EPA 530-SW-87-014C
PB87-173845
Background Information Document for the
Development of Regulat* >ns to Control the
Burning of Hazardous Wastes in Boilers and
Industrial Furnaces. Volume 3. Risk Assessment
Engineering Science
Fairfax, VA
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency
Wasnington, DC
Feb 87
-------
HE TORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
I. REr-ORT NO.
EPA/530-SW-87-01UC
4. Tl I* and Subtitle
Background Information Document for the Development of Regula-
tions to Control the Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers and
Industrial Furnaces, Volume III, Risk Assessment
S. Report Oat*
February 1987
7. Auttv rt»)
Engineering Science
"«nr«.A<^j«»lon No.
- 17384
(. Performing; Organize'>on Rapt No.
9. Perfonilng Organization Nam* and Addre»a
Engineering Science
Two Flint Hill
10521 I'.osehaven Street
Fairfax, Virginia 220JO
10. Proiect/Ta»k/>Vork Unit No.
11. Contract^,) or Grant(G) No.
This volume covers the risk assessment completed for
the development of proposed rules for the burning of hazardous
waste in boilers and industrial furnances. The project was
completed for the Waste Management Division. The document
includes n-ethods for evaluating threshold and carcinogenetic
pollutants based on inhalation effects, a description of model
boilers and f urnances, impacts por.ed by current burning
practices/ identification of compounds of concern/ and
potential health effects of Appendix VIII metals and HCL
emissions froiti hazardous waste and fossil fuel burning.
The appendix includes complex air dispersion modeling
parameters, toxicity data banks, and computed average
cancer potu-.cies at 21 selected sites.
17. Document Analyate a. Daacrlptor*
b. IdanMflwv/OpM-EiMtod Tarmt
c. COSATI FMd/Qroup
IS. Availability ttatanwrt
Unlimited
Ilk Security Ciaaa (TMa Raport)
Unclassified
20. Security ClaM (Thte Pa«*)
Unclassified
2\ No. of Pa«aa
22. Price
(See ANSt-Z39.1»
Sea fnatructtona on ffavaraa
1.
OmONAL FOMM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-3S)
Department of Commerce
-------
Robert Holloway
Project Officer
February 1987
FA035/83A, 83B, 83C, 83D
REPRODUCED BY
U.S. DEPARTMENTOF COMMERCE
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
SPRMGFELO.VA 22161
Submitted by
Engineering-Science
Two Flint Hill
10521 Rosehaven street
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
-------
BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
REGULATIONS TO CONTROL THE BURNING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN
BOILERS AND INDUSTRIAL FURNACES
VOLUME III
RISK ASSESSMENT
Submitted to
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waste Treatment Branch (WH-565A)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Robert Holloway
Project Officer
February 1987
FA035/83A, 83B, 83C, 83D
Submitted by
Engineering-Science
Two Flint Hill
10521 Rosehaven Street
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared by Engineering Science,'Fairfax,
Virginia under Contract No. 68-01-7053 and is reproduced as
received from the contractor.
This document provides methods for assessing noncarcinogenic
health risks starting with health limits derived for two different
approaches: (1) health limits established by the ACGIH (i.e.,
Threshold Limit Values (TLVs)); and (2) Agency verified oral
reference doses (RfDs) converted, in most cases, to an inhalation
exposure limit by assuming a 100% route-to-route conversion.
During development of the proposed rule for boilers and industrial
furnaces burning hazardous waste, however, the Agency formed an
Inhalation RfD Workgroup to examine issues associated with exposure
via inhalation and to develop inhalation RfDs. Consequently,
although this document considers TLV health limits, the proposed
rule is based on a consideration of only the oral-based RfD
endpoints.
The Agency recognizes the limitations of route-to-route
conversions used to derive the oral RfD-based inhalation exposure
limits and is in the process of examining confounding factors
affecting the conversion such as: (1) the appropriateness of
extrapolationg when a portal of entry is the critical target
organ; (2) first pass effects; and (3) the effect of route upon
dosimetry. The Agency, through its Inhalation RfD Workgroup, is
developing reference dose values for inhalation exposure, and
many are expected to be available in 1987. The Agency will use
the available inhalation RfDs to support promulgation of the
final rules for boilers and industrial furnaces.
Therefore, this document does not necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does *nention of commercial products constitute endorsement
by the U.S. Government or the contractor.
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
AESRL Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
APEL Acceptable public Exposure Levels
CAA Clean Air Act
CAG Cancer Assessment Group
COD Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
CDF Chlorinated dibenzo-furans
DRE Destruction and Removal Efficiency
Hp
HWDF
Hx
IARC
NAAQS
NESHAP
NOAEL
NTBE>1
OAQPS
Hepta
Hazardous Waste Derived Fuel, classified as hazardous waste
under RCRA regulations
Hexa
International Agency for Research on Cancer
National Ambient Air Quality standards
National Emission standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
No Observed Adverse Effects in Animal Studies
Not to be exceeded > 1 more than once per year
Office of Air Quality planning and Standards
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
Pe
PIC
POHC
PSD
RCRA
RfDs
Penta
Products of Incomplete Combustion
principal Organic Hazardous Constituents
prevention of significant Deterioration
cancer
Slope of cancer dose-response relationship mg
kg *day
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Reference Doses
T Tetra
TEF Toxic Equivalence Factor, the relative potency of a specific dioxin
or furan divided by the corresponding potency of 2,3,7,8 TCDD
TLV-C Threshold Limit Values-Ceiling
TLV-STEL Threshold Limit Value-Short Term Exposure Limit
TLV-TWA Threshold Limit Value-Time Weighted Average
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii^
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS iii
SECTION 1 SUMMARY 1-1
Section 2 Risk Assessment Methods for Specific
Chemicals 1-2
Section 3 Description of Boilers, Kilns, and
Furnaces Modeled 1-4
Section 4 Impac.ts that Could Be Posed by Current
Burning Practices 1-5
Section 5 Identification of Compounds of Concern '1-6
Section 6 Health Effects of Appendix VIII Metals and
HC1 from Fossil Fuel Combustion 1-6
Appendix A Glossary 1-7
Appendix B Threshold Toxicity Oata Bank 1-7
Appendix C Carcinogenicity Data Bank 1-7
Appendix D Data Used to Select Sources Modeled 1-7
Appendix E Computation of Weighted Average Cancer
Potencies for 21 Selected Facilities 1-8
Calculation Support Document 1-8
SECTION 2 RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR SPECIFIC CHEMICALS
Introduction 2-1
Existing Standards 2-11
Method for Evaluating Threshold Toxicants 2-11
Method for Evaluating Carcinogens 2-32
Mutagenicity and Developmental Toxicity 2-34
Dioxins and Furans 2-34
SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF BOILERS AND FURNACES MODELED 3-1
Identification of Reasonable Worst-Case Boiler/
Meteorology Combinations 3-1
Identification of Reasonable Worst-Case Furnace/
Combinations 3-6
iv
5
-------
SECTION 4 IMPACTS THAT COULD BE POSED BY CURRENT BURNING
PRACTICES 4-1
Characterization of Reasonable Worst-Case
Hazardous Wastes 4-5
Characterization of Pollutiou Control Technology 4-5
Characterization of Worst-Case Impacts 4-5
SECTION 5 IDENTIFICATION OF COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN 5-1
Description of Reference Emission Rates and
Concentrations of Concern 5-1
Method for Correcting for Products of Incomplete
Combustion 5-28
Method for Considering Additive Risk 5-75
Recommended Procedures for Compounds of Potential
Concern 5-75
SECTION 6 HEALTH EFFECTS OF APPENDIX VIII METALS AND HC1 FROM 6-1
FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION
Introduction 6-1
Characterization of Coal 6-1
Characterization of #6 Fuel Oil 6-1
Characterization of Impacts from Appendix VIII
Metals and HC1 6-4
APPENDIX A GLOSSARY
APPENDIX B THRESHOLD TOXICITY DATA BANK
APPENDIX C CARCINOGENICITY DATA BANK
APPENDIX D DATA USED TO SELECT SOURCES MODELED
APPSNDIX E COMPUTATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE CANCER POTENCIES
FOR 21 SELECTED FACILITIES
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1 Dose Rate Vs. Time for Hydrogen Chloride 2-29
3.1 Statistical Distribution of Boiler Impacts 3-3
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Summary of Carcinogenic Potencies for Appendix VIII
Substances . 2-2
2.2 Summary of Health Data for TheshoId Systemic Toxicants 2-6
2.3 Appendix VIII Substances for Which Toxic and Carcino-
genic Potencies are Available 2-12
2.4 Federal Ambient Standards, Reference Concentrations,
and TLVs 2-13
2.S Guidelines, Experimental Support, and References for
the Use of Uncertainty (Safety) Factors 2-19
2.6 Effects of HC1 in Animal Studies 2-27
2.7 Reported Effects of HC1 on Humans 2-30
2.8 2,3,7,8-TCDD Toxic Equivalence Factors (TEF)
v (Relative Potencies) of Dioxins and Furans 2-36
3.1 Characteristics of Boilers, Furnaces, and Kilns 3-4
3.2 Ranking of Relative Maximum Annual Average Impacts
of Combustion Devices in Flat Terrain 3-9
3.3 Ranking of Relative 15-Minute Maximum Impacts
of Combustion Devices in Flat Terrain 3-10
3.4 Ranking of Relative Maximum Annual Average Impacts
of Combustion Devices in Complex Terrain 3-11
3.5 Ranking of Relative 15-Minute Maximum Impacts
o'2 Combustion Devices in Complex Terrain 3-12
4.1 Metals Levels in Hazardous Waste Fuels in PPM 4-2
4.2 Selection of Typical PICs 4-4
4.3 Composition of Reasonable Worst-Case Hazardous
Waste (Assuming 100% Waste in Fuel 9 8,000 Btu/lb) 4-6
4.4 Concentrations Used As Potency Indicators in Impact
Assessment 4-7
4.5 Estimated Metal Collection Efficiencies for Various
Control Devices 4-8
4.6 Highest Impacts of Lightweight Aggregate Kiln With
Low Energy Scrubber Burning 90% Worst HWDF for Flat
Terrain 4-10
vi
7
-------
4.7 Highest Impacts of One Boiler Burning 90% Worst HWDF
for Flat Terrain 4-11
4.8 Highest Impacts of Dry Cement (One Unit with ESP)
Burning 90% Worst HWDF for Flat Terrain 4-12
4.9 Highest Impacts of Lightweight Aggregate Kiln With
Low Energy Scrubber Burning 90% Worst HWDF for
Complex Terrain 4-13
4.10 Highest Impacts of One Boiler Burning 90% Worst HWDF
for Complex Terrain 4-14
4.11 Highest Impacts of Dry Cement Kiln (One Unit with
ESP) Burning 90% Worst HWDF for Complex Terrain 4-i5
5.1 Reference Emission Rates for Metals, HC1, and Selected
Organics from Boilers, Furnaces, and Kilns (lb/106
But) for Flat Terrain 5-4
5.2 Reference Emission Factors for Metals, HC1, and Se-
lected Organics from Boilers, Furnaces, and Kilns
(lb/106 Btu) for Complex Terrain 5-5
5.3 Levels cf Metals and Chlorine of Potential Concern
for Lightweight Aggregate Facility With Low Energy
Scrubber in Flat Terrain 5-6
5.4 Levels of Metals and Chlorine of Potential Concern
for One Boiler in Flat Terrain 5-7
5.5 Levels of Metals and Chlorine of Potential Concern
for Dry Cement Plant (One Unit with ESP) in Flat
Terrain 5-8
5.6 Levels of Metals and Chlorine of Potential Concern
for Blast Furnace with Venturi Scrubber in Flat
Terrain 5-9
5.7 Levels of Metals and Chlorine of Potential Concern
for Sulfuric Acid Recovery Furnace in Flat Terrain 5-10
5.8 Levels of Metals and Chlorine of Potential Concern
for Lightweight Aggregate Facility With Low Energy
Scrubber in Rough Terrain 3-11
5.9 Levels of Metals and Chlorine of Potential Concern
for One Boiler in Rough Terrain 5-12
5.10 Levels of Metals and Chlorine of Potential Concern
for Dry Cement Plant (One Unit with ESP) in Rough
Terrain 5-13
5.11 Levels of Metals and Chlorine of Potential Concern
for Blast Furnace With Venturi Scrubber in Rough
Terrain 5-14
5.12 Levels of Metals and Chlorine ot Potential Concern
for Sulfuric Acid Recovery Furnace in Rough Terrain 5-15
5.13 Threshold Toxic Compounds of Concern for Selected
Sources with 99.99% ORE - Assuming Flat Terrain 5-16
5.14 Threshold Toxic Compounds of Concern for Selected
Sources with 99.99% DRE - Assuming Complex Terrain 5-20
5.15 Carcinogenic Compounds of Concern for Selected
Sources with 99.99% DRE - Assuming Flat Terrain 5-24
5.16 Carcinogenic Compounds of Concern for Selected
Sources with 99.99% DRE - Assuming Complex Terrain 5-26
vii
-------
5.17 Maximum Reference Emission Factors and POHC Levels
of Potential Concern, Based on Average Carcinogenic
PICs for Reasonable Worst-Case Lightweight Aggre-
gate Kiln 5-30
5.18 Maximum Reference Emission Factors and POHC Levels
of Potential Concern, Based on Average Carcinogenic
PICs for Reasonable Worst-Case Boilers 5-31
5.19 Maximum Reference Emission Factors and POHC Levels
of Potential Concern, Based on Average Carcinogenic
PZCs for Reasonable Worst-Case Dry Cement Kilns 5-32
5.20 Maximum Reference Emission Factors and POHC Levels
of Potential Concern, Based on Average Carcinogenic
PICs for Reasonable Worst-Case Blast Fuinace 5-33
.5.21 Maximum Reference Emission Factors and POHC Levels
of Potential Concern, Baaed on Average Carcinogenic
PICs for Reasonable Worst-Case Sulfur Recovery
Plar.t • 5-34
5.22 Threshold Toxic Compounds of Concern for Selected
Sources with 99% ORE - Assuming Flat Terrain 5-35
5.23 Threshold Toxic Compounds of Concern for Selected
Sources with 99% ORE - Assuming Complex Terrain 5-39
5.24 Concentrations of Concern Based on Toxicity that
are More Restrictive than the Limits in Tables
5.17-5.21 for Selected Sources with 99.99% ORE -
Assuming Flat Terrain 5-43
5.25 Concentrations of Concern Based on Toxicity that
are More Restrictive than the Limits in Tables
5.17-5.21 for Selected Sources with a 99.99% ORE
- Assuming Complex Terrain 5-47
5.26 Concentrations of Concern Based on Toxicity that
are More Restrictive than the Limits in Tables
5.17-5.21 for Selected Sources with a 99% ORE -
Assuming Flat Terrain 5-51
5.27 Concentrations of Concern Based on Toxicity that
are More Restrictive than the Limits in Tables
5.17-5.21 for Selected Sources with a 99% ORE -
Assuming Complex Terrain 5-55
5.28 Carcinogenic Compounds of Concern for Selected
Sources with a 99% ORE - Assuming Flat Terrain 5-59
5.29 Carcinogenic Compounds of Concern for Selected
Sources with a 99% ORE - Assuming Complex Terrain 5-61
5.30 Referenca Emission Factors for Threshold Toxic
Compounds for Selected Sources in Flat Terrain 5-63
5.31 Reference Emission Factors for Threshold Toxic
Compounds for Selected Sources in Complex Terrain 5-67
5.32 Reference Emission Factors for Carcinogenic Com-
pounds for Selected Sources in Flat Terrain 5-71
5.33 Reference Emission Factors for Carcinogenic Com-
pounds for Selected Sources in Complex Terrain 5-73
6.1 Appendix VIII Metal and Chlorine Concentrations in
Coal (ppm by Weight) 6-2
6.2 Appendix VIII Element and Chlorine Levels in #6 Fuel
Oil (ppm by Weight) 6-3
viii
-------
6.3 Highest Impacts of Lightweight Aggregate Facility
With Low Energy Scrutber Burning Average Coal for
Flat Terrain 6-5
6.4 Highest Impacts of One Boiler Burning Average Coal
for Flat Terrain 6-6
6.4A Highest Impacts of One Boiler with Electrostatic
Precipitator Burning Average Coal for Flat Terrain 6-7
6.5 Highest Impacts of Dry Cement Plant (One Unit with
ESP) Burning Average Coal for Flat Tarrain 6-8
6.6 Highest Impacts of Lightweight Aggregate Facility
with Low Energy Scrubber Burning Worst-Case Coal
for Flat Terrain 6-9
6.7 Highest Impacts of One Boiler Burning Worst-Case
Coal for Flat Terrain 6-"0
6.7A Highest Impacts of One Boiler with Electrostatic
Precipitator Burning Worst-Case Coal for Flat
Terrain 6-11
6.8 Highest Impacts of Dry Cement Plant (One Unit with
ESP) Burning Worst-Case Coal for Flat Terrain 6-12
6.9 Highest Impacts of Lightweiaht Aggregate Facility
with Low Energy Scrubber Burning Average #6 Oil
for Flat Terrain 6-13
6.10 Highest Impacts of On« Boiler Burning Average #6
Oil for Flat Terrain 6-14
6.11 Highest Impacts of Dry Cement Plant (One Unit per
ESP) Burning Average #6 Oil for Flat Terrain 6-15
6.12 Highest Impacts of Lightweight Aggregate Facility
with Low Energy Scruboer Burning Worst-Case #6
Oil for Flat Terrain • 6-16
6.13 Highest Impacts of One Boiler Burning Worst-Case
#6 Oil for Flat Terrain 6-17
6.14 Highest Impacts of Dry Cement Plant (One Unit with
ESP) Burning Worst-Case #6 Oil for Flat Terrain 6-18
6.15 Highest Impacts of Lightweight Aggregate Facility
with Low Energy Scrubber Burning Average Coal for
Rough Terrain 6-19
6.16 Highest Impacts of One Boiler Burning Average Coal
for Rough Terrain 6-20
6.16A Highest Impacts of One Boiler with Electrostatic
Precipitator Burning Average Coal for Complex
Terrain 6-21
6.17 Highest Impacts of Dry Cement Plant (One Unit with
ESP) Burning Average Coal for Rough Terrain 6-22
6.18 Highest Impacts of Lightweight Aggregate Facility
with Low Energy Scrubber Burning Worst-Case Coal
for Rough Terrain 6-23
6.19 Highest Impacts of One Boiler Burning Worst-Case
Coal for Rough Terrain 6-24
6.19A Highest Impacts cf One Boiler with Electrostatic
Precipitator Burning Worst-Case Coal for Complex
Terrain 6-25
b.20 Highest Impacts of Dry Cement Plant (Or.s Unit with
ESP) Burning Worst-Case Ccal- for Rough Terrain 6-26
ix
TO
-------
6.21 Highest Impacts of Lightweight Aggregate Facility
with Low Energy Scrubber Burning Average #6 Oil
for Rough Terrain 6-27
6.22 Highest Impacts of One Boiler Burning Average #6
Oil for Rough Terrain 6-28
6.23 Highest Impacts of Dry Cement Plant (One Unit with
ESP) Burning Average #6 Oil for Rough Terrain 6-29
6.24 Highest Impacts of Lightweight Aggregate Facility
with Low Energy Scrubber Burning Worst-Case 16
Oil for Rough Terrain 6-30
6.25 Highest Impacts of One Boiler Burning Worst-Case §6
Oil for Rough Terrain 6-31
6.26 Highest Impacts of Dry Cement Plant (One Unit with
ESP) Burning Worst-Case #6 Oil for Rough Terrain 6-32
11
-------
FA035/83A
SECTION 1
SUMMARY
Risk Assessment defined the adverse health consequences of exposure to
hazardous substances. It includes one or more of the following components.:
o Hazard Identification,
o Dcse-Response Assessment,
o Exposure Assessment,
o Risk Characterization.
In risk characterization, the results of an exposurs assessment and a
dose-response assessment are combined to quantitatively estimate the risk.
As part of risk characterization, a summary of the strengths and weaknesses
in the hazard identification, dose-response assessment, and public health risk
estimates is presented. Major assumptions, scientific judgements, and to the
extent possible, estimates of the uncertainties embodied in the assessment are
also presented, distinguishing clearly between fact, assumption, and policy.
EPA guideline? emphasize that risk assessments are to be conducted on * case-
by-case basis, giving full consideration to all relevant scientific informa-
tion. For more details, see the EPA Guidelines for Risk Assessment in the
September 24, 1986 Federal Register (References 45 through 49).
In practice, risk assessment studies are performed at a variety of
levels of detail. The methods used range from very simple qualitative methods
to more sophisticated mathematical and statistical methods that provide
increasingly greater power of resolution. Beyond a simple qualitative deter-
mination of whether or not there is any reason to suspect or believe that a
substance may be or is hazardous (hazard identification), a variety of methods
are u.ad. These methods may be grouped into three categories (Reference 53):
o Comparative approaches,
o Quantitative analytical and mathematical modeling,
o Decision analysis techniques.
Comparative approaches vary from the qualitative determination of whether
or not the risk can be considered de minimis to the quantitative comparison
of expected concentrations and exposures to benchmark levels that define the
potency of the substance. Quantitative, analytical, and mathematical modeling
can involve detailed considerations of dose-response characteristics, popula-
tions at risk, indoor/outdoor air pollution, etc. Decision analysis techniques
may involve structuring the problem, judgemental probability encoding of the
1-1
-------
varying opinions of leading experts, sensitivity analysis, specifying a
"multi-attribute utility function," and evaluating the alternatives. For
more details, see Reference 53.
Hundreds of compounds, elements,and categories of compounds are covered
by hazardous waste regulations. This document focuses on simple comparative
methods that are not resource intensive, while recognizing and helping to
identify when more sophisticated methods are needed. This volume summarizes
data related to the potency of over 200 substances found in hazardo-as wastes.
It then evaluates risks to individuals at locations where maximum air pollu-
tion concentrations are predicted as a result of the combustion of hazardous
waste and fossil fuels in industrial boilers and furnaces. It is not an
exhaustive summary of pertinent information on every pollutant conceivably
associated with the combustion of hazardous waste and the resulting potential
human exposure and effects. Instead, it provides screening concentrations for
threshold toxic pollutants that are designed to be useful for determining
when more detailed risk assessment studies are needed and compares maximum
predicted concentrations to these screening concentrations. It also summar-
izes information on the potency of carcinogenic pollutants listed in RCRA
regulations, models reasonable worstease concentration impacts, and provides
an assessment of associated worstcase potential human cancer risks. Informa-
tion on uncertainties is also provided.
This limited risk assessment is designed to provide useful information
to EPA decision makers who are developing regulations and who are determining
priorities for further risk assessment studies.
SECTION 2 RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR SPECIFIC CHEMICALS
This chapter describes the methods used in this report for assessing air
pollution impacts.
Carcinogenic impacts are evaluated by calculating the estimated worst-
case change, in the probability of any individual getting cancer if he (or
she) spent an entire lifetime at the location of maximum annual average
ambient concentration impact.
A procedure is provided for evaluating threshold toxic impacts by compar-
ing predicted maximum annual average, 15-minute and 3 minute ambient concen-
trations caused by sources to examples of concentrations and changes in con-
centrations that are likely to not cause any significant health effects
because of threshold tcxicity. Procedures for calculating these concentrations
from threshold limit values (TLVs) are provided. These TLV based screening
concentrations are compared to ambient air quality standards and to known
human health effects thresholds (and no effects levels) to illustrate the
applicability and limitations of the concentrations. Changes in concentrations
of 25% of TLV based screening concentrations are used as action levels to
indicate the need for detailed risk assessment.
In addition, a procedure is presented for calculatng annual average
screening concentrations from oral reference doses (RfDs). These reference
1-2
-------
doses are based on studies on animals. Insufficient data was available to
apply the RfD based method to four of the metals listed in Appendix VIII of 40
CFR Part 261 RCRA regulations (Reference 4). For mosc of the remaining
Appendix VIII metals for which TLVs exist, the RfD based screening concen-
traticns v*»re high compared to screening concentrations calculated from
threshold limit values. The possibility of adverse effects to persons contin-
uously exposed to the RfD based screening concentrations was suggested for
some of these metals. Screening concentrations derived from oral RfDs using
the equations contained herein wers used only when they were more conserva-
tive than the TLV-based screening concentrations.
Some EPA researchers prefer the TLV-based method; others prefer the RfD
based method; and others have suggested thai the RFD-based screening concen-
trations be reduced by one or two orders of magnitude. This document uses
the smaller of the TLV based annual screening concentration or the RfD based
screening concentration when both are available for a substance. Both were
available for the substances in Sections 4 and 6.
Annual RfD-based concentrations or annual TLV-based screening concen-
trations were used when only one of these concentrations is available.
Changes in concentrations of 25* or more of the annual screening concentrations
were used as action levels to indicate the need for more detailed risk assess-
ment. There a^e 41 substances in Chapter 5 for which only RfD based screening
concentrations are available.
The decision was made to not use 15-minute or 3-minute screening concen-
trations derived from TLVs in Chapters 4 through 6. Therefore, the impact of
short-term exposures were not assessed in Chapters 4 through 6.
Detailed risk assessment for threshold toxic pollutants involves:
o Detailed case by case review of available data on the potency and
effects of substances,
o Consideration of background concentrations,
o Modeling concentration impacts and determining the extent of ex-
posure,
o Comparison of predicted concentrations to known human health effects
thresholds and EPA standards.
Pharmacokinetic modeling may also be used in detailed risk assessment
studies. '
In addition to discussing the above, detailed information on the effects
of hydrochloric acid on animals and people are provided, along with some
information on lead and fluorides. A specific procedure for evaluating the
impacts of mixtures of dioxins is also summarized.
1-3
11
-------
SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF BOILERS, KILNS, AND FURNACES MODELED
This chapter describes the methods used to identify the boilers, kilns,
and furnaces whose impacts are modeled in this report, and the associated
meteorological conditions used for dispersion modeling.
Identification of Reasonable Worst-Case Boilers
An extensive survey of industrial boilers in the United States was
performed by WESTAT (Reference 1). The Industrial Source Complex Model (GAMS
driven) was used to predict the relative maximum annual average ambient air
pollution concentrations from all of these boilers, assuming flat terrain.
The boiler repres.ent.ing the 95% worst-case annual average concentration impact
for the population of all U.S. industrial boilers was identified from the
results of dispersion modeling and other information. Maximum ~<5~minute aver-
age impacts for this boiler were calculated using the PTPLU model. Maximum
one minute impacts were predicted using the power law method specified in the
EPA workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates (Reference 3). Maximum quar-
terly impacts were calculated using a typical ratio of quarterly to annual
average concentration impacts (a factor of 1.6).
In addition, the 110 boilers in the WESTAT survey that ware located in
potentially complex terrain were identified. A screening procedure based on
the ratio of emissions divided by stack height was used to identify twenty-two
sites for further analysis. These facilities were then located on topographic
maps, and five potentially worst-case scenarios vwre identified. An additional
two sites were also selected on the basis of meteorological considerations.
The LONGZ and SHORTZ models were then used to model maximum annual and hourly
average impacts respectively. . Maximum fifteen minute and one minute impacts
were then predicted using the power law method, and maximum quarterly impacts
were calculated using the previously referenced ratio of quarterly to annual
average concentration impacts.
Identification of Reasonable Worst-Case Furnaces
Typical industrial furnace installations were identified from infor-
mation in Volume 2 of this series of reports. The relative impacts of these
facilities on ambient air quality were then ranked on the basis of dispersion
modeling for flat terrain. From this information, it was determined that a
sulfur recovery furnace would cause the highest annual average and short-term
concentration impacts in flat and in complex terrain, assuming 100% hazardous
waste is turned w*.th a 99 or 39.99% destruction and removal efficiency (com-
pared to other sources burning 100% hazardous waste with the same destruction
and removal efficiency). The second highest annual average concentration
impacts would be for a asphaltic concrete plant, followed by a blast furnace
and then a light weight aggregate kiln. A decision was made then made to
consider the impacts of lightweight aggregate kiln in more detail. The
maximum annual average impacts of the lightweight aggregate facilities were
then modeled at 72 locations across the United States that are considered to
be representative of legations where hazardous waste is generated. The
location with meteorology causing the 95% highest impact on annual average
ambient concentrations (assuming flat terrain) was identified (Corpus Christi,
Texas). The relative annual average impacts of all typical furnaces previously
1-4
-------
identified were then modeled (assuming one furnace per site) using the Corpus
Christi meteorology and the Industrial Source Complex Model (GAMS driven).
Maximum short-term impacts were u.odeled using PTPLU.
In addition, the relative annual and short-term concentration impacts of
individual typical furnaces were modeled at the seven locations with complex
terrain that were associated with potentially worst-case boiler impacts using
LONGZ and SHORTZ.
SECTION 4 IMPACTS THAT COULD BE POSED BY CURRENT BURNING PRACTICES
The characteristics of hazardous waste are summarized in the first part
of this Section, and reasonable worst-case hazardous wastes are identified
for the purpose of risk assessment. This is followed by a summary of the
effectiveness of various types of pollution control technologies for removing
trace elements from flue gas. Finally, potential impacts of burning reasonable
worstease hazardous wastes in the reasonable worst-case boiler, lightweight
aggregate kiln, and the dry cement kiln described in Section 3 are modeled in
flat and in complex terrain, assuming no regulations.
In the absence of regulation:
Short duration maximum ambient hydrochloric acid concentrations from a
worst-case boiler and a light weight aggregate kiln burning reasonable worst
case hazardous waste are predicted to «xce«sd reported thresholds for human
respiratory irritation and effects on eye sight. HC1 from the cement kiln would
only be of Concern if high background concentrations are present.
0 Ambient lead concentration impacts for the boiler and lightweight
aggregate kiln could exceed levels that EPA considers to be accept-
able.
0 Maximum ambient concentrations of barium, caaa.runi, chromium, and
nickel resulting from hazardous waste combustion in the boiler are
high enough to warrant more detailed assessments of threshold toxicity
in complex terrain. Chromium concentrations from the lightweight
aggregate kiln are also high enough to warrant more detailed study in
complex terrain. In flat terrain, chromium toxicity is only of
concern for the boiler.
0 Impacts from emissions of barium, cadmium, chromium, lead and nickel
would not exceed annual action levels (indicating the need for more
detailed risk assessment studies) for the dry cement kiln burning
hazardous waste (because it i3 equipped with efficient particulate
emission control equipment). Adverse impacts because of threshold
toxicity directly related to annual average concentrations of these
substances are considered to be unlikely.
9 Annual average concentration impacts would exceed action levels for
detailed risk assessment if high amounts of certain extremely toxic
organic materials were burned. Detailed case by case risk assessment
would be required before the acceptability of such impacts could be
adequately evaluated.
-------
0 Significant carcinogenic impacts are possible from trace elements
(As, Cd, Cr, and Mi) and from many organics from the boiler in complex
terrain; however, the only carcinogenic elements with potentially
significant impacts -hat were identified in flat terrain are arsenic
(for the boilers ^nd the lirht weight aggregate kiln) and chromium
(for all three types of fac.lities).
The impact of State and local regulations on reducing such potential im-
pacts was not evaluated, nor were the impacts of alternative methods of waste
disposal or alternative types of pollution control equipment.
Nickel and cadmium have short-term TLVs. If.is indicates that short
duration exposure to high concentrations of these substances could cause
adverse human health effects. No procedure for calculating short-term screen-
ing concentrations has been approved by EPA. Therefore, whether or not short-
term maximum impacts are safe was not evaluated in this report.
SECTION 5 IDENTIFICATION OF COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN
This Section identifies concentrations of toxic and carcinogenic sub-
stance in hazardous waste that will not cause high enough ambient concen-
trations to be or sufficient concern to warrant more detailed risk assessment
studies. The analysis assumes that the wastes are earned in the reasonable
worst-case boiler and furnaces with 99.99% ORE and in reasonable worst case
boilers and furnaces assuming a 99% ORE. In addition, emission factors
(pounds of emissions per million Btu heat input) associated with such impacts
are identified. Such concentrations and emission factors could be used to
identify fuels that contain such small quantities of hazardous substances that
case by case risk assessment is unnecessary. Potential impacts of products
of incomplete combustion are also considered in this section. In addition,
procedures for evaluating the impacts of combinations of substances are
provided.
Many organic substances in EPA Appendix VIII would be ot concern from a
standpoint of carcinogenicity or would exceed action levels based on toxicity
if burned in high concentrations, even with a 99.99% ORE. Tables are provided
listing the concentrations of potential concern. Average carcinogenic products
of incomplete combustion (PIC) from principal organic hazardous constituents
(POHC) were considered in this analysis, along with available data on toxic
PICs.
SECTION 6 HEALTH EFFECTS OF APPENDIX VIII METALS AND HC1 FROM VIRGIN FOSSIL
FUEL COMBUSTION
Potential impacts of hydrochloric acid and Appendix VIII trace element
emissions frora burning average and worst-case oil and average and worst case
coal in the reasonable worst-case boiler, the lightweight aggregate kiln and
the dry cement kiln are modeled and evaluate-.
1-6
17
-------
Predicted 3-minute maximum ambient hydrochloric acid concentrations from
worst-case coal combustion in the boilers and in the light weight aggregate
kiln exceed human health effects thresholds in copplex terrain. In flat
terrain, predicted impacts from worst case coal combustion are high enough to
warrant further investigation, for the boiler and for the light weight aggre-
gate kiln.
Ambient concentrations of arsenic, antimony, barium, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, lead and nickel from coal combustion are high enough to warrant a
more detailed method of asessment of emissions and of threshold toxicity than
tha methods used in this report. The trace metal concentrations from the com-
bustion of oil are unlikely to cause adverse human health effects because of
threshold toxicity.
Arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, and nicksl from coal combustion
(and arsenic, chromium, and nickel from oil combustion) may cause significant
carcinogenic impacts. A more detailed assessment of emissions of these sub-
stances and their potential impacts is warranted.
The impacts of trace metals not on the Appendix VIII list (such as vana-
dium), the impacts of short tern maximum metal concentrations, and impacts of
hydrocarbons frori fossil fuel combustion were not evaluated.
APPENDIX A GLOSSARY
This appendix contains definitions tor some of the technical terms used
in this volume.
APPENDIX B THRESHOLD TOXICITY DATA BANK
The primary data that were used to compute screening concentrations are
tabulated in this section, along wich screening concentrations. Most of the
primary d?ta consisted of threshold limit values and oral reference doses
from animal studies. In addition, substances that can be absorbed through
the skin are identified.
APPENDIX C CARCINOGENICITY DATA BANK ,
The primary data that were used to assess carcinogenic impacts are tabu-
lated, and substances that can be absorbed through the skin are identified.
APPENDIX D DATA USED TO SELECT SOURCES MODELED
This appendix contains, detailed tables of data used to select tho boilers
modeled in the risk assessment, along with the data used to identify 95%
worst-case meteorological conditions for modeling the impacts of furnaces in
flat terrain. In addition, a report summarizing the methods and results of
modeling for complex terrain is provided.
1-7
-------
APPENDIX E COMPUTATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE CANCER POTENCIES FOR 21 SELECTED
FACILITIES
This appendix contains predicted ambient oncentrations of Appendix VIII
substances associated with 21 selected hazardous waste disposal facilities,
and associated data on the potency of carcinogenic substances.
CALCULATION SUPPORT DOCUMENT
this document (provided under separate cover) contains the detailed com-
puter printouts used to provide the risfc assessment and dispersion modeling
results in this volume.
1-8
-------
FA035/83B
SECTION 2
RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR SPECIFIC CHEMICALS
INTRODUCTION
This section summarizes data and methods for evaluating the potency of
over 200 substances found in hazardous wastes.
EPA is required (by a number of laws) to address the issue of toxic
chemicals in the environment. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to establish
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and National Emission Stan-
dards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). As a result of these require-
ments, EPA has promulgated NAAQS and NESHAPs for a few pollutants and is in
the process of studying others. Under the Clean Water Act, EPA is required
to identify toxic chemicals that may be found in water and to establish lim-
its for these priority pollutants. The Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) requires EPA to protect human health from hazards associated with
the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes.
The substances listed in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR 261 have been shown in
scientific studies to have toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic
effects on humans or other life forms. In general, the various lists of
hazardous constituents developed for individual regulatory programs overlap,
but there are some differences from ona list to another. For this risk
assessment, the 11.-t in Appendix VIII was used as the starting point to
select compounds of interest for risk analysis, since the regulatory program
under consideration is governed by RCRA. The emission of organic compounds
on the list might occur as principal organic hazardous constituents (POHCs)
in the combusted waste or as products of incomplete combustion (PICs). In
addition, hydrochloric acid was evaluated. Hydrochloric acid is a product of
combustion of chlorinated hydrocarbons and can cause adverse health effects
if present in high concentrations. HC1 emissions are regulated 2or hazardous
waste incinerators under RCRA.
In this study, Appendix VIII chemical.? are classed as carcinogens,
threshold toxicants or both. Available data on the carcinogenic potencies of
Appendix VIII substances is summarizftu in Table 2.1 and in Appendix C. Data
related to threshold toxic potencies of Appendix VIII substances and HC1 is
summarized in Table 2.2 and in Appendix B. The concentrations in Table 2.2 are
screening concentrations. Caution must be applied *f.en using them in a
2-1
-------
TABLE 2.1
SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC POTENCIES FOR APPENDIX VIII SUBSTANCES
Carcinogen
acrylamide
acrylonitrile ( 2-propeneni-
trile)
aflatoxins
aidrin (1,2,3,4,10.10-
Hexachl . . . )
amitrole ( 1H-1 , 2,4-triazol-
3 -amine )
aniline (benzenamine)
arsenic and compounds N.O.S.
benzene
benzene dichloromethyl-
( benzyl chloride)
benzidine (1,1* biphenyl ) -
4, 4'diamine)
benzo ( a ) anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-
benzopyrene)
beryllium and compounds N.O.S
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
(ethane, e, 1 '. .chloro}
bis( 2-chloromethyl) ether
( methane , . . .chloro-] )
bis ( 2-ethylhexyl ) phthalate
cadmium and compounds N.O.S.
chlordane (alpha and gamma
isomers) ( 4, 7 -methane—
indan, ...
chlorinated ethane, N.O.S.
1 -chloro-23-epoxypropane
(oxirane, 2...)
chloroform
chlorome thane
chloromethyl methyl ether
chromium and compounds N.O.S.
coal tars
DDT (dichlorodiphenylti-
chloroe thane)
dibenzo ( a , h ) anthracene
dibenzo(a,i)pyrene (2,3,7,8-
dibenzpyrene)
Qi*
Cancer
mg/(kg*day)
3.89
0.24
2,900
17.5
0.742
0.0302
15
0.029
0.052
115
3.50
11.5
. 8.75
1 .14
8.75
0.0141
6.1
1 .61
0.091
0.004
0.081
0.012
8.75
41
3"1
1.17
50
476
Unit Risk
Cancer
ug/m3
1 .1x10-3
6.9x10-5
8.3X10-1
5.0x10-3
2.1X10-4
8.6x10-6
4.3x10-3
5.7x10-6
1 .5x10-5
3.3x10-2
1.0x10-3
3.3x10-3
2.5x10-3
3.3x10-*
2.5x10-3
4.0x10-6
1 .7x10-3
4.6x10-*
2.6x10-5
1.3x10-6
2.3x10-5
3.3x10-6
2.5x10-3
1.2x10-5
8.9x10-3
3.3X10-4
1.4x10-2
1 .4X10-1
EPA
Class
B2
B1
B1
B2
_
C
A
A
A
B1
B1
B1
B2
A
81
C
B,C
B2
A
A
B2
B2
Concen-
tration
for One
in a
Million
Cancer
(ug/m3)
9x1 O-4
1x1 O"2
1x10-6
2x10"4
5x1 0-3
ixlO"1
2x1 O-4
2x1 O-1
7x10-2
2x10-5
1x10-3
3x10-4
4x1 O-4
3X-.0-3
4x1 O-4
2x1 O-1
6x1 O-4
2x10-3
4x10-2
8x1 0-1
4x10-2
3x1 O-1
4X1 O-4
8x10-5
1X10-4
3x10-3
7x10-5
7x10-6
Reference
44
9, 11, 33, 44
9, 11
44
10
10, 44
9, 11, 33, 44
9, 11, 33, 44
9
63
44
9, 11, 44
44
9, 33, 44
44
10
11, 33, 44
9, 63
11
44
11, 33
63
44
11, 33, 44
10
44
44
10
2-2
-------
TABLE 2.1 —Continued
Carcinogen
1 , 2~dibromo-3-chloropropane
1,2, dibromoethane (ethylene
dibromide)
3,3 dichlorobenzidine
( [1, 1 '-biphenyll...
dichloro)
1 , 1 -dichlor oe thane ( ethylene
dichlor ide)
1 , 2— •d-chlotoethane
dichloroethylene N.O.S.
(ethylene, dichloro, N.O.S.
1,1 dichloroethylene
( vir.ylidene chloride)
dichlorome thane (methylene
chloride)
dieldrin (1,2,3,4.10-
hexachloro-t, epoxy...
dimetha. . . )
diethylstilbesterol
d ime thylni trosamine
2, 4-dinitro toluene (benzene,
1 -methyl-2 , 4-dinitro)
2, 6-dinitrotoluen-: (benzene,
1 -methyl-2 , 6-dinitro)
1 , 4-dioxano ( 1 , 4-diethylene
oxide )
1 , 2 diphenylhydrazine
ethyl carbamate (ore than)
ethylene oxide (oxirane)
ethylenethiouraa ( 2-imi-
dazolidinethione )
formaldehyde
formic acid
heptachlor (4,7-methano-lh-
indene. . .tetrahydro)
hexachlorobenzene (benzene,
hexachloro)
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclohexano
h*xachlorcdib«nzo-p-dioxin3
hexachloroe thane
Q1*
Cancer
mg/(kg*day)
17.5
43.8
1.69
0.069
0.091
) 1 .04
0.2
.014
17.5
500.0
35
0.31
0.31
0.0141
0.77
0.1515
0.35
0.35
0.35
3.76
3.37
0.02
0.0775
1 1 .1
6, '00
0.0142
2-3
"fy
Unit Risk
Cancer
ug/m3
5.0x10-3
1.2X10-2
4.8x10-4
2.0x10-5
2.5x10-5
3.0x10-4
5.0x10-5
4.0x10-6
5.0x10-3
1.4x10-1
1x10-2
8.9x10-5
8.9x10-5
1.4x10-6
2.2x10-4
4.3x10-5
1.0x10-4
1.0x10-4
1.0x10-4
1 .1x10-3
9.6x10-4
5.0x10-6
2.2x10-5
3.2x10-3
1 .8x10°
4.1x10-6
EPA
Class
32
82
82
82
C
C
82
82
A
82
82
82
82
81
82
82
C
82 ur C
82
Concen-
tration
for One
in a
Million
Cancer
(ug/m3)
2x10-4
8x1 0-5
2x10-3
5x1 0-2
4x10-2
3x10-3
2x10-2
3x10-1
2x10-4
7x10-6
1x10-4
1x10-2
1x10-2
7x1 O-1
5x10-3
2x10-2
1x10-2
1x10-2
1x10-2
9x10-4
1x10-3
2x1 O'1
5x10-2
3x10-4
6x1 O-7
2x1 O-1
Reference
44
10, 44
9, 11
9
9, 11, 33, 44
10
33, 44
11, 33, 44
44
44
44
9, 33, 44
9, 11
44
9, 11
1C
44
10
50
10
11
33, 44
9, 11, 33, 44
1 1
11
9, 11
-------
TABLE 2.1—Continued
Carcinogen
hydrazine (diamine)
hydrazine sulfate
ice pone
3-methylchloanthrene
methyl hydrazine
4,4'-methylene-bis-2-
chloroaniline
nickel and compounds, N.O.S.
2-nitropropane
4 nitroquinoli.ne-1 -oxide
(quinoline, 4-nitro-1-
oxide)
N-nitrosodi-n-butylamine
(1 butanamine, . . .nitroso)
N-nitrosodiethylamine
(ethanamine, n-ethyl-
n-nitroso)
N-nitrosodimethylamirte
( dimethylni trosamine )
N-nitroso-N-ethylurea
(carbamide, n-ethyl-n-
nitroso)
N-ni troao-N-raethylurea
(carbamide, n-methyl-n-
nitrosoi
N-nitrosopyrrolidine
pentachloronitrobenzene
(PCNB)
polychlorinated biphenyl
pronamide
reserpine (yohimban-16
carboxylic acid ,.. .ester)
safrole (benzene, 1,2
methylenedioxy-4-allyl )
2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxins
1,1 ,2,2 tetrachloroethane
tatrachloroe thane N.O.S.
tetrachlorcethene (PERC)
Q1*
Cancer
mg/(kg*day)
1 1.7
11.7
8.97
8.75
0.595
0. :8
1.06
8.75
40.8
5.43
43.5
25.9
32.9
3,500
1.75
0.262
1.75
0.018
10.4
0.0249
157, 000
1,750
O.C573
0.002
Unit Risk
Cancer
ug/mj
3.3x10-3
3.3x10-3
2.6x10-3
2.5x10-3
1.7x10-4
1.4X10"4
3.0x10-4
2.5x10-3
1.2X10-2
1.6x10-3
1.2x10-2
7.4x10-3
9.4x10-3
1x10°
5x10-4
7.5X10-5
5x1 0-4
5x1 O-6
3.0x10-3
7.1X10-6
4.5x10-1
5X1 O'1
1.7x10-5
4.8X10-7
Concen-
tration
for One
in a
Million
EPA Cancer
Class (ug/n>3)
B2
B2
32
B2
A
B2
B2
B2
B2
C
C
B2
B2
C
C
3x10-4
3x10-4
4x10-4
4x10-4
3x10-3
7x1 Q-1
3x10-3
4x1 O-4
9x1 0~5
6x10-4
8x1 0-5
1x10-4
1x10-4
1x1 0~6
2x10-3
1x10-2
8x10-4
2x1 0-1
3x10-4
1x1 O-1
2x1 O-8
2x1 0~6
6x10-2
2x10°
Reference
44
44
10
44
63
44
33,
44
10
10
9
9,
9,
44
44
9,
63
44
9
10
10,
44
44
33,
44
11
11
44
63
44
2-4
-------
TABLE 2.1—Continued
Carcinogen
tetrachlorome thane
(carbontetrachlorids)
thiourea (cabamide thio)
toxaphene ( camphene ,
octachloro)
1,1,1 -trichloroe thane
(methyl chloroform)
1 , 1 , 2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene ( trichloro-
ethylene)
2, 4,6-trichlorophenol
vinyl chloride
ACGIH Lists as Carcinogens
but No £« * Avail ible:
arsenic trioxide (arsenic
UlDoxide)
chloromethyl methyl ether
(chloromethoxy, methane)
chrysene { 1 , 2-benzphen-
anthrene)
dimethylcarbamoyl chloride
nsphthylamine
1 , 3 propane suit one (1,2
oxathiolate, 2,2-dioxide)
Ql*
Cancer
mr»/(kg*day)
0.05
1.75
1.13
0.0016
0.0573
0.004
0.0199
0.0175
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
Unit Risk
Cancer
ug/m3
1.4x10~5
5x10-4
3.2x10~4
4.6X10-7
1.6X10-5
1x1C'6
5.7x10~6
5x1 0-6
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
Concen-
tration
for One
in a
Million
EPA Cancer
Class (ug/m-3) Reference
B2 7x10-2 9, 33, 44
2x10-3 44
B2 3x10-3 9, 11
2x1 0° 9
6x10-2 9, 11
8X1 O-1
B2 3x10-2 33, 44
2x1 C-1 11
A 2X1 O-1 9, 11, 63
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI: no information
.2-5
-------
TABLE 2.2
SUMMARY OF HEALTH DATA FOR THRESHOLD SYSTEMIC TOXICANTS
Screening Concentrations (ug/m3)
Constituent
acetonitrile
acetophenone
acrolein
acrylamide
acrylonitrile
aldrin
aluminum phosphide
allyl alcohol
aniline
antimony
arsenic and compounds N.O.S.
barium compounds M.O.S.
barium cyanide
benzene
benzonquinone
benzyl chloride
beryllium and compounds M.O.S.
bis ( 2-chloroisopropyl ) ether
bis (chloromethyl) ether
ois (2-«thylhexyl) phthalate
bromome thane
cadmium and compounds (N.O.S.)
calcium cyanide
carbon disulio.de
chlordan* (alpha and gamma
i somers )
chlorinated benzunes, M.O.S.
chlorinated phenol, N.O.S.
chloroacetaldehyde ( acetaldehyde ,
chloro-)
chlorobenzene
2-chloro-1,3 butadiene
(chlorcprene)
1 -chloro-2-3-epoxy propane
chloroform
chlorome thane
chloroph«nol (phenol, 0-chloro)
3-chloropropene (allyl chloride)
chromium III
chromium VI and compounds N.O.S.
Annual
from
TLV-TWA
170
0.60
.71
11
0.6
4.8
12
24
1.2
0.48
1.2
71
0.95
12
3.0048
12
0.012
0.12
71
1.2
830
1.2
830
83
24
120
7.1
1.2
0.12
Annual
from
RfD
40
2000
50
1
20
1
200
200
70
3
100
800
0.2
95
10
2000
4000
15 min 3 min
from from
TLV-STEL TLV-C
1050
8
6
7.5
100
200
750
10
2 0.5
0.05
20
10
30
200
2250
60
2-6
-------
TABLE 2.2
SUMMARY OF HEALTH DATA FOR THRESHOLD SYSTEMIC TOXICANTS
Screening Concentrations (ug/m-1)
Constituent
acetonitrila
acetophenone
acrolein
acrylamide
acrylonitriie
aldrin
aluminum phosphide
allyl alcohol
aniline
antimony
arsenic and compounds N.O.S.
barium compounds N.O.S.
barium cyanide
benzene
benzonquinone
benzyl chloride
beryllium and compounds N.O.S.
bis ( 2-chloroisopropyl ) ether
bis (chloromethyl) ether
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
bromome thane
cadmium and compounds (N.O.S.)
calcium cyanide
carbon disulfide
chlordane (alpha and gamma
isomers)
chlorinated benzenes, N.O.S.
chlorinated phenol, N.O.S.
chloroacetaldehyde (acetaldehyde,
chloro-)
chlorobenzene
2-cnloro-1,3 butadiene
(chloroprene)
1 -chioro-2-3-epoxy propane
chloroform
chlorome thane
chlorophenol (phenjl, 0-chloro)
3-chloropropene (allyl chloride)
chromium III
chromium VI and compounds N.O.S.
Annual
from
TLV-TWA
170
0.60
.71
11
0.6
4.8
12
24
1.2
0.48
1.2
71
0.95
12
0.0048
12
0.012
0.12
71
1.2
830
1.2
830
83
24
120
7.1
1.2
0.12
Anrual
frc-n
Rl'D
40
2000
50
1
20
1
200
200
70
3
100
800
0.2
95
10
2000
4000
15 min 3 min
from from
TLV-STEL TLV-C
1050
<3
6
7.5
100
200
750
10
2 0.5
0.05
20
10
30
200
2250
60
or-
2-6
-------
TABLE 2.2—Continued
Screening Concentrations (ug/m3)
Constituent
coal tars
copper cyanide
cresols
crotonaldehyde
cyanides
cyanogen
cyanogen chloride
DDT
di-n-butyl phthalate
o-dichlorobenzene
p-dichlorobenzene
dichlorocif luorome thane
1 , 1-dichloroe thane
1,2, dichloroethane
dichloroethylene, N.O.S.
1 , 1 -dichloroethylene
dichlorome thane
(methlyene chloride)
2 , 4-dichlorophenol
1 ,2-dichlor^propane
dichloropropene
1 , 3 dichloropropene
dieldrin
o-o-diethylphosphoric acid,
o-p-nitrophenylester
diethyl phthalate
dimethoate
p-dimethylaminoazobenzene
1 , 1-dimethylhydrazine
dimethyl phthalate
dime thylsulf ate
dinitrobenzene N.O.S.
4,6-dinitro-o-creaol and salts
2,4-dinitrophsnol
2 , 4-dinitrotoluene
2 , 6-dini trotoluene
dioxone
diphenylamine
disulfoton
endosulfan
endrin and metabolites
ethyler.a oxide (oxirane)
fluorine
formaldehyde
Annual
from ,
TLV-TWA
.48
52
14
12
48
2.4
12 '
1100
12000
1900
95
1900
48
830
830
12
0.6
12
24
2
12
1.2
2.4
C.48
3.6
3.6
210
24
0.24
0.24
0.24
4.8
4.8
3.6
Annual
from
RfD
200
400
70
100
200
400
50
50
700
200
10
1
46000
7
7
900
0.05
0.2
200
1 5 min
from
TLV-STEL
180
30
100
6800
62000
10000
600
10000
800
17000
5100
500
7.5
100
20
100
30
6
50
50
3600
200
3
3
3
40
30
3 min
from
TLV-C
6
3000
2-7
-------
TABLE 2.2—Continued
Screening Concentrations (ug/m-3)
Constituent
formic acid
heptachlor
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopertadiene
hexachloroe thane
hydrczine
Annual
from
TLV-TWA
21
1.2
0.57
0.24
240
0.24
Annual
from
RfD
7000
0.5
20
Annual
from 1 5 min 3 rain
Other from from
Source TLV-STEL TLV-C
20
3
hydrocyanic acid
hydrogen chloride
hydrofluoric acid (hydrogen
fluoride) 6.0
hydrogen sulfide 33
iron dextran (ferric dextran) 2.4
isobutyl alcohol 360
lead and compounds, N.O.S. .36
maleic anhydride (2.5 -
furandione) 2. -1
mercury fulmanate
mercury and compounds, N.O.S. 0.12
methanethiol (thiomethanol)
(methyl mercaptan) 0.24
metholmyl 6.0
methoxychlor 24
methyl ethyl ketone 1400
methyl hydrazine (hydrazine,
methyl)
methyl methacrylate 980
methyl parathion 0.48
naphthalene 120
nickel and compounds N.O.S. 0.24
nickel carbonyl 0.83
nickel cyanide [nickel (II)
cyanide]
nicotine and salts 1.2
nitric oxide 7",
p-nitroaniline (benzenamine,
4-nitro) 7.1
nitrobenzene 12
nitroglycerine (1,2,3,-
propanetriol trinitrate) 12
70
10
10
1000
2
10
7
90
200
300
10
40
70
400
100
70**
50
210
2200
0.15*** 4.5
8800
5100
6
750
3
15
450
100
3.5
* Based on an EPA review of human health effects and animal data
** A three minute average concentration of 149 ug/m3 will be used in Chapters
4 through 6 based on a review of animal data.
*** A quarterly limit equivalent to 10% of the ambient air quality standard.
-------
TABLE 2.2—Continued
Reference Concentrations (ug/mj)
Constituent
osmium tetroxide [osmium
(VIII) oxide]
parathion
pentachiorobenzene
pentachloronitrobenzene
pentachlorophenol
phenol
m-phenylenediamene
p-phenylenedi amene
( benzenedicimine )
phenylmercuric acetate
n-phepyl thiourea
phosgene (carbonyl chloride)
phosphine
phthalio anhydride
polychlorinated biphenyl N.O.S.
potassium cyanide
potassium silver cyanide
pyridine
recorcinol (1,3- benxenediol)
selenious acid
selenium and compounds N.O.S*
selenouxea
silver and compounds, N.O.S.
silver cyanide
sodium cyanide
strychnine and salts
1,2,4,5, tetrachlorobenzene
1,1,2,2 - tetrachloroe thane
te trachlo roe thene
tetrachloromethai e
( carbon tetrachloride)
2,3,7,8 tetrachlorophenol
2,3,4,6 tetrachlorophenol
tetraethyl lead
thalic oxide
tetranitromethane
thallium and compounds N.O.S.
thallium (I) acetate
thallium ( I ) carbonate
thallium (I) chloride
thallium (I) nitrate
thallium selenite
thallium (I) sulfate
Annual
from
TLV-TWA
0.0048
0.24
1.2
45
0.24
0.95
0.95
14
1.2
36
T>0
0.48
0.024
0.36
17
800
71
0.24
19
0.24
2-9
28
Annual 1 5 min 1 min
from from from
RfD TLV-STEL TLV-C
0.06
3
3
28
100 15
400 330
20
•
0.3
700
1 10
240
10
200
700
20 300
900
10
20
20
400
100
1 4.5
1
350
70 1 3000
1200
35
40
0.0004 3
1
2000
2
1
2
2
2
2
-------
TABLE 2.2—Continued
Screening Concentrations (ug/m^)
Constituent
toluene
tolylene diisocyanate
toxaphene
Annual
from
TLV-TWA
390
0.095
/ 1.2
Annual
from
RfD
2000
1 5 min
from
TLV-STEL
5600
1.5
10
3 min
from
TLV-C
tribromomethane
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 - trichloroethane
(methylchloroform)
1,1,2 - trichloroethane
trichloroethene
(trichlcroethylene)
trichloromonofluoromethane
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
1,2,3-trichloropropane
vanadium pentoxide
vinyl chloride
4500
107
640
710
0.12
24
70
1000
400
70
400
24000
900
11000
4500
56000
For TLV's RFDs and other information related to toxic potency,
see Appendix B.
2-10
-------
regulatory context. They are not to be used as regulatory limitations above
which adverse health effects can be expected, nor are they to be taken as
acceptable thresholds for changes in ambient air quality, below which inpacts
can clearly be considered negligible without further research to determine if
they are vulid for these purposes. Also, the screening concentrations based
on TLVS have not been ipproved by EPA OSW, and none of the screening concen-
trations have been officially approved by EPA as a whole. Further details on
these values are provided in this chapter.
Of the 379 elements, compounds, and categories of compounds in Appendix
VIII, 94 were identified as carcinogens; carcinogenic potencies were available
for 88 of theje substances. Potency estimates were unavailable for six
substances identified as carcinogens by the .American Conference of Govern-
mental Industrial Hygenis'-s (ACGIH).
Toxic screening concentrations were available for 166 substances and
categories of substances. Some information on toxic and/ox carcinogenic po-
tency is listed in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 for 212 Appendix VIXI substances. Both
toxic and carcinogenic potency results are available for 42 of these substan-
ces; the substances are listed in Table 2.3.
Toxic screening concentrations based on reference doses only (PfOs) were
available for 90 substances and categories of substances. If only RfO based
toxicity screening concentrations are considered, toxic and/or carcinogenic
potency results are available for 170 Appendix VIII substances; and both toxic
and carcinogenic potency data are available for 8 substances.
EXISTING STANDARDS
In general, acceptable ambient concentrations for threshold toxic pollu-
tants are determined, when possible, by determining the lowest concentration
that could cause any adverse effect, and then determining a concentration
threshold that i& designed to prevent adverse effects. National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been published by EPA for sulfur oxides, parti-
culate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. Primary
NAAQS are based exclusively on health effects and are intended to protect the
most sensitive population subset with an adequate margin of safety (Reference
17). Secondary standards are designed to protect other public interests (this
includes protecting crops, wildlife, and property). In addition, EPA has pub-
lished national emission standards for seven hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs).
They are arsenic, asbestos, benzene, beryllium, mercury, radionuclides, and
vinyl chloride. These standards include acceptable ambient concentrations
for beryllium (Reference 17). However, NESHAPs standards have not been deve-
loped for boiler* or for most furnaces. Table 2.4 lists EPA primary and
secondary ambient air quality standards and ambient NESHAPs limits.
METHOD FOR EVALUATING THRESHOLD TOXICANTS
Threshold Limit Value Based Screening Concentrations
Three hundred and seventy-nine substances and categories of substances
are listed as hazardous under RCRA regulations. One purpo-e of this document
2-11
30
-------
TABLE 2.3
APPENDIX VIII
SUBSTANCES FOR WHICH TOXIC AND
CARCINOGENIC POTENCIES ARE AVAILABLE
AcrylamideR
Acrylonitrile (2-Propenr.nitrile)
Aldrin
Aniline
Arsenic and Compounds, N.O.S.
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryllium and Compounds, N.O.S.
Bis(Chloromethyl) Ether
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) PhthalateR
Cadmium
Chromium and Compounds, N.O.S.
Coal Tars
DDT
1,1-Dichloroethane (Ethylidene Dichlcride)R
1,2-Dichloroethare ( Ethylene Oicnloride)
Dichloroethylene, N.C.o. (Sthyene, Dichloro, N.O.S.)
1,1 Dichlcrocnylene (Vinylidene Chloride)
Sichloromethane (Methylene Chloride)
Dieldrin
2,4-Dinitrotoluene (Benzene, 1-Kethy-2,4-Dinitro-)
2,6-Dinitrotoluene (Benzene, i-Msthyl-2, 6-Dinitro-)
1.4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethylene Oxido)
Ethylene Oxide (OxiraneJ
Formaldehyde
Formic '.cici
HeptachlorR
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hydrazine (Diamine)
Methyl Hydrazine
Nickel and Compounds, M.O.S.R
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)R
Polychlorinated Biphenyl, N.O.S.
1,1,2,2-Tetrachlorethane
Tetrachloroethene (rthylene, 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro)R
Tetrachloromethane (Carbon-Tetrachloride)
Toxaphene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl Chloroform)
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene (Trichloroethylene)
Vinyl Chloride (Ethlyene, Chloro-)
R RfD based toxicity data available.
2-12
31
-------
TABLE 2.4
FEDERAL AMBIENT STANDARDS, REFERENCE CONCENTRATIONS, AND TLVs
Substance
Sulfur
Oxides
(S02)
TSP
•
CO
°3
Duration
annual
24 hr
3 hr
15 tain
annual
24 hr
8 hr
1 hr
15 min
annual
1 hr
15 min
annual
Federal Standard (ug/m3)
Arithmetic Mean:
PNAAQS 80
PSD Change 2-40
PNAAQS NTBE>1 365
PSD Change 5-1 82
SNAAQS NTBE.1 1300
PSD Change 25-700
Geometric Mean:
PNAAQS 75
PSD Change, 5-37
PNAAQS NTBE>1 260
SNAAQS NTBE>1 150
PSr Change 10-75
rNAAQS NTBE>1 10,000
PNAAQS NTBE>1 40,000
PNAAQS NTBE>1 235
Screening
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Based
on TLV
12
100
24»
4400
131
6
.5
B'S-d
on RfD
TLV
( ug/m3 )
5,000 TLV-TWA
10,000 TLV-STEL
10,000 TLV-TWA
44,000 TLV-STEL
55,OCO TLV-TWA
600 TLV-STEL
200 TLV-TWA
2-13
32
-------
TABLE 2.4—Continued
Substance
N02
Pb
Be
Duration
annual
15 min
3 month
annual
15 min
30 day
annual
Federal Standard (ug/m3)
PNAAgS
Arithmetic Mean 100
PNAAQS
Arithmetic Mean 1.5
NESHAPS 0.01
Screening
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Based
on TLV
14
450
0.36
4.5
0.0048
Based
on RfD
3500
2
TLV
( ug/m3 )
6,000 TLV-TWA
45,000 TLV-STEL
•
150 TLV-TWA
450 TLV-STEL
2 TLV-TWA
NESHAPS
NAAQS
NTBE>1
• Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard
» Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standard
* Maximum allowable increase in pollution coacentrationa over base-
line concentration under prevention of significant deterioration
regulations, stated as a range (the exact increase allowed depends
on the classification of the area affected)
- Ambient impact limit associated with National Bnission Stan-
dard for Hazardous Air Pollutant
- National Ambient Air Quality Standard
• Not to be exceeded more than once per year
a Annual arithmetic mean
2-14
33
-------
is to de'cermi'ie if, and under what circumstances, thase substances can b«
burned without causing adverse toxic effects. The most readily available
compilation of information related to the potency of a large number of toxic
chemicals when inhaled by humans are the "Threshold Limit Values' (TLVs)
published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH). There are three different time periods for which TLVs are defined
(Reference 8):
"The Threshold Limit Value-Time Weighted Average (TX.V-TVA); The
time-weighted average concentration for a normal 8-hour work day and
a 40-hour work week, to which nearly all workers may be repeatedly
exposed, day after day, without adverse effect.
Threshold Limit Value-Short-term Exposure limit (TLV-STEL): The
concentration to which workers can be exposed continuously for a
short period of time without suffering fiom 1) irritation, 2) chro-
nic o* rreversible tissue damage, or 3) narcosis of sufficient de-
gree to increase the likelihood of accidental injury, impair self-
rescue ci materially reduce work efficiency, and provided that the
daily TLV-TNA is not exceeded. Zt is not a separate independent
exposure limit, rather it supplements the time-weighted average (TWA)
limit where there are recognized acute effects from a substance whose
toxic effects are primarily of a chronic nature. STELs are recommended
only where toxic effects have been reported from high short-term ex-
posures in either humans ,>r animals.
A STEL is defined as a 15-minute time-weighted average expo-
sure which should not be exceeded at any time during work day eve»n
if the 8-hour time-weighted average is within the TLV. Exposures
at the STEL should not be longer than 15 minutes and should not be
repeated more than four times per day. There should be at least 60
minutes between successive exposures ^t tire ?TEL. An averaging per-
iod other than 15 minutes may be recommended when this is warranted
by observed biological effects.
Threshold Limit Value-Cei'.JB-J (TLV-C): The concentration that
should not be exceeded during any part of the working exposure.
Conventional industrial hygiene practice in the assessment of
a TLV-C is to sample over a 15-minute period except for those sub-
stances which may cause immediate irritation with exceedingly short
exposures.
For some substances, e.g., irritant gases, only one category,
the TLV-C, may be relevant. For other substances, either -wo sr
three categories may be relevant, depending upon their physiologic
action. It is important to observe that if any one of these three
TLVs is exceeded, a potential hazard from that substance is pre-
sumed to exist."
