 3 5 4 2.7
carbon tetrachloride 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.07
chloroform 1.4 3.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.44 chromium (1) 5 7 5 8 7 9 21 5 10 9 1 6 5 5 4 7.1 1,2-dibromoethane 0 0 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 1,2-dichloropropane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 1,2-dichloropropene 0 0.3 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 1,2-dichloroethane 0.3 1.3 1.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.26 formaldehyde 2.29 3.32 2.28 1.72 3.26 3.04 4.04 17.92 1.64 2.19 2.26 0.94 3.09 1.61 3.54 lead (1) 10 0 10 10 10 20 10 10 30 20 50 10 20 30 10 16.7 manganese (1) 30 20 17 24 27 57 22 21 42 47 91 21 18 23 12 31.5 methylene chloride 0 0 0 0.06 0 0.15 0.12 0.16 0.11 0 0.21 0.07 nickel (1) 8 5 7 9 10 8 6 6 11 8 12 8 8 16 7 8.6 polycyclic organics(PAH) (1) 173 220 164 10 150 48 26 252 306 140 126 440 165 171 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 perchloroethylene 0.4 1.2 1.8 0 0.08 0 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.1 0.34 trichloroethylene 1.6 2.5 2.1 0 0 0.12 0.06 0.4 0.31 0 0.22 0.66 vinyl chloride 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 dioxins(2,3,7,8) (2) 0.164 0.316 0.51 0.925 1.61 1.08 2.64 1.8 2.62 1.73 1.05 2.66 1.93 1.464 furans(2,3,7,8) (2) 0 0.289 0.07 0.196 0.503 0.108 0.053 0.113 0.834 0.165 0.322 0.795 0.768 0.324

29

### Appendix IIIB Schiller Park Air Toxic Data *

6/17 6/29 7/11 7/23 8/4 8/16 8/28 9/9 9/21 10/3 10/18 10/31 11/8 11/20 12/14 12/26 Average
Hazardous Air Pollutants

1,4-dichlorobenzene 0.3 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.15 0.08 0.24 0.28 0.19 0.15 0 0.51 0.19 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 0 0.1 0.09 0.03 0 0.07 0.1 0.05 0.05 0 0.16 0.06 ethyl benzene 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.15 0.06 0.24 0.2 0.16 0.12 0.05 0.33 0.15
hexachlorobutadiene 0.3 0.2 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 methyl bromide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 styrene 0.2 0.2 0.05 0.64 0 0.03 0.12 0.03 0.04 0 0.08 0.13
toluene 1.2 1.1 1 0.65 0.31 1.96 1.21 1.13 0.82 0.16 1.63 1.02 xylenes 0.39 0.5 0.6 0.51 0.25 0.98 0.8 0.66 0.54 0.15 1.33 0.61 propionaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 crotonaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 butyraldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 isovaleraldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 valeraldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 tolualdehydes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 hexanaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 acenaphthene (1) 10.7 16.8 13.1 10.5 1.6 1.5 3.4 17.2 4.6 2.6 10.2 3.3 8.0 acenaphthylene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.6 0 0 15.3 0 1.9 anathracene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 benzo(ghi)perylene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 fluoranthene (1) 10.4 9 6.5 4.6 1.3 0.8 1.9 5.9 2.9 2.4 4.5 2.4 4.4 fluorene (1) 15.2 17.6 15 12.9 2.1 0 4.2 15.6 8 4.6 18.1 7.4 10.1 naphthalene (1) 69.6 118 79.4 87.2 35 16.7 224 214 106 103 350 132 127.9 phenanthrene (1) 60.9 53.8 45.5 32.4 7.5 6.6 17.8 38.4 16.8 10.4 34.9 17.1 28.5 pyrene (1) 5.7 4.7 3.3 2.4 1.2 0 1.4 4.6 2.3 2.4 5.6 2.5 3.0 benza(a)anthracene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 benzo(a)pyrene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 benzo(b)fluoranthene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 0 0 0 0 0.1 benzo(k)fluoranthene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 chrysene (1) 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 1.2 0 0 1.4 0.6 0.3 dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

