Occupational
Exposures
and
Environmental
Releases
of
Lead
Wheel­
Balancing
Weights
August
1,
2005
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Pollution,
Prevention
and
Toxics
Economics,
Exposure
and
Technology
Division
Chemical
Engineering
Branch
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
1.1
Lead
Wheel­
Balancing
Weights
on
Automobiles
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
1.2
Literature
Review
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
2.0
RELEASES
AND
EXPOSURES
FROM
LEAD
WHEEL­
BALANCING
WEIGHTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2.1
Lead
Wheel­
Balancing
Weight
Manufacturing
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2.2
Automobile
Manufacturing
(
OEM)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
2.3
Installation
of
Wheel­
Balancing
Weights
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
2.4
Automobile
Use
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
2.5
End­
of­
Life
Vehicle
Recycling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
2.5.1
Salvage
Yards
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
2.5.2
Automobile
Shredding
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
2.5.3
Automobile
Metal
Recovery
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
3.0
DATA
GAPS/
UNCERTAINTIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
4.0
REFERENCES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
APPENDICES
A
Steel
Plants
with
Electric
Arc
Furnaces
in
the
U.
S.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
LIST
OF
TABLES
2.0
U.
S.
Manufacturers
of
Lead
Wheel­
Balancing
Weights
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2.1
Employees
Involved
In
Manufacture
of
Lead
Wheel­
Balancing
Weights
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
2.2
Pounds
of
lead
released
(
including
on­
site
and
off­
site
transfers)
by
tire
weight
manufacturers
according
to
TRI
data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3.0
Summary
of
Estimates,
Uncertainties
and
Data
Gaps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
LIST
OF
FIGURES
1.1
Potential
flow
of
lead
tire
weights
during
end­
of­
life
vehicle
(
ELV)
processing
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
3
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Wheel
balancing
weights
are
installed
on
motor
vehicle
wheels
to
correct
for
imbalances
in
wheel
and
tire
assembly.
Lead
has
been
preferred
for
wheel
balancing
weights
because
it
is
inexpensive,
dense,
ductile
and
corrosion
resistant
(
EPAB,
2005).

Pursuant
to
Section
21
of
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
("
TSCA"),
15
U.
S.
C.
§
2620,
the
Ecology
Center
has
petitioned
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
("
EPA")
to
establish
regulations
prohibiting
the
manufacture,
processing,
distribution
in
commerce,
use,
and
improper
disposal
of
lead
wheel
balancing
weights
"
wheel
weights"
(
Ecology
Center,
2005).
In
support
of
the
EPA's
review
of
this
Section
21
petition,
this
report
presents
a
screening­
level
assessment
of
environmental
releases
and
occupational
exposures
to
lead
resulting
from
the
manufacture,
processing,
distribution,
use
and
disposal
of
lead
wheel
balancing
weights.
A
limited
literature
search
for
readily
available
information
and
data
was
conducted
to
complete
this
assessment.

1.1
Lead
Wheel­
Balancing
Weights
on
Automobiles
Lead
has
traditionally
been
the
preferred
metal
for
wheel­
balancing
weights
because
it
is
corrosion­
resistant,
dense,
malleable,
and
ductile.
Wheels
which
require
maintenance,
repair
or
replacement
require
balancing.
Wheel­
balancing
weights
are
installed
on
vehicle
wheels
to
balance
them
during
vehicle
operation.
Typically,
wheels
mounted
with
tires
are
placed
on
machinery
to
determine
the
amount
and
placement
of
the
weights
to
balance
the
wheel.

Balanced
wheels
may
be
installed
on
vehicles
by
the
automobile
manufacturers
at
their
plants.

1.2
Literature
Review
The
literature
search
for
this
assessment
resulted
in
limited
information.
Estimating
occupational
exposures
and
environmental
releases
of
lead
from
lead
wheel­
balancing
weights
was
not
always
possible
due
to
a
lack
of
information.
A
complete
and
accurate
mass
balance,
based
on
reliable
data,
may
be
helpful
in
addressing
some
data
gaps.
4
2.0
RELEASES
AND
EXPOSURES
FROM
LEAD
WHEEL­
BALANCING
WEIGHTS
2.1
Lead
Wheel­
Balancing
Weight
Manufacturing
Lead
ingots
received
from
primary
and
secondary
smelters
are
melted
and
re­
cast
into
wheel
weights
(
BADA,
2005).
These
lead
wheel­
balancing
weights
are
then
sold
to
automobile
manufacturers
(
original
equipment
manufacturers
or
OEM),
tire
weight
distributers,
tire
manufacturers,
and
tire
retailers.
OEM
utilize
these
wheel
weights
to
balance
wheels
installed
on
new
vehicles.
Wheel­
balancing
weights
are
installed
on
new
and
repaired
wheels
on
vehicles.
These
lead
wheel­
balancing
weights
are
applied
to
the
rim
of
wheels
during
balancing.

In
the
U.
S.,
an
estimated
50
to
60
million
pounds
of
lead
are
used
to
make
lead
wheel­
balancing
weights
(
Gust,
2004
&
BADA,
2005).

2.1
Number
of
Workers,
Facilities
and
Operating
Days
A
literature
search
resulted
in
information
about
three
(
3)
wheel­
balancing
weight
manufacturers
in
the
U.
S.
(
Dun
&
Bradstreet,
2005).
These
manufacturers
produce
wheel­
balancing
weights
at
five
(
5)
facilities
(
EPAB,
2005)
(
see
Table
2.0).

Table
2.0:
U.
S.
Manufacturers
of
Lead
Wheel­
Balancing
Weights
Manufacturer
Perfect
Equipment
Company,
LLC
(
a
subsidiary
of
Berwind
Corporation)
BADA
a
division
of
Hennessy
Industries,
Inc.
(
a
subsidiary
of
Danaher
Corporation)
Halko
Manufacturing,
Company
(
a.
k.
a.
New
Products
Inc.)

Facilities
Murfressboro,
TN
Sparks,
NV
Bowling
Green,
Ky
Clayton,
DE
Woodbury,
TN
There
are
three
major
lead
tire
weight
manufactures
in
the
United
States:
Halko
Manufacturing,
Hennessy
Industries,
and
Perfect
Equipment
(
EPAB,
2005).
Preliminary
research
has
indicated
one
lead
tire
weight
facility
for
Hennessy,
and
two
facilities
for
both
Halko
Manufacturing
and
Perfect
Equipment.
No
publicly­
available
information
from
the
U.
S.
Census
Bureau
pertaining
to
these
specific
facilities
nor
for
this
industry
sector
was
located;
however,
EPA
has
obtained
data
from
Halko,
Hennessy
and
Perfect
Equipment.
The
Hennessy
facility
employs
85
workers,
90%
of
those
working
in
the
manufacturing
area
(
Rice1,
2005).
Therefore,
the
number
of
workers
potentially
exposed
during
manufacturing
at
the
Hennessy
facility
is:

(
85
workers)(
90%
working
in
manufacturing
area)
=
77
workers/
exposed
to
lead
at
the
Hennessy
facility.
5
The
workers
operate
on
one
10­
hour
shift
per
day,
4
days/
week
schedule
(
Rice1,
2005).
Each
worker
has
the
potential
to
be
exposed
up
to
a
total
of
208
days/
yr,
based
on
4
days/
week.
A
search
of
Dun
and
Bradstreet
indicates
Perfect
Equipment
employs
175
at
the
Murfreesboro,
TN
site,
and
20
at
the
Sparks,
NV
site
(
Rice2,
2005).
Thus,
the
number
of
employees
potentially
exposed
during
manufacture
at
the
two
Perfect
Equipment
facilities,
is:

(
175
+
20
workers)
=
195
workers
exposed
to
lead
at
the
two
Perfect
Equipment
facilities.

Dun
and
Bradstreet
also
indicates
Halko
Manufacturing
employs
18
workers
at
their
facility
(
Rice2,
2005).
Correspondence
with
Halko
Manufacturing
reports
35
employees
total.
The
Halko
facility
could
have
up
to
35
employees
exposed
to
lead.

Therefore,
the
total
number
of
workers
with
potential
lead
exposure
is:

(
77
+
195
+
35)
workers
=
307
total
workers
with
potential
lead
exposure.

