Environmental engineers handbook - Chapter 4 ppsx

Air Quality Standards 4.1 SETTING STANDARDS Introduction Section 109, 1970 CAA Amend- ments Section 112, Hazardous Air Pollut- ants Title III, 1990 CAA Amendments Ambient Concentration Limits Derivation of Ambient Concentration Limits Use of the RD Use of Occupational Exposure Limits Use of Other Approaches Compliance with ACLs Source and Ambient Sampling Air Dispersion Modeling Current Uses of ACLs 4.2 TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS Standards Development Process Elements of an Emission Standard Applicability Emission Limits Compliance Requirements Monitoring, Reporting, and Record Keeping Ambient Air Quality Standards Hazardous Air Pollution Standards NESHAP MACT/GACT Other Technology Standards New Source Performance Stand- ards BACT/LAER T-BACT RACT/CTG 4.3 OTHER AIR STANDARDS State and Local Air Toxics Programs Air Toxics Control in Japan Air Toxics Control in Some European Countries Noise Standards 4.4 NOISE STANDARDS Human Response to Noise Wildlife Response to Noise Occupational Noise Standards Land Use and Average Noise Level Compatibility Traffic Noise Abatement Community Exposure to Airport Noise Railroad Noise Abatement 4 Standards William C. Zegel ©1999 CRC Press LLC CHAP4.QXD 1/20/99 8:46 AM Page 185 Water Standards 4.5 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Legislative Activity ACLs Technology Standards Water Quality Goals Effluent Standards Municipal Effluent Limits Industrial Effluents Storm Water Discharge Toxic Pollutants 4.6 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS Drinking Water Regulation Maximum Contaminant Level Goals EPA Process for Setting Standards Public Participation EPA Drinking Water and Raw Water Standards Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines European Economic Community Drinking Water Directives Home Wells Bottled Water 4.7 GROUNDWATER STANDARDS Groundwater Classifications Groundwater Standards Wellhead Protection International Standards 4.8 ISO 14000 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS ©1999 CRC Press LLC CHAP4.QXD 1/20/99 8:46 AM Page 186 Introduction Today’s air quality standards have emerged from sections 109 and 112 of the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments and Title III of the 1990 CAA Amendments. SECTION 109, 1970 CAA AMENDMENTS The 1970 CAA Amendments define two primary types of air pollutants for regulation: criteria air pollutants and haz- ardous air pollutants. Under section 108, criteria pollu- tants are defined as those that “cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare . . . the presence of which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources.” Under section 109, the EPA identifies pollutants that meet this definition and prescribes national primary air quality standards, “the attainment and main- tenance of which . . . allowing an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public health.” National secondary air quality standards are also pre- scribed, “the attainment and maintenance of which . . . is requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated effects associated with the presence of the air pollutant.” Welfare effects include injury to agricultural crops and livestock, damage to and the deterioration of property, and hazards to air and ground transportation. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are to be attained and maintained by regulating station- ary and mobile sources of the pollutants or their precur- sors. SECTION 112, HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS Under section 112, the 1970 amendments also require reg- ulation of hazardous air pollutants. A hazardous air pol- lutant is defined as one “to which no ambient air standard is applicable and that . . . causes, or contributes to, air pol- lution which may reasonably be anticipated to result in an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness.” The EPA must list substances that meet the defi- nition of hazardous air pollutants and publish national emission standards for these pollutants providing “an am- ple margin of safety to protect the public health from such hazardous air pollutant[s].” Congress has provided little additional guidance, but identified mercury, beryllium, and asbestos as pollutants of concern. TITLE III, 1990 CAA AMENDMENTS Although the control of criteria air pollutants is generally considered a success, the program for hazardous air pol- lutants was not. By 1990, the EPA regulated only seven of the hundreds of compounds believed to meet the defi- nition of hazardous air pollutants. Title III of the 1990 CAA Amendments completely re- structured section 112 to establish an aggressive new pro- gram to regulate hazardous air pollution. Specific pro- grams have been established to control major-source and area-source emissions. Title