NATIONAL AIR TOXICS INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE NEWSLETTER A pnA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Volume 4 Number 2 OCrM Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 March 1987 ^c-po, rETjrETjya n n\ fl /7\ State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators ^s) LlA^\Lr uL-\ u Zrn\lizj/r^Au Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials IN THIS ISSUE: CLEARINGHOUSE OUTLINES CURRENT ACTIVITIES 1 STATE/LOCAL AGENCY SPOTLIGHT* OHIO EPA PROJECT STATUS REPORT 2 FLORIDA ADDS NEW RULE REGULATING DRY CLEANING FACILITIES 3 NORTH CAROLINA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES PANEL REVIEWS POLLUTANT LIST, MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SETTING AMBIENT LEVELS 4 NESCAUM DESIGNS NEW TRAINING COURSE FOR AIR POLLUTION FIELD INSPECTORS 5 RHODE ISLAND DETECTING HIGH AMBIENT LEVELS OF SOLVENTS 5 DAYTON REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY RELEASES RADON STUDY RESULTS 6 NESCAUM/CAPCOA SPONSOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION WORKSHOP 8 EPA INTRODUCES THE INTEGRATED RISK INFORMATION SYSTEM 8 HIGH RISK URBAN TOXICS PROBLEMS UNDERGOING ASSESSMENT 9 MODEL ASBESTOS INSPECTION PROGRAM NEARS COMPLETION 10 EPA WORKS TO ENHANCE STATE AND LOCAL AIR TOXICS PROGRAMS 11 OAQPS REQUESTS INFORMATION ON AIR TOXICS EMISSION FACTORS 11 CLEARINGHOUSE OUTLINES CURRENT ACTIVITIES Direct Data Entry and Editing Now Available The National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse (NATICH) annually requests that State and local agen- cies submit information on their current air toxics pro- gram activities for inclusion in the NATICH computerized database* That information collection effort is current- ly underway. The amount of information contained within NATICH increased substantially in 1986 due to signifi- cant State and local agency participation. The Clearing- house anticipates continued growth in NATICH during 1987. For 1987, the Clearinghouse has set as a high priority the acquisition of additional data from State and local agencies. Because of the wide distribution of the information contained in the NATICH database, it is very important that the database be up-to-date, accurately representing current air toxics control efforts. To make data submittal easier, an on-line data entry and editing system has been developed to allow authorized State and local agency personnel to add to or modify the NATICH computer files for their agency. A security system has also been established to ensure that only authorized personnel enter or edit data. To obtain authorization to enter and edit data directly, contact the Clearinghouse staff, (919) 541-5352. In addition to directly entering or editing data, database users may also submit information to the Clearinghouse by completing blank data collection forms or by updating a printout of previously submitted agency-specific information. Data collection forms and agency printouts were mailed to State and local air agencies earlier this month. The forms and the marked- up printouts should be returned to the Clearinghouse for data entry. In addition, if a State or local agency has a significant amount of information in computer-based files, those data may be directly transmitted into the NATICH files. For further information on computer transfer of files, contact Cindy Hintikka, (512) 454-4797. CLEARINGHOUSE PREPARES CARCINOGEN RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT* The Clearinghouse staff is developing a special ------- report discussing the basic principles and assumptions associated with estimating cancer risks. This report will describe the steps involved in the development of a quantitative cancer risk assessment, focusing primarily upon dose-response assessment issues. The purpose of this special report is to educate State and local agency managers and staff members concerned with evaluating the public health impacts associated with emissions of toxic pollutants. A final report is scheduled for publica- tion and distribution during the spring. For further infor- mation, contact Beth Hassett, (919) 541-5346 or (FTS) 629-5346. CLEARINGHOUSE STAFF SEEKS FEEDBACK Enclosed with this Newsletter is a report card soliciting feedback on various aspects of the Clear- inghouse. Comments concerning both the computerized database and the publications will be most useful in assessing the present and future needs of the user com- munity. Please complete and return this report card to the Clearinghouse. Clearinghouse staff members are available at (919) 541-5353 or (FTS) 629-5353 to receive Newsletter readers' comments or questions at anytime. *See related article in December 1986 issue, pp. 1-2. STATE/LOCAL AGENCY SPC OHIO EPA PROJECT STATU The Division of Air Pollution Control (DAPC) of the Ohio EPA has begun work on several projects address- ing different air toxics issues. Several projects involving either data gathering or regulatory development activities are briefly described below. DATA GATHERING PROJECTS UNDERWAY • Emissions Inventory - Facilities are being surveyed to determine manufacturers/users of 39 chemicals including benzo(a)pyrene, cadmium and compounds, dioxin, ethylene oxide, and maleic anhydride. This is a first step in the preparation of an emissions inventory for toxic air pollutants. Upon com- pletion of the initial screening inventory, the DAPC will designate five or six chemicals as priority pollutants for which a detailed emissions inventory will be conducted. This information will then be used in dispersion model- ing analyses as a portion of various exposure/risk assessments. • Research Efforts - Four research grants have been allocated by the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority (OAQDA) to assist the Ohio EPA on the development of their air toxics control program. These grant projects are as follows: 1. Use of the U.S. EPA's Industrial Source Complex Model and the U.S. EPA's Human Exposure Model to predict ambient concentrations of toxic air pollutants and to estimate individual and population cancer risks. 2. Prioritization of toxic air pollutants based upon Statewide use, emissions, and pollutant toxicity. 3. Development of ambient toxics monitoring methodologies for prioritized pollutants. 