Valuing Health Risks, Costs, and Benefits for Environmental Decision Making Report of a Conference (1990) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix: Setting National Standards for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions From Primary Copper Shelters
Appendix: Setting National Standards for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions From Primary Copper Shelters
Pages 209-232
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 209... ...
In setting a Section 112 standard, EPA identifies sources of pollution that may pose significant lisle, determines the current and planned levels of control at those sources, and assesses the health risks associated with those levels. If a source is judged to pose a significant risk EPA selects a level of control that, in its judgment, reduces the health risks to the greatest extent that can reasonably be expected, after considering the uncertainties in the risk analysis, the residual lisle that remain after the application of the pollution control technology, the costs of further control, and the societal and other environmental impacts of the regulation.
|
From page 210... ...
In this case, the hazardous air pollutant is inorganic arsenic, and the source is uncontrolled fugitive emissions from primary copper smelters that process copper ore containing arsenic as an impurity. The primary copper smelting industry in the United States uses pyrometallurgical processes to extract copper from sulfide copper ores that contain arsenic as an impurity.
|
From page 211... ...
EPA:s linear nonthreshold model, which numerically relates the degree of exposure to airborne inorganic arsenic to the risk of getting lung cancer; and (b) EPA:s Human Exposure Model, which expresses numerically the degree of public exposure to ambient air concentrations of inorganic arsenic from the 14 copper smelters.
|
From page 212... ...
"Maximum risk" is the number of people exposed to the maximum individual risk from the specified source, as calculated by HEM. Estimated Individual and Population Risks By combining numerical expressions of public exposure with the unit risk factor, two types of numerical expressions of public cancer risks are produced.
|
From page 213... ...
. Table 3 summarizes the maximum individual risk and the annual incidence for baseline and pollution control scenarios.
|
From page 214... ...
cn o u .c uq ou ~ u) u, ~; ~q ~n ct ~: .= ~: .~ ~s .s .q o 4 ~ o o o u ~ m ~: o .~ O X ~ R' y O 0 ~ UO X _1 ~ O m x V' 214 ~o ~C~ ~ o~ ~ ~ om ~ - - ~ oo ~ ~ - ~ ~= ~ ~= o oQ ooo o oo o oo ooo o oooooo o oo oooo oo oo ~ ~ ~ o o o ~ ~ ~ o.
|
From page 215... ...
~ on ~ JO to to to to to o.
|
From page 216... ...
Use of Census Data The official EPA risk assessment (Table 3) underestimated the maximum individual risk and cancer incidence at the E1 Paso and Douglas smelters because it did not include the local Mexican population living in border towns and illegally in the United States.
|
From page 217... ...
Evaluation of Risk Assessment in preparing a risk assessment as a result of reviewing EPA:s risk estimates and the uncertainties in the estimates, the analyst or decision maker should focus primarily on the baseline maximum individual risk and annual incidence and assume that the proposed converter controls will achieve the EPA estimated reduction in fugitive emissions. If the baseline level of risk is changed, however, the risk remaining after the installation of converter controls should also be changed proportionally.
|
From page 218... ...
Applying controls for these emissions at all 14 smelters would change the range of estimated maximum individual risk from between 1.3 x 10-3 and 5.0 x 10-6 to a range of 1.2 x 10-3 and 3.0 x 10-6 (see Table 3~. Applying controls would also reduce the estimated annual incidence of lung cancer from a range of 0.3~0.001 to a range of 0.2~0.0001 Applying controls at none of the plants would leave the remaining risks at the same level as the baseline risks.
|
From page 219... ...
An additional factor considered for this smelter was that secondary hoods were scheduled to be installed on all converters to comply with requirements in the Texas state implementation plan for attaining the national ambient air quality standard for lead. Economic Cost-Effectiveness 1b determine whether the standard is cost-effective in terms of number of cancer cases avoided, the analyst must establish a reasonable value for a statistical life saved.
|
From page 220... ...
ha O ~ ·~q Cal 4- ca ~ y ~ ·_ ·.
|
From page 221... ...
Q to to to to to lo to to o o o o o o o o o o oo oo o o oo Y crx 0 N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ moo moo m~ ~opo ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ oN oN ~ o ~ ~ oN m^~^~^~^~^~^~ oo oo 0 ~ ~ r~ et ~ ~ - - oo oo oo So o ) ~ So ~ ~ ~ ~ - - oooo oo ~ ~ ~ ~ o ox · .
|
From page 222... ...
Go ~ ~ To hi ~ ~ ~ ~ Do 1 1 1 1 lo/ Go Go ~ ox ~ ~ ~ oS oS an Go ~ oN ~ oN of ~ on ~4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ID ~ ~ \0 ~ 0\ ~ ~ ~ 00 0 cimmoom - = =`ou~iooo~oo~c~`o 1 1 1 1 Jo ~ ~Hi)
|
From page 223... ...
Using the highest reduction in annual cancer incidence-0.09 cases makes the net present value positive for both discount rates with no latency period and for the 4 percent discount rate with a 15-year latency period (not shown in Table S)
|
From page 224... ...
At E1 Paso, installation of BAT controls for fugitive arsenic from converters would also achieve a 6.6Mg reduction in lead (Pb) and a 30-Mg reduction in particulate matter (PM)
|
From page 225... ...
ASARCO-EI Paso Scenano 1 assumes that 15 percent of the arsenic emissions escape the primary vent hood; Scenano 2 assumes that 3.75 percent of the arsenic emissions escape. dThe expected benefit/ton value for reductions in PM is $3,000/ton for the El Paso area.
|
From page 226... ...
What Constitutes a Significant Risk? In determining what constitutes a significant risk, you should consider both maximum individual risks and annual cancer incidences resulting from
|
From page 227... ...
The current maximum individual risks range from 1.3 x 10-3 to 5.0 x 10-6; the annual incidences range from 0.38 to 0.0001. At some smelters, both the individual and population risks are low and would probably be deemed insignificant.
|
From page 228... ...
These criteria include estimates of maximum individual risk, annual incidence of cancer, cost per life saved, economic efficiency of controls, and economic impacts on the copper smelter industry, as well as the uncertainties in these estimates. In addition, you know that for the El Paso smelter the state implementation plan would result in a significant reduction of inorganic arsenic emissions even if EPA did not issue a standard for inorganic arsenic.
|
From page 229... ...
for inorganic arsenic emissions from the nation's 14 low-arsenic primary copper smelters, as well as for high-arsenic copper smelters and glass manufacturing plants. The proposed standard for low-arsenic primary copper smelters regulated secondary inorganic arsenic emissions from converter operations and from matte and slag-tapping furnaces.
|
From page 230... ...
An additional factor considered in the assessment was that secondary hoods were to be installed on all converters at ASARCO-E1 Paso to comply with requirements In the Texas state implementation plan for attainment of the national ambient air quality standard for lead. Because the costs of control in this instance are reasonable and the controls can be implemented now, EPA decided that these controls should be applied only at ASARCO-E1 Paso.
|
From page 231... ...
1986a Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Primary Copper Smelters and Arsenic Plants Background Information for Promulgated Standards.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.