453N90002 NATICH NEWSLETTER Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 0 ^L£\[pİ(Q) State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials Produced by the National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse July 1990 Clearinghouse Has New Staff After almost 2 years of serving as project officer for this news- letter, Scott Voorhees will leave the Clearinghouse staff temporarily to accept a Fulbright Research Grant. The grant will enable him to evaluate the air pollution control program at the Japan Environment Agency (JEA). The 9-month detail begins in September. Replacing Scott as Newsletter Project Officer is Martha Keating. Other Newsletter staffers, Nancy Riley and Melissa McCullough, will continue their duties as Newsletter mailing coordinator and NATICH data base coordinator. All three respond to questions on the NATICH data base and the Clearinghouse in general. They can be reached at (919) 541-0850 or (FTS) 629-0850. New NATICH publications in preparation for late summer print- ing and mailing include the "Bibliography of Selected Reports and Federal Register Notices Related to Air Toxics Volume 3: Citations - 1989" and "Ongoing Research and Regulatory Develop- ment Projects." The Bibliography includes an update to the index for this Newsletter as Appendix A. Clean Air Act Update: House Version Passes Status of Amendments: As of June, both the House and the Senate have passed different ver- sions of the Clean Air Act Amend- ments. A conference committee will be appointed in the weeks to come that will meet to negotiate the differences between the two versions. Once a compromise has been reached, the bill will be sent to the President to sign into law. It is most likely that the conference committee will begin meeting in late June or early July and report out a bill by the end of the summer. The May Newsletter article concerning the Clean Air Act was published just prior to the passage of Clean Air Act amendments by the House of Representatives* Although the air toxics portion of the bill (Title III) remained largely intact, there were some important changes worth noting. Definition of MACT: As men- tioned in the May issue, both the House and Senate versions of the Clean Air Act Amendments specified an initial phase of technology-based standards (max- imum achievable control technol- ogy or MACT) for source cate- gories emitting air toxics, to be followed by a source-specific risk analysis and possible further regulation. The basic structure of the bill was not changed by the House. An amendment was ac- cepted, however, which modified the definition of MACT for ex- isting sources. In the Administra- tion's bill, MACT was defined for existing sources as the control *See May issue, p. 7 (continued on page 8) In This Issue Santa Barbara Writes New EtO Rule 2 Using TRIS Through NATICH: A Primer 3 SCAQMD Controls Landfill Gas Emissions 5 STAPPA/ALAPCO Comment on Proposed MWC Regulation 7 California Publishes Tbxics Directory 8 Hospital Waste Combustion Study Has Corrected T&ble 8 OAQPS Publishes Sludge Incinerator Report 9 ------- Santa Barbara Writes New EtO Rule by Robert Sears, Air Toxics Coordinator Santa Barbara County, CA The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBAPCD) at one time had several large sources of ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions within its jurisdiction. EtO is a recognized carcinogen, mutagen, and reproductive toxi- cant. Recently, SBAPCD reviewed the possible need of controlling the emissions and quantified the health risks associated with them. The following article outlines the steps in that review leading to development of the District's new rule to reduce EtO emissions. Health Risk Management Levels Developed The SBAPCD researched the available literature and correspond- ed with State and federal health experts to identify the levels of EtO exposure which are associated with adverse health effects. Dose- response information was obtained for acute reproductive harm and chronic carcinogenic risk. At the time of the review, dose-response information was not available for determining thresholds (if any) at which mutagenic or cytogenetic damage may be initiated due to EtO exposure. The SBAPCD selected a one- hour average EtO concentration of 0.3 ppm (540 ug/m3) as the level necessary to protect the general public from adverse reproductive harm. This level was developed from an inhalation study that iden- tified a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 33 ppm for adverse reproductive effects in pregnant rats. The SBAPCD health risk management level of 0.3 ppm was obtained from this NOAEL by applying an uncertain- ty factor of 10 to convert from animal to human exposure and another uncertainty factor of 10 to account for sensitive individuals in the human population. The resul- tant value of 0.33 ppm was then rounded