4. Development of a manual for the Ohio EPA and the Ohio Department of Health detailing the techniques used in conducting risk assessments. • Urban Soup - Two local air agencies, the Southwestern Ohio Air Pollution Control Agency in Cin- cinnati and the Cleveland Division of Air Pollution Con- yruGFm* IS REPORT trol, will participate in "Urban soup" analyses by operating an air toxics monitoring station in their respec- tive area. • Great Lakes Agreement - The Governor of Ohio has signed the Great Lakes Agreement. This effort is a joint undertaking among the Great Lakes States (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Penn- sylvania, and Wisconsin) to protect the Lakes from tox- ics contamination from all media. The areas that affect air pollution control are permit review for air toxics, at- mospheric deposition, and information exchange. REGULATORY ISSUES BEING ADDRESSED • Asbestos NESHAP Enforcement - The Ohio EPA has been delegated the authority to enforce the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) for asbestos. The Ohio Agency believes, however, that the asbestos demolition and renovation NESHAP provisions can be strengthened and that this move will allow stronger enforcement at the State level. Therefore, the Ohio EPA plans to develop State rules to control asbestos emissions from demolition and renova- tion activities. • Acrylonitrile and Inorganic Arsenic Evaluations - With the assistance of the U.S. EPA, the Ohio Agency is involved in the evaluation of two toxic air pollutants, acrylonitrile and inorganic arsenic. In November 1986, after completing an evaluation and risk assessment at the six major acrylonitrile users in the State, the Ohio EPA announced its decision to regulate acrylonitrile emissions from these six sources. The acrylonitrile rules address emissions from process vents, equipment leaks, storage tanks, loading and receiving operations, and wastewater treatment. In addition, flare design and operating efficiency are specified and uncontrolled vent- ing of acrylonitrile is prohibited. Malfunction and ac- cidental releases are also covered. With respect to in- organic arsenic, emission estimates and a plant visit have been completed at a glass manufacturing facility in Toledo. After conducting a risk assessment based 2 ------- upon plant emissions information and holding a public meeting, the Ohio EPA will evaluate the need to regulate inorganic arsenic emissions from this plant. • Interim Air Toxics Policy - The Ohio EPA has developed an interim air toxics policy for assessing air emissions from new sources. The policy is based upon establishing maximum allowable ground-level concen- trations (MAGLCs) for toxic air pollutants. The MAGLC is calculated by applying an uncertainty factor to a pollu- tant's threshold limit value (TLV). For most pollutants, the MAGLC will be the TLV/42. Compliance with the MAGLC will be determined by comparing these values to mo- deled ambient concentrations using a modified version of the Point Plume (PTPLU) dispersion model. • Cross-media Analyses - The Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management of the Ohio EPA and the DAPC have increased their efforts to inform each other of "cross-media" facilities that may be regulated by both divisions. As a result, coordinated permitting activities have been initiated at several air pollution/hazardous waste disposal facilities including hazardous waste in- cinerators, supplemental solvent-derived fuels burning, solvent recycling operations, and sludge recycling/fixa- tion operations. The above summaries identify areas of activity within the developing air toxics program at the Ohio EPA. For more information concerning these activities, con- tact Robert Hodanbosi, Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollu- tion Control at (614) 466-6116. ¦ 'This is the first article in the State/Local Agency Spotlight Series. Through this new series, the Newsletter intends to inform you more fully of the breadth of projects in progress in various agencies throughout the country. A Spotlight article will appear in each Newsletter issue. FLORIDA ADDS NEW RULE DRY CLEANING FACILITIES Florida has joined the list of States with regulations which limit emissions from perchloroethylene dry cleaners by adding the "Dry Cleaning Facilities Rule," Chapter 17-2.600(12) to the air quality regulation in the Florida Administrative Code. Fewer than half the States in the U.S. have such a regulation. The Florida law, which became effective October 20,1986, also limits emissions from petroleum dry cleaning facilities not covered by the new source performance standard (NSPS) for petroleum dry cleaners (Subpart JJJ, Title40§60.620 of the Code of Federal Regulations). Florida's new rule requires the owner or operator of a new or existing perchloroethylene dry cleaning facili- ty with total rated dryer capacity of 50 pounds of articles or greater to: • vent the entire dryer exhaust through a carbon ad- sorption system or refrigerated condensation unit, • emit no more than 100 parts per million by volume of organic compounds from the dryer control device before dilution, • cook or treat all diatomaceous earth filters so that the residue contains 55 pounds or less of organic com- pounds per 220 pounds of wet waste material, • reduce the organic compounds from all solvent stills to 132 pounds or less per 220 pounds of wet waste material, • drain all filtration cartridges in the filter housing for at least 24 hours before discarding the cartridge, or dry all drained cartridges without emitting organic compounds to the atmosphere, and • repair all perceptible leaks of organic compounds within three working days or, if repair parts are REGULATING necessary, order such parts within three working days. The law also specifies that each petroleum dry cleaner not subject to the NSPS with a total rated dryer capacity of 84 pounds of articles or greater must be a solvent recovery dryer. Filters installed on such dryers must be cartridge filters and they must be drained in their sealed housings for at least 8 hours prior to their removal. Also, owners and operators of such dryers must include leak inspection and leak repair cycle information in the operating manual and on a label posted on each dryer. Equipment must be inspected every 15 days, and all vapor or liquid leaks must be repaired within 15 days after the leak is detected. Perchloroethylene dry cleaners with total rated dryer capacity of less than 50 pounds of articles and petroleum dry cleaners with total rated dryer capacities of less than 84 pounds of articles are exempt from the new regula- tion. In addition, perchloroethylene dry cleaning facilities with total rated dryer capacity equal to or greater than 50 pounds of articles may be exempt from the new regulation if the owner or operator demonstrates to the Department that the solvent mileage (pounds of articles cleaned per drum of solvent consumed) is equal to or greater than 20,000 or 15,000 pounds of articles cleaned per 52-gallon drum of perchloroethylene consumed for new or existing facilities, respectively. The new rule is now undergoing EPA's State Im- plementation Plan review. For further information, con- tact Barry Andrews, Florida Department of Environmen- tal Regulations, (904) 488-1344. 