TLVs are intended to be airborne concentration* to which normal healthy
workers may be exposed for 5 days or 40 hours per week without adverse health
effects. They are not intended to protect everybody, nor were they intended
2-15
31
-------
to undergo modification for use in the evaluation or control of community air
pollution nuisances. According to H.E. Stokinger, about 10% of individuals
are "hypersusceptible" and .->.re adversely affected at the TLV (References 17
and 19).
Under these circumstances, considerable "safety factors" have to be
applied to TLVs to derive examples of concentrations that would be associated
witn no adverse health effects for all categories of people in the general
public (including the "hypersusceptible"), with a high degree of confidence.
The following formulas were developed for calculating examples of concen-
trations which are highly likely to be associated with no adverse health
effects because of threshold toxicity, henceforth referred to as "Screening
Concentrations":
, TLV-TWA ug/m3
Annual average ug/m - ———
100 safety factor
TLV-TWA ug/m3
420
Maximum 15 minute ug/m3 - .TLV-STEL ug/m3
100 safety factor
Maximum 3 minute ug/m3 , TLV- C ug/m3
100 safety factor
The first equation is identical to an equation used by the EPA Air and
Energy Engineering Research Laboratory {AEERL) to compute "multimedia envi-
ronmental goals" for air pollutants. Such goals are used for prioritizing
monitoring and research within AEERL (Reference 20). The second equation
is similar to that used in the State of Texas to calculate "Acceptable Public
Exposure Levels* (APED for non-carcinogens, except that 30-minute average
concentrations are calculated in Texas (References 21, 40, and 42), instead
of the maximum 15 minute and 3 minute concentrations. The Texas procedure
has been upheld in court (Reference 51).
There is considerable disagreement concerning what safety factors to
apply to TLVs to compute screening concentrations and even concerning the use
of TLVs to compute screening concentrations at all. At least 21 states and
EPA AEERL routinely apply safety factors (varying from 40 to 1,000) to TLVs to
derive ambient concentrations that are considered to be acceptable over time
intervals varying between 30 minutes and one year (Reference 17). Some states
and sections of EPA do not use TLVs at all and are working on identifying
practical alternative methods. Judgemental issues are involved in selecting
what safety factor and duration to use with a TLV to derive a screening con-
centration (or to use or not use the method at all). Because of the uncer-
2-16
3r—
*J
-------
tainties and issues involved, it is essential that users of screening concen-
trations derived from TLVs (or any other sources) understand the applicability,
uncertainties, and limitations of these methods.
In this volume, the screening concentrations derived from TLVs (using the
formulas contained herein) are considered to be estimated examples of concen-
trations that are unlikely to be associated with significant adverse human
health affects because of threshold toxicity. The reasonableness of this as-
sertion is supported by the fact that the screening concentrations calculated
by these equations for the criteria pollutants are lower than the corresponding
ambient air quality standards.
Table 2.3 lists primary NAAQS, NESHAPs limits, TLVs, and calculated
screening concentrations for the criteria pollutants and beryllium. In all
cases, annual TLV based screening concentrations are lower than the correspon-
ding standard; and 3 minute and 15 minute screening concentrations are below
corresponding 1 hour, 2-hour, 8-hour, or 24-hour NAAQS.
TLVs are often based on studies of observed effects on persons. They
&ro designed to establish levels that caused no observed adverse health
effects. Some TLVs have been based on observed levels that caused adverse
human health effects. TLVs are designed to assure that no adverse health
effects will occur in normal healthy workers. Animal studies and health
effects modeling are also used to establish TLVs. By applying appropriate
safety factors to the TLVs, examples of concentrations that are very unlikely
to cause adverse effects on sensitive subgroups of the human population
because of threshold toxicity have been derived (TLV-based screening concen-
trations) .
In addition to ambient air quality standards and NESHAPS limits, EPA has
published regulations for the prevention of -ignificant deterioration (PSD)
of ambient air quality. These regulations apply when existing ambient air
quality is better than the standard. PSD regulations limit the impact on
ambient concentrations of new sources of SO2 and particles, in areas having
air quality better than the ambient air quality standards, to certain accept-
able changes (called "PSD increments"). The exact increments allowed depends
on the classification of the impacted area. A range of PSD increments is
listed in Table 2.3 for SC>2 and for particles. This range covers the incre-
ments EPA allots for various classifications of regions. Note that the screen-
ing concentrations for particles and sulfur dioxide are within the range of
corresponding PSD increments.
Given the nature of screening concentrations and their limitations, cau-
tion must be applied when nsing tnem in a rtqulatory context (Reference 23).
They are not to be used as regulatory limitations above which adverse health
effects can be expected, nor are they to be taken as acceptable thresholds
for changes in ambient air quality, below which impacts can clearly be consi-
dered negligible. They are to be used as screening values. If any changes
in ambient concentrations above one quarter of the TLV-based screening concen-
trations are computed for a substance, health effects experts should examine
available data on the substance (related to its potency, effect*, background
concentrations, multimedia routes of exposure, etc.) to determine whether or
2-17
-------
not the predicted changes in ambiont air quality will adversely affect public
health or the environment. Action levels of 25% of the TLV based screening
concentrations for the criteria pollutants are within one ug/m3 of tk». lowest
corresponding PSD increment in Table 2.4. This indicates that 25* is a reason-
able factor to apply to the TLV-based screening values herein derived.
If there is compelling reason tc believe that a higher concentration than
the screening concentration is a more appropriate example of a safe level, or
a concentration change above 25% of a screening concentration will not cause
adverse effects (considering background levels etc.), the higher value should
be used. If there is any reasonable reason to believe that a lower concentra-
tion and/or concentration change would be a more appropriate screening concen-
tration or action level for protecting the public health an-i the environment
with a high degree of confidence, the lower concentration should be used as a
screening value to indicate the need for more detailed risk assessment studies.
Reasons for changing screening concentrations and acceptable amounts of
change compared to screening concentrations (action levels) should be documen-
ted and reviewed by health effects experts. The documentation should be sent
to the EPA Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office for further review.
Concentration thresholds derived af':er review of all available pertinent
data and modeling by experienced health effects experts should be used for
setting ambient standards. The reasons for selecting these thresholds should
be clearly documented, and impacts causing ambient concentrations above such
thresholds should not be considered to be acceptable without compelling reason.
Reasons to allow higher impacts include the case where available alternative
methods of waste disposal, waste storage, or alternative virgin fuels would
cause greater adverse pollution impacts than allowing the threshold to be
exceeded. If higher impacts must be allowed, a timetable should be generated
for the development of safer methods for managing the waste.
Table 2.3 lists the Appendix VIII substances with TLVs for which carcin-
ogenic potency estimates are available. While carcinogenic potency was con-
sidered when TLVs were developed for many o2 these substances, the use of only
a TLV based screening concentration for these substances is inadequate because
there may be no absolutely safs concentrations. As a result, alternative
methods are applied for assessing risks from carcinogenic potency, in addition
to the use of screening concentrations. The methods for carcinogenic potency
are explained later in this section.
Method for Evaluating RCRA Appendix VIII Compounds Based on Animal Studies
For pollutants for which ambient air quality standard? are not available,
data on threshold dose levels associated with no observed adverse effects in
animal studies (NOAEL) may be available. These are generally stated in mg/kg
body wt/day. These threshold levels can then be used to compute the dose of
toxicant (in rag/day for a 70 kg person) which is not anticipated to result in
any adverse effects to the general human population after chronic exposure.
These values are called "reference doses" (RfDs) (References 7 and 15). When
extrapolating from animal studies to RfDs for humans, "uncertainty factors,"
also known as scaling factors, are used to make conservative estimates. Un-
certainty factors are not to be confused with the safety factors used to derive
screening concentrations from TLVs. Table 2.5 lists these "uncertainty fac-
tors."
-------
TABLE 2.5
GUIDELINES, EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT, AND
REFERENCES FUR THE USE OF UNCERTAINTY (SAFETY) FACTORS3
Guid. lines'5
Experimental Support
CO
'JO
10H Uso a 10-fold factor when extrapolating from valid experimental re-
sults from studies on prolonged ingestion by man. This 10-fold fac-
tor protects the sensitivity members of the human population esti-
mated from data garnered on average healthy individuals.
10ji Use a 100-fold factor when extrapolating from valid results of long-
term feeding studies on experimental animals with results of studies
of human ingestion not available or scanty (e.g., acute exposure only).
This represents an additional 10-fold uncertainty factor in extrapo-
lating data from the average animal to the average r.an.
10s Uae a 1000-fold factor when extrapolating from less than chronic re-
sults on experimental animals with no useful long-term or acute human
data. This represents an additional 10-fold uncertainty factor in
extrapolating from less than chronic to chronic exposures.
10L Use an additional uncertainty factor of between 1 and 10 depending
on the severity of the adverse effect when deriving an ADI from a
LOAEL. This uncertainty factor drops the LOAEi. into the range of a
NOAEL.
Log-probit analysis; composite
human sensitivity
Body-surface area dose equi-
vaence; toxicity comparison
between humans and rats or
dogs
Subchronic/chronic NOAEL or
LOAEL comparison
LOAEL/NOAEL comparison
Adapted from References 30 and 31, as quoted in Reference 16.
Guidelines are in bold print. Guidelines 10H and 10ft are supported by the FDA and tne WHO/FAO; Guidelines
10|j, 10A and 10S have been established by the NAS and are used in a similar form by the FDA; Guidelines 10H,
10A, 10S and 1OL are recommended by the U.S. EPA. (See bourson and Stara (1983) for references to this ta-
ble.) Intermediate uncertainty factors are suggested when data appear to fall between categories. Such
intermediate uncertainty factors should be developed on a logarithmic basis (Reference 32).
-------
RfDs are calculated from NOAELs using the following equation (Reference
16):
Rf D ""? _ NOAEL mg/(kg*day)
kg*day uncertainty factor
• Rf D . m
-------
An average person may breathe 10m3 of air per day. Risk assessment
studies commonly assume an adult breathing rate of 20 ra3/day (reference 50),
and this value may be a reasonable estimate for some athletically active
individuals. If an oral RfD [in mg/(kg*day)] is multiplied by a 70 kg body
weight and divided by a breathing rate of 20 m3/day, a screening concentration
can be computed using the following formulas :
Lifetime average = RfD mg/(kg*day) * 70 kg
Screening concentration 20 m-Vday
( mg/m3 )
Lifetime average m RfD mg/day x 1 , OOP ug/ag
Screening concentration 20 m3/day
( ug/m3 )
Lifetime average . MD /d * 5Q
Screening concentration mg/day
(ug/m3)
No method has been suggested for computing short-term screening concen-
trations (i.e. 3-minute, 15-minute, etc.) from RfDs, except to apply the life-
time average exposure screening concentrations to the shorter time intervals.
The lifetime average screening concentrations will only be used as annual
average screening concentrations.
When the fraction of a substance that is absorbed (compared to the amount
inhaled) is known, and the substance is known not to be absorbed in significant
quantities through the skin, the annual average screening concentration can
be computed from the following formula:
Annual average m RfD ug/day
ug/m 20 m /day x fraction absorbed
Systematic tabulations of fractions of substances absorbed through inhala-
tion (for substances not absorbed through the skin) at low ambient concentra-
tions were unavailable at the time this report was written. As a result, 100%
absorbtion was assumed whenever screening concentrations were calculated from
RfDs in this report.
These screening concentrations are not to be used as regulatory limits
above which adverse health effects are to be expected, nor as acceptable chan-
ges in ambient air quality below which impacts can be clearly considered
negligible. They are to be used as screening values. Health effects experts
should examine available data on substances if increasaa in ambient concentra-
tions in excess of 25% of the screening concentrations are predicted by computer
modeling to determine whether public health and the environment will be
adversely affectfed.
2-21
10
-------
The limitations of this method for computing screening concentrations
from RfDs are illustrated by considering how the method works for criteria
air pollutants.
The RfD based screening concentration for lead is an annual average
exposure of 2 ug/m3 which, by application of the typical factor of 1.6 cited
earlier for conversion of annual average concentrations to three month average
concentrations, is equivalent to 3.2 uc;/m3 (three-month average). The ambient
air quality standard is a three month arithmetic mean concentration of 1.5
ug/m3, based largely on adverse neurologic effects. The annual oral RfD
based screening concentration exceeds the NAAQS for lead. The three-month
screening concentration for lead calculated by the TLV-based procedure is
approximately 0.6 ug/m3, which is more conservative than the NAAQS. further
details are provided in the specific discussion of lead in this chapter.
The RfD for nitrogen dioxide is one mg/(kg*day) (from Reference 7).
This computes to an annual average screening concentration of 3,500 ug/m3.
The NAAQS for NO2 is 100 ug/m3. The ambient air quality standard for NO2 was
based largely on the results of an epidemiological study suggesting an increase
in human respiratory illness for six month average NO2 concentrations of 113
ug/m . For more details, see the NO2 Criteria Document (Reference 58). In
the June 19, 1985 Federal Register, EPA reported that the lowest short-term
concentrations reliably linked to adverse human health effects were 940 to
3,000 ug/m3 (Reference 59). EPA is considering the need for promulgating a
standard for durations of exposure less than 3 hours as a result. The annual
average RfD-based screening concentration of 3,500 ug/m3 exceeds the levels
reliably linked to adverse human health effects.
The TLV-based procedure for calculation of a screening value for NO 2
results in an estimate of 14 ug/m3 for the level of concern. Again this is more
conservative than the NAAQS.
These examples illustrate tha point that the RfD-based method for calcu-
lation of screening values is not always conservative. The TLV-based method
is usually, but not always, more restrictive than the RfD-based method. When
data were available to calculate both the RfD- and the TLV-based screening
concentration, the smaller of the two was used in the analysis of impacts
In Sections 4 through a, screening level risk assessments are performed
for a variety of trace metals. RfDs were unavailable for arsenic, beryllium
cadmium, and selenium. As a result, it is not possible to assess threshold
toxic impacts for thesa substances using the RfD method. TLV-TWAs are avail-
able for these metals, along with a TLV-STEL for cadmium .
Only an RfD for trivalent chromium is available (Reference 50). This
RfD corresponds to a screening concentration of 4,000 ug/m3.
For nickel, the RfD based screening concentration is an annual average of
40 ug/m3. The TLV-TWA for soluable nickel is 100 ug/m3 and th« TLV C is 300
ug/m3. The TLV is based on considerations of cancer as well as dermatitis
("nickel itch") or sensitization from soluable salts and mists (Reference
52).
The RfD based annual average screening concentration for silver is 20
ug/m3. The TLV for silver is based on preventing argyria, an unsightly
2-22
-------
permanent blue-grey discoloration of the skin (Reference 52}. Borderline
argyria is considered to be probable if the body accumulates 1.2 grains of
silver. Assuming 50% retention of silver breathed, and a 20 m3/day volume of
air breathed, it would take 16 years to accumulate 1.2 grams of silver.
The RfO based screening concentration for thallium is 2,000 ug/m3, and
the TLV-TWA is 100 ug/m3 for soluable thallium compounds. The RfO based
screening concentration for barium is 200 ug/m3 and the TLV-TWA is 500 ug/m3.
Both thallium and barium compounds are likely to be in the form of particulate
matter at ambient temperature. The primary national ambient air quality stan-
dard is a geometric mean of 75 ug/m3. The screening concentrations for ooth
thalliuir. and barium exceed the standard.
The only other trace metals analyzed in detail in Sections 4 through 6
are antimony and mercury. The RfO based screening concentration for antimony
is 1 ug/m3, a value that is very close to the TLV-TWA based screening concen-
tration of '. . 2 ug/m3 . The RfO based screening concentration for mercury ( 7
ug/m3) is higher than the TLV-TWA based screening concentration.
The above observations serve as part of the rationalle for using the
lower of the RfD-based or TLV-based screening values when evaluating the
impact of combustion of hazardous wastes.
For a comparison ot RfD based screening concentrations to TLVs and to
TLV based screening concentrations for other Appendix VIII substances, see
Appendix B. Table 2.2 also lists all RfD based and TLV based screening con-
centrations. For 29 substances with TLV-TWAs and RfOs, the screening concon-
tration based on P-fDs exceeds the screening concentration based on a TLV-TWA.
There are 16 substances with both TLV-lviAs and RfDs for which the RfD-
based concentration is lower.
Metnod for Selecting and Using Screening Concentrations
The determination of screening concentrations from TLVs and from RfDs
have different strengths and weaknesses. Reasons for preferring screening
concentrations based on RfDs to screening concentrations based on TLVs in-
clude (Reference 56):
o TLVs are not intended to be used as ambient air quality standards,
o Health ef.Tects can occur st
o The safety factors used to derive screening concentrations from TLVs
are not the same as the uncertainty factors used for deriving RfDs,
o TLVs constitute an upper limit for estimating risk and should not. be
used for extrapolation (although the critical studies upon which
they were based could be used along with appropriate uncertainty
factors),
o RfDs are estimated pentissable daily intake levels over a lifetime,
2-23
-------
o Verified RfDs represent current values reviewed by EPA,
o The use of oral RfDs is considered by EPA to be reasonable for asses-
sing risks to humans from toxic substances in food and drink,
o The results of systematic studies of the uncertainties when extrapolat-
ing from animals to humans were used to establish the uncertainty fac-
tors used to derive RfDs from animal study results.
Reasons for preferring screening concentrations based on TLVs to screening
concentrations based on RfDs include:
o TLVs are often based on epidemiological studies of human workers
exposed to the substance in the air,
o RfDs are usually based on studies of aniaals eating and/or drinking the
substance,
o RfDs were never intended to generally represent acceptable levels for
substances taken into the human body through inhalation,
o The method for computing screening concentrations based on RfDs fails
to include any safety or uncertainty factor to account for potential
differences in the potencies of substances when inhaled (or absorbed
from the air and from airborne particulates deposited on the skin)
versus their potency when injested orally,
o TLV-based screening concentrations are based on extrapolation from
air contamination levels that are designed to protect most healthy
workers to air contamination levels designed to protect sensitive
subgroups of the human population,
o No human health effects beca"-«s of threshold toxicity are known for
any substance at or below any TLV-based screening concentration,
o Human health effects (threshold toxicity) are known to occur at
levels at or below the oral RfD—based screening concentrations for
N02, and the concentration is unacceptable for other substances (such
as lead).
EPA is actively working on development of inhalation reference doses and
procedures to compute acceptable ambient air pollution concentrations from
these inhalation reference doses. It is hoped that this new research will
result in more accurate estimates of concentrations that are clearly protective
of the health of sensitive human subgroups than currently available procedures.
Substitution of inhalation reference doses for oral reference doses can be
done when they become available.
v«hen both TLV-based and RfD-based annual screening concentrations were
available for a substance, the smaller of the two concentrations was used as
an annual screening concentration. When only a TLV or an RfD-based screening
concentration was available, the available screening concentration was used.
Both RfD based and TLV based screening concentrations were available for all
214
-------
substances for which risk assessment calculations for threshold toxicity were
performed in Sections 4 and 6. The annual screening concentrations in those
chapters were considered to be reasonable estimates of average concentrations
for which chronic health effect because of threshold toxicity are unlikely.
Short-term screening concentrations based on TLVs or RfDs will not be
used in Sections 4 through 6 of this document. The only short-term concen-
tration that will be used is a three-minute screening concentration for HC1
based on a study of rats inhaling HC1. For more details, see the discussion
of UCi below in this Section. EPA is currently examining methods for evalua-
ting .short-term impacts. Short-term screening concentrations can be used when
an appropriate procedure for this purpose has been approved by EPA.
If the annual average impact of a source on ambient air pollution con-
centrations exceeds 25% of a screening concentration, more sophisticated risk
assessment than comparison to screening concentrations is recommended.
Among the parameters that should be considered in these more sophisticated
studies are:
o All available data en the effects of the substance on people (both
observed effects and effects predicted on the basis o' pharmacokinetic
modeling),
o Background levels in the air,
o Exposure to the substance through the food chain and other routes
of exposure,
o Persistence, in the environment,
o Bioaccumulaticn in the food chain,
o Differences between oral and inhalation potencies,
o The absorption of the substance through the skin.
Twenty f-.ve percent 01: the TLV based screening concentrations fo; NO2
correspond to concentrations far below any reported health effects levels.
In the case of lead, it was concluded that a quarterly concentration
change of 10% of the ambient air quality standard (1.5 ug/m3 x 0.10 - 0.15
ug/m3) is the maximum acceptable amount of change. The value of 10% '
-------
that adverse human he.-.lth effects and adverse effects on the environment will
not occur.
The most compellirg evidence of what is a safe level comes from human
exposure studies d'irimj which members of the most sensitive subgroups of the
population are exposed to controlled doses of pollutants, and levels of pol-
lutant that cause and that do not cause adverse effects are established, the
testing needs to be sufficiently sensitive and cover enough potential effects
to make it unlikely that adverse effects could occur undetected. Unfortunately,
such data are seldom available; and when they are they need to be critically
reviewed by experienced health effects experts for adequacy. When such data
are available concentrations causing no adverse effects based on these studies
can be established and used instead of screening concentrations.
Pharmacokinetic modeling can also be useful for establishing screening
concentrations. The physiological information needed includes the measurement
of the accumulation of the inhaled chemical at the site of entry or via trans-
.'.ocation to systematic target organs that are associated with specific adverse
•affects or chronic diseases (Reference 24). Such studies involve the use of
nass balance differential equations describing changes of tissue concentra-
tions of the inhaled chemical or its metabolite and the use of appropriate
physiological parameters (ventilation rates, perfusion rates, tissue: blood
partition coefficients, etc.). Variations in sensitivity among the very young
and very old, smokers and non-smokers, known s«*nergisms, etc., also need to
be considered in such studies. The appropriate use of such modeling may yield
more accurate estimate* of examples of safe concentrations than fractions of
TLVs or RfOs, in those rare instances when adequate data for such modeling
exists. Phamacokinetic models and the data that went into them need to be
critically reviewed by independent experts in pharaacokinetics and toxicology
to dtacermine when the results are superior to the fractions of TLVs and RfDs
used in this chapter. It would ba highly desirable to have such information
but it is generally unavailable.
One should note that EPA policy is to not arbitrarily select midrange3 of
environmental distributions that may compromise human health. EPA risk assess-
ment guidelines do not encourage the use of worst-case assessments, but rather
tha development of realistic assessments based on the best data available.
Hydrochloric Acid
The TLV-C for hydrochloric acid is 7000 ug/m^, implying a TLV based
screening concentration of:
3-*inute reference m 7000 ug/m3 m 7Q Ug/m3
concentration 100
i
j
Hydrochloric acid is a product of combustion of chlorinated hydrocarbons.
Concentrations well above the screening concentrations have been computed for
sources burning hazardous waste with high amounts of chlorine. As a result,
a need for further research was indicated.
The Technology Assessment Branch of EPA has compiled a table and a graph
of concentrations and effects of inhaled HC1 in animal studies (see Table 2.6
2-26
-------
TABLE 2.6
EFFECTS OF HC1 IN ANIMAL STUDIES (Reference 25)
Effect
Species
Exposure Concentration
Slight ocular and
respiratory irrita-
tion
Severe irritation
No deaths
Death to all animals
Death to all animals
Nasal irritation and
respiratory
difficulty
No effect
No mortalities
No mortalities
Free standing
No effect
Rabbits & GP 200 ppm (298 mg/m3) for 6 hours
Rabbits & GP 1350 ppm (2010 mg/m3) for 90 minutes
Rabbits & GP 3685 ppm (5500 mg/m ; for 5 minutes
Rabbits S GP 4288 ppm (6500 mg/m3) for 30 minutes
Rabbits & G? 670 ppm (1000 mg/m3) for 2-6 hrs
Rabbits & GP 100 ppm (149 mg/m3) 6 hrs/day for 5
days
GP
0.1 ppm (0.15 mg/m3) 2 hrs/day, 5
days/week for 28 days
Rabbits & GP 67 ppm (100 mg/m3) 6 hrs/day, for 5
days
Rabbits & GP 33.5 ppm (50 mg/m3) 6 hrs/day, 5
& 1 monkey days/week for 4 weeks
Rats
10 ppm (14.9 mg/m3) 6 hrs/day, 5
days/week for about 588 days (about
380 exposures)
2-27
•if;
-------
and Figure 2.1). The highest long-term average concentration at which no ad-
verse concentrations were observed in rats was 14.9 mg/m3 (Reference 25). By
applying a scaling factor of 1,000 to extrapolate the results to humans, an
annual exposure limit of 15 ug/m3 was derived. This was used as an annual
screening concentration in this report., The Technology Assessment Branch also
applied an uncertainty factor of 100 to the 14.9 mg/m3 NOAEL from the rat
inhalation study and derived a short-term acceptable exposure level of 149
ug/m3 (Reference 54). This value (14.9 ug/m3) was used as a 3 minute screening
concentration in this report.
EPA has also reviewed other primary literature on the toxicity and ef-
fects of hydrogen chloride. Threshold levels for odor perception have been
reported to be as low as 100 ug/m3 and as high as 45,900 ug/m3. However, the
threshold level under laboratory conditions is reported to be approximately
300 ug/m3. it is assumed that the odor threshold is based on shorter than 1
minute exposures. The ranges will vary due to individual sensitivities and
susceptibilities.
USSR literature indicates threshold levels for reflex neurologic changes
in humans, including dark adaptation ithe ability of the eye to adapt to total
darkness after 30 to 60 minutes), optical chronaxie (the minimum time required
for excitation of the nerve cell in the eye by a constant electric current of
twice the threshold voltage), and respiratory effects (Reference 26). Table
2.7 shows the human health effects and odor thresholds reported. The thresh-
olds reported in the literature do not include time durations; however, the
time of exposure necessary for a reflex dark adoption response is usually
measured in milliseconds. Note that respiratory irritation occurs at 100 to
200 ug/m3.
Lead
The ambient air quality standard for lead is a 3-month arithmetic mean
concentration of 1.5 ug/m3. There is no published PSD increment. It is
appropriate to consider a change in lead concentrations of less than or equal
to one tenth of the ambient air quality standard (0.15 ug/m3) as acceptable.
A typical value for the ratio of the maximum quarterly impact of an
elevated point source to the annual average impact (for the same year) is
1.6 (Reference 35). If a factor of 1.6 is applied to the change in quarterly
concentrations that EPA considers to be acceptable (.15 ug/m3) to calculate
the corresponding annual average concentration change (for the same y«ar),
the annual concentration change is 0.094 ug/m3.
The TLV-TWA for lead is ISO ug/m3, implying an annual average TLV based
screening concentration of 0.36 ug/m3 and a change in annual concentration at
or below 25% of this concentration (.090 ug/m3) as not requiring detailed risk
assessment. This value is 96% of the change in annual concentration (0.94 ug/m3)
corresponding to the quarterly change in lead concentrations arrived at by
consideration of the NAAQS.
The annual average screening concentration for lead base-i on an RfO is 2
ug/m3. This would correspond to a quarterly concentration of 3.2 ug/m3. An
2-28
/«••»
'1 (
-------
FIGURE 2.1
DOSE RATE VS. TIME FOR HYDROGEN CHLORIDE
900-1
800-
700-
D 600-
O
500-
S
E 400-
300-
• Adverse Effect Level
@ No Observed Adverse
Effect Leve-t
p
p 200-
D
100-
90-
80-
70-
60-
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
•
•
9
©
IMilll IIIIIINIMM illlll Illlll IIMIIIIIMM Illlll Illlll
21 1 2
days wfc month months
Free Standing
NOEL 9568 days
9
T I M E-
2-29
'IS
-------
TABLE 2.7
REPORTED EFFECTS OF HC1 IN HUMANS
(Reference 26)
Effects
Exposure Concentration
Reflex Neurological Changes
Dark adaptation
Optical chronaxie
Respiratory irritation
Odor Threshold Levels
under Laboratory Conditions
Odor Threshold Levels
0.13 ppm (200 ug/m3)
0.40 ppm (600 ug/m3)
0.07 to 0.13 ppm
{100 ug/m3 to 200
0.1 ppm (300 ug/m3)
0.07 ppn to 308 ppm
(100 ug/ra3 to 45,900 ug/m3)
2-30
-------
action level of twenty-five percent of the annual RfD based screening concen-
tration would imply a change in annual concentration at or below 0.5 ug/m3 as
not requiring detailed risk assessment. This would correspond to a typical
quarterly change of 0.8 ug/m3.
Tha quarterly change in concentration of 0.15 ug/m3 will be used instead
of an annual chonge based on an action level of 25% of a screening concentration
for the purpose of risk assessment in this report.
The NAAQS for lead was based on consideration of multi media exposure to
lead and maintaining blood lead levels in 99.5% of children below 30 ug/dl.
Blood lead levels above 40 ug/dl were associated with adverse effects on the
neurological system of children (Reference 60). More recent evidence (docu-
mented in internal EPA staff papers for lead-Reference 61) suggests that blood
lead levels as low a 10 to 20 ug/dl may need to be maintained to protect
fetuses and children against adverse effects. The data also indicates that
about 100% of lead particles inhaled are abosrbed, while adults eating lead
absorb about 15%, and children eating lead in food may absorb up to 50%.
Fluorine, Fluoride and Hydrofluoric Acid
The annual TLV-TWA based annual screening concentration for fluorine is
4.8 ug/m3 and the annual TLV-TWA based screening concentration for hydrofluoric
acid is 6 ug/m3. The TLV-STEL based maximum fifteen minute average screening
concentration for fluorine is 40 ug/m3, and the TLV-STEL based maximum fifteen
minute average screening concentration for hydrofluoric acid is 50 ug/m3. The
RfO based annual screening concentration for fluorine is 200 ug/m3. There is
no RfO-based screening concentration specifically for hydrofluoric acid.
The State of Texas has been concerned for nnny years about the effects
of inorganic fluoride compounds on cattle and vegetation. Fluorine reportedly
becomes concentrated in certain susceptible forms of vegetation. This can
kill the plant or be eaten by cattle and cause fluorosis. The concentration
of inorganic fluoride compounds in the atmosphere at which people are adversely
affected appears to be considerably higher than that at which vegetation and
foraging animals are adversely affected (Reference 57). Accordingly, the
standards for inorganic fluoride compounds in Texas are directed to the pro-
tection of vegetation and animal life, and this helps to assure that people
are adequately protected. The Texas ambient air quality standards for inor-
ganic fluoride compounds in the atmosphere, calculated as HF, are:
o 0.82 ug/m3 for any 30-day period,
o 1.6 ug/m3 for any 7-day period,
o 2.9 ug/m3 for any 24-hour period,
o 3.7 ug/m3 for any 12-hour period.
Furthermore, the State of Texas limits the fluoride impact of individual
air pollution sources to a maximum of 4.9 ug/m3 for any three hour period.
This standard was designed to assist in meeting the ambient air quality stan-
dards described above.
The Texas 30-day maximum inorganic flouride standard (.82 ug/m3) is con-
siderably more stringent than any of the annual ambient screening concentra-
tions for fluorine or for hydrofluoric acid. This suggests that while the
2-31
50
-------
annual TLV based screening concentrations may be examples of ambient concen-
trations for which human health effects are unlikely, they may not always
assure protection of vegetation and animal life.
The action level of 25% of the TLV-STEL based 15-rainute screening concen-
tration for flourine (40 ug/m3 - 4 = 10 ug/m3) for the fifteen-minute maximum
impact of boilers or furnaces burning hazardous waste corresponds to a maximum
three hour concentration of 6.2 to 7.7 ug/m3. This is based on the power law
in Reference 3 and the procedure for calculating 3-hour impacts in Reference
published (References 46 and 48). These parameters are examined on a ca3e by
55. The Texas three-hour floride concentration limit is 4.9 ug/n3. This
suggests that using 15-minute screening concentrations based on TLV-STEL/
background concentrations) when 25% of the TLV-based screening level is
reached or exceeded may help to protect vegetation and animals.
METHOD FOR EVALUATING CARCINOGENS
When evaluating risks from exposure to carcinogens, researchers assume
a linear no-threshold dose-response relationship at low doses (Reference 12).
This no-threshold presumption is based on the view that as little as one mole-
cule of a carcinogen may be sufficient to cause cancer. EPA and other fede-
ral regulatory agencies have taken the position that in the absence of sound
scientific evidence to the contrary, carcinogens should be considered to pose
some cancer risk at any exposure level. The linearized dose-response model as-
sumes that the high-dose animal tests or occupational exposures can be linear-
ly extrapolated to low-dose public exposures. Although this assumption is not
universally accepted, existing health effects data are based on this extrapola-
tion.
The uncertainty associated with this procedure for estimating cancer risks
to humans at low levels of exposure should be recognized. The linearized mul-
tistage extrapolation model provides a plausible estimate of the upper limit of
risk that is consistant with some proposed mechanisms of carcinogenesis. The
true risk is not likely to be much inert than the estimated risk; and it could
be considerably lower even approaching zero. An established procedure does
not exist for making "most likely" risk estimates (Reference 45).
Within the Office of Health and Environmental Assessment (OHEA) of EPA's
Office of Research and Deveopment, the Cancer Assessment Group (CAG) evaluates
data on suap^Jted carcinogens. These data come from animal or epidemiological
studies in which chemicals are introduced through inhalation or oial means.
The ingestion route is important, since the slope of the dose-response curve
is dependent upon this factor. Preferred data for this risk assessment would
be from human inhalation studies (occupational exposure). These data are very
limited. The next best data source is the animal inhalation tests. Oral stud-
ies are the least preferred, although with certain assumptions, they could be
used in this analysis.
The numerical value used by EPA to define the exposure-risk relationship
for carcinogens is the unit risk estimate (or unit risk value). It is defined
as the lifetime individual cancer risk occurring in a hypothetical population
in which all individuals are exposed continuously from birth throughout their
lifetime (70 years) to a concentration of 1 ug/m3 of the carcinogen. CAG ha*
2-32
51
-------
developed unit risk estimates for a number of human carcinogens or suspected
carcinogens based on the 95% upper limits for the slopes of dose-response re-
lationships derived from animal studies. Although these unit risk estimates
represent the best data currently available, they are often based to a large
degree on aniz?l data and not human studies.
Since CAG had not defined a unit risk estimate for many carcinogens,
slopes of dose-response relationships were used to derive a unit risk using
a CAG-recommended approach (Reference 13).
Table 2.1 shows the slope (Q-)*) of the dose-response relationship l can-
cer/ [mg/(kg*day)]) for all carcinogens in the Appendix VIII list for which
data were available. Unit risks were not available from CAG for all compounds,
but dose-response relationships were available for many, although they were
appropriate for oral rather than inhalation routes. The following formula
was used to calculate unit risk values:
Unit Risk - Q* x (*>°3/°*y) 00-3m9/ug)
Cancer ' 70 kg
Cancer
mg/(kg*day)
The estimated unit risk values (cancers per ug/m3) are multiplied by the
maximum predicted annual average concentrations (ug/m3) for each carcinogen
evaluated to calculate the maximum probability of any individual getting can-
cer if he (or she) spent his/her entire lifetime at the point of maximum im-
pact (highest ambient concentration). The probability of anyone getting can-
cer from concurrent exposure to several carcinogens is calculated by adding
the probabilities from each individual carcinogen.
While certain toxic effects such as immune system supression, endocrine
disturbances, and organ damage are relevant to the evaluation of carcinogene-
sis, no established HPA-approved standard methods exist for quantitatively
assessing these effects.
In accordance with Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment published
on November 23, 1984 (Reference 45):
o Numerical estimates of risk will not be separated from the various
assumptions and uncertainties upon which they were based. Whenever
numerical estimates are displayed, EPA classification code for the
qualitative weight of evidence will also be displayed , -hen avail-
able). For example, a lifetime individual risk of 2 . 10~4 resulting
from exposure to a "possible human carcinogen" will be designated as:
2 x 10-4 (C)
o "C" designates the pollutant as a possible human arcinogen, for
which there is limited evidence of carcinogen!city in animals and
an absence of human data. In addition, there are other categories
(Group A-human carcinogen, Group B-probable human carcinogen, Group
D-not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity, and Group E-no evi-
dence of carcinogenicity for humans) (Reference 46).
2-33
-------
The EPA classification scheme for the characterization of the overall
weight of evidence for carcinogenicity is discussed further below.
Group A is used only when there is sufficient evidence from epidemiologic
studies to support a causal association between exposure to an agent and
occurrence of cancer. Sufficient evidence refers to the increased incidence
of malignant tumors or combined malignant and benign tumors.
Group B is subdivided into two further degrees of evidence higher, Group
B1 and lower, Group B2. Group B1 is used when there is limited evidence of
carcinogenicity to humans from epidemiologic studies. Group B5 is used when
there is inadequate evidence from human epidemologic studies buv sufficient
evidence iron animal epidemiologic studies. Limited evidence Defers to carcin-
ogenic effects, but are limited based on certain study criteria.
Group C is used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in
animals in the absence of human epidemiologic studies.
Group 0 is used when there is inadequate evidence of animal carcinogeni-
city. Inadequate evidence refers to study limitations which cannot be inter-
preted as showing a carcinogen effect. Group 0 is also for agents for which
no data are available.
Group E is used when there is no evidence for carcinogencity in at least
two adequate animal tests in different species or in both adequate epidemio-
logic and animal studies.
For more details on the EPA classificaiton scheme, see the EPA guidelines
(Reference 46). For additional details on the weight of evidence for human
carcinogenicity for individual substances, see the reference cited in Table
2.1 (and the reference cited in these references).
MUTAGENICITY AND DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY
EPA has not approved any standardized methods and sunmary data bases
for quantitatively assessing the potency of Appendix VIII substances for
mutagenicity or developmental toxicity in humans (birth defects, spontaneous
abortions, etc.); but guidelines for assessing these parameters have been
published (References 46 and 48). These parameters are examined on a case by
case basis. EPA is actively evaluating suggested methods for developing esti-
mates of potential risks because of mutagenicity and developmental toxicit.y.
DIOXINS AND FURANS
The Q-| * and oral RfD for 2,3,7,8 TCDD is available; but the Q1 *s and
RfDs for many of the other 74 chlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins (CDD) and for 135
chlorinated dibenzo-furans (CDF) are unavailable. The emission of dioxins and
furans from the combustion of hazardous waste is of great concern to the
public and to EPA. As a result, the EPA Risk Assessment Forum published
interim procedures for estimating risks associated with exposures to mixtures
2-34
53
-------
of CDDs and CDFs in April 1986 (Reference 14). These procedures involve the
use of available data to estimate the relative potencies of all i •*;vidual
CDDs and CDFs compared to 2/3/7,8 TCDD. The results are summarize - .n a series
of Toxicity Squivalence Factors (TEFs) for CDDs and CDFs (tabulated in TTable
2.8). These facturs were used to estimate the potency and potential effects
of CDD and CDF emissions.
2-35
51
-------
TABLE 2.8
2,3,7,8-TCDD TOXIC EQUIVAIfiNCE FACTORS (TEF)
(RELATIVE POTENCIES) OF DIOXINS AND FURANS
Substance TEF
2,3,7,8 TCDD 1
N 2,3,7,8 TCDD 0.01
2,3,7,3 PeCDD 0.5
N 2,3,7,8 PeCDD 0.005
2,3,7,8 HxCDD 0.04
N 2,3,7,8 HxCDD 0.0004
2,3,7,8 HpCDD 0.001
N 2,3,7,8 HpCDD 0.00001
Other COD 0
2,3,7,8 TCDF 0.1
N 2,3,7,8 TOF 0.001
2,3,7,8 PeCDF 0.1
N 2,3,7,8 PeCDF 0.001
2,3,7,8 HxCDF 0.01
N 2,3,7,8 HxCDF 0.0001
2,3,7,8 HpCDF 0.001
N 2,3,7,8 HpCDD 0.00001
TEF » Potency Substance
Potency 2,3,7,8 TCDD
2-36
-------
SECTION 3
DESCRIPTION OF BOILERS AND FURNACES MODELED
The ri.sk assessment methodology in this report involves identifying a
boiler/meteorology combinations and industrial furnace/meteorology combination
that produces a reasonable worst-case ground level concentrations of pollutants,
when the facility is burning hazardous waste. Emissions were estimated for
these worst-case dispersion situations (combustion device/meteorology combina-
tions). The emission estimates were used in dispersion models to predict
ground level concentrations. These concentrations are used in conjunction
with health effects data to assess risk.
This section describes how ths reasonable worst-case facilities/meteoro-
logy combinations were identified. It is organized into two subsections.
The first subsection discusses the identification of worst-case industrial
boilers/meteorology combinations and the second subsection discusses furnace/
meteorology combinations.
IDENTIFICATION OF REASONABLE WORST-CASE 3OILER/METEOROLOGY COMBINATIONS
Sources located in both flat and complex terrain are evaluated in this
report. Approaches used for identifying the worst-case disperstion situa-
tion were different for the two types of terrain* Both of these methods are
discussed below.
Flat Terrain
The worst-case dispersion situation -'or flat terrain was identified
through an analysis of the 14J boilers for which data ware obtained through
the EPA sponsored survey of hazardous waste burners. An analysis of the
survey results is available in a report prepared by Industrial Economics,
Inc. (IEC) entitled Regulatory Analysis fcr Proposed RCRA Regulations;
Permit Standards for Burning Hazardous Wastes in Boilers and Industrial
Furnaces (Reference 36). That report tabulated the stack and design capacity
data for 143 boilers that responded to the survey of hazardous waste burners.
The report also provided weighting factors which had been used to "scale-up"
the results for the 143 surveyed boilers to the total population of boilers
burning hazardous wastes in the U.S.A. These data are shown in Table D.I and
D.2 of Appendix D.
A procedure was developed for identifying the 95th percentils worst-case
boiler/meteorology combination in flat terrain using these data. This was
done by inputting the stack data (height, diameter, etc.) an emission rate
3-1
-------
proportional to the design heat input capacity, and the zip code location of
each of the boilers into the GAMS model. The zip code was used in the GAMS
model to identify nearby meteorological data stations. The nearest meteorolo-
gical data station was selected for use in predicting ambient concentrations.
GAMS incorporates the ISCLT dispersion model (Reference 2) for predicting
downwind impacts. Thus the worst case dispersion situation was identified
from actual boilers and their associated meteorology.
Using the GAMs model/ the maximum annual average ground level concentra-
tions were obtained for each boiler. These concentrations were ranked from
highest to lowest. The weighting factors in Table 0.2 (Appendix D to this
volume) were then applied to each result. The weighting factor if essentially
an estimate of the number of similar boilers in the country. The reason that
weighting factors had to be used was that the survey covered only 143 of the
1000 or so boilers estimated to be burning hazardous wastes. This process is
illustrated in Table D.3 (Appendix D to this volume). A log-normal distribu-
tion of the boiler impacts calculated by this procedure is shown in Figure 3.1.
The 95% worst-case boiler corresponds to a normalized frequency number (a.k.a.
Z-score or probit of 1.64 as illustrated in Figure 3.1. The 95th percentile
bo..ler thus selected is located in Al-uneda, California. It has a capacity of
540 x 1O6 Btu/hr and an annual dispersion factor of 0.052 ug/m3 per unit
emission rate in units of g/sec.
A dispersion factor is defined as "the maximum ambient concentration
caused by a source divided by its emission rate." It is not to be confused
with a direct index for the relative maximum concentration caused by a source
or fecility. To compute an ambient concentration, the dispersion factor for a
source is multiplied by the emission rate for the substance of interest.
The potential short-term impact of the Alameda 95% worst-case boiler
installation was determined by using the PTPLU model. PTPLU predicts maximum
concentrations applicable to time intervals of 1 hour (Reference 22). This
produced a one hour dispersion factor of 1.5 ug/m3 per unit emission rate
(g/sec). Three-minuta and 15-minute average dispersion factors were computed
from the 1 hour dispersion factors using the power law relationship described
in the Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates (Reference 3). Maximum
quarterly average concentrations were computed from maximum annual average
dispersion factors by multiplying the maximum annual dispersion factors by a
factor of 1.6, which represents a typical ratio of maximum quarterly to
maximum annual average dispersion factors. The annual, quarterly and short-
term dispersion factors obtained for the 540 x 106 Btu/hr boiler were used in
the risk assessment for boilers.
The charzcterist.ics of the 540 x 106 Btu/hr boiler and its dispersion
factors are shown in Table 3.1. The stack parameters and dispersion factors in
Table 3.1 represent a single boiler. Results of the SPA "burner survey"
indicated that 95% of boilers are co-located with fewer than 4 boilers. This
report models single boilers and furnaces only. If more than one boiler is
present at a site the results in this report would have to be adjusted to
cover the actual number of boilers.
3-2
-------
o
h
u
u
z
o
o
u.
o
It
10 -
9 -
a -
7 -
6 -
4 -
PIUURB 3.1
•
STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION Of ttOIi.KH IMPACTS
NATURAL LOG VS FREQUENCY
y
»6X WORST BOiLER
-4
FREQUENCY
-------
TABLE 3.1
CHARACTERISTICS OP BOILERS, FURNACKS, AND KILNS
Process
Boiler for Plat Terrain
540 x 106 Btu/hr
Model Boiler for CoMplex
Terrain
150 x 106 Btu/hr
Blast Furnace,
1406 x 106 Btu/hr
Sulfur Recovery Furnace,
95 x 106 Btu/hr
Asphaltic Concrete
Kiln, 45 x 106 Btu/hr
Wet Cement Kiln,
194.8 x 10* Btu/hr
Dry Cement Kiln,
160 x 106 Btu/hr
Lime Kiln,
M5-"' x 10* Btu/hr
Light Weight
Aggregate Kiln,
157.5 x 106 Btu/hr
Individual bait Stack
Parameters
Ht
(ft)
161
80
100
75
25
170
120
80
105
Oia
(ft)
10
4
10
4
4
11
9
3
4
Flow
(acfm)
235,460
46,200
187,000
21,200
30, 500
1 37,700
164,900
67,000
67, 200
Temp.
(°P)
400
400
350
90
150
438
320
300
160
Dispersion Factor (Sec/10bmJ)
for Flat Terrain
Annual
Average
0.052a
0.059b
1.91b
3.495be
0.033b
0.069b
0.226b
0.300b
Maximum
15-Minute
1.94
2.47
65.28
61.62*
3.05
3.17
6.58
10.00
for
Complex Terrain
Annua 1
Average0
1.96
0.99
5.02
7.09
0.66
0.98
1.87
1.98
Max. 15-
Min. Avg.
62.40d
24.81C
228.7°
270. 72C
21.83C
25.91C
58. 82*1
52.89°
Assumed
Air
Pollution
Control
None
None
Cyclone
Venturi
Scrubber
Packed
Tower
Scrubber
Lew Energy
Scrubber
ESP
ESP
FF
Low Energy
Scruhber
Cl
a Based on 1960-1964 STAR (meteorological data summary for Alameda, California)
b Based on 1965-1969 STAR (meteorological data summary for Corpus Christi, Texas)
° Based on Everett Washington meteorology and complex terrain
d Based on Cincinnati meteorology and complex terrain
e Corrected for building downwash using ISCLT model
Maximum 15-minute average concentration - 1.292 x maximum 1-hour concentration
Maximum 3-minute average concantration » 1.741 x maximum 1-hour concentration
Maximum 3-hour average conentration - (0.9 jf .1) x maximum 1-hour concentration
Maximum daily concentrations • (0.4 _+_ 0.2) x 1-hour concentration
Maximum quarterly concentration «• 1.6 x annual average concentration
ESP - Electrostatic Precipitator
FF - Fabric Filter (Baghouse)
-------
Complex Terrain
The procedure for identifying the worst-case boiler/meteorology combina-
tion for complex terrain also used the results of the hazardous waste burner
survey. Street address information on 143 boilers covered in the survey was
used to determine which of the boilers were located in complex terrain.
Fifty-five facilities were determined to be located in flat terrain .vy this
procedure and eliminated from consideration. The remaining boilers w»re then
ranked by emission rate divided by stack height, and those with a ratio of
less than 100 were eliminated. The twenty-two facilities that had an emission
rate to stack height ratio greatar than 100 were located on 7.5 minute topo-
graphic maps. Of these only 8 were found to have any terrain within 20
kilometers that exceeded the stack height. The five with the highest ratios
of emissions to stack height were selected for further analysis.
Two additional boilers were also selected for consideration of worst-case
impact by analyzing the meteorology near the boiler locations* Meteorological
stations were located near 72 of the 143 facilities included in the survey.
Thirty-eight of these 72 meteorological sites were located in complex terrain.
Annualized "STAR" data for each of these 38 sites (which included the five
boilers identified as described above) were input to the ISC model to rank
the boilers located at these sites b> the maximum predicted concentrations.
The two facilities having the largest calculated ground level pollutant
concentrations were selected for further analysis to identify the worst-case
boiler/meteorology combination, with these two facilities, there were seven
actual boilers evaluated to determine what was the worst-case dispersion
situation.
In addition to these seven actual boilers, the 150 x 106 Btu/hr heat
input modal boiler used by OAQFS in the New Source Performance Standard
regulatory development program for industrial boilers was also evaluated as
a candidate for the worst-case boiler/meteorology combination.
The LONGZ and SHORTZ dispersion models were then applied to the seven
actual and one model boiler to calculate maximum annual average and maximum
hourly average impacts, respectively. For the actual boilers, the meteoro-
logy for the nearest meteorological station was used in the modeling. The
model boiler impact was estimated using the meteorology from each of the
seven actual boiler sites. The worst-case annual average impact (as indica-
ted by dispersion factor times heat input capacity) was for the 150 x 106
Btu/hr model boiler located at Everett, Washington. The worst-case hourly
impact was for the model boiler located in Cincinnati, Ohio. Maximum 15-
minute and 3-minute impacts were then calculated using the "power law" method
previously described, and quarterly impacts were calculated using the typical
ratio of quar* rly to annual average concentration impacts of 1.6 previously
described. AJ.J. of these modeling and ranking procedures for complex terrain
assumed one boiler per site. For more details, see the report titled "Complex
Terrain Dispersion Modeling for Burning of Hazardous W&ste in Boilers and
Industrial Furnaces" in Appendix D of this document.
The Everett site and one other site (among the seven modeled in detail in
complex terrain) are located at a coastal/complex terrain interface. Differing
stabilities typically exist near land/water interfaces that are not adequately
covered by conventional modeling methods. In addition, very rapid downmixing
GO3-5
-------
of pluses to the ground (called fumigation) can occur at such locations,
leading to significant increases in ground level concentrations compared to
concentrations in. the absence of fumigation. Current models, such as LONGZ
and SHORTZ, presently do not handle this problem. This is a limitation of
•the modeling that was performed in this report.
The accuracy of dispersion modeling for predicting ambient impacts is
considered tc be a factor of 2. Appendix G of this document contains the
input and ov.tput data printouts of the dispersion modeling that •n in Table 3.1. The
stack parameters and heat input rates in this table are regarded as typical
and are discussed in more detail in Volume II of this BID.
In modeling the blast furnaces emissions it was assumed that all of the
pollution emissions for the furnace entered the atmosphere from the stack
associated with its boiler, i.e. none of the off-gas was burned in the blast
air stove as discussed in Volume II. The air flow for this s*-ack was kept at
the appropriate realistic level for the boiler (and not increased to cover
all the blast furnace flue gas). This assumption regarding air flow results
in higher ambient concentration impacts than if the combined impacts of the
two separate stacks were modeled, because the second stack has a lower disper-
sion factor [uq/m3/(g/3«c)1 than the stack that was modeled.
3-6
61
-------
Flat Terrain
Information from the previously cited IEC report (Reference 36) was used
to identify worst-case meteorology for the furnaces. This information consisted
of the locations of the furnaces and boilers that responded to an EPA survey
of hazardous waste burners. These locations were judged to be representative.
The locations correspond to 72 sets of meteorological data. The location that
causes the maximum ground level pollutant concentration could vary with the
furnac* typ*. Therefore, to determine rigorously the worst-case meteorology
would require modeling all possible combination* of the 72 meteorology data
sets and the eight model furnaces. This approach would require 576 computer
runs. In order to reduce Che number of runs, a less rigorous approach was
used to select a reasonable worst-case meteorology as described below.
Bie approach used for selecting the reasonable worst-case meteorology
entailed first modeling all the model furnace*, for three (Newark, Cleveland,
Los Angeles) diverse meteorologies. Maximum ground level concentrations
determined by this modeling were ranked from the smallest value to the largest.
The results were then analysed to determine if certain furnace types produced
the largest calculated impacts. The results indicated the following rank in
order of largest to smallest ambient impacts: asphalt kiln facility, suii'n:
recovery facility, blast furnace facility, lightweight aggregate kiln facility,
lime kiln facility, dry cement kiln facility, and wet cement kiln facility.
The asphalt kiln facility was eliminated because no asphalt plant burning
hazardous waste currently exists or is likely in the future. Siailarly, only
two spent acid recovery plants and no blast furnaces are currently burning
hazardous waste. The lightweight aggregate kiln has the highest impact of
the remaining furnaces. A number of such kilns are presently burning hazardous
waste and others are likely in the future. Dispersion parameters for the
lightweight aggregate furnace was therefore used to determine the worst-case
meteorology for all the other furnace types.
The worst-case meteorology was identified by using the lightweight aggre-
gate kiln characteristics by the following procedure. The stack data for
this lightweight aggregate kiln, a 100 gram per second emission rate, and zip
codes for the locations previously identified were input to the GAMS model to
determine annual average impacts, assuming flat terrain. The maximum annual
average ground level concentrations were obtained and ranked from highest to
lowest maximum impact. The meteorological data site with the fourth highest
maximum impact (out of 72) was determined to be the 95th percentile worst-case
meteorological data. This meteorological data (the period 1965 to 1969) is
for Corpus Christi, Texas. This meteorological data set was then input to the
GAMS model, along with the characteristics of model furnaces (assuming only
one furnace at each site) in order to determine dispersion factors [in (ug/m3)
per (gram/second)} needed for the risk assessment analysis. These dispersion
factors are summarized in Table 3.1.
-------
Although it was tot an objective of the worst-case dispersion situation
identification process to rank the relative impacts of the different combus-
tion devices this is done in Table 3.2 in terns of maximum annual ground
level concentrations. The potential short-tern impacts of the furnaces were
determined in the same fashion as discussed for the boilers (using PTPLU,
etc.). The results are shown in Table 3.3.
The modeling for the asphalt kiln was corrected for building dovnwash,
using the ISCLT modeling results described in Appendix D. Downwaah was con-
sidered for the other furnace facilities but was determined to be insignifi-
cant. For further details on building dovnwash, see Appendix D.
Complex Terrain
The furnaces were also modeled as if they were located at the seven worst-
case boiler sites for complex terrain, using LONGZ and SHORTZ. The results pf
this work are summarized in Table* 3.1, 3.4, and 3.5. No building downwash
corrections were applied in the complex modeling.
Caveats
The annual and short-tern dispersion factors obtained as described above
were used in the risk assessment for the furnaces. The Calculation Support
Document contains the input and output data printouts for the dispersion
modeling that was done.
As was the case for boiler modeling, the furnace^.Modeling did not take
into account differing stabilities or fumigation resulting from land/water
interfaces. One should also note that only oivy'boiler or furnace was assumed
at each site. It is not unusual for more than one boiler or furnace to be
located at an installation. The results in this report would have to be
adjusted in or4er to evaluate installations with more than one furnace or
boiler, or installations near water.
3-8
-------
TABLE 3.2
RANKING OF RELATIVE MAXIMUM ANNUAL AVERAGE
IMPACTS OF COMBUSTION DEVICES IN FLAT TERRAIN
Device
Capacity
of each
Device
(MMBtU)
Hr
Predicted
Annual Average
Ground Level
Concentration
Sulfur
Recovery Furnace
Asphaltic
Ccncrete Kiln
95
45
1.8
1.6
Blast Furnace
Light weight
Aggregate Kiln
Line Kiln
Boiler.
Dry-Process
Cement Kiln
Wet-Process
Cement Ki In
1406
157.5
145.8
540
160
194.8
0.83
0.47
0.33
0.28
0.11
0.064
Assuming 10 gin/sec emitted per 109 B^u. of HWDF
hr
3-9
61
-------
TABLE 3.3
RANKING OF RELATIVE 15-MINUTE MAXIMUM
IMPACTS OF COMBUSTION DEVICES IN FLAT TERRAIN
Capacity Predicted
of each Maximum 15-ainute
Device Ground Level
(MMBtuj Concentration
Device Hr
Sulfur
Recovery Furnace
Blast Furnace
Asphaltic
Concrete Plant
weight
Aggregate Kiln
95
1406
45
157.5
62
35
28
16
Boiler
Line Kiln
wet- Process
Ceacnt Kiln
Dry-Process
Cement Kiln
540
145.8
194.8
160
10
9.6
5.9
5.1
Assuming 1C gin/sec emitted per 10 . of HWDF
hr
-------
TKBLE 3.4
RANKING OF RELATIVE MAXIMUM ANNUAL AVERAGE
IMPACTS OF COMBUSTION DEVICES IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
Device
Capacity
of each
Device
(MMBtU)
Hr
Predicted
Annual Average
Ground Level
Concentration
(mg/m3)*
Blast Furnace
Sulfur
Recovery Furnace
Aspha-tic
Concrete Kiln
Light -weight
Aggregate Kiln
1406
95
45
157.5
14
4.8
3.2
3.1
Boiler
Line Kiln
Dry-Process
Cement Kiln
Wet-Process
Cement Kiln
150
145.8
160
194.8
2.9
2.7
1.6
1.3
£
Assuming 10 gn/sec emitted per 109 l^H cf HWDF
hr
3-11
-------
TABLE 3.5
RANKING OF RELATIVE 15-MINUTE MAXIMUM
IMPACTS OF COMBUSTION DEVICES IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
Device
Capacity Predicted
of each Maximum 15-Minute
Device Ground Level
(MMBtu\ Concentration
Hr (mg/m3)a
Blast Furnace
Sulfur
Recovery Furnace
Asphaltic
Concrete Kiln
Boiler
Lime Kiln
Light weight
Aggregate Kiln
Wet-Process
Cement Kiln
Dry-Process
Cement Kiln
1406
95
45
150
145.8
157.5
194.8
160
350
220
122
94
86
83
43
41
a 9 Btu
Assuming 10 gm/sec emitted per 10 of HWDF
hr
3-12
-------
SECTTON 4
IMPACTS THAT COULD BE POSED BY CURRENT BURNING PRACTICES
The overall purpose of this chapter is to evaluate potential impacts of
hazardous waste combustion in the absence of regulations. The first part of
the chapter characterizes hazardous waste. This is followed by a character-
ization of the efficiency of air pollution control technology for removing
Appendix VIII elements and hydrochloric acid from flue gas. Finally, a risk
assessment is performed for the combustion of reasonable worst-case hazardous
waste.
CHARACTERIZATION OF WASTE STREAMS
The characteristics of hazardous waste are summarized below.
Appendix VIII Elements
Table 4.1 shows the levels in hazardous waste fuels in ppm as compiled by
IEC. The following data sets were used to create this table (Reference 3a).
o Thirty samples from Versar nemo Lo COM, dated 10/10/85 (those wastes
with heating values greater than 5,000 Btu/lb).
o Six samples from kiln test burn reports, Sites B-G (S«e Volume 2).
o Twenty-two data points presented in the Mitre "incinerability" report
for spent flammable solvents and chlorinated solvents. When a low/
high range was presented for metals levels in many waste streams,
such wastes were included in the data base as two wastes, one with
the low metals level and one with the high metals level; thus, the
22 data points were derived from 13 wastes streams as characterized
by Mitre.
o One hundred forty-two samples from a company participating in the
Keystone workshop, burning 100 percent waste in lightweight aggregate
kilns.
o Five samples from the ICF (Wet Model) data base of wastes as gene-
rated .
Othsr waste streams characterized for metals by Mitre and ICF (Wet Model)
either had low heating values (less than 5,000 Btu/lb) and are not currently
4-1
FS
-------
TABLE 4.1
METAL LEVELS IN HAZARDOUS WASTE FUELS IN PPM
No- of Samples
90th Percentile
50th Percentile
10th Percentile
Ash
40
20
2.82
.05
As Ba Cd
186a 159a 191a
18a 25!a 10a
.5 <5 <.5
.02 <.2 <.1
Cr
198
296
<5
<.2
Pb
199
572
<8
<.5
Ni
169
25
<2
<.2
Hg
175
<1
<.06
<.01
Mote: "Less than" values were included at the detection limit when deter-
mining means and percentiles. Where "less than" values contribute
significantly to the sum of all values, the means and percentiles are
presented as "less than" values.
a Some used oil data was included in the data base for 90% worst As, Ba,
and Cd.
4-,
-------
burned as fuels, or were waste streams known not to be burned as fuels (e.g.,
petroleum refinery wastes typically sent to petroleum cokers or land treatment).
Some data on arsenic, barium, and cadmium levels in waste oil were included
in the data base used to compute the 90th percentile values.
Chlorine
Five percent chlorine is considered to be the limit a normal boiler could
sustain over an extended period of time without extensive modification to pre-
vent corrosion. This is also a practical limit for cement kilns and lime
kilns, since high amounts of chlorine have deleterious effects on the products.
However, wastes containing up to 43% chlorine have been burned in installations
with special corrosion resistant components and pollution control equipment
to reduce HC1 emissions.
Organics
For POHCs, an analysis was performed to identify those Appendix VIII
hydrocarbons currently burned in substantial quantities. Of these substances
1,1,2 trichloroethane had the median Q-j* a value of .0573 cancers /[mg/(kg/day) ]
Consequently, 1,1,2-trichloroethane was used as the example carcinogenic POHC
in this risk assessment. For determining POHC risk, it was assumed that the
waste contained 100% 1,1,2 trichloroethane. This substance is a common solvent
for waxes, fats, and natural resins.
The impact of burning 100% nitrobenzene is also discussed. Nitrobenzene
is a highly toxic substance known to be burned at high amounts (80% at an
analine factory).
Trial burn data were used to identify carcinogenic PICs present in exhaust
gases of hazardous waste combustors. Table 4.2 shows the Q-|* and the emission
rates for sites L, M, and N for each observed PIC (See Volumes 1 and 2 for
details about the sites). From the data in this table, the mass-weighted aver-
age Q1* value was found to be .061. A Q of .061 was used as the example PIC
potency in this report. The test data snowed that the ratio of PIC emission
rates to POHC emission rates ranged from 0.5 to about 3.0. A conservative
value of 5.0 was assumed for the risk assessment. This means that PIC emission
rates were assumed to be five times the POHC emission rates.
The PICs in Table 4.2 also have TLV-TWAs and TLV-STELS, indicating that
they are toxic. The PIC with the lowest annual scre*ning concentration is
tetrachloroethane (17 ug/m3 for 1,1,2,2 tetrachloroethane). This concentra-
tion is used for the screening concentration for the example PIC.
Benzene has also been reported as a suspected PIC in some trial ourn
studies, but the contamination and decomposition of the samples was sus-
pected. As a result, benzene was not included in Table 4.2. The Q.,* for
benzene is .029 and ihe benzene screening concentration is 71 ug/m3. If
benzene was actually a PIC, it is a less potent carcinogen than the average PIC
calculated in Table 4.2; and it has a less restrictive screening concentration
than tetrarhloroethane. Not including benzene in the PIC analysis is consistent
with the reasonable worst case assumptions being made in this report.
70
-------
TABLE 4.2
SELECTION OF TYPICAL PICS
Compound
Methylene chloride
1,2 Dichloroe thane
Chloroform
Tetrachloroe thane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroe thene
Dichloroe thy lene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Average PIC
5.1*
«1"
Cancer
mg/(kg*day)
.014
.091
.081
.0573
.004
.002
1.04
.0016
Q* ER ,
ER
L
42
6
7
8
5
114
2
67
.061
Site Emission Rates
(ug/sec)
M N
52 657
.5 2.7
88 11
.2 .2
&6 18
44 22
18 39
335 11
Cancer
mg/(kg*day)
Annual
Screening
Concentration uc/nr
830st
95st
120st
17st
640st
8008t
1900st
4500st
st TLV-STELs also exist for these substances
4-4
71
-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF REASONABLE WORST-CASE HAZARDOUS WASTES
The assumptions made in this section were consistent with the worst-
case or conservative nature of the risk assessm«?.'.t process. In all cases,
it was assumed that 100% waste would be fired and that the waste had a head-
ing value of 8,000 Btu/lb. This heating value is considered to represent a
reasonable worst-case, since wastes with heating values less than 8,000 Btu/lb
may not burn reliably in furnaces and boilers, without supplimentary fuel. An
examination of analytical data for hazardous waste currently burned reveals a
typical heating value of 10,000 to 12,000 Btu/lb.
The composition of the reasonable worst-case hazardous wastes that were
modeled are shown in Table 4.3. As discussed previously, 5% chlorine content
was considered to be the maximum that could be burned for extended cime per-
iods without degradation of furnace product or boiler equipment, ".tie metals
compositions represent 90th percentile worst-case values summarized from Table
4.1. All chromium emissions are assumed to be soluable and hexavalent. For
nitrobenzene, 100% was selected as a reasonable worst-case estimate. This
was because nitrobenzene is highly toxic and because survey data revealed an
aniline factory with a combustor burning about 80% nitrobenzene. Fifty
percent was used as a worst-case estimate for 1,1,2 trichloroethane, based on
its low heating valve.
Table 4.4 shows the concentrations used as potency indicators for the sub-
stance in Table 4.3.
CHARACTERIZATION OF POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Table 4.5 shows the efficiency of various control devices collecting
Appendix VIII merals. This table was developed on the basis of information
on air pollution control equipment design and fractional efficiency, metal
composition by size in flue gas emissions, and available stack test data of
boilers, kilns, and furnaces.
A 99.99% ORE value can be achieved without difficulty in properly oper-
ated boilers and furnaces. The monitoring and combustions control tech-
nology necessary to assure proper operation of such facilities is described
in Volumes 1 and 2.