30

### Appendix IIIC Chicago - Washington Air Toxic Data *

6/17 6/29 7/11 7/23 8/4 8/16 8/28 9/9 9/21 10/3 10/18 10/31 11/8 11/20 12/14 12/26 Average Urban Air Toxic Compounds

acetaldehyde 0.52 0.78 0.6 0.52 1.04 0.41 0.86 0.65 0.61 0.42 1.12 0.86 0.57 0.35 1.48 0.66 0.72
acrolein 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0.01 acrylonitrile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 arsenic (1) 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 1.0
benzene 0.6 1 0.3 0.6 0.7 1.22 0.19 0.49 0.39 0.51 0.66 1.87 0.5 0.69 beryllium (1) 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0.46 1,3-butadiene 0 0 0 0 1.1 0.1 0 0 0 0.04 0 0.2 0.06 0.12 cadmium (1) 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 5 7 5 2.6
carbon tetrachloride 0.08 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.08
chloroform 0 3 0 0 3.9 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.55 chromium (1) 14 6 1 8 5 7 6 9 8 9 38 4 4 9.2 1,2-dibromoethane 0 0 0 0.9 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.12 1,2-dichloropropane 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 1,2-dichloropropene 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 1,2-dichloroethane 0 0.6 0 0.9 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.15 formaldehyde 1.69 2.07 1.98 1.5 2.61 1.36 3.07 1.8 1.5 1.36 3.86 1.75 1.48 0.57 2.57 1.25 1.90 lead (1) 40 10 10 20 10 20 20 40 40 30 110 30 30 31.5 manganese (1) 106 84 50 114 60 98 103 143 198 93 628 53 89 139.9 methylene chloride 0 0 0 0 0.6 0.32 0 4.5 0.1 0.33 0 0.22 0.07 0.47 nickel (1) 7 5 6 8 6 7 5 5 6 8 15 6 5 6.8 polycyclic organics(PAH) (1) 128 163 111 129 192 328 521 220 115 193 750 500 530 298 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 perchloroethylene 0.4 0.7 1.2 2.8 1.3 0.04 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.12 0 0.52 trichloroethylene 0.9 1.9 0 2 2.9 0.05 0 0.12 0 0 0.13 0.3 0.18 0.65 vinyl chloride 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 dioxins(2,3,7,8) (2) 0.187 0.325 0.511 1.24 2.63 2.5 8.34 1.91 2.21 1.37 2.84 2.19 4.8 2.389 furans(2,3,7,8) (2) 0.025 0.058 0.049 0.577 0.207 0.15 2.05 0.267 0.398 0.422 3.62 0.386 5.35 1.043

31

### Appendix IIIC Chicago - Washington Air Toxic Data *

6/17 6/29 7/11 7/23 8/4 8/16 8/28 9/9 9/21 10/3 10/18 10/31 11/8 11/20 12/14 12/26 Average
Hazardous Air Pollutants

1,4-dichlorobenzene 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.3 0.1 0 0.07 0.09 0.07 0 0 0 0.07 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 0.08 0.2 0.09 0.2 0.5 0.57 0.08 0.19 0.17 0.16 0 0.41 0.11 0.21 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 0.3 0.3 0 0.2 0.3 0.18 0 0.06 0.05 0.05 0 0.12 0.03 0.12 ethyl benzene 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.05 0.23 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.31 0.11 0.14
hexachlorobutadiene 0 0.2 0 4.1 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.40 methyl bromide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 styrene 0.3 0.3 0 0 0.2 0.11 0 0.11 0 0.09 0 0.19 0.03 0.10
toluene 0.4 1 0.6 1.3 1.8 47.18 # 0.45 1.42 0.85 0.93 0.35 1.82 0.66 0.97 xylenes 0.29 0.5 0.26 0.2 0.5 1.06 0.14 0.79 0.55 0.55 0.21 1.44 0.42 0.53 propionaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 crotonaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 butyraldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 isovaleraldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 valeraldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 tolualdehydes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 hexanaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 acenaphthene (1) 13.1 18.8 14.7 13 18.2 6.4 34.6 7.5 6.4 7.9 7.7 9.8 7.7 12.8 acenaphthylene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.9 16.4 14.9 3.6 anathracene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 7.5 3.2 6.4 1.5 benzo(ghi)perylene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 fluoranthene (1) 8.8 5.7 3.7 4.3 6.1 9.1 20.9 0 2.7 4.6 20.8 7.2 18.4 8.6 fluorene (1) 13 19.5 11.3 14.6 18.6 10.3 30 6.7 7.1 10 16.9 17 15.9 14.7 naphthalene (1) 42.2 50.8 49.5 55.2 92.6 256 299 181 80.1 144 597 400 390 202.9 phenanthrene (1) 47.1 66.5 30.7 40.3 53.8 36.8 126 24.9 16.8 24 50.2 38.1 53.6 46.8 pyrene (1) 4.2 2.3 1.5 1.9 2.9 5.4 10 0 2.1 2.8 13.1 6.4 10.9 4.9 benza(a)anthracene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 0 0 0 5.8 0 4.7 1.0 benzo(a)pyrene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 0.1 benzo(b)fluoranthene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.5 0 0 0.6 benzo(k)fluoranthene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 chrysene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.3 2.2 6.5 1.2 dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

# - toluene value on 9/21/00 has been excluded from the average as it is a suspected anomaly and needs further investigation.