Table
2.1:
Employees
Involved
In
Manufacture
of
Lead
Wheel­
Balancing
Weights
Facility
Employees
(
reported
in
Dunn
&
Bradstreet)
Total
Number
of
Employees
(
from
company
estimates)

Hennessy
(
KY)
65
85
(
77
exposed
workers)

Perfect
(
TN)
(
NV)
175
20
CBI
Halko
(
DE)
(
TN)
18
NR
35
(
total)

NR
=
not
reported;
Total
number
of
employees
reported
via
correspondence
with
Cody
Rice
(
EPAB);
CBI
=
claimed
as
Confidential
Business
Information
2.1.2
Workplace
Exposures
A
literature
search
produced
no
monitoring
data
for
lead
exposures
from
wheel­
balancing
weight
production.
A
conservative
estimate
of
occupational
exposure
was
made
assuming
compliance
with
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration's
permissible
exposure
limit
(
OSHA
PEL)
for
lead
of
0.05
mg/
m3
time
weighted
average
(
TWA).
This
TWA
is
based
on
exposure
during
an
8­
hour
shift.
Contact
information
from
one
of
the
wheel
weight
manufacturers
(
Hennessy)
noted
that
heir
workers
are
on
a
10­
hour
work
day
(
Rice1,
2005).
Thus,
8­
hour
TWA
PEL
may
not
be
appropriate.
OSHA
states
that
an
adjustment
factor
is
necessary
if
workers
are
exposed
longer
than
an
8
hour
period.
Specifically,
OSHA
regulations
for
lead
6
exposure
(
standard
number
1910.1025(
c)(
2))
state:

"
If
an
employee
is
exposed
to
lead
for
more
than
8
hours
in
any
work
day,
the
permissible
exposure
limit,
as
a
time
weighted
average
(
TWA)
for
that
day,
shall
be
reduced
according
to
the
following
formula:

Maximum
permissible
limit
(

g/
m3)
=
(
400

g/
m3)/(
hrs
worked
in
the
day)."

Therefore,
the
maximum
permissible
limit
in
mg/
m3
is:

Maximum
permissible
limit
=
(
400

g/
m3)/(
10
hrs)/(
1,000

g/
mg)
=
0.04
mg/
m3.

A
possible
inhalation
exposure
may
be
calculated
once
the
following
assumptions
are
made:

1.
inhalation
rate
=
1.25
m3/
hr
(
CEB's
standard
assumption
for
occupational
(
NIOSH,
1976));
2.
10
hours
per
work
day
estimate
(
Hennessy
Industries's
estimate);
and
3.
maximum
permissible
exposure
limit
=
0.04
mg/
m3
(
calculated
above).

Using
these
assumptions,
the
potential
inhalation
exposure
to
the
307
workers
is:

(
0.04
mg/
m3)(
1.25
m3/
hr)(
10
hr/
day)
=
0.5
mg/
day.

Actual
exposure
may
be
lower
than
this
conservative
estimate
(
0.5
mg/
day),
particularly
if
workers
wear
appropriate
personal
protective
equipment
(
PPE)
in
process
areas.
Additionally,
when
actual
monitoring
data
is
not
available,
exposures
are
sometimes
estimated
based
on
monitoring
data
of
other
similarly
handled
operations.
A
1994
OSHA
study
reports
an
average
inhalation
exposure
of
49

g/
m3
(
2
samples)
for
lead
pot
tenders
(
SIC
3949:
Fishing
Lure
and
sinker
manufacturers)
(
OSHA,
1994).
This
exposure
results
in
potential
exposure
dose
rates
of
0.49
mg/
day,
assuming
a
breathing
rate
of
1.25
m3/
hr
and
8­
hr/
day.
This
estimate
assumes
that
the
exposures
of
lead
pot
tenders
would
be
comparable
to
the
exposures
for
workers
involved
in
manufacturing
lead
tire
weights.

Dermal
exposure
from
routine
contact
is
not
expected
during
remelting
and
casting
operations
because
workers
are
not
likely
to
be
in
contact
with
molten
lead
due
to
the
high
temperature
(
the
melting
point
of
lead
is
327.5
degrees
C
(
621.5
degrees
F)).

Routine
contact
with
lead
from
the
tire
weights
is
expected
during
washing
and
product
packaging
operations,
where
workers
may
or
may
not
wear
gloves.
Also,
no
data
was
available
to
estimate
lead
exposures
from
handling
solid
lead
wheel
weights.

2.1.3
Workplace
Releases
7
Lead
from
wheel­
balancing
weights
may
result
in
environmental
releases
during
manufacturing.
TRI
data
(
see
Table
2­
1)
has
some
reported
lead
releases
from
lead
wheel­
weight
manufacture.
Not
all
the
identified
lead
wheel
weight
manufacturing
sites
have
TRI
reports
(
see
Table
2.2
).

Table
2.2:
Pounds
of
lead
released
(
including
on­
site
and
off­
site
transfers)
by
tire
weight
manufacturers
according
to
TRI
data.

Company
(
facility
location)
Year
Fugitive
Air
(
Pounds)
Transfer
On­
Site
for
Further
Waste
Management
(
Pounds)
Transfer
Off­
Site
for
Further
Waste
Management
(
Pounds)
Total
(
Pounds)

Halko
(
DE)
2001
0
0
0
0
2002
0
4,000
208,000
212,000
2003
0
5,000
18,775
23,775
Perfect
(
NV)
2001
5
0
455,551
455,556
2002
0
0
382,551
382,551
2003
0
0
455,929
455,929
Perfect
(
TN)
2001
5
0
588,835
588,840
2002
0
0
417,015
471,015
2003
0
0
391,746
391,746
Hennessy
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
2003
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
­
No
data
was
found
in
TRI
The
majority
of
lead
release
reported
is
transferred
Off­
Site
for
further
waste
management
(
or
recycled
off­
site
to
metal
recovery).
8
2.2
Automobile
Manufacturing
(
OEM)

This
sector
is
under
NAICS
336111:
Automobile
Manufacturing
and
NAICS
336112:
Light
Truck
and
Utility
Vehicle
Manufacturing.
The
automobile
sector
consists
of
facilities
primarily
engaged
in
manufacturing
complete
automobiles
(
i.
e.,
body
and
chassis
or
unibody)
or
manufacturing
automobile
chassis
only
while
the
light
truck
sector
consists
of
facilities
engaged
in
manufacturing
complete
light
trucks
and
utility
vehicles
(
i.
e.,
body
and
chassis)
or
manufacturing
light
truck
and
utility
vehicle
chassis
only.
Vehicles
made
include
light
duty
vans,
pick­
up
trucks,
minivans,
and
sport
utility
vehicles.

There
are
three
predominant
U.
S.
automobile
manufacturers
with
assembly
plants
in
the
United
States,
as
well
as
German
and
Japanese
manufacturer
assembly
plants
located
in
the
United
States.
Automobile
manufacturing
consists
of
automobile
parts
manufacturing,
assembly,
and
finishing.
Once
the
various
automotive
parts
are
produced,
they
are
ready
to
be
brought
together
for
assembly.
Automotive
assembly
is
a
complex
process
that
involves
many
different
steps
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1995a).
Installation
of
lead
wheel­
balancing
weights
may
be
a
step
in
the
assembly
process.

2.2.1
Numbers
of
Workers,
Facilities,
and
Operating
Days
The
2002
Economic
Census
reports
there
are
176
automobile
manufacturing
facilities
in
the
United
States
with
85,845
employees,
of
which
there
are
75,114
production
employees
(
U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
2004a).
The
2002
Economic
Census
also
reports
there
are
95
facilities
manufacturing
light
truck
and
utility
vehicles
in
the
United
States
with
107,237
employees,
of
which
there
are
96,856
production
employees
(
U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
2005a).
The
identities
and
numbers
of
facilities
installing
lead
wheel­
balancing
weights
in
new
automobiles
cannot
be
determined.
The
number
of
workers
exposed
to
lead
due
to
the
installation
of
lead
wheelbalancing
weights
in
these
facilities
may
be
subset
of
production
workers
within
each
facility.
Large
assembly
line
production
facilities
generally
operate
three
shifts,
365
days
per
year.

2.2.2
Workplace
Exposures
No
monitoring
data
directly
pertaining
to
installation
of
lead
wheel­
balancing
weights
could
be
found
and
no
methods
could
be
determined
for
quantifying
lead
exposures
from
lead
wheel
weight
installation.

2.2.3
Workplace
Releases
No
information
or
data
were
found
regarding
releases
or
wastes
associated
specifically
with
lead
wheel
weight
installation.
No
methods
could
be
determined
for
quantifying
lead
releases
from
lead
wheel
weight
installation.
Landfills
may
be
contaminated
with
lead
during
clean­
up
and
improper
disposal
methods.
Sometimes,
used
lead
wheel
weights
may
be
sold
and/
or
given
to
customers
for
use
in
home
smelting
operations
to
make
fishing
weights
and
lures,
ammunition
and
9
other
miscellaneous
projects.

2.3
Installation
of
Wheel­
Balancing
Weights
All
vehicles
require
wheel
weights
to
ensure
tire
balance
and
prevent
vibration
at
high
speeds
Wheel
weights
are
applied
to
the
rim
of
a
vehicle's
wheel
to
provide
a
smooth
ride.
Wheels
are
placed
on
a
machine
to
determine
the
amount
of
weights
and
their
location
on
the
wheel's
rim.
These
balanced
wheels
may
be
installed
on
new
and
exiting
vehicles.