CHARACTERIZATION OF WORST-CASE IMPACTS
The methods for evaluating environmental impacts described in Chapter
2 were applied to all example worst-case facilities (Table 3.1) to evaluate
impacts from burning reasonable worst-case hazardous wastes (as specified in
Table 4.3). LOTUS spreadsheets are used for this purpose. The spraadsheets
are in the Calculation Support Document. The first page shows the analysis
of the fuel, assumed combustion related DREs, assumed air pollution control
4-5
-------
TABLE 4.3
COMPOSITION OF REASONABLE WORST-CASE HAZARDOUS WASTE
(ASSUMING 100% WASTE IN FUEL 9 8,000 BTU/LB)
Substance
Chlorine
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Mercury
Barium
1,1,2 Trichlo roe thane
PIC
Nitrobenzene
Percent Substance
in Waste
5.0
.0018
.001
.03
.057
.0025
.00010
.025
50
None0
100
Comments
a
90% worst
90% worst
90% worst
90% worst
90% worst
90% worst
90% worst
reasonable
reasonable
reasonable
worst-case
worst-case
worst-case
a Exceeding this limit would have a deleterious effect on products of
furnaces as wall as a corrosive effect on boilers.
b Emission • 5 x emissions of POHC.
4-6
X
-------
TABLE 4.4
CONCENTRATIONS USED AS
POTENCY INDICATORS IN IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Substance
Hydrochloric Acid
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Antimony
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Barium
1,1,2-
Ql* Annual
Cancer for Ten in
mg Million
*g*Day Cancer
15 .0023 (A)
8.75 .0040 (B1)
6.1 .0057 (B1)
41 .00085° (A)
1.06 .033 (A)
Trichlo roe thane 0.0573 0.61
Example PIC 0.061 .57
Nitrobenzene
Dioxins and Furans .000027*3
a This is not a
reference concentration.
Concentration (ug/m-*)
Annual Short-Term
Screening Screening
Cone en- Concen- Duration
tration tration (min) Comment
15 149 3 min
0.476
0.00475
0.119 d
0.119°
0.150*
0.238 •
1
0.119
0.476
0.0238
0.238
1.2
107 e
17* •
2 •
It is the maximum allowable amount of
change in quarterly ambient level concentrations.
b "rtiis is the lowest concentration based on derailed analvaia of a mixture
c
d
of dioxins from a spreader stroker burning 40% creosote (and modeling
based on the TEFs in Table 2.7).
This is based on chromium VI.
A TLV-C and a TLV-STEL exists for cadmium. Thia indicates that exposure to high
short-term concentrations could cause adverse human health effects. No EPA
approved procedure for screening for such potential effects exists.
TLV-STELs exist for nickel, fcr 1,1,2 trichloroethane, for 1,1,2,2 tetra-
chloroethane, and for nitrobenzene. This indicates that high short-term
concentrations of these substances could cause adverse human health effects.
No EPA approved procedure for screening for such potential effects exists.
Worst toxic PIC (Tetrachloroethane).
4-7
< \
-------
TABLE 4.5
ESTIMATED METAL COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES
FOR VARIOUS CONTROL DEVICES
Metal
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Barium
ESP3
98
99
98
98
- 99
99
?f)
99
99
99
99
99
99
Venturi Scrubber
98
98
98
97
98
98
Spray Tower
50
93
93
50
90
90
a Electrostatic precipitator
b Fabric filter (baghouse)
4-8
-------
equipn!~-.t collection efficiencies, emission factors, emission rates, ambient
ccncen. tion impacts, predicted cancer impacts, and ratios of predicted
concentrecions divided by reference concentrations. The second page of each
spreadsheet covers reference emission rates (described in Chapter 5). Tne
last page of each spreadsheet summarizes the results of the impact assessment
modeling. The last table in Chapter 1 of the Calculating Support Document
contains the data on the potency of toxic and carcinogenic substances that
was used for the risk assessment calculations in each spreadsheet.
For hydrocarbons, a 99% ORE was assumed. This assumption is based upon
poor performance exhibited by the San Juan Cement Kiln. It is considered to
be a reasonable worst-case estimate of ORE in the absence of regulations.
Key results of the environmental impact assessment modeling for flat
terrain are summarized for the light weight aggregate facility, the boilers,
and the dry cement facility in Tables 4.6, 4.7, and 4.3, respectively. For
rough terrain, the results are summarized in Tables 4.9, 4.10, 4.11.
The second column shows the emission factors (Ibs emissions/106 Btu heat
input) for each substance (in the first column) based on the fuel composition
in Table 4.3, the efficiency of assumed pollution control technology in Table
4.S, and an assumed 99% ORE for hydrocarbons.
The third column contains the maximum ambient concentration predicted as
a result of emissions from the facility, averaged over the time duration as
appropriate fcr the compound (3 min. for Pb, 3 mo. for HC1, 1 yr. for others).
The fourth column ("Toxic Ratio") contains the ratio of the maximum am-
bient concentration (in the third column) to the screening concentration for
the substance, over the appropriate time interval (as specified in the fifth
column). Ratios above 0.25 indicated that the ambient concentrations are high
eno-igh to warrant more sophisticated risk assessment studies to determine if
the predicted ambient concentration impacts, in combination with background
concentrations, could cause adverse threshold toxic effects.
The fifth column indicates the predicted maximum chance for an individual
getting cancer, per hundred thousand, (as a result of exposure to the substance
emitted by the facility); this assumes that the individual has spent his or her
entire lifetime at the location of maximum concentration impact. Any value at
or above 1 (1 x 10°) is considered to be significant.
The last column gives the EPA Carcinogen classification lor compounds
that have been so categorized.
Tables 4.6 through 4.11 are discussed on a substance by substance basis
in the following paragraphs.
4-9 >-'
-------
TABLE 4.6
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF LIGHT WT AG KILN W/LOW ENERGY SCRUBBER
BURNING 90% WORST HWDF FOR FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Hydrochloric Acid
1,1,2 Trichloroethane
Nitrobenzene
Example PIC
Dioxins
Dioxins
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
1.1E-03
3.1E-03
8.7E-05
2.6E-03
3.6E-02
1.3E-04
3.1E-04
3.2E+00
6.2E-01
1.2E+00
3.1E+00
l.OE-07
l.OE-07
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
6.7E-03
1.9E-02
5.2E-04
1.6E-02
3.4E-01
7.4E-04
1.9E-03
8.6E+02
3.7E+00
7.4E+00
1.9E+01
6.1E-07
6.1E-07
Toxic Ratio
Ambient. Cone./
Screenining Cone.
1.4E-02
1.6E-02
4.4E-03
1.3E-01
2.3E+00
6.3E-03
7.8E-03
5.8E+00
3.5E-02
3.7E+00
1.1E+00
Highest Individual
Cancer Risk
Times 100,000
3E+00
9E-02
2E+01
fE-02
6E+00
3E+01
3E-03
2E-02
Class
A
Bl
A
A
I
o
Totai= 6E+01
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
st A short-term TLV exists for this substance.
for this substance in this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 50.00% removal efficiency for HCl.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
J*
I
TABLE 4.7
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF ONE BOILER
BURNING 90% WORST HWDF FOR FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Hydrochloric Acid
1,1,2 Trichloroethane
Nitrobenzene
Example PIC
Dioxins
Dioxins
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
2.2E-03
3.1E-02
1.3E-03
3.7E-02
7.2E-02
1.3E-04
3.1E-03
6.4E+00
6.2E-01
1.2E+00
3.1E+00
l.OE-07
l.OE-07
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
8.0E-03
1.1E-01
4.4E-03
1.3E-01
4.0E-01
4.4E-04
1.1E-02
1.1E+03
2.2E+00
4.4E+00
1.1E+01
3.6E-07
3.6E-07
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone./
Screenining Cone.
1.7E-02
9.3E-02
3.7E-02
1.1E+00
2.7E+00
3.7E-03
4.6E-02
7.7E+00
2.1E-02
2.2E+00
6.5E-01
Highest Individual
Cancer Risk
Times 100,000
3E+00
8E-01
2E+02
3E-01
4E+00
2E+01
2E-03
1E-02
Class
A
Bl
A
A
Total= 2E+02
st A short-term TLV exists {or this substance. Sho*.t-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
for this substance in this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 0.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HC1 (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 4.8
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF DRY CEMENT KILN (ONE UNIT WITH ESP)
BURNING 90% WORST HWDP FOR FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Hydrochloric Acid
1,1,2 Trichloroethane
Nitrobenzene
Example PIC
Dioxins
Dioxins
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
4.5E-05
3.1E-04
1.3E-05
7.5E-04
1.4E-03
1.3F-04
3.1S-05
1.3E-01
6.2E-01
1.2E+00
3.1E+00
l.OE-07
l.OE-07
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
6.3E-05
4.4E-04
1.7E-05
l.OE-03
3.2E-03
1.7E-04
4.3E-05
1.1E+01
8.7E-01
1.7E+00
4.3fc>00
1.4E-07
1.4E-07
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone./
Screenining Cone.
1.3E-04
3.7E-04
1.5E-04
8.8E-03
2.1E-02
1.5E-03
1.8E-04
7.4E-02
8.1E-03
8.7E-01
2.6E-01
Highest Individual
Cancer Risk
Times 100,000
3E-02
3E-03
1E+00
1E-03
1E+00
8E+00
6E-04
5E-03
Class
A
Bl
A
A
I
M
Total= 1E+01
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
st A short-term TLV exists (or this substance.
for this substance in this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 98.00% removal efficiency for HCl.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 4.9
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF LIGHT WT AG KILN W/LOW ENERGY SCRUBBER
BURNING 90% WORST HWDF FOR COMPLEX TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium (at)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
nickel (st)
Hydrochloric Acid
1,1,2 Trichloroethane
Nitrobenzene
Example PIC
Dioxins
Dioxins
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
1.1E-03
3.1E-03
8.7E-05
2.6E-03
3.6E-02
1.3E-04
3.1E-04
3.2E+00
6.2E-01
1.2E+00
3.1B+00
l.OE-07
l.OE-07
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
4.1E-02
1.2E-01
3.4E-03
l.OE-01
2.2E+00
4.S'?-03
1.2E-02
4.5E+03
2.5E+01
4.9E+01
1.2B+02
4.0E-06
4.0E-06
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone,/
Screenininq Cone.
9.3E-02
l.OE-01 .
2.9E-02
8.7B-01
1.5E+01
4.1E-02
5.2E-02
3.1E+01
2.3E-01
2.5E+01
7.2E+00
Highest Individual
cancer Risk
Times 100,000
2E+01
6E-01
1E+02
4E-01
4E+01
2E+02
2E-02
2E-01
Class
A
Bl
A
A
QD
O
Total= 4E+02
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
st
? short-term TLV exists for this substance.
or this substance in thlf
or this substance in this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 50.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on An annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HC1 (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 4.10
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF ONE BOILER
BURNING 90% WORST HWDF FOR COMPLEX TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium (at)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Hydrochloric Acid
1,1,2 Trichloroethane
Nitrobenzene
Example PIC
Dioxins
Dioxins
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
2.2E-03
3.1E-02
1.3E-03
3.7E-02
7.2E-02
1.3E-04
3.1E-03
6.4E+00
6.2E-01
1.2E+00
3. IE +00
l.OE-07
l.OE-07
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
8.3E-02
1.2E+00
4.6E-02
1.4E+00
4.2E+00
4.6E-03
1.2E-01
l.OE+04
2.3E+01
4.6E+01
1.2E+02
3.8E-06
3.8E-06
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone./
Screenining Cone.
1.8E-01
9.8E-01
3.9E-01
1.2E+01
2.8E+01
3.9E-02
4.9E-01
6.9E+01
2.2E-01
2.3E+01
6.8E+00
Highest Individual
Cancer Risk
Times 100,000
4E+01
8E+00
2E+03
4E+00
4E+01
2E+02
2E-02
1E-01
Clast
A
Dl
A
A
Total= 2E+03
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluatec
st A short-torm TLV exists for this substance.
for this substance In this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 0.00% removal efficiency for HCl.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 4.11
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF DRY CEMENT KILN (ONE UNIT WITH ESP)
BURNING 90% WORST hWDF FOR COMPLEX TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium (at)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (at)
Hydrochloric Acid
1,1,2 Trichloroethane
Nitrobenzene
Example PIC
Dioxins
Dioxins
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
A.5E-05
3.1E-04
1.3E-05
7.5E-C4
1.4E-C3
1.3E-04
3.1E-05
1.3E-01
6.2E-01
1.2E+00
3.1E+00
l.OE-07
l.OE-07
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
8.9E-04
6.2E-03
2.5E-04
1.5E-02
4.5E-02
2.SE-03
6.2S-04
9.0F+01
1.2E+01
2.5E+01
6.2E+01
2.0E-06
2.0E-06
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone,/
Screenining Cone.
1.9E-03
5.2E-03
2.1E-03
1.2E-01
3.0E-01
2.1E-0?
2.6E-03
6.1E-01-
1.2E-01
1.2E+01
3.6E+00
Highest Individual
Cancer RisR
Times 100,000
4E-01
4E-02
2E1-01
2E-02
2E+01
1E+02
9E-03
8E-02
Class
A
Bl
A
A
I
M*
'Jl
oc
Total= 1E+02
Short-terra toxic impacts were not evaluated
st A short-term TLV exists for this substance.
tor this substance In this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 98.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HC1 (3 minute).
-------
Arsenic
Arsenic emissions are unlikely to cause adverse human health effects
because of threshold toxicity; however, carcinogenic impacts are predicted
to be significant for the light weight aggregate kiln a.id for the boiler
in both flat and complex terrain. The boiler is modeled as if it has no
air pollution control equipment, and the light weight aggregate kiln is
modeled as if it has a low energy scrubber that collects 50% of the
arsenic. The dry cement kiln is equipped with an electrostatic precipitator
that is assumed to collect 98% of the arsenic; as a result, the carcirogen
impact of arsenic emissions from the dry cement kiln is considered to not
be significant.
Barium
The ambient barium concentration caused by the boiler in complex
terrain is high enough to warrant more detailed risk assessment studies
to determine if barium impacts, in combination with background concentra-
tions, might cause significant threshold toxic effects. While such
effects are probably unlikely, further investigation is needed to be
highly confident of this. Adverse impacts from barium are unlikely for
the boiler in flat terrain and for the dry cement kiln and the light weight
aggregate kiln.
Cadmium
The annual average cadmium concentration caused by the boiler in
complex terrain is high enough to warrant more detailed risk assessment
studies to determine if cadmium impacts, in combination with background
concentrations, might cause significant threshold toxic effects. For the
light weight aggregate kiln and the dry cement kiln (along with the boiler
in flat terrain), long term average cadmium concentration impacts are
unlikely to cause significant human health effects because of threshold
toxicity.
Cadmium has a TLV-C. This implies that short-term exposure to high
cadmium concentrations can cause adverse human health effects. It is not
possible tc screen for such effects using EPA approved screening concen-
trations because no such concentrations exist. Whether or not maximum
short-term concentration impacts are safe will not be evaluated in this
report.
The estimated chance of the most exposed individual getting cancer
due to cadmium carcinogenic!ty is considered to be significant for the
boiler in complex terrain. No significant carcinogenic impacts from
cadmium are predicted for the light weight aggregate kiln, the dry cement
kiln, or the boiler in flat terrain.
4-16
83
-------
Chromium
Assuming all chromium emissions are hexavalent, annual average
ambient chromium concentrations caused by the boiler (in both flat and
complex terrain) and caused by the light weight aggregate kiln In complex
terrain are high enough to warrant more sophisticated risk assessment
studies to determine if impacts, in combination with background concentra-
tions, might cause significant chronic health effects because of threshold
toxicity.
If none of the chromium emissions are hexavalent, more sophisticated
risk assessment studies would only be warranted for the boiler in complex
terrain. The screening concentration used to generate the toxic ratios
in Tabes 4.6 through 4.11 for chromium is based on hexavalent chromium.
The screening concentration for trivalent chromium is ten times higher
than the screening concentration for hexa--.?lent chromium.
Significant cancer impacts are predicted for all three types of
sources in both flat and complex terrain, assuming that all of the chromium
emissions are hexavalent. Non-hexavalert forms of chromium emissions are
not reported to be carcinogenic.
Lead
Quarterly maximum ambient lead concentrations from the light weight
aggregate kiln and the boiler are considerably above the .15 ug/m3 that
is considered to be acceptable. In complex terrain, quarterly maximum
ambient lead concentration impacts from the light weight aggregate kiln
and the boiler exceed the quarterly ambient air quality standard of 1.5
ug/m^.
Mercury
It is unlikely that mercury emissions would cause significant
threshold toxic effects.
Nickel
The annual average nickel concentration caused by the boiler in
complex terrain is high enough to warrant more detailed risk assessment
studies to determine if nickel impacts, in combination with background
concentrations, might cause significant threshold toxic effects. For the
light weight aggregate kiln, the dry cement kiln, and the boiler in flat
terrain, long term average nickel concentration impacts are unlikely to
cause significant human health effects because of threshold toxicity.
Nickel las a TLV-STEL. This implies that short-term exposure to
high nickel concentrations can cause adverse human health effects. It is
not possible to screen for such effects using EPA approved screening
4-17
84
-------
concentrations because no such concentrations exist. Whetner or nut
maximum short term nickel concentration impacts are safe will not be
evaluated in this report.
The carcinogenic impact of nickel emissions froai the boiler in
complex terrain is significant. Carcinogenic impacts from nickel
are not significant for the light weight aggregate kiln, the dry cement
kiln, or for the boiler in flat terrain.
Hydrochloric Acid
For the boilers in both flat and rough terrain, predicted maximum 3-
minute average HCL concentration impacts exceed the screening concentration,
reported thresholds for effects on eyesight and for respiratory irritation,
and odor thresholds (see Table 2.7 for the thresholds). Maximum three
hour impacts would also exceed these thresholds. Maximum 24 hour
hydrochloric acid concentration impacts would also axceed these thresholds
in complex terrain, and the maximum 24 hour average hydrochloric acid
concentration impact of the boiler in flat terrain would exceed the
reported thresholds for effects on eyesight and for respiratory irritation.
These thresholds are based on studies in the U.S.S.R. However, the report
containing these thresholds (Reference 26) is not well documented.
Further investigation of the effects of short-term exposure to HC1 on
people is recommended.
For the light weight aggregate kiln, the predicted 3 minute maximum
ambient HC1 concentration impacts also exceed the screening concentration,
reported thresholds for effects on eyesight and for respiratory irritation,
and odor thresholds. These exceedances could alsofoersist for extended
periods of time. The assumed HC1 removal efficiency for the .light weight
aggregate kiln's spray tower was modeled as 50%, based on the assumption
that it is poorly designed and poorly maintained.
For the dry cement kiln, a 98% HC1 removal efficiency was assumed,
based on the lowest observed removal efficiency in any cement or lime
kiln documented in Volume 2. The predicted maximum 3-minute average HCj.
concentration impact does not exceed 25% of the HCl screening concentrafc
tion in flat terrain. In complex terrain, the predicted maximum 3 minute
concentration impact is 61% of the screening concentration, but does no'.
exceed any reported human health effects threshold; further investigation
would be needed to determine if this concentration impact, in combination
with background concentrations, could cause adverse human health effects.
1 ,'• ,2-Trlchloroethan<, Nitrobenzene and Products of Incomplete Combustion
Significant carcinogenic impacts are predicted from 1,1,2 trichloro-
ethane and products of incomplete combustion for all three types of
sources in both flat and complex terrain assuming a 99% DR2. With a
99.99% ORE, the carcinogenic impact of 1,1,2 trichloroethane would not be
significant for all three types of sources, even in complex terrain. The
4-18
-------
carcinogenic impact of PICs (assuming a 93.99% ORE) would not be signifi-
cant in flat terrain but would be significant in complex terrain for all
three types of sources .
Annual average 1 , 1 ,2-trichloroethane concentration impacts from all
three types of facilities are unlikely to cause adverse human health effects
because of threshold toxicity, even with a 99% ORE. The annual average
concentrations of nitrobenzene in both flat and complex terrain are high
enough to warrant more detailed risk assessment studies of threshold toxic
impacts, assuming a 99% ORE, for all three types of sources in both complex
and flat terrain. Annual average PIC concentrations from all three types of
j with a 99% ORE would also be high enough to warrant more detailed
risk assessment studies related to threshold toxicity inJJoth flat and com-
plex terrain. If all three types of facilities had a 9Sp99% ORE, annual
average nitrobenzer% and PIC concentrations would be unlikely to cause adverse
human health effects because of threshold toxicity.
Both 1,1,2 trichloroethane and nitrobenzene have TLV-STELs. This indi-
cates that high short term concentrations of these substances could cause
adverse human health effects. No short-term screening concentrations have
been approved by EPA for these substances (or for any other orgai.ic substance).
whether or not short-term maximum impacts are safe will not be evaluated in
this report.
Dioxins
If dioxln emissions were equivalent (in Ib/IO^Btu) to the highest ever
observed by EPA from a boiler burning hazardous waste (a poorly controlled
stoker burning wood chips, sawdust, and 40% creosote), the predicted ambient
dioxin concentrations from all three types of facilities would not cause
significant carcinogenic impacts. The stoker from which the dioxin emission
factor was determined had about 10CO ppm CO in its flue gas and a 60% effi-
ciency. The observed dioxin emission factors from other hazardous waste
burning boilers were at least two orders of magnitude lower (see Reference 27
for details).
4-19
SB
-------
SECTION 5
IDENTIFICATION OF COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
DESCRIPTION OF REFERENCE EMISSION FACTORS AND CONCENTRATIONS OF CONCERN
In Section 2, methods were developed to estiuate examples of concen-
trations that are unlikely to be associated with significant health effects
for threshold toxic pollutants. Such concentrations are FfD-based and TLV-
based screening concentrations. An example of an amount of change in concen-
tration that is unlikely to cause significant human health effects is an
action level of 25* of a screening concentration.
Neither TLV-based nor RfD-based screening concentrations can be consis-
tently depended upon to be examples of concentrations that are unlikely to be
associated with significant human health effects because of threshold toxicity.
Adverse human health effects may occur for some substances even when the
annual air pollution concentration impact of a source is lower than a screen-
ing concentration. For more details, see Chapter 2. Under the circumstances,
it was decided to use the lower of the TLV-based and R-3-based annual screening
concentration, when both are available; such concentrations (and action levels
based on increases of 25% of such concentrations) are examples of annual
average concentrations (and concentration changes) for which significant
human health effects because of threshold toxicity are unlikely.
For some pollutants, only a RfD based screening concentration is avail-
able. When this is the case- this screen'-; concentration should not be
considered to be an example of an annual average concentration that is unlikely
to cause adverse human health effects because of threshold toxicity (unless
there is further evidence demonstrating this, on a case-by-case basis).
Whenever an air pollution screening concentration is based on an RfD only (or
a number is derived using only an RfD based screening concentration and noi
also a TLV based concentration), the code "R" will be used when the substance
is listed in this chapter.
EPA has not developed any demonstrably reliable method for calculating
short term screening concentrations in this risk assessment study (except for
HC1). As illustrated by the dispersion factors in Chapter 3, short tern con-
centration impacts of point sources are higher than anmi'l average concentra-
tion impacts. Whenever a TLV-C or a TLi'-STEL exists for a substance, exposure
to high concentration of the substance over short dur&tionr are known to
cause adverse human health effects. The code "ST" will be used to indicate
the existence of a short-term TLV (a TLV-STEL or a TLV-C) for substances.
The fact that a source pay hive an annual average concentration impact
below an action level based on a TLV (or the smaller of a TLV or an RfD,
5-1
87
-------
when both are available) only indicates that adverse threshold toxic health
effects due to chronic exposure are unlikely. It does not necessarily mean
that short term maximum concentration impacts could not cause adverse human
health effects or adverse effects on the environment.
For carcinogens, EPA considers an increase of one in one-hundred thousand
in the risk that an individual will get cancer to be significant. Ambient con-
centrations associated with one chance per hundred thousand of cancer can be ,
calculated from unit risk values. Unit risk values can be calculated from
Q1 s. See Section 2 for details.
In Section 3, reasonable worst-case boilers, and furnaces were identi-
fied on the basis of considerations related to the relative potential impacts ^
on ambient air quality. For each type of reasonable worst-case facility,
dispersion modeling was performed. Table 3.1 lists "dispersion factors" ^
t(ug/m3)/(g/sec)]. For each source, maximum ar>-iant concentration impacts
were calculated by multiplying the emission rates (g/sec) by the dispersion
factors.
uq m ug/m3 * g 4%
m^" g/sec sec >^
Emission rates were calculated by multiplying emission factors (defined
as pounds of emissions per million Btu of heat input) by the total heat input
rate for the boilers and furnaces.
g/sec " lb/106 Etu * 106 Btu/hr * 453.6 g/lb
3600 sec/hr
Emission factors were calculated on the basis of the heating value of
the fuel, the percent of the fuel consisting of the substance of interest (%
Sub), the destruction and removaJ efficiency of the combustion process (%
ORE), and the efficiency of additional pollution control equipment for removing
the substance (% RE).
lb/106 Btu - % sub , 100 - % ORE „ 100 -% RE . IP"6 Btu
(Btu/lb)*100 100 100 10-6 Btu
The results of these calculations are systematically laid out on the
"impact assessment" pages of the. risk assessment spreadsheets in the Calcula-
tion Support Document.
It ia possible to work backwards and calculate the lb/106Btu emission
factor associated with any specified ambient concentration impact, for any
source in Table 3.1. If the maximum ambient concentration of a substance
caused by a source is 25% of the screening concentration or equal to an
ambient concentration of the substance associated with a one in a hundred
thousand chance of an individual getting cancer, the lb/106Btu emission factor
is called a "reference emission factor" based on toxicity or based on carcino-
genicity respectively.
5-2
88
-------
If the emission factor for a boiler or furnace is less than a refer-
ence emission factor based on toxicity, then it does not warrant a detailed
risk assessment study to evaluate threshold toxicity. If a boiler or
furnace has an emission factor for a substance that is less than the
reference emission factor based on carcincgenicity, then the impact of
the substance from the facility on ambient air quality is unlikely to
cause significant effects due to cancer. Table 5.1 lists the lowest
emission factors for all Appendix VIII metals, HC1 and selected orqanics
for all cf the sources in Table 3.1 for flat terrain. Table 5.2 is for
complex terrain.
Every reference emission factor corresponds to a certain set of fuel
specifications, assuming a specified destruction and removal efficiency
as a result of combustion and a certain collection efficiency from air
pollution control equipment. The concentrations in fuel corresponding to
the reference emission factors are called "levels of potential concern."
If the fuel for a source contains concentrations of a substance above a
level of potential concern, the impact of the substance on ambient air
quality (when burned in the source) is also of potential concern.
Tables 5.3 through 5.12 show the reference emission factors and
levels of potential concern for t>a light weight aggregate kiln, the
boiler, the dry cement kiln, t;i« sulfur recovery furnace and the* blast
furnace (as described in Table 3.1). These were calculated assuming that
these units were burning 100% hazardous waste with a heating valuct of
8,000 Btu/lb. The levels of potential concern are tabulated assuming no
air pollution control equipment or assuming air pollution control equipment
with efficiencies as specified in Table 4.5.
Table 5.13 identifies the compounds whose level of potential concern
(based on toxicity) are less than 100%, assuming HWDF with a heating value
of 3,000 Btu/lb burned in the resonable worst-case light weight aggregate
kiln, the bo-ler, the dry cement kiln, the sulfur recovery furnace and
the blast furnace with a 99.99% ORE. Table 5.14 13 for complex terrain.
Tables 5.15 a.id 5.16 list compounds of potential concern based on carcino-
genicity for a 99.99% ORE for flat and for complex terrain. When appro-
priate, the concentrations of concern for carcinogens in these tables
were corrected for products of incomplete combustion. Please note that
a blank in any of these f\blas signifies that the level of concern is
equ£i to or greater than 100%.
5-3
89
-------
TABLE 5.2
REFERENCE EMISSION FACTORS FOR METALS, HCl. MID SELECTED ORGANICS
FROM BOILER. FURNACES. AHO KILNS {LB/106BTU) FOR COMPLEX TERRAIN
Substance
Basis
Met Cement Kiln
194.8 HHBtu/hr
Ory Cement Kiln
160 MHBtu/hr each
Blast Furnace
1406 oru/hc
LIM Kiln
MS. 8 3 HMBtu/hc
Boiler
S40 HHBtu/hr
AsphaUlc
Concrete Kiln
45 MHBtu/hr
Light Height
Aggregate Kiln
IS/. 5 MNBtu/hr
Sulcur
Recovery Furnace
9SHHBtu/hr
A*
CAR
1.4XIO-*
1.2x10"*
1.3x10"*
6.8x»O"*
6. 3x10"*
•>.8x10"*
S.9x10-s
3.9x10-*
Sb
P.fUTLV
:. 5xio-2
1.3xlO"2
1.4x10-*
7.1X1O-*
6.7x10-1
6.2x10"J
6.4x10-J
4.2x10"J
Ba
TLV
I.8x10~2
I.SxIO"2
I.7x10-j
8.7x10-J
8.0xlO->
7.4x10~J
7.6x10-J
S.OxlO"3
Be
TLV
7.JxlO~s
6.0x10-*
6.8xlO~*
3.5*10-*
1.2x10"*
l.OxIC-*
3.0x10-*
2.0x10-*
Cd
CAR ST
l.SxIO"4
2.9X10-*
J.lxlO-'
1.7x10"*
1.5x10-*
1.4X1O-*
1.5x10-*
9.5x10-*
Cr
CAR
5.3x10-*
4.3x10"*
4. 9x10-*
2.5x10'*
2.1x10"*
2.1x10"*
2.2x10"*
1.4x10"*
Pb
fi
5.8x10'*
4.7x10°
5.1x10-*
2.7x10"J
2.5X1O"1
2.3X10"1
2.4X10"3
1.6X10"1
"?
TLV
I.BxIO"3
I.SxIO"3
1.7x10"*
8.7x10"*
8.0x10-*
7.4x10"*
7.6x10"*
5.Ox1O~*
Ni
CAR ST
2.Ox10~J
1.7»10-J
1.9x10-*
9.6x10-*
S.SxlO-*
8.2*10-*
8.4x10'*
5.5x10-*
Se
TLV
7.JX10"3
6.0X10'1
6.8X10-*
1.5x10-J
1.2X10~J
3.0x1Q-J
1.0X10"3
2.0X10"1
»
-------
TABLE 5.2
I'.EFKHKWCK EMISSION PACTOMS fruit MtTALS, HC1. AND SELKCTbl) UHUANICS
PROM BQILKM, PURNACBS, AND KILNS (LB/IO^Mtl) POR OOMPLUX TUWAiM
Substance
aiais
Wet Ceaent Kiln
194. U MHBtu/hr
Dry Cenent Kiln
IbO MHBtu/hr each
blaat Purnace
1406 Btu/hr
Li*a Kiln
145.83 MMBtu/hr
Boiler
540 HHBtu/hr
Asphaltic
Conctetu Kiln
45 HMBtu/hr
Light Weight
A'jijreijate Kiln
•57.5 HHBtu/hr
Sulfur
Recovery Furnace
95HMBtu/hr
As
CAR
l.4xlO~*
1.2,10-*
1.3.10-5
6.8.10-5
4.3x10-5
4.4x10"5
5.9xlO"5
3.9,10-5
Sb
RfO&TLV
1.5x10-
1 3xlO-2
,.,,,o-3
7.3XIO"3
6.7.10-3
4,/xtO"3
6.4K1Q-3
4.2xlO~3
FBI
,...,o-=
I.SxIO"2
7MO-J
8.7X10"3
a.OxlO'3
j
j
S.OxlO*3
Be
TLV
7.3x1O-5
6.0x10-5
6.8x10-'
3.5x10-5
3.2xlO"5
0-5
3.OxlO"5
2.OXIO-5
Cd
CAR ST
3.5x10-*
2 9xlO-*
3.3x10-5
l.7xlO-*
1.5XIO-*
1.1X10"*
1.5x10"*
9.5x10-*
Cr
CAR
5.3x10-5
10-5
4.9X10"6
2.5x10-5
2.3x10-S
1 6,10-5
2.2,10-5
1.4x10-5
Pb
0
S.flxlO-3
4.7X10-3
5.3*10-*
2.7X10"3
2.5XIO-3
I.8X10"3
2.4x10"3
1.6XIO"3
"fl
TLV
1 8x10'3
1.5xlO-3
».7x»0-*
a.7,io-*
8.0,10-*
5.6,10-*
7.6,10-*
5.0x10-*
Hi
CAH bT
2.CXIO-3
1.7xlO-3
1 »xlO-«
9.6XIO"*
a. 9xio~*
6.2x10"*
8.4x10-*
5.5x10"*
Se
TUV
7.3xld~3
6.OX1O'3
6.8xlO~*
3.SXIO"3
3 2X10'3
2.2XIO'3
3.0XIO'3
2.0xlO~3
*t
TLV
3,7X10-*
3.OXIO-*
3.4XIO-5
I.7XIO-*
I.6X10-*
1.U1O-*
1.5,10-*
9.9XIO-5
Tl
TLV
3.7x»0-3
3.0x10-*
3.4x10-*
1.7X1O-3
I.6X10-3
1.1X10"3
l.SxIO-3
9.9,10-*
•IC1
3 MIN
5.2x10-2
5.3x10-2
6.3XIO"3
2.6x10-2
2.3X10-2
1.4x10-2
2-6x10-2
I.OxlO-2
TCE* J
CAR
3.8x10-2
3.1X1O-2
S. 8x10*2
1.8X10-2
1.6x1O-2
1.1x10-2
1.6x10-2
1.0x10-2
PIC
CAR
3.5x10-2
2.9x10-2
5.5x10-2
1.7x10"2
1.5x10-2
l.lxlO"2
1.5x10-2
s.sxio-3
Dioxin*
CAR
1.7x10-' to
1.4x10-5
1.4x1 0-6 to
1.1x10-5
2.6xlO-'to
2.1x10-5
7.BxlO-''to
6.5x10-'
7.2xlO~7to
6.0XIG-'
5.0x10-7to
4.2x10-'
6.8xlO'7to
5.7x10-'
4.5xlO-7to
3.7X10-'
A •• based on the wuller of *n «nnu«l RrD or an annual TLV baaed screening concentration,
or a TLV IMUI d screening concentration
Q - quarterly impact of 0.15 uy/"3
C • oaxiMua of one chanoa (wr lOO.OOO of cancer
ST - A TLV-STEL or TLV-C &xi«t« tor the aubatancu. Short tem iapact* were not aaseased
uhdn coM|iutini| referencu eaisaioo factors.
R - Only an i
-------
TABLE 5.3
LEVELS OF METALS AND CHLORINE OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FOR LIGHT WT AG FACILITY W/LOW ENERGY SCRUBBER
IN FLAT TERRAIN
Substance
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Chlorine
Reference
Emission
Factor
(Ib/MM Btu)
3.9E-04
4.2E-02
5.0E-02
2.0E-04
9.6E-04
1.4E-04
1.6E-02
5.0E-03
5.5E-03
2.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-02
1.4E-01
PPM OF CONC]
Without
Control
Equipment
3.1E+00
3.4E+02
4.0E+02
1.6E+00
7.7E+00
1.1E+00
1.3E+02
4.0E+01
4.4E+01
1.6E+02
8.0E+00
8.0E+01
1 . 1E+03
5RN IN FUEL
With
Control
Equipment
6.3E+00
3.4E+02
4.0E+03
1.6E+00
1.1E+02
1.6E+01
2.5E+02
4.0E+01
4.4E-1-02
1.6E+02
8.0E+00
S.OE-f-Ol
2.2E+03
Assumed %
Pollution
Control
Efficiency
50.00
0.00
90.00
0.00
93.00
93.00
50.00
0.00
90.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
Basis
CARCINOGEN
TL\T & RFD
TLV
TLV
CARCINOGEN s
CARCINOGEN
QUARTERLY
TLV
CARCINOGEN S
TLV
TLV
TLV
3 rain
st A TLV-STEL or TLV-C exists for the substance.
5-6
-------
TABLE 3.4
LEVELS OF METALS AND CHLORINE OF POTENTIAL CONC2RN
FOR ONE BOILER
IN FLAT TSRPAIN
Substance
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Chlorine
Reference
Emission
Factor
(Ib/MM Btu)
6.6E-04
7.1E-02
8.4E-02
3.4E-04
1.6E-03
2.4E-04
2.6E-02
8.4S-03
9.3E-03
3.4E-02
1.7E-03
1.7E-02
2.1E-01
PPM OF CONC!
Without
Control
Equipment
5.3E+00
5.7E+02
6.7E+02
2.7E+00
1.3E+01
1.9E+00
2.1E+02
6.7E+01
7.5E+01
2.7E+02
1.3E+01
1.3Ef02
1.6E+03
SRN IN FUEL
With
Control
Equipment
5.3E+00
5.7E+02
6.7E-M>2
2.7E+00
1.3E+01
1.9E^OO
2.1E+02
6.7E+01
7.5E+01
2.7E+02
1.3E+01
1.3E+02
1.6E+03
Assumed %
Pollution
Control
Efficiency
o.oo -
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Basis
CARCINOGEN
TLV & RFD
TLV
TLV
CARCINOGEN st
CARCINOGEN
QUARTERLY
TLV
CARCINOGEN St
TLV
TLV
TLV
3 min
it A TLV-STEL or TLV-C exists for the substance.
5-7
-------
TABLE 5.5
LEVELS OF METALS AND CHLORINE OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FOR DRY CEMENT PLANT (ONE UNIT WITH ESP)
IN FLAT TERRAIN
Substance
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Chlorine
Reference
Emission
Factor
(Ib/MM Btu)
1.7E-03
1.8E-01
2.1E-01
8.6E-04
4.12-03
6.1E-04
5.7E-02
2.1E-02
2.4E-02
8.6E-02
4.3E-03
4.3E-02
4.3E-01
PPM OF CONCI
Without
Control
Equipment
.T.3E+01
1.4E+03
1.7E+03
6.8E+00
3.3E+01
4.9E+00
5.4E+02
1.7E+02
1.9E+02
6.8E+02
3.4E+01
3.4E+02
3.4E+03
2RN IN FUEL
With
Control
Equipment
6.7E+02
1.4E+03
1.7E+05
6.8E+00
3.3E+03
2.5E+02
2.7E+04
1.7E+02
1.9E+04
6.8E+02
3.4E+01
3.4E+02
1.7E+05
Assumed %
Pollution
Control
Efficiency
98.00
0.00
99.00
0.00
99.00
98.00
98.00
0.00
99.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
98.00
Basis
CARCINOGEN
TLV & RFD
TLV
TLV
CARCINOGEN st
CARCINOGEN
QUARTERLY
TLV
CARCINOGEN st
TLV
TLV
TLV
3 rain
st A TLV-STEL or TLV-C exists for the substance.
5-8
-------
TABLE 5.6
LEVELS OF METALS AND CHLORINE OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FOR BLAST FURNACE WITH VENTURI SCRUBBER
IN FLAT TERRAIN
Substance
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Chlorine
Reference
Emission
Factor
(Ib/MM Btu)
2.2E-04
2.4E-02
2.8E-02
1.1E-04
5.5E-04
8.2E-05
9.0E-03
2.8E-03
3.2E-03
1.1E-02
5.7E-04
5.7E-03
5.3E-02
PPM OF CONCI
Without
Control
Equipment
1.8E+00
1.9E+02
2.3E+02
9.1E-01
4.4E+00
6.5E-01
7.2E+01
2.3E*-01
2.5E+01
9.1E+01
4.6E+00
4.6E+01
4.9E+02
SRN IN FUEL
With
Control
Equipment
8.9E+01
9.6E+03
2.3E+02
4.6E+01
4.4E+00
3.3E+01
3.6E+03
2.3E+01
8.4E+02
9.1E+01
4.6E+00
4.6E+01
4.9E+04
Assumed %
Pollution
Control
Efficiency
98.00
98.00
0.00
93.00
0.00
98.00
98.00
0.00
97.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
99.00
Basis
CARCINOGEN
TLV & RFD
TLV
TLV
CARCINOGEN st
CARCINOGEN
QUARTERLY
TLV
CARCINOGEN st
TLV
TLV
TLV
3 rain
»t A TLV-STEL or TLV-C exists for the substance.
5-9
-------
TABLE 5.7
LEVELS OF METALS AND CHLORINE OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FOR SULFURIC ACID RECOVERY FURNACE
IN FLAT TERRAIN
Substance
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadraium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Chlorine
Reference
Emission
Factor
(Ib/MM Btu)
l.OE-04
1.1E-02
1.3E-02
5.2E-05
2.5F.-04
3.7E-05
4.1E-03
1.3E-03
1.4E-03
5.2E-03
2.6E-04
2.6E-03
3.5E-02
PPM OF CONC3
Without
Control
Equipment
3.2E--01
8.7E-r01
l.OE+02
4.2E-01
2.0E+00
3.0ET01
3.3E+01
l.OE+01
1.2E+01
4.2E+01
2.1E+00
2.1E+01
2.8E+02
2RN VN FUEL
With
Control
Equipment
4.1E+01
8.7E+01
5.2E+03
4.2E-01
l.OE+02
1.5E+01
1.1E+03
5.2E+02
5.8E>02
4.2E-I-01
2.1E+00
2.1E+01
2.8E+04
Assumed %
Pollution
Control
Efficiency
98.00
0.00
98.00
0.00
98.00
98.00
97.00
98.00
98.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
99.00
Basis
CARCINOGEN
TLV & RFD
TLV
TLV
CARCINOGEN st
CARCINOGEN
QUARTERLY
TLV
CARCINOGEN st
TLV
TLV
TLV
3 min
st A TLV-STEL or TLV-C exists for the substance.
5-10
SB
-------
TABLE 5.8
LEVELS OF METALS AND CHLORINE OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FOR LIGHT WT AG FACILITY W/LOW ENERGY SCRUBBER
IN ROUGH TERRAIN
Substance
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Chlorine
Reference
Emission
Factor
(Ib/MM Btu)
5.9E-05
6.4E-03
7.6E-03
3.0E-05
1.5E-04
2.2E-05
2.4E-03
7.6E-04
8.4E-04
3.0E-03
1.5E-04
1.5E-03
2.6E-02
PPM OF CONCI
Without
Control
Equipment
4.8E-01
5.1E+01
6.1E+01
2.4E-01
1.2E+00
1.7E-01
1.9E+01
S.lEfOO
6.7E+00
2.4E+01
1.2E+00
1.2E+01
2.0E+02
CRN IN FUEL
With
Control
Equipment
9.5E-01
5.1E+01
6.1E+02
2.4E-01
1.7E+01
2.5E+00
3.8E+01
6.1E+00
6.7E+01
2.4E+01
1.2E+00
1.2E+01
4.1E+02
Assumed %
Pollution
Control
Efficiency
50.00
0.00
90.00
0.00
93.00
93.00
50.00
0.00
90.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
Basis
CARCINOGEN
TLV & RFD
TLV
TLV
CARCINOGEN st
CARCINOGEN
QUARTERLY
TLV
CARCINOGEN St
TLV
TLV
TLV
3 rain
st A TLV-STEL or TLV-C exists for the substance.
5-11
-------
TABLE 5 .9
LEVELS OF MSTALS AND CHLORINE OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FOR ONE BOILER
IN ROUGH TERRAIN
Substance
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Chlorine
Reference
Emission
Factor
(Ib/MM Btu)
6.3E-05
6.7E-03
8.0E-03
3.2E-05
1.5E-04
2.3E-05
2.5E-03
8.0E-04
8.9E-04
3.2E-03
1.6E-04
1.6E-03
2.3E-02
PPM OF CONG!
Without
Control
Equipment
5.0E-01
5.4E+01
6.4E+01
2.6E-01
1.2E+00
1.8E-01
2.0E-1-01
6.4E+00
7.1E+00
2.6E+01
1.3E+00
1.3E+01
1.8E+02
SRN IN FUEL
With
Control
Equip-nent
5.03-01
5.4E+01
6.4E+01
2.6E-01
1.2E+00
1.8E-01
2.0E+01
6.4E+00
7.1E+00
2.6E+01
1.3E+OG
1.3E+01
1.8E+02
Assumed %
Pollution
Control
Efficiency
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Basis
CARCINOGEN
TLV & RFD
TLV
TLV
CARCINOGEN st
CARCINOGEN
QUARTERLY
TLV
CARCINOGEN St
TLV
TLV
TLV
3 min
>t A TLV-STEL or TLV-C exists for the substance.
5-12
-------
TABLE 5.10
LEVELS OF METALS AND CHLORINE OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FOR DRY CEMENT PLANT (ONS UNIT WITH ESP)
IN ROUGH TERRAIN
Substance
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
i
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Chlorine
Reference
Emission
Factor
(Ib/MM Btu)
1.2E-04
1.3E-02
1.5E-02
6.0E-05
2.9E-04
4.3E-05
4.7E-03
1.5E-03
1.7E-03
6.0E-03
3.0E-04
3.0E-03
5.3E-02
PPM OF CONCI
Without
Control
Equipment
9.4E-01
l.OE+02
1.2E+02
4.8E-01
2.3E+00
3.5E-01
3.8E+01
1.2E+01
1.3E+01
4.8E+01
2.4E+00
2.4E+01
4.1E+02
SRN IN FUEL
With
Control
Equipment
4.7E+01
l.OE+02
1.2S+04
4.8E-01
2.3E-»-02
1.7E-K31
1.9E+03
1.2E+01
1.3E+03
4.8E+01
2.4E-»-00
2.4E+01
2.1E+04
Assumed %
Pollution
Control
Efficiency
98.00
0.00
99.00
C-00
99.00
98.00
98.00
0.00
99.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
98.00
Basis
CARCINOGEN
TLV & RFD
TLV
TLV
CARCINOGEN st
CARCINOGEN
QUARTERLY
TLV
CARCINOGEN st
TLV
TLV
TLV
3 min
3t A TLV-STEL or TLV-C exists for the substance.
5-13
-------
TABLE 5.11
LEVELS OF METALS AND CHLORINE OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FOR BLAST FURNACE WITH VENTURI SCRUBBER
IN ROUGH TERRAIN
Substance
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Chlorine
Reference
Emission
Factor
(Ib/MM atu)
1.3E-05
1.4E-03
1.7E-03
6.8E-06
3.3E-05
4.9E-06
5.3E-04
1.7E-04
I. 9E-04
6.8E-04
3.4E-05
3.4E-04
6 33-03
PPM OF CONC1
Without
Control
Equipment
1.1E-01
1.1E+01
1.4E+01
5.4E-02
2.6E-01
3.9E-02
4.3E+00
1.4E+00
1.5E+00
5.4E+00
2.7E-01
2.7E+00
4.9E+01
2RN IN FUEL
With
Control
Equipment
5.3E+00
5.7E+02
1.4E+01
2.72+00
2.6E-01
1.9E+OU
2.1E+02
1.4E+00
5.0E+01
5.4E*00
2.7E-01
2.7E-»-00
4.9E-I-03
Assumed %
Pollution
Control
Efficiency
98.00
98.00
0.00
98.30
0.00
98.00
95.00
0.00
97.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
99.00
1
Basis
CARCINOGEN
TLV & RFD
TLV
TLV
CARCINOGEN st
CARCINOGEN
QUARTERLY
TLV
CARCINOGEN st
TLV
TLV
TLV
3 min
st A TLV-STEL or TLV-c exists for the substance.
5-14
100
-------
TABLE 5.12
LEVELS OF METALS AND CHLORINE OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FOR SULFURIC ACID RECOVERY FURNACE
IN ROUGH TERRAIN
Substance
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Chlorine
Reference
Emission
Factor
(Ib/MM Btu)
3.9E-05
4.2E-03
5..0E-03
2.0S-05
9.5E-05
1.4E-C5
1.6E-03
5.0F:-04
5 5E-04
2.0E-03
9.9E-05
9.9E-04
l.OE-02
PPM OF CONCI
Without
Control
Equipment
3.13-01
3.3E+01
4.0E+01
1.6E-01
7.6E-01
1.1E-01
1.2E+01
4.0E+00
4.4E+00
1.6E+01
7.9E-01
7.9E+00
7.9E+01
:RN IN FUEL
With
Control
Equipment
1.6E+01
3.3E+01
2.0E+03
1.6E-01
3.8E+01
5.7E+00
4.2E+02
2.0E+02
2.2E+02
1.6E+01
7.9E-01
7.9E+00
7.9E+03
Assumed %
Pollution
Control
Efficiency
98.00
0.00
98.00
0.00
98.00
98.00
97.00
98.00
98.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
99.00
Basis
CARCINOGEN
TLV & RFD
TLV
TLV
CARCINOGEN st
CARCINOGEN
QUARTERLY
TLV
CARCINOGEN st
TLV
TLV
TLV
3 min
st A TLV-STEL or TLV-C exists for the substance.
5-15
101
-------
TABLE 5.13 • THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS ON CONCERN FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99.99X DRE - ASSUMING FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL (X BY WEIGHT)
DRY CEMENT LT. UT. BUST S. RECOV.
CCWtENT BOILER KILN A6. KILN FURNACE FURNACE
ACETONITRILE(ETHANENITRILE) ST
ACETOPHENONE(ETHANONE) R
ACROLEIN(2-PROPENAL) ST
ACRYLAMIOE (2-PROPENAMIDE) ST
ACRYLONITRILE (2-PROPENENITRILE)
ALORIN ST
ALLYL ALCHOHOL ST
ALUMINUM PHOSPHIDE
ANILINE (BENZENAHINE) ST
ANTIMONY AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. 5.7E-02
ARSENIC AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. 2.7E-02
BARIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. 6.7E-02
BARIUM CYANIDE R
BENZENE (CYCLOHEXATRIENE) ST
P-SENZOQUINONE (1,4-CYCLOHEXAOIENEDIONe) ST
BENZYL CHLORIDE (BENZENE, (CHLOROMETHYL)-)
BERYLLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. 2.^-04
BISC2-CHLOROISOPROPYU) ETHER
BIS (CHLOROMETHYL) ETHER 6. .'E+00
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE R
BROMOMETVANE (METHYL BROMIDE) R
U3MIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. ST 6.7E-03
CALCIUM CYANIDE R
CARBON OISULFIDE (CARBON BISULFIDE)
CHLORDANE (ALPHA AND GAMMA ISOMERS) ST
CHLORINATED BENZENES, N.O.S.
CHLORINATED PHENOL, N.O.S. ST
CHLOROACETALDEHYOE (ACETALDEHYOE, CHLORO-) ST O.OE+00
CHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLORO-1,3 BUTADIENE (CHLOROPRENE)
1-CHLORO-2-3-EPOXYPROPANE ST
CHLOROFORM (METHANE, TRICHLORO-) ST
CHLOROMETHANE (METHYL CHLORIDE) R
3-CHLOROPROPENE (ALLYL CHLORIDE) ST
CHROMIUM III 6.78-02
CHROMIUM IV 6.7E-03
COAL TARS
COPPER CYANIDE »
CRESOLS (CRESYUIC ACID)(.'HENOt, METHYL-)
CROTONALOEHYOE (2-BUTENAL) ST
CYANIDES (SOLUABLE SALTS AND COMPLEXES), N.O.S.
CYANOGEN (ETHANEDINITRILF)
CYANOGEN CHLORIDE (CHLORINE CYANID'i) RST
r/OT ST
9I-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE (1,2-6ENZENEDICARBOXYLIC ACID...) ST
0-OICHLOROBENZENE CBENZENE, 1,2-OICHLO'<0-' RST
P-OICHLOROBeNZENE (BENZENE, 1,4-OICHLCRO-) ST
flCHLOROOlFUXJROMETHANE (METHANE, OICHLOROOIFLU3RO-) S'
1,1-OICHLOROETHANE (ETHYLIDENE DICHLORIDE) ST
1,2-O.ICHLOROETHANE (ETHYLENE DICHl.ORIDEJ ST
S.2E+01
6.2E+01
5.2E+01
8.7E+01
1.4E-01 3.4E-02 1.9fc-02 8.7E-03
6.8E-G2 1.6E-02 9.1E-03 4.2E-03
1.7E-01 4.0E-02 2.3E-02 1.0E-02
3.3E+01
6.BE-04 1.6E-04 9.1E-OS 4.2E-05
1.7E+01 4.0E+00 2.3E+00 1.0E+00
1.7E-C2 4.0E-OS 2.3E-03 1.0E-03
6.7E+01 3.8E+01
1.7E+01
O.OE+CO O.OE+00 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
1.71-01 4.0E-02 2.3E-02 1.0E-Q2
1.71-02 4.0E-03 2.3E-03 1.0E-03
9.1E+01 4.2E+01
5-16
102
-------
.E 5.13 - THRESJ-OLD TOXIC CtrtPOUNOS ON CONCERN FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99.99X ORE - ASSUMING PUT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL (X BY UEIGHT)
DRY CEMENT IT. WT. BUST S. RECOV.
COMMENT BOILER KILN AC. KILN FURNACE FURNACE
DICHLOROETHYLENE, N.O.S. ST
1,1 DICHLORCETHYLENE (ViNYLlDENE CHLORIDE) ST
DICHLOROMETtUUS (HETHYLENE CHLORIDE) ST
2,4-DICHLOROPHENCL R
1,2-OICHLOROPROPANE (PROPYuiNE DICHLORIOE) ST
OKHI^ROPRCPENE, N.O.S. ST
1,3-OICHLOROPROPENE R
OIELORIN ST
0,0 DIETHYLPHOSPHORIC ACIO, 0-P-NITROPHENYL ESTER ST
OlgTHYL PHTHALATE R
DIHETHOATE R
P-0 IHETH'i LAN INOAZ08ENZENE
1,1-OIHfTHYLHYDRAZINE ST
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE ST
DIMETHYL SULFATt (SULFURIC ACIO, DIMETHYL ESTER)
DINITROBENZENE, N.O.S. ST
4,6-01NITRO-0-CRESOL AND SALTS ST
2-4-OINITROPHENOL R
2,4-OINITROTOLUENE (BENZENE, 1-M£THYL-2,4-OINITRO-) ST
2,6-OINITROTOLUENE (BENZENE, 1-METHYL-2,6-OINITRO-) ST
1,4-010XANE (1,4-DIETHYLENE OXIDE) ST
DIPHENYLAMINE (BENSENAMINE, N-PHENYL-) ST
OISULFOTON ST
ENDOSULFAN ST
ENORIN AND METABOLITES ST
ETHYLENE OXIDE (OXIRANE;
FLUORTNE ST
FORMALCEHYDE (HETHYLENE OXIDE) ST
FORMIC ACID (METHANOIC ACIO)
HEPTACHLOR ST
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTAOIENE ST
HEXACHLOROETHANE
HYDRAZINE (OIAMINE)
HYDROCYANIC ACID (HYDROGEN CYANIDE) RST
HYDROFLUORIC ACIO (HYDROGEN FLUORIDE) ST
HYDROGEN SULFIDE (SULFUR HYDklDE) ST
IRON OEXTRAN (FERRIC DEXTRAN)
ISOWJTYL ALCOHOL (1-PROPANOL, 2-METHYL-) ST
LEAD AND CONFOUNDS, N.O.S. ST
MALEIC ANHYDRIDE (2,5-FURANOIONE)
MERCURY FULMINATE (FULMINIC ACIO, K3RCURY SALT) R
MERCURY AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
METHANETHIOL (THIOMETHANOL) (METHYL MERCAPTAN)
METHOLMYL
METHOXYCHLOR
METHYL ETHY1. KETONE (MEK) (2-BUTANONE) ST
1ETHYL HYORAZINE (HYORAZINf, METHYL-) ST
METHYL METHACRYLATE ^T
METHYL PARATHION ST
2.8F+01
5.3E-03
6.7E-03
O.OE+00
8.7E+01
5.2E+01
9.1E+01 4.2E+01
8.0E-K31 4.6E+01 2.1E+01
7.2E+01 1.7E+C1 9.6E+00 4.4e+00
6.7E+01 3.8E+01 1.7E+01
9.6E+01 4.4E-KJ1
5.0EK11
a.Ce+oi 4.oS*o-, :
8.0E*01 4.6E+01 2.1E+01
1.3E-C2 3.1E-CO 1.8E-03 8.2E-04
1.7E-02 4.0E-03 2.3E-03 1.0E-03
O.OE+00 O.OE+00 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
9.1E+01 4.2E-KJ1
5-17
-------
TABLE 5.13 - THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS ON CONCERN FOR SELECTS SOURCES UITH A 99.99% ORE - ASSUMING FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL « 8Y WEIGHT)
DRY CEMENT LT. WT. BLAST S. RECOV.
COMMENT BOILER KILN AC. KILN FURNACE FURNACE
NAPHTHALENE ST
NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS. N.O.S. ST 1.3E-02
NICKEL CARBONYL (NICKLE TETRACARBONYL)
NICKEL CYANIDE (NICKEL(il)CYANIOE) R
NICOTINE AND SALTS ST
NITRIC OXIDE (NITROGEN (II) OXIDE) ST
P-NITROANILINE (BENZENAMINE, 4-NITRO-)
NITS08ENZINE ST
NITROGLYCERINE (1,2,3-PROPANETRlOL TRINITRATE)
OSMIUM TETROXIDE (OSMIUM (VIII) OXIDE) ST 2.7E+00
PARATHION ST
PENfACHLOROBENZENE R
PENTACHLOHONITR08ENZENE CPCNB) R
PENTACHLOROPHENOL ST
PHENOL (BENZENE, HYDROXY-) ST
P-PHENYLENE9IAMINE (BENZENEDIAMINE)
M-PHENYLENEOIAMINE R
?HENYLM£RCURY ACETATE (MERCURY, ACETATO-PHENYL-) R
N-PHENYLTHIOUREA (THIOUREA, PHENYL-) R
PHOSGENE (CARPONYL CHLORIDE)
PHOSPHINE (HYDROGEN PHOSPHIDE) ST
PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE ST
POLYCHCOUINATEO BIPHENYL, N.O.S. ST
POTASSIUM CYANIDE R
POTASSIUM SILVER CYANIDE (ARGENTATE(l)DICYANO-POrASSIUM) R
PYRIOINE ST
RESORCINOL (1,3-BENZENED10L) ST
SELENIOUS ACID (SELENIUM DIOXIDE) R
SELENIUM AMD COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
SELENOUREA (CARBAHIMIDOSELENOIC ACID) R
SILVER AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
SILVER CYANIDE R
SODIUM CYANIDE R
STRYChrllNE AND SALTS ST
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBEMZENE R
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLORETHANE ST
TETRACHLOROETWENE (ETHENE, 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLORCj ST
TETRACHLOROMETHANE (CARBON TETRACHLORIOE) ST
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLOROPHENOL R
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL R
TETRAETHYL LEAD (PLUMBANE, TETRAETHYL-) ST 2.31-01
TETRANITROHETHAHE
THALLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. 1.3E-02
THALLIC OXIDE (THALLIUM (III) OXIDE) R
THALLIUM (I) ACETATE (ACETIC ACID, THALLIUM (I) SALT) R
THALLIUM (I) CARBONATE (CARBONIC ACID,DITHALLIUM(I)SALT) R
THALLIUM (I)CHLORIDE R
THALLIUMU)NITRATE (NITRIC ACID, THALLIUM(I)SALT) R
XALLIUM SELENITE R
THALLIUM (I) SULFATE (SULFURIC ACID, THALLIUM (DSALT) R
3.4E-02 8.0E-03 4.6E-03 2.1E-03
7.3E+01
6.SE+00 1.6E+00 9.1E-O1 4.2E-01
8.0E+01 4.6E+01 2.1E+01
8.0E+01 4.6E-01 2.1E+01
5.7E-KJ1 2.6E-K)1
8.3E-KH
8.3E+01
2.7E-02 6.8E-02 1.6E-02 9.1E-03 4.2E-03
1.3K-03 3.4E-03 8.0E-04 4.6E-04 2.1E-04
6.8E+01 3.1E+01
8.7E+01
5.8E-01
1.3E-01 7.7E-02 3.5E-02
3.4E-02 8.0E-03 4.6E-03
2.1E-03
8.7E+01
8.7E+01
5-18
-------
TABLE 5.13 - THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS ON CONCERN FOR SELECTED SOURCES UiTH A 99.99% ORE - ASSUMING PUT TERRAIN
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL (X BY WEIGHT)
SUBSTANCE
DRY CEMENT LT. UT. BLAST S. RECOV.
COMMENT BOILER KILN AS. KILN FURNACE FURNACE
TOLUENc (BENZENE, METHYL-) ST
TOLYLkfE DI1SOCYANATE (BENZENE, 1,3-OIISOCYANATOMETHYL) ST 5.4E+C1
TOXAPHENE (CAHPHENE, OCTACHLORO-) ST
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE RST
1,1,1-TRICHLORCETHANE (METHYL CHLOROFORM) ST
1,1,2-TRlCHLOROETHANE (ETHANE, 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-) ST
TRICHLOROETHENE (TRICHLOROETHYLENE) ST
TRICHLOROHONOFLUOROMETHANE RST
2,4,5-TRIUILOROPHENOL R
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANe, M.O.S. ST
VANADIUM PENTOXIDE (VANADIUM (V) OXIUE) 6.7E+01
VINYL CHLORIDE (ETHENE, CHLORO-)
3.2E+01 1.8E+01 8.3E+00
4.0E+01 2.3E+01
1.0E+01
R > BASED ON RfD ONLY
ST « A TLV-C OR A TLV-STEL EXISTS FOR THIS SUBSTANCE
ASSUMES FUEL UITH A HEATING VALUE OF 8000 BTU/LB
5-19
-i /'.r-
-------
TABLE 5.14 - THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS ON CONCERN FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99.99* ORE - ASSUMING COMPLEX TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
CONCEN-RATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL (X 8Y UEI6/T)
DRY CEMENT LT. WT. BUST S. kECOV.
COMMENT BOILER KILN AG. KILN FURNACE FURNACE
ACETONITRILE(ETHANENITRILE)
ACETOPH6NONE( ETHANCNE )
AC80LEIN(2-PROPENAL)
ACRYLAMIDE (2-PROPENAMIDE)
ACRYLONITRILE (2-PROPENErilTRlLE)
ALORIN
ALLYL ALCHOHOL
ALUMINUM PHOSPHIDE
ST
H
ST
ST
ST
ST
3.2E+01
3.9E+01
3.2E+01
5.4E+01
6.0E+01
7.2E+01
6.0E+01
3.0E+01
3.6E+01
3.0E+01
5.1E+01
6.8E+00
8.1E+00
6.8E+00
1.1E+01
2.0E+G1
2.4E+01
2.0E+01
3.3E+01
ANILINE (BENZENAMINE) ST
ANTIMONY AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. 5.46-03
ARSENIC AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. 2.6E-03
BARIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. 6.4E-03
BARIUM CYANIDE R
BENZENE (CYCLOHEXATR1ENE) ST
P-BENZOQUINONE (1,4-CYCLOHEXAOIENEOIONE) ST 5.1E+01
BENZYL CHLORIDE (BENZENE, (CHUJROHETKYL)-)
BERYLLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. 2.6E-OS
BIS<2-CHLOROISGPROPYL) ETHER
BIS(CHLOROMETHYL) ETHER 0.4E-01
BI3(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHAUTE R
BROMOMETHANE (METHYL BROMIDE) R
CADMIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. ST 6.4E-04
CALCIUM CYANIDE R
CARBON DISULFIDE (CARBON BISULFIDE)
CriLORDANE (ALPHA AND SAMMA ISOMERS) ST 1.1E+01
CHLORINATED BENZENES, N.O.S.
CHLORINATED PHENOL, N.O.S. ST 6.4E+01
CHLOROACETALOEHYOE (ACETALDEHYOE, CHLORO-) ST O.OE'KX)
CHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLORO-1,3 BUTADIENE (CHLOROPRENE)
1-CHLORO-2-3-EPOXYPROPANE ST
CHLOROFORM (METHANE, TR1CHLORO-) ST
CHLOROMETHANE (METHYL CHLORIDE) R
3-CHLOROPROPENE (ALLYL CHLORIDE) ST
CHROMIUM III 6.4E-03
CHROMIUM IV 6.4E-04
COAL TARS ^.66+01
COPPER CYANIDE R
CRESOLS (CRESYUIC ACIDMPHENOL, METHYL-)
CROTONALDEnYOE (2-BUTENAL) ST
CYANIDES (SOLUABLE SALTS AND COMPLEXES), N.O.S.
CYANOGEN (ETHANEOINITRILE)
CYANOGEN CHLORIDE (CHLORINE CYANIDE) RST
DOT ST
DI-N-8UTYL PHTHALATE (1,2-BENZENEDICARBOXYLIC ACID...) ST
0-0ICHLOROBENZENE (BENZENE, 1,2-OICHLORO-) RST
P-DICHLOROBENZENE (BENZENE, 1,4-OICHLORO-) ST
DICHLOROOIFLUOROMETHANE (METHANE, DICHLOROOIFLUORO-) ST
1,1-OICHLOROETHANE (ETHYLIDENE BICHLORIDE) ST
1,2-OICHLOROETHANE (ETHYLENE BICHLORIDE) ST
1.0E-02 5.1E-03 1.1E-03
4.8E-03 2.4E-03 5.4E-04
1.2E-02 6.1E-Q3 1.4E-03
9.66+01 4.8E+01 1.1E+01
4.8E-05 2.4E-OS S.4E-06
1.2E+00 6.1E-01 1.4E-01
3.4E+01
1.rE-03 6.1E-04 1.4E-04
2.0E+01 1.0E+01 2.3E+00
6.1E+01 1.4C-K31
O.OE+00 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
8.1E+01
1.2E-02 6.1E-03 1.4E-03
1.2E-03 6.1E-04 1.4E-04
4.8E+01 2.4E+01 5.4E+00
2.7E+01
3.3E-03
1.6E-03
4.0E-03
3.2E+01
1.6E-05
4.0E-01
1.0E+02
4.0E-04
6.7E+00
4.0E+01
O.OE+00
4.0E-03
4.0E-04
1.6E+01
7.9E+C1
5-20
-------
TABLE 5.14 • THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS ON CONCERN FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99.99% ORE - ASSUMING COMPLEX TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
OICHLOROETHYLENE, N.O.S.