32

### Appendix IIID
Northbrook Air Toxic Data *

6/17 6/29 7/11 7/23 8/4 8/16 8/28 9/9 9/21 10/3 10/18 10/31* 11/8 11/20 12/14 12/26 Average Urban Air Toxic Compounds

acetaldehyde 0.50 0.42 0.41 0.34 0.59 0.44 0.63 0.69 0.37 0.69 1.13 1.06 0.40 0.27 1.01 0.70 0.60
acrolein 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 acrylonitrile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 arsenic (1) 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0.7
benzene 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.17 0.4 0.49 0.09 0.28 0.14 0.47 0.49 0.33 beryllium (1) 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 1,3-butadiene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0.03 0 0 0.05 0.13 0.02 cadmium (1) 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 4 4 2.1
carbon tetrachloride 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.07
chloroform 0 1.5 0 0 0.06 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.14 chromium (1) 5 4 1 5 3 5 3 2 3 5 8 2 2 2 2 3.5 1,2-dibromoethane 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 1,2-dichloropropane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 1,2-dichloropropene 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 1,2-dichloroethane 0 0.5 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 formaldehyde 1.53 1.47 1.32 0.94 1.58 1.42 2.17 1.92 1.04 1.46 2.33 1.59 1.26 1.99 3.12 1.6 1.67 lead (1) 10 0 10 10 10 20 10 10 10 20 30 10 10 10 10 12.0 manganese (1) 8 6 5 13 8 42 12 11 15 21 90 8 8 8 8 17.5 methylene chloride 0 0 0 1.4 0.04 0.2 0.17 0.32 0.91 0 0.16 0 0.27 nickel (1) 6 5 8 7 6 4 4 2 3 5 9 5 6 5 5 5.3 polycyclic organics(PAH) (1) 102 326 119 94 135 44 71 217 227 80 50 293 67 140 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 perchloroethylene 0 0.7 1.1 5.3 0 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.03 0 0.03 0 0.61 trichloroethylene 0 0.9 0.4 5.4 0 0.21 0.14 0 0 0 0.03 0 0.59 vinyl chloride 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 dioxins(2,3,7,8) (2) 0.321 0.752 0.086 1.44 1.54 0.179 1.76 1.05 1.38 2.01 2.98 2.61 9.32 1.956 furans(2,3,7,8) (2) 0.065 0.57 0 0.397 0.378 0.18 0.128 0.071 0.334 0.22 1.49 1.13 5.27 0.787

* VOC sampling date 10/27 33

### Appendix IIID
Northbrook Air Toxic Data *

6/17 6/29 7/11 7/23 8/4 8/16 8/28 9/9 9/21 10/3 10/18 10/31* 11/8 11/20 12/14 12/26 Average
Hazardous Air Pollutants

1,4-dichlorobenzene 0 0.9 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.3 0.06 0.17 0.41 0.19 0.07 0 0.17 0.12 0.15 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 0 0.02 0 0.1 0 0.05 0.14 0.06 0.02 0 0.05 0.04 0.04 ethyl benzene 0.06 0.08 0 0.2 0.07 0.15 0.23 0.17 0.09 0 0.12 0.09 0.11
hexachlorobutadiene 0 0.3 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 methyl bromide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 styrene 0.06 0.08 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.03
toluene 0.3 0.6 0.2 1.4 1.9 0.34 1.06 1.77 0.92 0.55 0.1 0.79 0.5 0.80 xylenes 0.16 0.39 0.2 0.9 0.22 0.61 0.63 0.62 0.31 0.09 0.55 0.35 0.42 propionaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 crotonaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 butyraldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 isovaleraldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 valeraldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 tolualdehydes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 hexanaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 acenaphthene (1) 8 22.2 11.4 8.1 9.1 2.2 5 6.2 5.3 3.3 0.8 4.7 1.3 6.7 acenaphthylene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.2 0 0.6 anathracene (1) 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 7.4 0 0 0 0 0.7 benzo(ghi)perylene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 fluoranthene (1) 8.8 10.7 7 4.6 6.9 1.6 2.8 2.3 4.2 2.4 1.1 2.4 11.5 5.1 fluorene (1) 10.3 21.3 12 8.8 13.4 2.3 4.3 6.8 7.1 4.7 1.6 6.6 39.3 10.7 naphthalene (1) 19.3 165 43 41.7 62.8 28.6 41.2 174 187 57.3 41.4 254 51.6 89.8 phenanthrene (1) 52 104 41.7 28.4 40.5 9.2 17.1 18.1 20.2 12 4.2 14 8.2 28.4 pyrene (1) 3.9 3.7 2.8 2.1 2.6 0 1.1 0 2.8 0 0.8 2.2 0.8 1.8 benza(a)anthracene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 benzo(a)pyrene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 benzo(b)fluoranthene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 benzo(k)fluoranthene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 chrysene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