3 ------- NORTH CAROLINA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES PANEL REVIEWS POLLUTANT LIST, MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SETTING AMBIENT LEVELS At the request of the North Carolina Division of En- vironmental Management, the North Carolina Academy of Sciences formed an Air Toxics Panel to review the list of substances proposed for regulation as toxic air pollutants and to recommend a suitable approach for determining acceptable ambient levels for these pollutants. The panel was composed of eight experts from universities, a Federal health agency, the Chemical Industries Institute of Toxicology, and a consultant. After reviewing air toxics control programs in 19 States, the panel made the following recommendations: 1. Develop air guidelines for chemicals with the poten- tial for industrial emissions and subsequent public ex- posures that may lead to adverse health effects which (a) have been assigned a threshold limit value (TLV) by the American Conference of Governmental In- dustrial Hygienists, (b) are listed by the EPA as known or probable human carcinogens, or (c) are considered by the North Carolina Division of Health Services to be of public health concern. 2. Categorize chemicals chosen for the list of toxic air pollutants by type of toxicity based on adverse effects at concentrations near ambient levels. The panel pro- posed a category-specific approach for determining an acceptable ambient level. Four categories of tox- icity were recommended: acute irritants, acute systemic toxicants, chronic toxicants, and car- cinogens. 3. Use a factored TLV to develop acceptable ambient levels for acute irritants, acute systemic toxicants, and chronic toxicants. If no TLV exists or if adverse health effects have not been accounted for in the derivation of the TLV, the no observable effect level (NOEL), as reported in the literature, should be used. Using the TLV or NOEL, a series of adjustment and uncertain- ty factors would be applied to noncarcinogens as follows: a. Adjustment for continuous exposure - use a 4-fold factor. b. Variability in human susceptibility - use a 10-fold factor. c. Uncertainties inherent in studies of chronic effects - use a 2-fold factor for all chronic toxicants. d. Severity of effect - use a 2-fold factor for irrever- sible or life-threatening effects. For each chemical, the appropriate factors should be multiplied by each other to derive a composite fac- tor. The composite factor should be applied to the TLV or NOEL to derive the acceptable 3mbient level for that chemical. The Air Toxics Panel applied these recommendations to over 100 toxic chemicals pro- posed for regulation by the Division, listing both ac- ceptable ambient levels and recommended averag- ing times. Averaging times proposed ranged from 15 minutes to 1 year. 4. Use a combined technology-based and risk assess- ment approach for carcinogens. Using the potency estimates developed by the Carcinogen Assessment Group of EPA, the State would calculate the in- cremental air concentration (i.e., the concentration at- tributable to an emission source, regardless of background levels) that would be associated with an additional cancer risk of 1 in 1,000,000 exposed per- sons for EPA's list of known human carcinogens and a risk of 1 in 100,000 exposed persons for probable human carcinogens. These concentrations constitute an action level. Any emission source releasing a car- cinogen resulting in incremental ambient air concen- trations exceeding the action level could be required to apply added control technology, considering cost and feasibility issues for existing emissions sources. 5. Establish a standing advisory board to deal with future air toxics problems and issues. North Carolina now has about 3000 facilities per- mitted to discharge waste streams into the air. The Divi- sion of Environmental Management's air toxics program is intended to protect human health from routine emis- sions of toxic air pollutants from new and existing facilities. The list of chemicals is part of a package of regula- tions the Division's Air Quality Section will submit to the Air Quality Committee of the North Carolina En- vironmental Management Commission. The Division will follow the required rulemaking process, and the Com- mission must give final approval prior to the proposed regulations taking effect. For more information on North Carolina's air toxics work, contact Earl McCune, North Carolina DEM, (919) 733-3340. 4 ------- NESCAUM DESIGNS NEW T FOR AIR POLLUTION FIELI Recognizing the need to provide training to State field inspectors in preventing accidental releases of hazardous air pollutants, the Northeast States for Coor- dinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) has obtained funds from the U.S. EPA's Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory (AEERL) to promote this effort. The objective of the new training course, "Preven- tion of Accidental Releases," is to develop the expertise of field inspectors so that they can assess the potential for accidental emission upsets and catastrophic releases at industrial facilities. The first course is tentatively scheduled for May 1987 and will be open to both State and Federal personnel in the NESCAUM States. Some of the areas expected to be included are: preparing for and conducting an inspection, inspecting specific equip- ment including air pollution control equipment, and limiting accidents in a plant through scheduled maintenance and other activities. The agencies in NESCAUM expect their efforts in preventing toxic