III establishes a statutory list of 189 substances that are designated as hazardous air pol- lutants. The EPA must list all categories of major sources and area sources for each listed pollutant, promulgate stan- dards requiring installation of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) at all new and existing ma- jor sources in accordance with a statutory schedule, and establish standards to protect the public health with an ample margin of safety from any residual risks remaining after MACT technology is applied. Ambient Concentration Limits Air pollution control strategies for toxic air pollutants are frequently based on ambient concentration limits (ACLs). ACLs are also referred to as acceptable ambient limits (AALs) and acceptable ambient concentrations (AACs). A regulatory agency sets an ACL as the maximum allowable ambient air concentration to which people can be exposed. ACLs generally are derived from criteria developed from human and animal studies and usually are presented as weight-based concentrations in air, possibly associated with an averaging time. ©1999 CRC Press LLC Air Quality Standards 4.1 SETTING STANDARDS CHAP4.QXD 1/20/99 8:46 AM Page 187 The EPA uses this approach for criteria air pollutants but not for toxic air pollutants. The CAA Amendments of 1970 require the EPA to regulate toxic air pollutants through the use of national emission standards. The 1990 amendments continue and strengthen this requirement. However, state and local agencies make extensive use of ACLs for regulatory purposes. This extensive use is be- cause, for most air pollutants, ACLs can be derived easily and economically from readily available health effects in- formation. Also, the maximum emission rate for a source that corresponds to the selected ACL can be determined easily through mathematical modeling. Thus, the regula- tor can determine compliance or noncompliance. Lastly, the use of ACLs relieves regulators from identifying and specifying acceptable process or control technologies. ACLs are frequently derived from occupational health criteria. However, ACLs are susceptible to challenge be- cause no technique is widely accepted for translating stan- dards for healthy workers exposed for forty hours a week to apply to the general population exposed for twenty-four hours a day. Another disadvantage of ACLs is that both animal and occupational exposures, from which health cri- teria are developed, are typically at concentrations greater than normal community exposures. This difference re- quires extrapolation from higher to lower dosages and of- ten from animals to humans. DERIVATION OF AMBIENT CONCENTRATION LIMITS ACLs are typically derived from health criteria for the sub- stance in question. They are usually expressed as concen- trations such as micrograms per cubic meter ( ␮ g/cu m). Health criteria are generally expressed in terms of dose— the weight of the pollutant taken into the body divided by the weight of the body. To convert a dose into a concen- tration, assumptions must be made about average breath- ing rates, average consumption of food and water, and the amount of each that is available to the body (adsorption factors). The EPA has a generally accepted procedure for this process (U.S. EPA 1988, 1989). Other methods of deriving ACLs are based upon an ab- solute threshold (CMA 1988). These methods set ACLs at some fraction of an observed threshold or established guideline. A margin of safety is generally added depend- ing on the type and severity of the effect on the body, the quality of the data, and other factors. Still other methods depend upon extrapolation from higher limits established for other similar purposes. The health criteria felt most appropriate for deriving ACLs is the risk reference dose (RfD) established by the EPA (Patrick 1994). The EPA has developed RfDs for both inhalation and ingestion pathways (U.S. EPA 1986). They require much effort to establish and are generally designed for long-term health effects. USE OF THE RfD RfDs are developed for ingestion and inhalation exposure routes. If a relevant inhalation RfD is available, regulatory agencies should use it as the basis for deriving an ACL for an air pollutant. The EPA is currently deriving reference values for inhalation health effects in terms of micrograms per cubic meter. These risk reference concentrations (RfCs) provide a direct link with ACLs. Without more specific in- formation on inhalation rates for the target population, regulators frequently assume the volume of air breathed by an average member of a typical population to be 20 cubic meters per day, which is considered a conservative value. When an inhalation RfD is not available, regulators must derive an ACL from another source. One approach is to use an ingestion RfD to estimate an RfC. However, this technique can be inaccurate because absorption