* VOC sampling date 10/27 34

### Appendix IIIE Lemont Air Toxic Data *

6/17 6/29 7/11 7/23 8/4 8/16 8/28 9/9 9/21 10/3 10/18 10/31 11/8 11/20 12/14 12/26 Average Urban Air Toxic Compounds

acetaldehyde 1.13 0.96 1.32 1.16 0.96 0.47 0.3 0.64 1.02 0.88
acrolein 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 acrylonitrile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 arsenic (1) 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0.7
benzene 0.24 0.46 0.75 0.34 0.37 0.28 0.7 0.44 0.45 beryllium (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 1,3-butadiene 0 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.02 cadmium (1) 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2.0
carbon tetrachloride 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.04 0 0.08 0.1 0.1 0.06
chloroform 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0 0.01 chromium (1) 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 2 1 2.9 1,2-dibromoethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 1,2-dichloropropane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 1,2-dichloropropene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 1,2-dichloroethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 formaldehyde 2.34 1.8 2.42 2.04 1.91 0.91 0.64 1.04 1.96 1.67 lead (1) 20 10 20 10 20 20 10 10 10 14.4 manganese (1) 26 9 52 14 36 18 49 16 6 25.1 methylene chloride 0.04 0.26 0.19 0.07 0.04 0.91 0.25 0.05 0.23 nickel (1) 3 3 5 3 6 5 6 5 5 4.6 polycyclic organics(PAH) (1) 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 perchloroethylene 0 0.07 0.18 0 0 0.03 0.1 0 0.05 trichloroethylene 0 0.11 0.12 0 0 0 0.04 0 0.03 vinyl chloride 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 dioxins(2,3,7,8) (2) furans(2,3,7,8) (2)

35

### Appendix IIIE Lemont Air Toxic Data *

6/17 6/29 7/11 7/23 8/4 8/16 8/28 9/9 9/21 10/3 10/18 10/31 11/8 11/20 12/14 12/26 Average
Hazardous Air Pollutants

1,4-dichlorobenzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 0.09 0.17 0.27 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.23 0.1 0.14 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 0 0.05 0.09 0.02 0 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.04 ethyl benzene 0.08 0.18 0.21 0.17 0.09 0.09 0.18 0.07 0.13
hexachlorobutadiene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 methyl bromide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 styrene 0.03 0.02 0.27 0 0.06 0 0.15 0.05 0.07
toluene 0.56 1.26 1.21 0.57 0.46 0.55 1.12 0.39 0.77 xylenes 0.33 0.71 0.83 0.93 0.33 0.31 0.74 0.27 0.56 propionaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 crotonaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 butyraldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 isovaleraldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 valeraldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 tolualdehydes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 hexanaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 acenaphthene (1) acenaphthylene (1) anathracene (1) benzo(ghi)perylene (1) fluoranthene (1) fluorene (1) naphthalene (1) phenanthrene (1) pyrene (1) benza(a)anthracene (1) benzo(a)pyrene (1) benzo(b)fluoranthene (1) benzo(k)fluoranthene (1) chrysene (1) dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (1) indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (1)

36

### Footnotes for Appendices IIIA-E

* - values expressed in parts per billion volume (ppbv) unless otherwise noted (1) - values expressed in nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3) (2) - values expressed in picograms per cubic meter (pg/m3)