releases to be expanding over the next few years. For example, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is currently implementing the first law in the country requiring sources to prepare emergency response plans during permit submittals* Other States are expected to follow. Therefore, one pur- pose of this course is to enable inspectors to assist per- mit and enforcement staff in reviewing sources for com- pliance with State regulations. All sessions in the training course will be geared to preventing accidental releases of hazardous pollutants to the ambient air, and preventing air pollutant releases beyond a plant's border. Thus, the course will differ significantly from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's efforts to train plant or agency person- RAINING COURSE D INSPECTORS nel in preventing worker exposure to hazardous pollutants. Among the materials NESCAUM will prepare for this course will be a course manual, additional instructional materials and other documentation-perhaps a video tape. These materials will be appropriate for presenta- tions in other parts of the country. This is the first accidental release prevention course to be developed specifically for air pollution control field inspectors. Providing field inspectors with additional skills should result in a near-term public health benefit since course participants will be applying their new skills in the field immediately. The NESCAUM is an association of eight State Air Quality Agencies: the six New England States (Connec- ticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), New York, and New Jersey. Formed in 1967, NESCAUM focuses on reviewing technical and policy aspects of regional air quality issues, as well as participating in national legislative debates, sponsoring research initiatives, and promoting educational activities. This course follows previous NESCAUM offerings on such diverse topics as: resource recovery facilities, dispersion modeling, best available control technology/new source review, risk assessment and negotiation, and mediation techniques. A contractor has been selected to work with representatives of the NESCAUM States to develop this course. For further information, please contact Nancy L. Seidman, Special Projects Director for NESCAUM, (617) 367-8540. *See related article in September 1986 issue, pp. 5-6. RHODE ISLAND DETECTIN AMBIENT LEVELS OF SOLV For the past year, the Air Toxics Section of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Manage- ment (DEM) has been involved in a pilot organics-in-air ambient monitoring program. Two-hour samples are col- lected approximately once per week on Carbopac-filled traps. Samples are thermally desorbed and analyzed on a gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer at the State Health Department Laboratory. Monitors are sited either downwind of point sources of volatile organic com- pounds or in the vicinity of high concentrations of urban area sources. One urban neighborhood, Olneyville, has emerged as a potential problem area. Olneyville is a section of Providence located about 1.5 miles west of the downtown G HIGH rENTS area. This area has been an active manufacturing center since the 19th century, and commercial and residential areas have developed in close proximity to industrial sites. Jewelry manufacturers and electroplating shops dominate the Olneyville area. While there are a few larger sources, the majority of the organics sources in this area are small family-run job shops, often with fewer than ten employees. Several large mill complexes have been subdivided to accommodate this industry, and dozens of small organics sources often operate under the same roof. The predominate use of organics in these facilities is in the degreasing of metal parts. Thirteen two-hour ambient air samples have been 5 ------- collected in Olneyville since May 1986. Monitors are generally sited in residential areas downwind of com- plexes housing organics sources. The DEM has repeatedly measured trichloroethylene (TCE) levels in the range of 227 to 425 ug/m3. Concentrations in this range have been documented in several sections of Olneyville and, in general, cannot be attributed to in- dividual large sources. Elevated trichloroethylene levels appear, instead, to be the cumulative result of many small degreasers operating in a relatively small area. In addition, elevated levels of several other solvents have been detected in one or more samples. These substances include 1,1,1-trichloroethane (maximum con- centration 56 ug/m3), tetrachloroethylene (maximum 184 ug/m3), and xylenes (maximum 81 ug/m3 for m-xylene and 75 ug/m3 for o- and p-xylenes). Elevated levels of these substances, unlike TCE, appear to be associated with particular sources and are not generalized throughout the area. Short-term exposure to TCE in the levels reported would probably not result in adverse health effects. However, TCE has been shown to be carcinogenic in both mice and rats and is thus considered a suspect human carcinogen. The EPA's Cancer Assessment Group estimated in the Health Assessment Document for Trichloroethylene (EPA 600/8-82-006F) that human lifetime exposure to 0.77 ug/m3 of TCE would result in an upper bound increased cancer risk of 1 x 10"6 (one in a million). Although it is not possible to directly relate this figure to the results of the 2-hour samples collected in Olneyville (maximum 425 ug/m3), DEM feels that the results are indicative of a potential problem and has been further investigating the situation. From preliminary inspections, it has been deter- mined that most of the degreasers in the Olneyville area are in compliance with the Rhode Island degreaser regulation, which mirrors the requirements outlined in EPA's Control Technology Guidelines (Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning, EPA 450/2-77-022). Operating procedures, however, are pro- bably not optimal for minimizing solvent loss (e.g., inade- quate drying time before removal of parts from degreaser). In addition, some measures which have been undertaken to reduce occupational exposure may exacerbate the community air pollution problem. For in- stance, degreasers are often positioned next to windows equipped with large fans. The DEM engineers have been issuing notices of violation for degreasers which are not in compliance with the regulation. In addition, they have