2.3.1
Numbers
of
Workers,
Facilities,
and
Operating
Days
The
number
of
workers
can
be
estimated
from
a
couple
of
different
sources.
The
first
source
estimates
that
up
to
22,000
workers
install
wheel
weights
at
5,500
aftermarket
installation
sites
(
Tire
Industry,
2005).
Additionally,
the
Department
of
Labor
Statistics
worker
data
in
an
annual
Occupational
Employment
Statistics
Survey.
2001
through
2003
estimates
approximately
81,500
to
86,000
workers
for
the
"
tire
repairers
and
changers"
occupational
category
(
Bureau
of
Labor,
2005).
The
worker
estimates
from
the
Department
of
Labor
may
be
an
overestimate,
if
all
the
workers
are
not
directly
involved
in
installing
lead
wheel
weights.

2.3.2
Workplace
Exposures
No
monitoring
data
directly
pertaining
to
installation
of
lead
wheel­
balancing
weights
was
found
and
no
methods
could
be
determined
for
quantifying
lead
exposures
from
lead
wheel
weight
installation.

2.2.3
Workplace
Releases
No
information
or
data
were
found
regarding
releases
or
wastes
associated
specifically
with
lead
wheel
weight
installation.
No
methods
could
be
determined
for
quantifying
lead
releases
from
lead
wheel
weight
installation.
Landfills
may
be
contaminated
with
lead
during
clean­
up
and
improper
disposal
methods.
Sometimes,
used
lead
wheel
weights
are
sold
and/
or
given
to
customers
for
use
in
home
smelting
operations
to
make
fishing
weights
and
lures,
ammunition
and
other
miscellaneous
projects.
10
2.4
Automobile
Use
Over
a
vehicle's
lifetime,
wheel
weights
may
be
lost
when
they
fall
off
the
wheel
onto
the
road.
The
probability
of
a
weight
falling
off
can
be
influenced
by
a
number
of
factors:
traffic
patterns
(
stop
and
go,
multiple
stops
for
traffic
control
devises,
etc.),
road
conditions
(
pot
holes,
uneven
pavement,
etc.),
driving
conditions
(
rural,
highway
or
urban),
and
other
possible
conditions
or
hazards.
Based
on
a
study
cited
by
the
petitioner
(
Root,
2000),
up
to
10
%
of
wheel­
balancing
weights
may
be
dislodged
during
vehicle
operation
and
deposited
on
U.
S.
streets,
roads,
and
highways.
The
petitioner
reports
200­
250
grams
(
0.44­
0.55
lbs)
of
lead
wheel
weights
per
vehicle
(
Lohse,
2001).
Another
estimate
(
EPAB,
2005)
assumes
two
1
to
1.5
oz
lead
wheel
weights
per
wheel
and
with
4
wheels
per
vehicle
making
contact
with
roadway.
This
would
mean
8
to
12
oz
(
0.50­
0.75
lbs)
per
vehicle.
Additionally,
EPA
estimated
there
are
approximately
200
million
automobiles
and
light
trucks
on
the
nation's
roadways.
(
EPA
Lead
Tire,
2005).
Thus,
using
Root's
estimate
of
10%,
8,800,000
to
11,000,000
lbs
or
10,000,000
to
15,000,000
lbs
of
lead
may
be
released
in
the
form
of
lead
wheel
weights.
Root
further
claims
that
these
lead
wheelbalancing
weights
are
abraded
(
ground
up
and
pulverized
by
vehicle
traffic)
releasing
lead
to
the
surrounding
environment
and
population.

Used
lead
wheel­
weights
may
be
sold
and/
or
given
to
customers
for
use
in
home
smelting
operations
to
make
fishing
weights
and
lures,
ammunition
and
other
miscellaneous
projects.
The
quantity
of
wheel
weights
distributed
in
this
manner
is
unknown.
11
Figure
1.1
Potential
flow
of
lead
tire
weights
during
endof
life
vehicle
(
ELV)
processing
2.5
End­
of­
Life
Vehicle
(
ELV)
Recycling
Vehicles
reaching
end­
of­
life,
either
through
its
normal
life
cycle
or
by
accident,
usually
enter
the
recycling
process.
For
end­
of­
life
vehicles
(
ELVs),
annual
recycling
rates
are
nearly
100
percent
(
Steel
Recycling
Institute,
2005).
In
the
recycling
of
ELVs,
fluids
are
first
drained
and
all
resalable
parts
are
removed.
Next
the
vehicle
may
be
shredded,
crushed
or
transported
for
further
processing.
The
wheels
containing
the
lead
wheel
weights
may
be
removed
during
initial
processing
at
salvage
yards
or
may
remain
on
the
vehicle
for
shredding,
crushing
or
may
be
sent
to
other
facilities
for
further
processing.
Shredding
may
take
place
at
the
salvage
yard
or
at
steel
mills
where
electric
arc
furnaces
(
or
basic
oxygen
furnaces)
are
used
to
recycle
the
steel.
Vehicles
sent
to
shredders
of­
site
are
often
crushed
to
reduce
transport
volume
(
New
Jersey
DEP,
2004).
No
data
was
located
that
could
state
with
certainty
where
the
wheels
and
wheel
weight
s
may
go
during
vehicle
recycling.

The
petitioner
estimates
200­
250
grams
(
0.44­
0.55
lb)
per
vehicle
(
Lead­
Free
Wheels,
2005).
Another
estimate
assumes
two
1
to
1.5
oz
lead
wheel­
balancing
weights
per
wheel
and
five
(
5)
wheels
per
vehicle
(
including
the
spare).
According
to
this
estimate,
a
vehicle
may
have
approximately
280­
430
grams
of
lead
wheel­
balancing
weights
with
200­
340
grams
on
the
operating
wheels
(
EPAB,
2005).

Automobile
shredding
will
be
discussed
in
Section
2.5.2
and
the
automobile
metal
recovery
process
in
Section
2.5.3.

Fig.
1.1
illustrates
the
potential
flow
of
lead
wheel­
balancing
weights
during
end­
of­
life
vehicle
(
ELV)
processing.
12
2.5.1
Salvage
Yards
This
sector
is
covered
by
NAICS
42114
:
Motor
Vehicle
Parts
(
Used)
Wholesalers.
This
industry
comprises
establishments
primarily
engaged
in
wholesaling
used
motor
vehicle
parts
(
except
used
tires
and
tubes)
and
establishments
primarily
engaged
in
dismantling
motor
vehicles
for
the
purpose
of
selling
the
parts.
Automobile
salvage
yards
are
used
to
store
used
automobiles
as
well
as
other
metal
scrap.
Before
shredding
technology
became
available,
automobiles
were
often
stored
in
huge
fields
for
their
parts.
An
average
automobile
may
be
stored
an
average
of
2
to
5
years
before
being
processed
(
Recycling
Council
of
Ontario,
1999).
Salvage
yards
may
contain
lead
wheel
weights
on
ELVs
delivered
to
the
salvage
yards.
Shredding
or
crushing
at
the
salvage
yards
may
release
lead.
Some
salvage
yards
could
remove
some
lead
wheel­
balancing
weights
from
ELVs.

2.5.1.1
Numbers
of
Workers,
Facilities,
and
Operating
Days
Based
on
data
obtained
from
the
1997
U.
S.
Census
Report,
this
sector
contained
7,105
facilities
and
employed
45,807
employees
(
U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
2000).
The
2002
data
has
not
been
released.
The
identities
and
numbers
of
facilities
and
workers
affected
by
lead
from
wheel
weights
cannot
be
determined.
The
majority
of
companies
in
this
sector
are
small
businesses.
Only
50
facilities
employ
more
than
50
employees
while
6,500
facilities
have
less
than
20
employees.
These
types
of
businesses
with
a
small
number
of
employees
tend
to
operate
one
shift,
5
days
per
week.
Overall,
it
is
assumed
that
salvage
yards
normally
operate
250
days
per
year.

2.5.1.2
Workplace
Exposures
Exposure
could
result
from
the
work
area
becoming
contaminated
with
lead
from
lead
wheel
weights,
particularly
for
salvage
yards
that
crush
or
shred
ELVs.
Worker
exposures
due
to
lead
from
lead
wheel
weights
that
are
shredded
or
crush
cannot
be
quantified.
Exposures
in
facilities
that
shred
ELVs
is
given
additional
discussion
in
Section
2.5.2.

2.5.1.3
Workplace
Releases
In
salvage
yards,
ELVs
may
release
lead
from
shredded
or
crushed
lead
wheel
weights
into
the
soil,
air
(
from
shredding),
or
water
(
through
storm
water
runoff).
However,
environmental
releases
due
lead
wheel
weights
cannot
be
quantified.
Releases
from
facilities
that
shred
ELVs
are
included
in
Section
2.5.2.