1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE (VINYLIDENE CHLORIDE)
DICHLOHOMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDE)
2,4-OICHLOROPHENOL
1 ,2-OICHLOROPROPANE (PROPYLENE 01 CHLORIDE)
DICHLOROPROPENE, N.O.S.
1,3-OICHLOROPROPENE
DIELDRIN
0,0 DIETHYLPHOSPhORIC ACID, 0-P-NITROPHENYL ESTER
DIETHYi. PHTHALATE
DLtETHOATE
P- OIMETHYUMINOAZOeENJENE
1 ,1-OIMETHYLHYORAZINc
OlMETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL SULFATE (SULFURIC ACID, DIMETHYL ESTER)
DINITROBENZENE, N.O.i.
4,6-OINITRO-O-CRESOL AND SALTS
2-4-OINITROPHENOL
2,4-OINITRt'OUENE (BENZENE, 1-METHYL-2,4-OINITRO-)
2,:«-DINlTRorOLCENE (BENZENE, 1-METHYL-2,6-OJNITRO-)
1,4-OIOXANE (1,4-DIETHYLENE OXIDE)
DIPHEN1LAMINE (BENSENAM1NE, H-PHENYL-)
DISULFOTON
EN30SULFAN
ENDRIN AND METABOLITES
ETHYLENE OXIDE (OXIRANE)
FLUORINE
FORMALDEHYDE (METHYLENE OXIOE^
FORMIC ACID (METHANOIC ACID)
HEPTACHLOR
HEXACHLOROBUT AD I ENE
HEXACHLOROCYCUOPEHTAOIENE
HEXACHLORuETHANE
HYORAZINE (OIAMINE)
HYDROCYANIC ACID (HYDROGEN CYANIDE)
HYDROFLUORIC ACID (HYDROGEN FLUORIDE)
HYDROGEN SULFIDE (SULFUR HYDRIDE)
IRON DEXTRAN (FERRIC DEXTRAN)
1S08UTYL ALCOHOL (1-PROPANOL, 2-METHYL-)
LEAO AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
MALEIC ANHYDRIDE (2,5-FURANOIONE)
KERCURY FULMINATE (FULMINIC ACID, MERCURY SALT)
MERCURY AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
METHANETHIO'. (THIOMETHANOL) (METHYL MERCAPTAN)
METHOLMYL
METHOXYCHLOR
METHYL ETHYL KETONE (MEK) (2-6UTANONE)
METHYL HYORAZINE (HYDRAZ1NE, METHYL-)
METHYL METHACSYLATE
METHYL PAfttisION
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL
DhY CEMENT LT. UT.
COMMENT BOILER KILN AG. KILN
ST
ST
ST
R
ST
ST
R 5.4E+01
ST 3.2E+01
ST
R
R
ST
ST
6.4E+01
ST
ST 2.6E+01
R
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST 1.3E+01
ST 2.7E+00
ST 1.1E+01
ST
ST
ST 2.7E+01
3.16*01
ST 1.3E+01
1.3E+01
RST
ST
ST
ST
ST 5.1E-04
R
6.4E-04
ST
ST O.OE+00
ST
ST 2.6E+01
5-21
107
5.1E*01
6.0E+01 3.0E+01
6.1E+01
4.8E+01 2.4E+01
2.4E+01 1.2E+01
5.1E+00 2.5E+00
2.0E+01 1.0E+01
5.1E+01 2.5E+01
S.8E+01 2.9E+01
2.4E+01 1.2E+01
2.4E+01 1.2E+G1
9.5£-04 4.8E-0*
1.2E-03 6.1E-04
O.OE+00 O.OE+00
4.8E+01 2.4E+01
<% BY WEIGHT)
BLAST S. RECOV.
FURNACE FURNACE
1.1E+01
6.8E+00
8.0E+01
2.7E+01
1.4E+01
2. 7E+01
5.4E+00
8.0E+C1
4.1C+01
4.1E+01
2.7E+00
5.7E-01
2.3E+00
5.4E+01
5.4E+01
4.1E+01
5.7E+00
6.SE+00
2.7E+00
2.7E+00
6.8E+01
2.7E+01
1.1E-04
2.7E+01
1.4E-0*
2.7^+01
6.8E+01
O.OE+00
5.4E+00
3.3E+01
2.0E+01
7.9E+01
4.0E+01
7.9E+01
1.6E+01
7.9E+00
1.7E+00
6.7E+00
1.7E+01
1.9E+01
7.9E+00
7.9E+00
7.9E+01
-.1E-04
7.9E+01
4.0E-04
7.9E+01
O.Oc+00
1.6E+01
-------
TABLE S.U - THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS ON CONCERN FOR SELE-TED SOURCES WITH A 99.99X ORE - ASSUMING COMPLEX TERRAIN
CONCENTRATION Or CONCERN IN FUEL
SUBSTANCE
NAPHTHALENE
NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
NICKEL CARSONYL (NICKLe TETRACARSONYL)
NICKEL CYANIDE (NICKEL(II)CYANIDE)
NICOTINE AND SALTS
NITRIC OXIDE (NITROGEN (II) OXIDE)
P-NITROANILINE (BENZENAMINE, 4-NITRO-)
NITROBENZINE
NITROGLYCERINfc (1,2,3-PROPANETRIOL TRINITRATE)
OSMIUM TcTROXIDE (OSMIIIM (VIII) OXIDE)
PARATH10N
PENTACHLOROBENZSNE
PENTACHLORONITROBENZENE (PCN8)
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL (BENZENE, HYOROXY-)
P-PHENYLENE01AMINE (BENZENEDIAMINE)
H-PHENYLENEDIAHINE
PHENYLME9CURY ACETATE (MERCURY, ACETA'O-PHENYL-)
N-PHENYLTH10UREA (THIOUREA, PHENYL-)
PHOSGENE (CARBONY. CHLORIDE)
PHOSPHINE (HYDROGEN PHOSPHIDE)
PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE
POLYCHLORINATED B1PHENYL, N.O.S.
POTASSIUM CYANIDE
POTASSIUM SILVER CYANIS! (ARGENTATE(I)OICYANO-POTASSIUH)
PYRID1NE
RESOSCINOL (1,3-BENZENEDIOL)
SELENIOUS ACID (SELENIUM DIOXIDE)
SELENIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
3ELENOUREA (CARBAHI.IIDCSELeNOIC ACID)
SILVER AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
SILVER CYANIC;
SODIUM CYANIDE
STRYCHNINE AND SALTS
1,2,4, S-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1 , 1 ,2,2-TETRACHLORETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE (ETHEN6, 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLORO)
TETRACHLOROMETHANE (CARBON TETRACHLORIDE)
2, 3, 7 , 8-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
TETRAETHYL LEAD (PLUMBANE, TETRAETSYL-)
TETRANITROMETHANe
THALLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
THALLIC OXIDE (THALLIUM (III) OXIDE)
THALLIUM (i) 4CETATE (ACETIC ACID, THALLIUM (I) SALT)
THALLIUM (I) CARBONATE (CARBONIC ACID,OITMALLIU«( DSALT)
THALLIUM (I)CHLORIDE
THAUIUIKDNITRATI
-------
TABLE S.14 - THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS ON CONCERN FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99.991 ORE - ASSUMING COMPLEX TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL « BY WEIGHT)
DRY CEMENT LT. UT. BLAST S. RECOV.
COMMENT BOILER KILN AG. KILN FURNACE FURNACE
TOLYLENS
1,
TOLUENE (BENZENE, METHYL-)
DIISOCYANATE (BENZENE, 1 ,3-OIISOCYANATOMETHYL)
TOXAPHENt CCAMPHEN;, OCTACHLORO-)
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZfcNE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE (METHYL CHLOROFORM)
1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE (ETHANE, 1,1 ,2-TRICHLORO-)
TR ICHLOROETHENE ( TR J. CHLOROt THYLENE )
TRICHLOROnONOFLUOROMETHANE
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE, N.O.S.
VANADIUM PENTOXIDE (VANADIUM (V) OXIDE)
VINYL CHLORIDE (ETHENE, CHLCRO-)
ST
ST 5.1E+00
ST 6.4E+01
RST
ST
ST
ST
RST
R
ST
6.4E+00
9.6E+00 4.8E+00 1.1E+00 3.2E+00
6.1E+01 1.4E+01 4.0E+01
1.2£+01 -6.1E+00 1.4E+00 4.0E+00
R » BASED ON RfD ONLY
ST " A TLV-C OR A TLV-STEL EXISTS FOR THIS SUBSTANCE
ASSUMES FUEL UITH A HEATING VALUE OF SOOO BTU/LB
5-23
105)
-------
TABLE 5.15 - CARCINOGENIC COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99.99X ORE - ASSUHING FLAT TERRAIN
CONCENTRATIONS OF CONCERN IN
SUBSTANCE
ACRYLAHIOE
ACRYLONITRILE (2-PROPENEN1TRILE)
AFLATOXINS
ALDRIN
ANITROLE <1H-1,2,4-TRlAZOL-3-AMINE>
ANILINE (8ENZENAMINE)
ARSENIC AND COMPOUNDS N.O.S.
BENZENE
PENZENE, OICHLOROMETHYL-
-------
TABLE 5.15 - CARCINOGENIC COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN FOR SELECTED SOURCES UlTn A 99.99X ORE - AS3JMING FLAT TERRAIN
CONCENTRATIONS OF CONCERN IN
SUBSTANCE
HEXACHLOROBUTAO I We
HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE
HEXACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXINS
HEXACHLOWJETHANE
HYDRAZINE (DIAHINE)
HYORAZINE SULfATE
KEPONE
3-HETKYLCHOUNTHRENE
««THYL HYDXAZINE
4,4' -METHYLENE-BlS-e-CHLOROANlLlNE
NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
4-NITROOUINOLINE-1 -OXIDE (QUINCLINE, 4-MITRO-1-OXIDE-)
2-NITROPROPANE
N-NITROSOOI-N-8UTYLAHINE
N-NITROSOOIETHYLAMINE (ETHANANINE, N-ETHYL-N-NITROSQ-)
N-NITROSOOIMETHYUMi;01
1E+00
ii;*oo
lc+00
1E+00
/JE+00
3E+01
1E-03
3E-01
1E+CO
2E+00
3E-01
5E-01
4E-01
3E-03
6E+00
2E+01
3E+00
4E+01
1E+00
4E+01
8E-OS
7E-03
4E+01
3E+01
6E-K30
9E+00
4E+01
3E+01
4E+01
4E+01
4E+01
4E+01
ASSUMES FUEL UITH A HEATING VALUE OF 8000 BTU/LB
5-25
lit
-------
TABLE 5.16 - CARCINOGENIC COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN f=OR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99.99X ORE - ASSUMING COhPLEX TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
ACRYLAHID6
ACRYLONITRILE
ANILINE (BENZENAJflNE)
ARSENIC AND COMPOUNDS N.O.S.
BENZENE
BENZENE, DICHLOROHETHYL-(BENZYL CHLORIDE)
BENZID1NE
BENZO(a)AUTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYREN£ (3,4-BENZOPYRENE)
BERYLLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S..
BISC2-CHLOWETHYL) ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROrtETHYL) ETHER
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
CADMIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
CHLORDANECALPHA AND GAMMA ISOMERS'/
CHLORINATED ETHANE,. N.O.S.
1-CHLORO-2-3-6POXYPWAN6
CHLOROFORM (TRICHLOROM6THMIE)
CHLOPOMETHANE
CHLOROMETHYL METHYL ETHER
CHROMIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
COAL TARS
DOT
DIBENZO(A,H,)ANTHRACENE
DIBENZO(A,I)PYR6NE (2,3,7,8-OIB6NZPYR6N6)
1,2 -OIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1.2 DIBRONOETHANE ETHYLENE 9IBROMZOE)
3,3'DICHLOROBENZIOINE
1,1-OICHLOROETHANE (ETHYLIOENE BICHLORIDE)
1,2-OICHLOROETHANE (ETHYLENE BICHLORIDE)
OICHLOROETHYLENE, N.O.S. (DICHLOTOETHLYENE, N.O.S.)
1,1 OICHLOROETHYLENE (VINYLIDENE CHLORIDE)
DICHLOROHETHANE (HETHYLENE CHLORIDE)
OIELORIN
DIETHOLSTILBESTEROL
DIHETHYLNITROSAMINE
2,o-OlNITROTOLUENE (1-M6THYL-2,4-OINITROBENZENE)
2,6-OINITROTOLUENE (1-METHYL-2,6-OINITROBENZFNE)
1,4-OIOXAME (1,4-OIETHYLENe OXIDE)
1,2 OIPHEHYLHYDRAZINE
ETHYL CAR8AMATE (URETHANKCARBAMIC ACID,ETHYL EST6R)
ETHYL6NE OXIDE (OXIRANE)
ETHYLENETHIOUREA
FORHAL06WDE (NETHYL6N2 OXIDE)
FORMIC ACID (METHANOIC ACID)
Ht-PTACHI.OR
HEXACHLOR08ENZENE
CONCENTRATIONS OF CONCERN IN FUEL (X BY WEIGHT)
EPA DRY CEMENT LT. UT. 8LAST S. SECOV.
CUSS BOILER KILN KILN FURNACE FURNACE
B2
81
81
82
C
A
A
A
82
82
82
82
A
81
81
C
82 or
82
82
A
A
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
C
C
82
82
A
82
82
82
81+62
C
b2 or
82
82
2E+00
1E+C1
36-33
4E-01
7E+00
2E+01
SE-OS
2E+01
2t+01
4E-02
2S+00
oE-01
'e-05
SE+00
86-01
2E+01
1E-04
4E+00
2E+01
2E+01
2E+01
2E+01
8E-01
2E-OS
2S-01
SftOO
2E-01
2E-02
4E-01
2E-01
4E+00
2E+01
2E+01
6E+00
28*01
2E+01
4E-01
2E-02
2E-01
1E+01
1E+01
2E+01
7E+00
2E+01
1E+01
1E+01
16+01
2E+00
2E+00
2E+01
3E+00
3E+01
SE-03
8E-01
1E+01
4c+01
9E-05
4E+01
4E+01
8E-02
4E+00
1E+00
2E-04
1E+01
2E+00
4E+01
2E-04
/E+00
4E+01
5E+01
4E+01
4E+01
26+00
3E-OS
5E-01
1E+01
3E-01
3E-02
8E-01
3E-01
75+00
4E+01
4E+01
1E+01
3E+01
4E+01
86-01
3E-02
4E-01
2E+01
2E+01
5E+01
1E+01
3E+01
2E+01
2E+01
2E+01
3E+00
4E+00
46+01
2E+00
1E+01
.2E-03
4E-01
7E+00
2E+01
SE-OS
2E+01
2E+01
4E-02
2E+00
6E-01
3E-OS
SE+00
8E-01
2E+01
1E-04
3E+00
2E+01
2E+01
2E+C1
2F+01
8E-01
2E-05
2S-01
SE+00
1E-01
1E-02
4E-01
2E-01
4E+00
2E+01
2E+01
5E+00
1E+01
2E+01
46-01
1E-02
2E-31
1E+01
1E+01
2E+01
7E+00
2E+01
1E+01
1E+01
1E+01
2E+00
2C+00
2E+01
4E-01
3E+00
66-04
9E-02
2E+00
5E+00
1E-05
5E+00
4E+00
9E-03
46-01
1E-01
2E-OS
16+00
2E-01
SE+00
3E-OS
8E-01
4E+00
56+00
46+00
SE+00
2E-01
46-06
56-02
1E+00
3E-02
3E-03
9E-02
46-02
8E-01
4E+00
4E+00
1E+00
3E+00
SE+00
96-02
36-03
S6-02
3E+00
3E+00
SE+00
1E+00
36+00
2E+00
2E+00
2E+00
46-01
4E-01
5 E+00
1E+00
9E+00
2E-03
3E-01
4E+00
1E+01
3E-05
1E+01
1E+01
3E-02
1E+00
4E-01
5E-05
3E+00
SE-01
1E+01
8E-OS
iE+00
1E+01
2E+01
1E+01
16+01
56-01
16-05
16-01
3E+00
96-02
1E-02
3E-01
1E-01
2E+00
1E+01
1E+01
3E+00
16+01
16+01
36-01
96-03
16-01
86+00
86+00
2E+01
46+00
1E+01
76+00
7E-rOO
76+00
16+00
16+00
-;g+0l
5-26
-------
TABLE ..16 - CARCINOGENIC COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99.99% ORE - ASSUMING COMPLEX TERRAIN
CONCENTRATIONS OF CONCERN IN
SUBSTANCE
HEXACHI.OR08UTADIENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE
HEXACHLOR0018ENZO-P-OIOXINS
H=XACHLOROETHANE
HYORAZINE (OIAHINE)
HYORAZINE SULFATE
KEOONE
3-HETKYLCHOUNTHKENE
METHYL HYORAZINE
4,4'-METHYL£NE-8IS-2 CHLOROAM1LINE
NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
4-NITROQU1NOLINE-1 -OXIDE (OUINOLINE, 4-NITRO-1 -OXIDE-)
2-N1TROPROPANE
N-NITiWSOOI-N-aUTYLAMlNE
N-NITROSOOIETHYLAM1NE (ETHAHAMINE, N-ETHYL-N-HITROSO-)
N-NITROS001METHYLAMINE (DIMETHYLNITROSAMINE)
N-NITROSO-N-ETHYLUREA (N-ETHYL-N-NITROSOCARBAM1DE)
N-NITROSO-N-METHYLUREA (N-METHYL-N-NITROSOCARBAMIOE)
N-NITROSOPYRROL1D1NE
PENTACHLORONITR08ENZENE (PCNB)
POLYCHLORINATED 8IPMENYL. N.O.S.
PHONAMIDE
RESPERINE
SARFOLE C1,2 NETHYLENEOIOXY-4-ALLYLeENZENE)
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLOROOIBENZO-P-OIOXIN (TCDO)
1 , 1 ,2, 2-TETRACHcORETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHANE (1,1,2,2- TETRACHLOROETHLYENE)
TETRACHLOROHETHANE ( CARBON-TETRACHLORIDE)
THIOUREA (THIOCARBAHIOE)
TOXAPHENE (OCTACHLOROCAMPHENE)
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE (METHYL CHLOROFORM)
1 , 1 , 2-TR I CHLOROETHAME
TRICHCOROETHENE (TRICHLOROETHYLENE)
2, 4, 6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
VINYL CHLORIDE (CHLOROETHLYENE)
BASED ON PIC4 FOR NON-CARCINOGENIC POHC*
EPA
CLASS
C
82 or
32
B2
62
B2
B2
82
&i
A
92
92
82
C
82
82
C
C
82
82
C
C
32
82
82
82
BOILER
2E+01
7E-01
1E-03
2E+01
6E-01
6E-01
8E-01
8E-01
5E+00
2E+01
7E-OA
2E-01
8E-01
1E+00
2E-01
3E-01
2E-01
2E-03
4E+00
1E+01
2E+00
21*01
7E-01
26+01
5E-05
4E-03
2E*01
2E+01
4E+00
5E+00
2E-K31
2E*01
2E+01
2E+01
2E+01
2E+01
JRY CEMENT
KILN
4E+01
1E+00
2E-03
4E+01
1E+00
1E+00
2E+00
2E+00
1E*01
3E+01
1E-03
3E-01
2E+00
2E+00
35-01
5E-01
4E-01
4E-03
7E+00
2E+01
3E+00
4E*01
1E+00
4E+01
9€-05
8E-03
5E+01
4-*01
7E+00
1E+01
5E+01
45+01
5E+01
4E+01
4E+01
5E+01
LT. UT.
KILN
2E+01
6E-01
1E-03
2E+01
6E-C1
6E-01
8E-01
JE-01
5E+00
1E+01
TE-04
2E-01
8E-01
1E+00
2E-01
3E-01
2E-01
2E-03
3E+00
1E+01
2E+00
2E*01
7E-01
2E+01
SE-OS
4E-03
2E+01
2E+01
3E+00
5E+00
2E+01
2E+01
2E+O1
2E-KJ1
2E+01
2E+01
FUEL (X
BUST
FURNACE
4E+00
1E-01
3E-04
5E+00
1E-01
1E-01
2E-01
2E-01
1E+00
3E+00
2E-04
4E-O2
2E-01
3E-01
4E-02
6E-02
SE-02
SE-04
8E-01
3E+00
3E-01
SE+00
1E-01
5E+00
1E-05
9E-04
5E+00
4E-KO
8E-01
1E+00
5E+00
4E+00
5E+00
SE+00
5E+OC
5E+00
BY UEIQHT)
S. RECOV.
FURNACE
1E-K)1
4E-01
8E-04
1EO1
4E-01
4E-01
5E-01
iE-01
3E+00
1E+01
4E-04
1E-01
SE-01
8E-01
1E-01
2E-01
1E-01
1E-03
2E+00
SE+00
1E+00
1E+01
4E-01
1E+01
3E-05
3E-03
2E+01
1E+01
2E+00
3E+00
2E+01
1E+01
2E+01
1E+C1
1E+01
2E*01
ASSUMES FUEL WITH A HEATING VALUE CF 8000 BTU/LB
5-27
113
-------
METHOD FOR CORRECTING FOR PRODUCTS OF INCOMPLETE COMBUSTION
As indicated in Section 4, the highest ratio of PIC emission rates to
POHC emission rates observed in available trial burn data was 3.0. For
purposes of snaking conservative estimates, five times the amount of PIC is
assumed to be emitted compared to POHC.
The observed mass-weighted average Qi* value for unambiguously observed
PICs was 0.061. Since carcinogenic impacts are directly proportional to Q-|*
values (see Chapter 2 for details), by adding five times the average PIC O^*
to the Qi* for each POHC (a reasonable worst-case estimate), it is possible to
calculate an adjusted Q-| * for a substance based on the potency of the POHC and
the amounts and potencies of average PICs combined.
Q!* adjusted for PICs - g-,* unadjusted + (5*) (0.061) - Q-j * unadjusted +• 0.305
This adjusted Q-,* was used (along with other information) to derive
reference emission factors and levels of potential concern based on carcin-
ogenicity.
The reference emission factors for trichloroethane (TCE) and for dioxins
in Table 5.1 are unadjusted for PICs, and the reference emission factors for
PICs are listed in this table separately. The reference emission factors
based on carcinogenicity for organic chemicals in all other tables in this
chapter are adjusted for PICs.
Toluane was the only non-carcinogenic PIC unambiguously observed in
available emission test data 'summarized in Volumes 1 and 2 of this report
series). The most potent toxic PIC unambiguously observed in available
emission test data (summarized in Volumes 1 and 2 of this series of reports)
is tetrachloroethane (which is also carcinogenic). Assuming PIC emissions
are equivalent in toxic potency to 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, the screening
Concentration for worst case PICs is 17 ug/n»3 (based on a TLV-TWA). The
concentration of potential concern for 1 1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (based on
toxicity) is 530% for a light weight aggregate kil.i burning 8,000 Btu/hr
hazardous waste with a 99.99% DRE in complex terrain. If PICs (as 1,:,2,2-
tetrachloroethane) are emitted at five times the POHC emission rate (a worst
case estimate), and POHCs were burned with a 99.99% DRE, PICs would not be
emitted in sufficient quantity to cause annual average ambient air pollution
concentrations to be of potential concern due to threshold toxicity even if
100% POHCs were burned.
The concentration of potential concern for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
(based on toxicity) for a light weight aggregate kiln with a 99% DRE in
complex terrain is 5.3% for hazardous waste with a heating value of 8,000
Btu/lb. This implies that annual average POHC concentrations could not
exceed 1.1% (5.3%/5) without PICs being a concern from the standpoint of
annual average toxicity for the combustion of 3,000 Btu/lb hazardous waste
with a 99% DRE in the light weight aggregate kiln. This applies to all POHCs
(carcinogenic and/or toxic), if the PICs are equal in toxic potency to
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane.
5-2
111
-------
Carcinogenic TICs might ?iao be of concern when non-carcinogenic POHCs
(or POHC3 whose potency is unknown) are burned. The average Q1 * for PICs is
0.061 and the carcinogenic impact of PIC emissions would be equivalent to the
carcinogenic impact of equivalent amounts of POHC emissions, assuming the
POHC has a QT* of O.J05 (0.061 x 5) and there are no PJCs. The concentration
of potential concern for a POHC with a Q-) * of 0.305 in 8,000 Btu/lb hazardous
waste burned in light weight aggregate kilns with a 99.99% ORE in complex
terrain is 23% (basad on one chance per huicred thousand of cancer, unadjusted
for PICs). The associated concentration of potential concern for 5,000
Btu/lb hazardous waste is 15%. Any light weight aggregate kiln burning more
than 15% POHC in 5,000 Stu/lb hazardous waste fuel with a 99.99% ORE would
have PICs of potential concern (based on the average Qi* of PICs and the heat
input rata and dispersion factor for the lightweight aggregate facility).
With a 99% ORE the concentration of potential concern would be 0.15% for
5,000 Btu/lb hazardous waste fuel.
Average carcinogenic PICs are much more restrictive than the most potent
observed threshold toxic PIC. Carcinogenic POHC concentrations of potential
concern are adjusted for PICs in this section. The concentrations of concern
for toxic POHCs are unadjusted for PICs. Average carcinogenic PICs would
result in maximum POHC levels of potential concern as listed in Table 5.17 for
a light weight aggregate kiln. Adjustment for PIGs in the values based on
toxicity for light weight aggregate kilns is unnecessiry as long as the
maximum POHC levels in the tables are l«ss than specified in Table 5.17.
Table 5.18 is for a boiler; Table 5.19 is for a dry cement kiln; Table 5.20
is for a sulfur recovery rurnace and Table 5.2? is for a blast furnace.
Tables 5.22 and 5.23 list the compounds whose concentrations of potential
concern based on toxicity are less than 100% with a 99% ORE for both flat and
complex terrain, assuming an 8,000 Btu/lb fuel and no significant carcinogenic
or toxic PICs. If the values for hydrocarbons are corrected for carcinogenir
PICs with potencies equivalent to the average PICs, the upper limit for POHC
concentrations are shown in Taoles 5.17-5.21. Tables 5.24, 5.25, 5.26 and
5.27 are equivalent to tables 5.13, 5.14, 5.22 and 5.23 respectively, except
that conce:.orations of potential concern for toxic organic chemicals are only
lasted when they are more restrictive than the limits based on carcinogenic
PICs in tables 5.17 through 5.21. Tables 5.24, 5.25, 5.26 and 5.27 are equiva-
lent to tables 5.13, 5.14, 5.22 and 5.23 respectively, except that concentra-
tions of potential concern for toxic organic chemicals are only listed when
they are more restrictive than the limits based on carcinogenic PICs in tables
5.17 through 5.21.
Tables 5.28 and 5.29 list the substances whose levels of concern based
on carcinogenicity are leas than 100% with a 99% ORE for both flat and complex
terrain, corrected for PICs and using an 8,000 Btu/lb fuel. Tables 5.30 and
5.31 list reference emission factors based on toxicity (uncorrected for PICs>
in flat and in complex terrain.
5-29
-------
TABLE 5.17
MAXIMUM REFERENCE EMISSION FACTORS AND POHC LEVELS OF
POTENTIAL CONCERN, BASED ON AVERAGE CARCINOGENIC PICS FOR
REASONABLE WORST-CASE LIGHT WEIGHT AGGREGATE KILN-
IN FLAT TERRAIN
(Reference Emission Factor » 0.02 lb/10^ Btu)
Fuel Heating
Value (Btu/lb)
5,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 15,000 18,500
% POHC with
99.99% DRE
% POHC with
99.% DRE
>10Q >100 >100 >100 >100 >100
122234
IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
(Reference Emission Factor • 0.003 lb/10^ Btu)
Fuel Heating
Value (Btu/lb)
5,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 15,000 18,500
% POHC with
99.99% DRE
10
20
30
40
40
50
% POHC with
99% DRE
.1
.3
.4
.4
.5
5-30
-------
TABLE 5.18
MAXIMUM REFERENCE EMISSION FACTORS AND FOHC LEVELS OF
POTENTIAL CONCERN, BASED ON AVKOAGE CARCINOGENIC PICs FOR
REASONA&LE WOPST-CASE BOIL'iRS
IN FLAT TERRAIN
(Reference Emission Factor » 0.03 lb/106 3tu)
Fuel Heating
Value (Btu/lb) 5,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 15,000 18,500
% POHC with
99.99% ORE
* POHC with
99% ORE
>100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100
233456
IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
(Reference Emission Factor - 0.003 lh/10^ Btu)
Fuel Heating
value (Btu/lb) 5,000 8.000 10,000 12,000 15,000 18,500
% POHC with
99.99% ORE 20 20 30 40 50 60
% POHC with
99% ORE .2 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6
5-31
117
-------
TABLE 5.19
MAXIMUM REFERENCE EMISSION FACTORS AND PCHC LEVELS OF
POTENTIAL CONCERN, BASED ON AVERAGE CARCINOGENIC PICs FOR
REASONABLE WORST-CASE DRY CEMENT KILN
IN PLAT TERRAIN
(Reference Emission Factor » 0.08 lb/10^ Btu)
Fuel Heating
Value (Btu/lb)
% POHC with
99.99% ORE
% POHC with
99% ORE
5,000 8,000 10,000 1.2,000 15,000 18,500
>100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100
4 7 8 10 10 20
IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
(Reference Emission Factor *• 0.006 lb/106 Btu)
Fuel Heatinq
Value (Btu/lb) 5,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 15,000 18,500
% POHC with
99-99% ORE 30 50 60 70 90 >100
% POHC with
99% DRE .3 .5 .6 .7 .9
5-32
-------
TABLE 5.20
MAXIMUM REFERENCE EMISSION FACTORS AND POHC LEVELS OB'
POTENTIAL CONCERN, BASfcD ON AVERAGE CARCINOGENIC ?ICs FOR
REASONABLE WORST-CASE BLAST FURNACE
IN FLAT TERRAIN
(Reference Emission Factor - 0.01 lb/106 Btu)
Fuel Heating
Value (Btu/lb) 5.000 8,000 10,000 12,000 15,000
% POHC with
99.99% ORE . 50 90 >100 >100 >100
% POHC with
99.* ORE 0.5 0.9 1 1 2
18,500
MOO
2
IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
(Reference Emission Factor * 0.0007 lb/10^ Btu)
Fuel Heating
Value (Btu/lb) 5,000 8,OOC 10,000 12,000 15,000
% POHC with
99.99% ORE 3 5 7 8 10
% POHC with
99% ORE .03 .05 .07 .08 .1
18,500
10
.1
5-33
4 f\
-------
TABLE 5.21
MAXIMUM REFERENCE EMISSION FACTORS AND POHC LEVELS OF
POTENTIAL CONCERN, BASED ON AVERAGE CARCINOGENIC PICs FOR
REASONABLE WORST-CASE SULFUR RECOVERY PLANT
IN FLAT TERRAIN
(Reference Emission Factor • 0.005 lb/106 Btu)
Fuel Heating
Value (Btu/lb) 5,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 15,000
% POHC with
99.99% DRE 30 40 50 60 80
% POHC with
99.% DRE .3 .4 .5 .6 .€
18,500
90
.9
\
IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
(Reference Emission Factor - 0.002 lb/106 Btu)
Fuel Heating
Value (Btu/lb) 5,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 15,000
% POHC with
99.99% DRE 10 20 20 20 30
% PCKC with
99% DRE .1 .2 .2 .2 .3
18,500
40
.4
-------
T/UM.E 5.22 - THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS ON CONCERN FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99X ORE - ASSUMING FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
ACRYLONITRILE (2-PROPENENITRILE)
4LDRIN
ALLYL ALCHOHOL
ALUMINUM PHOSPHIDE
ANILINE (BENZENAMINE)
ANTIMONY AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
ARSENIC AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
BARIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
BARIUM CYANIDE
BENZENE (CYCLOHEXATRIENE)
P-8ENZOQUINONE (1,4-CYCLOHEXADIENEDIONE)
BENZYL CHLORIDE (BENZENE, (CHLOROHETHYD-)
BERYLLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)
BIS.(CHLOROMETHYL)
BIS(2-ETHYI HEXYL) PHT
BROMOME7HANE (METHYL BMMIDE)
CADMIUM ANt COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
CALCIUM CYANIDE
CARBON OISULFI3E (CARBON flSULFIDE)
CHLOROANE (ALPHA AND GAMMA ISOHERS)
CHLORINATED BENZENES, N.O.S.
CHLORINATED PHENOL, N.O.S.
CHLOROACETALDEHYDE (ACETALDEHYDE, CHLORO-)
CHLOROBENZENE
2-CMLORO-1,3 BUTAOIsNE (CHLOROPRENE)
1-CHLORO-2-3-EPOXYPROPANE
CHLOROFORM (METHANE, TRICHLORO-)
CHLOROTETHAN6 (METHYL CHLORIDE)
3-CHLOROPROPENE (ALLYL CHLORIDE)
CHROMIUM III
CHROMIUM IV
COAL TARS
COPPER CYANIDE
CRESOLS (CRESYLIC ACID)(PHENOL, METHYL-)
CROTONALDEHYDE (2-BUTENAL)
CYANIDES (SOLUABLE SALTS AND COMPLEXES), N.O.S.
CYANOGEN (ETHANEDINITRILE)
CYANOGEN CHLORID. (CHLORINE CYANIDE)
DOT
DI-N-8UTYL PHTHALATE (1,2-BENZENEDICARBOXYLIC ACID...)
0-OICHLOR08ENZENE (BENZENE, 1,2-OICHLORO-)
P-OICHLOROBENZENE (BENZENE, 1,4-DICHLORO-)
OICHLOROOIFLUOROMETHANE (rIETHANE, OICHLORODIFI.UORO-)
1,1-OICHLOROETHANE (ETHYLIDENE D1CHLORIOE)
1,2-OICHLOROETHANE (ETHYLENE BICHLORIDE)
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL
I1TRILE)
•HANONE)
fflPENAL)
iNAMIDE)
IITRILE)
4LDRIN
tLCHOHOL
IOSPHIDE
MAMINE)
N.O.S.
N.O.S.
N.O.S.
CYANIUE
iTRIENE)
IEDIONE)
;THYL)-)
N.O.S.
.) ETHER
.) ETHER
ITHALATE
I.70MIDE)
N.O.S.
CYANIDE
IULFIDE)
ISOHERS)
N.O.S.
N.O.S.
IHLORO-)
IBENZENE
IOPRENE)
'PROPANE
IHLORO-)
ILORIDE)
ILORIDE)
HUH III
IHIUM IV
IAL TARS
CYANIDE
IETHYL-)
IUTENAL)
N.O.S.
IITRILE)
IYANIOE)
DOT
ICID...)
IHLORO-)
IHLORO-)
'I.UORO-)
ILORIOE)
ILORIDE)
COMMENT
ST
R
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
R
ST
ST
R
R
ST
R
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
R
ST
R
ST
RST
ST
ST
RST
ST
ST
ST
ST
BOILER
3.4E+00
4.0E+00
6.1E+01
3.4E+00
6.7E+01
5.7E+00
5.7E-02
2.7E-02
6.7E-02
5.4E+00
6.7E+01
2.7E-04
6.7E+01
6.7E-02
1.7E+01
6.7E-03
1.1E+00
6.7E+00
O.OE+00
5.7E+01
4.0E+01
6.7E-02
6.7E-C3
2.7E+00
8.1E*01
6.7E+01
1.3E+Q1
6.7E+01
DRY CEMENT
KILN
d.6£+00
1.0E-K31
8.6E+00
1.4E+01
1.4E-01
6.8E-02
1.7E-01
1.4E+01
6.8E-04
1.7E-01
4.3E+01
1.7E-02
2.9E+00
1.7E+01
O.OE+00
1.7E-01
1.7E-02
6.8E+00
3.4E+01
LT. WT.
AG. KILN
2.0E+00
2.4E+00
3.6E+01
2.0E+00
4.0E+01
3.4E+00
8.0E+01
3.4E-02
1.6E-02
4.0E-02
3.2E+OT
4.0E-KJ1
1.6E-C4
4.0E+01
4.0E-02
1.0E+01
4.0E-03
6.7E-01
4.0E+00
O.OE-HX
3.4E+01
8.0E+01
2.4E+01
4.0E-02
4.0E-03
1.66*00
4.8E+01
4.0E+01
8.0E+00
4.0E+01
(X BY WEIGHT)
BLA«T
FURNACE
7.7E+01
1.1E+00
1.4E+00
2.1E+01
1.1E+00
2.3E+01
1.9E+00
4.6E-KM
1.9E-02
9. 16-03
2.3E-02
1.8E+00
2.3E+01
9.1E-05
2.3E+01
2.3E-02
5.7E+00
2.3E-03
3.8E-01
2.3E+00
O.OE+00
1.9E+01
4.6E+O1
1.4E*01
2.3E-02
2.3E-03
9.1E-01
2.7E+01
2.3E+01
9.1E+01
4.6E+00
2.3E+01
9.6E+01
9.6E+01
S. RECOV.
l-LRNACE
3.5E+01
5.2E-01
6.2E-01
9.4E+00
5.2E-01
1.0E+01
3.7E-01
2.1E+01
8.7E-03
4.2E-03
1.0E-02
6.2E+O1
8.3E-01
1.0E+01
4.2E-05
1.0E+01
1.0E-02
6.1E+01
2.6E+00
1.0E-03
8.7E+01
6.2E+01
1.7E-01
1.0E+00
O.OE+00
8.3E+01
8.7E+00
2.1E+01
6.2E+00
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
4.2E-01
4.6E+01
1.2E+01
1.CE+01
4.2E+01
2.1E+OQ
1.0E+01
4. 46+01
4.4E+01
8.3E+01
5-35
121
-------
TAB»,E 5.22 - THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS ON CONCEW FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99X ORE - ASSUMING FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE COMMENT
OICHLCROETHYLcNE, N.O.S.
1,1 OICHLOROETHYLENE (VINYLIOEIi: CHLORIDE)
DICHLOROHETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDe)
2,4-OICHLOROPHENOL
1,2-OICHLCROPROPANE (PROPYLENC OICHLORIOE)
DICHLOROPROPEliE, N.O.S.
1,3-OICHLOROPROPENE
DIELORIN
0,0 OIETHYLPHOSPHORK ACID, O-P-NITSOPHEN'T. ESTER
OIETHYL PHTHALATE
OIMETHOATE
P-0 INETHYLAHtNOAZOBENZENE
1 , I-OIMETHYLHYORA;INE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL SULFATE (SULFURIC ACID, DIMETHYL ESTER)
DINITROBENZENE, N.O.S.
4,6-DINITRO-O-CRESOL AND SALTS
2-4-OINITROPHENOL
2,4-OINITROTOLUENE (BENZENE, 1-METHYL-2,4-OINITRO->
2,6-OINITROTOLUENE (BENZENE, 1 -METHYL -2, 6-OINITRO-)
1,4-OIOXANE (1,4-D.cTHYLENE OXIDE)
9IPHENYLAM !NE (BENSENAMINE, N-PHENYL-)
DISULFOTON
ENOOSULFAN
ENORIN AND METABOLITES
ETHYLENE OXIDE (OXIRANE)
FLUORINE
FORMALPEHYDE (MfTHYLENE OXIDE)
FORMIC ACID (MEtHANOIC ACID)
HEPTACHLOR
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTAOIENE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
HYDRAZINE (DIAMINE)
HYDROCYANIC ACID (HYDROGEN CYANIDE)
HYDROFLUORIC ACID (HYDROGEN FLUORIDE)
HYDROGEN SULFIDE (SULFUR HYDRIDE)
IRON CEXTRAN (FERRIC OUTRAN)
ZS08UTYL ALCOHOL (1-PROPANOL, 2-METHYL-)
LEAD AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
MALEIC ANHYDRIDE (2,5-FURANDIONE)
MERCURY FULMINATE (FULMINI. ACID, MERCURY SALT)
MERCURY AM COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
NETHANETHIOL (THIOHETHANOL) (METHYL MERCAPTAN)
M£THOLMYL
M6THOXYCHLOR
METHYL ETHYL KETONE (MEK) (2-8UTANONE)
METHYL HYORAZINE (HYDRAZINE, METHYL-)
METHYL M6THACRYLATE
METHYL PARATHION
ST
ST
ST
R
ST
ST
R
ST
ST
R
R
ST
ST
ST
ST
R
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
RST
ST
ST
il
ST
R
ST
ST
ST
ST
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL
DRY CEMENT LT. WT.
BOILER KILN AG. KILN
5.7E+01
6.7E+01
5.7E+00
3.4E+00
6.7E+01
4.06+01
1.3E+01
6.76+01
6.76+00
1.3E+01
2.7E+00
4.0E+01
2.QE+01
2.0E+01
1.3E+00
2.8E-01
1.1E+00
2.76+01
2. 75+01
2.0E+01
2.8E+00
3.2E+00
1.3E+00
1.36+00
3.4E+01
5.7E+01
1.3E+01
5.36-03
1.3E+01
5.75+01
6.75-03
1.36+01
3.46+01
O.OE+00
2.75+00
1.4E+01
8.6E+00
•
3.4E+01
1.76+01
3.4E+01
6.8E-00
5. 16+01
5.16+01
3.4E+00
7.26-01
2.96+00
6.86+01
6.86+01
5.1E+01
7.26+00
8.26+00
3.46+00
3.46+00
8.66+01
3.46+01
1.36-02
3.46+01
1.76-02
3.46+01
8.66+01
0.06+00
6.86+00
3.46+01
4.06+01
3.46+00
2.0E+00
4.06+01
2.46+01
8.06+01
8.06+00
4.06+01
4.06+00
8.0E+00
1.66+00
2.4E+01
1.26+01
1.26+01
8.06+01
a. OF. -01
1.76-01
6.7E-01
1.6E+01
1.6E+C1
1.26+01
7.26+01
1.76+00
1.9E+00
8.0E-01
8.06-01
2.06+01
3.46*01
8.06+00
3.16-03
8. 06+00
3.46+01
4.06-03
8.06+00
2.06+01
8.06+01
0.06+00
1.6E+00
(2 BY WEIGHT)
BLAST S. RECOV.
FURNACE FURNACE
9.1E+01
1.9E+01
2.3E+01
1.9E+00
1.1E+00
2.3E+01
1.3E+01
4.66+01
4.66+00
2.3E+01
2.3E+00
4.6E+00
9.1E-01
1.3E+01
6.8E+00
6.8E+00
4.66+01
4.66-01
9.66-02
3.86-01
9.16+00
9.1E+00
6.8E+00
4.1E+01
9.6E-01
1.1E+00
W. 66-01
4.66-C1
1.16+01
1.96+01
4.66+00
1.86-03
4.66+00
1.96+01
2.36-03
4.6E+00
1.1E+01
4.6E+01
O.OE+00
9.16-01
4.2E+01
8.7E+00
1.06+01
8.7E-01
5.26-01
1.0E+01
6.1E+00
2.1E+01
2.1E+00
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
2.1E+00
4.2E-01
6.1E+00
3.1E+00
3.1E+00
2.16+01
2.16-01
4.46-02
1.7E-01
4.2E+OQ
4.2E+00
3.1E+00
1.96+01
4.4E-01
5.0E-01
2.1E-01
2.1E-01
6.1E+01
5.2E+00
8.76+00
2.16+00
8.25-04
2.16+00
8.76+00
1.06-03
2.16+00
5.26+00
2.16+01
O.OS+00
4.26-01
5-36
-------
TABLE 5.22 - THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS ON CONCERN FOR SELECTED SOURCES VITH A 99X ORE - ASSUMING FLAT TERRAIN
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL
SUBSTANCE
NAPHTHALENE
NICKEL AND COflPOUHOS, N.O.S.
NICKEL CAftBONYL (NICKLE TETRACAR80NYL)
NICKEL CYANIDE (NICKEL(II)CYANIOE)
NICOTINE AND SALTS
NITRIC OXIDE (NITROGEN (II) OXIDfc)
P-NITROANILINe (B6NZENAMIN6, 4-NITRO-)
NITR08ENZIN6
NITROGLYCERINE <1,2,3-P«OPM»€TRim. TRINITRATE)
OSMIUM T6TROXIOE (OSMIUM (V1I1) OXIDE)
PARATHION
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
P6NTACHLORONITROB6NZ6NE (PCNB)
PEHTACHLOROPH6NOL
PHENOL (BENZENE, HYOROXY-)
P-PHENYLENEDIAMINE (BENZkNEDIAMINE)
N-PHENYLEN60IAMINE
?H£NYLf1FRCURY ACETATE (MERCURY, ACETATO-PHENYL-)
N-PHENYLTHIOUREA (THIOUREA, PHENYL-)
PHOSGENE (C ARSON YL CHLORIDE)
PHOSPHINE (HYDROGEN PHOSPHIDE)
PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL, N.O.S.
POTASSIUM CYANIDE
POTASSIUM SILVER CYANIDE (ARGENTAT6(1)OICYANO-POTASSIUM)
PYRIDINE
R6SORC1NOL (1,3-86NZSN6DIOL)
SELENIOUS ACID 01
6.26+01
3.16*01
3. 56*01
3.56-04
1.76+01
2.16-03
8.76-01
1.76+00
3.7E-01
1.76+00
1.76+00
1.76+00
1.76+00
5-37
123
-------
TABLE 5.22 - THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS ON CONCERN f-0* SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99X DRE - ASSUMING FLAT TERRAIN
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL « BY WEIGHT)
SUBSTANCE
DRY CEMENT LT. WT. BLAST S. RECOV.
COMMENT BOILER KILN Afi. KILN FURNACE FURNACE
TOLUENE (BENZENE, METHYL-)
TOLYLENE OIISOCYANATE (BENZENE, 1,3-OIISOCYANATOKETHYL)
TOXAPHENE (CAMPHENE, OCTAttLORO-)
1,2,'^TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROCTHANr. (METHYL CHLOROFORM)
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE (ETHANE, 1,1,2-TRICNLORO-)
TRICHLOROETHENE (TRICHLOROCTHYLENE)
TRICMLOROMONOFLUOROHETHANE
2,4,5-mCHLOROPHENGL
1,2,3-mchtonopROPANf, N.O.S.
VANADIUM PENTOXIDE (VANADIUM (V) OXIDE)
VINYL CHLORIDE (ETKENE, CHLORO-)
ST
ST 5.4E-01
ST 6.7E+00
RST
ST
ST
ST
RST
R
ST
6.7E-01
1.4£+00 3.2E-01 1.8E-01 3.3E-Q2
1.7E+01 4.0EX10 2.3E+QO 1.0E+00
6.1E+01
9.4E+01
1.7E+00 *.0t-01 2.3E-01 1.0E-01
8.0£:C1 4.6E+01 2.1E+01
R • BASED ON RfD ONLY
ST « A TLV-C OR A TLV-STEu EXISTS FOR THIS SUBSTANCE
ASSUMES FUEL WITH A HEATING VALUE CF 3000 BTl'/LB
5-38
-------
TABLE 5.23 - THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS ON CONCERN FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99S ORE - ASSUMING COMPLEX TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
ACETONmiLECrTHAMENITRILEi
ACtTOPNENONE(ETHANONE)
ACROCEIN(2-?ROPENAL)
ACRYLANIDE (2-PROPENAHIDE;
ACRYLONITRILE (2-PROPENENITRILE)
ALDRIN
AUYL ALCHONOL
ALUMINUM PHOSPHIDE
ANILINE (BENZENAHINE)
ANTIMONY AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
ARSENIC AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
BARIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
BARIUM CYANIDE
BENZENE (CYCLOHEXATRIENE)
P-BENZOQUINONE (1,4-CYCLOHEXAOlENfDIONE)
BENZYL CHL0.1IDE CBENZENE, (CHLORONETHYL)-
BERYLLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
3IS(2-CHLORCISOPROPYL) ETHER
BISCCHLOROHE^'.w} ETHER
81S(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
BROMOMETHANE (METHYL BROMIDE)
CADMIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
CALCIUM CYANIDE
CARBON BISULFIDE (CARBON BISULFIDE)
CHLOROAN6 (ALPHA AND SAMMA ISOHERS)
CHLORINATtO BENZENES, N.O.S.
CHLORINATE!) PHENOL, N.O.S.
CHLOROACETALDEHYDE (ACETAIOEHYDE, CHLORO-)
CHLOROBT :ENE
2-CHLORO-1,3 BUTADIENE (CHLOROPhENE)
1-CHLOW-2-3-EPOXYPROPAN6
CHLOROFORM (METHANE, TRICHLORO-)
CHLOROHETHANE (METHYL CHLORIDE)
3-CHLOROPROPENE (ALLYL CHLORIDE)
CHROMIUM III
CHROHIl'M IV
COAL TARS
COPPER CYANIDE
CRESOLS (CRESYLIC AClOXPHetWL, HETHYL-
CROTONALDEHYOE (2-BUTENAL)
CYANIDES (SOLUABLE SALTS AND COMPLEXES), N.O.S.
CYANOGEN (ETHANEDINITRILE)
CYANOGEN CHLORIDE (CHLORINE CYANIDE)
DOT
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE (1,2-BENZENEDICARBOXYLIC ACID...)
0-OICHLOROBENZENE (BENZENE, 1,2-OICHLORO-)
P-DICHLOROBENZENE (BENZENE, 1,4-OICHLORO-)
OICHLOROOIFLUOROMETHANE (METHANE, DICHLOROOIFLUORO-)
1,1-OICHLOROETHANE (ETHYLIDENE OICHLORIOE)
1,2-OICHLOROETHANE (ETHYLENE DICHLORIOE)
CONCENTRATION Of CONCERN IN FUEL
DRY CEMENT
COMMENT
:•> ST
:) R
.) ST
;; ST
:)
;N ST
I SI
E
) ST
\m
C R
i) ST
) 3T
)
1.
R
R
E R
) R
i. ST
€ R
)
) ST
i.
ST
) ST
IE
:)
IE ST
) ST
) R
;) ST
I
V
s
E R
)
.) ST
i.
)
:) RST
iT ST
) ST
) RST
) ST
) ST
:) ST
!) ST
BOILER
2.2E+Q1
3.2E-01
3.9E-01
5.M+00
3.2E-01
C.4E+00
5.4£^31
1.3E+01
5.4E-03
2.6t-03
6.4E-03
3.9C+01
S.1E-01
6.4E-MDO
2.6E-OS
6.4€+00
6.4E-03
3.8E+01
1.6E+00
6.4E-04
S.it+01
3.9frK)1
1.1E-01
6.4E-01
O.OE+00
5.1E+01
5.4E+OJ
1.3E*01
6.4E-K31
3.9E+00
6.44-03
6.4E-04
2.6E-01
2.86*01
7.7E*00
6.4E+00
2.6C+01
1.3E+00
6.4E-KXI
2.7E+01
2.7E+01
5.1E+01
KIM
4.0E+01
6.0e-01
7.2E-01
1.1E*01
6.0E-01
1.2E+01
1.0E+00
2.4E+01
1.0E-02
4.8E-03
1.2E-02
7.2E+01
9.6E-01
1.2E+C1
4.8E-OS
1.2E+01
1.2E-02
7.1E+01
3.0E+00
1.2E-03
7.26*01
2.0E-01
1.2E+00
O.OE+00
9.6E+01
1.0E+01
2.4E+01
7.2E+00
1.2E-02
1.2E-03
4.8E-01
S.3E*01
1.4E*01
1.2E+01
4.8E+01
2.4E+00
1.2E*01
5.1&KJ1
;.1E+01
9.6E+01
LT. UT.
AG. KILN
2.0E+01
3.0E-01
3.6E-01
5.5E+00
3.0E-01
6.1E-KO
5.1E-01
1.2E+01
5.U-03
2.4E-03
6.1E-03
3.6E-H31
4.8E-01
6.1E+00
2.4E-OS
6.1E+00
6.1E-03
3.6E+01
1.5E+00
6.1E-04
*.1E*01
3.6e*01
1.0E-01
6.1E-01
O.OE+00
4.8E+01
5.1E+00
1.2E+01
6.1E+01
3.6E+00
6.1E-03
6.1E-04
2.4E-01
2.75*01
7.3E+00
6.1E+00
2.4E+01
1.2E*00
6.1E+CO
2.SE+01
'.5E+01
4.8E+01
(Z BY WEIGHT)
BLAST
FURNACE
4.6E+00
6.8E-<:2
8.1E-O2
1.2E+00
6.8E-02
1.4E+00
1.16-01
2.75*00
1.1E-03
5.4E-04
1.4E-03
2.3E+01
8.1E+00
1.1E-01
1.4E+00
S.4E--06
1.4E+OC
1.4E-03
s.nE+oo
3.4E-01
1.4E-04
1.1E+01
8.1E+00
2.3£-02
9.5E+01
1.4C-01
O.OE+00
1.1E+01
1.1E+00
2.7E+00
1.4£+01
8.1E-01
1.4E-03
1.4E-04
5.4E-02
2.3E+01
i.OE+00
1.66*00
1. 45*00
5.4E+00
2.3E+01
2.7E-01
1.46*00
5.7E+00
5.75*00
8.0E+01
2.3E*01
1.1c*01
S. RECOV.
FURNACE
1.3E+01
2.0E-01
2.4E-01
3.6E+00
2.0E-01
4.0E10C
3 3E-01
7.96*00
3.3E-03
1.6E-03
4.0E-03
6.7£*01
2.4EXH
3.22-01
4.0E+00
1.6E-05
4.0E+CO
4.0E-03
2.3E+01
1.0E+00
4.0E-04
3.3E+01
?.4E*01
6.7E-02
4.0E-0''
O.OE+00
J.2E+01
J.3E+00
7.9E+00
4.0E+01
2.4E+00
4.0E-03
4.0E-04
1.6E-01
6.7E+01
1.7E+01
4.8E+00
4.0E+00
1.6E+01
6.7E+01
7.9E-01
4.0E+00
1.7E+01
1.7E+01
6.7E+01
3.2E+01
5-39
1*
*
-------
TABLE S.23 - THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS ON CONCERN FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99X ORE - ASSUMING COMPLEX TERRAIN
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL
SUBSTANCE COMMENT
DICHLOROETHYLE.NE, N . 0 . S .
1,1 OICHLOROETHYLENlE (VINYLICi-NE CHLORIDE)
DKHLOROMETHAN6 '.NETHYLENE CHLORIDE)
2,4-0.1 CHLOROPHENOL
1,2-OICMLOROPROPANE CPROPYLEN6 OICHLORIOE)
1ICHLOROPROPENE, H.O.S.
1 ,3-OICHLOROP*OPEN6
OIELDRIN
0,0 01ETHYLPHOSPHORIC ACID, 0-P-N1TROPH6NYL ESTER
OIETHYL PHTHALATE
OIM6THOAT:
P-OIMCTHYUHrNOAZOBENTtiNE
1 ,1-OINCTHVmYDRAZ XNE
DlHfTHYl PHTHAUTB
OIM6THYL SULFATE (SUL-UHXC ACID, &1H6THYL ESTER)
OINITRoaENZENE, N.O.S.
4,6-BINITRO-0-CR6SOL AND SALTS
2-4-BINITROPHENOL
2,4-OINITROTOLU6N6 (BENZENE, 1-MErHYL-2,4-OINITRO-)
2,6-iINITROTOLUENE (BENZENE, 1-METHYL-2,6-OiNiT«0-)
1,4-OIOXANE (1,4-OIETHYLENE OXIDE)
DIPHENYLAHINE (BEN5EHAMIN6, N-PHENYL-)
D1SULFOTON
ENOOSULFAN
ENOR1N ANO METABOLITES
ETHYLENC OXJD6 (OXIRANE)
FLUORINE
FORHALOENYOE (H6THYLENE OXIDE)
FORMIC ACID (M6THANOIC ACID)
H6PTACHLOR
HEXAIHLOIWeUTAOlENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTAO IENF,
HEXACHLOROETHANE
MYORAZINE (DIAMINE)
HYDROCYANIC ACID (HYDROGEN CYANIDE)
HYDROFLUORIC 4CID (HYDROGEN FLUORIDE)
MYOR066N JULFIDE (SULFUR HYDRIDE)
IRON D6XTRAN (FERRIC DEXTRAN)
IS06UTYL ALCOHOL (1-PHOPANOL, 2-M6THYL-)
LEAD ANO COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
NALEIC ANHYORIOC (2,5-FURANOIONE)
MERCURY FULMINATE (FULMINIC ACID, MERCURY SALT)
MERCURY ANO COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
METHANETHIOL (THIOMETHANOL) (METHYL MERCAPTAN)
M2THOLNYL
METHOXYCHLOR
METHYL ETHYL KETONE (NEK) (2-8UTANONE)
METhYL HYDRAZINE (HYORAZINE, METHYL-)
METHYL METHACRYLATS
METHYL PARATHION
ST
ST
ST
R
ST
ST
R
ST
ST
R
R
ST
ST
ST
ST
R
5T
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
RST
ST
ST
ST
ST
R
ST
ST
ST
ST
DRY CEMENT
BOILER KILN
2.6E+01
5.4E+OC
6.4E+00
S.4E-01
3.2E-01
6.4E+00
3.8E+00
1.38*01
1.3E+00
6.4S+00
6.4E-C1
1.3tK»
2.6E-01
3.8E-KX3
1.9E+00
1.96+00
1.3E-KJ1
1.3E-01
2.7E-02
t.1E-01
2.6000
2.6E+00
1.9E-HX)
1.2E*01
2.7E-01
3.1E-01
1.3E-01
1.38-01
j.3E*01
3.2E+00
5.4C+00
1.3fr>00
S.1E-W
1.3E+00
3.4E+00
6.ie-0«
1.38+00
3.2E*00
1.38+01
0. 08+00
2.6E-01
4.8E+01
1.08+01
1.2E+01
1.0E+00
6.08-01
1.28+01
7.18+00
2.48+01
2.4E+00
1.28+01
1.2C+00
2.4E+a
4.8E-01
7.1E+00
3.6E+00
3.6E+00
2.4E+01
2.4E-01
5.18-02
2.08-01
4.86+00
4.88+00
3. 66+00
2.2E+01
5.1E-C^
5. 86-01
2.48-01
2.46-01
7.1E+01
6.06+00
1.06+01
2.48+00
9.S6-04
2.48+00
1.08+01
1.26-03
2.46+00
6.08+00
2.48+01
0.08+00
4.86-01
LT. UT.
AG. KILN
2.4E+01
5.18+00
6.1E+00
5.18-01
3.08-01
6.16+00
3.66+00
1.28+01
1.23+00
6.1E+00
6.1E-01
1.2E+00
2.48-01
3.68+00
1.86+00
1.86+00
1.28+01
1.26-01
2.56-02
1.08-01
2.46+00
2.46+00
1.86+00
1.1E+01
2.«E-C<
2.9E-01
1.2E-C1
1.28-01
3.66+01
3.06+00
5.18+00
1. 26+00
4.86-04
1.28+00
5.16+00
6.16-04
1.26+00
3.06+00
1.26+01
0. 06+00
2.4E-01
(X BY UEIGti
T)
BLAST S. RECOV.
FURKACE FURNACE
5.4E+00
9.56+01
1.1E+00
9.5K+01
1.46+00
'.16-01
6.88-02
1.46+00
8.06-01
2.78+00
2.76-01
1.48+00
1.46-01
2.76-01
5.46-02
8.06-01
4.18-01
4.16-01
2.4E+01
2.^8+00
2.78-02
5.76-O3
2.26-02
5.46-01
5.4£ 01
4.16-01
2.46+00
•5.7E-02
6.5E-02
2.78-02
2.76+01
2.78-02
a.oexx)
6.86-01
1.18+00
2.76-01
4.18+01
1.16-04
2.78-01
1.16+00
1.48-04
2.78-01
6.3c-01
2.78+00
3.46+01
0.08+30
5.0E-02
1.6E+01
3.38+00
4.0E+OO
3.36-01
2.06-01
4.06+00
2.36+00
7.96+00
7.98-01
4.06+00
4.06-01
7.96-01
1.66-01
2.36+00
1.26+00
1.26+00
7.18+01
7.98+00
7.96-02
1.78-0?
6.78-02
1.66+00
1.66+00
1.26+00
7.1E+00
1.78-01
1. 96-01
7.9t-02
7.98+01
7.96-02
2.3E+01
2.08+00
3.36+00
7.9E-CH
3.16-04
7.96-01
3.36+00
4.06-04
7.96-01
2.06+00
7.98+00
1.06+02
0.06+00
1.66-01
5-40
-------
TABLE 5.23 - THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS ON CONCERN FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99X ORE - ASSUMING COMPLEX TERRAIN
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL
SUBSTANCE COMMENT
NAPHTHALENE
NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
NICKEL CARBONYL (N1CKLE TETRACARBONYL)
NICKEL CYANIDE (NICKEL(II)CYANIDE)
NICOTINE ANO SALTS
NITRIC OXIDE (NITROGEN (II) OXIOE)
P-NITROANILINE IBENZENAHINE, 4-NITRO-)
NITROBENZINE
NITROGLYCERINE (1,2,3-PROPANETRIOL TRINinATE)
OSMIUM TtTROXIDe. (OSMIUM (VIII) OXIDE)
PARATWON
PSNT* .HUM08ENZENE
PENTACHLOaONIT/WBENZENE CPCNB)
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL (BENZENE, HYDROXY-)
P-PHENYLENED1AM1NE (BENZENEDIAMJNE)
n-PHCNYLENEOIAMINE
PHENYLrtERCURY ACETATE (MERCURY, ACETATO-PHENYL-)
N-PHENYLTHIOUREA (THIOUREA, PHENYL-)
PHOSGENE (CARBONYL CHLORIDE)
PHCSPHINE (HYDROGEN PHOSPHItE)
PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE
•OLYCMLOHiKATEO SIPHENYL, N.O.S.
POTASSIUM CYANIOE
IOTASSIUN SILVER CYANIDE (ARGENTATE(I)DICYANO-POTASSIUH)
PYRIOINE
RESCSCINOL d,3-B3«ENEDioL)
SELENIOUS ACID (SELENIUM D.tOXICF)
SELENIUM ANO COMPOUNDS, H.O.S.
SELENOUREA (CARBAMIHIDOSELENOIC ACID)
SILVER ANO COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
SILVER CYANIDE
SODIUM CYANIDE
STRYCHN:NE ANO SALTS
1 ,2,4,5-TCTRACHLOftOBENZENE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLORETHANe
TET»«HL'-*.iTMEN€ (ETHENE, 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLORO)
TETitACHLOROMETHANS (CARBON TETMCHLOR10E)
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
2 , 3, 4, 6-TCTttCHL JROPKENOL
TfTUETHYu LEAD (PUWAME, TOTUETVL-)
TETIUNITROHETHANE
THALLIUM ANO COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
TMALL1C OXIDE (THALLIUM (III) OXIDE)
THALLIUM (1) ACETATE (ACETIC ACID, THULIUM (I) SALT)
rHALLIUH (I) CARBONATE (CARBONIC ACID, DITHAkLIUHU) SALT)
THALLIUM (DCHLORIDE
THALLIUNU)N1TRATE (NITRIC ACID, THAaiUH(I)SALT)
THALLIUM SELENITE
"HALLIUH (I) SULFATE (SULFURIC ACID, THAUIUH (I)SALT)
ST
ST
R
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
R
R
ST
ST
R
R
R
ST
ST
ST
*
R
ST
ST
R
R
R
R
ST
R
ST
ST
ST
R
R
ST
DRY CEMENT
BOILER KILN
6.4E+01
1.3E-03
4.5E-01
3.8E+01
6.4E-01
3.9E+01
3.9€*00
1.1E+00
6.iE+00
2.6E-03
1.3E-01
1.6E+00
1.5E+01
6.4E-01
2.4E+01
1.3E-01
1.1E+01
1.6C-01
5.1E-01
5.1E-01
7.7E+00
6.4E-01
1.1E+01
5.8E+01
5.4E+00
2.6E-03
1.1E+01
1.3E-04
5.4E+01
1.9E-01
S.4E-01
9. Of +00
3.8E+01
3.9fr»01
1.9€*01
2.2C*01
2.2E-04
1.0E+01
1.31-0?
5.4C-01
1.1E+00
S.iE-01
1.'«*00
1.1EX30
1.1E*00
1.1E*00
2.4E-03
8.4E-01
7.1E+01
1.2E+00
7.2E+01
7.2E+00
2.0C+00
1.2E+01
4.8E-03
2.4E-01
3.0E+00
2.8£+01
1.2E-KJO
4.6E+01
2.4E-01
2.0E-KJ1
3.0E-01
9.6E-01
9.66-01
1.4tH31
1.2E+00
2.0E+01
1.0E-KJ1
4.8E-03
2.0E+01
2.4E-04
3.6E-01
1.0E+00
1.7E*01
7.1E+01
7.2E+01
3.5E+01
4.0E+01
4.0E-04
1.9€*01
2.4E-03
1.0E+00
2.0E+00
1.0E+00
2.0E+00
2.0E+00
2.0E+00
2.0E+00
a. «T.
A3. KILN
6.1E+01
1.2E-03
4.2E-01
3.6E+01
6.1E-01
3.6E+01
3.6E-KM
1.0E+00
6.1E+00
2.4E-03
1.2E-01
1.ir*00
1.4E+01
6.1E-01
2.3E+01
1.2E-01
1.0E+01
1.5E-01
4.8E-01
4.BE-01
7.3EXX)
6.1E-01
1.0E+01
5.5E+01
5.1E+00
2.4E-03
1.0E+01
1.2E-0*
5.1E+01
1.W-01
5.1E-01
8.5E+00
3.6E*01
3.6E+01
1.8E+01
2.0E+01
2.0E-0^
9.7E+00
1.2E-03
S.1E-01
1.0E+00
5.1E-01
1.0&K»
1.0E+OQ
1.0E+00
1.0E->00
(X BY WEIGHT)
BLAST S. RECOV.