37Collection Air volume 2378-PCDFs 2378-PCDDs Total PCDD/F PAH N-PAH Other

Field ID MRI ID Date (m 3 ) a pg/m 3 pg/m 3 pg/m 3 μ g/m 3 μ g/m 3 μ g/m 3

Bensenville 00001134 7/11/00 299.5 0.0661 0.156 0.778 0.157 ND 0.0588

North Brook 00001135 7/11/00 143.8 0.0647 0.321 0.532 0.102 ND 0.0570
Schiller Park 00001136 7/11/00 238.2 ND 0.164 0.473 0.173 ND 0.0443 Washington HS 00001137 7/11/00 314.8 0.0250 0.187 0.549 0.128 ND 0.0434
Bensenville 00001156 7/23/00 335.0 0.165 0.742 1.18 0.311 ND 0.00873
North Brook 00001154 7/23/00 385.8 0.570 0.752 1.55 0.326 ND 0.00827
Schiller Park 00001153 7/23/00 365.3 0.289 0.316 0.605 0.220 ND 0.0100 Washington HS 00001155 7/23/00 299.7 0.0579 0.325 0.641 0.163 ND 0.0137
Bensenville 00001251 8/4/00 333.4 0.150 0.584 1.00 0.220 ND 0.0231
North Brook 00001249 8/4/00 343.6 ND 0.0856 0.117 0.119 ND 0.0763
Schiller Park 00001248 8/4/00 345.6 0.0700 0.510 0.804 0.164 ND 0.0220 Washington HS 00001247 8/4/00 153.2 0.0492 0.511 0.711 0.111 ND 0.0240
Bensenville 00001326 8/16/00 236.7 0.646 2.09 4.64 0.175 ND 0.309
North Brook 00001329 8/16/00 227.6 0.397 1.44 2.75 0.0938 ND 0.0351
Schiller Park 00001328 8/16/00 307.4 0.196 0.925 1.65 0.00972 ND 0.0634 Washington HS 00001330 8/16/00 299.6 0.577 1.24 4.67 0.129 ND 0.241
Bensenville 00001486 8/28/00 238.2 0.250 1.58 2.48 0.0953 ND 0.144
North Brook 00001485 8/28/00 229.0 0.378 1.54 2.44 0.135 ND 0.0435
Schiller Park 00001487 8/28/00 275.7 0.503 1.61 3.14 0.150 ND 0.0317 Washington HS 00001489 8/28/00 149.9 0.207 2.63 4.00 0.192 ND 0.0640
Bensenville 00001650 9/20/00 258.5 0.250 2.24 2.71 0.0371 ND 0.0274
North Brook 00001653 9/20/00 204.0 0.180 0.179 0.613 0.0440 ND 0.0451
Schiller Park 00001651 9/20/00 268.6 0.108 1.08 1.19 0.0485 ND 0.0183 Washington HS 00001654 9/20/00 150.9 0.150 2.50 3.57 0.328 ND 0.0424
Bensenville 00001722 10/3/00 230.0 0.226 1.53 2.01 0.136 ND 0.111
North Brook 00001720 10/3/00 225.8 0.128 1.76 1.91 0.0714 ND 0.0807
Schiller Park 00001723 10/3/00 299.6 0.0527 2.64 2.82 0.0256 ND 0.0593 Washington HS 00001721 10/3/00 38.7 2.05 8.34 11.4 0.521 ND 0.355 

### Appendix IIIF Summary of PCDDs, PCDFs, PAHs, Nitro-PAHs, and Semivolatile Vapor Plus Particulate Results

38Collection Air volume 2378-PCDFs 2378-PCDDs Total PCDD/F PAH N-PAH Other

Field ID MRI ID Date (m 3 ) a pg/m 3 pg/m 3 pg/m 3 μ g/m 3 μ g/m 3 μ g/m 3

Bensenville 00001808 10/18/00 240.9 0.143 1.70 2.40 0.0850 ND 2.76
North Brook 00001807 10/18/00 226.4 0.0710 1.05 1.47 0.207 ND 0.255
Schiller Park 00001809 10/18/00 324.0 0.113 1.80 2.66 0.252 ND 0.0618 Washington HS 00001810 10/18/00 155.9 0.266 1.91 3.53 0.220 ND 6.41
Bensenville 00001901 11/1/00 317.8 0.107 0.228 1.83 0.319 ND 0.00906
North Brook 00001899 11/1/00 281.8 0.334 1.38 3.38 0.227 ND 0.00565
Schiller Park 00001900 11/1/00 326.1 0.834 2.62 7.19 0.306 ND 0.0327 Washington HS 00001903 11/1/00 224.5 0.398 2.21 4.07 0.115 ND 0.225
Bensenville 00001920 11/9/00 304.2 0.304 2.59 3.26 0.220 ND 0.0287
North Brook 00001922 11/9/00 273.4 0.220 2.01 2.79 0.0797 ND 0.0210
Schiller Park 00001921 11/9/00 326.7 0.165 1.73 2.24 0.140 ND 0.0411 Washington HS 00001925 11/9/00 234.3 0.422 1.37 2.80 0.193 ND 0.0352
Bensenville 00002076 11/21/00 319.0 0.475 1.33 2.27 0.0465 ND 0.0302
North Brook 00002077 11/21/00 274.4 1.49 2.98 5.57 0.0500 ND 0.0438
Schiller Park 00002075 11/21/00 334.5 0.322 1.05 1.69 0.126 ND 0.0300 Washington HS 00002079 11/21/00 234.9 3.62 2.84 16.4 0.750 ND 0.0579
Bensenville 00002205 12/15/00 315.1 0.616 2.36 4.21 0.350 ND 0.0638
North Brook 00002207 12/15/00 292.4 1.13 2.61 4.57 0.293 ND 0.0329
Schiller Park 00002206 12/15/00 341.6 0.795 2.66 4.90 0.440 ND 0.0510 Washington HS 00002208 12/15/00 231.6 0.386 2.19 4.15 0.500 ND 0.0573
Bensenville 01000060 12/27/00 321.0 0.259 1.06 1.92 0.0899 ND 0.0277
North Brook 01000059 12/27/00 384.8 5.27 9.32 18.1 0.0668 ND 0.0162
Schiller Park 01000061 12/27/00 346.0 0.768 1.93 3.46 0.165 ND 0.0333 Washington HS 01000063 12/27/00 230.3 5.35 4.80 26.1 0.530 ND 0.125

a Concentration data calculated from air volume sampled corrected to 25 o C and 760mm pressure based on 24-hr average temperature and pressure recorded at O'Hare International, Chicago IL. 