through the digestive system is different from absorption through the respiratory system. RfDs and RfCs are available through the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Many state and local regulatory agencies use the EPA-derived RfDs and RfCs to establish ACLs. These reference values are avail- able through the EPA’s National Air Toxics Information Clearing House (NATICH). Because of the large number of state and local agencies, NATICH does not always have the latest information. Therefore, the practicing engineer should get the latest information directly from the local agency. USE OF OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS In some cases, neither RfDs nor RfCs are available, and regulators must use another source of information to de- rive ACLs. Occupational limits, usually in the form of threshold limit values (TLVs) and permissible exposure limits (PELs), are often used to establish ACLs. Both es- tablish allowable concentrations and times that a worker can be exposed to a pollutant in the work place. TLVs and PELs are particularly useful in establishing acute exposure ACLs. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) develops TLVs. Three types of TLVs are the time-weighted average (TLV-TWA), the short-term exposure limit (TLV-STEL), and the ceiling limit (TLV-C). The TLV-TWA is the time-weighted average concentra- tion for a normal eight-hour work day and forty-hour work week to which almost all workers can be repeatedly exposed without adverse effects. TLV-STELs are fifteen- minute time-weighted average concentrations that should not be exceeded during the normal eight-hour work day, even if the TLV-TWA is met. TLV-Cs are concentrations that should never be exceeded. PELs are established by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and are defined in ©1999 CRC Press LLC CHAP4.QXD 1/20/99 8:46 AM Page 188 much the same way as the TLVs. OSHA adopted the ACGIH’s TLVs when federal occupational standards were originally published in 1974. Since that time, many of the values have been revised and published as PELs. These occupational levels were developed for relatively healthy workers exposed only eight hours a day, forty hours a week. They do not apply to the general popula- tion, which includes the young, the old, and the sick and which is exposed twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. However, using safety factors, regulators can use occupational levels as a basis for extrapolation to com- munity levels. Different regulatory agencies use different safety factors. USE OF OTHER APPROACHES When no RfD has been derived, regulators can use the level at which no observed adverse effects have been found (NOAEL) or the lowest level at which adverse effects have been observed (LOAEL), with appropriate safety factors. These levels are similar in nature and use to the RfDs. Related levels are the no observed effect level (NOEL) and the lowest observed effect level (LOEL), respectively. Other sources of information are the minimal risk level (MRL), the level that is immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH), emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG), and emergency exposure guideline levels (EEGL) for spe- cific pollutants. These last four levels are for special situ- ations; for these levels to be useful in assessing danger to the general public, regulators must severely attenuate them by safety factors. However, in the absence of other data, these levels can be useful in establishing an ACL or stan- dard. A pollutant’s NOAEL is the highest tested experimen- tal exposure level at which no adverse effects are observed. The NOEL is the highest exposure level at which no ef- fects, adverse or other, are observed. The NOEL is gener- ally less useful since factors other than toxicity can pro- duce effects. A pollutant’s LOAEL is the lowest tested experimental exposure level at which an adverse health effect is ob- served. Since the LOAEL does not convey information on the no-effect level, it is less useful than the NOAEL, but it can still be useful. The LOEL is the lowest level at which any effect is observed, adverse or not. As a result, it is gen- erally less useful than the NOEL. MRLs are derived by the Agency for the Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which was formed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980. The CERCLA requires ATSDR to prepare and up- date toxicological profiles for the hazardous substances commonly found at superfund sites (those sites on the National Priority List) that pose the greatest potential risk to human health. As part of the profiles, ATSDR derives MRLs for both inhalation and ingestion exposures. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) developed IDLHs primarily to select the most effective respirators to use in the work place. IDLHs are the maximum pollutant concentration in the air from which healthy male workers can escape without loss of life or suffering irreversible health effects during a maximum thirty-minute exposure. Another way of thinking of IDLHs is that if levels are above these standards, respirators must be used to escape the area of contamination. The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) has derived ERPGs at three levels for several substances. Level 1 is the lowest level; it represents the maximum pol- lutant concentration in the air at which exposure for one hour results in mild, transient, adverse health effects. Level 2 is the concentration below which one hour of exposure does not result in irreversible or serious health effects or ©1999 CRC Press LLC TABLE 4.1.1 SUMMARY OF NAAQSs Standard (@ 25°C and 760 mm Hg) Pollutant Averaging Time Primary Secondary Particulate matter, Annual arithmetic mean 50 ␮ g/m 3 Same as primary 10 micrometers (PM 10 ) 24-hour 150 ␮ g/m 3 Same as primary Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) Annual arithmetic mean 0.03 ppm (80 ␮ g/m 3 ) Same as primary 24-hour 0.14 ppm (365 ␮ g/m 3 ) Same as primary 3-hour None 0.5 ppm (1300 ␮ g/m 3 ) Carbon monoxide (CO) 8-hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m 3 ) Same as primary 1-hour 35 ppm (40 mg/m 3 ) Same as primary Ozone (O 3 ) 1-hour per day 0.12 ppm (235 ␮ g/m 3 ) Same as primary Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) Annual arithmetic mean 0.053 ppm (100 ␮ g/m 3 ) Same as primary Lead (Pb) Quarterly arithmetic 1.5 ␮ g/m 3 Same as primary mean Source: CFR Title 40, Part 50. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993. Notes: All standards with averaging times of 24 hours or less, and all gaseous fluoride standards, are not to have more than one actual or expected exceedance per year. ␮ g/m 3 or mg/m 3 ϭ microgram or milligram per cubic meter CHAP4.QXD 1/20/99 8:46 AM Page 189 ©1999 CRC Press LLC in symptoms that could impair the ability to take protec- tive action. Level 3 is the concentration below which most individuals could be exposed for one hour without expe- riencing or developing life-threatening health effects. The National Research Council for the Department of Defense has developed EEGLs. These levels may be un- healthy, but the effects are not serious enough to prevent proper response to emergency conditions to prevent greater risks, such as fire or explosion. These peak levels of ex- posure are considered acceptable in rare situations, but they are not acceptable for constant exposure. Compliance with ACLs ACLs are useful tools for reducing pollution levels. They also establish a framework to prioritize actions in reduc- ing pollution. Generally, ACLs require sources to reduce their pollutant emissions to a level that assures that the ACL is not exceeded at the property boundary or other nearby public point. If a monitoring method is established for a pollutant, a regulator can demonstrate compliance using mathematical dispersion modeling techniques of measured emissions or ambient monitoring. SOURCE AND AMBIENT SAMPLING Regulators can sample emissions at the source by with- drawing a sample of gases being released into the atmos- phere. The sample can be analyzed by direct measurement or by extraction and analysis in the field or in a labora- tory. Flow rate measurements also are needed to establish the rate of a pollutant’s release by the source. In a similar manner, the ambient air can be sampled and analyzed by extraction and analysis or by direct measurement. Alabama TLV/40 (one-hour), TLV/420 (annual) Alaska Case-by-case analysis Arizona 0.0075 ϫ Lower of TLV or TWA Arkansas TLV/100 (twenty-four-hour), LD 50 /10,000 California Risk assessment used Colorado Generally uses risk assessment Connecticut TLV/50 low toxicity TLV/100 medium toxicity TLV/200 high toxicity Delaware TLV/100 Florida Ranges from TLV/50 to TLV/420 depending upon the situation Georgia TLV/100 (eight-hour), noncarcinogens TLV/300 (eight-hour), carcinogens Hawaii TLV/200 Idaho Case-by-case analysis BACT can be required Illinois Case-by-case analysis Indiana Case-by-case analysis Iowa Case-by-case analysis Kansas TLV/100 (twenty-four-hour), irritants TLV/420 (annual), serious effects Kentucky Case-by-case analysis Louisiana TLV/42 (one-hour) screening level Maine Case-by-case analysis Maryland Varies, TLV/100 (eight-hour) Massachusetts Health-based program Michigan TLV/100 (eight-hour) Minnesota TLV/100 (eight-hour) Mississippi TLV/100 (ten-minute) Missouri TLV/75 to TLV/7500 (eight-hour) Montana TLV/42 Nebraska Case-by-case analysis Nevada TLV/42 (eight-hour) and case-by-case analysis New Hampshire TLV/100 (twenty-four-hour) low toxicity TLV/300 (twenty-four-hour) medium toxicity TLV/420 (twenty-four-hour) high toxicity New Jersey Case-by-case analysis New Mexico TLV/100 (eight-hour) New York