been providing instruction to degreaser operators in optimal operating procedures for minimiz- ing solvent loss without increasing worker exposure. A Rhode Island Air Toxics Regulation, due to be pro- mulgated this year, should result in some reduction in ambient TCE levels. Under the provisions of this regula- tion, each individual source would be restricted from contributing annual emissions of TCE or other car- cinogens that would result in ambient air concentrations associated with greater than a 10'5 additional cancer risk at or beyond the property line. It is expected that addi- tional control technology or solvent substitution will be required for many sources to achieve this risk level. Since the elevated levels of TCE in the Olneyville area appear to be caused by the cumulative effect of a number of small sources, it is likely that even with reduc- tions spurred by enforcement, instruction, and the future air toxics regulation, ambient concentrations will con- tinue to be elevated. The EPA's High Risk Urban Toxics program* is focusing on cities with populations greater than 1 million people. The DEM feels that it is important to recognize that even in a city as small as Providence (population 170,000), significant air toxics problems can exist which do not have easy solutions. Please direct any comments or questions on the Olneyville study or the Rhode Island air toxics program to Barbara Morin, RIDEM, (401) 277-2808. *See related article in this Newsletter. DAYTON REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY RELEASES RADON STUDY RESULTS In the September 1986 issue, the Newsletter reported on the radon sampling project conducted by the Regional Air Pollution Control Agency (RAPCA) of Dayton, Ohio. The RAPCA radon sampling project had three goals. First, the agency wanted to find out if suffi- cient radon existed in its region to constitute a public health threat. Second, RAPCA wanted to identify any patterns in geology, geography, or house type associated with the findings. Finally, RAPCA wanted to help those people with high radon levels in their houses reduce their exposure (see September 1986 Newsletter, pp. 6-7 for details). HOW MANY HOUSES HAVE ELEVATED RADON CONCENTRATIONS? The results of the study indicate that a large percen- tage of the houses sampled have elevated concentra- tions of radon. In sampling 163 locations, RAPCA found the average radon concentration to be 7.0 picocuries per liter (pCi/l). This concentration is much higher than levels reported in other recent studies indicating that the average radon concentration in houses nationwide is ap- proximately 1.5 pCi/l. Further, 21 percent of the houses sampled had concentrations above 10 pCi/l. The EPA recommends that corrective action be taken if radon 6 ------- levels are found to be 4.0 pCi/l or greater. The RAPCA study shows that 47 percent of the houses sampled in the region have radon levels above this 4.0 pCi/l guideline. HOW ARE HOUSE OEISGN AND GEOLOGY ASSOCIATED WITH RADON LEVELS? The RAPCA study found particular house features to be associated with high levels of radon (see Table 1 for a summary). Houses with basements, crawl spaces, sump holes, and better-than-average insulation all have, on average, higher levels of radon than houses without these features. Houses built on gas-permeable substrates (e.g., deposits of gravel and sand or on frac- tured bedrock) may also be more prone to elevated con- centrations of radon. It should be emphasized, however, that many houses with some or even all of the features will show low levels of radon. The best way to determine the concentration of radon in a house is to have a sam- ple taken by a radon testing laboratory that has suc- cessfully completed EPA's Radon/Radon Progeny Measurement Proficiency Program. A list of these laboratories is available through RAPCA. Basements. Many previous studies have shown that radon levels are usually higher in the basement of a house than they are on the first floor. The RAPCA study supports this finding: the average concentration in houses with basements was 8.4 pCi/l, while the average radon concentration of houses on slabs was 4.1 pCi/l. The EPA sampling protocol calls for measurements to be made in the lowest potentially habitable region of the house, thus, if the house had a basement, that is where the measurement was usually made. TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF AVERAGE RADON LEVELS AND COMMON HOUSE FEATURES Average Radon Level Number of Element of Design in pCi/l Samples* Sump Hole 12.2 53 No Sump Hole 4.7 108 Crawl Space 10.3 32 No Crawl Space 3.5 129 Basement 8.4 113 Slab 4.1 48 'Note: Some data are missing due to incomplete responses on some questionnaires. Crawl Spaces. Houses with crawl spaces had higher monitored concentrations of radon, on average, than those without them. This is a pattern that is often reported in the literature. The RAPCA study supports this pattern as the average concentration for houses with crawl spaces was 10.3 pCi/l, while houses without crawl spaces had an average of 3.5 pCi/l. Since radon originates in the soil, it is logical that those houses most exposed to the soil should have higher concentrations of radon. Houses with crawl spaces often have no bar- rier between the soil and the floor of the house. This direct exposure to the earth may allow radon to ac- cumulate under the house and cause elevated radon levels in the rooms above. Other studies have suggested that vented crawl spaces have lower radon concentra- tions than unvented basements or slab-on-grade houses. Sump Holes. Presence of a sump hole seems also to be related with high radon concentrations. Sump holes penetrate through the slab on which the house is built and are intended to catch groundwater in pools so it can be pumped out before flowing onto the floor. The average radon concentration measured by RAPCA in houses with sump holes was 12.2 pCi/l, while in houses without sump holes, the average was 4.7 pCi/l. Because sump holes go through the slab and are in direct con- tact with the earth under the house, they make perfect entry sites for radon. Insulation. The RAPCA found that well-insulated houses have elevated radon levels. From these data, RAPCA concluded that good insulation in houses seems to encourage higher radon levels. It is thought that as insulation increases, radon and heat are prevented from