### Appendix IIIF (continued)

Semivolatile Vapor Plus Particulate Results Summary of PCDDs, PCDFs, PAHs, Nitro-PAHs, and

3940 

## Appendix IV Meteorological Summary on Sampling Days

A meteorological summary of each sampling day is provided below. The large

- scale weather pattern is discussed and the local weather conditions in the Chicago area are listed. A wind rose/frequency dist ribution (Figure 5) is also provided which is a composite of the wind conditions on the sampling days only as provided in the following
table.

June 17

A cold front had passed through the area on June 16 and was located along the Ohio River. High pressur e over northern Iowa was the dominate feature. There were clouds and a few showers throughout the Chicago area, bur precipitation amounts were light, less than 0.1 in. At O’Hare the maximum temperature was 64 deg F, winds were generally from the northeas t with an average speed of 8.4 mph.

June 29

High pressure over Kansas was dominating the weather throughout the region. Some light rainfall had occurred over the Chicago area during the past day. At O’Hare the maximum temperature was 76 deg F with a l ow of 55 deg F. Winds were from the west to northwest at an average speed of 7.7 mph.

July 11

High pressure over southern Ontario was providing a flow of Canadian air into the region. A stationary front was located over central Illinois. Moderate rain fall, over 1 in., had occurred in the Chicago area the previous day. At O’Hare the maximum temperature was 75 deg F with a minimum of 65 deg F. Winds were from the northeast at an average speed of 7.1 mph.

July 23

High pressure over northern Lake Michi gan dominated the weather in the region providing a flow of Canadian air. Skies were mostly clear and there had been no rainfall in the Chicago area for the last three days. At O’Hare the maximum temperature was 73 deg F and the minimum was 52 deg F, the lowest in July. Winds were northwest early in the day, shifting to northeast by 8 a.m., at an average speed of 5.8 mph.

August 4

High pressure located over central Lake Michigan provided a light flow of Canadian air into the region. The high pressure moved southeast during the day. There was no rain on August 4 but some scattered showers in the Chicago area the previous day. At O’Hare the maximum temperature was 80 deg F and the minimum was 54 deg F, the lowest in41



### August. Winds were from the north e arly in the day and shifted around the south by late in the day. Wind speeds were light, averaging 4.7 mph.

August 16

A cold front had moved through the region late on the previous day and was located in southern Illinois. High pressure was moving sout h out of southwest Ontario. The maximum temperature the previous day was 92 deg F, the warmest day in August. The cold front brought much cooler temperatures on August 16. There was no rainfall that day or the previous day. At O’Hare the maximum temper ature was 77 deg F and the minimum was 77 deg F. Winds were north in the morning shifting to east by evening at an average speed of 9.5 mph

August 28

A high pressure system located over Quebec was providing southeast flow into the region. A stationary front was located to the southwest over Missouri and another stationary front was starting to move east as a cold front out of the plains. There was no rainfall that day or the previous day. At O’Hare the maximum temperature was 85 deg F
and the minimum was 64 deg F. Winds were southeast at an average speed of 8.7 mph.

September 9

High pressure was located east over the Virginia/North Carolina border providing southerly flow into the region. A warm front was located over Wisconsin and a cold
front was moving in from the west. There was no rainfall on this day but some scattered precipitation occurred the previous morning. At O’Hare the maximum temperature was 85 deg F and the minimum was 67 deg F. Winds were from the south all day at an average speed of 9.4 mph.

September 21

High pressure was located over Missouri providing westerly flow into the region. A cold front had moved through the area the previous day with rainfall amounts around 0.25 in. There was no precipitation on this day. Winds wer e west to northwest most of the day shifting to east by evening. Winds speeds averaged 8.5 mph but were stronger prior to
the wind shift.