2.5.2
Automobile
Shredding
Automobile
shredders
may
be
located
at
salvage
yards,
scrap
recycling
facilities,
steel
mills,
or
independent
facilities.
However,
the
distribution
of
shredders
among
various
types
of
facilities
could
not
be
determined,
nor
could
shredders
be
linked
to
a
particular
NAICS
or
SIC
code.
The
shredding
facility
uses
hammer
mills
to
first
break
down
the
ELV
hulk
into
small
chunks.
During
13
the
process,
automobile
scrap
is
pneumatically
and
magnetically
separated
into
three
fractions:
ferrous;
nonferrous;
and
lightweight
waste.
The
ferrous
metals
are
sent
for
recycling
to
steel
smelters.
Historically,
the
ferrous
fraction
has
accounted
for
about
70
percent
of
the
weight
of
the
car,
but
this
proportion
is
decreasing
as
more
and
more
plastics
are
used
(
Ecology
Center
et
al,
2001).
Most
of
the
lightweight
waste
material
known
as
auto
shredder
residue
(
ASR)
or
"
fluff"
is
comprised
of
foam,
textiles,
plastics,
glass,
metal
fines
(
which
may
include
lead
from
lead
wheel
weights),
residual
fluids,
and
dirt.
ASR
is
removed
during
the
shredding
process
by
air
cyclone
separation
and
then
landfilled.
Historically,
the
ASR
has
accounted
for
about
23
percent
of
the
weight
of
the
car.
The
non­
ferrous
metals
may
be
sent
to
a
non­
ferrous
metal
separation
facility,
where
metals
like
lead,
aluminum,
copper,
and
zinc
are
recovered.
Historically,
the
nonferrous
fraction
has
accounted
for
about
7
percent
of
the
weight
of
the
car.

2.5.2.1
Numbers
of
Workers,
Facilities,
and
Operating
Days
There
are
approximately
200
auto
shredding
facilities
operating
in
the
United
States
(
ISRI,
2005).
The
locations
of
these
facilities
are
not
readily
available.
The
identities
and
numbers
of
facilities
and
workers
affected
by
lead
wheel­
balancing
weights
from
automobiles
cannot
be
determined.
Small,
privately
owned
facilities
usually
operate
five
days
per
week,
50
weeks
per
year.
It
is
assumed
that
these
types
of
facilities
generally
operate
250
days
per
year.
Some
of
the
shredders
are
co­
located
at
steel
mills
with
EAFs
and
are
operated
364
days
per
year
(
Ecology
Center
et
al,
2001).
Overall,
it
is
assumed
that
shredding
facilities
normally
operate
250
days
per
year.

The
reference
sources
did
not
have
information
on
the
numbers
of
employees
per
facility.
Many
automobile
shredder
operations
tend
to
be
small,
independently
owned
operations.
It
is
expected
that
such
facilities
have
less
than
10
employees
per
facility.
This
type
of
operation
requires
the
use
of
heavy
equipment
rather
than
significant
amounts
of
manual
labor.
Some
fraction
of
the
workers
have
potential
to
receive
incremental
lead
exposure
from
lead
wheel
weights
during
ELV
processing.

2.5.2.2
Workplace
Exposures
Occupational
inhalation
exposures
during
the
shredding
of
automobiles
may
occur
due
to
inhalation
of
lead
contaminated
dust
or
volatilized
lead
(
Ecology
Center
et
al,
2001).

Workers
may
be
exposed
to
fugitive
emissions
resulting
from
lead
contaminated
dust.
Lead
dust
may
be
vented
through
an
exhaust
stack.
No
monitoring
data
was
found
for
workers
exposures
to
lead
during
shredding
operations.
Inhalation
exposures
to
lead
could
be
expected
to
be
below
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
maximum
Permissible
Exposure
Limit
(
PEL)
for
lead
of
0.04
mg/
m3
time
weighted
average
(
TWA).

Most
of
the
ASR
is
separated
from
the
metal
streams
by
air
cyclone
separation.
This
separation
process
generates
airborne
dust,
and
workers
can
be
exposed
to
lead
in
this
dust.
Workers
may
also
be
exposed
to
lead
in
dust
during
scrap
loading
activities.
14
The
OSHA
8­
hour
Permissible
Exposure
Level
(
PEL)
for
total
particulate
not
otherwise
regulated
is
15
mg
dust/
m3
air
time­
weighted
average
(
TWA).
It
is
expected
that
worker
exposures
to
dust
would
be
below
this
OSHA
PEL.
The
lead
content
of
the
ASR
was
estimated
between
4,000
and
25,000
mg/
kg
(
Lohse,
2001).
The
fraction
of
this
lead
which
comes
from
tire
weights
is
unknown.

It
is
assumed
that
workers
may
be
exposed
to
lead
from
lead
wheel
weights
in
these
facilities
for
up
to
250
days/
yr.

Vehicle,
scrap,
and
residue
handling
at
shredding
facilities
is
usually
carried
out
using
heavy
lifting
and
separations
equipment.
Therefore,
dermal
exposures
to
lead
at
these
sites
are
not
expected
under
routine
conditions.

2.5.2.3
Workplace
Releases
No
data
were
found
to
estimate
either
the
fraction
of
lead
wheel­
balancing
weights
removed
prior
to
ELV
hulk
recycling
or
the
fraction
of
ELVs
shredded.

Lead
may
be
released
as
dust
during
the
shredding
process
if
the
wheel­
balancing
weights
are
shredded
or
crushed.
Otherwise,
the
wheel
weights
may
be
released
as
solid
lead.
Amount
of
releases
are
not
known.

The
shredding
process
is
generally
a
dry
process,
but
there
are
several
opportunities
for
water
releases.
Since
the
shredders
are
located
outdoors
and
exposed
to
the
environment,
rain
water
could
potentially
wash
away
some
residual
lead
contained
on
the
shredder
surface.
Another
possibility
is
that
plastics
from
the
shredder
are
separated
in
a
flotation
device.
Some
residual
lead
contamination
on
the
plastic
could
enter
the
separation
system.
Cleaning
the
separation
system
and
water
recharging
could
result
in
a
lead
release
to
water.
Most
of
the
ASR
is
sent
to
landfills
(
Ecology
Center
et
al,
2001).
Although
water
releases
of
lead
are
possible,
the
amounts
could
not
be
quantified.

2.5.3
Automobile
Metal
Recovery
Facilities
that
recover
metals
from
ELVs
include
steel
mills
with
either
electric
arc
furnaces
(
EAFs)
or
basic
oxygen
furnaces
(
BOFs)
and
nonferrous
separation
facilities
and
smelters
(
e.
g.,
lead,
aluminum,
zinc,
copper,
etc.).
The
types
of
facilities
reviewed
are:
steel
mills
with
EAFs,
steel
mills
with
BOFs,
and
nonferrous
metal
recovery
facilities.

The
ferrous
scrap
stream
from
facilities
shredding
ELVs
is
sent
to
steel
mills
with
EAFs
or
BOFs.
Some
fraction
of
ELVs
may
be
flattened
but
not
shredded,
and
ELVs
that
are
not
shredded
are
sent
directly
to
steel
mills.
No
data
were
available
for
this
fraction.
15
Facilities
with
EAFs
are
covered
by
NAICS
3311114
­
Iron
and
Steel
Mills
­
Nonintegrated.
EAFs
utilize
electricity
to
melt
and
refine
scrap
in
a
batch
process
to
make
steel
products.
To
aid
in
scrap
processing
in
EAFs,
fluxes
and
other
additives
such
as
fluorspar,
dolomite,
and
alloying
agents
such
as
aluminum
and
manganese
are
added
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1995).
During
melting,
impurities
in
the
scrap
such
as
carbon,
manganese,
phosphorus,
silicon,
and
other
materials
are
oxidized.
This
results
in
the
formation
of
a
slag
containing
these
oxidized
materials
on
top
of
the
molten
metal.
Other
byproducts
of
the
EAF
process
include
metal
dusts
and
gases.
Since
EAFs
use
scrap
metal
instead
of
molten
iron,
there
are
no
coke­
making
or
iron­
making
processes
associated
with
this
form
of
steel
production.

Facilities
with
BOFs
are
covered
by
NAICS
3311111
­
Steel
Mills
with
Blast
Furnaces,
Coke
oven
and
blast
furnace
products,
made
in
steel
mills.
BOFs
combine
molten
iron
from
blast
furnaces
with
scrap
steel
to
produce
steel.
BOFs
utilize
25
percent
to
35
percent
steel
scrap
on
average
while
EAFs
utilize
over
90
percent
steel
scrap
on
average.
In
addition,
data
indicate
EAFs
processed
approximately
70
percent
of
total
post­
consumer
scrap
steel
while
BOFs
processed
approximately
30
percent
of
total
post­
consumer
scrap
steel
(
Steel
Recycling
Institute,
2004).