to 0.3 ppm. For carcinogenic risk, the SBAPCD approach is to control carcinogenic emissions such that the maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk caused by these emissions does not exceed one per million at any point at the boundary or outside the affected source property boundary. Exposure Assessment Conducted In April 1989, the SBAPCD requested emission quantity and nature of release information from all of the known EtO sources in the County. The emission release characteristics were necessary for input to the air quality impact modeling to be performed as part of the exposure assessment. The survey results indicated that there were 11 sources of EtO emissions within the District, in- cluding one spice fumigator, three medical device manufacturers and seven hospitals. The spice fumi- gator was identified as the largest source of EtO emissions at approx- imately 13,000 pounds per year. The emissions from the medical device manufacturers included 80 pounds per year from an inter- ocular lens manufacturing facility, and 1,166 and 1,000 pounds per year respectively from two medical implant manufacturing facilities. Emissions of EtO from hospitals in the District ranged from 4.5 to 556 pounds per year. The SBAPCD performed in- halation exposure assessments of the three largest EtO sources with- in the County (the spice fumigator and the two medical implant manufacturers). Ambient air im- pacts were quantified using the EPA ISCST air quality dispersion model (with Schulman-Scire downwash applied) on an IBM AT compatible personal computer. A complete year of meteorological data collected at nearby airports was used in the analyses. Emission rates from sterilizer and aeration room venting (peak hourly and an- nual averages), building dimen- sions, and other release character- istics from each source were modeled to quantify acute and chronic exposures. Approximately 1,200 receptors were modeled for each source, with locations of the receptors ranging from the facility boundary to 30 kilometers from the source. The exposure assessment results were reviewed to verify compliance with the SBAPCD acute reproductive harm and car- cinogenic health risk management levels. Impacts from the other sources not modeled in the ex- posure assessment were estimated by scaling impacts from the three sources that were modeled. Peak one-hour emission rates were modeled to quantify acute ex- posure. One-hour emission rates of 28.6 pounds per hour for the spice fumigator and 6.3 and 20.65 pounds per hour respectively for the medical implant manufacturers were modeled. Peak one-hour con- centrations from the spice fumi- gator exceeded 20,000 ug/m3, and were 10,000 and 21,000 ug/m3 respectively from the two medical implant manufacturers. These modeled concentrations greatly ex- ceed the 540 ug/m3 health risk management level determined by the SBAPCD as necessary to pro- tect the public from potential reproductive harm. Annual-average modeled con- centrations were multiplied by the inhalation unit risk value for EtO of 1.0 x 10-4 (ug/m3)-1 to obtain an estimate of maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risks. Using this approach, the maximum in- dividual excess lifetime cancer risk from the spice fumigator was ap- proximately 3 x 10-3. For both the medical implant manufacturers, the risk was 2 x 10-4. The results of both the acute and chronic exposure assessments were displayed graphically as isopleths of concentration or risk superimposed on land-use maps. 2 ------- (continued) This approach displays areas where unacceptable risk or am- bient air concentrations are predicted to occur. When coupled with demographic data, estimates of the exposed population were also obtained. The isopleths were generated using the Surfer Graphics software package on a PC. Control Rule Drafted Based on the results of the ex- posure assessments, a control rule was developed to reduce both chronic and acute risks to accept- able levels. This rule, SBAPCD Rule 336, was adopted on Decem- ber 12, 1989. Requirements of the EtO control rule are summarized below. The evacuation of sterilant gas for all sources from the steriliza- tion chamber must be designed to ensure that EtO is not released in wastewater streams. This will allow for control of EtO emissions that would otherwise be released to the atmosphere from subse- quent volatilization from the wastewater. Sterilization chamber emis- sions are required to be vented to an emission control device with a control efficiency of 99.9% or greater, by weight. All other emis- sion sources, including but not limited to aeration, ventilation air, and fume hoods, are required to be vented to a control device with a control efficiency of 99% or greater, by weight. If a single con- trol device is employed for all EtO emission sources, then the single device must demonstrate a control efficiency