October 3

A cold front had moved through the area the previous day and was located in southern
Illinois. A second cold front was moving southeast into northern Wisconsin. Scattered showers occurred throughout the Chicago area with rainfall amounts above 0.5 in. At O’Hare the maximum temperature was 73 deg F and the minimum was 44 deg F. Winds were light and variab le until afternoon when a shift to the northeast occurred. The average speed was 6.0 mph but was higher after the wind shift.42



### October 18

A high pressure system located over the southern plains (from southern Colorado to southern Missouri) dominated the weather in the region. A cold front was moving into southern Wisconsin in the morning but no precipitation occurred in the area. At O’Hare the maximum temperature was 70 deg F and the minimum was 38 deg F. Winds were from the southwest at an average spee d of 6.1 mph.

October 31

High pressure located over eastern Canada dominated the weather in the region. A weak stationary front was located southwest over the Mississippi Valley. There had been no precipitation in the Chicago area for several days. At O’Hare the maximum temperature was 70 deg F and the minimum was 47 deg F. Winds were southeast at an average speed of 7.7 mph.

November 8

A cold front had moved through the area the previous day with light precipitation and a weak surface trough was mo ving into northwest Illinois. Rainfall this day was less than 0.1 in. At O’Hare the maximum temperature was 48 deg F and the minimum was 32 deg F. Winds were southwest early shifting to west by afternoon and north by evening. The average speed was 5.8 mph.

November 20

A strong cold front had moved through the area the previous day. Low pressure located north of Lake Huron dominated the weather. Traces of snow fell this day and on the previous day. At O’Hare the maximum temperature was 29 deg F and the minimum was 18 deg F. Winds were strong out of the west all day. The average speed was 16.2 mph.

December 14

A low pressure system was located east over western New York State and high pressure
was located over eastern Kansas. A trace of snow fell in the morning; however there had been 6 in. of snow the previous day and a total of 15 in. were on the ground. At O’Hare the maximum temperature was 27 deg F and the minimum was 7 deg F. Winds were northwest early, shifting to west be early afternoon a nd to south by evening. This average speed was 6.5 mph.

December 26

Low pressure over Lake Superior was pulling a cold front into northwest Wisconsin. A high pressure system located from Illinois east to North Carolina dominated the weather. Light sno w totaling 0.5 in. fell throughout the day. At O’Hare the maximum temperature was 19 deg F and the minimum was 3 deg F. Winds were southwest early shifting to west by evening. The average speed was 8.3 mph.

### Appendix IV (continued) Frequency of W ind Direction on Sampling Days

Sampling Day N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW CALM

June 17, 2000 7 5 4 6 1 1 June 29, 2000 1 1 1 1 5 3 11 1 July 11, 2000 3 3 14 4 July 23, 2000 3 4 7 4 1 5 August 4, 2000 4 1 2 3 5 1 1 1 2 4 August 16, 2000 8 4 4 6 1 1 August 28, 2000 1 2 5 7 7 2 September 9, 2000 17 7 September 21, 2000 4 1 1 4 6 7 1 October 3, 2000 1 3 2 4 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 4 October 18, 2000 7 9 7 1 October 31, 2000 3 2 8 9 2 November 8, 2000 2 1 9 6 3 1 2 November 20, 2000 5 14 5 December 14, 2000 1 1 1 1 6 3 1 10 December 26, 2001 1 10 9 4

Total Hours 29 19 32 27 16 15 18 19 25 22 28 39 35 17 23 18 2
Percent of Time 7.6 4.9 8.3 7.0 4.2 3.9 4.7 4.9 6.5 5.7 7.3 10.2 9.1 4.4 6.0 4.7 0.5

4344 

## Appendix V General Information for Selected Target Compounds

The following is a general discussion of the nature and sources for each of selected target compounds (Reference 3).

Acetaldehyde and Formaldehyde

These compounds are both from a large family of chemical compounds called volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and fall within a chemical group called aldehydes and ketones which are structured to include a carbonyl group, double

- bonded carbon and
oxygen atoms.

Formaldehyde is released into the ai r by burning wood, kerosene or natural gas, by automobiles, trucks and aircraft through the burning of motor fuels and by cigarettes. Formaldehyde can off

- gas from materials made with it, e.g., from glue or adhesive in press wood products, from preservati ves in some paints and cosmetics, the coating that provides permanent press quality to fabrics and draperies. Formaldehyde is also a naturally occurring substance.

Acetaldehyde is ubiquitous in the ambient environment. It is an intermediate product of higher plant respiration and is formed from the burning of wood, tobacco and roasting coffee. It is also released from automobiles, trucks and aircraft burning motor fuels, from industrial processes which synthesize other chemicals, e.g., production o f perfumes, polyester resins and basic dyes, and from its use as a solvent in the rubber, tanning and paper industries.

Benzene

Benzene is also a volatile organic compound and is from a chemical family called aromatics or cyclic compounds. Aromatic com pounds are formed in a ring with a series of single and doubled bonded carbon atoms, e.g., benzene, which has six carbon atoms with one hydrogen atom attached to each carbon in the ring.