Gases
and
particulate
matter
from
EAFs
are
conveyed
into
either
a
wet
or
dry
gas
cleaning
system.
Particulate
matter
removed
from
the
gas
cleaning
system
is
a
listed
hazardous
waste
(
RCRA
K061)
called
EAF
dust
if
it
is
from
a
dry
system
or
EAF
sludge
if
it
is
from
a
wet
system.
The
composition
of
EAF
dust
or
sludge
varies
greatly,
depending
on
the
scrap
composition
and
furnace
additives.
A
pollutant
found
in
the
dust/
sludge
is
lead.
Some
EAFs
use
briquettes
made
from
EAF
dust
to
charge
the
furnace,
and
this
practice
may
further
increase
lead
stack
emissions
from
these
EAFs.
(
Ecology
Center
et
al,
2001)

The
nonferrous
metal
separation
and
recovery
facilities
covered
are
Secondary
Smelting,
refining
and
alloying
of
non­
ferrous
metal
(
except
copper
and
aluminum)
NAICS­
331492.
The
nonferrous
streams
from
facilities
shredding
ELVs
are
sent
to
nonferrous
metal
separation
and
recovery
facilities.
The
nonferrous
stream
is
between
6
to
8
percent
of
the
dismantled
weight
of
the
ELV
and
primarily
includes
lead,
aluminum,
stainless
steel,
copper,
brass,
bronze,
magnesium,
nickel,
and
zinc
(
Ecology
Center
et
al,
2001).
This
nonferrous
stream
may
be
contaminated
with
lead
wheel
weights
released
from
the
shredding
process.
Because
lead
tends
to
form
amalgams
with
many
nonferrous
metals,
it
is
likely
that
some
lead
from
ELVs
is
contained
in
the
nonferrous
fraction
during
shredding
and
subsequently
released
into
the
environment
during
nonferrous
metal
separation
and
recovery.
Approximately
50
percent
of
the
nonferrous
fraction
received
by
recovery
facilities
is
a
nonmetallic
residue
which
is
currently
landfilled
in
the
United
States
(
Ecology
Center
et
al,
2001).
Like
steel
mills,
nonferrous
smelting
facilities
use
high
temperature
processes
to
melt
nonferrous
scrap,
and
some
lead
may
be
volatilized
from
these
processes
and
emitted
to
air.
Some
lead
may
also
be
in
nonferrous
facilities'
waste
streams.

2.5.3.1
Numbers
of
Workers,
Facilities,
and
Operating
Days
16
There
are
95
facilities
utilizing
EAFs
in
the
United
States
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2005a).
Regarding
facilities
with
BOFs,
the
2002
Economic
Census
reports
there
are
16
facilities
in
the
United
States
with
4,933
employees,
of
which
there
are
4,167
production
employees
(
U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
2004b).

Regarding
nonferrous
recovery
facilities,
several
key
metal
types
are
included
to
demonstrate
potential
numbers
of
facilities
and
workers.
For
secondary
smelting,
the
2002
Economic
Census
reports
there
are
236
facilities
in
the
United
States
with
9,939
employees,
of
which
there
are
6,987
production
employees
(
U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
2004c).
Another
source
reported
23
lead
smelting
facilities
(
Rice,
2005).
Another
source
reported
26
secondary
lead
smelting
facilities
in
the
U.
S.
(
Kirk­
Othmer,
1996).

The
number
of
workers
exposed
to
lead
originating
from
wheel
weights
in
ELVs
in
these
facilities
cannot
be
determined.
Operating
days
for
these
industrial
facilities
could
be
expected
to
range
up
to
365
days/
yr.
Appendix
A
contains
a
list
of
facilities
that
have
EAFs,
along
with
their
locations
and
capacities.

2.5.3.2
Workplace
Exposures
Occupational
exposures
to
lead
from
wheel
weights
in
ELVs
at
metal
separation
and
recovery
facilities
may
include
primarily
lead
from
the
furnaces
and
the
presence
and
handling
of
leadcontaminated
dusts
or
sludges.

Workers
may
be
exposed
to
fugitive
emissions
of
lead
particles
from
lead
wheel
weights.
The
lead
may
be
vented
through
exhaust
stacks.
Inhalation
exposures
to
lead
would
be
expected
to
be
below
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
8­
hour
Permissible
Exposure
Limit
(
PEL)
for
lead
of
0.04
mg/
m3
time
weighted
average
(
TWA).
No
monitoring
data
was
found
for
workers
exposures
to
lead
in
metal
separation
and
recovery
facilities.

Exposure
to
lead
in
dust
may
be
due
to
dust
from
exhaust
stacks
and
from
handling
dusts.
The
OSHA
8­
hour
Permissible
Exposure
Level
(
PEL)
for
total
particulate
not
otherwise
regulated
is
15
mg
dust/
m3
air
time­
weighted
average
(
TWA).
It
is
possible
that
worker
exposures
to
dust
would
be
kept
below
this
OSHA
PEL.
The
percent
of
lead
contained
in
the
dust
will
vary
depending
on
the
process,
the
type
of
control
equipment
used,
and
the
scrap
processed.
No
monitoring
data
were
available
for
lead
in
dusts
in
nonferrous
recovery
or
in
facilities
with
BOFs
and
EAFs.

Additionally,
in
the
absence
of
actual
monitoring
data,
exposures
are
sometimes
estimated
based
on
monitoring
data
of
other
similarly
handled
operations.
A
1994
study
reports
an
average
inhalation
exposure
of
49

g/
m3
(
2
samples)
for
lead
pot
tenders
(
SIC
3949:
Fishing
Lure
and
sinker
manufacturers).
This
exposure
results
in
potential
exposure
dose
rates
of
0.49
mg/
day,
assuming
a
breathing
rate
of
1.25
m3/
hr
and
8­
hr/
day.
This
estimate
assumes
that
the
exposures
of
lead
pot
tenders
would
be
comparable
to
the
exposures
for
workers
at
metal
separation
and
recovery
facilities.
Another
study
on
worker
exposure
to
lead
in
Korea
(
Donguk
&
Namwon,
17
2004)
reported
geometric
mean
values
for
total
airborne
lead
concentrations
of
758

g/
m3
in
secondary
smelting
furnace
operations
and
436

g/
m3
in
scrap
and
furnace
operations.
This
may
produce
lead
exposures
of
7.58
mg/
day
and
4.36
mg/
day
respectively
(
assuming
an
inhalation
rate
of
1.25
mg/
m3
and
an
8­
hour
shift).

Workers
may
be
exposed
to
lead
in
these
facilities
for
up
to
250
days/
yr.

Workers
handling
dusts
or
sludges
in
these
metal
recovery
facilities
may
be
exposed
to
lead
during
processing
and
cleanup
activities.
Dermal
exposure
to
solids
(
dust)
and
liquids
containing
lead
could
occur
but
cannot
be
quantified.
Workers
wearing
appropriate
gloves
and
protective
clothing
when
handling
lead
or
lead
containing
materials
may
have
reduced
potential
for
dermal
exposure
to
lead.

2.5.3.3
Workplace
Releases
There
are
no
data
to
determine
the
distribution
of
lead
between
ferrous
and
non­
ferrous
scrap.

There
was
2003
TRI
data
reported
for
SIC
3341
(
Secondary
Smelting
and
Refining
of
Nonferrous
Metals)
includes
releases
from
operations
other
than
secondary
lead
smelting
and
other
sources
of
lead
other
than
lead
wheel
weights.
The
releases
reported
covers
more
than
secondary
lead
smelting.
There
was
no
data
available
to
segment
the
data
to
just
secondary
lead
smelters.
The
air
releases
for
SIC
3341
were
2,791,163
lbs
(
fugitive)
and
5,590,402
lbs
(
stack).
The
reported
water
releases
were
278,304
lbs
(
surface
water)
and
101,281
lbs
(
POTW).
Land
releases
were
1,612,807,619
lbs.
There
were
1,945,230,974
lbs
transfers
off­
site
for
further
waste
management.
18
3.0
Data
Gaps/
Uncertainties
In
general,
there
is
limited
data
for
estimating
occupational
exposures
and
environmental
releases
during
various
stages
of
the
lifecycle
of
lead
wheel
balancing
weights.
The
table
that
follows
list
the
data
gaps
and
uncertainties
in
estimating
occupational
exposures
and
environmental
releases
for
lead
wheel
balancing
weights.

TABLE
3.0
Summary
of
Estimates,
Uncertainties
and
Data
Gaps
INDUSTRY
SECTOR
ASSESSMENT
TYPE
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
SOURCE
UNCERTAINTIES
AND
DATA
GAPS
Tire
Weight
Manufacturing
[
5
facilities]:

Halko
(
Clayton,
DE
&
Woodbury,
TN);
Perfect
(
Spraks,
NV
&
Murfreesboro,
TN)
Hennesy
(
Bowling
Green,
KY)
Air
Release
None
for
3
sites
reporting
None
for
3
sites
reporting
5
lbs
(
Perfect­
NV)
5
lbs
(
Perfect­
TN)
NA
(
Hennesy
and
Halko­
TN)
TRI
(
2003)
TRI
(
2002)
TRI
(
2001)
TRI
(
2001)
No
TRI
data
was
found
for
the
Hennesy
site
and
the
Halko
site
in
Woodbury,
TN.