of 99.8% or greater, by weight. Sources that emit EtO in amounts of 250 pounds per year or more must comply with all control requirements within 1 year of rule adoption. Smaller sources (be- tween 4 and 250 pounds of EtO per year) must comply with all control requirements within 2 years of rule adoption. Sources emitting less than 4 pounds of EtO per year are exempt from the con- trol requirements, except for the provision that EtO cannot be released to the wastewater stream. The exemption level of 4 pounds per year is based on the approx- imation that 4 pounds per year of EtO correlates to a one per million maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. All sources are required to have permits and are subject to quarterly reporting requirements. In addition to the above control requirements, the EtO rule pro- hibits any source from emitting more than 0.5 pound per hour or 1.5 pounds per day of EtO. This particular provision became effec- tive upon the date of rule adoption (i.e., no compliance period was granted). These emission caps were chosen to immediately reduce the potential for reproductive harm and carcinogenic risk to the lowest level possible. However, while hospital sterilization units, which are mostly small emitters, are not affected by this emission cap, the larger EtO sources in the District have been required to curtail emis- sions immediately. Proposition 65 Lawsuits Initiated California Proposition 65 (The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic En- forcement Act of 1986) lists EtO as a pollutant which is known to the State to cause both cancer and reproductive harm. This regulation requires sources which expose in- dividuals to cancer risks or repro- ductive harm above specified significance levels to issue ap- propriate public warnings. After reviewing the SBAPCD EtO exposure assessments, the State Attorney General's Office filed lawsuits against the spice fumigator and the two medical im- plant manufacturers, alleging failure to provide warnings of significant risk to the exposed public. This action points out the need for sources to perform risk assessments to determine com- pliance with right-to-know laws. Also, this action suggests that as more risk assessments are per- formed by air pollution control districts throughout California, ad- ditional Proposition 65 issues may be raised. For additional information, contact Robert Sears, Santa Bar- bara County APCD, 26 Castilian Drive, Building B-23, Goleta, CA 93117, or call him at (805) 961-8800. Using TRIS Through NATICH: A Primer Since November 1989, the Clearinghouse has offered an op- tion for governmental users to ac- cess the SARA 313 data base from NATICH. This article will provide step-by-step instructions to access some of the more useful reports. A detailed TRIS user's manual is be- ing developed by the Office of Toxic Substances and should be available sometime mid- to late summer. Call Carolyn Thornton at (202) 475-8620 for a copy. Upon entry to TRIS, several screens of news and instructions appear. These are followed by the first menu that presents three op- tions: (1) BATCH REPORTS; (2) ONLINE QUERIES; and (3) EXIT TRIS. Choosing BATCH REPORTS initiates a search for the desired parameters and allows the user to sort the resulting data which can then be sent to a remote printer near the user* ONLINE QUERIES is more interactive and provides immediate viewing of the data. To 3 ------- TRIS (continued) see the reports and queries that these two offer, see Figure 1. The third option is EXIT TRIS. For users without PF keys, EXIT TRIS is your last opportunity to get out of TRIS without turning off your computer. When using TRIS, it is helpful to know some rules regarding the PF keys. For example, the bottom of the screen lists the PF keys and their functions. PF1 is for HELP. PF2 takes you to the MAIN menu. PF3, labeled PREV, will take you to the previous screen (very useful when you need to run a number of the same searches). Job control language or JCL is PF5 and in- structs the computer where to send your report and who to charge. (See the May Newsletter for more on JCL.) Depending on what search you are in, the func- tion of the other PF keys may change. For example, when you are in batch reports, PF6 is labeled QUERY and will take you to the online query menu. In online queries, PF6 is labeled RPTS and will take you to the batch reports menu. As shown in Figure 1, PF keys 9 through 12 have different functions under the Facility Sub- mission Display. The important thing to remember is to read your screen and consult Figure 1. Some valuable information for State and local agencies and regional offices are facility iden- tification, facility releases to all media, totals over a geographic area, and comparison of a facility's releases over the years for which the data are available. The instruc- tions below offer three pathways to these data. The FACILITY NAME SEARCH option not only provides the name and address of a particular facility, but also the TRI facility ID and DCN (docu- ment control number) for each sub- mittal (documentation for one chemical from one facility). These identifiers can be used throughout Figure 1 3 POTW/Oftsite Location Report 4. Facility Profile Report 6. Chemical/ Geographical/ SIC Code Report 7. Form "R" Facsimile Request i BATCH REPORTS TRIS DATABASE OPTIONS O 1. Chemical (CAS# or Chet Report I Opt: location Vs^. 