TLV/50 (eight-hour) low toxicity TLV/300 (eight-hour) high toxicity North Carolina TLV/10 (one-hour) acute toxicity TLV/20 (one-hour) systemic toxicity TLV/160 (twenty-four-hour) chronic toxicity North Dakota TLV/100 (eight-hour) Ohio TLV/42 Oklahoma TLV/10, TLV/50, TLV/100 Oregon TLV/50, TLV/300 Pennsylvania TLV/42, TLV/420, TLV/4200 (one-week) Rhode Island Case-by-case analysis South Carolina TLV/40 (eight-hour) low toxicity TLV/100 (eight-hour) medium toxicity TLV/200 (eight-hour) high toxicity South Dakota Case-by-case analysis Tennessee TLV/25, screening Texas TLV/100 (thirty-minute) TLV/1000 (annual) Utah TLV/100 (twenty-four-hour) Vermont TLV/420 (eight-hour) Virginia TLV/60 (eight-hour), TLV/100 Washington TLV/420 West Virginia Case-by-case analysis Wisconsin TLV/42 (twenty-four-hour), screening Wyoming TLV/4 TABLE 4.1.2 STATE AND LOCAL AGENCY USE OF AMBIENT CONCENTRATION LIMITS State Derivation of ACL State Derivation of ACL Source: David R. Patrick, ed, 1994, Toxic air pollution handbook (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold). CHAP4.QXD 1/20/99 8:46 AM Page 190 ©1999 CRC Press LLC used an array of ACLs for regulating toxic air pollutants. Examples are shown in Table 4.1.2. —William C. Zegel References Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA). 1988. Chemicals in the community: Methods to evaluate airborne chemical levels. Washington, D.C. Patrick, D. R. ed. 1994. Toxic air pollution handbook.New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database.Appendix A, Reference dose (RfD): Description and use in health risk assessments.Washington, D.C.: Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. ———. 1989. Exposure factors handbook.EPA 600/8-89-043. Washington, D.C.: Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. ———. 1988. Superfund exposure assessment manual.EPA 540/1-88- 001, OSWER Directive 9285.5-1. Washington, D.C.: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. AIR DISPERSION MODELING The regulating agency can estimate the concentrations of pollutants from a source to which a community is exposed by performing mathematical dispersion modeling if they know the rate at which the pollutants are being released. They can also model the ACL backwards to establish the maximum allowable rate of release at the pollutant source. The EPA has guidelines for using the most popular mod- els (U.S. EPA 1986). Models are available for various me- teorological conditions, terrains, and sources. Meteorolo- gical data are often difficult to obtain but crucial for accurate results from mathematical models. CURRENT USE OF ACLs The NAAQSs in Table 4.1.1 are ACLs derived from the best available data. State and local regulators have also 4.2 TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS Technology standards, used to control point and area sources of air pollutants, are based upon knowledge of the processes generating the pollutants, the equipment avail- able to control pollutant emissions, and the costs of ap- plying the control techniques. Technology standards are not related to ACLs but rather to the technology that is available to reduce pollution emissions. In the extreme, a technology standard could be to ban a process, product, or raw material. Standards Development Process In response to the requirements of the 1970 CAA Amendments, the EPA established a model process to de- velop technology standards. Because of their strong tech- nological basis, technology standards are based on rigor- ous engineering and economic investigations. The EPA process consisted of three phases: • Screening and evaluating information availability • Gathering and analyzing data • Making decisions In the first phase, the regulating agency reviews the af- fected source category or subcategory, gathers available in- formation, and plans the next phase. In the second phase, the processes, pollutants, and emission control systems used by facilities in this category are evaluated. This phase includes measuring the performance of emission control systems; developing costs of the control systems; and eval- uating the environmental, energy, and economic effects as- sociated with the control systems. Several regulatory al- ternatives are also selected and evaluated. In the third phase, regulators select one of the regulatory alternatives as the basis for the standard and initiate the procedures for rule making. Elements of an Emission Standard Emission standards must clearly define what sources are subject to it and what it requires. Standards should con- tain four main elements: applicability; emission limits; compliance procedures and requirements; and monitoring, reporting, and record-keeping requirements. APPLICABILITY The applicability provision defines who and what are sub- ject to the emission standard requirements. This provision includes a definition of the affected source category or sub- category, the process or equipment included, and any size limitations or exemptions. Any distinction among classes, types, and sizes of equipment within the affected source category is part of the applicability. CHAP4.QXD 1/20/99 8:46 AM Page 191 EMISSION LIMITS Emission limits specify the pollutant being regulated and the maximum permissible emission of that pollutant. In developing emission limits, regulators evaluate the perfor- mance, cost, energy, and environmental effects of alternate control systems. As a result of this evaluation, a control system is selected as the basis for the standard. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS This part of the standard specifies the conditions under which the facility is operated for the duration of the com- pliance test. Generally, a facility is required to operate un- der normal conditions. Operation under conditions greater than or much less than design levels is avoided unless it represents normal operation. This part of the standard also specifies the test meth- ods to be used and the averaging time for the test. The test method is usually either reference, equivalent, or alterna- tive. The reference method is widely known and is usually published as part of the regulations. An equivalent method is one that has been demonstrated to have a known, con- sistent relationship with a reference method. An alterna- tive method is needed when the characteristics of individ- ual sources do not lend themselves to the use of a reference or equivalent method. An alternative method must be demonstrated to produce consistent and useable results. Averaging time for an emission standard is important if the source is variable in its emissions. A short averaging time is more variable and more likely to exceed a standard than a long averaging time. MONITORING, REPORTING, AND RECORD KEEPING Monitoring, reporting, and record-keeping requirements ensure that the facility is operating within normal limits and that control equipment is being properly operated and maintained. Data are generally kept at the facility for re- view at any time, but regular reporting of critical data to the regulatory agency may be required. Ambient Air Quality Standards In accordance with the CAA, as amended, the EPA has es- tablished the NAAQS for criteria pollutants. The NAAQS is based on background studies, including information on health effects, control technology, costs, energy require- ments, emission benefits, and environmental impacts. The pollutants selected as criteria pollutants are sulfur dioxide, particulate matter (now PM 10 and previously TSP or total suspended particulates), nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants (ozone), volatile or- ganic compounds, and lead. The NAAQS represents the maximum allowable concentration of pollutants allowed in the ambient air at reference conditions of 25°C and 760 mm Hg. Table 4.1.1 shows the pollutant levels of the na- tional primary and secondary ambient air quality stan- dards. States are responsible for ensuring that the NAAQS is met. They can establish statewide or regional ambient air quality standards that are more stringent than the national standards. To achieve and maintain the NAAQS, states develop state implementation plans (SIPs) containing emis- sion standards for specific sources. When an area fails to meet an NAAQS, it is considered a nonattainment area. More stringent control requirements, designed to achieve attainment, must be applied to nonattainment areas. The 1990 amendments to the CAA (1) require states to submit revised SIPs for nonattainment areas, (2) acceler- ate attainment timetables, and (3) require federally im- posed controls if state nonattainment plans fail to achieve attainment. In addition, the amendments expand the num- ber and types of facilities that are regulated under SIPs. Hazardous Air Pollution Standards The 1990 amendments to the CAA totally revise section 112 with regard to hazardous air pollutants, including na- tional emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). They also direct the EPA administrator to es- tablish standards that require the installation of MACT. NESHAP Although section 112 of the 1970 CAA granted the EPA broad authority to adopt stringent emission standards for hazardous air pollutants, as of this writing only seven pol- lutants are listed as hazardous air pollutants. These pol- lutants are beryllium, mercury, vinyl chloride, asbestos, benzene, radionuclides, and arsenic. Table 4.2.1 shows the NESHAP. Almost all these standards are technology stan- dards. MACT/GACT A hazardous air pollutant is now defined as “any air pol- lutant listed pursuant to” section 112(b). In section 112(b), Congress established an initial list of 189 hazardous air pollutants. These listed chemicals are initial candidates for regulation under section 