Not
known
where
the
off­
site
transfers
(
reported
in
TRI)
go.
Water
Release
None
for
3
sites
reporting
None
for
3
sites
reporting
None
for
3
sites
reporting
NA
(
Hennesy
and
Halko­
TN)
TRI
(
2003)
TRI
(
2002)
TRI
(
2001)

Land
Release
None
for
3
sites
reporting
None
for
3
sites
reporting
None
for
3
sites
reporting
NA
(
Hennesy
and
Halko­
TN)
TRI
(
2003)
TRI
(
2002)
TRI
(
2001)

Transfers
Off­
site
for
Further
Waste
Management
18,775
lbs
(
Halko­
DE)
455,929
lbs
(
Perfect­
NV)
391,746
lbs
(
Perfect­
TN)
NA
(
Hennesy
and
Halko­
TN)
TRI
(
2003)

Number
of
Workers
307
(
Total
for
5
facilities)
Dun
&
Bradstreet
Industry
contacts
Dun
&
Bradstreet
reporting
of
number
of
employees
may
include
workers
not
exposed
during
lead
wheel
weight
manufacturing.
Hours
per
day
workers
may
be
exposed
to
lead
wheel
weights.
Number
of
days
per
year
workers
may
be
exposed
to
lead
wheel
weights.
INDUSTRY
SECTOR
ASSESSMENT
TYPE
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
SOURCE
UNCERTAINTIES
AND
DATA
GAPS
19
Inhalation
Exposure
0.5
mg/
day
(
fume
and
dust)

0.49
mg/
day
(
8­
hr
TWA
personal
breathing
zone
sample)
OSHA
PEL
(
lead)
=
400
µ
m/
m3
(
max
permissible
limit)

OSHA
(
1994)
Avg
=
49
µ
m/
m3
(
2
samples)
for
lead
pot
tenders
of
fishing
lure
and
sinker
manufacturers
(
SIC
3949)
No
monitoring
data
was
found.
Estimate
based
on
assumption
of
compliance
with
OSHA
PEL.

The
OSHA
data
from
pot
tenders
of
fishing
lure
and
sinker
manufacturers
may
or
may
not
be
applicable
to
the
manufacture
of
lead
wheel
balancing
weights.

Dermal
Exposure
Unknown
NA
No
data
was
found.

Assumptions
that
no
contact
will
occur
with
molten
lead.

Specific
information
pertaining
to
worker
activity
is
needed
to
needed
to
assess
dermal
exposures.

Installation
onto
Wheels
OEM:
176
auto
facilities
95
light
truck
&
utility
vehicle
facilities
Aftermarket:
5,500
facilities
Air
Release
Unknown
NA
Loss
fraction
due
to
disposal
of
off­
spec
or
damaged
tire
weights
is
unknown.

Media
of
release.

Amount
of
lead
wheel
weights
used
(
the
quantities
reported
are
inconsistent).
Water
Release
Unknown
NA
Land
Release
Unknown
NA
Transfers
Off­
site
for
Further
Waste
Management
Unknown
Tire
Industry
Association
survey
Number
of
Workers
OEM:
Automobile
85,845
(
total)
75,114
(
production)
Light
truck
&
utility:
107,237
(
total)
96,856
(
production)
Aftermarket:
22,000
(
total
at
5,500
facilities)
81,500
to
86,000
2002
Economic
Census
Tire
Industry,
2005
Dept.
of
Labor
Number
of
workers
directly
installing
lead
wheel
weights.
Hours
per
day
workers
may
be
exposed
to
lead
wheel
weights.
Number
of
days
per
year
workers
may
be
exposed
to
lead
wheel
weights.

Inhalation
Exposure
Unknown
NA
No
monitoring
data
was
found.

Dermal
Exposure
Unknown
NA
No
data
was
found.

Specific
information
pertaining
to
worker
activity
is
needed
to
needed
to
assess
dermal
exposures.
INDUSTRY
SECTOR
ASSESSMENT
TYPE
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
SOURCE
UNCERTAINTIES
AND
DATA
GAPS
20
Automobile
Use
Air
Release
8,800,000­
11,000,000
lbs
10,000,0008­
15,000,000
lbs
(
specific
media
of
release
are
known)
(
Lohse,
2001)
and
Root
study
(
2000)

(
EPAB,
2005)
and
Root
study
(
2000)
Validity
of
extrapolating
Root
study
to
the
entire
United
States
is
unknown.

Initial
releases
from
automobiles
is
to
land;
however,
environmental
fate
and
partitioning
to
other
media
is
unknown.

Quantity
of
weights
collected
(
recycled)
for
personal
use
is
unknown
(
fishing
weights,
lures,
ammunition,
etc).
Water
Release
Land
Release
Transfers
Off­
site
for
Further
Waste
Management
Unknown
NA
Automobile
Disposal
(
Salvage
Yards)
Air
Release
Unknown
NA
Media
of
release
uncertain.

Fate
uncertain
­
amount
of
wheel
weights
in
landfill
and
junkyards.

Number
of
cars
in
the
US
disposed
of
in
US.

Fraction
of
wheel
weights
recycled.
Water
Release
Unknown
Land
Release
Unknown
Transfers
Off­
site
for
Further
Waste
Management
Unknown
NA
Transfers
off­
site
is
unknown.
No
data
was
found.

Number
of
Workers
Unknown
NA
No
data
was
located
on
number
of
workers.

No
data
was
found
on
occupational
exposures
to
lead
from
lead
wheel
weights
in
salvage
yards.
Inhalation
Exposure
Unknown
NA
Dermal
Exposure
Unknown
NA
Automobile
Disposal
(~
200
shredders
in
US
based
on
ISRI,
2005
&
Great
Lakes
Institute,
1998)
Air
Release
Unknown
NA
1)
Fraction
of
lead
wheel
weights
removed
during
dismantling,
prior
to
transfer
to
shredders;
and
2)
The
amount
of
lead
wheel
weights
that
may
be
shredded;
3)
The
amount
of
lead
from
wheel
weights
in
waste
streams
and
in
product
streams.
Water
Release
Unknown
Land
Release
Unknown
Transfers
Off­
site
for
Further
Waste
Management
Unknown
Number
of
Workers
Unknown
NA
Reference
source
did
not
have
information
on
number
of
workers
per
facilities.

Inhalation
Exposure
Unknown
NA
No
monitoring
data
was
found.
INDUSTRY
SECTOR
ASSESSMENT
TYPE
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
SOURCE
UNCERTAINTIES
AND
DATA
GAPS
21
Dermal
Exposure
Unknown
NA
No
data
exist.

Automobile
Disposal
(
Steel
Mills
­
EAFs
or
BOFs)

95
facilities
utilizing
EAFs
(
EPA,
2005a)

16
facilities
with
BOFs
(
2002
Economic
Census)
Air
Release
(
stack
&
fugitive)
48,550
kg/
yr
TRI
(
2003
data)
for
SIC
3312
1)
TRI
data
could
not
be
segregated
to
quantify
the
amount
of
lead
from
lead
wheel
weights.

2)
Cannot
directly
separate
emissions
specifically
associated
with
EAFs
and
BOFs
containing
lead
from
lead
wheel
weights.

3)
Automobile
scrap
sent
to
steel
mills
with
EAFs
and
BOFs
containing
lead
wheel
weights.
Water
Release
(
surface
water
&
POTW)
6,570
kg/
yr
TRI
(
2003
data)
for
SIC
3312
Land
Release
4,012,060
kg/
yr
TRI
(
2003
data)
for
SIC
3312
Transfers
Off­
site
for
Further
Waste
Management
6,659,870
kg/
yr
TRI
(
2003
data)
for
SIC
3312
Number
of
Workers
4,933
(
employees)
4,167
(
production
employees)
2002
Economic
Census
Manufacturing
Industry
Series:
Iron
and
Steel
Mills
Number
of
workers
exposed
to
lead
from
lead
wheel
weights
is
not
known.
Inhalation
and
dermal
exposures
attributed
to
lead
wheel
weights
is
not
known.

Inhalation
Exposure
Unknown
NA
Dermal
Exposure
Unknown
NA
INDUSTRY
SECTOR
ASSESSMENT
TYPE
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
SOURCE
UNCERTAINTIES
AND
DATA
GAPS
22
Secondary
Smelting
Potentially
up
to
236
secondary
smelting
facilities
in
US
(
2002
Economic
Census,
US
Census
Bureau,
Dept.
of
Commerce)

Potentially
23
lead
smelting
facilities
(
Rice,
2005)

Potentially
26
secondary
lead
smelting
facilities
in
U.
S.
(
Kirk­
Othmer,
1996)
Air
Release
2,791,163
lbs
(
fugitive)
5,590,402
lbs
(
stack)
TRI
(
2003
for
SIC
3341)
TRI
data
reported
for
SIC
3341
(
Secondary
Smelting
and
Refining
of
Nonferrous
Metals)
includes
releases
from
operations
other
than
secondary
lead
smelting
and
other
sources
of
lead
other
than
lead
wheel
weights.