2. Geographic Location 1 Report 1. Facility Info Year ' Facility ID, DUNS#,> EPA ID#, DCN, or Facility Name \Opt: CAS# or Chert 5. Regional TRIS Submissions Report 2. Releases/Transfers By Facility, Including Total Chem By Location Year 'Control Totals Only?^ Any Combination: CAS# or Chem, Location, or SIC, Year 'Facility ID, DUNS#," EPA ID#, DCN or Facility Name sOpt: CAS# or Chem/ 3. Releases/Transfers Activities/Uses By Facility Facility Info, ID #s Releases/T ransfers POTW/Offsite Info Activities/Uses List of Facility Submissions: iD#s, Name, Addr, Contacts, Chem Info, Location Cy^NameN. Waste Minim Info [ Selection V- Releases/T ransfers \ScreenJ Activities/Uses Listing of: Facilities, ID#s, Contacts, CAS#s, Chemicals Total Releases/Media/ Location /SortN \Ordej/ Facility ID#s, DCNs Releases, Total Releases by Medium For Location Facsimile of Form Submitted by Facility ONLINE QUERIES Facility Name(s). AdcJr DCN, CAS#, SIC Facility II)# [ Selection) ^Screen; 7 Year-to-year Release/Transfer Comparison Comparison ol Releases for All Chems All Years 4 ------- TRIS (continued) TRIS to access information on a given facility. (1) Go to ONLINE QUERIES. (2) Select: 1. FACILITY NAME SEARCH. (3) Select the reporting year and facility name (the search may be narrowed by selecting a specific geographic area). (4) The number of submittals found appears on the screen; press enter to view. The CHEMICAL/GEOGRA- PHICAL/SIC CODE REPORT is a program that identifies facilities emitting the specified chemical, focused if desired within an SIC Code, for a particular geographic area. The report will also give the amount of the chemical released to each medium by facility and the total for all facilities. Alternatively, the totals only may be requested. (1) Go to BATCH REPORTS. (2) Select: 6. CHEMICAL/ GEOGRAPHICAL/SIC CODE REPORTS. (3) Specify yes or no in CONTROL TOTALS ONLY and the desired combination of CAS number, Region/State/City/ County/Zip Code, and SIC Code. (4) Select the desired sort order and press enter to submit the report. The YEAR-TOYEAR RELEASE TRANSFER COM- PARISON option provides the changes in releases at a facility over time, currently 1987 and 1988. (1) Select ONLINE QUERIES. (2) Select: 7. YEAR-TOYEAR RELEASE TRANSFER COMPARISON. (3) Select the TRI facility ID or facility name and whether to include delisted chemicals. The search can be narrowed by in- dicating a CAS number. (In selecting a facility name, a FACILITY NAME selection screen appears that lists facility names, TRI facility IDs, and the number of submittals for each. The user must specify the ones of interest with an "X" and hit the PF9 key to submit the names.) For any questions about these instructions, or other ways to view TRIS data, contact the Clearing- house staff. "See related article in the May 1990 Newsletter, p. 3 SCAQMD Controls Landfill Gas Emissions The following overview was adapted from a longer paper pre- sented by Robert R. Pease, Mohsen Nazemi, Rodney W. Millican, and Stacey M. K. Ebiner of the South Coast Air Quality Management District at a meeting of the Air and Waste Management Association in June 1989 and updated by the Newsletter staff in April 1990. In 1984 the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) tested 20 municipal landfills looking for the presence of contaminants such as vinyl chloride or benzene that had been identified at hazardous waste sites*. SCAQMD found both com- pounds in 85 percent of the land- fills tested. It is probable that this is a nationwide occurrence. The agency adopted Rule 1150.1, Control of Gaseous Emis- sions from Active Landfills, in 1985.** Rule 1150.1 was adopted as a result of a task force report CARB produced in 1982 and work the agency did in 1984 related to reactive organic gas (ROG) emis- sions and public nuisance odors from landfills. At present, 35 land- fills have submitted compliance plans and 101 have requested ex- emption from the rule. Of those, 85 requests were exempted, 8 were denied, and decisions on the rest are pending. A broader inventory of landfill gas compositions within and above active and inactive landfills in the State is currently being compiled by the California Air Resources Board through implementation of State Health and Safety Code Sec- tion 41805.5 by the local air districts. The majority of the data (84 test reports were completed) for the State is expected to come from landfills under SCAQMD jurisdiction. CARB is compiling the data to include in a report for the State legislature this year. Several Collection/Control Systems Are Applicable The heating value and the amount of the landfill gas general- ly dictate the type of control system to be used. A survey of the heating values of landfill gas around the country showed that more than half of the landfills pro- duce gas with heating values of less than 501 Btu/SCF, and only a small portion of the landfills pro- duce gas with high heat content.