leaking from the house as easily as they would in a poor- ly insulated house. Houses with poor insulation have higher air exchange rates with the nearly radon-free out- side air and, consequently, accumulate less indoor radon. Therefore, to the extent that a house retains heat, it may also retain radon. Geological Factors. When the RAPCA study began in early 1986, most of the existing studies implicated ig- neous geology as the most likely source of the radioac- tive precursor to radon gas. The RAPCA therefore did not expect to find high levels of radon because southwestern Ohio bedrock is almost exclusively sedimentary with smaller amounts of glacially transported igneous material. It was anticipated that a series of scattered samples within the region would con- firm that this region was generally free of the hazard. Geologists, however, agree that both the uranium content of the soil and rock, and the soil's gas permeability, are among the most important geological factors influencing radon concentrations in houses. While the uranium content of the soil in the region is pro- bably only average or low in comparison with other areas of the country, areas with extremely high gas permeabili- ty can be found. Findings indicate that although there was much variation in the RAPCA study, it appears that houses built on porous substrates have greater chances of having high radon levels. Many of the highest readings were from areas of glacial till that may contain large quantities of sand, gravel, or other gas permeable deposits. Even 7 ------- NATIONAL AIR TOXICS INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE REPORT CARD The EPA is interested in receiving your feedback on the usefulness of current Clearinghouse activities (i.e., newsletters, computerized database, special reports, and other publications). In addition, we would also like any suggestions you have on ways to improve and/or expand the Clearinghouse in order to better meet the needs of our user community. This "Report Card" provides quick, yet very useful, feedback for EPA and STAPPA/ALAPCO in planning for future Clearinghouse efforts. Please take a moment to answer the questions below about the Clearinghouse. After completing this "Report Card," please fold, staple, affix postage, and mail. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. CLEARINGHOUSE PUBLICATIONS Newsletters The types of Newsletter articles are characterized below. Indicate on a scale of 1 to 10 the usefulness of these article types, where 1 = not useful and 10 = very useful. Clearinghouse information State/local agency activities EPA policy Research reviews EPA activities Other (specify) Special Reports Please rate the usefulness of each report on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 = very useful and 1 = not useful. Please use the space at right to add comments. Rating Comments • How the Clearinghouse Can Help to Answer Your Air Toxics Questions (July 1986) • Methods for Pollutant Selection and Prioritization (July 1986) National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse Database (NATICH) 1. How often do you access the database on-line? Frequently (once per week or more) Rarely (less than once per month) Sometimes (about once per month) Never; but we have equipment Never; we have no equipment 2. Annually, the Clearinghouse publishes hard copy reports of information submitted by State and local agencies contained in NATICH. How would you rate this report on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 = very useful and 1 = not useful. Rating Comments: 3. The types of data in the annual hard copy reports and in the database are listed below. Indicate on a scale from 1 to 10 the usefulness of each of the data types below, where 10 = very useful and 1 = not useful. Air toxics contacts Source testing data Regulatory program information Ambient monitoring information Acceptable ambient concentrations EPA risk analysis results Research and methods development information Bibliographic citations of Permitting data reports by EPA and other agencies Emissions inventory information List of EPA and NIOSH ongoing projects 4. Do you have suggestions as to how the on-line database could be improved? 5 What would be the most helpful activity that the Clearinghouse could do for you? 6 How would you describe your organization? ' State Agency — Local Agency — U.S. EPA — . Other Federal Agency . Industry . Environmental/Special Interest Group Consultant . University Other Name/Phone (optional): — ace is provided on the reverse side for additional comments or suggestions you have on either future topics to be covered in the Clearinghouse publications or information contained in NATICH. ------- Additional Comments/Suggestions: Fold here/Affix Stamp/and Staple or Tape on Selvage PLACE STAMP HERE Alice Pelland Radian Corporation P.O. Box 13000 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 ------- if soils have normal or below normal quantities of uranium, high soil permeability can still cause elevated levels of radon. Conversely, if a house is built upon an impermeable soil, such as a clay, the radon in the soil may be trapped and thus unable to move upward into the house. WHAT ARE THE STUDY IMPLICATIONS? Despite the fact that the study was not rigorously scientific and that there was a relatively small number of samples taken, making it difficult to interpret geographical patterns, the RAPCA study findings are noteworthy because they tend to indicate that the radon problem is more widespread than originally thought. The study also points out some of the various risk factors associated with elevated concentrations of radon in homes within the region. It raises public health concern for the Dayton area and demonstrates a need for more radon assessment work. While RAPCA is no longer able to sample for radon in private residences because of limited resources, the Agency has coordinated with a local television station, WHIO, to distribute over 15,000 radon sampling kits dur- ing February 1987. Included with each sampler was a questionnaire requesting information on house design, sampling location, etc. To date, approximately 3,000 questionnaires have been returned to RAPCA. In addi- tion, the Agency continues to serve as a radon informa- tion clearinghouse for the region. RAPCA can supply in- formation on such radon topics as: • laboratories that can