FLKHACE FU.WACE
1.4E+01
2.7E-04
9.5E-02
8.UE+00
1.46-01
8.1E+CO
8.1E-01
2.3E-01
1.4E+00
S.4E-04
2.7E-02
3.4E-01
3.2E+00
1.4E-01
5.2E-HX)
2.7E-02
2.3E+00
3.4E-0?
8.0E+01
1.1E-01
1.1E-01
1.6E+00
1.4E-01
2.3E-KJ1
8.0E+01
2.3E+00
1.2E-KJ1
1.1E+00
S.4E-04
2.3E+00
2.7E-05
4.6E+01
1.1E+01
4.1E-02
1.1E-01
1.9E-KJO
6.06+00
8.1E+00
4.0E+00
4.6E+00
4.6E-05
2.2E+00
2.7E-04
1.1E-01
2.3E-01
1.1E-01
2.3E-01
2.3E-01
2.3E-01
2.3E-01
4.0E+01
7.9E-04
2.8E-C1
2.3E+01
4.0E-01
2.4E+01
3.4E+OC
6.7E-01
4.0E+00
1.6E-03
7.9E-02
1.0E+00
5.3E+00
4.0E-01
1.SE+01
7.9E-02
6.7E+OC
1.0E-01
3.2E-01
3.2E-01
4.8E+00
4.0E-01
6.7S+01
6.7E+00
3.6E+01
3.3E+00
1.6E-03
6.7E+00
7.9E-05
3.3£+01
1.2E-01
3.3E-01
5.5E+00
2.3E+01
2.4E+01
1.2E+01
1.3E+01
1.3E-04
6.3E+00
7.9E-04
3.3E-01
6.7E-01
3.3E-01
6.7E-01
6.7E-01
6.7E-C1
6.7E-01
5-41
127
-------
TABLE S.23 - THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS ON CONCERN FOR SELECTED SOURCES UITH A 99X ORE - ASSUMING COMPLEX TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
TOLUENE (BENZENE, METHYL-)
TOLYLENE OIISOCYANATE (BENZENE, 1,3-OIISOCYANATOMETHYL)
TOXAPHENE (CAMPHENE, OCTACHLORO-)
1,2,4-mCHLOROBENZENE
1,1,1-TRICHLCROETHANE (METHYL CHLOROFORM)
1,1,2-TRICHL3ROETHANE (ETHANE, 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-)
TRICHLOR06THENE (TRICHLOROETHYLENE)
TRICHLOROMOKCFLUOROHETHANB
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
1,2,3-TRICHLORO<*ROPAN£, H.O.S.
VAKAD1UM PENTOXIDE (VAN..OIUM CV) OXIOE)
VINYL CHLORIDE (ETHENE, CHLORO-)
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL
COMMENT
ST
ST
ST
RST
ST
ST
ST
RST
R
ST
BOILER
5.1E-02
6.4E-01
3.8E+01
5.SE+01
6.4E-02
1.36+01
DRY CEP.eNT
KILN
9.6E-02
1.2E+00
7.1E+01
1.2E-01
2.4E+01
LT. UT.
AG. KILN
4.8E-02
6.1E-1.-!
3.6E-KJ1
5.5E+01
6.1E-02
1.2E+01
(X BY WEIGHT)
9HST S.
RECOV.
FURK^CE FURNACE
1. 16-03
1.4E-01
8.0E+00
1 .2E+01
7.3E-K)1
4.6E+01
8.1E+01
1.46-02
2.7E+00
3.2E-02
4.0E-01
2.3E+01
3.6E-K51
4.06-02
7.96+00
R * BASED ON RfD ONLY
ST « A TLV-C OR A TLV-ST6L EXISTS FOR THIS SUBSTANCE
ASSUMES FUEL UITH A HEATING VALUE OF 8000 BTU/LB
5-42
128
-------
TABLE 5.24 - CONCENTRATIONS Of CONCERN BASED ON TOXICITY THAT ARE HORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE UMTS IN TABLES 5.17-5.21
FOR SELECTED SOURCES 'JITM 99.99% ORE - ASSUMING FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
CONCENTRATION Of CONCERN IN FUEL (X BY WEIGHT}
DRY CEflENT LT. UT. BLAST S. RECOV.
COMMENT BOILER KILN AC. XIUN FURNACE FURNACE
ACETONITRILEUTHANENITRIL:) ST
ACETOPHENONE(ETHANONE) R
ACROLEIN(2-PROPENAL) ST
ACRYLAHIDE (2-PROPENAMIDE) ST
ACRYLONITRILE (2-PROPENENITRILE)
ALORIN ST
ALLYL ALCHOHC*. ST
ALUMINUM PHOSPHIDE
ANILINE (BENZENAMINE) ST
ANTIMONY AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. 5.7E-02
ARSENIC ANO COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. 2.7E-02
BARIUM ANO COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. 6.7E-02
BARIUM CYANIDE R
BENZENE (CYCLOHEXATRIENE) »7
P-BENZOQUINONE (1,4-CYCLOHEXAOIENEDIONE) ST
BENZYL CHLORIDE (BENZENE, (CHLORCMETHYD-)
BERYLLIUM ANO COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. 2.7E-04
BIS(2-CHLORO:SOP*OPYL) ETHES
BIS(CHLOROMETHYL) ETHER 6.76+00
BIJ<2-£THYLHEXYL> PHTHALATE R
BMOHOHCTHANE (METHYL BROMIDE) R
CADMIUM ANO COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. ST 6.7E-03
CALCIUM CYANIDE R
CARBON BISULFIDE (CARBON BISULFIDE)
CHLOROANE (ALPHA ANO GAMMA 1SOHERS) ST
CHLORINATED BENZENES, N.O.S.
CHLORINATED PHENOL, N.O.S. ST
CHLOROACETALOEHYDE (ACETALOEHYOE, CHLORO-) ST O.OE+00
CHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLC*0-1,3 BUTADIENE ICHLOROPRENE)
1-CHLO«0-2-3-EPOXYPt(OPANE ST
CHLOROFORM (METHANE, TRICHLORO-) ST
CHLOMMETHANE (METHYL CHL03IDE) R
3-CHLOROPROPENE (ALLYL CHLORIDE) ST
CHROMIUM Hi 6.71-02
CHROMIUM IV 6.7E-03
COAL TARS
COPPER CYANIDE R
CRESOLS (CRE5YUC ACID)(PHENOL, HETHYL-)
CKOTONALDEHYOE (2-6UTENAL) ST
CYANIDES (SOLUABLE SALTS ANO COMPLEXES), N.O.S.
CYANOGEN (ETHANEOINITKILE)
CYANOGEN CHLORIDE (CHLORINE CYANIDE) RST
DOT ST
DI-N-8UTYL PHTHALATE (1,2-BENZENEDICARBOXY'.IC ACID...) ST
0-DICHLOROBENZENE (BENZENE, 1,2-DICHLORO-) AST
P-OICHLOROBENZENE (BENZENE, 1,4-DICHLORO-) ST
1.4E-01 3.4E-02 1.9E-02 8.71-03
6.8E-02 1.6E-02 9.1E-03 4.2E-03
1.7E-01 4.0E-02 2.3E-02 1.0E-02
6.8E-04 1.6E-04 9.1E-OS 4.2E-05
1.7E+01 4.0E+00 2.3E*00 1.0E*00
1.7C-02 4.0E-03 2.3E-03 1.0E-03
6.7E-KJ1 3.8E+01 1.7E-KJ1
0.0£*00 O.OE+00 C.OE-K30 O.OE*CO
1.7E-01 4.06-02 2.3E-02 1.06-02
1.7E-02 4.0E-03 2.3E-03 1.0E-03
5-43
-------
TABLE 5.24 - CONCENTRATIONS Of CJNCER* BASED ON TOXICITY THAT A«E MME RES"RICTIVE THAN TH€ LINITS IN TABUS $.17-5.21
KM SELECTED SOURCES WITH 99.99Z DRE - ASSUNINS FLAT TEMAIN
CONCENTRATION Of CONCERN IN FUEL (S BY WEIGHT)
SUBSTANCE
DRY CENEMT LT. UT. BLAST S. RECOY.
BOILER KILN A6. KILN FURNACE FUitSACE
DICHLOROOIFLUOROHETHANE (Mf THANE, OlCHLOROOIFLUOHO-) ST
1,1-OICHLO^OETHANE (ETHYLIDENC 01 CHLORIDE) ST
1,2-OICHLOUOCTHANE (ETHYLENC CU CHLORIDE) ST
DIOUMOtTHYUNC, N.O.S. ST
1,1 DICHLOROCTMYLENf (VINYUIOENE CHLORIDE) ST
DICHLOMHCTMANf (MTrKYUENI CMLOKIOC) ST
2,4-WCHLOHOfHENOL R
1,2-OICHLMOPMMNf (WWrrLBC DICMLORIDE) ST
DICMUMOrWKNf, N.O.S. ST
1,3-eiCMLOKMOKNf R
DIELDRIN ST
0,0 DIEr!YLM40SmO*IC ACID, 0->-*!IT»*HeNYL ESTIR ST
OlfTMYL PHTMALATI R
OMfTMOATE R
^-OINCTMYUHINOAZOKNZENC
1,1-OlWIHYLMYORAZlMi ST
OIMTHYL MTHALATf ST
DlnCTHYL SULFATf CULFURIC ACID, DIMTMYL ESTER)
»lMTM«tNZtNf, N.O.S. ST
*,6-OiriTRO-0-CRESOL AND SALTS ST
2-4-JIMITHOfMCNOL R
2,4-OINITROTOLUENE (BENZENE, 1> ST
2,6-OIMIT»OTOLUEN€ (BENZENI, 1-MfTMYL-2,6-OIN!TRO-> ST
1,4-OIOXANf (1,4-C:ETHYUNC OXIOf) ST
DIM4CNYIAHINC (BENSENAXINE, M-K4CNYL-) ST
5IJULFOTON ST
ENOOSULFAN IT
ENORIN AND NETABOLITES ST
mrru.tt OXIOE
FLUMINt ST
FORNALCEMYM (HCTMYLENf OXIOC) ST
FOMIC ACID (HCTMANOIC ACID)
HtrTACNLO* ST
MGUCNLOMBUTAOIENf
HGUCHLOROCYCLOPfNTAOIENI ST
HtXACMLOMETHANt
HYMAZINC (DIANINE)
HYOROCTANIC ACID (HYDROGEN CYANIDE) RST
HYDROFLUORIC ACID (HYOR06EN FLUORIDE) ST
HYDROGEN SULFIOE (SULFUR HYDRIDE) ST
IRON DCXTRAN (FERRIC DEXTRAN)
ISOBUTYU ALCOHOL (1-MOMNOL. 2-WCTHYL-) ST
LEAD AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. ST
NALEIC ANHYDRIDE (2,5-FURANOIONE)
MERCURY FULHINATE (FULHINIC ACID, MERCURY SALT) R
MERCURY ANO COHfOUNOS, N.O.S.
HeTHANETHIOL (THIOHETHANOL) (METHYL MERCAPTAN)
2.8E*01
7.2E*01
8.0E*01 4.61*01 2.1E-KJ1
1.7E*01 9.6€*CC 4.4£*00
6.71*01 3.8E*01 1.7E*01
B.C«*O1 4.6E*01 2.1E+01
8.0f*01 4.6001 2.11*01
5.3E-O.J 1.3E-02 3.1E-03 1.8E-03 8.2E-C4
6.7E-03 1.7E-02 4.0E-03 2.3E-03 1.0E-03
5-44
130
-------
TABLE 5.2* - CONCENTRATIONS OF CONCERN BASE? ON TOXIC1TY THAT ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE ."HAN THE LIMITS IN TABLES 5.17-5.21
FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH 99.99% OR1- - ASSUMING FLAT TERRAIN
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IS FUEL (X 8Y WEIGHT)
SUBSTANCE
METHOLMYL
NETHOXYCHLCR
METHYL ETHYL KETONE (MEK) (2-BUTAKON6) ST
METHYL HYORAZINE (HYORAZINE, METHYL-) ST
METHYL METHACRYLATE ST
METHYL PARATH10N ST
NAPHTHALENE ST
NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS, ,4.0.8. ST
NICKEL CARBONYL (NICKLE TETRACAR80NYL)
NICKEL CYANIDE (NKKEL(II)CY'JUDk) R
NICOTINE AND SALTS ST
NITRIC OXIDE (NITROGEN (II) OXIDE) ST
P-NITROANILINE (3£NZEKA1INE, 4-NITSO-)
MITROBENIINE ST
NITROGLYCERINE (1,2,3-PROPANETRIOL TRINITRATE)
OSMiUM TETPCXI15 (OSMIUM (VIII) OXIuE) ST
7ARATHION ST
PENTACHLOROBENZENE R
PENTACHLOItONITROBENZENE (PCN8) R
PENTACHLOROPHENOL ST
PHENOL (BENZENE, KYOROXY-) ST
P-PHENYLENEDIAMINE (8EN2ENEDW1INE)
H-PHENYLEN60IAM1K-. R
PHENYLMERCURY ACETATE (MERCURY, ACETATO-PHENYL-^ R
N-PHENYLTHIOUREA (THIOUREA, PHENYL-) R
PHOSGENE (CARBONYL CHLORIDE)
PHOSPHINE (HYDROGEN PHOSPHIDE) ST
PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE ST
POLYCHLOR1NATED B1PHENYL, N-O.S. ST
POTASSIUK CYANIDE R
POTASSIUM SILVER CYANIDE (ARGENTATE(DOICYANO-POTASSIUH) R
PYR1D1NE ST
RESORCINOL (1,3-BENZENEDIOL) ST
SELENIOUS ACID (SELENIUM DIOXIDE) R
SELENIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
SELENOUREA (CARBAMIHinosELENOIC ACID) R
SILVER AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
SILVER CYANIDE R
SODIUM CYANIDE R
STRYCHNINE AND SALTS ST
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE R
1,1>2,2-TETRACHLORETHANE ST
TETRACHLOROETHENE (ETHENE, 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLORO) ST
TETRACHLOROMETHANE (CARBON TETRACHLORIOE) ST
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLOSOPHENOL R
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL R
TETRAETHYL LEAD (PLUMBANE, TETRAETHYL-) ST
DRY CEMENT LT. UT. BLAST S. RECOV.
COMMENT BOILER KILN AG. KILN FURNACE FURNACE
O.OE+00 O.OE+00 O.OE+00 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
1.3E-02 3.4E-02 8.0E-03 4.6E-03 2.1E-03
2.7E+00 6.8E+00 1.6E+00 9.1E-01 4.2E-01
8.0E+01 4.6E*01 2.1E+01
8.0E+01 4.6E+01 2.1E+01
5.7E+01 2.6E+01
2.7E-02 6.8E-02 1.6E-02 9.1E-03 4.2E-03
1.3E-03 3.4E-03 8.0E-04 4.6E-04 2.1E-04
6.8E+01 3.1E+01
2.3E-01 5.8fi-01 1.3E-01 7.7E-02 3.SE-02
5-45
131
-------
TABLE 5.24 - CONCENTRATIONS OF CONCERN BASED ON TOXICITY TVAT ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE LIMITS IN TABLES 5.17-5.21
FOR SELECTED SOURCES UITH 99.99X ORE - ASSUMING FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN Itt FUEL (X BY WEIGHT)
DRY CEMENT LT. UT. BLAST S. RECOV.
COMMENT BOILER KILN AG. KILN FURNACE FURNACE
TETRANITROMETHANE
THALLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. 1.36-02
THALLir OXIDE (THALLIUM (III) OXIDE) R
THALLIUM (1) ACETATE (ACETIC ACID, THALLIUM (I) SALT) R
THALLIUM (I) CARBONATE (CARBONIC ACID,DITHALLIUM(I)SALT) R
THALLIUM (I)CHLORIDE R
THAUIUM
-------
TABLE 5.25 - CONCEKTRATIONS OF CONCERN BASED ON TOXICiTY THAT ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE LIMITS IN TABLES 5.17-5.21
FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99.99X ORE - ASSUMING COMPLEX TERRAI
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL « BY WEIGHT.''
DRY CEMENT LT. UT. BLAST S. RECOV.
SUBSTANCE COMMENT BOILER KILN AG. KILN FURNACE FURNACE
ACETONITRILE(ETHANENITRILE) ST
ACETOPHENONE(ETHANONE) R
ACROLElNte-P'WPENAL) ST
ACRYLAMJDE (2-PROPENAMIDE) ST
ACRYLONITRILE (2-PROPENENITRILE)
ALDRIN ST
ALLYL ALCHOHOL ST
ALUMINUM PHOSPHIDE
ANILINE (3ENZENAMINE) ST
ANTIMONY AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
ARSENIC AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
BARIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
BARIUM CYANIDE R
BENZENE (CYCLOHEXATSIENE) ST
P-BENZOQUINONE (1,4-CYCLOHEXAOIENEDIONE) ST
BENZYL CHLORIDE (BENZENE, (CHLOROMETHYD-)
BERYLLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
BIS<2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
BIS(CHLOROHETHYL) ETHER
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE R
BROMOHETHANE (METHYL BROMIDE) R
CADMIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. ST
CALCIUM CYANIDE R
CARBON BISULFIDE (CARBON BISULFIDE)
CHLORDANE (ALPHA AND GAMMA ISOMERS) ST
CHLORINATED BENZENES, N.O.S.
CHLORINATED PHENOL, N.O.S. ST
CHLOROACETALDEHYOi (ACETALDEHYDE, CHLORO-) ST
CHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLORC-1,3 BUTADIENE (CHLOROPRENE)
1-CHLORO-2-3-EPOXYPROPANE ST
CHLOROFORM (METHANE, TRICHLORC-) ST
CHLOROHETHANE (METHYL CHLORIDE) R
3-CHLOROPROPEN6 (ALLYL CHLORIDE) ST
CHROMIUM III
CHROMIUM IV
COAL TADS
COPPER CYANIDE R
CRESOL3 (CRESYLIC ACIOXPHENOL, METHYL-)
CROTONALOEHYDE (2-BUTENAL) ST
CYANIDES (SOLUABLE SALTS AND COMPLEXES), N.O.S.
CYANOGEN (ETHANEDINITRILE)
CYANOGEN CHLORIDE (CHLORINE CYANIDE) RST
DOT ST
Dl-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE (1,2-BENZEN£DICA*BOXYLIC ACID...) ST
0-OICHLOROEENZENE (BENZENE, 1,2-OICHLORO-) RST
P-OICHLOROBENZENE (BENZENE, 1,4-OICHLORO-) ST
5.4E-03
2.6E-03
6.4E-05
2.6E--05
6.4E-01
6.AE-04
1.1E+01
O.OE+00
1.0E-02 5.1E-03 1.1E-03
4.SE-03 2.4E-U3 5.4E-04
6.1E-03 1.46-03
4.8E-OS 2.4E-05 5.4E-06
1.2E-KW 6.1E-01 1.4E-01
1.2E-03 6.1E-04 1.4E-04
2.0E+01 1.0E+C1 2.3E+CX)
O.OE+00 0.06+00 O.OE+00
6.4E-03
6.4E-C4
1.2E-02 6.1E-03 1.4E-03
1.2E-03 6.1E-O; 1.46-04
4.8E+01
2.0E+*.
2.0E+01
3.36-03
1.66-03
4.06-03
1.6E-05
4.0E-01
4.0E-04
6.76+00
O.OE+00
4.0E-03
4.06-04
1.6E+01
5-47
133
-------
TABLE 5.25 - CONCENTRATIONS Of CMCERN BASED ON TOXICITY THAT ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAU THE LIMITS IN TABLES 5.17-5.21
FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99.99* ORE - ASSUMING COMPLEX TERRAI
CONCENTRATION 0? CONCERN IN FUEL (X BY UEIGKT)
SUBSTANCE
3RY CEMENT LT. UT. BLAST i. »ECOV.
COMMENT BOIL=R KILN AG. KILN FURNACE FURNACE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (METHANE, OICHLOROOIFLUOPO-) ST
1,1-OICHLOROETHANE (ETHYLIDENE BICHLORIDE) ST
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE (ETHYLENE OICHLORIOE) 3T
DICHLOROETHYLENE, N.O.S. ST
1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE (VINYLIDENE CHLORIDE) ST
DICHLOROMETHANE (NETHYLENE CHLORIDE) ST
2,4-OICHLOROPHENOL R
1,2-OICHLOROPROPANE (PROPYLENE DICHLORIDE) ST
DICHLOROPROPENE, N.O.S. ST
1,3-OICHLOROPROPENE R
DIELORIN ST
0,0 OIETHYLPHOSPHORIC ACID, 0-P-NITROPHENYL ESTER ST
OIETHYL PHTHALATE R
OIMETHOATE R
P-OIMETHYLAMINOAZOBENZENE
1,1-OIMETHYLHYORAiINE ST
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE ST
DIMETHYL SULFATE (SULFURIC ACID, DIMETHYL ESTER)
DINITR08ENZENE, N.O.S. ST
4,6-OINITRO-O-CRESOL AND SALTS ST
2-4-DINITROPHENOL R
2,4-OINITROTOLUENE (BENZENE, 1-METHYL-2,4-OINITRO-) ST
2,6-OMlTROTOUIENE (BENZENE, 1-METHYL-2,6-OINlTRO-) ST
1,4-OIOXANE (1.4-DIETHYLENE OXIDE) ST
DIPHENYLAMINE (BENSENAMINE, N-PHENYL-) ST
DISULFOTON ST
ENDOSULFAN ST
ENORIN AND METABOLITES ST
ETHYLENE OXIDE (OXIRANE)
FLUORINE ST
FORMALDEHYDE (METHYLENE OXIDE) S '
FORMIC ACID C1ETHANOK ACID)
HEPTACHLOR ST
HEXACHLOROBUTAOIENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTAOIENE ST
HEXACHLOROETHANE
HYORAZINE (DIAHINE)
HYDROCYANIC ACID (HYDROGEN CYANIDE) RST
HYDROFLUORIC ACID (HYDROGEN FLUORID*} ST
HYDROGEN SULFIDE (SULFUR HYDRIDE) ST
IRON DEXTRAN (FERRIC DEXTRAN)
IS08UTYL ALCOHOL d-PROPANOL, 2-METHYL-) ST
LEAD AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. ST
HALEIC ANHYDRIDE (2,5-FURANOIONE)
MERCURY FULMINATE (FULMINIC ACID, HERCURY SALT) R
MERCURY AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
METHANETHIOL (THIOMETHANOL) (METHYL MERCAPTAN)
4.8E+01
•".3E+01
2.7E+CX3
1.1E+01
2.4E+01 1.2E+01 2.7E+00
5.1E+00 2.5t+00 5.7E-01
2.0E+01 1.0E+01 2.3E+00
1.3E+01
i.31+01
2.4E+01 1.2E+01 2.7E+00
2.4E+01 1.2E+01 2.7E+00
5.1E-G4
6.4E-04
9.SE-04 4.8E-0* 1.1E-04
1.2E-03 6.1E-04 1.4E-04
2.0E-r01
1.6E+0'
7.9E+00
1.7E+00
6.7E+00
1.7E+01
1.9E+01
7.9E+00
7.9E+00
3.1E-O4
4.0E-06
5-48
13-1
-------
TABLE 5.25 - CONCENTRATIONS OF CONCEW. BASED ON TOXICITY THAT ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE LIMITS IN TA3LES 5.17-5.21
FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99.99% ORE - ASSUMING COMPLEX TERRAI
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL U BY WEIGHT)
SUBSTANCE
METHOLMYL
METHOXYCHLOR
METHYL ETHYL KETONE (MEK) (2-6UTANONE)
METHYL HYORAZINE (HYDRAZINE, METHYL-)
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYL PARATHION
NAPHTHALENE
NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
NICKEL WR80NYL (NICKLE TETRACARBONYL)
NICKEL CYANIDE (NICKELUI)CYANIDE)
NICOTINE AND SALTS
NITRIC OXIDE (NITROGEN (II) OXIDE)
P-NITROANILINE (BENZENAMINE, 4-NITRO-)
NITROBENZINE
NITROGLYCERINE (1,2,3-PROPANETRIOL TRINITRATE)
OSMIUM TETROXIOE (OSMIUM (vni) OXIDE)
PARATHION
PENTACHLOROBEN2ENE
PENTACHLORONITROBENZENE (PCNB)
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL (BENZENE, HYOROXY-)
P-PHENYLENEOIAMINE (BENZENEDIAHINE)
M-PHENYLENEDIAMINE
PHENYLHERCURY ACETATE (MERCURY, ACETATO-PHENYL-)
N-PHENYLTHIOUREA (THIOUREA, PHENYL-)
PHOSGENE (CARSONYL CHLORIDE)
PHOSPHINE (HYDROOEN PHOSPHIDE)
PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE
FOLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL, N.O.S.
POTASSIUM CYANIDE
POTASSIUM SILVER CYANIDE (ARGENTATE(DOICYANO-POTASSIUH)
PYRIDINE
RESORCINOL (1,3-8ENZENEO;OL)
SELENIOUS ACID (SELENIUM DIOXIDE)
SELENIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
SELENOUREA (CARBAHIMIDOSELENOIC AC.!D>
SILVER AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
SILVER CYANIDE
SODIUM CYANIDE
STRYCHNINE AND SALTS
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLORcTHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE (ETHENE, 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLORO)
TETRACHLOROMETHANE (CARBON TETRACHLORIDE)
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
TETRAETHYL LEAD (PLUMBANE, TETRAETHYL-)
COMMENT BOILER
ST
ST
5T
ST
ST
ST
R
ST
ST
ST
DRY CEMENT
KILN
LT. UT.
AG. KILN
O.OE+00
1.3E-03
ST
ST
R
R
ST
ST
R
R
R
ST
ST
ST
R
R
ST
ST
R
R
R
ST
R
ST
ST
ST
R
R
ST
2.6E-01
1.3E+01
1.3E+01
1.6E+01
2.6E-03
1.3E-04
1.9E+01
2.2E-02
O.OE+00 O.OE-K30
4.8E+01
2.4E-03 1.2E-03
BLAST i. RECOV.
FURNACE FURNACE
O.OE+00 O.OE+00
1.6E+01
2.7E-04 7.9E-O4
4.8E-01 2.4E-01
2.4E+01 1.2E+01
2.4E+01 1.2E+01
3.0E+01 1.5E+01
5.4E-02
2.7E+00
4.3E-03 2.4E-03
2.4E-04 1.2E-04
1.6E-01
7.9E+00
2.7E+00 7.9E+00
3.4E+00 1.0E+01
5.4E-04 1.SE-03
2.7E-05 7.9E-OS
3.6E+01 1.8E+01 4.1E+00 1.2E+01
4.0E-02 2.0E-02 4.6E-03 1.3E-02
5-49
-------
5.25 - CONCENTRATIONS OF CONCERN BASED ON TOXICITY THAT ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE LIMITS IN TABLES 5.17-5.21
FOR SELECTED SOURCES WlTH A 99.99% ORE - ASSUMING COMPLEX TERRAI
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL (X 3Y WEIGHT)
SUBSTANCE
THALLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
THALLIC OXIDE (THALLIUM (III) OXIDE)
THALLIUM (I) ACETATE (ACETIC ACID, THALLIUM (I) SAcT)
THALLIUM (I) CARBONATE (CARBONIC ACID/OITHALLIUM(I)SALT)
THALLIUM (I)CHLORIDE
THALLIUH(I)NITRATE (NITRIC AC.'O, THALLIUH(I)SALT)
THALLIUM SELENITE
THALLIUM (I) SULFATE (SULFUR1C ACID, THALLIUM (I)SALT)
TOLUENE (BENZENE, METHYL-)
TOLYLENE DIISOCYANATE (BENZENE, 1,3-OIISOCYANATOHETHYL)
TOXAPHENE (CAHPHENE, OCTACHLOM-)
1,2,4-mCHLOROeENZENE
1,1,1-TUICHVOROETHANE (METHYL CHLOROFORM)
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE (ETHANE, 1,1,2-TRlCHLORO-)
TRICHLOROETHENE (TRICHLOROETHYLENE)
TRICHUMOHONOFLUOROHETHANE
2,4,5-IHKHLOKOPHENOL
1,2,3-THICHLOROPtOPANe, N.O.S.
VANADIUM PENTOXIOE (VANADIUM (V) OXIDE)
VINYL CHLORIDE (ETHENE, CHLORO-)
(ETHANE
N.O.S.
OXIDE)
) SAcT)
[)SALT)
4LORIDE
t)SALT)
•LENITE
DSALT)
•THYL-)
tETHYL)
(LORO-)
IENZENE
lOFORM)
(LORO-)
IYLENE)
(ETHANE
IPHENOL
N.O.S.
OXIDE)
ILORO-)
DRY CEMENT LT. UT. BLAST
COMMENT BOILER KILN AG. KILN FURNACE
1.3E-03 2.4E-Q3 1.2E-03 2.7E-04
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
ST
ST 5.1E+00 9.6E+00 4.8E+00 1 1E+00
ST
RST
ST
ST
ST
RST
R
ST
6.4E+00 1.2E+01 6.1E+00 1.4E+00
S. RECOV.
FURNACE
7.9E-04
3.2E+00
4.0E+00
R • BASED ON RfO ONLY
ST » A TLV-C OR A TLV-STEL EXISTS FOR THIS SUBSTANCE
ASSUMES FUEL WITH A HEATING VALUE OF 8000 BTU/Lfl
5-50
-------
JU 5.26 - CONCENTRATIONS OF CONCERN BASED OH TOX::iT' THAT ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE LIMITS INN TABLES 5.17-5.21
SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99X ORE - ASSUMING *LAT TERRAIN
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL U BY WEIGHT)
SUBSTANCE
HENT BOILER
DRY CEMENT LT. UT.
KILN A6. KILN
BLAST S. RECOV.
FURNACE FURNACE
ACETONITRIL£(ETHANENITRiLE> ST
ACETOPHENONE
-------
TABLE 5.26 - CONCENTRATIONS Of CONCERN BASED ON TOUCHY THAT ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE LIMITS INN TABLES 5.17-5.21
SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99X ORE - ASSUMING FLAT TERRAIN
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL tt BY WEIGHT)
DRY CEMENT LT. UT. BUST S. RECOV.
SUBSTANCE MENT 30ILER KILN A6. KILN FURNACE FURNACE
OICHLOROOIFLUOROMETHANE (METHANE, DICHLORODIFLUCftO-) ST
1,1-OICHLORO£THANE (ETHYUDENE 01 CHLORIDE) ST
1,2-OICHLOROETHANE (ETHYLENE OlfHLORIOE) ST
OICHLOHOETHYLENE, N.O.S. ST
1,1 OICHLOROETHYUNE (VINYL19EN6 CHLORIDE) ST
DICHLOROHETHANC (NETHYUEHE CHLORIDE) ST
2,4-OICHLfl*OPHENOL *
1,2-OICHLOfc^ROPANI (PIIOPYLSME OICHLORiOE) ST
OICHLOHOPtOPENE, N.O.S. ST
1,3-OICHLOROPROPENE R
OIELDRIN ST
0,U OIETHYLPHOSPHORIC ACID, 0-P-4UTHOPHENYL ESTER ST
01ETHYL PHTHALATI R
OinETHOATi R
P-OIMETHYLANINOAZOBENZENE
1,1-OINETNYLMYORAZINE ST
OIHETHYL PHTHALATe ST
OIKeTHYV. SULFATE (SULFURIC ACID, OIMETHYt. CSTEX)
DINITMaENZtNE, N.O.S. ST
4,6-OINITHO-O-CRESOL AND SALTS ST 2.7E+00
2-4-OINITMfMENOL R
2,4-OINITROTOLUENE .(BE.'UENE, 1-MrTHYL-2,4-OIN£T1IO-) ST
2,6-OINlTROTOLUENE (BENZENE. 1-«THYL-2,6-OINITRO-> ST
1,4-OIOXAHE (1,4-OIETHYUNE OXIDE) ST
DIPHENYLAHINE (BENSENAMINE, N-PMENYL-) ST
OISULFOTON $7 1.3E+00 3.t£*00
ENOOSULFAN ST 2.8E-01 7.2E-01
ENORIN AND HETUOUTES ST 1.1E+OC 2.9E+00
ETHYLENE OXIDE (OXIRANE)
FLUORINE ST
FORMALDEHYDE (MCTHYLENE OXIDE) ST
FORMIC ACID (NETHANOIC ACID)
HEPTACHLOR ST 2.8E+00
HEXACHLOR06UTAOIENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ST 1.3E+00
HEXACHLOROETHANE
HYORAZ1NE (DIAMINE) 1.3E+00
HYDROCYANIC ACID (HYDROGEN OANIOJ) RST
HYDROFLUORIC ACID (HYDROGEN FLUORIDE) ST
HYDROGEN SULFIOE (SULFUR HYDRIDE) ST
IRON DEXTRAN (FERRIC DEXTRAN)
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL (1-PROMNOL, 2-«eTHYL-) ST
LEAD AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. ST 5.3E-03
MALEIC ANHYDRIDE (2,5-FURANOIONC)
HERCURY FULMINATE (FULHINIC ACID, MERCURY SALT) R
MERCURY AMD COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. 6.7E-03
METHANETHIOL (TH10METHANOLJ (METHYL MERCAPTAN)
2.0000
6.&C+00 1.6E+00
8.0E-01
1.7E-01
6.7E-01
4.6E-01 2.1E-01
9.6E-02 4.4E-02
3.8E-01 1.7E-01
1.96+00
3.4E+00 8.0E-01
3.*E+00 8.0E-01
4.6E-01 2.1E-01
4.6E-01 2.1E-01
1.3£-02 3.1E-03 1.8E-03 8.2E-04
1.7E-02 4.0E-07 2.3E-03 1.0E-03
5-52
138
-------
TABLE i.26 - CONCENTRATIONS OF CONCERN BASES ON TOXICITY THAT ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE LIMITS INN TABLES S.17-5.21
SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99X ORE - ASSUMING FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL (X BY UEISHT)
DRY CEMENT LT. WT. BLAST S. RECOV.
KENT BOILER KILN AC. KILN FURNACE FURNACE
METHOLNYL
METbOXYCHLOR
METHYL ETHYL KETONE (MEK) (2-BUTAHONE) ST
METHYL HYOHAZINE (HYDRA2INE, NETHYL-) ST
METHYt NETHACRYUTE ST
METHYL PAft'THION ST
NAPHTHALENE ST
NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. ST
NICKEL CARBONYL (N1CXLE TETRACAR80MYL)
NICKEL CYANIDE (NICKEL(U)CYANtDE) R
NICOTINE AND SALTS ST
NITRIC OXIDE (NITR06EN (II) OXIDE) ST
P-NITROANILINE (BENZENAMINE, 4-N1TRO-)
NITROBENUNE ST
NITROGLYCERINE (1,2,3-PROPANETRIOL TRINITWTE)
OSHIUN TETROXIOE (OSMIUM (VIII) OXIDE) ST
PARATKION ST
PENTACHLOROBENZENE R
PENTACHLORONITROBENZENE (PCNB) R
KNTACMUMfMEMOL ST
PHENOL (BENZENE, MYDROXY-) ST
P-PNENYLENEOIAMINe (BB)ZENEOIAMINE)
H-PHeNYLENEOIAMINE R
•HENYLMERCURY 4CETATE (MERCURY, ACETATO-PHENYL-) R
N-PM6NYLTHIOUREA (TH10UREA, PHENYL-) R
PHOSGENE (CARBONYL CHLOR!,)E)
PHOSPHIME (H"OROGEN PHOSPHIDE) ST
PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE ST
POLYCHLORINATEt B1PHENYL, N.O.S. ST
POTASSIUM CYANIDE R
POTASSIUM SILVER CYANIDE (ABGENTATECDCICYANO-POTASSIUH) R
PYRIDINE ST
RESORCINOL (1,3-BENZENEOIOL) ST
SELENIOUS ACID (SELENIUM DIOXIDE) R
SELENIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
SELENOUREA iCARBAHIHDOSELENOIC ACI9) R
SILVER AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
SILVER CYANIDE R
SODIUM CYANIDE R
STRYCHNINE AND SALTS ST
1,2,4,5-TFTRACHI.OROBENZENE R
1,1,2,2-TmW.CHLOReTHANE S7
TETRACHLOROETHENE (ETHENE, 1,1,2,2-TfTRACW.ORO) ST
TTnUCHLOROHETHANE (CARBON T-TRACHLORIOE) ST
2,3,7/8-Trn.'ACHLOROPHENOL »
2,3,*,*-TfHSCHLOROPHfNOL R
TETRAETHYL LEAD (PLUr*W,E, TETRAETMYL-) ST
O.OE-KX3 O.Oe+00 3.0E+00 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
2.7E+00 6.8E+00 1.6E+00
1.3E-Q2 3.4E-02 8.0E-03 4.6E-03 2.1E-03
2.7E-C7 6.8E-02 1.6E-02 9.1E-03 4.2E--03
..3t*00 3.4E+00 B.OE-01 4.6E-01 2.1E-01
1.3E+00 3.4E+00 8.0E-01 4.6E-01 2.1£-01
1.7E*00 *.3E*00 1.0E+00 5.7E-01 2.6E-01
2.7E-02 6.8E-02 1.6E-02 9.1E-03 4.2E-Q3
1.3E-03 3.4E-03 8.0E-04 4.6E-04 2.1E-04
2.0E+00 5.1E-KO 1.2E+00 6.8E-01 3.1E-01
2.3E-03 5.8E-03 1.3E-03 7.7E-04 3.SE-04
5-53
-------
TABLE 5.26 - CONCENTRATIONS OF CONCERN BASED ON TOXICITY THAT ARE HORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE LIMITS INN TABLES S.17-S.21
SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99X DRE - ASSUMING FUT TERRAIN
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL (X BY WEIGHT)
SUBSTANCE
DRY CEMENT UT. WT.
MENT BOILER KILN AG. KILN
BLAST S. RECOV.
FURNACE FURNACE
TETRANITROMETHANE
THALLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. 1.3E-02
THAUIC OXIDE (THALLIUM (III) OXIDE) R
THALLIUM U> ACETATE (ACETIC ACID, THALLIUM (I) SALT) R
THALLIUM (I) CARBONATE (CARBONIC ACIO,OITHALHUM(I)SALT) R
THALLIUM (I)CHLORIDE R
THAUIUtKDNITRATE (NITRIC ACID, THALLIUM(I)SALT) R
THALLIUM SELENITC R
THALLIUM (I) SULFATE (SULFUHIC ACID, THALLIUM (I)SALT) R
TOLUENE (BENZENE, METHYL-) ST
TOLYLENE DIISOCYAMATE (BENZENE, 1,3-OIISOCYAHATOMETHYU ST 5.4E-01
TOXAPHCNE (CAMPHEHE, OCTACHLOHO-) ST
1,2,4-TRICHtOHOeENZENE RST
1,1,1-mCHLOROETHANE (METHYL CHLOROFORM) ST
1,1,2-TRlCHLOROETHANE (ETHANE, 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-) ST
TRICHLOROETHENE (THlCHLOROETHYLENE) ST
TRICHLOAOHONOFLUOROHETHANE RST
2,*,5-TMCHUMC*HENOL R
1,2,3-mCHLOROMOMNE, N.O.S. ST
VANADIUM PENTOXIDE (VANADIUM (V) OXIDE) 6.7E-01
VINYL CHLORIDE (E7HENE, CHLOiW-)
3.4E-02
4.6E-03 2. 16-03
1.4E+00 3.2E-01 1.8E-01 8 3E-02
1.71+00 4.06-01 2.3E-01 1.06-01
• BASED ON RfD ONLY
« A TLV-C OR A TLV-STEL EXISTS FOR THIS SU8STANC;
UflES FUEL WITH A HEATING VALUE Of 8000 8TU/LB
5-54
110
-------
E 5.27 . CONCENTRATIONS Of CONCERN USED ON TOXICITY THAT ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE LIMITS IKN TABUS S.17-S.21
FOR SELCCTSD SOURCES 'JITH A 99X ORE - ASSUMING COMPLEX TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
COMMENT
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL (X BY WEIGHT)
DRY CEMENT LT. WT. BLAST S. RECOV.
BO<'.ER KILN A6. KILN FURNACE FURNACE
ACETONITRILE(ETHANENITRiLg) ST
ACETOPH£NONE(ETHAI>ONE) R
ACROCEIN<2-PRO»ei«AL) ST
ACRYLAHIOE (2-PROPENAM1DE) ST
ACRYLONITRILE (2-PROPENENlTRtLE)
AURIN ST
ALLYL ALCHCHOt ST
ALUMINUM PHOSPHIDS
ANILINE (BEKZEMAMME) ST
ANTIMONY AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
ARSENIC AND COMPOUNDS, X.O.S.
BARIUM AHO COMPOUNDS, N.i.S.
BARIUM CYHNIOE R
BENZENE (CYCLOHEXATfJIENE) ST
(1,4-CYCLOHEXA01ENED10NE) ST
BENZYL CHLORIDE (BENZENE, (CHLOROMETH*!.)-)
BERYLLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
BIS(2-CHLC"01SOPIWPYL) ETHER
BIS(OCOMCHCTHYL) ETHER
BIS(2-EtHYLHEm) PHTHALATE R
mOHOMETHANE (METHYL BROMIDE) R
CADMIUM ANO COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. ST
CALCIUM CYANIDE R
CARBON DK'ULFIOE (CARBON BISULFIDE)
CHLORDANE (ALPHA ANO GAMMA ISOHERS> ST
CHLORINATED BENZENES, N.O.S.
CHLORINATED PHENOL, N.O.S. ST
vHLJROACETALDEHYDE (ACETALDEHYDE, CHLORO-) ST
CHLOflOeENZENE
2-CHLORO-1,3 BUTADIENE (CHLOROPRENE)
1-CHLOM-2-3-EPOXYPROPANE ST
CHLOROFORM (METHANE, TRICMLORO-) ST
CHLOMHETHANE (METHYL CHLORIDE) R
3-CHLOROPROPENE (ALLYL CHLORIDE) ST
CHROMIUM III
CHROMIUM IV
COAL TARS
COPPER CYANIDE R
CRESOLS (CRESYLIC ACID)(PHENOL, METHYL-)
CWTONALOEHYDE (2-BUTENAL) ST
CYANIDES (SOLUABLE SALTS ANO COMPLEXES), N.O.S.
CYANOGEN (ETHANEOINITRILE)
CYANOGEN CHLORIDE (CHLORINE CYANIDE) RST
DOT ST
-N-SUTYL PMTHALATE (1,2-8ENZEHEOICAR80XYLlC ACID...) ST
0-OICHLOROSENZENE (BENZENE, 1,2-OICHLORO-) RST
P-OICMLOROUNZENE (BENZENE, 1,4-DICm.ORO-) ST
S.4E-03 1 OE-02 S.1E-03 1.1E-03
2.6E-03 4.8E-CD 2.4E-03 S.4E-04
6.4E-03 1.2E-02 6.1E-03 1.46-03
2.QE-01
?.OE-01
3.3E-03
1.6E-03
4.0E-03
2.64-05 4.8E-05 2.4E-OS S.4E-06 1.6E-05
6.«E-03 1.2E-02 6.1E-03 1.4E-03 4.CE-03
6.4E-04 1.2E-03 6.1E-04 1.4E-04 4.0E-04
1.1E-01 2.0E-01 1.0E-01 2.3E-02 6.7E-02
O.OE-KX O.OE*00 O.OE+00 O.OE+00 O.CE+00
6.AE-03 1.2E-02 6.1E-CQ
6.4E-04 1.2E-03 6.1E-04
4.8E-01
1.4E-03 4.0E-03
1.4E-04 4.0E-04
1.6E-01
5-55
111
-------
TABLE 5.27 - CONCENTRATIONS Of CONCERN BASED ON TOXICITY THAT ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE LIMITS INN TABUS 5.17-5.21
FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99Z ORt - ASSUMING COMPLEX TERRAIN
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL (2 BY WEIGHT)
SUBSTANCE COMMENT
DICHLORODIFLUOROHETHANE (METHANE, DKHLOROOIFLUORO-0 ST
1,1-OICHLOROETHANE (ETHYLIDENE CICHLORIOE) ST
1,2-D1CHLOROETHAN£ (ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE) ST
OICHLOROETHYLENE, N.O.S. ST
1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE (VINYLIOENE CHLORIDE) ST
DICHLOROHETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDE) ST
2,4-OICHLOROPHENOL R
1,2-OlCHLOROPROPANE (PROPYLENE OICHLORIDE) ST
DICHLOROPROPENE, N.O.S. ST
1,3-OICHLOROPROPENE R
OIELDRIN ST
0,0 OIETriYLPHOSPHORIC ACID, 0-P-NITROPHENYL ESTER ST
DIETHYL PHTHALATE R
OIMETHOATE R
P-OIHETHYLAMINOAZOBENZENE
1,1-OIMETHYLHYDRAZINE ST
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE ST
DIMETHYL SULFAfE (SULfURIC ACID, DIMETHYL ESTER)
DINITMBENZENE, N.O.S. ST
4,6-01NITRO-O-CRESOL AND SALTS ST
2-4-OIMTROPHENOL R
2,4-OINITROTOLUEHi (BENZENE, 1-METHYL-2,4-OINITRO-) ST
2,6-OINITROTOLUENE (BENZENE, 1-METHYL-2,6-OINITRO-) ST
1,4-OlOXANE (1,4-DIETHYLENE OXIDE) ST
OIPHENYLAMINE (BENSENANINE, N-PHfeNYL-) ST
OISUvFOTON ST
ENOOSULFAN ST
ENORIN AND META3C1ITES ST
ETHYLENE OXIDE (OXIRANE)
FLUORINE ST
FORMALDEHYDE (METHYLENE OXIDE) ST
FOMtIC ACID (METHANOIC ACID)
HEPTACHLOR ST
HEXAOtUMOeuTAOIENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLO'EN-AOIENE ST
HEXACHLOROETHANE
HYORAZ1NE (DIAHINE)
HYDROCYANIC ACID (HYDROGEN CYANIDE) RST
HYDROFLUORIC ACID (HYDROGEN FLUORIDE) ST
HYDROGEN SULFIDE (SULFUR HYDRIDE) ST
IRON OEXTRAN (FERRIC OEXDUN)
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL (1-PROPANOL, 2-METHYL-) ST
LEAD AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. ST
HALEIC ANHYDRIDE (2,5-FURANOIONE)
MERCURY FULMINATE (FULMINIC ACID, MERCURY SALT) R
MERCURY ANO COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
METHANETHIOL (THIOHCTHANOL) (METHYL HERCAPTAN)
DRY CEMENT LT. WT. BUST S. RECOV.
BOILER KILN AG. KILN FURNACE FURNACE
2.0E-01
4.8E-01
1.6E-01
1.3E-01
2.7E-02
1.1E-01
2.4E-01 1.2E-01 2.7E-02
5.1E-02 2.5E-02 5.7E-03
2.0E-01 1.0E-01 2.3E-02
1.3E-01
1.3E-01
2.4E-01 1.2E-01 2.7E-02
2.4E-01 1.2E-01 2.7E-02
7.9E-02
1.7E-02
6.7E-02
1.7E-01
1.9E-01
7.5E-02
7.96-02
5.1E-04
6.4E-0*
9.5E-04 4.8E-04 1.1E-0*
1.2C-03 6.1E-04 1.4E-0*
3.1E-CA
4.0E-CK
5-56
-------
ABU 5.27 - CONCENTRATIONS Of CONCERN BASED ON TOXIC1TY T.UT ME NODE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE LIMITS UM TABLES 5.17-5.21
FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99S ORE - ASSUMING COMPLEX TERRAIN
CONCENTRATION Of CONCERN IN FUEL (~ BY 'JEIGHT)
SUBSTANCE
DRY CEMENT LT. UT. BLAST S. RECOV.
90ILER KILN AG. KILN FURNACE FURNACF
NETHOLMYL
NETHOXYCHLOR
METHYL ETHYL KETONE (NEK) (2-BUTANONE) ST
METHYL HYORAZINE (HYDRAZINE, METHYL-) ST
METHYL METHACRYLATE ST
METHYL PARATHION ST
NAPHTHALENE ST
NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S. ST
NICKEL CAR80NYL (NICKLE TETRACAR80NYL)
NICKEL CYANIOS (NICKEL(II)CYANIDE) R
NICOTINE AND SALTS ST
NITRIC OXIDE (NITROGEN (II) OXIDE) ST
P-NITROANILINE (BENZENAHINE, 4-NITRO-)
NITROBENZINE ST
NITROGLYCERINE (1,2,3-PROPANETRIOL TRIN1TRATE)
OSMIUM TETROXIDE (OSMIUM (viii) OXIDE) ST
PARATHION ST
PENTAt/4LOROBENZ£t«E R
PENTACHLORONITROBENZENE (PCN6> R
PENTACMi-OROPHENOL ST
PHENOL (BENZENE, HYOROXY-) ST
P-PHENYLENEOIAIIINE (BENZENEOIAHINE)
N-PHENYLENEDIAniN« R
PHENYLM6RCURY ACETATE (HERCUR' , ACETATO-PMENYL-) R
N-PHENYLTHIOUREA (THIOUREA, PHENYL-) R
PHOSGENE (CARBONYL CHLORIDE)
PHOSPHINE (HYDROGEN PHOSPHIDE) ST
PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE ST
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHPNYL, N.O.S. ST
POTASSIUM CYANIDE R
3TASSIUH SILVER CYANIDE (ARGENTATE(1)DICYANO~POTASSIUH> R
P^IDINE ST
RESORCINOL (1,3-BENZENEDIOL) ST
SELENIOUS ACID vSP.ENIUH DIOXIDE) R
SELENIUM AMD COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
SELENOUREA (CAR8AMIHIDOSELENOIC ACID) R
SILVER AW COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
SILVER CYANIDE R
SOOIUH CYANIDE R
STftYCHNlNE ANO SALTS ST
1,2,i,J-TFniACHLOROBENZENE R
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLORETHANE ST
TETRACHLOROETHENE (ETHANE, ^VZ.Z-TTTRACHLORO^ ST
TETMCHLOROMETHANE (CARBON T*TMCHLORIDE) ST
2,3,7,3-TETKACHLOROPHENOL R
2,3,t,6-TrntACMLOROPMENOL R
TETRAETHYL LEAD (PLUMBANE, TETRAETHYL-) ST
o.oe+oo o.OE+oo O.OE+OC O.OE+OO o.oe+oo
4.8C-01 1.6E-01
1.3E-03 2.4E-03 1.2E-03 2.7E-04 7.9E-0«
2.6E-03 4.8E-Q3 2.4E-03 5.4E-04 1.6E-03
1.3E-01 2.4E-OT 1.2E-01 2.7E-02 7.9^-02
1.3C-01 2.4E-01 1.2E-01 2.7E-Q2 7.9E-02
1.65-01 3.0E-01 1.5E-01 '.46-02 1.0E-01
2.6C-03 4.8E-03 2.4E-03 5.4E-04 1.6C-03
1.3E-04 2.4E-04 1.2E-04 2.7E-OS 7.9C-OS
1.9C-01 3.6E-01 1.8E-01 4.1E-02 1.2E-01
2.2E-04 4.0E-04 2.0E-04 4.6E-05 1.3E-04
5-57
-------
TABLE 5.27 CONCENTRATIONS OF CONCERN BASED ON TOXICITY THAT ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE UNITS INN TABLES 5.17-5.21
FOR SELECTED SOURCES UITH A 99X ORE - ASSUMING COMPLEX TERRAIN
CONCENTRATION OF CONCERN IN FUEL tt 8Y WEIGHT)
SUBSTANCE
CONNECT
TETRANITRONETHANE
THALLIUM 4NO COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
THALLIC OXIDE (THALLIU1 (III) OXIDE)
THALLIUM (I) ACETATE (ACETIC ACID, THALLIUM (I) SALT)
THALLIUM (I) CARBONATE (CARBONIC ACID,01TKALLIUN(I)SALT)
THALLIUM (IKHLORIDE
THALLIUM(I)N1TRATE (NITRIC ACID, THALLIUM(I)SALT)
THALLIUM SELENITE
THALLIUM (I) SULFATE (SULFuRIC ACID, THALLIUM (I)SALT)
TOLUENE ISENZEN6, METHYL-)
TOLYLENE DIISOCYANATE (BENZENE, 1,3-OlISOCYANATONtTHYL)
TOXAPHENE (CAMPHENC, OCTACHLORO-)
1,2,4-TRlCHLOROBENZENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHAN6 (HETHYL CHLOROFORM)
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE (EThANE, 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-)
TRICHLOROETHENE (TRICHLOROETHYLENE)
TRICHLOROHONOFLUOROMETHANE
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPAXE, N.O.S.
VANADIUM PENTOXIDE (VANADIUM (V) OXIDE)
VINYL CHLORIDE (ETHCNE, CHLORO-)
DRY CEMENT LT. UT. BUST S. RECOV.
BOILER KILN AC. KILN FURNACE FURNACE
1.3E-03 2.4E-03 1.2E-03 2.7E-0*
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
ST
ST 5.1E-02 9.6E-02 4.8E-02 1.1E-02
ST
RST
ST
ST
ST
RST
R
ST
7.9E-04
3.2E-02
6.4C-02
1.2E-O1 6.1E-02 1.4c-02
4.0E-02
R » BASED ON Rt0 ONLY
ST * A TLV-C OR A TLV-STEL EXISTS FOR THIS SUBSTANCE
ASSUMES FUEL UITH A HEATING VALUE OF 9000 BTU/LB
5-58
111
-------
TABLE'S.28 - CARCINOGENIC COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN FOft SELECTED SOURCES UITH A 99X ORE - ASSUMING PUT TERRAIN
CONCENTRATIONS OF CONCERN IN FUEL CX BY
SUBSTANCE
ACRYLAMIOE
ACRYLONITRILE (2-PROPENENITRILE)
AFUTOXINS
ALDRIN
AMITBOU 00
1E-03
6E+00
6E+00
1E-02
5E-01
2E-01
2E-03
1E+00
2E-01
6E+00
3E-C3
1E+00
5E+00
7E+00
5E+00
6E+00
2E-01
SE-04
6E-02
1E+00
4E-02
4E-03
1E-01
SE-02
1E+00
5E*00
5E+00
1E*CB
4E-KX)
6E+00
1E-01
4E-G3
6E-Q2
3E«00
3E+00
6E*OC
2E+00
4E*00
3E+00
3E+CO
3E+00
SE-01
5E-01
6fc+00
WEIGHT)
LT. UT. BLAST S. RECOV.
KILN FURNACE FURNACE
1E-01
9E-01
2E-04
3E-02
4E-01
1EXM
3E-04
1E+00
1E+00
3E-03
1E-01
4E-02
SE-04
3E-01
SE-02
1E+00
8E-04
2E-01
1E+OO
2E+00
1E-MX
1E*00
SE-02
1E-04
2E-02
3E-01
9E-03
1E-03
3E-02
1E-02
2E-01
1E+00
1E*00
3E-01
1E+00
1E*00
3E-02
9E-04
1E-02
BE-01
8E-01
2E*00
4E-01
1E+OO
TE-01
7E-01
7E-01
1E-01
1E-01
1E+00
6E-02
5E-01
9E-05
2E-02
3E-01
8E-01
2E-04
SE-01
8E-01
2E-03
7E-02
2E-02
3E-04
2E-01
3E-02
8E-01
4E-04
1E-01
7E--01
9E-T1
7F- J1
'^-01
3E-02
7E-05
9E-03
2E-01
5E-03
6E-04
2E-02
6E-03
1E-01
7E-01
7E-01
2E-01
6E-01
8E-01
2E-02
5E-O4
8E-03
4E-01
4E-01
9E-01
2E-01
6E-01
4E-01
4E-01
4E-01
7E-02
7E-02
8E-01
3E-02
2E-01
4E-05
76-03
1E-01
4E-01
8E-OS
4E-01
3E-01
7E-04
3E-02
1E-02
1E-04
8E-02
1E-02
4E-01
2E-04
6E-02
3E-01
4E-01
3E-01
4E-01
1E-02
3E-05
4E-03
8E-02
2E-03
3E-04
7E-03
3E-03
6E-02
3E-01
3E-01
9E-02
3E-01
4E-01
7E-03
?E-04
3E-03
2E-01
2E-01
4E-01
1E-01
3E-01
2E-01
2E-01
2E-01
3E-02
3E-02
4E-01
lir
-------
TABLE 5.28 - CARCINOGENIC COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 997 ORE - ASSUMING FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
HEXACHLOaOBUTAD IENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE
HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-010XINS
HEXACHLOROETHANE
HYORAZINE (DIAMINE)
HYDRAZINE SULFATE
KEPONE
3-HETHYLCHOLANTHRENE
METHYL HYORAZINE
4,4' -f.ETHYLENE-BIS-2-CHLOROANILlNE
NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
4-NITROOUINOLINE-1 -OXIDE (QUINOLINE, 4-NITRO-1 -OXIDE-)
2-NITROPROPArtE
N-NITROSOOI-N-BUTYLAMINE
N-NITROSO?:rTHYLAMINE (ETHANAMINE, N-ETHYL-N-NITROSO-)
N-NITROSOOIHETHYLAMINE (DIMETHYLNITROSAMINE)
N-NITROSO-N-ETHYLUREA (N-ETHYL-N-NITROSOCAR8AMIDE)
N-NITROSO-N-«ETHYLUREA (N-METHYL-N-NITROSOCARBAMIDE)
N-NITROSOPYRROLIDINE
PENTACHLORONITROBENZENE (PCNB)
POLYCHLORINATED B1PHENYL. N.O.S.
PRONAMIOE
RESPERINE
SARFOLE (1,2 NETHYLENEOIOXY-4-ALLYLBENZENE)
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLOROOIBENZO-P-010X:N (TCOO)
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLORETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHANF (1,1,2,2-TETRACHLCROETHLYENE)
TETRACHLOROHETHANE ( CARBON-TETRACHLORIDE)
THIOURSA (THIOCARBAMIDE)
TOXAPHENE (OCTACHLOROCAMPHENE)
1,1,1-TRICHtOROETHANE (METHYL CHLOROFORM)
1 , 1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE (TRICHLOROETHYLENE)
2, 4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
VINYL CHLORIDE (CHLOROETHLYENE)
BASED ON PIC* FOR NON-CARCINOGENIC POHC*
E?A
CUSS
c
B2 or
32
B2
82
B2
B2
82
B2
A
82
B2
82
C
82
82
C
C
82
82
C
C
82
82
82
82
CONCENTRATIONS OF CONCERN IN
DRY CEMENT LT. UT.
BOILER KILN KILN
2E+00
7E-02
1E-04
2E+00
7E-02
7E-02
9E-02
9E-02
5E-01
2E+00
7E-03
2E-02
9E-02
1E-01
2E-02
3E-02
2E-02
2E-04
42-01
1E+00
2E-01
2E+00
7E-02
2E+00
5E-06
5E-04
3E+00
2E+00
4E-01
6E-01
3E+00
2E+00
3E+00
2E+00
2E+00
3E-HX
5E+00
2E-01
3E-04
6E+00
2E-01
2E-01
2E-01
2E-01
1E+00
4E+00
2E-02
5E-02
2E-01
4E-01
SE-02
8E-02
6E-02
6E-OA
1E+00
4E+00
4E-01
6E+00
2E-01
6E+00
1E-05
1E-03
7E+00
6E+00
1E+00
1E+00
7E+00
6E+00
7E+00
6E+00
6E+00
7E-KXJ
1E+00
4E-02
SE-OS
1E+00
4E-02
4E-02
SE-02
5E-02
3E-01
1E+00
4E-03
1E-02
5E-02
8E-02
1E-02
2E-02
1E-02
1E-04
?E-01
8E-01
1E-01
1E+00
4E-02
1E+00
3E-06
3E-04
2E+00
1E+00
2E-01
3E-01
2E+00
1E+00
2E+00
1E+00
1E+00
2E+00
FUEL (2 BY WEIGHT)
BLAST
FURNACE
7E-01
2E-02
4E-OS
8E-01
2E-02
2E-02
3E-02
3E-02
2E-01
6E-01
3E-03
7E-03
3E-02
SE-02
6E-03
1E-02
8E-03
8E-05
1E-01
5E-01
6E-02
8E-01
3E-02
SE-01
2E-06
2E-04
9E-01
8E-01
1E-01
2E-01
9E-01
7E-01
9E-01
8E-01
8E-01
9E-01
S. RECOV.
FURNACE
3E-01
1E-02
2E-05
4E-01
1E-02
1E-02
1E-02
. 1E-02
' 8E-02
3E-01
1E-03
3E-03
1E-02
2E-C2
3E-03
5E-03
4E-03
3E-05
6E-02
2E-01
3E-02
4E-01
1E-02
4E-01
8E-07
7E-05
4E-01
3c-01
6E-C2
9E-02
4E-01
3E-01
4E-01
4E-01
4E-01
ASSUMES FUEL WITH A HEATING VALUE OF 8000 BTU/LB
5-60
-------
TABLE 5.29 - CARCINOGENIC COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99X ORE - ASSUflING COMPLEX TERRAIN
CONCENTRATIONS OF CONCERN IN FUEL (Z BY WEIGHT)
SUBSTANCE
ACRYLAMIOE
ACRYLONITRILE (2-PROPENENITRILE)
AFUTOXINS
ALORIN
AHITROU MH-1,2,4-TRIAZOL-3-AMINE)
ANILINE (BENZENAMINE)
ARSENIC AND COMPOUNDS N.O.S.
BENZENE
BENZENE, OICHLOROMETHYL-
-------
TABLE 5.29 - CARCINOGENIC COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN FOR SELECTED SOURCES WITH A 99X ORE - ASSUMING COMPLEX TERRAIN
CONCENTRATIONS Of CONCERN IN
SUBSTANCE
HEXACHLOROBUTAOIENE
HEXACHLOROfVCLOHEXANE
HEXACHLPROOIBENZO-P-OIOXINS
HEXACHLOROETHANE
HYORAZ1NE (DIAMINE)
HYORAZINE SULFATE
KEPONE
3-METHYLCHOLANTHRENE
METHYL HYORAZINE
,4,4' -METHYLErtE-BIS-2-CHLOROANILINE
NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
4-NITROQUINOLINE-i-OXIOE (QU INCLINE, 4-NITRO-1 -0X106- )
2-NITROPROPANE
N-MITROSOOI-N-BUTYLAMINE
N-NITROSOOIETHYLAHINE (ETHANAMIN6, N-ETHYL-N-N1TROSO-)
N-NITROSODIHETHYLAMINE (DIMETHYLNITROSAMINE)
N-NITROSO-N-ETHYLUREA (N-ETHYL-N-NITROSOCARBAMIDE)
N-NITROSO-N-METHYLUREA (N-METHYL-N-NI7ROSOCARBAMIOE)
N-NITROSOPYRRC'.ID INE
PENTACHLORONITROBENZE.NE (PCN6)
POLYCHLORINATED 8IPHENYL. N.O.S.
PRONAMIDE
RESPERINE
SARFOLE (1,2 METHYLENEDIOXY-4-ALLYLBENZENE)
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-OIOXIN (TCOD)
1 , 1 ,2,2-TETRACHLORETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHANE (1,1,2, 2-TETRACHLOROETHLYENE)
TETKACHLOROHETHANE (CARBON-TETRACHLOKIDE}
THIOUREA (THIOCARBAMIOE)
TOXAPHENE (OCTACHLOROCAPPHENE)
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE (METHYL CHLOROFORM)
1 , 1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE (TRICHLOROETHYLENE)
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
VINYL CHLORIDE (CHLOROETHL'^E)
BASED ON PIC* FOR NON-CARCINOGENIC POHCs
EPA
CLASS
C
82 or
B2
B2
B2
82
B2
B2
B2
A
82
82
82
C
B2
82
C
C
82
82
C
C
82
92
B2
82
BOILER
2E-01
7E-03
1E-05
6E-03
6E-03
3E-03
8E-03
55-02
2E-01
7E-04
2E-07.
8E-03
1E-02
2E-03
3E-03
2E-03
21-05
4E-02
1E-01
2E-02
7E-03
Sfc-07
4E-05
4E-02
5E-02
DRY CEMENT
KILN
4E-01
1E-02
2E-05
4E-01
1E-02
1E-02
2E-02
2E-02
1E-01
3E-01
1E-03
3E-03
2E-02
2E-02
3E-03
5E-03
4E-03
4E-05
7E-02
2E-01
3E-02
4E-01
1E-02
4e-01
9E-07
8E-05
5E-01
4E-01
7E-C2
1E-01
5E-01
4E-01
5E-01
4E-01
4E-01
5E-01
LT. UT.