*** Depending on such variables as how much landfill gas is available and at what flow rate, and what use is to be made of the gas, land- fill operators decide whether to collect the gas for incineration or power generation. Vertical wells and horizontal trench wells are the preferred technology for collecting the gas at present. The interior wells are spaced a nominal 100 to 300 feet apart. Design spacing is much 5 ------- Landfills (continued) closer between wells on the perimeter of the landfill. Ideal spacing minimizes the number of wells yet provides necessary negative pressure below cover at maximum distance from the well heads. Relatively high negative pressures are pulled on the boun- dary control wells or trenches. If the collection system is pro- perly designed and installed, it will not only prevent odor and protect the public from the release of toxic pollutants, it will also ensure that more gas is available for energy recovery purposes. Flares were first used to in- cinerate the gas for migration con- trol purposes and odor control. As more and more landfill gas flares were installed, improvements in design and construction followed. Multiple orifice-type burners were used to spread the flame pattern, resulting in increased flame con- tact, higher destruction efficien- cies, with lower NOx and carbon monoxide emissions. Landfill gas has been used to fuel a multitude of power genera- tion and thermal production equip- ment. Similar to sewage digester gas, landfill gas can be used to generate salable energy, drive mechanical equipment such as pumps and blowers, or produce steam. Various attempts were made to treat raw landfill gas in order to upgrade the quality and Btu content. The treatment pro- cess also removed the impurities which are inherent in the gas. However, at this time, there are no gas treating facilities in operation in this area. To date, the majority of landfill gas powers energy production equipment such as engines and boilers. Reciprocating piston-type internal combustion engines firing on landfill gas are used to drive electric generators throughout SCAQMD's jurisdiction. NOx emissions from these engines are lower than comparable natural gas- fired engines due to lower Btu content of the gas and the diluting effect of the fuel-bound CO2. The most recent power gener- ation technology to use landfill gas is the steam generator using the Rankine Cycle. The gas is burned in a boiler to produce superheated steam. The steam is used to drive a steam turbine-generator for power production. The benefits of the Rankine Cycle power produc- tion from the combustion of land- fill gas is the exceptional heat rate of 10,000 Btu/KW. This is the lowest rate and highest efficiency of all of the LFG-fired power generation systems to date. In ad- dition, the Rankine Cycle has been demonstrated to be one of the lowest emitters of NOx and ROG of any LFG-fired equipment. The boiler is designed for low emission rates by the following techniques: Low NOx burner (low O2) Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR) Oxygen trim system Low furnace heat flux Low combustion air preheat Toxic emissions from LFG- fired boilers appear to be con- trolled to acceptable levels, based on source testing. High combus- tion temperatures and a more than adequate retention time in the fur- nace provide a destruction effi- ciency in excess of 99 percent for total organics. Landfills Conduct Risk Assessments Each landfill project must per- form a risk assessment in order to establish the extent of the public health impacts of the project on the exposed population. This is a requirement of SCAQMD's ex- isting Rule 212 and a proposed rule (1401). Further, under Assembly Bill 2588,**** a health risk assessment may be required from some landfills. In most in- stances, a screening procedure Table 1 Risks for Landfill Gas-Fired Projects Gas Rate Risk Project (cfm) do-Ğr Remarks Boiler 24,000 0.10 2 boilers Boiler 10,000 0.25 has booster fan Boiler 7,000 0.01 1 boiler Flare 7,500 0.023 5 flares Flare 15,000 0.096 7 flares Flare 3,750 0.919 2 flares Flare 4,167 0.240 1 flare Internal Combustion Engine 1,300 28 3 engines, no control Internal Combustion Engine 950 0.326 1 engine, no contol Internal Combustion Engine 400 0.045 1 engine, clean burn Direct comparisons cannot be made because each value is specific to a landfill. In general, however, boilers result in hwer risks than internal combustion engines. *Risk here is defined as: excess probability of cancer incidence to the maximum exposed individual based on a 70-year lifespan. 