measure radon in houses, • appropriate types of sampling, • health effects of radon exposure, and • radon reduction methods. For further information on the RAPCA radon study, contact Andy Lindstrom, Regional Air Pollution Control Agency, 451 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422, (513) 225-4898. NESCAUM/CAPCOA SPON5 WASTE COMBUSTION WOfl The first National Regulatory Agency Resource Recovery Workshop, held in Los Angeles, California, January 15-17, 1987, was attended by more than 90 government officials representing 53 agencies from 31 States. The workshop was co-sponsored by the North- east States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and the California Air Pollution Control Of- ficers Association (CAPCOA). The objective of the workshop was to provide a forum for the exchange of technical information on municipal waste combustion and experiences developing municipal waste combus- tion regulatory programs. Municipal waste landfills are being closed rapidly as States and municipalities take steps to protect groundwater and avoid other environmental impacts. The waste disposal alternative which is becoming in- creasingly common is to combine waste incineration and energy recovery with some form of recycling program. In the Northeast alone (New York, New Jersey, and the six New England States), approximately 90 municipal waste resource recovery facilities are either in place, under construction, or in the planning/design process. On a national basis, the move to resource recovery was >OR MUNICIPAL tKSHOP clearly illustrated by workshop participants who dis- cussed facilities in southeastern, midwestern, central plains, and Pacific coast States, including Alaska. Issues discussed in detail at the workshop included agency regulatory and permitting policies, stack testing methods and results, recommended operation and maintenance procedures, continuous emission monitoring requirements, plant operator certification and qualification requirements, combustion design, perfor- mance of emission control technologies, risk assess- ment for toxic air pollutants, and case histories of the development of several State municipal waste combus- tion regulatory programs. The exchange of information on these issues proved to be very beneficial to agencies with existing regulatory programs and especially to agencies in the process of developing a regulatory pro- gram for municipal waste combustion. A follow-up workshop is tentatively planned for the fall. Workshop proceedings will be available from NESCAUM for a fee by April of this year. Contact Bar- bara Smith-Mandell, NESCAUM, (617) 367-8540, to ob- tain more information or to order the workshop proceedings. EPA INTRODUCES THE INT RISK INFORMATION SYSTE EPA is developing the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), a computer-based, electronically- communicated catalogue of EPA chemical-specific risk assessment and risk management information. At pre- EGRATED M sent, there are 127 chemicals in the system, with plans to expand to include 350 chemicals by the end of 1987. IRIS is, in part, a response to repeated requests for Agen- cy risk information on such environmental issues as 8 ------- Superfund site evaluations and emergency spills, and, in part, a means to ensure the quality and consistency of the Agency's risk assessment and risk management decisions. Both IRIS and the National Air Toxics Infor- mation Clearinghouse have a common goal, that is, facilitation of information exchange. The two databases serve to complement one another since both contain unique information. IRIS provides an introduction to EPA's risk informa- tion. Its contents have been reviewed by Agency scien- tists and managers. Though IRIS information represents Agency consensus, it must be used with an understand- ing of its limitations and constraints, including that it is neither a primary toxicological database nor a con- clusive risk information resource. The system does not presume a user with technical expertise, but rather, one with some knowledge of the health sciences. Suppor- tive documentation is included to provide instruction and explanation for the risk information presented. HOW IS IRIS ORGANIZED? Information contained in IRIS is divided into several major sections called service codes. The core of IRIS, its chemical files, is located in Service Code 1. Background documents, instructions, and update infor- mation are provided in the remaining service codes as follows: Service Code 2 - a list of chemicals both alphabetical- ly and numerically (by Chemical Abstract Services number); a list of chemical files that have been recent- ly updated. Service Code 3 - a detailed list of specific revisions made to the chemical files. Service Code 4 - an introduction, providing general in- formation about the system; background information on each of the data elements contained in the chemical files; a discussion of general limitations, restrictions, and qualifications associated with the data. Also, several appendices are included explaining the summary sheets in the chemical files (e.g., fac- tors considered in risk management decisions). Service Code 5 - a glossary of terms and abbrevia- tions. Service Code 6 - a user's guide with detailed informa- tion on how to use the system in- cluding commands, procedures and specific "how to" instruction; a hypo- thetical case study which shows how IRIS operates is also included. The chemical files (Service Code 1) are organized with a status table followed by the actual chemical data divided into the following sections: chronic noncar- cinogenic risk assessment (including oral and inhalation risk reference doses, when available); carcinogenic risk assessment; drinking water health advisories; EPA risk management data including EPA regulatory standards (e.g., NESHAPs, WQCs, RQs, etc.); and supplementary information including acute health hazard information and chemical and physical properties. This format re- mains the same for each chemical. HOW TO ACCESS IRIS Although the details of accessing IRIS from outside of the Agency are still under development, the following discussion represents current plans. IRIS will be available through the Agency's elec- tronic communication system (Dialcom). Computer com- patibility makes the system fast, easily updated, and ex- pandable. The electronic component of IRIS is especial- ly