KILN
2E-01
6E-03
1E-05
6E-03
6E-03
8E-03
8E-03
5E-02
1E-01
7E-04
2E-03
8E-03
1E-02
2E-03
3E-03
2E-03
«!E-05
3E-02
1E-01
2E-02
7E-03
5E-07
4E-OS
JE-02
5E-02
2E-01
FUcL (X
BUST
FURNACE
4E-02
1E-03
3E-06
1E-03
1E-03
2E-03
2E-03
1E-02
3E-02
2E-04
4E-04
2E-O5
3E-03
4E-04
6E-04
5E-04
5E-06
8E-03
3E-02
3E-03
5E-02
1E-03
5E-02
1E-07
9E-06
4E-02
8E-03
1E-02
4E-02
5E-02
5E-Q2
BY USIGHT)
S. RECOV.
FURNACE
1E-01
4E-03
8E-06
1E-01
4E-03
4E-03
5E-03
5E-03
3E-02
1E-01
4E-04
1E-03
5E-03
8E-03
1E-03
2E-03
1E-03
1E-05
2E-02
8E-02
1E-02
1E-01
4E-03
1E-01
3E-07
3E-05
2E-01
1E-01
2E-02
y.-az
2E-01
1E-01
2E-01
1E-01
1E-01
2E-01
ASSUMES FUEL UITH A HEATING VALUE OF 8000 8TU/LB
5-62
118
-------
TABLE 5.30 - REFERENCE EMISSION FACTORS FOR- THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS FOR SELECTED SOURCES IN FLAT TEW IN
SUBSTANCE
ACETONITRILE(ETHANENITRILE)
ACETOPHENONE(ETHANONE)
ACROLEIN(2-PROPeNAL)
ACRYLAH1DE (2-PROPENAMIDE)
ACRYLONITRILE (2-PROPENENITRILE
ALORI
ALLYL ALCHOHOL
ALUMINUM PHOSPHIDE
ANILINE (BENZENAMINE)
ANTIMONY AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
ARSENIC AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
BARIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
BARIUM CYANIDE
BENZENE (CYCLOHEXATRIENE)
P-BENZOOUINONE <1,4-CYCLOHEXAOIENEOIONE)
BENZYL CHLORIDE (BENZENE, (CHLOROMETHYL)
BERYLLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
8IS(2-ChLOROISOPROPYL)
BJS(CHLOROMETHYL)
BIS(2-£THYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
BROMOMETHANE (METHYL BROMIDE)
CADMIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
CALCIUM CYANIDE
CARBON OISULFIDE (CARBON BISULFIDE)
CHLOROANE (ALPHA AND GAMMA >
CHLORINATED BENZENES,
CHLORINATED PHENOL,
CHLOROACETALOEHYOE (ACETALOEHYOE, CHLORO-)
CHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLORO-1,3 BUTADIENE (CHLOROPRENE)
1>CHLC«0-2-3-EPO-YPftOPANE
CHLOROFORM (METHANE, TRICHLORO-)
CHLOROMEfHANE (METHYL CHLORIDE)
3-CHLOROPROPENC (ALLYL CHLORIDE)
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
COAL Ti
COPPER CYANIDE
CRESOLS (CRESYLIC ACIOXPHENOt, METHYL-
CROTONALDEHYOE (2-BUTENAL)
CYANIDES (SOLUA8LE SALTS AND COMPLEXES, N.O.S.
CYANOSEN (EfHANEOINITRlLE)
CYANOSEN CHLORIDE (CHLORINE CYANIDE)
DOT
OI-N-8UTYL PHTHAUTT M,2-8ENZENEOICARBOXYLIC ACID...)
C-OICHLOR08ENZENE (BENZENE, 1,2-OICHLORO-)
P-OICHLOROBEHZENE (BENZENE, 1,OOlCHLORO->
OICHLORODIFLUOROMg-XANE (rtETHANE, DICHLOROOULUORO-)
1,1-OICHLOROETHANE (ETHYLIOENE 9ICHLORIDE)
1,2-DICHiOROETHANE (ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE)
LT. UT.
DRY CEMENT AGGREGATE
COMMENT
1LE) ST
INE) R
IAD ST
DE) iT
:LE)
IRIN ST
IHOL ST
IIDE
:NE) ST
I.S.
I.S.
I.S.
IIDE ft
ME) ST
ME) ST
.)-)
I.S.
•HER
•HER
.ATE R
DE) R
I.S. ST
IIDE R
DE)
;RS) ST
I.S.
I.S. ST
10-) ST
:ENE
:NE)
'ANE ST
10-) ST
DE) »
DE) ST
111
1 IV
'AftS
IIDE R
l->
IAL) ST
I.S.
:LE)
IDE) m
DOT ST
..) ST
10- ) RST
«-> rr
10-) ST
IDE) ST
DE) ST
BOILER
2.8F+00
1.4E+02
4.2E-02
S.OE-02
7.6E-01
4.2E-02
8.4E-01
7.1E-02
1.7E+00
7.1E-02
3.4E-02
8.4E-02
1.4E+01
3.0E+00
6.7E-02
8.4E-01
3.4E-04
8.4E-01
8.4E-04
4.9E+00
2.1E-01
8.4E-03
7.1E+00
S.OE+00
1.4E-Q2
5.76+01
8.4E-02
O.OE+00
6.7E+00
7.1E-01
1.7E+00
8.4E+00
1.4E+02
5.0E-01
8.4E-02
8.46-03
3.4C-02
1.4E+01
3.7E+00
1.06+00
8.4E-01
3.46+00
1. 46+01
1.7E-01
8.46-01
3.56+00
3.56+00
4.96+01
1.46+01
6.7E+00
KILN
7.2E+00
3.6E+02
1.16-01
1.3E-01
1.96+00
1.1E-01
2.1E+00
1.3E-01
4.3E+00
1.8E-01
8.66-02
2.16-01
3.6E+01
1.3E+01
1.76-01
2.1E+00
8.66-04
2.16+00
2.1E-03
1.3E+01
S.4E-01
2.16-02
1.86+01
1.36+01
3.66-02
1.56+02
2.1E-01
O.OE+00
1.76+01
1.8E+00
4.3E+OC
2.1E+01
3.6E+02
1.3E+00
2.1E-01
2.1E-02
8.6E-02
3.6E+01
9.4E+00
2.6E+00
2.1E+00
8.66+00
3.66+01
4.3E-01
2.1E+00
9.0E+00
9.0E+00
1.3E+C2
3.6E+01
1.76+01
KILN
1.7E+00
8.4E+01
2.SE-02
3.0E-02
4.5E-01
2.56-02
5.06-01
4.26-02
1.06+00
4.26-02
i CE-02
S.OE-02
8.4E+00
3.0E+00
4. CE-02
5.0E-01
2.06-04
5.06-01
5.06-04
2.9E+00
1.3E-01
5.0E-03
4.2E+00
3.06+00
8.4E-03
3.5E+01
S.OE-02
O.OE+00
4.06+00
4.26-01
1.06+00
5. 06+00
8. 46+01
3.0E-01
S.OE-02
5. 06-03
2.06-02
8.4E+00
2.2E+00
6.06-01
5.0E-01
2.0E+00
8.4E+00
1.0E-01
5.0E-01
2.1E+00
2.16+00
2.96+01
8.46+00
4.0E+00
BLAST
FURNACE
9.6E-01
4.86+01
1 46-02
1.7E-02
2.6E-01
1.46-02
2.SS-01
2.4E-02
5.7E-01
2.46-02
1.16-02
2.86-02
4.86+00
1.76+00
2.36-02
2.8E-01
1.1E-04
J.8E-Q1
2.8E-04
1.7E+00
7.2E-02
2.86-03
2.46+00
1 7E+00
4.86-03
2.0E+01
2.8E-02
O.OE+00
2.3E+00
2.4E-01
5.76-01
2.8E+00
4.8E+01
1.7E-01
2.8E-C2
2.8E-03
1.1E-02
4.8E+00
1.3E+00
3.46-01
2.8E-01
1.1E+00
4.8E+00
5.7E-02
2.8E-01
1.2E+CO
1.2E+00
1.7E+01
4.8E+00
2.3E+00
SULFUR
RECOVEhY
FURNACE
4.4E-Q1
2.2E+01
6.5E-03
7.8E-03
1.26-01
6.5E-03
1.3E-01
1.1E-02
2.6E-01
1.1E-32
5.2E-03
1.3E-02
2.2E+00
7.8E-01
1.06-02
1.36-01
5.2E-05
1.3E-01
1.3E-C4
7.76-01
3.36-02
1.36-03
1.16+00
7.8E-01
2.2E-03
9.1E+00
1.3E-02
O.OE+00
1.0E+00
1.1E-01
2.66-01
1.36+00
2.26+01
7.86-02
1.36-02
1.36-03
5.26-03
2. 26+00
5.7E-01
1.66-01
1. 36-01
S.2E-01
2.2E+00
2.6E-02
1.36-01
5.56-01
5.56-01
7.7E+00
2.2E+00
1.0E+00
5-63
-------
TABLE 5.30 - REFERENCE EMISSION FACTORS FOR THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS FOR SELECTED SOURCES IN FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
1,1 OICHLOROETHYLENE (VINYLIDENE CHLORIDE)
DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDE)
2,4-OICHLOROPH€NCL
1,2-OICHLOROPROPANE (PROPYLENe BICHLORIDE)
DICHLOROPROPSNE, N.O.S.
1,3-OICHLOROPROPENE
DIELDRIN
0,0 OIETHYLPHOSPHOR1C ACiD, 0-P-NITROPHENYL ESTER
D1ETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHOATE
P-OIMETHYUM1NOAZ08ENZENE
1,1-OIHETHYLHYORAi'INE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL SULFATE (SULFURIC ACID, DIMETHYL ESTER)
01NI1ROBENZENE, N.O.S.
4,6-OINITRO-O-CRESOL AND SALTS
2-4-01NITROPHENOL
2,4-OINITROTOLUENE (BENZENE, 1-«£THYL-2,4-OINITRO-)
2,6-OINITROTOLUENE (8ENZENE, 1-METHYL-2,6-OINITRO-)
1,4-OIOXANE (1,4-DIETHYLENE OXIDE)
OIPHENYLAMINE (8ENSENAMINE, N-PHENYL-)
DISULFOTON
ENOOSULFAN
ENORIN AND METABOLITES
ETHYLEHE OXIDE (OXIRANE)
FLUORINE
FORMALDEHYDE (METHYLENE OXIDE)
FORMIC ACID (METHANOIC ACID)
HEPTACHLOR
HEXACHLOROP'JTAOIENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTAOIENE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
HYDRAZINE (DIAMINE)
HYDROCYANIC ACID iHYOPOSEN CYANIDE)
HYDROFLUORIC ACID (HYDROGEN FLUORIDE)
HYDROGEN SULFIDE (SULFUR HYDRIDE)
IRON OEXTRAN (FERRIC DEXTRAN)
IS08UTYL ALCOHOL (1-PROPANOL, 2-METHYL-)
LEAD AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
MALEIC ANHYDRIDE (2,5-FURANOIONE)
MERCURY FULMINATE (FULMINIC ACID, MERCURY SALT)
MERCURY AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
METHANETHIOL (THIOMETHANOL) (METHYL MERCAPTAN)
METHOLMYL
METHOXYCHLOR
METHYL ETHYL KETONE (MEK) (2-BUTANONE)
METHYL HYORA2INE (HYDRAZINE, METHYL-)
N.O.S.
ILORIDE)
ILORICc)
lOPHENCL
ILORIDE)
N.O.S.
IPROPENE
IIELDRIN
'L ESTER
ITHALATE
IETHOATE
I6ENZENE
'ORAilNE
ITHALATE
. ESTER)
N.O.S.
ID SALTS
OPHENOL
.NITRO-)
NITRO-)
! OXIDE)
•HENYL-)
ULFOTON
OSULFAN
BOLITES
IXIRANE)
LUORINE
OXIDE)
C ACID)
TACHLOR
ITAOIENE
TAD IENE
OETHANE
IAMINE)
YANIDE)
UORIDE)
YDRIDE)
EXTRAN)
ETHYL-)
N.O.S.
NOIONE)
Y SALT)
N.O.S.
CAPTAN)
THOLMYL
XYCHLOR
TANONE)
ETHYL-)
CRYLATE
RATHION
COMMENT
ST
ST
ST
R
ST
ST
R
ST
ST
R
R
ST
ST
ST
ST
R
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
RST
ST
ST
ST
ST
R
ST
ST
ST
ST
5-
150
c
BOILER
1.3E+02
3.4E+CO
5.9E+0-!
r.-'E-oi
5.96+01
8.4E-01
7.1E-02
4.2E-02
3.4E-01
3.3E+03
4.9E-01
1.7E+OD
1.7E-01
8.4E-01
8.«E-02
1.7E-01
3.4E-02
4.9E-01
2.5E-01
2.5E-01
1.5E+01
1.7E+00
1.7E-02
3.SE-03
1.4E-02
3.4E-01
3.4E-01
2.5E-01
1.5E+00
3.5E-02
4.0E-02
1.7E-02
1.7E+01
1.VE-02
4.9E+00
4.2E-01
7.1E-01
1.7E-01
2.5E+01
2.6E-Q2
1.7E-01
7.1E-01
8.4E-03
1.7E-01
4.2E-01
1.7E+00
2.1E-K31
O.OE+00
6.9E+01
3.4E-02
64
IRY CEN6NT
KI' .:
5.4E+02
S.6E+00
"•j+ca
... E+00
1..-E+02
2.1E-K30
1.8E-01
1.1E-01
2.1E»00
8.3E+03
1.3E+00
4.3E+00
4.3E-01
2.1 E+00
2.1E-01
4.3E-01
8.6E-02
1.3E+00
6.4E-01
6.4E-01
3.9E+01
4.3E+00
4.3E-02
9.0E-03
3.6E-02
8.6E-01
8.6E-01
6.4E-01
3.9E+00
9.0E-02
1.0E-01
4.3E-02
4.3E+01
4.3E-02
1.3E+01
1.1E+00
1.8E+00
4.3E-01
6.4E+01
6.7E-02
4.3E-
-------
TABLE 5.30 - REFERENCE EMISSION FACTORS FOR THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS FOR SELECTED SOURCES IN FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
NAPHTHALENE
NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
NICKEL CARBONYL (NICKLE TETRACARBONYL)
NICKEL CYANIDE (NICKELUIKYANIOE)
NICOTINE AND SALTS
NITRIC OXIDE (NITROGEN (II) OXIDE)
P-NITROANILINE (BENZENAHINE, 4-NITRO-)
NUROBENZINE
NITROSLYCEPINE (1,2,3-PROPAN6TRIOL TRINITRAT6)
OSIIIUN TETROXIOE (OSMIUM (VIII) OXIDE)
PARATHION
PENTACHLOAOBENZENE
PENTACHLORONITROBENZEN6 (PCNB)
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL (BENZENE, HYOROXY-)
P-PHENYLENEDIANINE (BENZENEDIAHINE)
N-PHENYLENEDIANINE
PHENYL.1ERCURY ACETATE (MERCURY, ACETATO-PHENYL-)
N-PHENYLTHIOUREA (THIOUREA, PHENYL-)
PHOSGENE (CARBONYL CHLORIDE)
PHOSPHINE (HYDROGEN PHOSPHIDE)
PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE
POLYCHLORINATEO BIPHENYL, N.O.S.
POTASSIUM CYANIDE
POTASSIUM SILVER CYANIDE (ARGENTAT6(1)DICYANO-POTASSIUM)
PYRtDINE
RESORCINOL (1,3-BENZENEDIOL)
SELENIOUS ACID (SELENIUM DIOXIDE)
SELENIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
SELENOUREA (CARBAHINIDOSELENOIC ACID)
SILVER AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
SILVER CYANIDE
SODIUM CYANIDE
STRYCHNINE AND SALTS
1 ,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1 , 1 ,2,2-TETRACHLORETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE (ETHENE, 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLORO)
TETRACHLOROMETHANE (CARBON TfTRACHi-ORIOE)
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLCaOPHENOL
2,3,4,6-TET«ACHLOROPH6«OL
TETRAETHYL L£AO (PLUMSANE, TETRAETHYL-)
TETRANITROHETHANE
THALLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
THALLIC OXIDE (THALLIUM (III) OXIDE)
THALLIUM (I) ACETATE (ACETIC ACID, THALLIUM (I) SALT)
THALLIUM (I) CARBONATE (CARBONIC ACID,OITHALLIUfl(I)SALT)
THALLIUM (DCHLORIDE
THALLIUMfDNITRATE (NITfIC ACID, THALLIUM(I)SALT)
THALLIUM SELEN1TE
THALLIUM (I) SULFATE (SULF'JRIC ACID, THALLIUM (I)SALT)
COMMENT
ST
ST
R
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
R
R
ST
ST
R
R
R
ST
ST
ST
R
R
ST
ST
R
R
R
R
ST
R
JT
ST
ST
R
R
ST
BOILER
8.4E*00
1.7E-C2
S.9E-02
4.9S*00
8.4E-02
5.06-KJO
5.0E-J1
1.46-01
8.46-01
3.4E-04
1.7E-02
2.1--01
2.0E-HXI
8.4E-02
3.26*00
1.7E-02
1.46*00
2.1E-02
4.9E*01
6.7E-02
6.7E-02
1.06*00
8.46-02
1.46*01
4.96*01
1.46*00
7.66+00
7.1E-01
3.4E-02
1.4E+00
1.7E-03
2.86*01
7.16*00
2.56-02
7.1E-02
1.2E+00
4.9E+00
5.0E+00
2.5E+00
2.8E+00
2.8E-05
1.3E+00
1.7E-02
7.1E-02
1.4E-01
7. 15-02
1.4E-01
1. 46-01
1.4E-01
1.46-01
CRY CEMENT
KILN
2.1E-.K31
4.3E-02
1.5E-01
1.3E+01
2.1E-01
1.3E+01
1.3E+00
3.6E-01
2.1E+00
8.6E-04
4.3E-02
S.4E-01
5.0E+00
2.1E-01
8.1E+00
4.3E-02
3.6E+00
S.4E-02
1.3E+02
1.7E-01
1.7E-01
2.66+00
2.1E-01
3.6E+01
1.3E+02
3.6E+00
1.9E+01
1.8E+00
8 66-02
3.6E+CO
4.3E-03
7.2E*01
1.8E*01
6.46-02
1.8E-01
3.0E+00
1.3E*01
1.3E+01
6.3E+00
7.2E+00
7.2E-05
3.4E+00
4.3E-02
1. 86-01
3.66-01
1.86-01
3.6E-01
3.6E-01
3.6E-01
3.6E-01
LT. VIT.
AGGREGATE
KILN
5.0E+GO
1.0E-02
3.5E-02
2.JE+00
5. 06-02
3.0E-KX)
3.06-01
8.46-02
5. 06-01
2.06-04
1.06-02
1.36-L1
1.2E+00
5.06-02
1.9E+00
1.0E-02
8.
-------
TABLE 5.70 - REFERENCE EMISSION FACTORS FOR THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS FOI1 SELECTED SOURCES IN CLAT TERRAIN
DRY CEMENT
SLBSTANCE
TOLUENE (BENZENE, 1ETKYL-)
TOLYXENE ariSOCYANATE (BENZENE, 1,3-OiiSOCYANATOMeTHy;.>
TOXAPH6NE (CAKPH6NE, OCTACHLORO-)
1 ,2, 4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE (METHYL CHLOROFORM)
1,1,2-TRlCHLOROETHANE (ETHANE, 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-)
TR1CHLOROETMENE (TRICHLOROETHYLENE)
T»ICHLO°OMONOFLUOROMETHANE
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE, N.O.S.
VANADIUM PENTOXIDE (VANADIUM (V) OXIDE)
VINYL CHLORIDE (ETHENE, CHLORO-)
COMMENT
ST
*T
ST
RST
ST
3T
ST
RST
R
ST
BOILER
6.36+01
6.7E-03
a.4£-Q2
4.9S+00
3.2^02
7.66*00
4.5E+01
7.1t»01
2.8E+01
S.OE+01
8.4E-03
1.7E+00
KILN
1.6E-K32
1.7E-02
2.1E-01
1.3E+01
8.1E+02
1.9E->01
1.2E*02
1.8E+02
7.2E+01
1.3E+02
2.1E-02
4.3E+00
LT. WT.
AGGREGATE
KILN
3.7E+01
4.0E-03
S.OE-02
2.9E-KX)
1.9E-KK
4.5E+00
2.7E+01
4.2E+01
1.7E+01
3.0E+01
5.06-03
1.06*00
BLAST
FURNACE
2.1E+01
2.3E-03
2.3E-02
1.7E+00
1.1E-KJ2
2.6E+00
1.5E-KH
2.4E*01
9.66*00
1.7E+01
2.86-03
5. 76-01
SULFUR
RECOVERY
FURNACE
9.8E+00
1.06-03
1.36-02
7.76-01
4.96+01
1.26*00
7.06+00
1.16*01
4. 46+00
7.86*00
1.36-03
2.66-01
R « BAS6D ON RfO ONLY
ST * A TLV-C OR A TtV-STEL EXISTS FOft THIS SUBSTANCE
ASSUM6S FU6L WITH A HEATING VALUE OF 8000 BTU/LB
5-66
rro
-------
TABLE 5.31 - REFERENCE EMISSION FACTORS FOR THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS FOR SELECTED SOURCES IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
ACETONITRILE(ETHANENITRIIE)
ACETOPHENONE ( E THANONE)
ACROLEIN(2-PROPENAL>
ACRYLAHIOE (2-PROPENAHIDE)
ACRYLONITRILE (2-PROPENENITRILE)
ALORIN
ALLYL ALCHOHOL
ALUMINUM PHOSPHICE
ANILINE (BENZENAHINE)
ANTIMONY AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
ARSENIC AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
BARIUM AMD COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
BARIUM CYANIDE
BENZENE (CYCLOHEXATRIENC)
P-BENZOQUINON6 (1,4-CYCLOH6XA01ENEOJON6)
BENZYL CHLORIDE (BENZENE, (CHLOROM6THK)-)
BERYLLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
8IS(2-CHLO«OISOPROPYL) ETHER
BIS(CHLOROMETHYL) ETHER
BIS(2~ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
8ROHOMETHANE (METHYL BROMIDE)
CADMIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
CALCIUM CYANIDE
CARBON BISULFIDE (CAR*.-* BISULFIDE)
CHLOROANE (ALPHA AND GAni« ISOHERS)
CHLORINATED BENZENES, N.O.S.
CHLORINATED PNENOL, N.O.S.
CHLOROACETALOEHYOE (ACETALDEHYOE, CHLORO-)
CHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLORO-1,3 BUTADIENE (ChLOROPRENE)
1 -CHLORO-2-3-EPOXYPROPANE
CHLOROFORM (METHANE, TRICHLORO-)
CHLOROMETHAHE (METHYL CHLORIDE)
3-CHLORCPROPENE (ALLYL CHLORIDE,
CHROMIUM III
CHROMIUM IV
COAL TARS
COPPER CYANIDE
CRESOLS (CRESYLIC ACIOXPHENOL, METHYL-)
CROTONALDEHYOE (2-BUTENAL)
CYANIDES (SOLUABLE SALTS AND COMPLEXES), N.O.S.
CYANOGEN (ETHANEDIHITRILE)
CYANOGEN CHLORIDE (CHLORINE CYANIDE)
DDT
OI-N-8UTYL PHTHALATE (1,2-BENZENEDICAABOXYLIC ACID...)
0-OICHLOROBENZENE (BENZENE, 1 ,2-OICHLORO-)
P-OICHLOR08ENZENE (BENZENE, 1,4-OICHLORO-)
DICHLOROOIFLUORCfH-THANE (METHANE, OICHLOROOIFLUORO-)
1,1-OICHLOROETHANE (ETHYLIDENE DICHL1R1DE)
1,2-OICHLOROETHANE (ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE)
COMMENT
ST
R
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
R
ST
ST
R
R
ST
R
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
R
ST
R
ST
RST
ST
ST
RST
ST
ST
ST
ST
I
BOILER
2.7E-01
1.3E+01
4.0E-03
4.86-03
7.2E-02
4.0E-03
8.0E-02
6.7E-03
1.66-01
S.76-03
3.26-03
8,06-03
1.36+00
4.86-01
6.iV6-03
8.06-Oi
3.2E-05
8.0E-02
8.0E-OS
4.7E-01
2.0E-02
8.06-0*
6.76-01
4.86-01
1.3E-03
5.66*00
S.OE-03
O.OE*00
6.46-01
6.7E--02
1.6E-01
8.CE-01
1.3E+01
4.8E-02
8.06-03
8.06-04
3.26-03
1.36+00
3.56-01
9.66-02
8.06-02
3.26-01
1.36+00
1.66-02
8.06-02
3.46-01
3.46-01
4.7E+00
1.3E+00
6.46-01
)RY CEMENT
KILN
5.1E-01
2.5E+01
7.5E-03
9.0E-03
1.46-01
7.5E-03
1.5E-01
1.36-02
3.06-01
1 .36-02
6.06-03
1.56-02
2.56*00
9.06-01
1.2E-02
1.5E-01
6.06-05
1 . 5E-01
1.5E-04
8.9E-01
3.86-02
".5E-03
1.3E+00
9.0E-01
2.56-03
1.16+01
1.5E-02
O.CE+00
1.iE+00
1.3E-01
3.0E-01
1.5E+00
2.56+01
9.06-02
1.5E-02
1.56-03
6.0E-03
2.5E+00
6.66-01
V 86-01
1.56-01
6. 06-01
2.56+00
3.06-02
1.56-01
6.36-01
6.36-01
8.9E+00
2.5C+00
1.2E+00
LT. WT.
A36REGATE
KILN
2.5E-01
1.3E+01
3.8E-03
4.5E-03
6.86-02
3.86-03
7.66-02
6.46-03
1.56-01
6.46-03
3.06-03
7.6E-C5
1.36+00
4.56-01
6.1E-Q3
7.66-02
3.0E-OS
7.6E-02
7.66-05
4.5K-01
1.96-02
7.66-04
6.46-01
4.56-01
1.36-03
5.36+00
7.66-03
0.06+00
6.06-01
6.4E-02
1.56-01
7.66-01
1.3EKJ1
4.56-02
7.66-03
7.66-04
3.06-03
1.36-00
3.36-01
9.16-02
7.66-02
3.06-01
1.36+00
1.56-02
7.66-02
3.26-01
3.2E-01
4.5E+00
'.3E+00
6.1E-01
BLAST
FURNACE
5.7E-02
2.9S+00
8.5E-C4
1.06-03
1. 56-02
8.5E-04
1.7E-02
1.46-03
3.46-02
1.46-03
6.86-04
1.76-03
2.96-01
1.06-01
1.46-03
1.76-02
6.86-06
1.76-02
1.7E-C5
1.0E-01
4.3E-03
1.7E-04
1.4E-01
1. 06-01
2.96-04
1.2E+00
1.7E-03
O.OE+00
1.4E-01
1.4E-02
3.4E-02
1.7E-01
2.96+00
1.06-02
1.76-03
1.76-04
6.36-04
2.96-01
7.5E-02
2.06-02
1.76-02
6.86-02
2.96-01
3.46-03
1.76-02
7.16-02
7.1E-02
1.06+00
2.96-01
1.46-01
SULFUR
R6COVERY
FURNACE
1.76-01
8.3E+00
2.3E-03
3.06-03
4.56-02
2.56-03
5.06-02
4.2E-03
9.96-02
4.26-03
2.06-03
5.06-03
8.36-01
3.06-T
4.0E-03
5.06-02
2.06-05
5.06-02
5.06-05
2.96-01
1.26-02
5.06-04
4.26-01
3.CE-01
8.36-04
3.56+00
5.06-03
0.06+00
4.06-01
4.26-02
9.9E-02
5.06-01
8.36+00
3.06-02
5.06-03
5.06-04
2.06-03
8.36-01
2.26-01'
5.96-02
5.06-02
2.06-01
8.36-01
9.9E-
-------
TABLE 5.31 - REFERENCE EMISSION FACTORS FOR THRESHOLD TOXIC COMPOUNDS FOR SELECTED SOURCES IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
MJ8STANCE
OICHLC*JETHYLEN«, N.O.S.
1,1 OICXIOROETHYUNE (V! lYLIDENt CHLORIDE)
oicHLOROHBTHANi O.ETHYLEKE CHLORIDE)
, 2,4-OICHLOROPHENOL
1,2-DICHLOROPROPAWE (PWYUN6 DICHLORIDE)
oiuiorjraoKNC, N.O.S.
/ 1,J-OICHLOROPRO?EN6
OIELBRIN
0,0 OIETHYLPHOSPHORIC ACID, 0-P-NITROW46NYL ESTER
DIETMVL PHTHALAT6
OIMTMOATf
P-OIMETHYLAHINOA20BENZEN6
1,1 -OINfTHYLHYORAZlNE
DINETNYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL SULFATf (.SULFUR 1C ACID, DIMCTHYL ESTER)
D1N1TMMNZENE, N.O.S.
•i,4- OINITRO-0-CRESOL AND SALTS
2-4-0INITROPMENOL
2,4-OlNITROTOLUENE (1ENZENE, 1-METHYL-2,4-OINlTRO-)
2,6-OINJTROTOLUENe .BENZENE, 1-METHYL-2,6-OINITRO->
'.4-OIOXAN6 (1,4-DIETHYLENf OXIDE)
6iP»,ENYLA«iNe (BENSENAMINC, >-PHENYL-)
-ilJLFOTON
ENOOSULFAM
ENORIN AND NfTAaOUTCS
ETMYUNC OXIDE (OXIRANC)
FLUORINE
FORfULDEHYOC (M6THYLENE OXIDE)
FORMIC ACID (H6THANOIC ACID)
NtPTACHLOR
H6XACHLOROBUTAOIENE
HEXACH'.OROCYCLOPENTAO IENE
H6XACHLOR06TMAN6
' HYORAZ1N6 (DIAHINC)
HYDROCYANIC ACID (HYDROGEN CYANIDE)
HYDROFLUORIC ACID (HYDROSEN FU«AIDE)
HYDROGEN SULFIDE (SULFUR ''YDRIOE)
IRON DCXTRAN (FERRIC DEXTRAN)
IS08UTYL ALCOHOL (1-PROPANOL, 2-N6THYL-)
LEAD AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
NALEIC ANHYDRIDE (2,5-FL'RANOIONE)
MERCURY FULMINATE (FULHINIC ACID, MERCURY SALT)
MERCURY ANO COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
1ETHANETHIOL (THIOHETHANOL) (METHYL NERCAPTAN)
NETHOLHYL
MrWCXYCHLOR
METHYL ETHYL KETONE (NEK) (2-BUTANONE)
METHYL HYORAZINE (HYORAZINE, METHYL-)
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYL PARATHION
DRY CSR^NT
COMMENT BOILER KILN
ST
ST
ST
R
ST
ST
R
ST
ST
R
R
ST
ST
ST
ST
R
sr
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
RST
ST
ST
ST
ST
R
ST
ST
ST
ST
1.3E-KJ1
3.2E-C1
5.66*00
6.7E-02
S.6E«00
8.0C-02
6.7E-03
4.01-03
8. Of -02
3.1E+02
4.7E-02
1.61-01
1.6C-02
8.0E-02
8. Of -03
1.6E-02
3.2E-03
4.71-02
2.44-02
2.4E-02
1.4E+OO
1.6E-01
1.6E-03
3.4E-04
1.31-03
3.2E-02
3.2E-02
2.4E-02
1.4E-01
3.4C-03
3.9E-03
1.6E-03
'..6E*OO
1.6E-03
4.71-01
4.01-02
6.7E-02
1.6E-02
2.4HOO
2.5E-03
1.61-02
6.71-02
8.0E-04
1.6E-02
4.0C-O2
1.6E-01
2.0E+00
O.OE+00
6.6E+00
3.2E-03
2.4E-K31
6.06-01
1.1E+01
1.32-01
1.1E+01
1.SE-01
1.3E-02
7.JE-03
1.5E-O1
5.8fi*02
S.9C-O2
3. Of -01
3.01-02
1.5E-0-1
1.5E-O2
3.01-02
6.0E-03
8.9C-02
4.SE-02
4.5E-C2
2.7E+00
3.0E-01
3.0E-03
6.3E-04
2.5E-O3
6.0E-02
6.0E-02
4.5E-02
2.71-01
6.3E-03
7.2E-03
3.CC-03
3.0E+00
3.0E-03
8.9I-O'
7.SE-02
1.3E-01
3.0C-O2
4.5E+00
4.7F.-03
3.CC-02
1.3E--01
1.51-03
3.0E-02
7.5E-02
3.0£-01
3.SE+00
O.OE+00
1.2E*01
6.0E-03
LT. WT.
AGGREGATE
KILN
1.2E*01
3.06-01
5.3E+00
6.46-02
5.3E+00
7.66-C2
6.4E-03
3.8E-03
7.61-02
2.9E+02
4.5E-I2
1.5I-O1
1.SE-02
7.6E-02
7.6C-03
1.56-02
3 OE-03
4.51-02
2.3E-02
2.2E-02
1.46*00
1.5E-O1
1.5E-03
3.2C-04
1.3E-O3
3. Of -02
3.0E-02
2.3E-02
1.4C-01
3.2E-03
3.66-03
1.56-03
1.56*00
1. 56-03
4.5E-01
3.8E-02
6.4E-02
1.5E-02
2.3«*OO
2.41-03
1.SE-02
6.4E-C2
7.6E-0*
1.56-02
3.8C-02
1.5E-01
1.96*00
O.OE+00
6.2E*00
3. OE-03
BLAST
FURNACE
2.7E*00
6.8E-02
1.2E*00
1.4t-n
1.2E*OO
1.7E-02
1.46-03
8.51-04
1.7E-02
6.6E*01
1.0E-02
3.46-02
3.4E-03
1.7E-O2
1.76-03
3.46-03
6.8E-O*
1.0E-02
S.1E-03
5.16-03
3.1E-01
3.4E-02
3.46-04
7.16-05
2. 96-04
6.81-03
6.8E-03
5.1E-03
3.1E-02
7.16-04
8.1E-04
3.46-04
3.4E-01
3.4E-04
1.01-01
S.5C-03
1.46-02
3.46-03
5.1E-01
5.3E-04
3.4E-O3
1.46-02
1.76-04
3.46-03
8.56-01
3.4E-02
4.36-01
0.06*00
1.46*00
6.86-04
SULFUR
RECOVERY
FURNACE
7.8E*00
2.0E-01
3.5E+00
4.2E-02
.56*00
.06-02
.26-03
.56-03
.06-02
.96*02
.96-02
.96-02
.96-03
.06-02
.06-03
.96-03
2.06-O3
2.9E-02
1.58-02
1.S6-02
8.96-01
9.96-02
9.96-04
2.16-04
8.36-04
2.06-02
2.06-0!.
1.56-0?!
a.96-a>
2.1E-C5
2.4E-OI
9.96-04
9.96-01
9.96-04
2.96-01
2.IE-C2
4.2E-C2
9.96-C3
1.5E*(0
1.66-
-------
TABLE 5.31 - REFERENCE EMISSION FACTORS FOR THRESHOLD TOX'C COMPOUNDS FOR SELECTED SOURCES 7N COMPLEX TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
NICKEL CAHBONYL (NICKLE TETRACARBONYL)
NICKEL CYANIDE (NICKEL(II)CYANIOE)
NICOTINE AND SALTS
NITMC OXIDE (NITROGEN (II) OXIDE)
P-NITROANILINE (BENZENAM1NE, 4-NITRO-)
NITROBENZINE
NITROSLYCERIN6 (1,2,3-P«OPAN6TRIOL TRIHITRATE)
OSMIUM T6TROXI06 (OSMIUM (VIII) OXIDE)
PMATHION
•CNTACMLOKC6EN2ENC
KNTACMUMONITMOBENZENE (PCNB)
P6NTACHLOROPH6NOL
PHENOL (BENZENE, HYDROXY-)
P-PHENrLENEDIANINC (BENZENEOIAHINE)
N-PH6NYLEN60IAHIN6
PHENYU16RCURY ACETATE (MERCURY, ACETATO-PHENYL->
M-PHENYLTHIOUREA (TH10UREA, PHENYL-)
PHOSGENE (CARBONYL CHLORIDE)
PHOSPHIN6 (HYDROGEN PHOSPHIDE)
PHTHALK ANHYDRIDE
POLYCHLOR1NATED B1PH6NYL, N.O.S.
POTASSIUM CYANIDE
POTASSIUM SILVER CYANIDE (AROENTAT6(1)OICYA*0-POT*SSIUN)
PYRIOIN6
RCSORCINOL O,3-B6NZEN6D10L)
SeLENtOUS ACID (SELENIUM DIOXIDE)
SELENIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
SSLENOUREA (CARBAMIHIOOSELENOIC ACID)
SILVER AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
SILVER CYANIDE
SODIUM CYANIDE
STRYCHNINE AND SA'.TS
1,2,4,5-TEnurhLOROBENZENe
1,1,2,2-TrnWOil.OtETHANe
TEnUCHLOHOETHENE (6TH6N6, 1,1,2,2-T6TRAC«LORO)
TETlUCHtOMMETHANE (CARBON TETRACHLORIDE)
2,3,7,S-TTTRACHLOROPMENOL
2,3,4,6-TrniACHLOROPHENOL
TETRAETHYL LEAD (PLUN8AN6, TrTRAETHYL-)
Trr*ANITROH6THAN6
THALLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
THALLIC OXIDE (THALLIUM (III) OXIDE)
THALLIUM (I) ACETATE (ACETIC ACID, THALLIUM (I) SALT)
THALLIUM (I) CARBONATE (CARBONIC ACID,DITHALLIUH(I)SALT)
THALLIUM (IKHLORIDE
THAi.LIUM(l)NITRATE (NITRIC ACID, THALLIUM(I)SALT)
THALLIUM SELENITE
THALLIUM (I) SULFATE (SULFURIC ACID, THALLIUM (I)SALT)
(
r.tALENE
N.O.S.
RBONYL)
YANIOE)
10 SALTS
OXIDE)
•NITRO-)
«ENZINE
ITRATE)
OXIDE)
JUTHION
46NZEN6
(PCNB)
fiPHENOL
DROXY-)
IAHINE)
OIAHINE
>HENYL->
'HENYL-)
LORIDE)
SPHIDE)
HYDRIDE
N.O.S.
CYANIDE
4SSIUM)
YRIDINE
NEDIOL)
IOXIDE)
N.O.S.
C ACID)
N.O.S.
CYANIDE
CYANIDE
10 SA'.TS
•ENZENE
METHANE
CHLORO)
ILORIDE)
IOPMENOL
OPHENOL
ETHYL-)
METHANE
N.O.S.
OXIDE)
) SALT)
I) SALT)
HLORIDE
I) SALT)
ELENITE
I) SALT)
:OHHEN
ST
ST
R
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
R
R
ST
ST
R
it
R
ST
ST
ST
R
R
ST
ST
R
R
R
R
ST
R
3T
!!T
ST
R
R
ST
r BOILER
8.0E-01
1.6E-Q3
5.6E-03
4.7E-01
8.0E-03
4.8E-01
4.3E-02
1.3E-02
S.QE-Oi
3.2E-Q5
1.6E-03
2.0E-02
1.96-OI
8.0E-03
3.1E-01
1.64-03
1.31-01
2.0E-03
4.7E+00
6.4E-03
4.4E-03
9.6E-02
3.0E-03
1.3E-HM
4.7E+00
1.3E-01
7.2E-01
6.7E-02
3.2E-03
1.3E-01
1.6E-04
2.7E+00
6.7E-01
2.4E-03
6.71-03
1.1E-01
4.7E-01
4.8E-01
*.»«-ai
2.7E-01
2.7E-06
1.3E-01
1.6E-03
6.71-03
1.3E-02
6.7E-03
1.3E-02
1.3E-02
1.3E-02
1.3E-02
>RY fEMENT
KILN
1.5E+00
3.0E-03
1.1E-02
8.9C-01
1.SE-02
9.06-01
9.0E-02
2.SE-02
1.56-01
6.06-05
3.06-03
3.SS-02
3.56-01
1.5E-C2
5.76-01
3.06-03
2.5E-01
3. BE -03
8.96*00
1.26-02
1.2E-02
1.K-01
1.5E-02
2.5E+00
8.9frK»
2.56-01
1.46*00
1.36-01
6.06-03
2.5E-01
3.06-04
5.1E*00
1.36*00
4.56-03
1.36-02
2.16-01
8.96-01
9.06-C1
4.46-01
5.16-01
5.16-06
2.46-01
3.06-03
1. 36-02
2.56-02
1.36-02
2.56-02
2. 31-02
2. 56-02
2.5E-02
UT. yT.
AG6MEGATE
KILN
7.6E-01
1.5E-C3
5.3E-0?
*.5E-01
7.6E-03
4.5E-01
4.5E-02
1. 36-02
7.66-02
3.06-OS
1.5E-03
1.96-02
1.86-01
7.06-03
2.9C-O1
1. 56-03
1.3E-01
1.9E-03
4.5E+00
6.1E-03
6.1E-03
9.16-02
7.66-03
1.36*00
4.5E+00
1.3E-01
6.86-01
6.4E-02
3.06-03
1.3E-01
1.5E-04
2.5E+00
6.4E-01
2.36-03
6.4E-03
1.16-01
4.5E-O1
4.56-01
2.26-01
2.SE-01
2.56-06
1.26-01
1.56-03
6.46-03
1.36-02
6.46-03
1.36-02
1.3E-02
1.3E-02
1.3E-02
BLAST
FURNACE
1.76-01
3.4E-04
1.2E-03
1.0E-01
1.76-03
1.0E-01
1.06-02
2.9E-03
1.7E-02
6.86-06
3.4E-04
4.36-03
4.06-02
1.76-03
6.46-02
3.AE-04
2.9E-02
4.3E-04
1.0E*00
1.4E-03
1.4E-03
2.06-02
1.76-03
2.96-01
1.06*00
2.96-02
1.5E-01
1.46-02
6. 86-04
2.96-02
3.4E-05
5. 78-01
1.46-01
5.16-04
1.4E-03
2.46-02
1.06-01
1.06-01
5.06-02
5.76-02
5.7S-07
2.76-02
3.46-04
1.46-03
2.96-03
1.46-03
2.96-03
2.96-03
2.96-03
2.96-03
SULFUR
RECOVERY
FURNACE
5.06-01
9.9E-04
3.5E-03
2.96-01
5.06-03
3.06-01
3.06-02
8.36-03
5.06-02
2.06-OS
9.96-04
1.Z6-02
1.26-01
5.06-03
1.96-01
9.96-04
8.36-02
1.2E-03
2.9E+00
4.0E-03
4.06-03
5.96-02
5. 06-03
8.36-01
2.96*00
8.36-02
4.56-01
4.26-02
2.06-03
8.36-02
9.96-05
1.7E+00
4.2E-01
1.5E-03
4.26-03
6.96-02
2.96-01
3.06-01
1.56-01
1.76-01
1.76-06
7.96-02
9.96-04
4.26-03
8.36-03
4.26-03
8.36-03
8.36-03
8.3E-03
8.3E-03
5-69
isr
-------
TABLE 5.31 - INFERENCE EMISSION FACTORS FOR THR£S*XD TOXIC COMPOUNDS FOR SEUCTE) SOURCES IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
TOLUENE (BENZEME, METHYL-)
TOLYLEKE DIISOCYANATE (BENZENE, 1,3-OIISOCYANATOHETHYL)
TOXAPH6N6 (C«""M6N6, OCTACHLORO- )
1,2,4-mCHLOROflENZEN6
1,1,1-TRICHLOR06THAN6 (N6THYL CHLOROFORM)
1,1,i-TRKHLOR06THANe (ETHANC, 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-)
TRICHLOaoeTHENE (TRICHUMOCTHYLENC)
Tttf rui ABOMOI^f 1 LMWtf TUAMV
1 KA^nfcUiiunmwrujw^uriK i nwvc
2/4,5-TRICHLO«OfHtSOL
1,2,3-TRICMLOHOMOPANt, N.O.S.
VANADIUM PENTOXIDf (VANADIUM (V) 0X1 DC)
VINYL CHLMIOC (ETHENC, CMLORO-)
COMMENT
ST
ST
ST
RST
ST
ST
ST
•4T
IV9 1
R
ST
BOILER
6.0E-KM
6.4C-04
8.0E-05
4.71-01
3.1£*01
?.a-oi
4.36*00
67»*m
• 1 E^UU
2.71*00
4.ae+oo
8.0E-04
1.68-01
DRY CEMENT
KILN
1.1E*01
1.2E-03
1.5E-02
B.9E-01
J.7t*01
1.4£*OO
J.1E*00
i V'tcn
1 . JC^V 1
$.115*00
9.0f*00
1.5E-03
3.0E-01
LT. UT.
A6GRE6ATE
KILM
5.7E+00
6 1E-04
7.6C-03
4.5E-01
2.9C+01
6. 86-01
4.1E*00
64f*co
. ^»*^A*
2.5E*OO
4. SHOO
7.6E-04
1.56-01
BUST
FURNACE
1.3E*00
1.4E-04
1.7E-03
1.06-01
6.44*00
1.56-01
9.26-01
1.*6+00
5.76-01
1.06+00
1.76-04
3.46-02
SULFUR
RECOVERY
FURNACE
3.76*00
4.06-04
S.Ji-03
2.96-01
1.96*01
4.S6-01
2.76*00
4.26*00
1.76*00
3.06*00
3.06-04
9.96-02
R • BASED ON RfO ONLY
ST > A TLV-C OR A TLV-STEL EXISTS FOR THIS SUBSTANCE
ASSUH6S FUEL WITH A HEATING VALUE OF 8000 BTU/L9
5-70
15*;
-------
TABU 5.32 - REFERENCE EMISSION FACTORS F0« CARCINOGENIC COMPOUNDS FOR SELECTED SOURCES IN FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
CLASS
EPA MY CEMEN LT. UT. BUST S. RECCV.
BOILER KILN KILN FURNACE FURNACE
ACRYLANIDE
ACRYLONITRILE (2-PROPENENITR1LE)
AFLATOXIHS
ALBRIN
AHITROLE (lH-1,2,4-TRIAZOL-3-AMlNE)
ANILINf (BENZENANINC)
ARSENIC AND CONFOUND* N.O.S.
BENZENC
BENZENE, 01CMLOMHCTHYL-(BCNZU CHLORIDE)
BENZIOINC
BCNZO(a)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENC (3,4-BENZOPYRENE)
BERYLLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S..
BIS(2-CHLOtWETNYL) ETHER
8IS(2-Cm.ORONETHYL) ETHER
BIS(2-fTNYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
CADMIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
CHLOROANECALPHA AND SAHHA 1SOMERS)
CHLORINATED ETHANE,. N.O.S.
1-CHLORO-2-3-EPOXYPROPANE
CHLOROFORM (TRICHLORONETHANE)
CHLOROMETHANE
CHLOROHETHYL METHYL ETHER
CHROMIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
COAL TARS
DOT
DIBENZO(A,H,>ANTHRACENE
DIBE«0ROPANE
1,2 OIBROMOETHANE (ETHYLENE DIBROKIDE)
3,3'OICHLOROBENZ1DINE
1,1-OICHLOROETHANE (ETHYLIDENE DICHLORIDE)
1,2-OICHLOROETHANE (ETHYLENE DICHLORIOE)
DICHLOROETHYLENE, N.O.S. (OICHLOROETHLYENE, N.O.S.)
1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE (VINYLIDENE CHLORIDE)
DICHLOROHETHANE (NETHYLENE CHLORIDE)
OIELDRIN
DIETHOLSTILBESTEROL
DZMETHYLNITROSAHINE
2,4-OINITROTOLUENE (1-METHYL-2,4-OINlTROBENZENE)
2,6-OINITROTOLUENE (1-«ETHYL-2,6-OINITR08ENZENE)
1,4-OIOXANE (1,4-01ETHYLENE OXIDE)
1,2 OIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
ETHYL CARBAMATE (URETHANKCARBAHIC ACID,ETHYL ESTER)
ETHYLENE OXIDE (OXIRANE)
ETHYLENETHIOURCA
FORMALDEHYDE CHETHYLENE OXIDE)
FORMIC ACID (METHANOIC ACID)
HEPTACHLOR
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
82
81
B1
B2
C
A
A
A
B2
B2
B2
B2
A
B1
81
C
B2 or C
82
B2
A
A
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
82
B2
C
C
«
B2
A
82
B2
82
B1+B2
C
82 or C
82
B2
2E-03
2E-Q2
3E-06
6C-04
9C-03
3E-02
7E-04
3E-O2
3E-Q2
6C-05
3E-03
81-04
1E-03
7E-03
IE-OS
3E-02
2E-03
5E-03
2E-02
3E-02
3E-02
3E-02
1E-03
2E-04
3E-04
7E-03
2E-04
2E-OS
6E-04
2E-04
SE-03
3E-02
3E-02
78-03
2E-02
3E-02
6E-04
2E-05
3E-04
2E-03
2E-02
3F.-02
9E-03
2E-02
2E-02
2E-02
2E-02
2E-03
3E-03
3E-02
6E-03
SE-02
9C-O6
1E-O3
2E-02
8E-02
2E-03
8E-02
n-oa
1E-04
7f-03
2E-03
3E-C3
2E-02
3E-03
8E-02
4E-03
1E-02
6E-02
8E-02
7E-02
8E-02
3E-03
6E-04 .
8E-04
2E-02
3E-C4
5E-05
1E-03
6E-04
1E-02
7E-02
6E-02
2E-02
SE-02
8E-02
1E-03
JE-05
7E-04
AE-02
4E-02
8E-02
2E-02
6E-02
4E-02
4E-02
4E-02
6E-03
7E-03
8E-02
1E-03
1E-02
2E-06
3E-04
6E-/J3
2E-02
4E-04
2E-02
2E-02
3E-05
2E-03
5E-04
7E-04
4E-03
6E-04
2E-02
16-03
3E-03
1E-02
2E-02
2E-02
2E-02
6E-04
1E-04
2E-04
4E-03
1E-04
1?-05
3E--OA
1E-04
3E-03
2E-02
1E-02
4E-03
1E-02
2E-02
3E-04
1E-05
2E-04
1E-02
1E-02
2E-02
SE-03
16-02
9S-03
9E-03
9E-03
1E-03
2E-03
2E-02
8E-04
6E-03
1E-06
2E-04
3E-03
1E-02
2E-04
1E-02
9€-03
2E-O5
9E-04
3E-04
4C-04
2E-03
4E-04
1E-02
SE-04
2E-03
8E-03
1E-02
9E-03
1E-02
4E-04
8E-OS
1E-04
2E-03
7E-05
7E-06
2E-04
8E-OS
2E-03
9E-03
9E-03
2E-03
7E-03
1E-02
2E-04
7E-06
9E-05
SE-03
5E-03
1E-02
3E-03
7E-03
SE-03
SE-03
5E-03
8E-04
9E-04
1E-02
4E-04
3E-03
SE-07
9E-05
1E-03
SE-03
1E-04
SE-03
4E-03
9E-06
4E-04
1E-04
2E-C4
1E-03
2E-04
5E-03
3E-04
7E-04
4E-03
5?-03
4E-03
SE-03
2E-04
4E-05
Se-OS
1E-03
3E-OS
3E-06
9E-05
3E-C5
8E-04
4E-03
46-03
1E-03
3E-03
SE-03
9E-05
3E-06
4E-05
2E-03
2E-03
5E-03
1E-03
3E-03
2E-03
2E-03
2E-03
4E-04
4E-04
5E-03
5-71
157
-------
TABLE S.32 - REFERENCE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CARCINOGENIC COMPOUNDS FOB SELECTED SOURCES IN FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
CLASS
EPA DRY CEHEN LT. UT. BLAST S. RECOV.
BOILER KILN KILN FURNACE FURNACE
HEXACHLOROeuTAOIENE
HEXACHLOIWCYC1.0XEXANE
NEXACHLOROOIBEMZO-P-OIOXIIIS
HCXACMLOROETHANE
HYMAZINE (DIAIUNE>
HYMAZINC SULFATE
KEPOHE
3-flfT>m.CMOUkNT>MENE
HETMYL HYORA2INE
4,4' H«THYLENE-«S-2-CHLORCAI«LINE
NICKEL AM COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
4-NITROQUINOLINE-1 -OXIDE (QUINOLINE, 4-*ITRO-1-OXIDt->
2-NITKOPtOPAHC
IWtlTHOSOOI-N-BUTYUWlNt
H-NITROSOOIETHYLAMINE (ETHANAHIHE, N-ETHYL-N-NITROSO-)
N-NITROSOOINETHYLAHINE (DIHeTHYLNITROSANINE)
M-NITROSO-M-ETHYLUREA (N-ETHYV.-N-NITROSOCAABAHIOE)
S-NITROSO-N-METHYLUREA (N-«ETHYL-,'I-NITROSOCARBAHIOE)
N-NITROSOPYRROL1DINE
PENTACHLORONITROBENZENE (PCN8)
POLYCHLOH1NATED BIPHENYL. N.O.S.
PMNAHIOE
RESPERINE
SARFOLE (1,2 HETHYtENEOIOXY-4-AUYLBENZENE)
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLOROOIBENZO-P-OlOXIN (TCDO)
1,1,2,2-TETKACHt.ORrrMANE
TETRACHLOROETHANE (1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHLYENE)
TETRACHLOROHETHANE (CARBON-TETRACHLORIDE)
TNIQUftEA (TKIOCAJtaAfllCE)
TOXAPMENE (OCTACHLOROCANPHENE)
1,1,1-TRICHLOROeTHANE CHETHYL CHLOROFORfl)
1 , 1 ,2-TftICMLOROCTHANE
miCHLODOETHENE (TKICMLOROCTMYLENE)
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
VINYV CHLORIDE (CW.OROETHLYENE)
BASED ON PIC* FOR MON-CARC IMOGEN 1C POHCA
C
B2 or C
B2
U
B2
B2
B2
12
B2
A
B2
B2
B2
C
B2
82
C
C
B2
B2
C
C
82
82
B2
B2
3E-02
9E-O.
2E-06
3E-02
BE-04
ac-04
1E-Q3
1E-05
71-03
2E-02
9C-03
2E-04
1E-OS
2E-OS
2E-04
4E-04
3E-04
3E-06
SE-03
2E-02
21-03
3E-02
9E-04
3E-02
6E-08
6E-06
3E-02
3E-02
5E-03
7E-03
3E-02
3E-X32
31-02
3E-02
3E-02
3E-02
7E-02
2E-03
4E-06
BE-02
2E-03
2E-03
3E-03
3E-03
2E-02
SE-Q2
2E-02
6E-O4
3E-03
4E-03
6E-04
1E-03
8E-04
7E-06
1E-02
4E-02
5E-03
8E-02
?«-03
8E-02
2E-07
1E-OS
BE-02
7E-02
1E-02
2E-02
8E-Q2
7E-02
8E-02
6E-C2
8E-02
8E-02
2E-02
SE-04
9E-07
2E-C2
SE-04
5E-04
6E-04
6E-O4
4E-03
1E-02
6E-03
1E-04
6»-04
1E-OS
1E-04
2E-04
2E-04
2E-06
3E-03
1E-02
1E-03
2E-02
SE-04
2E-02
4E-08
3E-06
2E-02
2E-02
3E-03
4E-03
2E-02
2E-02
2E-02
2fe-02
2E-02
2E-02
9E-03
3E-04
SE-07
1E-02
3E-04
3E-04
4E-04
4E-04
2E-03
7E-O3
3E-03
SE-03
4E-04
6E-04
BE -05
1E-04
1E-04
1E-06
2E-03
6E-03
7E-04
1E-02
3E-04
1E-02
2E-08
2E-06
1E-02
9E-03
2E-03
2E-03
1E-02
9E-03
11-02
1E-02
1E-02
1E-02
4E-03
1E-04
2E-07
5E-03
1E-04
1E-O4
2E-04
2E-04
1E-03
3E-03
1E-03
4E-05
2E-04
3E-04
3E-OS
6E-05
5E-05
4E-07
7E-04
3E-03
3E-
-------
TABU 5.33 - REFERENCE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CARCINOGENIC COMPOW4DS FOR SELECTED SOURCES IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
CLASS
EPA DRY CEHEN IT. UT. BUST S. RECOV.
BOIU'R KILN KILN FURNACE FURNACE
ACftTLAHIDE
ACRYLONITRILE (2-PROPENENITRILS)
AFLATOXINS
ALORIN
AMITROLE (1H-1,2,4-TRIAZOL-3-A«INE)
ANIUNS (BEMZENAHINE)
ARSENIC AND COMPOUNDS N.O.S.
BENZENE
BENZENE, DICMLORONETHYL-(BENZYL CHLORIDE)
BENZIDINi
BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE (3,4-BENZOPYRENE)
BERYLLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S..
B1S<2-CHLORO£THYL) ETHER
B!S(2-CHLOROHETHYL) ETHER
8IS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
CADMIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
CHLORDANEULPHA ANO SAWU ISOMERS)
CHLORINATED ETHANE,. N.O.S.
1 -CHLORO-2-3-EPOXYPROPANE
CHLOROFORM (TRICHLOROMETHANE)
CHLOROMETHANF
CHLOROHETHYL METHYL ETHER
CHROMIUM AM) COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
COAL TARS
DOT
DIBENZO
-------
TA1LE 5.33 - REFERENCE MISSION FACTORS FOR CARCINOGENIC COMPOUNDS F0« SELECTED SOURCES IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
CLASS
EPA MY CEHEN IT. UT. BUST $. RECOV.
BOILER KILN KIL* FURM\C£ fURNACE
HEXACMLOROBU TAB IENE
KEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANC
NfXACHLO«001BfNZO-P-OlOXINS
HCXACMLOROETHANE
HYDRA2INC (OIAMINf?
HYOMZINf SKJ'ATE
K.HNt
3-«TMYLCHOLA»
N-NlTtOSOt>INETHVLANINfc (D:*5TWJ«riOSAMlNE)
H- NlTSOSC-N-ETHYLUReA (N-ETMYL-M-tdTHOSOCAHBABIDe)
H-MIT«OSO-N-«T«YLUI?EA (N-HETHYl^M»ITROSOCAReA«IDE)
N-MITROSOPYRROLIO INE
PCNTACHLORONITROaENZEHE (PCN8)
POLYCMLORINATED SIPHENYL. N.O.S.
PMNMIDE
MSPCRINC
SARFOLE (1,2 NETHYLENCDIOrr-4-AU.YLKNZENC)
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLOWOIBENZC-P-OIOXIN (TCDO)
1,1,3,2-TFnUCMLORETMANE
TE7RACHLOROETHANE (1,1,2,2-TETRACMLOROCTHI.YENC)
TETRACHLOROFIETHANE (CARBON-TETRACHLORIOE)
THIOUREA (THIOCARBAHIDE)
TOXAPHEN'g (OCTACHLOROCAHPHETIE)
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE (METHYL CHLOROFORM)
1,1,2-mCHLOROtTHANe
TRICHLOROCTHENE (TRICHLOROETHYLENE)
2,4,6-TRICHCOROPHENOL
VtNYL CHLORIDE (CHLOROETHLYENE)
BASED ON PIC* FOR NON-CARCIN06ENIC POHC*
C
B2 or C
82
82
B2
B2
82
82
82
A
a
82
S2
C
B2
82
C
C
82
82
C
C
It
82
B2
82
2E-03
8E-05
21-07
JE-03
Bf-05
81-05
1E-Ot
1E-0*
ll-Ok
21-OS
M-Ot
21-05
11-04
21-04
21-05
41-05
JE-05
3E-07
5E-04
2C-03
21-04
SI-OS
91-05
Sf-OS
6tO»
SE-07
31-03
SE-03
51-04
7«-04
3E-OS
3C-OS
31-03
31-03
3C-03
3C-OS
SE-03
2E-04
3E-OT
6E-03
1E-04
1E-04
2E-04
2E-04
1E-03
4E-03
2E-03
4E-05
2C-04
3C-04
4E-05
n-os
SE-05
5E-07
9C-04
3C-03
4E-04
5E-03
2E-04
5C-O3
1E-OB
1E-06
6C-03
SE-OS
9E-04
18-03
6C-03
SE-03
6C-03
SE-03
SC-03
6E-03
2E-03
BE -05
1E-07
SE-OS
TE-OS
rt-05
1E-04
11-04
6C-04
2E-03
at -04
2C-O5
1E-04
2E-04
21-05
31-05
3E-O5
3E-07
4E-04
2E-03
2E-04
3E-03
8E-OS
3E-03
M-09
5E-07
3E-03
3E-03
4E-O4
6C-04
31-03
2E-03
31-03
3E-03
3E-03
3E-03
SE-04
2E-OS
3E-C«
&E-C4
2E-03
2E-01
2t-3S
2E-05
1E-04
41-04
2C-04
5E-06
2E-05
3C-O5
SE-06
8E-06
6C-06
6E-06
1E-O4
4E-O4
*«-05
«-04
2E-05
6E-04
1E-O9
1E-07
7E-04
6C-04
1E-04
1E-04
7E-04
6E-04
64-04
6E-04
6C-04
7E-04
2E-O3
SE-05
9E-OB
2C-OS
SE-05
SE-OS
6E-OS
64-05
4t--O4
1E-03
SE-04
1E-05
6E-05
1E-04
1E-05
21-05
»E-T5
iE-07
3«-04
11-03
1E-O4
22-03
SE-35
2C-U3
4E-09
3E-07
2E-03
2E-03
*E-04
4E-04
2E-03
2E-03
2E-03
2E-03
2E-03
21-03
ASSUMES FUEL WITH A HCATINC VALUE OF 8000 BTU/LB
5-74
1GO
-------
To correct the reference emission factors for organic chemicals in Tables
5.30 and 5.31 for carcinogenic PICs (assuming average carcinogenic potency)
use as upper limits to the reference emission factors for tha corresponding
substances, sources and terrain the levels listed in Tables 5.17 to 5.21.
METHOD FOR CONSIDERING ADDITIVE RISK
For toxic pollutants, each pollutant is often assumed to have an indepen-
dent threshold. Concentrations below this threshold ar« assumed to cause no
toxic effects alone or in combination with other pollutants (unless data indi-
cating otherwise is available). As a result, additive risks are rarely con-
sidered for threshold toxic POHC emissions.
Considering average carcinogenic PICs, the sum of the concentrations of
all POHCs would havs to be less than the values specified in Tables 5.17 to
5.21 for PICs _rom all POHCs combined not to be of potential concern.
Cancer risks are to be considered to be additive, unless otherwise
proven. If the total concentration in fuel of all carcinogenic POHCs does
not exceed the lowest level of potential concern for any of the carcinogens,
the combination of carcinogenic substances would not be of potential concern.
If | Sum of Carcinogenici < JLovwst Concentration| then |Carcinogenic POHC
POHC Concentrations
of Potential Concern
(emissions not of
(potential concern
If the sum of the ratio of concantations of carcinogenic POHCs divided by the
corresponding concentrations of potential concern is less than one, the
combination of carcinogens would also not be of potential concern.
("carcinogenic PCHC
jj I Concentration of Carcinogenic POHCJ < j then | emissions not of
l_Cpncer.tration of Potential Conce_rjnj | potential concern I
If several threshold toxic pollutants are present that cause the same effect
by similar modes of action, a similar formula can be used to assens additive
risk to determine if it is of potential concern. The equation adds the sum
of the ratios of concentrations for similar toxicants divide-! by concentrations
of concern to compute a hazard index. For more details, see the EPA Guidelines
for Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures (Reference 47).
RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
If the simplified methods shown in this report indicate that concen-
rations may be of potential concern, further study is warranted. Appropriate
dispersion and emission rate modeling (considering the detailed characteris-
tics of the proposed source and its surroundings) should be used to predict
5-75
161
-------
the expected maximum ambient concentrations of threshold toxic and carcinogenic
substances of potential concern. Available information on background concen-
trations should also be compiled (based on mode lino ana/or monitoring) for
threshold toxic pollutants of potential concurr..
Predicted concentrations for threshold toxic pollutants (including
background levels) should be compared to s^r'jening concentrations, pertinent
ambient air quality standards, and human health effects thresholds to determine
if more detailed risk assessment studies are needed.
Maximum cumulative cancer rJsks from PICs and POHC emission should b«
determined, based on predicted maximum annual average ambient carcinogen
concentration impacts and available information on the potency of the carcino-
gens ev^.uated. If the cancer risk to the most effected individual (assuming
he or she spends an entire lifetime at the point of maximum annual ambient
concentration impact) equals or exceeds one per hundred thousand, more reali-
stic <-nd detailed estimates of cancer risk* to £*r»ons expwcte* to b« in the
vicinity of the facility should be pet formed (considering estimated aaour.t*
of time people spend in various locations, population distributions, etc.).
If the risks continue to appear to b« substantial, risks from alternative
means of waste disposal and associated transportation (if applicable), alter-
native fuels, etc. should be considered to determine if the predicted cancer
risks are acceptable (based on causing the least harm after considering alter-
natives) .
5-76
-------
SECTION 6
HEALTH EFFECTS OF APPENDIX VIII ELEMENTS
AND HC1 FROM FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION
INTRODUCTION
Hazardous wastes are replacing some of the fosk.il fuels that would
otherwise be burned in boilers and furnaces. The deleterious impacts of
hazardous waste combustion will be offset, to some extent, by reductions in
the impacts of the oil and coal replaced by hazardous waste. No offset for
Appendix VIII substances or HC1 is expected when hazardous waste replaces
natural gas, which contains no significant quantities of these substances.
This chapter contain* information on the concentrations of Appendix VI."
elements and chlorine in residual oil and in coal, it also contains tables
summarizing the potential impacts of burning average and worst-case coal and
oil in a reasonable worst-case lightweight aggregate facility, in boilers,
and in a dry cement facility (the impacts of burning these fuels in other
facilities is modeled in the spreadsheets in the Calculation Support Document)
The purpose of these impact assessments is to provide some information on
some of the potential environmental impacts of fossil fuel combustion that
will be replaced by the impacts of hazardous waste combustion.
CHARACTERIZATION OF COAL
Table 6.1 presents the average and worst-case concer •rations of chlorine
and Appendix VIII elements in coal. The average values represent the highest
average values for a type of coal in the United States, such as lignite, and
not an average for all coal burned.
CHARACTERIZATION OF *6 FUEL OIL
Table 6.2 presents the average and worst-case concentrations of Appendix
VIII elements and chlorine in 16 fuel oil. The worst-case numbers were
obtained by multiplying the average concentrations in 16 fuel oil by the
ratio of the worst-case concentration of the substance in crude oil divided
by the average concentration in crude oil (as reported in Reference 39),
except for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead (which were 95% worst-case
values from Reference 43). It was necessary to derive these worst-case values
for 06 oil because sufficient data could not be found.