6 ------- Landfills (continued) which uses inhalation pathway analysis, rather than a multi- pathway analysis, is required to determine potential exposure to carcinogenic air contaminants. If this risk is determined to exceed one in one million (10"6), a detailed modeling analysis will be required. Currently, the District is in the process of adopting a rule that will clearly define toxic emissions limits based on risk analysis (pro- posed Rule 1401, scheduled for adoption in June 1990). Table 1 estimates risks for landfill gas- fired projects from various land- fills throughout SCAQMD's jurisdiction. For further information regard- ing the South Coast Air Quality Management District's landfill gas control and compliance program, call Mohsen Nazemi, SCAQMD engineering division, (818) 572-6145. *Note: California is the only State now requiring landfill controls. Although some 20 States have land- fill regulations, most cover odor only. * *See related Newsletter articles in issues for July 1984, pp. 1-2 and July 1987, p. 3. * * *Governmental Advisory Associa- tion, Inc., "Methane Recovery From Landfill Yearbook Directory and Guide," 1986 - 1987. * * * * See article on CARB's "Hot Spots" Regulation in the March 1990 issue of the Newsletter (p. 2). STAPPA/ALAPCO Comment on Proposed MWC Regulation After the proposed municipal waste combustion regulations ap- peared in the Federal Register in December 1990 (54 FR 52209 and 52251), comments from STAPPA/ ALAPCO were among some 270 sets of comments EPA received by the closing day of the comment period, March 1, 1990. The pro- posed regulations would provide emission guidelines for existing municipal waste combustors and performance standards for new combustors. STAPPA/ALAPCO commented on these issues: materials separation and recycling emission limits for organics, metals, and acid gases compliance /performance monitoring operator training and certification Following are highlights of the comments, excerpted from STAPPA/ALAPCO text. With respect to the proposed requirement that municipal waste combustors separate and recycle 25 percent of materials prior to combustion, the two associations recommended that mandatory recycling be "part of an overall regulatory strategy for municipal solid waste disposal (i.e., not just the air program) and should be ap- plied to other programs such as landfills." Concerning emission limits, for organics STAPPA/ALAPCO believe that dioxin/furan emissions may not adequately represent all organics as a surrogate. The associations recommended that additional surrogates, such as methylene chloride, be chosen and that standards be set for them. In addition, STAPPA/ALAPCO also suggested that "all products of combustion should be subjected to a residence time and temperature limitation to ensure that organic substances are properly com- busted... and that EPA establish standards to accomplish this." STAPPA/ALAPCO also com- mented on the proposed use of particulates as a surrogate for metals, stating that "particulates are not representative of mercury and recommending] that the Agency develop a separate stan- dard for these emissions." The associations added their recom- mendation that both new and ex- isting sources, regardless of size, be subject to the same standard. STAPPA/ALAPCO further sug- gested that the proposed standard of 0.015 gr/dscf be changed to 0.010 gr/dscf and be required for all municipal waste combustors, not just for regional existing sources. Further, the associations stated their belief that "it is impor- tant to require testing for condensi- ble particulates [for all sources] as part of a particulate standard." Finally, the association advocated lowering the proposed opacity level from 10 percent to 5 percent. The associations urged EPA to select more stringent standards than those proposed for acid gases as well. With respect to the compliance/ performance provisions of the pro- posed regulation, STAPPA/ALAPCO stated that "EPA's proposal could be strengthened by shortening the compliance periods for acid gases from 24 to 4 hours and for carbon monoxide and particulates from 4 hours to 1 hour (excluding startup and shutdown periods)." Finally, the associations suggested that EPA "delete the proposed provi- sion that would allow a source to forego compliance testing for two consecutive years if tests in the three previous years demonstrated compliance." 