Destination
of
off­
site
transfers
is
unknown.
The
lead
content
in
these
transfers
from
lead
wheel
weights
is
unknown.
Water
Release
278,304
lbs
(
surface)
101,281
lbs
(
POTW)
TRI
(
2003
for
SIC
3341)

Land
Release
1,612,807,619
lbs
TRI
(
2003
for
SIC
3341)

Transfers
Off­
site
for
Further
Waste
Management
1,945,230,974
lbs
TRI
(
2003
for
SIC
3341)

Number
of
Workers
9,931
(
all
employees)
6,987
(
production
workers)
(
NAICS
331492).
1,600
workers
2002
Economic
Census
(
US
Dept
of
Commerce)

Rice,
2005
This
data
could
not
be
partitioned
to
reflect
actual
number
of
workers
exposed
to
lead
from
lead
wheel
weights.
INDUSTRY
SECTOR
ASSESSMENT
TYPE
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
SOURCE
UNCERTAINTIES
AND
DATA
GAPS
23
Inhalation
Exposure
0.5
mg/
day
(
fume
and
dust)

0.49
mg/
day
(
8­
hr
TWA
personal
breathing
zone
sample)

4.4
­
7.6
mg/
day
OSHA
PEL
(
lead)
=
400
µ
m/
m3
max
permissible
limit
OSHA
(
1994)
Avg
=
49
µ
m/
m3
(
2
samples)
for
lead
pot
tenders
of
fishing
lure
and
sinker
manufacturers
(
SIC
3949)

Korean
data
in
scrap
and
furnace
operations
(
436

g/
m3)
and
in
secondary
smelting
furnace
operations
(
758

g/
m3
)
[
J.
Occup.
Health,
2004]
No
monitoring
data
exist.
Estimate
based
on
assumption
of
compliance
with
OSHA
PEL.

The
OSHA
data
may
or
may
not
be
comparable
to
the
potential
workers
exposures
for
operation
being
assessed.

This
data
from
a
Korean
study
may
or
may
not
be
comparable
to
those
for
the
operation
being
reviewed.

Dermal
Exposure
Unknown
(
Worker
contact
to
molten
lead
is
not
likely
to
occur)
NA
Dermal
exposure
data
for
workers
in
secondary
lead
smelting
was
not
found.
24
4.0
REFERENCES
BADA,
2005.
General
Contact
Report.
Telephone
interview
of
Vincent
Piacenti
(
Present)
and
Tim
Presley
(
Director,
Operations)
of
Hennessy
Industries,
Inc.,
BADA
Division
by
Cody
Rice
of
USEPA/
OPPT.
July
1,
2005.

Donguk
&
Namwon,
2004.
Exposure
to
Lead
and
its
Particles
Size
Distribution,
by
Park
Donguk
and
Paik
Namwon.
Received
August
14,
2003.
Accepted
January
21,
2004.
J
Occup
Health
200;
46:
225­
229
Dun
&
Bradstreet,
2005.
Dun
&
Bradstreet
Market
Spectrum.
Accessed
June
6,
2005.

Ecology
Center
et
al,
2001.
Ecology
Center,
Great
Lakes
United,
and
University
of
Tennessee
Center
for
Clean
Products
and
Clean
Technologies.
Toxics
in
Vehicles:
Mercury.
Located
at
web
site:
http://
www.
cleancarcampaign.
org/
pdfs/
toxicsinvehicles_
mercury.
pdf.
January
2001.

Ecology
Center,
2005
European
Union
Countries
to
Get
Lead­
free
Weights
This
Year.
Located
at
web
site:
http://
www.
ecocenter.
org/
2003/
leadfreewheels200310.
html
EPAB,
2005.
Use
and
Substitutes
Analysis
for
Lead
Wheel­
Balancing
Weights
in
Response
to
TSCA
Section
21
Petition.
Economic
and
Policy
Analysis
Branch,
Economics,
Exposure
and
Technology
Division,
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
July
20,
2005.

Gust,
2004.
Letter
to
Richard
Gust,
President,
Tire
Industry
Association,
from
James
Barlow,
US
EPA,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response,
regarding
lead
wheel
weights.
December
30,
2004.

ISRI,
2005.
Institute
of
Scrap
Recycling
Industries,
Inc.
End­
of­
Life
Vehicles:
A
Proven
Path
to
Recycling.
Located
at
web
site
www.
isri.
org/
industryinfo/
elv.
pdf.
2005.

Kirk­
Othmer,
1996.
Encyclopedia
of
Chemical
Technology,
Fourth
Edition,
Volume
20,
pg.
1123.
1996.

Lead­
Free
Wheels,
2005.
Lead­
Free
Wheels
Program.
Located
at
web
site:
http://
www.
leadfreewheels.
org/

Lohse,
2001.
Heavy
Metals
in
Vehicles
II,
by
Dr.
Joachin
Lohse,
Knit
Sander,
and
Dr.
Martin
Wirts.
Prepared
for
Directorate
General
Environment,
nuclear
Safety
and
Civil
Protection
of
the
Commission
of
the
European
Communities.
Contract
No
B4­
3040/
2000/
300649/
MAR/
E.
3
July
2001.

New
Jersey
DEP,
2004.
Division
of
Science,
Research,
and
Technology.
Mercury
Switch
Data
Collection
Pilot
Project:
Final
Report.
March
2004.

NIOSH,
1976.
National
Institute
for
Occupational
Safety
and
Health.
A
Guide
to
Industrial
Respiratory
Protection.
1976
NIOSH
#
76­
189;
GPO
#
017­
033­
00153­
7).

OSHA,
1994.
U.
S.
Department
of
Labor/
OSHA
Industry
and
Exposure
Profiles
and
Assessment
of
Benefits
of
Reducing
Occupational
Exposures
to
Lead
in
58
General
Industry
Sectors
and
Processes
(
Final
Report).
Exhibit
2.
February
28,
1994.

Recycling
Council
of
Ontario,
1999.
Management
of
End­
of­
Life
Vehicles
(
ELVs)
in
Ontario:
Proceeding
and
Draft
Recommendations
of
the
RCO
Forum.
1999.

Rice1,
2005.
Email
to
Kurt
Rindfusz,
ERG,
from
Cody
Rice,
EPA
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
regarding
lead
wheel­
balancing
weight
manufacturers.
June
1,
2005.

Rice2,
2005.
Email
to
Daryl
Hudson,
ERG,
from
Cody
Rice,
EPA
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
regarding
lead
wheel­
balancing
weight
manufacturers.
June
7,
2005.

Root,
2000.
Robert
Root,
"
Lead
Loading
of
Urban
Streets
by
Motor
Vehicle
Wheel
Weights."
Environmental
Health
Perspectives
October
2000.

Sax,
1989.
Sax
NI
&
Lewis
RJ.
Dangerous
Properties
of
Industrial
Materials,
7th
ed.
1989.
25
Steel
Recycling
Institute,
2004.
2003
The
Inherent
Recycled
Content
of
Today's
Steel.
Located
at
web
site
http://
www.
recycle­
steel.
org/
PDFs/
Inherent03.
pdf.
April
2004.

Steel
Recycling
Institute,
2005.
"
STEEL:
DRIVING
AUTO
RECYCLING
SUCCESS"
Located
at
web
site
http://
www.
recycle­
steel.
org/
cars.
html.
2005.

Tire
Industry,
2005.
Summary
of
the
Average
Independent
Tire
Dealer's
Automotive
Service
Operations.
Retrieved
March
8,
2005
from
http://
www.
tireindustry.
org/
images/
2003_
stat.
gif
U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
2000.
1997
Economic
Census
Wholesale
Trade
Subject
Series:
Establishment
and
Firm
Size
(
Including
Legal
Form
of
Organization):
1997.
September
2000.

U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
2004a.
2002
Economic
Census
Manufacturing
Industry
Series:
Automobile
Manufacturing:
2002.
December
2004.

U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
2004b.
2002
Economic
Census
Manufacturing
Industry
Series:
Iron
and
Steel
Mills:
2002.
EC02­
31I­
331111
(
RV).
December
2004.

U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
2004c.
2002
Economic
Census
Manufacturing
Industry
Series:
Secondary
Smelting
and
Alloying
of
Aluminum:
2002.
EC02­
31I­
331314
(
RV).
December
2004.

U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
2005a.
2002
Economic
Census
Manufacturing
Industry
Series:
Light
truck
and
Utility
Vehicle
Manufacturing:
2002.
January
2005.

U.
S.
EPA,
1995a.
Office
of
Compliance
Sector
Notebook
Project.
Profile
of
the
Motor
Vehicle
Assembly
Industry.
EPA/
310­
R­
95­
009.
September,
1995.

U.
S.
EPA,
1995b.
Office
of
Compliance
Sector
Notebook
Project.
Profile
of
the
Iron
and
Steel
Industry.
EPA/
310­
R­
95­
005.
September,
1995.