6-1
-------
TABLE 6.1
APPENDIX VIII
METAL AND CHLORINE CONCENTRATIONS IN COAL
(PPM BY WEIGHT)
Substance of Interest
Chlorine - C1bc
Arsenic - Asa
Beryllium - Bea
Cadnium - Cda'c
Chromium - Cra'c
Lead - pfab/c
Nickel - Nia
Antimony - Sb*5
Mercury - Hg*
Selenium - Seb
Silver - Agb
Thallium - Tlb
Barium - Bab
Average
100
22.8
2.22
0.91
47.2
7
28.5
20
0.23
4.0
2
125
80
Worst
7600
357
25
162
209
561
580
1800
8.0
8.1
8
0.7
1600
a Taken from Reference 27.
b T'ken from Reference 39.
c Used 95% worst fuel from Reference 41.
-------
TABLE 6.2
\PPQ1DIX VIII ELEMENT AND CHLORINE LEVELS
IN #6 FUEL Oil, (PPM BY WEIGHT)
Substance of Interest
Chlorine - C1b
Arsenic - Asa
Beryllium - Bea
Cadmium - Cra
Chromium - Cra
Lead - Pbb'd
Nickel - Nia
Antinony - Sbb
Mercury - Hga
Selenium - Seb
Silver - Agc
Thallium - T1C
Barium - Bac
a Taken from Reference 27.
° Averaaa from Reference 38. us
Average
12
0.3o
0.08
1.25
0.40
3.5
24
.44
0.06
0.7
0.3
0.2
1.26
sed worst/averaae rai
Worst
31.8
5.0«
0.38
2.0e
10e
10®
73
.97
10
1.7
.75
.5
3.15
tie for crude
oil from Reference 35.
c Average from Reference 38, assumed worst/average - 2.b.
d Worst taken from Reference 41.
* Taken from 95% worst-case oil (Reference 43).
6-3
-------
No ratios of worst-case to average concentrations of silver, thallium,
and barium in 16 oil or in crude oil were available. The worst-case concen-
trations of these elements in #6 oil were determined by multiplying the
average concentration in #6 oil by 2.5, which was approximately the average
ratio of the worst-case concentrations divided by the corresponding average
concentrations for the other substances in crude oil.
CHARACTERIZATION OF IMPACTS FROM APPENDIX VIII METALS AND HC1
Summary
Tables 6.3 through 6.14 summarize the predicted impacts of the combus-
tion of average and worst-case coal and oil in the lightweight aggregate
kiln, the boilers, and the dry cement kiln in flat terrain. Table 6.15
through 6.26 are for complex terrain.
The tables for the boiler (6.4, 6.7, 6.16 and 6.19) burning coal are
divided into two sections. The first section assumes no affective pollution
control, and the second section (part A) assumes an electrostatic precipitator.
Industrial coal fired boilers are generally equipped with air pollution
control devices, such as multiclones or electrostatic precipitators. Multi-
clones are much less effective than electrostatic precipitators for the
collection of small particles, such as fumes. The modeling with no pollution
control represents an upper limit to emissions.
The boiler with an electrostatic precipitator and the dry cement kiln
(also with an electrostatic precipitator) have ouch lower trace element
impacts than the light weight aggregate kiln (which has a low energy scrubber)
and the boiler without effective air pollution control.
Trace element and HCl emissions from average and from reasonable worst
Cd.se oil combustion are unlikely to cause any adverse human health effects
because of threshold toxicity (for the boilers, the light weight aggregate
kiln, and dry cenent kiln modeled in this chapter). The potential impact of
vanadium pentoxide emissions was not analyzed in this chapter. For coal
combustion, more detailed risk assessment studies are needed to be confident
that adverse threshold toxic impacts from trace elements are unlikely.
The impact of HCl emissions from the dry cement kiln is much Lass than
the impact of HCl emissions from the boiler or from the light weight Aggregate
kiln because the cement in the kiln removes at least 98% of potential HCl
emissions (based on emission tests documented in Volume 2), while the scrubber
in the light weight aggregate kiln only removes 50% of HCl emissions and the
boiler has no equipment to remove HCl.
Hydrochloric acid impacts from worst case coal combustion in a light
weight aggregate kiln (assuming 50% HCl removal efficiency) and in the boilers
(assuming no HCl removal) can exceed thresholds reported to be associated
with adverse human health effects in complex terrain. In flat terrain, more
detailed risk assessment studies (considering background concentrations)
would be needed to determine \f hCJ. emissiors from worst case coal combustion
6-4
-------
«
in
TABLE 6. J
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF LIGHT WT AG FACILITY W/LOW ENERGY SCRUBBER
BURNING AVERAGE COAL FOR FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
BariuM
Beryllium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
9.5E-04
1.7E-03
6.7E-04
1.8E-04
5.3E-06
2.8E-04
2.9E-04
1.9E-05
2.4E-04
3.3E-04
1.7E-05
l.OE-05
4.3E-03
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
5.7E-03
9.9E-03
4.0E-03
1.1E-03
3.2E-05
1.6E-03
2.8E-03
1.1E-04
1.4E-03
2.0E-03
9.9E-05
6.2E-05
1.1E+00
Toxic Ratio
Ambient £onc./
Screeniniag Cone.
1.2E-02
9.9E-03
3.3E-03
2.3E-01
2.7E-04
1.45-02
1.9E-02
9.6E-04
5.9E-03
4.2E-03
4.2E-03
2.6E-04
7.7E-03
Total =
Highest Ipdividual
Cancer Risk
Times 100,000
2E+00
3E-01
6E-03
2E+00
4E-02
5E+00
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
st
A short-term TLV exists, {or this substance.
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
cor this substance in this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 50.00% removal efficiency for HCl.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Ambient concentrations and toxic rat
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.4
JiiGHEST IMPACTS OF ONE BOILER
BURNING AVERAGE COAL FOR FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
1.9E-03
1.7E-03
6.7E-03
1.8E-04
7.6E-05
3.9E-03
5.8E-04
1.9E-05
2.4E-03
3.3E-04
1.7E-05
l.OE-05
8.6E-03
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
6.7E-03
5.9E-03
2.4E-0^
6.5E-04
2.7E-04
1.4E702
3.3E-03
6.8E-05
8.4E-03
1.2E-03
P.9E-05
3.7E-05
1.5E+00
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone,/
Screenining cone.
1.4E-02
5.9E-03
2.0E-02
1.4E-01
2.3E-03
1.2E-01
2.2E-02
5.7E-04
3.5E-02
2.5E-.03
2.5E-03
1.5E-04
l.OE-02
Highest Individual
Cancer Risk
Times 100,000
3E+00
2E-01
5E-02
2E+01
3E-01
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
I
JO
Total=
2E+01
st
A short-term TLV exists for this substance. Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
for this substance in this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 0.00% remove! 1 efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.4A
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF ONE BOILER WITH ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
BURNING AVERAGE COAL FOR FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium ( st )
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thalli urn
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
3.8E-05
1.7E-03
6.7E-05
1.8E-04
7.6E-07
7.9E-05
1.2E-05
1.9E-05
2.4E-05
3.3E-04
1.7E-05
l.GE-05
8 6E-03
Arabient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
1.3E-04
5.9E-03
2.4E-04
6.5E-04
2.7E-06
2.8E-04
6.6E-05
6.8E-05
8.4E-05
1.2E-03
5.9E-05
3.7E-05
1.5E+00
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Qonc./
Screenining Cone.
2.8E-04
5.9E-03
2.0E-04
1.4E-01
2.3E-05
2.3E-03
4.4E-04
5.7E-04
3.5E-04
2.5E-03
2.5E-03
1.5E-04
l.OE-02
Highest Individual
Cancer Risk
Times 100,000
6E-02
2E-01
5E-04
3E-01
3E-03
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
Total= 6E-01
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
st A short-term TLV exists for this substance.
for this substance in this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 0.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ration are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.5
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF DRY CEMENT PLANT (ONE UNIT WITH ESP)
BURNING AVERAGE COAL FOR FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
3.8E-05
1.7E-03
6.7E-05
1.8E-04
7.6E-07
7.9E-05
1.2E-05
1.9E-05
2.4E-05
3.3E-04
1.7E-05
l.OE-05
1.7E-04
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
5.3E-05
2.3E-03
9.3E-05
2.6E-04
1.1E-06
1.1E-04
2.6E-05
2.7E-05
3.3E-05
4.6E-04
2.3E-05
1.4E-05
1.5E-02
Toxic Ratio
Ambient £onc./
Screenining Cone.
1.1E-04
2.3E-03
7.8E-05
5.4E-02
8.9E-06
9.2E-04
1.7E-04
2.2E-04
1.4E-04
9.7E-04
9.7E-04
6.1E-05
9.9E-05
Total=
Highest Individual
Cancer RISK
Tunes 100,000
2E-02
6E-02
2E-04
1E-01
1E-03
2E-01
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
st A short-term TLV exists for this substance.
for this substance in this report.
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 98.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.6
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF LIGHT WT AG FACILITY W/LOW ENERGY SCRUBBER
BURNING WORST CASE COAL FOR FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium ( at )
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
1.5E-02
1.5E-01
1.3E-02
2.1E-03
9.4E-04
1.2E-03
2.3E-02
6.7E-04
4.8E-03
6.7E-04
6.7E-04
5.8E-05
3.3E-01
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. ra)
8.9E-02
8.9E-01
7.9E-02
1.2E-02
5.6E-03
7.3E-03
2.2E-01
4.0E-03
2.9E-02
4.0E-03
4.0E-03
3.5E-04
8.7E+01
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone./
Screenining Cone.
1.9E-01
8.9E-01
6.7E-02
2.6E+00
4.7E-02
6.1E-02
1.5E+00
3.3E-02
1.2E-01
8.4E-03
1.7E-01
1.5E-03
5.8E-01
Highest Individual
Cancer Risk
Times 100,000
4E+01
3E+00
1E+00
9E+00
9E-01
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
Total= 5E+01
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
st A short-term TLV exists for this substance.
for this substance in this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 50.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.7
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF ONE BOILER
BURNING WORST CASE COAL FOR FLAT TERRAIN
0\
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
3.0E-02
1.5E-01
1.3E-01
2.1E-03
1.3E-02
1.7E-02
4.7E-02
6.7E-04
4.8E-02
6.7E-04
6.7E-04
5.8E-05
6.5E-01
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
1.1E-01
5.3E-01
4.7E-01
7. 412-03
4.82-02
6.2E-02
2.6E-01
2.4E-03
1.7E-01
2.4E-03
2.4E-03
2.1E-04
1.2E+02
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone./
Screenining Cone.
2.2E-01
5.3E-01
4.0E-01
1.5E+00
4.0E-01
5.2E-01
1.8E+00
2.0E-02
7.2E-01
5.0E-03
9.9E-02
8.7E-04
7.8E-01
Highest Individual
Cancer Risk
Times 100,000
5E+01
2E+00
3E+00
7E+01
5E+00
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
Total= 1E+02
Short-terra toxic impacts were not evaluated
st A short-term TLV exists for this substance.
for this substance in this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 0.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) am< HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.7A
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF ONE BOILER WITH ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
BURNING WORST CASE COAL FOR FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Ant vmony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
6.0E-04
1.5E-01
1.3E-03
2.1E-03
1.4E-04
3.5E-04
9.3E-04
6.7E-04
4.8E-04
6.7E-04
6.7E-04
5.8E-05
6.5E-01
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
2.1E-03
5.3E-01
4.7E-03
7.4E-03
4.8E-04
1.2E-03
5.3E-03
2.4E-03
1.7E-03
2.4E-03
2.4E-03
2.1E-0*
1.2E+02
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone./
Screenining Cone.
4.4E-03
5.3E-01
4.0E-03
1.5E+00
4.0E-03
l.OE-02
3.5E-02
2.0E-02
7.2E-03
5.0E-03
9.9E-02
8.7E-04
7.8E-01
Highest Individual
Cancer RISK
Tiroes 100,000
9E-01
2E+00
8E-02
1E+OC
5E-02
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
Total= 4E+00
st A short-term TLV exists for this substance. Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
for this substance in this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 0.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.8
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF DRY CEMENT PLANT (ONE UNIT WITH ESP)
BURNING WORST CASE COAL FOR FLAT TERRAIN
SUB STANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (at)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
6.0E-04
1.5E-01
1.3E-03
2.1E-03
1.4E-04
3.5E-04
9.3E-04
6.7E-04
4.8E-04
6.7E-04
6.7E-04
5. SB-OS
l.JE-02
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
B.3E-04
2.1E-01
1.9E-03
2.9E-03
1.9E-04
4.8E-04
2.1E-03
9.3E-04
6.7E-04
9.4E-04
9.3E-04
8.1E-05
1.1E+00
Toy ic Ratio
Ambient Cone,/
Screenininq Cone.
1.7E-03
2.1E-01
1.6E-03
6.1E-01
1.6E-03
4.1E-03
1.4E-02
7.8E-03
2.8E-03
2.0E-03
3.9E-02
3.4E-04
7.5E-03
Total'
Highest Individual
Cancer Risk
Times 100,000
4E-01
7E-01
3E-02
6E-01
2E-02
2E+00
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
st A short-term TLV exists (or this substance.
for this substance in this report.
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 98.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HC1 (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.9
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF LIGHT WT AG FACILITY W/LOW ENERGY SCRUBBER
BURNING AVERAGE 16 OIL FOR FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (at)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
9.5E-06
2.3E-05
6.6E-06
4.2E-06
4.6E-06
1.5E-06
9.2E-05
3.2E-06
1.3E-04
3.7E-05
1.6E-05
1.1E-05
3.2E-04
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
5.6E-05
1.4E-04
3.9E-05
2.5E-05
2.7E-05
8.8E-06
8.8E-04
1.9E-05
7.5E-04
2.2E-04
9.4E-05
6.3E-05
8.7E-02
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone./
Screenining Cone.
1.2E-04
1.4E-04
3.3E-05
*.3E-03
2.3E-04
7.4E-05
5.8E-03
1.6E-04
3.2E-03
4.6E-C4
3.9E-03
2.6c:-04
5.8E-04
Highest Individual
Cancer Risk
Times 100,000
2E-02
6E-03
5E-03
1E-02
2E-02
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
•si
vi
Total= 7E-02
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
st A short-term TLV exists for this substance.
for this substance in this report.
See Table 4.S for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 50.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.10
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF ONE BOILER
BURNING AVERAGE 16 OIL FOR FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
1.9E-05
2.3E-05
6.6E-05
4.2E-06
6.6B-05
2.1E-05
1.8E-04
3.2E-06
1.3E-03
3.7E-05
1.6E-05
1.1E-05
6.5E-04
Ambient
Cone .
(ug/cu. m)
6.7E-05
8.2E-05
2.3E-04
1.5E-05
2.3E-04
7.4E-05
l.OE-03
1.1E-05
4 5E-03
1.3E-04
5.6E-05
3.7E-05
1.2E-01
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone./
Screenining Cone.
1.4E-04
8.2E-05
2.0E-04
3.1E-03
2.0E-03
6.2E-04
6.9E-03
9.4E-05
1.9E-02
2.7E-04
2.3E-03
1.6E-04
7.7E-04
Highest Individual
Cancer Risk
Times 100,000
3E-02
4E-03
4E-02
9E-02
1E-01
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
01
Total= 3E-01
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
st
A short -terpi TLV exists, for this substance.
for this substance in this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 0.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HC1 (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.11
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF DRY CEMENT PLANT (ONE UNIT WITH ESP)
BURNING AVERAGE 16 OIL FOR FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (at)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
3.8E-0.'
2.3E-05
6.6E-07
4.2E-06
6.6E 07
4.2E-07
3.ifi-06
3.2E-06
1.3E-05
3.7E-05
1.6E-05
1. IE-Ob
1.3E-05
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. ra)
5.3E-07
3.2E-05
9.2E-07
5.8E-06
9.1E-07
5.8E-07
8.2E-06
4.4E-06
1.8E-05
5.1E-05
2.2F-05
1.5B-05
1.1E-03
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone,/
Screenining Cone.
1 .1E-06
3.2E-05
7.7E-07
1.2E-03
7.7E-06
4.9E-06
S.bE-05
3.7E-05
7.4E-05
1.1E-04
9.2E-04
6. IE-OS
7.5E-06
Highest Uuii 'idi.al
Cancer Risk
Times 100,000
2E-04
1E-03
2E-04
7E-04
5E-04
Class
A
01
Bl
A
A
Total- 3E-03
toxic impacts were not evaluated
st A short-term TLV exists for this s
for this substance in this report.
substance. Short-ten
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 98.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
Ok
01
TABLE 6.12
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF LIGHT WT AG FACILITY W/LOU ENERGY SCRUBBER
BURNING WORST CASE 16 OIL FO< FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
9.5E-06
2.3E-05
6.6E-06
4.2E-06
4.6E-06
1.5E-06
9.2E-05
3.2E-06
1.3E-04
3.7E-05
1.6E-05
1.1E-05
3.2E-04
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
5.6E-05
1.4E-04
3.9E-OS
2.5E-05
2.7E-05
8.8E-06
8.8E-04
1.9E-05
7.5E-04
2.2E-04
9.4E-05
6.3E-05
8.7K-02
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone,/
Screenining Cone.
1.2E-04
1.4E-04
3.3E-05
5.3E-03
2.3E-04
7.4E-05
5.8E-03
1.6E-04
3.2B-03
4.6E-04
3.9E-03
2.6E-04
S.8E-04
Highest Individual
Cancer Sisk
Times 100,000
2E-02
6E-03
5E-03
1E-02
2E-02
Class
A
01
131
A
A
Total- 7E-02
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
st A short-term TLV exists for this substance.
for this substance in this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 50.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.13
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF ONE BOILER
BURNING WORST CASE 16 OIL FOR FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Berylli-ia
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Fmission Factor
Ib/MM Ptu
2.6E-04
5. IE 05
1.7E-04
2.0E-05
1.1E-04
5.3E-04
5.3E-04
S. 35-04
3.8E-03
8.9E-05
3.9E-05
2.6E-05
1.7E-03
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
9.3E-04
1.8E-04
5.9E-04
7.1E-05
3.7E-04
1.9E-03
3.0E-03
1.9E-03
1.4K-02
1.:.2-04
1.4E-04
9.3E-05
3.1E-01
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone./
Screenining Cone.
2.0E-03
1.8E-04
4.9E-U4
1.5E-02
3.1E-03
1.6E-02
2.0E-02
1.6E-02
5.7E-02
6.6E-04
5.9E-03
3.9E-04
2.1E-03
Highest Individual
Cancer RISK
Times 100,000
4E-01
2E-02
6E-02
2E+00
4E-01
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
I
~J
Total= 3E+00
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
st A short-term TLV exists for this substance.
for this substance in this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 0.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.14
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF DRY CEMENT PLANT (ONE UNIT WITH ESP)
BURNING WORST CASE 16 OIL FOR FLAT TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Ant imony
Barium
Beryllium
Cad.nium (8t)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (at)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
3.8E-07
2.3E-05
6.6E-07
4.2E-06
6.6E-07
4.2E-07
3.7E-06
3.2E-06
1.3E-05
3.7E-05
1.6E-05
1.1E-05
1.3E-05
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
5.3E-07
3.2E-05
9.2E-07
5.8E-06
9.1E-07
5.8E-07
8.2E-06
4.4E-06
1.8E-05
5.1E-05
2.2E-05
1.5E-05
1.1E-03
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone./
Screenining Cone.
1.1E-06
3.2E-05
7.7E-07
1.2E-03
7.7E-06
4.9E-06
5.5E-05
3.7E-05
7.4E-05
1.1E-04
9.2E-04
6.1E-05
7.5E-06
Highest Individual
Cancer Risk
Times 100,000
2E-04
1E-03
2E-04
/E-U4
5E-04
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
Total= 3E-03
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
st A shor^-term TLV exists for this substance.
for this substance in thie report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 98.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.15
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF LIGHT WT AG FACILITY W/LOW ENERGY SCRUBBER
BURNING AVERAGE COAL FOR ROUGH TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (st)
Chroroium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ih/MM Btu
9.5E-04
1.7E-03
6.7E-04
1.6E-04
5.3E-06
2.8E-04
2.9E-04
1.9E-05
2.4E-04
3.3E-04
1.7E-05
l.OE-05
4.3E-03
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
3.7E-02
6.5E-02
2.6E-02
7.3E-03
2.1E-04
1.1E-02
1.8E-02
7.5E-04
9.3E-03
1.3E-02
6.5E-04
4.1E-04
6.1E+00
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone./
Screenining Cone.
7.8E-02
6.5E-02
2.2E-02
1.5E+00
1.8E-03
9.1E-02
1.2E-01
6.3E-03
3.9E-02
2.8E-02
2.8E-02
1.7E-03
4.1E-02
Highest Individual
Cancer Risk
Times 100,000
2E+01
2E+00
4E-02
1E+01
3E-01
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
en
i
oc
Total= 3E+01
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
st A short-term TLV exists for this substance.
for this substance in this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 50.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.16
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF ONE BOILER
BURNING AVERAGE COAL FOR ROUGH TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
-------
TMJLE 6.16A
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF ONE BOILER WITH ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
BURNING AVERAGE COAL FOR COMPLEX TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (at)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
3.8E-05
1.7E-03
6.7E-05
1.8E-04
7.6E-07
7.92-05
1.2E-05
1.9E-05
2.4E-05
3.3E-04
1.7E-05
l.OE-05
8.6E-03
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
1.4E-03
6.2E-02
2.5E-03
6.9E-03
2.8E-05
2.9E-03
6.9E-04
7.1E-04
8.8E-04
1.2E-02
6.2E-04
3.9E-04
1.4E+01
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone./
Soreenining Cone.
3.0E-03
6.2E-02
2.1E-03
1.4E+00
2.4E-04
2.4E-02
4.6E-03
6.0E-03
3.7E-03
2.6E-02
2.6E-02
) .6E-03
9.1E-02
Highest Individual
Cancer Risk
Times 100,000
6E-01
2E+00
5E-03
3E+OG
3E-02
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
h*
X
Total= 6E+00
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
st A short-term TLV exists for this substance.
for this substance in thLS report.
See Table 4.5 for assamed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 0.00% removal efficiency for HCl.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
V"
-------
TABLE 6.17
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF DRY CEMENT PLANT (ONE UNIT WITH ESP)
BURNING AVERAGL CuAL FOR ROUGH TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (at)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
3.8E-05
1.7E-03
6.7E-05
1.8E-04
7.6E-07
7.9E-05
1.2E-05
1.9E-05
2.4E-05
3.3E-04
1.7E-05
l.OE-05
1.7E-04
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
7.5E-04
3.3E-02
1.3E-03
3.7E-03
1.5E-05
1.6E-03
3.7E-04
3.8E-04
4.7E-04
6.6E-03
3.3E-04
2.1E-04
1.2E-01
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone./
Screenining Cone.
1.6E-03
3.3E-02
l.AE-03
7.7E-01
1.3E-04
1.3E-02
2.5E-03
3.2E-03
2.0E-03
1.4E-02
1.4E-02
8.6E-04
8.1E-04
Highest Individual
Cancer Risk
Times 100,000
3E-01
9E-01
3E-03
2E+00
1E-02
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
0\
I
oc
Total= 3E+00
Short-ter^ toxic impacts were not evaluated
st A short-term TLV exists for this substance.
for this bubstance in this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 98.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HC1 (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.18
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF LIGHT WT AG FACILITY W/LCW ENERGY SCRUBBER
BURNING WORST CASE COAL FOR ROUGH TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Baiiuro
Beiyllium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (at)
Selenium
Sliver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
1.5E-02
1.551-01
1.3E-02
2.1E-03
9.4E-04
1.2E-03
2.3E-02
6.7E-04
4.8E-03
6.7E-04
6.7E-04
5.8E-05
3.3E-01
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
5.8E-01
5.9E+00
5.2E-01
8.2E-02
3.7E-02
4.8E-02
1 .5E+00
2.6E-02
1.9E-01
2.7E-02
2.6E-02
2.3E-03
4.6E+02
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone./
Screenining Cone.
1.2E+00
5.9E+00
4.4E-01
1.7E+01
3.1E-01
4.0E-01
9.8E+00
2.2E-01 •
8.0E-01
5.6E-02
1.1E+00
9.6E-03
3.1E+00
Highest Individual
Cancer Risk
Times 100,000
3E+02
2E+01
6E+00
6E+01
6E+00
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
Total= 3E+02
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
st A short-term TLV exists for this substance.
tor this substance in this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 50.00% removal efficiency for HCl.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.19
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF ONE BOILER
BURNING WORST CASE COAL FOR ROUGH TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
3.0E-02
1.5E-01
1.3E-01
2.1E-03
1.3E-02
1.7E-02
4.7E-02
6.7E-C4
4.8E-02
6.7E-04
6.7B-04
5.8E-05
6.5B-01
Ambient
Cone .
(ug/cu. m)
1.1E+00
5.6E+00
4.9E+00
7.7E-02
5.0E-01
6.5E-01
2.8E+00
2.5E-( ..
1.8E+00
2.5E-02
2.5E-02
2.2E-03
l.OE+03
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone./
Screenining Cone.
2.3E+00
•j . 6E+00
4.1E+00
1.6E+01
4.2E+00
t>.4E+00
I.8E+01
2.1E-01
7.5E+00
5.3E-02
l.OE+OU
9.1E-03
6.9E+00
Highest Individual
Cancer RISK
Times 100,000
5E+02
2E+01
9E+01
8E+02
5E+01
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
Total= 1E+03
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
st
A short-term TLV exists for this substance.
for this substance In thic
tor this substance In this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 0.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6. ISA
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF ONE BOILER WITH ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
BURNING WORST CASE COAL FOR COMPLEX TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercur/
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
6.0E-04
1.5E-OJ
1.3E-03
2.1E-03
1.4E-04
3.5E-04
9.3E-04
6.7E-04
4.8E-04
6.7E-01
6.7E-04
5.8E-05
6.5E-01
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. HI)
2.2E-02
5.6E+00
4.9E-02
7.7E-02
5.0E-02
1.3E-02
5.5E-02
2.5B-02
1.8E-02
2.5E-02
2.5E-02
2.7.E-03
l.OE+03
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone,/
Screenining Cone.
4.6E-02
S.6E+00
4.1E-02
1.6E+01
4.2E-02
1.1E-01
3.7E-01
2.1E-01
7.5E-02
5.3E-02
l.OE+00
9.1E-03
6.9E+00
Highest Individual
yancer Risk
Times 100,000
9E+00
2E+01
9E-01
2E+01
5E-01
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
K)
Total- 5E+01
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
st
{short-term TLV exists for this substance.
or this substance in this report.
See Table 4.r» for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 0.00V. removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.20
HIGHEST IMPACTS OP DRY CEMENT PLANT (ONE UNIT WITH ESP)
BURNING WORST CASE COAL FOR ROUGH TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
6.0E-04
1.5E-01
1.3B-03
2.1E-03
1.4E-04
3.5E-04
9.3E-04
6.7E-04
4.8B-04
6.7E-04
6.7E-04
5. SB-OS
1.3B-02
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
1.2E-02
3.0E+00
2.6E-02
4. 1E-02
2.7E-03
6.9E-03
3.0B-02
1.3E 02
9.5E-03
1.3E-02
1.3B-02
t.2B-03
9.2B+00
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone,/
Screenining Cone.
2.SE-02
3.0E+00
2.2E-02
8.6E+00
2.2E-02
S.8E-02
2.0E-01
1.1E-01
4.0B-02
2.8P-02
5.5E-01
4.8B-03
6.2E-02
Highest: Individual
cancer Riek
Times 100,000
5E+00
1E+01
5E-01
6E+00
jE-01
ClflBb
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
o»
I
to
or
X
Total- 2E+01
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
st A short-term TLV exists for this substance.
for this substance In uhls report.
tor this substance I
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 98.00% removal efficiency for HCl.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.21
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF LIGHT WT AC FACILITY W/LOW ENERGY SCRUBBER
BURNING AVERAGE 16 OIL FOR ROUGH TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmiun (sL)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Fmiasion Factor
Ib/MM Btu
9.5E-06
2.3E-05
6.6E-06
4.2B-06
4.6E-06
1.5E-06
9.2E-05
3.2E-06
1.3E-04
3.7E-05
1.6E-05
1.1E-05
3.2E-04
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
3.7E-04
9.1E-04
2.6E-04
1.7E-04
1.8E-04
5.8E-05
5.8E-03
1.2E-04
5.0E-03
1.4E-03
6.2E-04
4.1E-04
4.6E-01
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone,/
Screenmxng Cone.
7.6E-04
9.1E-04
2.2E-04
3.5E-02
1.5E-03
4.9E-04
3.9E-02
l.OE-03
2.1E-02
3.0E-03
2.6E-02
1.7E-03
3.1E-03
Highest Individual
Cancer Rick
Tiroes 100,000
2L-01
4E-02
3E-02
7E-02
2E-01
Clati&
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
I
-J
K
or
Total= 4E-01
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
st A short-term TLV exists for this substance.
tor this substance in this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 50.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.22
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF ONE BOILER
BURNING AVERAGE 16 OIL FOR ROUGH TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
1.9E-05
2.3E-05
6.6E-05
4.2E-06
6.6E-05
2.1E-05
1.8E-04
3.2E-06
1.3E-03
3.7E-05
1.6E-05
1.1E-05
6.5E-04
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
7.0E-04
8.6E-04
2.5E-03
1.6E-04
2.4E-03
7.8E-04
1.1E-02
1.2E-04
4.7E-02
1.4E-03
b.8E-04
3.9E-04
l.OE+00
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone./
Screenining Cone.
1.5E-03
8.6E-04
2.1E-03
3.3E-02
2.0E-02
6.5E-03
7.3E-02
9.8E-04
2.0E-01
2.9E-03.
2.5E-02
1.6E-03
6.9E-03
Highest Individual
Cancer Risk
Times 100,000
3E-01
4E-02
4E-01
9E-01
1E+00
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
Total= 3E+00
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
st A short-term TLV exjsts for this substance.
for this substance in this report.
Sae Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
.Assuming 0.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.23
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF DRY CEMENT PLANT (ONE UNIT WITH ESP)
BURNING AVERAGE #6 OIL FOR ROUGH TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
3.8E-07
2.3E-05
6.6E-07
4.2E-06
6.6E-07
4.2E-07
3.7E-06
3.2E-06
1.3E-05
3.7E-05
1.6E-05
1.1E-05
1.3E-05
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
7.5E-06
4.6E-04
1.3E-05
8.3E-05
1.3E-05
8.3E-06
1.2E-04
6.2E-05
2.5E-04
7.3E-04
3.1E-04
2.1E-04
9.1E-03
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone./
Screen rning Cone.
1.6E-05
4.6E-04
1.1E-05
1.7E-02
1.1E-04
7.0E-05
7.7E-04
5.2E-04
l.OE-03
1.5E-03
1.3E-02
8.7E-04
6.1E-05
Highest Individual
Cancer RISK
Times 100,000
3E-03
2E-02
2E-03
1E-02
8E-03
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
0>
ro
4°
Total= 4E-02
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
st A short-term TLV exists for this substance.
for this substance in this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 98.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual bauis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.24
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF LIGHT WT AG FACILITY W/LOW ENERGY SCRUBBER
BURNING WORST CASE #6 OIL FOR ROUGH TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
1.3E-04
5.1E-05
1.7E-05
2.0E-05
7.4E-06
3.7E-05
2.6E-04
5.3E-04
3.8E-04
8.9E-05
3.9E-05
2.6E-05
8.6E-04
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
5.2E-03
2.0E-03
6.5E-04
7.8E-04
2.9E-04
1.4E-03
1.7E-02
2.1E-02
1.5E-02
3.5E-03
1.5E-03
l.OE-03
1.2E+00
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone./
Screenining Cone.
1.1E-02
2.0E-03
5.5E-04
1.6E-01
2.4E-03
1.2E-02
1.1E-01
1.7E-01
6.3E-02
7.4E-03
6.5E-02
4.3S-03
6.2E-03
Highest Individual
Cancer RISK
Times 100,000
2E+00
2E-01
5E-02
2E+00
5E-01
ClaSU
A
Bl
Bl
A
\
Total= 5E+00
Short-term toxic inspects were not evaluated
st
A short-term TLV exists for this substance.
for this substance in this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 50.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
TABLE 6.25
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF ONE BOILER
BURNING WORST CASE 16 OIL ?OR ROUGH TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
2.6E-04
5.1E-05
1.7E-04
2.0E-05
1.1E-04
5.3E-04
5.3E-04
5.3E-04
3.8E-03
8.9E-05
3.9E-05
2.6E-05
1.7E-03
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. m)
9.7E-03
1.9E-03
6.1E-03
7.4E-04
3.9E-03
1.9E-02
3.1E-02
1.9E-02
1.4E-01
3.3E-03
1.5E-03
9.7E-04
2.7E+00
Toxic Ratio
Ambient C°nc./
Screenining Cone.
2.0E-02
1.9E-03
5.1E-03
1.6E-01
3.3E-02
1.6E-01
2.1E-01
1.6E-01
6.0E-01
6.9E-03
6.1E-02
4.1E-03
1.8E-02
Highest Individual
Cancer Risk
Times 100,0^0
4E+00
2E-01
7E-01
2E + 01
4E+00
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
Total= 3E+01
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
at A shor^-term TLV exists for this substance.
for this substance in this report.
See Table 4.5 for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 0.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis ex :ept for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
en
l
TABLE 6.26
HIGHEST IMPACTS OF DRY CEMENT PLANT (ONE UNIT WITH ESP)
BURNING WORST CASE |6 OIL FOR ROUGH TERRAIN
SUBSTANCE
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (st)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel (st)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Hydrochloric Acid
Emission Factor
Ib/MM Btu
5.3E-06
5.1E-05
1.7E-06
2.0E-05
1.1E-06
1.1E-05
1.1E-05
5.3E-04
3.8E-05
8.9E-05
3.9E-05
2.6E-05
3.4E-05
Ambient
Cone.
(ug/cu. ra)
l.OE-04
l.OE-03
3.3E-05
3.9E-04
2.1E-05
2.1E-04
3.3E-04
l.OE-02
7.6E-04
1.8E-03
7.8E-04
5.2E-04
2.4E-02
Toxic Ratio
Ambient Cone./
Screenining Cone.
2.2E-04
l.OE-03
2.7E-05
8.3E-02
1.7E-04
1.7E-03
2.2E-03
8.7E-02
3.2E-03
3.7E-03
3.3E-02
2.2E-03
1.6E-04
Total =
Highest Individual
Cancer Risk
Times 100,000
4E-02
1E-01
4E-03
2E-01
2E-02
4E-01
Class
A
Bl
Bl
A
A
st
Short-term toxic impacts were not evaluated
A short-term TLV exists for this substance.
for this substance in this report.
See Table 4.^ for assumed metal collection efficiency
Assuming 98.00% removal efficiency for HC1.
Ambient concentrations and toxic ratios are on an annual basis except for
Lead (quarterly) and HCl (3 minute).
-------
in boilers and light weight aggregate kilns are sjse emissions only have
significant carcinogenic impacts for the boilers and the light weight aggregate
kiln in complex terrain (except for chromium frotr an uncontrolled boiler,
which would have significant impacts in flat temin if all chromium emissions
are hexavalant). The trace element emissions modi ltd from coal comoustion
have much higher carcinogenic impacts than the tra;& element emissions modeled
from oil combustion, and the carcinogenic impacts cf coal combustion can be
significant for arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium and nickel in both flat
and complex terrain.
The impact of trace element and HC1 emission from for.sil fuel combustion
are discussed below, one element at a time:
Arsenic
Arsenic emissions from the combustion of average ccal, average oil and
worst case oil are unlikely to cause significant threshold toxic impacts.
More detailed risk assessment studies are needed to determine if arsenic
emissions from the comoustion of worst case coal in the ligM weight aggregate
kiln or in the boiler (without an effective pollution control system fcr
arsenic) would or would not be likely to cause adverse impacts because of
threshold toxicity in complex terrain. Adverse toxic impacts are considered
to be unlikely for arsenic emissions from worst case coal for all of the
sources modeled in this chapter in flue terrain and from the boiler with an
electrostatic precipitator in in complex terrain.
Significant cancer risks are predicted from the arsenic in average and
worst case ccal when burned in the light weight aggregate kiln, even in flat
terrain. For the boiler with an electrostatic precipitator, arsenic would
only cause significant carcinogenic impacts for worst case coal xn complex
terrain. For r.ne boiler without an effective system to remove arsenic emis-
sions, the carinogenic impacts of arsenic are predicted to be significant for
average and for worst case coal in both flat and complex terrain. For a
cement kiln with an electrostatic precipitator, the carcinogenic impact of
arsenic emissions would only be significant for worst case coal in complex
terrain.
Antimony
Antimony concentrations from average coal and oil combustion in the
reasonable worst case boilers, the light weight aggregate kiln, and the
cement kiln are unlikely to cause significant threshold toxic effects.
Antimony concentrations from worst-case coal burned in the boiler and in
the light weight aggregate kiln (ass'oming no effective antimony emission
control) are high enough to warrant an investigation of the effectiveness of
pollution control systems for removing antimony and of antimony's toxicity in
both flat and complex terrain. For antimony from worst case coal burned in
the dry cement kiln, such an investigation would only be warranted in complex
terrain.
135
6-33
-------
Barium
Barium froir average coal and oil combustion in the reasonable worst
case boiler, the light weight aggiegate kiln and the cement kiln are
unlikely to cause significant threshold toxic effects. Barium concentra-
tions from wors^-case coal burned in the light weight aggregate kiln (in
complex terrain only) and rrom worst case coal burned in the boiler (in
both flat and complex terrain, assuming no effective control of emissions)
would be high enough to warrant an investigation of threshold toxic
impacts by more sophisticated methods than those in this report. For the
boiler with an electrostatic precipitator, significant threshold toxic
effects are unlikely for barium.
Beryllium
The combustion of average, ccal in complex terrain or worst case
beryllium containing coal in flat and in complex terrain (assuming no
effective beryllium emission control) is predicted to cause high enough
ambient concentrations to warrant an investigation of the effectiveness
of pollution control systems for removing beryllium and of the toxic
potency of beryllium for all three types of sources evaluated in this
chaptsr.
Beryllium from the combustion of average coal (assuming no effective
pollution cortrol) could cause significant carcinogenic impacts in complex
terrain for the light weight aggregate k_.ln and for the bciler. Beryllium
emissions from worst case coal combustion could cause significant carcino-
genic impacts for the reasonable worst case light weight aggregate kiln
and for the boiler, even in flat terrain (assuming no effective pollution
control). For the cement kiln, the carcinogenic impact of beryllium
emissions would only be significant for worst case coal in complex terrain
(assuming no effective pollution control). Clearly, the effectiveness of
pollution control systems for removing beryllium should be investigated
before a realistic assessment of beryllium impacts is possible.
Cadmium
It is unlikely that annual average cadmium concentrations from fossil
fuel combustior in the dry cement kiln ;in flat and in complex terrain),
in the boiler (assuring a 98% efficient electrostatic precipitator in
flat and complex terrain) and ir the light weight aggregate kiln (in
flat terrain) would cause adverse human health effects because of thres-
hold toxicity.
The annual average cadmium concentrations from the combustion of
worst case coal in the light weight aggregate kiln in complex terrain and
from the boiler (?.«suming no effective cadmium emission control) in both
flat and complex terrain are high enough to warrant an investigation of
threshold toxicity.
6-34
-------
Cadmium has a TLV-C. This implies that short-term exposure to high
cadmium concentrations can cause adverse human health effects. No EPA approved
short term screening concentrations for cadmium exist. Therefore, short-term
cadmium impacts can not be evaluated in this report.
For both flat and complex terrain, ambient cadmium concentrations would
be of jor.cRin from a standpoint of carcinogenicity if worst-case coal were
burned in the light weight agregate kiln equipped with a spray tower scrubber
or in a boiler without effective cadmium emission control. Carcinogenic
impacts from cadmium would not be significant from average coal or from oil
for any of the three types of sources evaluated in this report or from worst
case coal combustion in the dry cement kiln or the boilers with electrostatic
precipitators. The impact would be significant in both flat and complex
terrain for worst case coal burned ir. the light weight aggregate kiln and in
the boilers without effective cadmium emission control.
Chromium
Assuming all chromium emissions are hexavalent, annual i/erage chromium
concentrations from the combustion of worst case coal in the light weight
aggregate kiln in complex terrain and from the boiler {assuming no effective
chromium emission control) in flat and in complex terrain would be high
enough to warrant an investigation of threshold toxicity by more sophisticated
methods than those in this study. The impact of chromium emissions from the
combustion of average coal in an uncontrolled boiler in complex terrain would
also be hign enough to warrant a more detailed study of threshold toxicity,
if all of the chromium emissions are hexavalent. if the chromium emissions
were trivalent, a more detailed study would only be warranted for ths combus-
tion of vorst case coal in an uncontrolled boiler in complex terrain.
If all chromium emissions were hexavalent, significant carcinogenic
impacts are predicted in flat and in complex terrain for the light weight
aggregate kiln and fcr the uncontrolled boiler, for both average and worst
case coal. For the boiler with an electrostatic pracipitator and 100% hexa-
valent chromium emissions, average coal would only cause significant carcino-
genic impacts in complex terrain; and *orst case coal would cause significant
impacts in both flat and complex terrain. Assuming 100% hexavalent chromium
emissions, the carcinogenic impact of chromium emissions from average and
worst case coal would also be of significance for the ceaent kiln in complex
terrain. In addition, the carcinogenic impact of worst case oil combustion
in the light weight aggregate kiln in complex terrain and in ths boiler (in
both flat and complex terrain) would be significant if all chromium emissions
are hexavalent. Trivalent chromium is not reported to be carcinogenic.
Much of the chromium emitted as a result of fossil fuel combustion may
not be hexavalent. Further investigations of hexavalent verses trivalent
chromium are needed to properly assess cancer risks from chromium emissions.
6-35 -1
-------
Lead
If worst case coal were burned in the light weight aggregate kiln or in •
the boiler (without affective lead emission controls) the impact on ambient
air quality .would exceed the level considered to be acceptable. Ir complex
terrain, the impact would be aqual to the ambient air quality standard for
the light weight aggreaats kiln and would exceed the ambient air quality
standard for the uncontrolled boiler. The impact of lead emissions from the
combustion of worst case coal in the boiler with an electrostatic precipitator
and in the dry cement kiln would be acceptable, even in complex terrain.
Mercury
Ambient mercury concentrations from the combustion of coal and oil are
unlikely to cause significant toxic impacts for the reasonable worst case
boilers, the light weight aggregate kiln and the dry cement kiln.
Nickel
If worst case coal were burned in the light weight aggregate kiln in
complex terrain or in an uncontrolled boiler in flat or in complex terrain,
annual average ambient nickel concentration impacts would be high enough to
warrant a more detailed investigation of threshold toxicity. Such an investi-
gation would also be warranted for the combustion of average coal in an
uncontrolled boiler in complex terrain. For the reasonable worst cas* boiler
with an electrostatic precipitator and the dry cement kiln, average nickel
concentration impacts would be unlikely to cause adverse threshold toxic
impacts, even in complex terrain.
Nickel has a TLV-STEL, indicating that high short term concentrations of
nickel can cause adverse human health effects. Maximum short term ambient
nickel concentrations from the combustion of coal and oil will not be evalua-
ted in this report because no EPA approved short term nickel screening concen-
tration is available-
Significant carcinogenic impacts are predicted from nickel from the
conbustion of worst case coal in a light weight aggregate kiln in flat and in
complex terrain, significant impacts are 9lso predicted from the combustion of
average and worst case coal and oil in an uncontrolled bciler in complex
terrain.
Selenium, Silver and Thallium
Emissions of selenium and thallium from fossil fuel combustion are
unlikely to result in adverse threshold toxic impacts» Assuming no effective
silver emission control, the impact of silver emissions in complex terrain
from the reasonable worst case boiler, from the light weight aggregate kiln
and from the dry cement Kiln would be high enough to warrant a more detailed
study of threshold toxicity (and an investigation of the effectiveness of
emission control systems).
6-36
-------
Hydrochloric Acid
If all chlorine in fossil fuel were emitted as HC1, the three hour
maximum ambient HC1 concentration resulting from the combustion of worst case
coal in the light weight aggregate kiln (assuming 50% removal efficiency) and
in the boilers (assuming no HC1 removal) would exceed short term thresholds
reported to be associated with adverse human health effects in complex terrain.
These thresholds (shown in Table 2.7) are based on studies in the U.S.S.R.
However, che report containing these thresholds (Reference 26) is not well
documented. Further investigation of the effects on people of short-term
exposure to HC1 is recommended, along with an investigation of the percent of
chlorine in fossil fuel that is converted to HC1.
In flat terrain, ambient hydrochloric acid concentrations from the
combustion of worst case coal in the boiler and in the light weight aggregate
kiln would be high enough to warrant an investigation of whether or not the
predicted concentrations, in combination with background levels, are likely
to be associated with adverse human health effects.
For averaga coal and for oil combustion, adverse toxic impacts from HC1
emissions are unlikely.
-------
REFERENCES
1. WESTAT. Survey of Waste as Fuel Track II (EPA Contract #6801-6621).
November, 1985.
2. Guideline On Air Quality Models (Revised). U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. November 1984.
3. Turner, D.B. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates. U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. Revised 1970.
3a. Method Levels in Hazardous Waste Fields (lEO- U.S. environmental pro-
tection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. July 1986.
4. Hazardous Constituents. 40 CFR Part 261, App. VIII. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Revised July 1, 1985.
5. Summary of Current Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADIs) for Oral Exposure.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Environmental Criteria
and Assessment, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 29, 1983.
6. Summary of Published Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADIs) for EPA's Priority
Pollutants. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Criteria
and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 29, 1986.
7. Verified Reference Doses (RfDs) of the U.S. EPA. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. The ADI Work Group of the Risk Assessment Forum.
January 1986.
3. Threshold Limit values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices for 1985-
36. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 1983.
9. Relative Carcinogenic Potencies Among 54 Chemicals Evaluated by the Car-
cinogen Assessment Group as Suspected Human Carcinogens: Table 5-32.
Health Assessment Document for Dichloromethane. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Office Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington,
D.C. December, 1984 (EPA-600/8-82-004B).
10. Dourson, L.M. Health Effects Assessment Summary for 300 Hazardous Or-
ganic Constituents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ECAO - Cin-
cinnati, Ohio. August 18, 1982.
R-1
-------
11. Relative Carcinoger.ic Potencies Among 55 Chemicals Evaluated by the Car-
cinogen Assessment Iroup as Suspected Hu^an Carcinogens: Table 6-9.
Mutagenicity and Carcinogen Assessment of 1,3 - Butadiene. U.S. Envi-
ronmental protection Agency, Office of Health and Environmental Assess-
me-.t, Washington, D.C. September 1385 (EPA-60C/8-85-004F).
12. Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; Request for Comments:
Part VII. Federal Register. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. No-
vember 23, 1984.
13. Procedure for Calculating Unit Risk Values: Reference 1 in Furnace BID.
14. Bellin, S.J. and Burnes, G.D. Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks
Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins
and Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs). Prepared for U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. April 1986.
15. Hazardous Wasta Management System; Land Disposal Restrictions; Proposed
Rule: Part III. Federal Register. U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-
cy. January 14, 1986.
16. Guidance anu Methods for the Use of Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADIs) in
Health Risk Assessment. Prepared by Agency-Wide Distribution for the
U.S. Environmental Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environ-
mental Criteria and Assessment, Cincinnati, Ohio. November, 1982.
17. Buckley, T. Toxic Air pollutants: Regulations Based on Threshold Limit
Values. John Hopkins University, School of Hygiene and Public Health,
Baltimore, Maryland. January 17, 1986.
19. Stokinger, H.E. Concepts of Threshold in Standard Settings. Volume 25.
Archives of Environmental Health. 1972.
20. Cieland, G.J. and Kingsbury, G.L. Multimedia Environmental Goals for
Environmental Assessment. Volume I. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. November, 1977 (EPA-600/7-77-136a).
21. Price, J., wierseman, J. and Hartfield, J. New Source Review for Accept-
ability of Public Exposure to Chemical Emissions 79-4.6). 72nd Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Cincinnati, Ohio.
June 24-i9, 1979.
22. Budney, J.L. Guidelines For Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Anal-
ysis. Volume 10 (Revised). Procedures For Evaluating Air Quality Im-
pact of New Stationary Sources. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Waste Management, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. October 1977 (EPA
450/4-77-001).
23. Hui, P.S., Batchelder, B.J. and Dawson, V.S. The Merits of Quantitative
Risk Assessment vs. TLV Approaches to Non-Criteria Pollutant Standards.
Prepared by the Calit'irnia Air Resources Board for Presentation at the
79th Annual Me-sting of tne Air Pollution Control Association, Minnea-
polis, Minnesota. June 22-27, 1986.
R-2
-------
24. Stuart, O.B. Technical Information Heeded ir Addition to Present TLV
Documentation for Application in Community Air Standard Settings Pre-
pared by Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory for Presenta-
tion at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Associa-
tion, Minneapolis, Minnesota. June 22-27, 1986.
25. McCormick, R.C. Environmental Exposure Limit Assessment for Hydrogen
Chloride Memorandum. Prepared by Technology Assessment Branch for Waste
Treatment Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 1, 1986.
26. Summary Review for Health Effects Associated with Chlorine and Hydrogen
Chloride: Health Issue Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-
cy, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. March, 1986.
27. Summary of Trace Emissions from and Recommendations of Risk Assessment
Methodologies for Coal and Oil Combustion Sources. Prepared by Radian
Corporation for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pollutant Assess-
ment Branch, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. November, 1985
28. NESHAP Development for Chromium Emissions from the Portland Cement In-
dustry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
and Planning Standards, Washington, O.C. June, 1986.
29. Chromium Emissions from Coal and oil Combustion. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards, Wash-
ington, O.C. June, 1986.
28. NcSHAP Development for Chromium Emissions from the Portland Cement In-
dustry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
and Planning Standards, Washington, D.C. June, 1986.
29. Chromium Emissions from Coal and Oil Combustion. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards, Wash-
ington, D.C. June, 1986.
30. Dourson, M.L. and Stara, J.F. Regulatory History and Experimental Sup-
port of Uncertainty (Safety) Factors, fcsg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 3:
224-238. 1983.
31. Dourson, M.L. and Stara, J.F. The Conceptual Basis of the Acceptable
Daily Intakes. Working Draft. 1983.
32. Guidelines and Methodology Used in the Preparation of Health Effects
Assessment Chapters of the Consent Decree Water Quality Criteria.
Federal Register. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 45: 79347-
79357. 1930.
33. Ratcliff, L. Memorandum <*n Risk Specific Doses for the Appendix VIII
Carcinogens. Prepared by Studies and Methods Branch. May 30, 1986.
34. Dr. Vessell, E. Telephone Conversation. Hershey Medical Canter, Her-
shey, Pennsylvania. August 12, 1906.
R-3
-------
35. Plan for the Attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for Lead in Jefferson County. Jefferson County Department of Health.
May 5, 1985.
36. Regulatory Analysis for Proposed RCRA Regulations: Permit Standards for
Burning of Hazardous Wastes in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces, prepared
by Industrial Economics, Inc., for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Cambridge, Massachusetts. February 1986.
38. Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary Combustion Systems, vol-
ume III. External Combustion Sources for Electricity Generation. Pre-
pared by TRW Environmental Engineering Division for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
November, 1980.
39. Trace Metals and Stationary Conventional Combustion Sources Technical
Department. Volume I. Prepared by Radian Corporation for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. August, 1980.
40. Risk Assessment in Health Effects Review of Air Permits in Texas. Pre-
pared by Texas Air Control Board, Austin, Texas. 1985.
41. Summary of Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, and Chlorine Contents and Emissions
from Burning Coal Cr>r.pured with Similar Data for Burning #6 Residual Fuel
Data. Prppiied bv Oldcver Corporation, Ashland, Virginia. August 20,
123o.
42. New Source Review in Texas for Noncriteria Air Contaminant Impacts. Pre-
pared by Texas Air Control Board, Austin, Texas. 1985.
43. Used Oil Composition and Management in the United States, KLU. 1984.
44. Ratcliff, L. Memorandum on Risk Specific Doses. Prepared by Technical
Assessment Branch for waste treatment Branch. September 2» 1986.
45. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment: Part II. Federal Register.
U.3. .avironmental Protection Agency. September 24, 1986.
46. Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk Assessment: Part III. Federal Register.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 24, 1986.
47. Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures: Pa.rt IV.
Federal Register. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September ?.&,
1986.
43. Guidelines for the Health Assessment of Suspect Development Toxicants:
Part V. Federal Register. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep-
tember 24, 1986.
49. Guidelines for Exposure Assessment: Part VI. Federal Register. U.T.
Environmental protection Agency. September 24, 1986.
R-4
-------
50. Chown, C. and Ratcliff, L. Memorandum on Derivation of Health-Base
Criteria for Ambient Air Concentrations. Prepared by Technical Assess-
ment Branch for Waste Treatment Branch. November 1, 1986.
51. Galveston Bay Conservation and Preservation Association et al. Appellants
V.S. Texas Air Control Board et al. No. 12975. Court of Appeals,
Austin, Texas. August 22, 1979.
52. Documentation of tt.* Threshold Limit Values for Substances in Workroom
Air. Third Edition. Anerican Conference for Governmental Industrial
Hygienists. 1971.
53. Zaragoza, J.L., Whitfield, G.R., Peerenboom, P.J. Risk Assessment of Toxic
Air Pollutants: Present Methods and Future Directions.
54. Ratcliff, L. Memorandum on Short-Term Acceptable Exposure Limit for
Hydrogen Chloride. Prepared by Technical Assessment Branch for Waste
Treatment Branch. October 2, 1986.
55. Budney, J.L. Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis.
Volume 10 (Revised): Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality Impact of New
Stationary Sources . U.S. Enviormental Protection Agency, Office of Air
and Waste Management, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. October 1977 (EPA 450/4-77-001).
56. Chow, C, and Ratcliff, L. Memorandum on Background Information Document for
Preparing a Regulatory Impact Analysis of Burning Hazardous Wastes in In-
dustrial Boiler and Furnaces. Volume III. Prepared ty Technical Assess-
ment Branch for Waste Treatment Branch. October 24, 1986.
57. Texas Air Control Board, Control of Air Pollution form Toxic Materials,
Regulation III. Section 113.3: Specific Toxic Materials.
53. Air Quality Criteria for Oxides of Nitrogen. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. September 1982.
59. Retention of the National Ambient Air Quality StandaiCs f^r Nitrogen
Dioxide; Final Rule: Part IV. Federal Register. U.S. Environmeiital
Protection Agency. June 19, 1985.
60. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. Volune I-IV. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Offics, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. June, 1986.
61. EPA Staff Paper or. Lead.
62. haview of the National Ambient ?ir Quality Standards for Nitrogen Oxides:
Assessment of Scientific an« Technical Information. OAQPS Staff Paper.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ofiice of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. August, 1982.
63. Chow, C. and Raccliff, L. Memorandum on Derivation of Recommanded Inhala-
tion Exposure Limits, fire pa red by Technical Assessment Branch for t'aste
Treatment Branch.
R-5
-------
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY
-------
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY
Action Level - A concentration impact or concentration change that is
used to indicate the need for detailed risk assessment of threshold
toxicity. In this report, 25% of a screening concentration i.i used as an
action level.
Dark Adaptation - The ability of the eye to adapt to darfcness.
Dispersion Factor - The maximum ambient concentration caused by a source
divided by the corresponding emission rat3.
Level of Potential Concern - The concentration of a substance in a fuel
corresponding to a reference emission factor (assuming a heating value
for the fuel).
Reference Snission Factor - The pounds of emissions of a substance per
million Btu heat input (for a source) corresponding to a maximum ambient
air pollution concentration of 25% of a screening concentration or the
concentration associated with a maximum chance of one per hundred thousand
of cancer (for an individual spending an entire lifetime at the point of
maximum impact), whichever is less (unless specified to be based on
toxicity or carcinogenicity only).
Screening Concentration - An ambient air pollution concentration based on
threshold toxicity that is used to derive an action level. Screening
concentrations based on TLVs (using the equations in Chapter 2) are
considered co be total ambient air pollution concentrations that are
unlikely to be associated with significant human health effects because
of threshold toxicity. Screening concentrations derived from RFDs are
not suitable for this purpose, unless information is available on a case-
by-case basis indicating otherwise. Screening concentrations are not to
be mistaken for thresholds or for ambient air quality standards.
Unit Risk Value - The lifetime individual cancer risk occurring in a
hypothetical population in which all individuals are exposed continuously
from birth throughout their lifetime to a concentration of one ug/m^ of a
carcinogen.
-------
APPENDIX B
THRESHOLD TCX1CITY DATA BANK
-------
TOXIC"IT OAU I
SCREENING CONIENIRAIION
IF* (Ml) COHNCNIS TLV-TUA TLV-SIEl UV I
jmstuKt (ME/DAY) UNCERT. REF. ETC. :NG/M!> (HG/N»
ACETUI1TR1LEUIHAINZNIIRILE}
ACETCPHENONE(ETMANONE>
AC*OLE1N(2-P*OPEMAL>
ACRYLAH1DE (2-PROPEHAMIOE)
ACRYLONITRILC (2-PRGPEMENI HUE)
AIM IN
ALLYL ALCHOHOL
MUHINUN PHOSPHIDE
ANILINE (BENIENAHINE)
ANriHONV ANO COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
ARSENIC ANO COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
BARIUM AN* COHPOUNOS, N.O.S.
BARIUM CYANIDE
BENZENE (CrUOHEIMIIEHE)
P-HfNiOQUINONE n.4-CYCLOHEIAOIENED!IONE>
BENZYL CHLORIDE (BENIENE, (CHLOROMEIHVL)-)
BERYLLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
B!S(2-CHLOROISOP*OPVl> ETHER
BIS(CHLOROMEIHYL) EIHER
BlS(2-ET .PHENOL, HF.THYL-)
CROICHALDEIIYDf (2 BUIEHAL)
CYANIDES (SCUMBLE SALTS AND COMPLEXES), N.O.S.
CYANOGEN (EIHANEDINITRILE)
CYAHOefN CHLORIDE (CHLORINE CYANIDE)
DDT
I-BUTTL PHTHALATE (1,2*BENIENEDICARBO«YLIC ACID...)
0-DICHLOROBENIENE (BENtENE, 1,2-OICHLORO-)
P-DICHLOROBENIENE (BENIENE, 1,4-DiCHLORO-)
XHLORODIFLUORONETHANE (METHANE, DICHLORODIFLUORO-)
1,1-lllCHLOROETHANE (ETHYLIDENE BICM.ORIDE)
1,2-OICHLOROETHANC (EIHYLENE DICHLORIK)
0.6
«0
1
0.4
0.02
0.02
4
*
1.4
0.06
2
16
0.004
1.»
0.2
40
80
4
8
1.4
2
4
•
1
1
14
4
1000
1000
100
100
100
1000
100
100
10
100
100
100
100
63
61
7, 50, 61
SO, 61
61
61
SO, 61
61
61
61
61
61
SO
/
61
SO
61
61
61
61
61
T
61
61
61
61
SO, 61
70
02S
0.1
4.S
0.2S
S
2
10
OS
02
O.S
10
O.4
S
0.002
S
ooos
o.os
10
0 i
ISO
O.S
ISO
IS
10
so
1
O.S
o.os
0.2
22
6
5
20
1
S
4SO
4950
810
40
IK
0 «
0.6
0.7S
10
20
75
t
0.2 0.05
2
1
1
20
225
6
1«
06
1
10
100
675
6200
10*n
60
(UG/M3)
ANHUAI ANNUAL SID.
TLV COMMENT 1 (UN 15 MIH (ROM UV (RON RFD (UG/N1)
SKIN
MIH
5,* IN, APNOI A2
SKIN
SUN
SOIUABLE SM.IS
SKIN
SOL A! Al
SOL.
APNOI A2
ILV API.A2
APNOI Al
1LV/C*0!IOE IUME 0.5
SKIN
S4XU OIPHENOL WORST, SKIN
30
SKIN (BETA)
SKIN
APNOI A2
6ENI.SOL, Al*
SKIN
6
DisuiiL r:i:!Auu
xr.o
1050
a
6
7.5
100
200
750
10
2
20
10
TOO
2250
60
180
10
100
6750
62000
10100
600
167
0.60
0.71
11
0 60
12
48
74
1.2
0.48
1.2
71.4
0 95
12
0.0048
12
0.012
0.12
71
1.2
853
1.2
831
83
24
119
7.1
1.2
0.12
0 48
52
14
12
48
2.4
12
1071
11/86
1929
91
40
2000
50
20
1
1
200
200
.01 Jo 0 (MA
70
3
100
BOO
0.2
95
10
2000
4000
200
MJU
70
'00
200
400
50
50
700
200
-------
PPiNBII 8 - TOUCHY MIA BANK
SCREENING CuHCENIRAIION
RfB (A»l> (OWttNIS
SUBSTANCE (M/BAV) UHCZRT. REf. EIC
BICHIOROEIHVLEHE, N.O.S.
1,1 BICHLOROEIHYLtHE (VINYtlBENE CHLORIDE)
BICHLOROHE THANE (NEIHVLEHE CHLORIDE)
2,4-BICHLC40PHENOL
1,2-BICHLOROPROPANE (PROPYIENE BICHLORIDE)
BICHLOROfROPENE, N.O.S.
1,301 iHLOROPROPENE
BIELBR1N
0,0 BIEIHVLPMOSPHORIC ACIB, O-P-HIIROPHENYL ESTER
BIEIHYL PH1HALATE
BIHETHOAIE
P-BINE IHYlANIHOAIOBf NIENE
1,1-B!NETHYIHYBRAIINE
BINEIHYL PHIHALAIE
DINEIHYL SULfAlE .* HEPTACWOR
Vjf HEXACHLOROBUTABKNE
(37' HEIACHLOBOCrClOPEKiABIENE
~f> HEXACHUMOEIHANE
"*- HYBRAIIME (BIAHINE)
<;r*ROCVANIC ACIB (NVDRCCEN CYANIDE)
HrDROfluCf" ACIB (HYDROGEN HUOR1DE)
HYBROGEN SULtSSf (SUlfUR HYBRIDS)
IRON tfHIRAN OttKIC BEIIRAN)
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL (1 PROPAHOL, 2-NEIHVL-)
IEAB AMD CONPOUNBS, N.O.S.
KALE 1C ANHYDRIDE (HEJHYL HCRCAPTAN)
NEIHOLNYL
NEIHOIYCHLO*
NEIHYl ETHYL KEIONE (NEK) (2-8UTANONE)
NLIHVL HYBRAIINE (HYDRAIINE, NE1HYI-)
HEINYL NEIhACRYLAlE
NETHYL PARAIHION
02
0.02
920
0 14
0.14
1«
0.001
0 004
4
140
0.01
0.4
1.4
0.2
20
0.04
0.2
J.U
1.8
4
6
0.2
50,61
50,61
61
V> 6J
1000 6,61
1000 6,6]
50 61
6l'
50,61
100 7,50,61
50,61
10 6,50,61
100 61
1000 61
61
61
1000 /
61 INORGANIC
61
50, 6 J
61
61
61
(UG/N3)
ILV-IUA IIV Sltl IIV I ANNUAL ANNUAL SID.
(HG/Nl) (HG/Ni) (NG/Hl) ILV CONNEK1 1 HIM IS NIN. fROT, TLV FfttN UC, (UG/N1)
790
20
ISO
ISO
5
U.2S
5
to
1
5
0.5
1
0.2
1.S
15
90
10
0.1
0.1
0.1
2
2
1.5
9
0.5
0.24
0.1
100
0.1
2.5
14
1
150
0.15
1
O.OS
1
25
10
590
410
0.2
1'JUO (1,2, DICNLORO .)
80
1/40
510
SO SKIN
0.75 SKIN
10
XYLIBENE (AiO NOT SPEOSKIN
2 SKIN
10
SKIN
3 SKIN
0.6 SKIN
5 ALL ISONERS.SKIH
5 ALL ISONERS.SKIl:
360 SKIN
20
0
0. SKIN
0. SKIN
A2
A2
2 STIN
A2
01
A2
10 SKIN 100
5 AS F
21
IRON SALTS (PENTOCARB-.B)
22S
0.45 (WAS .IS IN 65)
SKIN (ALKYL'.O)
SKIN
885
O.J5 A2 1.5
510
0.6 SKIN
10000
800
17400
•>oo
7.5
100
20
100
30
6
SO
50
3600
200
3
3
1
40
10
20
1
50
210
2250
4.5
8850
5100
6
1881
48
833
833
12
0.60
12
24
2
12
12
2.4
0.48
3.6
16
214
24
0.24
0 24
0.24
4.8
4.8
1.6
21
1.2
0.57
0.24
238
0 24
6.0
31
2.4
157
0.36
24
0.1?
£ t.
6.0
24
1405
976
0 48
10
1
46000
7
7
900
0.05
02
200
7000
0.5
20
70
10
1000
2 0.15 EPA QUART
10
7
90
200
100
10
-------
a - iciicm DAIA BANK
SCREENING CONCINIRMIOW
IfD {ADD COHMNIS
SUBSTANCE (KWDAV) UNCERI. «' CIC.
NAPHIMALENE
NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
NICKEL CAMON«l (NICKLE UlRACAftBONVL)
NICKEL CVANII* (NICKEL
NICOIIME ANO SHIS
HIIIIIC OHM (NITMGCN (II) OXIDE)
P-NITROANUINE (MNIENAHIME, 4-NIIM-)
NIIROBENIINt
NlliiOtlVCERlME (1,2,)-PlK>PAMEIRIOL TRIMIIRAIE)
OSMIUM TEi •0«'SE (OSMIUN (VIII) OXIDE)
PAIAIHION
PENIACMLOftOBENaNE
PENIACHLORONITROBEMIEHE (PCNB)
PENIACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL (BcNiENE, HVDROXV-)
P-PriENVLENEDIAHINE (BENIENEDIAH1HE)
M-PHENUENEOIANIHE
PHEHYLHERCUPV ACEIAIE (HERCMH, ACETATO-PHEIiVL-)
N-PiW'4'i.lHIOUREA HHIOUREA. PHENrL-)
r:»SGEME U*«BOH»L CHLORIDE)
PIUSPHINE (MVMOnEN PHOSPHIDE)
PHIHALIC ANHyDtlDE
ramHUMINAIEO BIPHENVL, N.O.S.