112, and the EPA can add other chemicals to the list. The control of these substances is to be achieved through the initial promulgation of technology-based emis- sion standards. These standards require major sources to install MACT and area sources to install generally avail- able control technologies (GACT). Major sources are de- fined as those emitting more than 10 tons per year of any one hazardous air pollutant or more than 25 tons per year of all hazardous air pollutants. MACT/GACT standards ©1999 CRC Press LLC CHAP4.QXD 1/20/99 8:46 AM Page 192 ©1999 CRC Press LLC TABLE 4.2.1 NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS Affected Facility Emission Level Monitoring Asbestos Asbestos mills No visible emissions or meet No requirement equipment standards Roadway surfacing Contain no asbestos, except No requirement temporary use Manufacturing No visible emissions or meet No requirement equipment standards Demolition/renovation Wet friable asbestos or No requirement equipment standards and no visible emissions Spraying friable asbestos Equipment and No visible emissions or meet No requirement machinery equipment standards Buildings, structures, etc. Ͻ1 percent asbestos dry weight No requirement Fabricating products No visible emissions or meet No requirement equipment standards Friable insulation No asbestos No requirement Waste disposal No visible emissions or meet No requirement equipment and work practice requirements Waste disposal sites No visible emissions; design and No requirement work practice requirements Beryllium Extraction plants 1. 10 g/hour, or 1. Source test Ceramic plants 2. 0.01 ␮ /m 3 (thirty-day) 2. Three years CEM a Foundries Incinerators Propellant plants Machine shops (Alloy Ͼ5 percent by weight beryllium) Rocket motor test sites Closed tank collection 75 ␮ g min/m 3 of air within Ambient concentration of combustion products 10 to 60 minutes during during and after test two consecutive weeks 2 g/hour, maximum 10 g/day Continuous sampling during release Mercury Ore processing 2300 g/24 hour Source test Chlor-alkali plants 2300 g/24 hour Source test or use approved design, maintenance and housekeeping Sludge dryers and 3200 g/24 hour Source test or sludge test incinerators Vinyl Chloride (VC) Ethylene dichloride 1. EDC purification: Source test/CEM a (EDC) manufacturing 10 ppm b 2. Oxychlorination: Source test 0.2 g/kg of EDC product VC manufacturing 10 ppm b Source test/CEM a Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) manufacturing Equipment 10 ppm b Source test/CEM a Reactor opening loss 0.02 g/kg Source test Reactor manual vent valve No emission except emergency Continued on next page CHAP4.QXD 1/20/99 8:46 AM Page 193 ©1999 CRC Press LLC Sources after stripper Each calendar day: Source test 1. Strippers—2000 ppm (PVC disposal resins excluding latex); 400 ppm other 2. Others—2 g/kg (PVC Source test disposal resins excluding latex); 0.4 g/kg other EDC/VC/PVC manufacturing Relief valve discharge None, except emergency Loading/unloading 0.0038 m 3 after load/unload Source test or 10 ppm when controlled Slip gauge Emission to control Equipment seals Dual seals required Relief valve leaks Rupture disc required Manual venting Emissions to control Equipment opening Reduce to 2.0 percent VC or 25 gallon Sampling (Ͼ10 percent Return to process by weight VC) LDAR d Approved program required Approved program In-process wastewater 10 ppm VC before discharge Source test Inorganic Arsenic Glass melting furnace Existing: Ͻ2.5 Mg/year c or Method 108 85 percent control Continuous opacity New or modified: Ͻ0.4 Mg/ and temperature monitor year or 85 percent control for control Copper converter Secondary hooding system Methods 5 and 108A Particle limit 11.6 mg/dscm d Continuous opacity for control Approved operating plan Airflow monitor for secondary hood Arsenic trioxide and Approved plan for control of Opacity monitor for metallic arsenic plants emissions control using roasting/ Ambient air monitoring condensation process Benzene Equipment leaks Leak is 10,000 ppm using (Serving liquid or gas Method 21; no detectable 10 percent by weight emissions (NDE) is 500 ppm benzene; facilities using Method 21 handling 1000 Mg/ year and coke oven by-product exempt) Pumps Monthly LDAR, e dual seals, Test of NDE f 95 percent control or NDE f Compressors Seal with barrier fluid, 95 Test for NDE f percent control or NDE f Pressure relief valves NDE f or 95 percent control Test for NDE f Sampling connection systems Closed purge or closed vent Open-end valves/lines Cap, plug, or second valve Continued on next page TABLE 4.2.1 Continued Affected Facility Emission Level Monitoring CHAP4.QXD 1/20/99 8:46 AM Page 194 [...]... Table 4. 5.2 Effluent limits are specific control requirements that apply to a specific point–source discharge They are based CHAP4.QXD 1/20/99 8 :46 AM Page 207 TABLE 4. 