Benzene is a constituent in motor fuels, is used as a solvent for fa ts, waxes, resins, oils inks, paint, plastics and rubber, in the extraction of oils from nuts and seeds and is used in photogravure printing. Benzene is also used in the manufacture of detergents, explosives, pharmaceuticals, and dyestuffs. Benzene is re leased in the air from the combustion of motor fuels, fugitive emissions from vehicle fueling and fuel storage, burning of coal and oil, industrial process and fugitive emissions and from tobacco smoking.

1,3

- butadiene

This compound is also a volatile or ganic compound and is from a chemical family of straight chain compounds called alkenes that, when formed, contain carbon

- carbon45



### double bonds are called dienes. 1,3

- butadiene is the most common and is used in the production of rubber and plastics. It is also used in copolymers including acrylics.

1,3

- butadiene is released from the burning motor fuels by automobiles, trucks and aircraft, from refineries and chemical manufacturing facilities (especially the plastic and rubber industries). It is also relea sed by incineration of products in which it is contained, e.g. rubber, plastics and resins.

Chromium

Chromium is a naturally occurring element found in rocks, animals, plants, soil and in volcanic dust and gases. It occurs in the environment in two majo r valence states, trivalent chromium (Cr III) and hexavalent chromium Cr (VI). Chromium (III) is essential to normal glucose, protein and fat metabolism and is thus an essential dietary element. Chromium (VI) is much more toxic than Chromium (III) and is know human carcinogen.

The metal chromium is used mainly for making steel and other alloys. Chromium compounds, in either Chromium (III) or (VI) forms, are used for chrome plating, the manufacture of dyes and pigments, leather and wood preservation, a nd treatment of cooling tower water. Smaller amounts are used in drilling muds, textiles, and toner for coping machines.

Dioxins

A dioxin is any compound that contains the dibenzo

- p

- dioxin nucleus and remains one of the most toxic compounds known to man . Dioxins have no known technical use and are not intentionally produced. They are formed as unwanted byproducts of certain chemical processes during the manufacture of chlorinated intermediates and in the combustion of
chlorinated materials.

Dioxins ar e emitted into the atmosphere from a wide variety of processes such as waste incineration, combustion of solid and liquid fuels in stationary sources for heat and power generation, crematories, iron and steel foundries/scrap metal melting, combustion

- aided metal recovery, kraft pulp and paper production/black liquor combustion, internal combustion engines, carbon regeneration, forest fires, organic chemical manufacture and
use and Portland cement manufacture.

Polycyclic Organic Compounds (PAHs)

The term polycyclic organic compounds defines not one compound, but a broad class of compounds which generally includes all organic compounds with more than one benzene ring, and which have a boiling point above 212 degrees (F). Sixteen polycyclic aromatic hydocarb ons (PAHs), a subset of the class of polycyclic compounds, were designated by USEPA as the compounds of interest as Urban Air Toxics. Notable such compounds are napthalene, anthracene, phenanthrene and chrysene.46



### The principal formation mechanism for PAHs occurs as part of the fuel combustion process in many different types of source categories. The combustion processes which are much more significant in terms of air emissions include stationary external combustion for heat and electricity generation, int ernal combustion engines and turbines, motor vehicles ( cars, trucks, and aircraft), and a variety of industrial fuel combustion

sources.

Tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene)

Perchloroethylene is an organic chemical used in many industrial processes a nd is considered as a probable and possible human carcinogen. Perchloroethylene is used for dry cleaning and textile processing, as a chemical intermediate and as a degreasing agent. It is also used for rubber coatings, solvent soaps, printing inks, adhe sives and glues, sealants, polishes, lubricants and silicones.

Nickel

Nickel is a silvery

- white metal that is usually found in nature as a component of silicate, sulfide or arsenic ores. The most predominant forms of nickel in the atmosphere are
nickel sulfate, sulfide and complex oxides of nickel. Various forms of nickel are considered to be human carcinogens.

Nickel is used for nickel alloys, electroplating baths, batteries, textile dyes, coins, spark plugs, machinery parts, stainless

- steel, nickel

- ch rome wires and catalysts.

Toluene

Toluene is a man

- made aromatic hydrocarbon produced mostly from petroleum. The chemical intermediate is the predominant feedstock in benzene production and a key

octane

- boosting component for gasoline blending. Toluene is also used as a raw material in the production of other chemicals and as a solvent in paints and coatings, inks, adhesives, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.

Toluene is released into the air from several man

- made sources including emissions from
motor veh

icles and aircraft exhaust, gasoline marketing, chemical and paint manufacturing and cigarette smoke. Air emissions also result from the production of polymers (nylon), plastic soda bottles and polyurethanes.