POIASSIUH CrANIOC
POFASSIUM SIIVEI CVANIME (AKENIAIECDDICTANO-POIASSIM)
PV«IDINE
MSORCIHOL (l^-BEMENEDIOlt
SELENIOUS ACID (SELENIUM DIOXUE)
SELENIUM AND COdPOUHtS, N.O.S.
SELENOINIEA (CARaAMIHIDOSELENOIC ACID)
SILVER AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
SILVER CYANIDE
SODIUM OANIDf
SIRyCHNIME *NO SALIS
I.J.A.S-IEIIACHLOROBENIENE
1,1,2,2-UtRACHLOBHHANE
ICItACHLOROflHENE (EllKNE, 1, l,?,i- r{IMCMtO«O)
TEIRACHLOMHI1HANE (CARBON lEUACHLORIkE)
2, 5. 7,»- 1EIXACHLOMT HENM.
2. 3. * .*- IE IRACHLOROPHEHOL
rEfMtlNri LEA* (PIUNBANE, It7P«EIHH->
TEIRANIIRONEIHANE
IHAUIUM AMD COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
IHAlLIf OIIDC (THALLIUM (III) OIIDE)
IHALLIUH i!) ACEIAK UCEUC ACID, IMAtLIUH CAMOMA!( iCAWOMIC ACID,DIIHALLIUH(l)SAll>
IHAILIUH CHIO«IDE
IHALLIUHtDfllMAlE (NI1HC Atl», IHALLIUM(l)SALl)
i^ALLIUH SELENIIE
1IIALLIUN (1) MOSAIC (SULIURIC ACID, IHALLiUH OSALI)
o.a
1.4
i
0.04
0.06
0.56
2
a
0.4
0.006
14
0.02
4
14
0.4
0.2
0.4
04
a
2
0.02
002
1.4
0.7
0.8
8E-O6
40
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.04
0
SIC If
SKIN
SKIN
SKIN
SKIN !54X CL ASSUMED)
COMPOUNDS AS S«
SOL.
SKIN
A2, SKIM
SOL. SKIN
IS HIN.
750
1
15
450
100
0.06
)
IS
180
10
240
10
300
900
4.5
150
11400
1250
5
(U&/H1)
ANNUAL ANNUM SID .
FROM IIV flOfl RtO
-------
a - 10XK1IV OAIA BANK
SCREENING CONCENIRAIION (UC/M5)
R(» (ADI) lOnillNIS UV-IUA HV blU II V C
SUBSTANCE (HG/OAY) UNCERI. RFf . HC (NG/H3) (HG/H3) (m./n3) TLV COMMENT
TOLUENE (BEN2ENE, HETNtt.-)
lOiflEHE OIISOCrAMAIE (BENIENE, 1,3-BIISOCVAXMaMEIHVL>
10»APHENE (CAHPHENE, CXIACHLORO-)
1,2,4-T«ICHlO(10e€HiEN£
1,1,1-IRICHlOROEIHAIIi (NEIHYL Irti-OROfOCN)
1,1,2-IRICHLQROCIHANE (iltlAHE, 1,1,?-lRI(tlt.O«O-i
IRICHLOROE1HENE (IRiCHLOROEIHVLENE)
TRICiaOROHONOFLUaROHEIIIAME
2 , 4 , 5 - TR 1 CHI OROPHENOL
1,2,3-TRKHLOROPROPANE, N O.S.
VANADIUM PENIOIIDE (VANADIUN (V) OXIDE)
VINVl CIHORIDE (EIHENE, CI1COAO- >
40
1.4
20
1.4
100 63
63
100 7.50,61
1000 9,63
63
375
0.04
0.5
19QU
45
270
MO
0.05
10
560
0 15
1 SKIN
40
2450
90 SKIN
1080
S6UU
450 SKIN
AU
ANNUAL ANNUAL S!C
1 NIN. 15 NIK FROM 11V ffcufl RF» (UG/HJ)
5600
1.5
10
400
24500
900
1C800
56000
4500
893
0 095
1.2
4524
107
643
714
0.12
24
2000
70
1OOO
400
70
• RANGE - 42-eao
-------
APPENDIX C
CARCINOGEN1CITY DATA BANK
-------
APPENDIX C - CARCINOGENICITY DATA BANK UNCORRECTED fOR PICS
SUBSTANCE
ACRYLAHIOE
ACRYLONITRILE (2-PROPENENITRILO
AFLATOXINS
ALORIN
ANITHOLE <1H-1,2,/,-TRIAZOL-3-AMlNE)
ANILINE (BENZENAH1NE)
ARSENIC AND COMPOUNDS N.O.S.
BENZENE
BENZENE, DICHLOROHCTHYL-(BENZYL CHLORIDE)
BENZ10INE
BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE (3,4-BENZOPYRENE)
BERYLLIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.C.S..
BIS(2-CHLO«OETHYL) ETHER
BIS<2-tHLOROHETHYL) ETHER
BIS*2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALA1E
CADMIUM AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
CHLORD»NF( ALPHA AND GAMMA ISOHERS)
CHLORINATFU ETHANE,. N.O.S.
1-CHLORO-2-3-EPOXYPROPAHE
CHLOROFORM (TRICHLOROHEIHANE)
CHLOROHETilANE
CHLOROMETHYL METHYL ETHER
CHROMIUM JtND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
COAL TARS
DDT
DIBENZO(A,H, ) ANTHRACENE
DIBENZOU, DPYRENE (2,3,7,8-DlBENZPYRENE)
1 , 2-OIBROMO-3-CHLORC>PROPANE
1,2 OIBDOKQETHANE (ETHYLENF DIUROMIOE)
3, 3* OICHLOKQfiENZ IOINE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE (ETHYL I DENE DICHLORIDE)
t^-OICH'-OROETHAh? (ETHYLENE DKHLORIOE)
OKHLOROETHYLENE, N.O.S. (DICK1 OROETH' VEKE, N.O.S.)
1,1 OICHLOROETHYLENE (VINYLIOENE CHLORIDE)
DICHLOROME THANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDE)
DIELORIN
DIETHOLSTILBESTEROL
DIMETHfLNITROSAHINE
2,4-OINITROTOLUENE <1-METHYL-2,4-DINlTROBENZENE)
2,6-OINITROTOLUENE (1-METHYL-2,6-DIN!rit3BENZENE)
1,4~DIOXANE (1,4-DIETHYLENE OXIDE)
1,2 OIPHENYLHYDiiAZlNE
ETHYL CARBAHATE (UHETKANHCARt AM1C AC ID, ETHYL ESTER)
ETHYLENE OXIDE (OXIRANF)
ETHYLENETHiOUREA
FORMALDEHYDE (NETHYLENE OXIDE)
FORMIC ACID (METHANOIC ACID)
HEPTACHLOR
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
01* FOR
POHC
CANCER
MG/(KG*DAY)
3.B9
0.24
2900
17.50
0.7421
0.0302
15
0.02
0.052
175.01
3.50
11.5
8.75
1.14
8.75
G.ui41
6.1
1.75
O.C91
0.004
0.081
0.01W
8.75
41
31
1.17
50.00
476
17. iO
43.75
1.69
0.069
0.09
1.04
0.18
0.014
17.50
500.03
35. 'X)
0.31
0.31
0.01
0.77
0.1515
0.35
0.35
0.35
3.76
3.37
0.02
UNIT RISK
CANCER
UG/(H3*70 YEAR)
1 1E-03
6.9E-05
8.31-01
5.0E-03
2.1E-04
8.6E 06
4.3E-GJ
5.7E-06
1.5E-05
5.0E-02
1.0E-03
3.3E-03
2.5E-03
3.3E-04
2.5E-03
4.0E 06
1.;j-03
5.0E-04
2.6E-05
1.3E-06
2.3E-05
3.3E-06
2.5E-03
1.2E-02
8.9E-03
3.3E 04
1.4E-O2
1.4E-01
5.0E-03
1 2E-02
4.8E-04
2.0E 05
2.5E-05
3.0E-04
5.0E-05
4.0E-06
5.0E-03
1.4E-01
1.0E-02
8.9E-05
8.9E-05
1.4E-06
2.2E-04
4.3E-05
1 .OE-04
1.0E-04
1. OE-04
1.1E-03
9.6E-04
5.0E-06
CTDA
trU
CLASS
B2
B1
B1
B2
C
A
A
A
B2
B2
B2
B2
A
B1
B1
C
B2 or C
B2
B2
A
A
B2
B2
B2
B2
T2
B2
B2
C
C
32
B2
A
B2
B2
B2
B1+B2
C
82 or C
B2
B2
UG/M3 FOR
TEN IN
MILLION
/"Aurto
LANltK
(COR. PIC)
9.0E-03
1.5E-01
1.2E-05
2.0E-03
4.7E-02
1.2E+00
2.3E-03
1.8E<00
6.7E-01
2. OE-04
1.0E-02
3.0E-03
4.0E-03
3.1E-02
4.0E-03
2.5£*00
5.7E-03
2.0E-02
3.8E-01
8.0E+00
4.3E-01
3 OE+00
4.0E-03
8.5E-04
1.1E-03
3.0E-02
7. OE-04
7.4E-05
2.0E-03
8. OE-04
2.1E-02
5.1E-01
4.0E-01
3.4E-02
2.0E-01
2.5E*00
2.0E-03
7.0E-05
1.0E-03
1.1E-01
1.1E-01
7.0E400
4.5E-02
2.3E-01
1.0E-01
1.0E-01
1.0E-01
9.3E-03
1 'E-02
2.UE+00
REFERENCE
44
9, 11,33,
9, 11
44
10
10, 44
9, 11, 33,
11, 33,44
9
63
44
9. 11 44
44
9, 33, 44
44
10
11, 33, 44
9, 63
11
44
11, 33
63
44
11, 33, 44
10
44
44
10
44
10, 44
9, 11
9
9, 11, 33,
10
33, 44
11, 33, 44
44
44
44
9, 11, 23,
9, 11
44
9, 11
10
11, 44
10
63
10
11
33, 44
COMMENTS
44 SKIN
SKIN
SKIN
44
SKIN
HIGHEST
SKIN
HEXAVALENT
44
44
ALPHA WORST
ALL
-------
APPENDIX C - CARCINOGENICITY DATA BANK UHCORRECUO FOR PICS
SUBSTANCE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLCHEXANE
HEXACHLOROS 1BENZO-P-0 IOX INS
HEX ACHLOROE THANE
HYORAZINE (DIAHINE)
HYORAZINE SULtATE
KEPONE
3-METHYLCHOLANTHRENE
METHYL HYDRAZINE
4,4* -HETHYLENE-BIS-2-CHLOROANILINE
NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS, N.O.S.
4-NITROQUINOLINE-1-OXIDE (QUINOLIHE, 4-NITRO-1-OXIOE-)
2-NITftOPftOPANE
N-NITROSODI-N-BUTYLANINE
N-NITROSOOIETHYLAHINE (ErHANAMINE, N-ETHYL-N NITROSO-)
N-NITROSOD1HETHYLAHINE (OIHETHYLNITROSAMINE)
N-NUROSO-N-ETHYLUREA (N-ETHYL-N-NITROSOCARBAHIDE)
N-NITROSC-N-METHYLUREA (N-METHYL-N-NITROSOCARBAHIDE)
N-NITROSOPYRROLIOINE
PENTACHLORONITROBEN2ENE (PCNB)
POLYCHLORINATEO BIPHENYL. N.O.S.
PRONAH1DE
RESPERINE
SARFOLE (1,2 HETHYLENEDIOXY-4-ALLYLBENZENE)
2,3,7,8-TeTRACHLOROOlBENZO-P-OIOXIN (TCDD)
1,1,2, 2-TETRACHLORE THANE
TETHACHLOHOETHANE (1,1,2,2-TEIRACHLOROETHLYEHE)
TETRACHLOROHETHANE (CARBON-TETRACHLORIDE)
THIOUREA (THIOCARBAH1DE)
TOXAPHENE (OCTACHLOROC AMPHENF )
1,1,1-TRKHLOROETHANE (METHYL CHLOROFORM)
1,1,2-TRICi;LOM>E THANE
TRKHLOROETHENE (TRICHLOROETHYLENE)
2,4,6- iRICHLOROPHENOL
VINYL CHLORIDE (CHLOROETHLYENE)
BASED ON PICs FOR NON-CARCINOGENIC POMCs
01* FOR
POHC
CANCER
HG/(KG*OAY>
0.0775
11.12
6200
O.G142
11.67
11.67
8.97
8.75
1.167
0.18
1.06
40.8
8.75
5.43
43.5
25.9
32.9
3500
1.75
0.262
4.38
0.018
10.4
0.0249
157000
1750
0.002
0.05
1.75
1.13
0.0016
0.057
0.004
0.020
0.018
0.31
UNIT RISK
CANCER
UG/(H3*70 YEAR)
2.2E 05
3.2E-03
1. BE tOO
4.1E-06
3.3E-03
3.3E-03
2.6E-03
2.5E-03
3.3E-04
5.0E-05
3.0E-04
1.2E-02
2.5E-03
1.6E-03
1.2E-02
7.4E-03
9.4E-03
1.0E*00
5.0E-G4
7.5E-05
1.3E-03
5.0E-06
3.0E-03
7.1E-06
4.5E«01
5.0E-01
4.8E-07
1.4E-05
5.0E-04
3.2E-04
4.6E-07
1 .6E-05
1.3E-06
5.7E-06
5.0E-06
8.7E-05
CD*
CrA
CLASS
C
82 or C
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
A
B2
B2
B2
C
B2
B2
C
C
B2
B2
C
C
B2
B2
B2
B2
UG/H3 FOR
TEN IN
«!'. LION
(COR. PIC)
4.5E-01
3.1E-03
5.6E-06
2.5EtOO
3.0E-03
3.0E-03
3.9E-03
4.0E-03
3.0E-02
2.0E-01
3.3E-02
8.6E-04
4.0E-03
6.4E-03
8.0E-04
1.4E-03
ME-03
1.0E-05
2.0E-02
1.3E-01
8.0E-03
2.0E+00
3.4E-03
1.4E+00
2.2E-07
2.0E-05
2.1E*01
7.0E-01
2.GE-02
3.1E-02
2.2E+01
6.1E-01
8.0E+00
1.8E«00
2.0£tOO
1.1E-01
SirEPEMCE COMMENTS
9, 11, 33, 44
11
11 SUBSULFIDE
9, 11
44
44
10
44
63
44
33, 44
10
44
10
9
9, 11
9, 11
44
44
9, 44
63
44
44
10
10,63
44
33, 44
9, 33, 44
44
9, 11
9
9, 11
33, 44
11 SKl;l
9, 11,63
1/87 DBID
-------
APPENDIX D
DATA USED TO SELECT SOURCES MODELED
-------
APPEND L\ 0
Section 1 - Tables
Table 0.1 Boiler Data from Burner Survey
Table D.2 Boiler Weighting Factors
Table D.3 Data for Identifying 95 Percentile Boiler
Table D.4 Relative Impacts of Light Weight Aggregate Kilns
Section 2
COMPLEX TERRAIN DISPERSION MODELING FOR BURNING OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE IN BOILERS AND INDUSTRIAL FURNACES
r>
« *
-------
TABLE D.I
BOILER DATA FROM BURNER SURVEY
Boiler
Obs.
No.
194
147
74
8
55
54
58
57
45
33
32
48
61
145
56
108
89
88
38
90
96
97
95
73
64
65
67
169
63
150
125
142
47
163
136
59
140
173
84
83
172
39
41
1 1
10
Exit
Temp.
(°K)
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
Stack
Diameter
(meters)
8.77
0.93
1 .48
0.38
2.55
2.55
1.90
1.89
0.43
0.63
1 .16
2.01
0.97
0.94
0.69
7.15
1.19
1.19
0.64
0.89
3.07
3.07
3.07
1.69
3.10
3.10
2.06
5.23
2.69
0.76
0.60
1.48
2.96
1.30
1.34
1.66
1 .92
5.01
2.46
2.46
4.54
0.47
1.75
3.19
3.08
Exit
Velocity
(m/sec)
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.2*
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
Stack
Height
(meters)
213
14
12
7
15
15
20
20
18
18
37
18
12
20
20
27
15
15
15
11
49
49
49
23
46
46
41
60
46
1 1
9
16
2"
22
16
9
22
54
30
30
54
15
27
69
69
Design
Size
( MMBtu/ .ir )
3820
55
151
9.5
456
456
209.8
209.8
11
23
79
236.5
55.551
53.56
28
2239
100
100
24
44
540
540
540
200
543
543
250
1600
407
32.27
20
128.8
382.9
98.8
77
120
216
1100
354
354
1025
13
180
601
556
-------
TA.'
D.I—Continued
Bciler
Obs.
No.
9
104
93
79
154
102
124
125
78
80
37
1 1 1
21
156
155
32
66
109
72
177
94
174
113
70
71
19
100
116
92
162
52
53
164
103
148
134
135
87
86
118
117
12
165
85
170
127
191
Exit
Temp.
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478 '
473
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
Stack
Diameter
(meters)
3.08
0.59
2.29
1 .89
3.38
1.17
0.38
0.72
1.56
2.27
1 .02
0.92
1 .44
2.39
2.39
0.96
2.43
0.57
3.25
4.61
1.73
14.38
0.29
2.54
2.54
2.68
1 .28
1.17
1 .88
0.25
0.42
0.42
1 .74
0.70
0.97
2.17
2.17
1 .34
1 .34
0.38
0.38
2.25
1.51
1 .59
8.82
1.42
11 .25
Exit
\ -iloaity
(m/sec)
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
Stack
Height
(meters)
69
9
37
37
56
14
6
17
37
50
30
20
30
56
56
40
76
15
59
62
21
165
7
46
46
76
18
12
53
7
20
20
33
21
53
38
38
37
37
18
18
46
33
57
152
15
183
Design
Size
(MMBtu/hr)
556
20.085
307
156
568.8
60
3.36
30
106
225
60.233
36.8
113.4
284.4
284.4
64.5
350
14
524
1056
174
9058.5
5.9
283
283
425
72.1
60
250
1 .65
12.5
12.5
132
21 .4
55
204
204
76
76
8.38
8.38
300
100
150
4560
117
6290
-------
TABLE D.I—Continued
Boiler
Obs.
No.
192
115
17
16
152
151
105
107
133
131
132
110
195
46
29
60
139
31
36
15
28
98
27
26
187
186
30
44
25
2
114
171
182
181
175
196
197
185
184
183
189
190
188
180
178
179
20
Exit
Temp.
<°K)
478
473
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
178
478
478
478
478
478
478
479
Stack
Diameter
(meters)
11 .25
1.05
1 .97
1.97
0.58
0.58
1.44
0.58
1.43
1.43
1 .43
0.65
11.23
1.17
1.47
0.65
C.68
1 .01
0.88
2.62
0.78
0.25
1.71
1.71
9.07
9.07
1 .51
1 .01
1 .04
0.72
0.76
2.10
10.98
10.98
4.99
11.20
11.20
6.02
6.02
6.02
20.56
6.50
6.50
6.53
6.53
6.53
1.45
Exit
Velocity
(m/sec)
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
'.5.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
3.23
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
Stack
Height
(meters)
183
18
61
61
49
49
27
8
61
61
61
18
305
57
55
42
27
55
61
91
23
9
76
76
244
244
55
52
58
20
14
45
198
198
183
368
368
252
252
252
305
305
305
300
300
300
30
Design
Size
(MMBtu/hr)
6290
48
170
170
20
20
90.5
20
90
90
90
18.2
6260
67.5
127
18.4
20
60
45.158
300
26
0.8
145
145
4091
4091
100
71 .2
63
30
25
220
5277
5277
1234.9
6234
6230
1800
1800
1800
18500
1850
1850
1869
1869
1869
1 18.4
218
-------
TABLE D.I—Continued
Boiler
Obs.
No.
176
193
193
106
Exit
Temp.
(°K)
478
478
478
473
Stac:k
Diameter
(meters)
2.35
O.I'.6
0.25
0.25
Exit
Velocity
(m/sec)
15.24
15.24
0.59
0.11
Stack
Height
(meters)
168
57
8
30
Design
Size
( MMBtu/hr )
241.2
3.9
0.11
0.026
-------
TABLE D.2
BOILER WEIGHTING FACTORS
Boiler
Obs.
No.
2
8
9
10
11
12
15
16
17
19
20
21
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
36
37
38
39
41
44
45
46
47
48
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
63
64
65
Device
Weight
from IEC
3.27138
1.9129
2.665
2.665
2.665
1 .599
1.599
1.9129
1.9129
1 .599
2.27095
2.27095
1.599
1.9129
1.9129
1 .599
2.132
2.132
2.132
1.9129
1.9129
1 .9129
1 .91 29
1.9129
1.9129
2.27095
1.9129
1 .9129
1.9129
1.9129
1.9129
1.9129
1.9129
2.27095
2.271
1.599
3.198
3.198
1.913
1 .913
1.599
3.198
3.198 ,
3.198
Integer
Weigh tinga
Factor
33
19
27
27
27
16
16
19
19
16
23
23
16
19
19
16
2i
21
21
19
19
19
19
19
19
23
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
23
23
16
32
32
19
19
16
32
32
32
-------
TABLE D**~-Continued
Boiler
Cbs.
No.
66
67
70
71
72
73
74
78
79
80
82
S3
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
100
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
113
114
115
116
•17
118
124
125
126
Device
Weight
from IEC
1.599
6.396
1.S99
1.599
1.599
1.599
1.913
1.599
1.599
1.599
1.913
2.132
2.132
1 .5^9
2.271
2.271
1.913
1 .913
6.813
3.028
1.599
3.198
2.271
2.271
2.271
1.913
146.962
1.685
1.685
1.685
1.685
1 .618
1.685
1.685
2.0803
1 .6855
1.6855
1 .6855
1.6855
1.6355
2.0803
1 .6855
1.6855
13.5352
13.5352
3.0071
Integer
Weigh tinga
Factor
16
64
16
16
16
16
19
16
16
16
i9
21
21
16
23
23
19
19
68
30
16
32
23
23
23
19
1470
17
17
17
17
16
17
17
21
17
17
17
17
17
21
17
17
I35
135
. 30
o-f
^w L
-------
TABLE D«2->-Continued
Boiler
Obs.
No.
127
131
132
133
134
135
136
139
140
142
145
147
148
150
151
152
154
155
156
162
163
164
165
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
Device
Weight
from IEC
1.8541
1 .8541
1.8541
1 .8541
2.0086
2.0086
1.8541
1 .5065
1.8541
1 .5065
4.5194
5.6994
1 .5065
1 .5065
1 .5065
1 .5065
1 .8541
1 .8541
1.8541
13.308
73.779
73.779
73.779
6.03
2.993
2.993
2.993
2.993
2.993
1.564
1.564
1.564
3.128
3.128
3.128
1.564
1.564
2.085
2.085
2.085
1.564
1 .564
2.607
2.607
2.607
1.564
Integer
Weightinga
Factor
19
19
19
19
20
20
19
15
19
15
45
57
15
15
15
15
19
19
19
133
738
738
738
60
30
30
30
30
30
16
16
16
31
31
31
16
16
21
21
21
16
16
26
26
26
16
-------
TABLE D-2--Continued
Boiler
Obs.
No.
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
Device
Weight
fro-n IEC
1,564
1.564
1.564
1.564
1.564
1 .564
188.182
Integer
Weighting*
Factor
16
16
16
16
16
16
1882
TOTAL 8899
Obtained by multiplying the device
weight factor by 10 and rounding
to the nearest integer value.
-------
TABLE D.3
DATA FOR IDENTIFYING 95th PSRCENTILE BOILER
Boiler
Obs.
No.
147
33
55,
54
74
113
39
88
8
59
104
73
107
58
57
136
61
32
48
96
97
95
124
145
56
41
94
127
90
Capaci ty
(MMBtu/
hr)
55
23
456
456
151
. 5.9
100
100
9.5
120
20.085
200
20
209.8
209.8
77
55.551
79
236.5
540
540
540
8.36
53.56
28
180
174
117
44
Ambient
Impact
Factor
5,280
4,830
4,560
4,560
4,500
4,248
4,200
4,200
4,132
4,080
3,816
3,460
3,340
3,147
3,147
3,003
3,000
2,923
2,838
2,808
2,808
2,808
2,776
2,732
2,716
2,700
2,610
2,574
2,508
Weighting
Factor
57
19
23
23
19
. 17
19
19
19
19
17
16
17
32
32
19
16
19
19
23
23
23
135
45
16
23
32
19
68
Relative
Cumulative
Boilers
Rank
57
76
99
122
141
158
177
196
215
234
251
267
284
316
348
367
383
402
421
444
467
490
625
670
686
709
741
760
828
Percentile
99.36
99.15
98.89
98.63
98.42
98.22
98.01
97.80
97.58
97.37
97.18
97.00
96.81
96.45
96.09
95.88
95.70
95.48
95.27
95.01
94.75
94.49
92.98
92.47
92.29
92.03
91.67
91 .46
90.70
99
, 98
. 97
96
95
94
TOTAL - 8,899
oo
-------
TABLE D-4
RELATIVE IMPACTS OF LIGHT WEIGHT AGGREGATE KILNS
Station No.
0003
0033
0057
0062
0065
0068
0074
0084
0110
0111
0113
0117
0120
0129
0132
0166
0170
0178
0181
0195
0218
0243
0244
0257
0266
0269
0317
0322
0324
0364
0365
0403
0404
0408
0410
0415
0417
0428
0479
0523
0526
0541
Maximum Concentration
15.39
22.54
18.22
26.28
24.49
30.27
18.25
21.49
19.72
14.02
18.17
20.82
23.42
18.52
20.44
15.55
23.22
27.64
20.49
14.67
27.75
16.16
15.79
16.12
17.74
17.36
24.56
41.39
. 15.20
18.61
18.19
21.29
18.37
24.78
19.13
24.63
21.46
17.88
22.66
27.45
17.99
22.63
-------
TABLE D.4--Continued
Station No.
0546
0609
0610
0630
0641
0642
0670
0672
0706
0715
0796
0797
0809
0825
0830
0878
0925
0926
0995
1058
1067
114:
1142
1182
1263
1320
1323
1503
1506
1702
Maximum Concentration
18.71
22.87
30.28
23.07
27.26
19.81
21 .92
18.61
22.24
14.98
22.61
34.56
18.00
28.11
23.11
16.96
28.61
18.47
18.26
23.18
14.35
19.41
25.60
29.79
21.56
15.32
28.57
27.82
26.70
25.25
-------
DRAF
Complex Terrain Dispersion Modeling for Burning of
Hazardous Waete in Boilers and Induatx-ial Furnaces
Prepared for
Dvight Hluatlck
Project Officer
Waste Treatment Branch (WH-363A)
4O1 M Street, a. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
December 1986
Prepared by
Verear Inc.
6320 Veraar Center
Springfield, Va. 221S1
-------
1. Background of Work Assignment
The Office of Solid Waste la preparing tr propose
regulation* for the burning af hazardous waste in boilers and
industrial furnaces. A major item of supporting documentation
for these regulations is risk assessment. Veraar vaa asked by
QSW to complete the complex terrain air dispersion modeling
needed to estimate ambient air impacts at plants burning hazar-
dous vastes.
2. Technical Approach
2. 1 Purpose of rtodeJ j.r.g
The purpose of the modeling vas to estimate potential worst-
ess* impacts from the burning of hazsrdous wastes in industrial
facilities. This work is an expansion of previous modeling that
used flat terrain assumptions for all 163 boilers and furnaces
across the country. Seven 'worst-case" facilities located in
complex terrain were chosen from this list of 163 candidates.
The procedure used to determine the seven facilities is discussed
in section 2.2.
Complex terrain is defined as any occurrence of terrain
elevation that exceeds the physical stack height within the
modeling grid domain (EPA, 1986). We used 20 kilometers «s the
cut-off point at which the surrounding terrain vas analyzed.
Further discussion on the complex terrain method la presented in
section 2. 2.
The biggest problem associated with complex terrain modeling
is finding "representative* meteorological data for a specific
site. Localized slope winds and organized upvalley/downvailey
flow* are some of the typical complications encountered in com-
plex terrain modeling. Many times even the nearest weather
reporting station can have conditions completely unrepresentative
of conditions at a facility. This will be discussed further in
section 2.2.
For each facility, we calculated the highest potential long-
term (annual) and short-term (3-minute end 13-minute) concentra-
tions for nine source types. These source types include:
(1) Actual industrial boiler or furnace at the site.
(2) A design ISO HM BTU/hr boiler, as defined by Engineering
Science A model aulfur recovery furnace, aa defined by ES.
<4> A model light weight aggregate kiln, as defined by E.c.
*•»*«< <
-------
(S) A model blaat furnace, ma defined by ES.
(6) A mod.»l aaphaltic concrete kiln, mm defined by ES.
(7) A model vet cemont kiln, as defined by ES.
(8) A modal dry caraant kiln, aa defined by ES.
(9) A modal lima kiln, aa dafinad by ES.
2. 2 Data Gathering and Sourca Identification
Tvo methods vara appliad in determining which facilitiea
naadad to ba modalad in ordar to rapreaent tha moat probabla
vorat-caae event*. Tha firat mathod vaa a aourca characteriza-
tion mathod that lookad at which on-aite aourcaa would moat
Likaly cauaa tha highaat ground laval impact in complax tarrain.
Tha aacond mathod vaa baaad on a approach baaad on worat-caae
mataorology. Both of thaaa mathoda ara diacueeed balow.
Varaar waa providad with tha liat of 1S5 induatrial boilara
and furnacaa that w*ra pravioualy modalad by ES. Thla liat
(praaantao in Appandix A) containa tha baaic atack paramatara far
tha actual boilar or atack at aach aita. In addition, tha pre-
dictad maximum ambiant concentrations lor aach of thaaa boilara
and furnacaa ia includad in thia liat. Thaaa pradictad concan-
tratlona wara calculatad uaing tha Induatrial Sourca Complax
(ISC) long-term modal. Finally tha Hat ia rankad according to
thaaa pradictad concantrationa. Varaar racaivad thia liat aa m
tool in tha determination of which facllitiaa may produca tha
highaat i.tpacta; tha concentration* ahown ara not maaningful in
an abaoluta aanaa.
Tha flrat atap in thia analyaia vaa to datarmina which
facilitlaa vara locatad in complax tarrain. EPA providad Varaar
with atraat addraaa information for aach of tha listed faci-
litlaa. Each facility vaa locatad on a city-vide basis to roughly
datarmina tha aurroundlng tarrain f^aturva. Tha tarrain vaa di-
vidad into four main catagoriaa: (1) mountainous, <2> rivar
vallay, (3) rolling tarrain, and (4) flat. Fifty-fiva facilltiaa
vara locatad in flat tarrain and vara droppad out of tha analy-
aia. Tha remaining 110 facilitiaa vara potentially in complax
tarrain ragiona.
Bacauaa tha original ranking of facllitiaa vaa baaad on flat
tarrain modeling aaaumptiona, v« fait that uaing only thia Hat
vould not bo adequate in tha final determination of vhat rapre-
aanta tha vorat-caaa complex tarrain modeling aituation. We
therefore took the approach that tha moat probabla vorat-caaa
avant vould occur for a atack vith a low phyaical height and a
relatively high emiaalon rate. Therefore, a ratio of the total
atack emlaaion rate to the phyaical atack height vaa calculated.
-------
Each facility located within a potential complex terrain
region was also ranked according to the ratio o£ emissi-n over
release height for the 3 terrain groupw ( mountainous, valley, and
rolling). The locations of the facilities that had a ratio of
10O or greater (chosen for a first cut) vere then determined more
accurately by utilizing the PIPOUIC dcta base of facilities
located on the EPA IBM system. This data base consists of avail-
able facilities within counties of states, including street ad-
dresses, EPA id numbers, and latitude longitude for each, The 22
facilities Identified by the ranking procedure were then located
on 7. 5 minute topographic maps using the latitude/longitude va-
lues.
Ones the accurate location of the facility was found, then
the surrounding terrain was reviewed to determine if any terrain
within 20 kilometers exceeded the stack height. Eight facilities
out of the potential 22 were actually found to be in complex
terrain. Facilities that arw identified as being in complex
terrain and were near the top of the ranking lists were then
chosen to be the top S worst -case scenarios.
This second method was used to determine what representative
meteorological data** would cause the highest impacts for the
facilities located in complex terrain. ES provided Veraar with a
list of 72 meteorological sites (provided in Appendix B) they
determined were representative of all 1.35 facilities. Versar
determined that 3d of these meteorological sites were located in
potential complex terrain regions.
Versar gathered the annualized "STAR" data for each af the
33 meteorological sites from GAMS and created a generic input
file for the ISC model. The eight design source types described
in section 2. 1 were each modeled uatng the 3d meteorological
sites. No terrain elevations were modeled at this time since ISC
is not capable of utilizing terrain higher than the physical
stack height. The urban mode was usc-d for each of the model runs
since it was felt that moat sites would be in urban areas.
The meteorological sites were then ranked by the maximum
predicted concentrations calculated for each source typo. The
next step was to analyze this ranked list of meteorological sites
and determine whether the on-site boiler cr furnace for the
nearest facility or facilities and the eight design sourc? types
would actually be located in complex terrain regions (see section
2.1). The most important factor in the final determination
however was whether or not the meteorological data was truly
representative of the conditions around the facilities. In many
cases the meteorological data was not considered appropriate for
the nearest facility or facilities.
* Available on EPA 'a Graphical Exposure Modeling System (GEMS)
Atmospheric Modeling Subsystem (GAMS).
-------
Listing of the
Table 1 presents the 7 facilities that were chosen to be
modeled for the complex terrain analysis. The first five facili-
ties were determined by the source characterization method and
the last two by th* worst-case meteorology method. The faci-
lities in Cincinnati, Hagerstown, Phillipsburg and Atlanta are in
rolling to mountainous terrain. Erie and Everett are both lo-
cated along the shorelines of large water bodies with rapidly
increasing terrain features in the nearby surrounding are?«. The
Longvlc/w facility is located in a very narrow river valley.
Figuraa 1 through 7 are provided to indicate the general terrain
conditions very near each plant site.
2. 3 Model Identification and Input Requirements
Once the seven facilities were found, the appropriate models
were determined. This was done in close coordination *• .th the
Source Receptor Analysis Branch of the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (QAQPS) in North Carolina. Based on this
discussion, it wan agreed that all seven facilities are located
in urban areas and that the LQNGZ model is the recommended model
for urban settings within complex terrain for estimating long-
term concentrations (EPA, 1986 ). The companion model called
SHORTZ is recommended for the short-term analysis.
In order to substantiate the decision on whether or not
these facilities were located in urban areas, we analyzed each
site using the method prescribed by Auer (1976). The results of
this analysis are presented in Table 2. In most cases the chosen
facilities ware located in urban areas. The only exception is
Phillipsburg with about 47% of the area within 3 kilometers of
the site considered to be urban. This is close to the cut-off
value of SO'/, (specified by the Guideline on Air Quality Models
(EPA, 1986)) and is considered borderline. However, since it was
borderline, the urban mode was used for this site to be more
conservative.
Obtaining meteorological data for the first five sites was
the next step, and was contingent mainly on the representative-
ness of the weather stations in the proximity to the facility.
The representativeness of the Atlanta and Everett sites were
already determined based on the discussion r^ssented in Section
2.2. For Cincinnati, Erie, Hagerstown, Atlanta, and Everett the
weather stations were located within the city environments and
were considered fairly representative of the wind flow patterns
for the facilities.
230
-------
Table 1
BOILER INFORMATION FOR OTLEJ TERRAIN WDELINB
DBS 1
47, 46
59
33, 84
177
164
104
80
CITY, STATE
CINCINNATI, OHIO
ERIE, POI6YLV«MIA
LQN6VIEH, UA94IN6TON
HA6HSTOHN, ».
PHILLIPSBUR6, N. J.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
EVERETT, HASHIN6TQN
LATITUDEAJMGITUK STACK HT.
(M)
39 10 04M/84 26 05U
42 08 33N/80 04 03U
46 06 29N/122 53 43U
39 38 42N/77 43 12U
40 41 12N/72 09 44U
33 46 27N/34 25 40U
47 S3 Oa/122 12 56U
27
24
30
62
33
9
iO
TERRAIN
HT. ABOVE
BASE ELEV.
(N) t
88
271
274
189
^V
43
136
* WITHIN 20 XILOKTEaS OF THF FACIUITIES
:3i
-------
Source DBS 147,48
Cincinnati, Ohio
Stack Height - 27 meters
ST.AU I 240UU
J
i .: > - - i ~ tr-r j--—ziss
cor*u.iiR INUNVAI n M 11
-------
\
Source OltS 0S9
Krie, Pennsylvania
Stack Height = «J meters
rr«
&&/<%
* * -f i-vVs
<***:" \ • I
&v 'W*
•'••A .A'ftftj:.. *
" .&&r\w*&b
i"-,/.--V
py-v^
•-. T-»I
'.'r'^-a^
'^
mr**
•
.v.-d
•iSfQ^^^*<1^;- '^i^-'K .'H«^
•^f** '* \ ' j \ ^ii^V 'V'Vr? ' >^C x' • -^ /~vr'--' .-I ""• .
*. •»• V^tv^fS^-yW*^^*1' s3yw\i"'.i
x:ln,,M^vr*r'v::k'O? ..^^•iMv^^S
W'4^4^:^^"'^:>>fn»^^
^m^^k^M^-^-^,
K -
Vi.l'
-1*
foi
if,"^
.a^>^
si^/:> 'i
> v^l
^.7' ''
.!"-. .'•'
O '<
t^'
W-^
Ah
r,'vv»
.^ft«
fer'l
£^^ \B^?v v^-ll fcB :%^A--
fH; •; ,. i'vwT^ft. •:• >Sv. /^if^f'^yJk^yC^^
sff^***! ; :»v •*
-------
h,.. i
Source OBS #83,84
Longview, Washington
Stack Height - 30 meters
25
-------
-------
Source OBS |16A
Phillipaburg, New Jersey
Stack Height = 33 maters
1000 2000 3000 4000
" A
-------
2.'V7
-------
OBS #80
Everett, WA
Stack Ht (m) 50
-------
Table 2
City Ham*
Atlanta, GA
Cincinnati, OH
Erie, PA
Everett, WA
Hagerstown, MD
Longvi»w, j$A
Phillipsburg, NJ
Percent of Urban
Land Us* within 3 Km
Radius of Facility
95%
95%
56%
63%
77%
56%
47%
Source: Auer, A.H. Correlation of Land Use and Cover With
Meteorological Anomalies. Journal of Applied Meteorology.
May 1978, Vol. 17, pp. 636-643.
-------
Even though the LONO2 model la recommended for complex
terrain modeling, special dispersion conditions that likely occur
at the coastal/complex terrain interface for both the Erie and
Everett sites will not be adequately covered
-------
WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR C1NCMNAU OHIO
"7]
F^
f f 1
^
cx
//
V
y/
y.
'x
'/<
y/
y,
^
y/
Y,
//
y/
y/
pTTl
'/,
'/<
//
^^
y/
^
i2 2 ^
222
Z.2_S.
x
^
^
x/
^
!//
/^
X
^
<^
X
//
/^
X
X
^/
//
<^
f^
/,
[X
^/
//
XH
^7
/^
x
x
^/
rx
Y/
I/
M
rx
//
y
X
//
X'
^
y.
'X
//
^
X-
— r™"^"*
X-
^
X
-------
21X
WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
POP CRC. PCNNSYtYANNIA (1M+-73)
19X
1«K
17X
14*
13X
12X
11*
10X
K
u
0.
IX
ox
/v
'/.
/y
/v
y
•V
y,
/
/>
sc s
WIND OMECTON
NW
Figure 9
-------
WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR LflNOVSW, WASH. (1972)
i «-
w -, .
o w
Z «*
a w -
£ 4ft -
IX
\f A
m
//
y/
y/
%
//
^
//
>/
^
7/
y/
y/
y/
y/
y.
/,
//
y/
//
//
^
/^
/y
^/
^/
//
v/
//
>J
^
y/
y/
y/
y.
y
b
h
4
y/
//
y/
y/
Ss
y^
y,
ss
N NC C
ss
^
^
— — .
//
y/
V/
y/
%
y/
y.
1 ' 1 *
sc s
W»NO WRECTTON
fT]
//
fv
//
/^
y/
y,
7/
r^/
//
y
//
/
y/
'4
V
<^
//
^
^7
4
//
y/
/
//
y/
y/
'4
y,
'4
//
y/
/
y/
y/
/^
^
prj ^
y/ y/
^^^
S* W NW
Figure 10
213
-------
WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR HAOSWTOWN, UMTU (1974-OAYU6HT)
nt -
A
^
//
*/<
A
//
f S
/,
f7!
VA VA
//
Y<
//
'X-
X/
__
/ ' j
/s
r/n
^
v^
X/
pn
x/
;X
//
^
X^x
•^
/^
xi
f
* /
y(
x^
^
//
^ >
x^/
^/
x/
Y<
//
^ y1
x>
•7-
x^
•^
//
X
x/
^
A
//
/• ' s
Xy
r
/^
/• ,/
X^/
/" >•
x^
r /
/<
Sf
A
//
A
/J/
''X
/^/
/" >•
X^
X
x^
7T1
/^
A
/^/
^
/^/
;X
/s
/
r/
s/(
/s
^
//
•JXr
x/
^x
x/
A
/|/
A
X/
x/
7/
//
Y<
Xy
sc s
WIND OMECT10N
Figure 11
-------
U
u
11*
1CK
9*
ax<
TX
tat
sat •
4*
»
2X
IX
0*
WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
TOR ALLEMTOWN, PENN. (15«O-«4)
NC
V
%
SW
WIND OAECTJON
Figure 12
/
%
M
NW
-------
WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR ATLANTA. QCDRQU (1t6»-«3)
WIN)
Figure 13
-------
17*
WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
F0« EVERETT. WASHINGTON (1M3-47)
19*
14*
A
12X
11*
10*
9ft
OK
7K
ex
ox
2*
1*
OX
/
,
sy
A
X?
'/.
vffiw
'A
A
NC
sc s
WIND OlfCCTlON
NW
Figure 14
217
-------
Table 3A
MODELED W-VTE STOCK PARAMETERS
SITE LOCATION
CINCINNATI, OHIO
ERIE, tfKMSYLWWA
LOMBVIEM, UASHIN670K
HAGERSTWN, MD.
PHILLiPOUre, M. J.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
EVERETT, WASHINGTON
QBS
47
48
59
83
84
177
:64
104
80
STACK HT
(M)
27
18
24
30
30
62
33
9
SO
STACK DIAN.
2.%
2.01
1.66
2.46
4.6,1
1.74
0.59
2.e7
EXIT TEMP.
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478
478 •
OIT V€L
WSJ
13.24
13.24
13.24
1124
13.34
13.24
1124
1124
1124
DESIGN
SIZE
iMWTU/W)
42
18
130
354
354
1056
132
20
225
Table 3B
MODELED DESIGN STACK PARAMETERS
SOURCE CHARACTERISTIC
DESIGN ISO m BTU/HN BOILER
SULFUR RECOVERY FURNACE
AGGREGATE K;LM
8L3STFURNACH
(SBttJIC KILN
MET CEMENT KILN
DRY CEMENT KILN
LIME KILN
STACK HT
(M)
24.38
22.86
32.00
30.48
7.62
31.32 '
36.58
24.38
STACK OliW.
(M)
1.22
1.22
1.22
3.08
1.22
3.35
2.74
0.91
EXIT TEMP.
(K)
478
303
344
430
339
499
433
422
EXIT
-------
SHORT2 Model
The source and r&ceptor data input requirements for SH11RT2
are essentially the same aa LONG2. Ths» basic model input dif-
ferences between the models are the meteorological data require-
ments. Hourly meteorological data muat b* input to the SHORTZ
model. A worit-c&fiv generic meteorological data se'c was compiled
Cui an hourly basis to cover Pasqulll Stabilities: D (neutral), E
(•lightly atable), and F (moderately atable) and all sixtoen wind
direction*. A 2 meter /second vind speed was assumed for all wind
directions and stabilities. The model was directed to calculate
the 1 hour concentration for each vind direction, wind speed, and
stability (a total of 43 hours) for each source type. The high-
est 1-hour concentration predicted by SU08T2 for each source was
then factored up by a power law relationship (Turner, 1969) to
estimate IS-mlnute and 3-minute concentrations:
Cone < 15 minute) * Coned-hour) • (60/13) •» (.133)
» Cone(1-hour) • 1.3
ConcO minute) » Cone ( 1-hour) • (60/3) •* (.185)
* Coned-hour) • 1.74
2.4 Model Results
The results of the LQNGZ modeling analysis are provided in
Tables 4A and 4B. For the actual on-slte boilers or furnaces,
tns LQNGZ results are approximately one order of magnitude higher
than the original ISC values from ES. The basic reason for this
is because the LQNGZ model spreads the plume toward the ground
faster than I3CLT because of larger vertical dispersion factors.
The low stack height for the Atlanta on-slte boiler (or furnace)
is the major cause for the highest predicted unit concentration
for all on-site boilers (or furnaces). The overall highest unit
concentrations considering all sources are predicted for the
asphaltlc kiln and sulfur recovery furnace mainly due to the
relatively low stack heights. The Everett location tends to
dominate as it produces the highest concentrations for most
sources.
The SHORTZ model results are provided in Tables 5A, SB (for
the 15-minute values) and Tables 6A, SB (for the 3-minute val-
ues). The Atlanta on-slte boiler (or furnace) is predicted to
have the highest unit concentration while the Cincinnati site is
A close second. In general, most 15-mlnute short term concentra-
tions are approximately 20-3O times the annual concentration.
The biggest exception la the secord on-slte boiler (or furnace)
at Cincinnati where the .15-minute concentration is about 50 times
-------
Table: 4A
WUIMJN PREDICTED ANNUAL OXBflT«n06 !ag/«3)«
SITE LCCATiai
CINCINNATI, (WO
PIE, PENNSV.UAMIIA
LCNW.EU, UA6H1N6TCN
HNGB6TOM, ND.
PHILLIPS***, n j.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
EVCHETT,
* BASED W A 1 SHAM/SECOND fNiSSION RATE
i FOR ACTJftL QNSITE BOILER
OBS
»7
«
39
S3
9*
177
164
1M
80
BOIlfRS
flCTURL ISO
o.«
0.%
2.31
0.23
4.23
0.0ft
0.62
111
0.71
MBTU
1,09
039
an
0.75
1.16
0.63
1.%
SULFUR fCBNEtt
RJR«C£
2.M
1.89
1.49
2.90
110
1.74
5.02
(SafBaRTi
Kim
1.09
C.'JO
(.40
0.36
1.02
0.94
1.36
ORlSINflL
ISC
PREDiaiCN 1
0.05
X12
0.14
0.09
0.09
0.01
0.06
0.75
0.06
Table 4B
Ml .MM PREDICTED flMCA. (XNCENTRATIONS (ug/i3)*
SITE JXOTICN
C1.-JCIMWTI, CWO
ERIE, PBKSVIVAWIA
UMGVIEU, UCSHIN6TW
HAEERSTCUN, «.
PHIU.IPSBURG, N. J.
ATLflNTA, GEORGIA
E^CRETT,
* BASED CN a 1 SRfif/SECTJ) EMISSION RATE
r FURNACE
0.33
0.28
0.21
0.30
0.46
0.25
0.99
ftSPWLTI
Kim
4.10
3.84
2. SO
3.79
3.57
3.20
7.09
WET CE?€NT
KILM
0.33
0.25
0.17
0.20
0.36
0.31
0.66
DRY CEMENT
KILN
0.49
0.24
0.19
0.27
0.44
0.20
0.98
LI*
XILN
1.03
0.35
0.42
0.69
1.09
0.39
1.37
25O
-------
Table 5A
MAXIMUM PREDICTED 13-WNUTE CONCENTRATIONS (ug/«3)»
SITE LOCATION
CINCINNATI, OHIO
ERIE, PENMSYLVAMilA
LONSViEU, HASWNSTON
HRGB5TOM, ND.
PWLLIPS8URG, It J.
ATLANTA, 6EOR6IA
EVERETT, WASHINGTON
QBS
47
ACTUAL
18.83
47.79
BOILERS
ISO
62.40
SULFUR RECOVERY
FURNACE
77.08
A6ERESATE
KILN
44.73
39
83
84
177
164
104
80
13.14
5.4*
5.44
2.46
1.07
131.30
23.19
17.23
10.83
13.03
33.96
14.38
51.09
28.51
17.58
24.41
77.21
39.83
228.70
10.31
7.48
9.02
21.38
13.39
52.89
t BASED ON 0 1 GRAM/SECOND EMISSION WTE
Table SB
MAXIMUM PREDICTS 1S-*!NUTE CCNCEMTBATIOS (ug/»3)»
SITE UDCATICW
CINDWATI, OHIO
LQN6VIEU, WASHINGTON
HA6ERSTOM, MO.
PHiaiPSBURS, N. J.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
EVERETT, UASHIN6TQN
BLAST FURNACE
21.87
6.16
5.07
5.56
12.10
6.33
24.31
ASPHALT!
KILN
116.21
127.54
81.56
171.33
132.69
133.74
270.72
UET CEMENT
KILN
13.64
5.07
4.72
5.29
3.21
5.39
21.83
CRY CEMENT
KILN
23.10
6.40
5.07
5.79
12.63
7.47
25.91
LIME
KILN
38.82
15.54
10.10
1158
30.79
13.28
47.63
* BASED ON A 1 SRAM/SEOM) EMISSION RATE
-------
Table 6A
MAXIMUM PREDICTED 3-MlNUTE CONCENTRATIONS <«9/«3)»
SITE LOCATION
CINCINNATI, OHIO
ERIE, PENMSUVRNNIA
UMUEU, WSHINBTW
HMERSTONN, ND.
PHIU.IPS8WB, N. j.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
EVESETT, WASHINGTON
» BASED ON A 1 SRAN/SECQND EMISSION RATE
DBS
47
48
59
83
8%
177
164
104
80
BOILERS SULFUR RECOVERY
ACTUAL ISO MM ITU rURNRCE
23.20
6197
17.59
7.28
7.28
130
1.44
176.01
31.04
8132
2110
14.30
20.14
43.45
19.32
68.38
10117
38.16
2133
32.67
10134
3134
306.10
AGGREGATE
KILN
59,67
1180
10.01
12.07
28.62
20.86
70.80
Table 6B
MAXIMUM PREDICTED is-ftlNUTE OXECTWTICNS (ug/»3)»
SIT1 LOCATION
CINCIMHATI, OHIO
ERIE, POMSYLV^MIIA
LOK3VIEU, UASHIN6TGN
HAfiESSTOV^, ».
PHIU1PSBUR6, N. J.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
EVERETT, WASHINGTON
» BASED ON A 1 SftAM/SECOffl EMISSION RATE
r FURNACE
29.27
8.25
6.79
7.44
16.19
9.17
33.21
ASPHALTI
KILN
135.53
170.71
109.16
229.99
204.37
179.00
362.33
WET CEMENT
KILN
18.25
6.79
6.32
7.09
12.33
7.21
29.21
MY CEMENT
KILN
33.91
8.37
6.78
7.75
16.90
9.99
34.68
LIME
KILN
78.73
20.80
1152
18.18
41.21
17.78
6173
-------
Tabla 7
BUILDING DIMENSION DATA AS SUPPLIED BY ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
FOR T>C BUILDING OQUNUA94 ANALYSIS
SOURCE CHARACTERISTIC
DESIGN ISO * BTU/HR BOILER
SULFUR REOMERy PURNACE
ABSEEATE KILS
BLAST FURNACE
A6WALT1C KILN
UET CEKXT KILN
DRV COCXT KILN
LIIC KILN
* ES ftlt that « building height of 9.14
wwld not MUM a building mmuli probloi
STACK HT.
(N)
24.38
22.86
32.00
30.48
7.62
51.82
36.58
24.38
NEARBY BUILDING
DIMENSIONS
HEIGHT WIDTH LENGTH
(N) (M IN)
(NO DATA GIVEN)
22.86 4.05 4.05
(NO DMunsH ASSUMED;*
15.24 15.24 30.48
7.62 6.10 9.14
22.86 7.62 15.24
15.24 9.14 18.29
18.29 9.14 15.24
tsar
Table 8
PREDICTED cma. COCENTRRTIQNS
SOURCE CHARACTERISTIC
DESIGN ISO m BTU/HR BOILER
SULFUR RECOVERY FUSNACE
AG6REBATE KILN
BLAST FURNACE
ASPHALTIC KILN
HET CEMENT KILN
DRY CTJCNT KILN
Lift KILN
OOUWASH
yiTHOUT
-
1.53
-
0.07
1.55
0.05
0.08
0.20
EFFECTS
UITH
-
1.55
-
0.07
2.05
O.OS
0.08
0.20
* «ITH on yiTHour BUILDING OOUNUHSH
PERCENT LON6Z PREDICTIONS
CHANGE UITHOUT OOUNUASH
1.01
0.01
32.50
0.01
0.01
0.01
5.02
1.98
0.99
7.09
0.66
0.98
1.37
t BASED ON A 1 SRAM/SECOND EMISSION RATE
-------
the annual value. The lime kiln la predicted to have tho hlgheat
unit concentration at the Cincinnati alt*. All the other aource*
ahov the greatest Impact* from the Everett *ite.
QAOPS felt It va« nece**ary to eonalder dovnvaah potential
for the*«» aourcee If building dimension data v«* available.
ES va* aaked by the Project Officer to supply V»r*«r with appro-
priate building dimension* far each of the deaign kllna and
furnace*/. Table 7 preaenta the building dlmen*icn* aa provided
by ES.
Baaed on the Guideline on Air Quality Modal* (EPA, i986>,
ISC 1* the preferred aodel for building dovnvaah application*.
We uaed the ISCLT aodel for out Initial ar.^iyale of oulldlng
downwaeh to aee If building dovnwa*h 1* an Important factor /->r
thene eourcee. Since the Everett, Wa*hlngtc..^ alte produced the
hlghee/t predicted unit concentration* for »c*t *ourse* In the
earlier LQNG2 analyale, the aeteorologlcal data frow Everett va*
Input to the ISCLT model for thl* analyala.
The reault* of the building downwaah modeling are presented
In Table a and general!" *ho« that the building dovnvaah la not
a* algnlf leant of a problem a* the complex terrain l**ue (baaed
on LONGZ).
Final Conclusion*
OAQPS agreed that the hlgheet concentration from either the
LONGZ analyala for complex terrain or the ISCLT building dovnva*h
analyala ahould be uasd a* the final unit concentration (baaed on
phone call vlth Ann Qullllan Dec. 16, 1936). Therefore the LQNG2
reaulta provided In Tablea 4, 5, and 6 ahould be uaed In the
final regulations for the burning of hazardou* vaate In bollert.
and Industrial furnace*.
254
-------
REFERENCES
Auer, A. H. , Correlation of Land U§e and Cover
Meteorological Ano«ali««. Journal of Applied Meteorology, Vol
~~" ~ ~
Bjorklund, Jay ft. and Jawea P. Bower*. UaerJ_a Instruction* for
SHORTZ §S£ irSUSS CojButer Program* ; Vol^ "17 EPA-ioS/i-Ia-SoSiT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III. Philadelphia,
Pa. , March, 1982.
Egan, Bruce A. and Francle A. Schlermelr, CilBt^fiOQ 1Q
IS££BiSl A §ui«arz of the A«§ WSrkShS8 hfii^ 1Q
Colorado,. IZ'iQ Q*Y i§§2- Bulletin o< the American
MeteorologicaI~Soclety, Vol. 67, No. 10, pp. 124O-1247, 1986.
EPA, Guideline on Air Quality Qodele i3»vieed2.. EPA-4SO/2-78-
027R, U.i. Envlron»ental Protection Agency, Oiflce of Air Quality
Planning and Standard*, Research Triangle Park, N. C. , July, 1986.
McRae, G. J. , F. H. Shair, and J. H. Seinfeld, Convec'.lve
52»C2iSiOS 9| Plumee In § go§§t»i ErjvljgnwenS. Journal of
Applied Meteorology, Vol. 2O, No. 11, pp. 1312-1324. 1981.
Phone Call with Ann Qulllian a* OAQPS in Research Triangle Park
on December 16, 1986, (919) 341-569O.
Turner, D. B. , Workbook of Atmgegheric Difgerficn i«ii2Si??- PHS
Publication No. 999-AP-26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, N. C. , 1969.
-------
APPENDIX E
COMPUTATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE CANCER
POTENCIES FOR 21 SELECTED FACILITIES
-------
APPENDIX E
COMPUTATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE
CANCER POTENCIES TOR 21 SELECTED FACILITIES
0/| * Unit Risk
Concen- Carcinogen Cancer Cancer
Facility tration yes/no mg/()cg*day) ug/m^'lO6
Boilers
B-A
Phenol
2 , 4-Dinethylphenol
4-Ni trophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Nap thai ene
Flourine
Fraction Carcinogens
B-B
0.0983%
0.0650%
0.0220%
0.3467%
1.0133%
0.5666%
0.0000% Wt.
Napthalene 0.0624%
Pentachlorophenol 0.0177%
Toluene 18.6170%
Fraction Carcinogens
B-C
Phenol
Bis(2-«thyhexyl)
pthalate
Dibutylph chalate
Fraction Carcinogens
B-D-1
Tetrrchloroethylene
Fraction Carcinogens
B-D-2
Dichlor oe thy lene
Fraction Carcinogens
0.0000% Wt.
5.2000%
0.0043%
0.0040%
0.0043% Wt.
5.0000%
5.0000% Wt.
7.0000%
7.0000% Wt.
N
N
N
N
N
N
Average Q1 * O.OOE+OO
N
N
N
Average Q'. * O.OOE-M30
N
Y 1.41E-02 4.03E-06
N
Average Q1 * 1.41S-02
Y. 3.98E-02 1.141E-05
Average Q1 * 3.98E-02
Y 1 .04E+00 2.97E-04
Average Q1 * t .04E+00
B-3-1
Methyl methacrylate 4.0700% N
Fraction Carcinogens 0.0000% Wt. Average Q1* O.OOE+00
-------
APPENDIX £—Continued
Facility
Concen-
tration
Carcinogen
yea /no
Q.*
Cancer
rag/ (kg* day )
Unit Risk
Cancer
ug/m3*106
11.9000% N
0.0000% Wt. Average Q1 * O.OOE-HOO
1.3750% N
0.0000% Wt. Average Q1 * O.OOS+00
40.7000%
N
2.40E-02
B-E-2
Methyl methacrylate
Fraction Carcinogens
B-F
Toluene
Fraction Carcinogens
B-G
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)
ether
?roplylene dichloride
Epichlorohydrin
Propylane chlorrhydrin
Trichloropropylene
Dichloropropylene
Propionaldehyde
Fraction Carcinogens 17.2000% Wt. Average Q1* 2.40E-02
B-H
Methyl acetate 100.000% N
Fraction Carcinogens 0.0000% Wt. Average Q1 * O.OOE-+00
3-1
Nitrobenzene
Aniline
Benzene
Fraction Carcinogens
B-K-1
To3.uene
Benzene
Xylene
30.7000%
17.2000%
5.4000%
3.2000%
1.4000%
1 .4000%
N
Y
N
N
N
N
83.5000%
2.4000%
1 .8000%
4.2000% Wt.
2.8000%
0.2000%
5.3000%
N
X
y
Average Q1 *
H
Y
N
1 .90E-02
3.00E-02
2.37E-02
3.00E-02
6.86E-06
5.43E-06
8.58E-06
8.58E-06
Fraction Carcinogens 0.2000% Wt. Average Ql* 3.005-02
-------
APPENDIX E—Continued
Facility
B-K-2
Toluene
Benzene
Xylene
Phenol
Concen-
tration
1.2000%
0.1000%
4.6000%
23.0000%
Carcinogen
yes /no
N
Y
N
N
Q«*
Cancer-
ing/ (kg* day)
3.90E-02
Unit Risk
Cancer
ug/m3*106
8.58E-06
Fraction Carcinogens 0.1000% wt. Average Q1* 3.00E-02
Industrial Furnaces
CK-SJ
Methanol
Ethanol
Acetone
2-?ropanol
Methylene chloride
Hexane
Chloroform
Shtyl acetate
Methyl acetate
Carbon tetrachloride
Benzene
Toluene
Acrylonitrile
Methyl ethyle ketone
6.6200%
9.1500%
4.0700%
11.0000%
12.4000%
2.2300%
9.9700%
0.4000%
3.1900%
0.2400%
0.1000%
1 .0000%
1 .0000%
17.6600% Wt.
6.0000%
0.7000%
15.2000%
1.0000%
29.7000%
1 .3000%
1 .0000%
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Average Q1 *
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
1.40E-02
8.00E-02
1 .30E-01
3.00E-02
7.40E-01
5.83E-02
1.40E-02
9.90E-04
4.00E-06
2.29E-C5
3.72E-05
8.58F-06
6.86E-05
Fraction Carcinogens
CX-LR
Acetone
2-Propanol
Methylene diloridt
Metheyl ethyl ketone
1,1,1 -Trich-loroe thane
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Toluer.e
Butyl acetate
Ethyl benzene
Xyle-.ae
Fraction Carcinogens 15.9000% Wt. Average Q1* 1.55E-03
4.00E-06
2.83E-07
-------
APPEKDIX E—Continued
Facility
CX-P
Me thy lene chloride
2-Butanone
1,1,1 -Trichloroe thane
Toluene
Styrane
ElJxylbenzene
Xylena
Chloroform
Benzene
Trichloroe thy lene
?e tr achl oroe thy le na
Senzaldehyde
Biphenyl
Napthalene
Concen-
tration
1.2000%
0.8400%
0.6200%
1 .8000%
1 .6000%
1.3000%
1.7000%
0.0300%
0.0120%
0.1300%
0.1200%
2.2000%
0.0180%
0.0470%
Carcinogen
yes /no
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Q-*
Cancer
ing/ (kg* day)
1 .40S-02
9.90E-04
8.00E-02
3.00E-02
U10B-02
3.98E-02
Unit Risk
Cancer
ug/m-^10*9
4.00E-06
2.83E-07
2.29E-05
8.58E-06
3.15E-06
1.14E-05
Fraction Carcinogens 2.1620% Wt. Average Q1* 1.25E-02
CX-M
Methylene chloride 3.9700%
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1.8200%
Methyl ethyl ketone 8.2000%
Toluene 10.7000%
Y
N
N
1.40E-02
9.90E-04
4.00E-06
2.83E-C7
Fraction Carcinogens 5.7900% Wt. Average Q1 * 9.91E-03
CX-LS
Methylene chloride
2-Butanone
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Styrene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Chloroform
Benzene
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethy lene
Benzaldehyde
Diethylphthalaue
Napthalene
0.3740%
1.4900%
1.1700%
3.1200%
1.2500%
1.1400%
1 .5000%
0.0021%
0.0020%
1 .9800%
1.2000%
1 .8700%
0.0012%
030149%
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
1.40E-02
9.90E-04
8.00E-02
3.00E-02
1.1OE-02
3.98E-02
4.00E-06
2.83E-07
2.29E-05
8.58E-06
3.15E-06
1.14E-05
Fraction Carcinogens 5.0481% Wt. Average Q1* 1.52E-02
-------
APPENDIX E—Contir.ued
Qi*
Concen- Carcinogen Cancer
Facility tracion
LK-RL
Methyl ethyl ketone
1,1,1 -Trichloroex Hylene
Trichloroethylent.
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene 1
Acetone
1-Butanol
2-Ethoxyethanol
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Butyl acetone
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
2-Bu toxye thanol
2-Ethoxyethyl acetate
Fraction Carcinogens
LWAiC-FS
S thanol
2-Propanol
1 -Butanol
Ethyl acetate
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Toluene
Tetrchloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Styrene
2-Ethoxyethyl acetate
n-Propyl acetate
Fraction Carcinogens
BF
Methylene chloride
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Chloroform
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Tricholorethene
Benzene
Te tr achl oroe thene
Toluene
Xylene
Napthalene
Fraction Carcinogens
ges of all Observations
2.8200%
0.2270%
1 ,9400%
2.3300%
1 .7400%
0.2260%
0.3450%
0.3830%
1 . 1 1 00%
0.2940%
1.5000%
6.6400%
2.0300%
6.1400%
4.4970% Wt.
1.6900%
3.2600%
1.2700%
0.6950%
2.4200%
1 .3200%
8.2300%
0.1320%
1 .7600%
3.0900%
0.4920%
1.6200%
1.2500%
0.1320% Wt.
0.0750%
0.1213%
0.0254%
O.OS93*
0.1185%
0.5553%
0.02796%
5.6220%
0.6220%
0.08800%
0.6537% Wt.
4.0737%
yes /no mg/(kg*day)
N
Y 9.90E-04
Y 1.10E-03
Y 3.98E-02
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Average Q1 * 2.11S-02
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y 3.98E-02
N
N
N
N
N
Average Q1 * 3.98E-02
Y 1 .40E-02
N
Y 8.00E-02
Y 9.90TS-04
Y 1 .26E-02
Y 3.00E-02
Y 5.31E-02
N
N
N
Average Q1 * 3.24E-02
6.62E-02
Unit Risk
Cancer
ug/m3*lO*>
2.83E-07
3.15E-07
1 . 1 4E-05
1.14E-05
4.00E-06
2.29E-05
2.83E-07
3.60E-06
8.58E-06
1 .52E-05
------- |