5.2 CATEGORICAL INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 40 CFR Part Source 40 5 40 6 40 7 40 8 40 9 41 0 41 1 41 2 41 3 41 4 41 5 41 7 41 8 41 9 42 0 42 1 42 2 42 3 42 4 42 5 42 6 42 7 42 8 42 9 43 0 43 1 43 2 43 3 43 5 43 6 43 9 44 0 44 3 44 6 44 7 45 4 45 5 45 7 45 8 45 9... Agriculture (except livestock), mining, fishing 50–55 55–60 60–65 65–70 70–75 75–80 80–85 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 Source: U.S Navy, 1979 Key: 1 ϭ Clearly Compatible—The average noise level is such that indoor... record keeping and re- CHAP4.QXD TABLE 4. 5.6 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS* 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4- bromophenyl phenyl ether Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane... metabolites Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide *hexchlorocyclohexane (all isomers) a-BHC-Alpha b-BHC-Beta r-BHC-(lindane)-Gamma g-BCH-Delta *polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) PCB-1 242 (Arochlor 1 242 ) PCB-12 54 (Arochlor 12 54) PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221) PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232) PCB-1 248 (Arochlor 1 248 ) PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260) PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016) *Toxaphene *Antimony (total) *Arsenic (total) *Asbestos (fibrous)... *Naphthalene *Nitrobenzene *nitrophenols (including 2 , 4- dinitrophenol and dinitrocresol) 2-Nitrophenol 4- Nitrophenol *2 , 4- dinitrophenol 4, 6-dinitro-o-cresol *nitrosamines N-nitrosodimethylamine N-nitrosodiphenylamine N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine *Pentachlorophenol *Phenol *phthalate esters Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate... 109 110 111 112 113 1 14 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 1 24 125 126 127 128 129 *Tetrachloroethylene *Toluene *Trichloroethylene *Vinyl chloride (chloro-ethylene) pesticides and metabolites *Aldrin *Dieldrin *Chlordane (technical mixture and metabolite DDT and metabolites) 4, 4Ј-DDT 4, 4Ј-DDE (p,pЈ-DDX) 4, 4Ј-DDD (p,pЈ-TDE) *endosulfan & metabolite A-endosulfan-Alpha B-endosulfan-Beta Endosulfan sulfate... 1,2-dichloroethylene) 1,1-dichloroethylene 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene *2 , 4- dichlorophenol *dichloropropane and dichloropropene 1,2-dichloropropane 1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-dichloropropene) *2 , 4- dimethylphenol *dinitrotoluene 2 , 4- dinitrotoluene 2,6-dinitrotoluene *1,2-diphenylhydrazine *Ethylbenzene *Fluoranthene *haloethers (other than those listed elsewhere) 1/20/99 8 :46 AM ©1999 CRC Press LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 CHAP4.QXD... Indoor residential areas Leq( 24) ϭ 55 dBA Indoor activity interference and annoyance Ldn ϭ 45 dBA Leq( 24) ϭ 45 dBA Other indoor areas with human activities such as schools, etc Source: U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 19 74, Information on levels of environmental noise requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety, EPA/55 0-9 -7 4- 0 04 (U.S Environmental Protection Agency)... nationwide limits are ap- TABLE 4. 5.5 SECONDARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS Pollutant BOD5† Suspended Solids pH Effluent Limitations* 30 (45 ) mg/L 45 (65) mg/L 85% (65) removal 30 (45 ) mg/L 45 (65) mg/L 85% (65) removal 6.0–9.0 Maximum 30-day average Maximum 7-day average Minimum 30-day average Maximum 30-day average Maximum 7-day average Minimum 30-day average Range Source: U.S Environmental Protection... Benzo(a)anthracene (1,2-benzanthracene) Benzo(a)pyrene (3 , 4- benzopyrene) 3 , 4- benzofluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthane (11,12-benzofluoranthene) Chrysene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(ghi)perylene (1,1-benzoperylene) Fluorene Phenanthrene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene) Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene (2,3-o-phenylenepyrene) Pyrene 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 1 04 105 106 . shells 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 Auditoriums, concert halls 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 Sport arenas, outdoor 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 spectator sports Parks, playgrounds 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 Natural recreation areas 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 Golf courses,. (ten-minute) Missouri TLV/75 to TLV/7500 (eight-hour) Montana TLV /42 Nebraska Case-by-case analysis Nevada TLV /42 (eight-hour) and case-by-case analysis New Hampshire TLV/100 (twenty-four-hour). (twenty-four-hour) medium toxicity TLV /42 0 (twenty-four-hour) high toxicity New Jersey Case-by-case analysis New Mexico TLV/100 (eight-hour) New York TLV/50 (eight-hour) low toxicity TLV/300 (eight-hour)