7 ------- California Publishes Toxics Directory The California Department of Health Services has published a 1990 Toxics Directory. The direc- tory is designed to help people in the health professions, environ- mental work, the media, govern- ment, and industry to find informa- tion on toxic substances and their health effects. The directory describes more than 80 governmental, educational, and public interest organizations on the national, State, and local levels that can answer questions about all types of toxic problems. Numerous California government offices that deal with toxics are listed, as well as laboratories that analyze hazardous materials and contaminants. The directory consists of cita- tions of books, scientific journal articles, and on-line computer data bases. References include text- books and handbooks, guides on clean-up and management of tox- ics, on-line environmental data bases, and books and articles on toxic substances by exposure categories such as air and water, substances of common concern such as asbestos and dioxin, and risk assessment and risk com- munication. Copies of the toxics directory may be ordered at $5.50 each from the State Publications Section, P.O. Box 1015, North Highlands, CA 95660. Request Publication No. 7540-958-1300-3, and make checks payable to State of California. Note: Government agencies in California may obtain a free copy of the directory. To do so, or to ob- tain a list of other publications on toxics, write or call the Hazard Identification and Risk Assess- ment Branch (HIRAB), 2151 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, CA 94704, (415) 540-3063. Do not send paid orders to HIRAB. Hospital Waste Combustion Study Has Corrected Table The January 1989 issue of the Newsletter (p. 14) described the availability of The Hospital Waste Combustion Study - Data Gather- ing Phase, Final Report (EPA-450/ 3-88-017) released in December 1988. The report contains the results of a study of air emissions from hospital waste combustion. The hydrogen chloride emission factor used in Table 3-3 of the report is incorrect and has been corrected. To obtain a copy of the corrected table, contact Brenda Riddle, Pollutant Assessment Branch, (919) 541-5341. Copies of the report are avail- able through the Library Services Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmen- tal Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, or from National Informa- tion Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. (continued from page 1) achieved in practice by the best performing similar sources. The definition of MACT for existing sources could be less stringent than that for new sources because an industry average of the best performing sources could be used as the benchmark. The debate in both the House and the Senate focused on the MACT definition for existing sources. The new definition in the House bill establishes MACT for existing sources at the level at least as stringent as the average emission limitation achieved in practice by the best performing 15 percent of similar sources, ex- cluding any sources which have achieved, within the past 12 months, a level equivalent to the lowest achievable emission rate as defined by Part D, Section 171 (Plan Requirements for Nonattain- ment Areas). This definition ap- plies only to source categories of 30 or more sources. For source categories of fewer than 30 sources, MACT is defined as the control achieved in practice by the best performing 5 sources. The existing source definition of MACT in the Senate bill is the control achieved in practice by the best controlled 10 percent of similar sources. If there are fewer than 30 sources within the source category, MACT is defined as the control achieved in practice by the best performing 3 sources. An important note about the definitions of MACT in the House and Senate bills is that there is language to restrict the informa- tion used to define MACT to the data available to the Administrator. The implication is that EPA will not be required to conduct a survey of each source in every source category before MACT can be established. The EPA still has the discretion to establish levels which are more stringent than the MACT definition if it is determined 8 ------- (continued) that MACT is not represented by the sources in a particular source category. This provision is impor- tant because it opens the door to technology transfer from other similar, but better performing source categories. The MACT definition for new sources was not changed by the House or Senate bills. As original- ly defined in the Administration's bill, MACT for new sources re- quires a level of control at least as stringent as the control achieved in practice by the best performing similar source. Accidental Release Prevention: The original Administration ver- sion of the Clean Air Act amend- ments did not contain an acciden- tal release program other than a chemical accident investigation board. The accidental release por- tion of the bill in the House has been modified several times since the bill was first