U.
S.
EPA
2005a.
"
Steel
Plants
with
Electric
Arc
Furnaces"
Received
in
email
from
Mary
Kissell
of
U.
S.
EPA/
OAQPS
to
Scott
Prothero
of
U.
S.
EPA/
OPPT.
April,
2005.
26
Appendix
A
Steel
Plants
with
Electric
Arc
Furnacesa
Facility
Name
City
State
Number
of
Furnaces
Type(
s)
of
Steel
Producedb
Capacity
(
1,000
tpy)

AK
Steel
Corp/
Butler
Operations
Butler
PA
3
S
960
AK
Steel
Corp/
Mansfield
Operations
Mansfield
OH
2
S
700
Allegheny
Technologies
Inc.
Brackenridge
PA
4
S
496
Allegheny
Technologies
Inc./
Birmingham
Birmingham
AL
5
C
588
Arkansas
Steel
Associates
Newport
AR
1
C
130
Bayou
Steel
Corp./
LaPlace
LaPlace
LA
2
C
683
BetaSteel
Corp.
Portage
IN
1
C
500
Border
Steel
Mills,
Inc.
El
Paso
TX
2
C
250
Carpenter
Technology
Corp./
Reading
Plant
Reading
PA
6
H,
S
450
Cascade
Steel
Rolling
Mills,
Inc
McMinnville
OR
1
C
700
Champion
Steel
Co.
Orwell
OH
1
C,
H,
S
6
Charter
Manufacturing
Co.,
Inc/
Charter
Steel
Saukville
WI
1
C
515
CitiSteel
USA
Inc.
Claymont
DE
1
C
400
CMC
Steel
Group/
SMI
Steel
South
Carolina
Cayce
SC
1
C
1,089
CMC
Steel
Group/
SMI
Steel,
Inc.
Birmingham
AL
1
S,
C
1,855
CMC
Steel
Group/
Structural
Metals,
Inc.
Seguin
TX
1
C
339
Corus
Tuscaloosa
Tuscaloosa
AL
1
C
870
Crucible
Materials
Corp
Syracuse
NY
1
H,
S
50
Electralloy
Oil
City
PA
1
C
90
Ellwood
Quality
Steels
Co.
New
Castle
PA
1
C,
H,
S
410
Erie
Forge
and
Steel
Inc.
Erie
PA
3
C,
H,
S
385
Finkl,
A.,
&
Sons
Chicago
IL
2
C
90
Gallatin
Steel
Co.
Ghent
KY
1
C
1,500
Gerdau
Ameristeel
­
Cartersville
Division
Cartersville
GA
1
C
658
Gerdau
Ameristeel
­
Charlotte
Steel
Mill
Charlotte
NC
1
C
622
Gerdau
Ameristeel
­
Jacksonville
Steel
Mill
Baldwin
FL
1
C
330
Gerdau
Ameristeel
­
Knoxville
Steel
Mill
Knoxville
TN
1
C
515
Gerdau
Ameristeel
­
Raritan
Perth
Amboy
NJ
1
C
800
Gerdau
Ameristeel
­
Sayreville
Sayreville
NJ
1
C
750
Gerdau
Ameristeel
­
Tennessee
Steel
Mill
Jackson
TN
1
C
892
Haynes
International,
Inc.
Kokomo
IN
2
H,
S
20
Hoeganeas
Corp./
Gallatin
Gallatin
TN
1
C
500
Hoeganeas
Corp./
Riverton
Riverton
NJ
1
C
112
Inmetco
Ellwood
City
PA
1
S
28
Ipsco
Inc./
Mobile
Steel
Works
Axis
AL
1
C
674
Ipsco
Inc./
Montepelier
Muscatine
IA
1
H,
C
317
International
Steel
Group
(
ISG)
Cleveland
OH
2
C
396
27
ISG
(
formerly
Bethlehem
Steel).
Coatsville
PA
1
C,
H,
S
880
ISG
(
formerly
Bethlehem
Steel).
Steelton
PA
1
C
1,100
ISG
(
formerly
Georgetown
Steel)
Georgetown
SC
2
C
1,000
Ispat
Inland,
Inc./
Ispat
Inland
Bar
Prods.
East
Chicago
IN
1
C
500
J&
L
Specialty
Steel,
Inc.
Midland
PA
2
S
400
K.
O.
Steel
Foundry
&
Machine
San
Antonio
TX
1
C
18
Keystone
Steel
&
Wire
Co
Peoria
IL
1
C
1,000
Kobelco
Metal
Powder
of
America,
Inc.
Seymore
IN
1
C
63
LeTourneau
Inc.
Longview
TX
2
C,
H
124
Lone
Star
Steel
Inc.
Lone
Star
TX
2
C
265
MACSTEEL
Arkansas
Div.
Fort
Smith
AR
2
C
607
MACSTEEL
Michigan
Div.
Jackson
MI
2
C
725
Marion
Steel
Co.
Marion
OH
1
C
400
National
Forge
Co.
Irvine
PA
1
C,
H,
S
58
North
American
Stainless
Ghent
KY
1
S
800
North
Star
BHP
Steel
L.
L.
P.
Delta
OH
1
C
1,800
North
Star
Steel/
Iowa
Div.
Wilton
IA
1
C
917
North
Star
Steel/
Kingman
Kingman
AZ
1
500
North
Star
Steel/
Michigan
Div.
Monroe
MI
1
C
600
North
Star
Steel/
Minnesota
Div.
St.
Paul
MN
1
C
843
North
Star
Steel/
Texas
Div.
Beaumont
TX
1
C
1,002
Northwestern
Steel
&
Wire
Co.
Sterling
IL
2
C
2,070
NS
Group
Inc./
Koppel
Steel
Corp.
Beaver
Falls
PA
1
C
550
Nucor
Bar
Mill
Group
Birmingham
AL
1
C
500
Nucor
Bar
Mill
Group
Kankakee
IL
1
C
800
Nucor
Bar
Mill
Group/
Nucor
Steel
Jackson
Inc.
Jackson
MS
1
C
500
Nucor
Bar
Mill
Group/
Nucor
Steel
Seattle
Inc.
Seattle
WA
1
C
840
Nucor
Corp./
Berkeley
County
Plant
Berkeley
County
SC
2
C
2,359
Nucor
Corp./
Crawfordsville
Plant
Crawfordsville
IN
2
H,
C
224
Nucor
Corp./
Darlington
Plant
Darlington
SC
1
H,
C
872
Nucor
Corp./
Hertford
Plant
Cofield
NC
1
H,
C
171
Nucor
Corp./
Hickman
Plant
Hickman
AR
2
C,
H,
S
1,200
Nucor
Corp./
Jewett
Plant
Jewett
TX
3
C
460
Nucor
Corp./
Norfolk
Plant
Norfolk
NE
1
C
1,103
Nucor
Corp./
Plymouth
Plant
Plymouth
UT
2
C
1,111
Nucor
Steel
­
Auburn
Auburn
NY
1
C
550
Nucor
Steel
­
Decatur
LLC
Decatur
AL
2
C
2,000
Nucor­
Yamato
Steel
Co.
Blytheville
AR
2
C
3,277
Oregon
Steel
Mills,
Inc./
Portland
Portland
OR
1
C
499
Oregon
Steel
Mills/
Rocky
Mountain
Steel
Mills
Pueblo
CO
2
C
1,200
Republic
Engineered
Steels,
Inc./
Canton
Plant
Canton
OH
1
C
1,050
Roanoke
Electric
Steel
Corp.
Roanoke
VA
2
C
710
Sheffield
Steel
Corp.
Sand
Springs
OK
2
C
600
28
Standard
Steel/
Burnham
Plant
Burnham
PA
3
C,
H,
S
231
Standard
Steel/
Latrobe
Plant
Latrobe
PA
1
C,
H
59
Steel
Dynamics
Inc./
Butler
Butler
IN
2
C
3
Steel
Dynamics
Inc./
Whitley
County
Whitley
County
IN
2
C,
H
800
Steel
of
West
Virginia,
Inc.
Huntington
WV
2
C
100
TAMCO
Rancho
CA
1
C
750
Timken
Co.,
The/
Faircrest
Plant
Canton
OH
1
C
415
Timken
Co.,
The/
Harrison
Plant
Canton
OH
3
S
358
Timken
Co.,
The/
Latrobe
Steel
Co.
Latrobe
PA
2
C,
H
60
TXI
Chaparral
Steel/
Dinwiddie
Dinwiddie
VA
1
C,
H,
S
1,200
TXI
Chaparral
Steel/
Midlothian
Midlothian
TX
2
C,
H,
S
2,000
Union
Electric
Steel
Corp.
Carnegie
PA
1
C,
H
Universal
Stainless
&
Alloy
Products,
Inc.
Bridgeville
PA
1
H,
S
105
V&
M
Star
Youngstown
OH
1
C,
H
650
Wheeling­
Pittsburgh
Steel
Mingo
Junction
OH
1
C
500
TOTAL
144
63,149
Source:
U.
S.
EPA
2005a.
a
Compiled
from
Roundup
(
May
2003),
an
OAQPS
survey
of
minimills
in
2004,
and
news
releases.
Also
updated
to
include
ownership
changes
and
recent
shutdowns.
Does
not
include
EAFs
used
at
iron
and
steel
foundries
(
some
were
listed
in
Roundup)
b
S
=
stainless,
H
=
high
alloy,
C
=
carbon
(
or
low
alloy)