introduced. The latest round of amendments by the House makes the accidental release provisions as passed very similar to the requirements in the Senate bill. The House provision now re- quires EPA, in consultation with the Secretaries of Transportation and Labor, to promulgate reason- able regulations and appropriate guidance for the prevention and detection of accidental releases in- to the ambient air. These regula- tions, due 3 years after enactment, would apply to all facilities with at least one of a list of 100 chemicals stored on site in excess of a thresh- old quantity. The list of chemicals and threshold quantities will be developed as part of the regula- tions. The House bill also includes several chemicals which must be included on such a list: chlorine, anhydrous ammonia, methyl chlor- ide, ethylene oxide, vinyl chloride, methyl isocyanate, hydrogen cyanide, tetrachloroethylene, am- monia, hydrogen sulfide, phosgene, bromine, anhydrous hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, an- hydrous sulfur dioxide, and sulfur trioxide. In addition to the accident prevention regulations, an Acciden- tal Release Investigation Board would be established by the House bill. Unlike the original Admini- stration position, this board would be an independent agency ap- pointed by the President to investi- gate any accidental release of a listed chemical which causes fatalities or serious injuries. The board must report to Congress every 2 years on further measures which are needed to prevent ac- cidental releases. The Newsletter will continue to follow the progress of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 through enactment. In the mean- time, if you have questions about air toxics issues in the Clean Air Act amendments, call Tim Mohin at (919) 541-5349 or (FTS) 629-5349. OAQPS Publishes Sludge Incinerator Report The EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) has published a report that pro- vides information on estimating emissions of toxic substances from sewage sludge incinerators. This report is entitled "Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sewage Sludge Incinerators" (EPA-450/2-90-009). This emission document is a part of the report series of "Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from (or of) (Sources Category or Substance)." The pur- pose of the sewage sludge inciner- ator report is to assist air pollution control agencies and others who are interested in locating potential sewage sludge incinerators and in making preliminary estimates of the emissions resulting from these sources. This document contains available information on the types of sewage sludge incinerators and their air pollution control equip- ment. Emission factors are presented for each major type of sewage sludge incinerators for the following compounds: metals in- cluding arsenic, beryllium, cad- mium, chromium, and nickel; and organics including chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans, benzene, chlorobenzenes, and phenol. Overviews of procedures for source sampling and analysis of air toxic emissions from these sources are also provided. Single copies of this report are available by writing the EPA li- brary at MD-35, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 or by calling (919) 541-2777 or (FTS) 629-2777. The process to make the reports available through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) for a fee has been initiated. No NTIS order number has yet been assigned to the report. For further information on the report, contact Bill Kuykendal, EPA, OAQPS, Noncriteria Pollutant Pro- grams Branch (NPPB), MD-15, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. 9 ------- The NATICIINewsletter is published six times a year by the National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse. The Newsletter is prepared by Radian Corporation under EPA Contract Number 68-D8-0065, Work Assign- ment 2-5. The EPA Project Officer is Martha Keating, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Telephone: (919)541-5348. The Radian Project Director is Caroline Brickley, P. 0. Box 13000, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, (919)541-9100. The Newsletter is distributed free of charge. To report address changes, write Meredith Haley, Radian Cor- poration, P. O. Box 13000, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709. The views expressed in the NATICH Newsletter do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute any endorsement or recommendation for use by EPA. Printed on recycled paper. Martha Keating Pollutant Assessment Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MD-13 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 FIRST CLASS MAIL U.S. Postage Paid E.P.A. Permit No. G-35 Li brarv EPA, Reqion II Woodbridqe Avenue E d i s o n , M J 088 7 )!!ii > 11111 li >l>i> I Ii l> > > t Ĥ 111It ------- |