effective in delivering updated information on specific chemicals in a timely fashion. Furthermore, electronic delivery allows subscribers the option of selectively print- ing information about particular chemicals of interest. An initial hardcopy version of the information con- tained in IRIS is scheduled for distributing to EPA Regional Offices soon. This hardcopy version will ap- pear in two volumes. Volume 1 will contain supportive material such as the introduction, appendices, and an instructive case study. Volume 2 will contain the in- dividual chemical files for an initial set of 97 chemicals. Due to the size of the hardcopy version, distribution will be limited. A more formal announcement of the availability of IRIS and details for accessing the on-line system is planned at a later date. The Clearinghouse Newsletter will provide updated information on IRIS as it becomes available. HIGH RISK URBAN TOXICS PROBLEMS UNDERGOING ASSESSMENT High risk urban toxics, urban air toxics, multisource- multipollutant urban toxics-these terms have all been associated with one section of EPA's national air toxics strategy. This section deals with the assessment and reduction of risks associated with exposure to levels of various air toxics in many urban areas. Evidence from "The Air Toxics Problem in the United States: An Analysis of Cancer Risks for Selected Pollutants" (May 1985, EPA 450/1-85-001) and other sources indicates that additive cancer risks as high as 10-3 may be present in 9 ------- urban areas. This risk estimate incorporates several simplifying, conservative assumptions. This year (FY87), EPA has allocated approximately $1 million in Section 105 grant monies for the assess- ment and mitigation of urban air toxics. Candidate urban areas with populations greater than one million were identified and State and local agencies were allotted a total of $750,000 to assess these cities' air toxics pro- blems. In addition, five cities were allocated a total of $250,000 for mitigation activities. States have also been asked to specify in their multi-year development plans (MYDPs) what assessment and mitigation activities are expected or underway. To further support State and local urban air toxics work, EPA is establishing a centralized laboratory capable of analyzing ambient samples collected in stainless steel canisters by the agencies. The costs of the equipment and laboratory support will be shared by the participants at an estimated expenditure of about $20,000 per site per year, with a sample collection every 12th day. Sampling under this program is expected to begin this June. The EPA's Air Management Technology Branch (AMTB) is overseeing this program and is also developing several documents to provide guidance, technical assistance and support in conducting emis- sions inventories and risk assessments. This subject will be further discussed at the upcoming national air tox- ics workshops planned for March through May of this year* For more information on this topic, contact James H. Southerland, EPA, AMTB, (919) 541-5522 or (FTS) 629-5522. *See article on p. 2 in December 1986 Newsletter. MODEL ASBESTOS INSPECT NEARS COMPLETION A year-long project to develop model techniques for use in asbestos NESHAP enforcement programs at the State and local level will be completed soon. Enforce- ment of the asbestos NESHAP has been a priority for EPA since the regulations were repromulgated in April 1984. Since that time, the scope of the enforcement pro- gram has increased dramatically. At present, the majority of States have been delegated enforcement authority for the asbestos NESHAP and are enforcing the standard at the State and/or local level. The enforcement program relies very heavily on frequent inspections to make com- pliance determinations. This fact, coupled with the fact that a large number of sources are subject to the NESHAP regulations (estimates range from 20,000 - 40,000 demolition and renovation operations per year), means effective State and local programs are essential to the success of the national program. The enforcement program has been dominated by enforcement of demolition and renovation operations subject to the asbestos NESHAP because of the large number of sources and high degree of noncompliance. Records specific to this part of the asbestos NESHAP program have only been kept since FY85. The number of inspections of asbestos demolition and renovations has increased from approximately 8,100 in FY85 to over 15,000 in FY86. In addition, during that time period, the number of asbestos NESHAP violations found has in- creased even more sharply: EPA, State, and local agen- cies reported almost 800 violations for FY85; in FY86, almost 2,200 violations were reported. The increase in violations reported is due to many factors, the most im- portant of which is the growth and development of ac- tive enforcement programs, including better trained in- spectors and more thorough reviews of the notifications themselves. Analysis of data submitted to EPA by State riON PROGRAM and local agencies showed a large variation in the com- pliance rates reported by various agencies, ranging from approximately 30 percent to over 99 percent. Although some of this variation may be caused by inconsistent procedures of the demolition/renovation contractors, it seems more likely that the practices of the various en- forcing agencies could affect the number of violations found and reported to a greater extent. Therefore, this project was initiated to determine the cause for the variability, to establish model guidelines by studying the more effective programs and applying these techniques to other programs, and, where possible, to determine how contractor performance can most effectively be in- fluenced and improved by the enforcing agency. The seven agencies chosen to participate in the project were three State agencies (the Maine Depart- ment of Environmental Protection, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality), three local agencies (the Allegheny County Health Department, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles, Califor- nia; and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, Seattle, Washington), and one EPA Regional Office, Region II (New York City). EPA Region II was selected since it is the most active EPA office for asbestos inspec- tions and because it has not yet delegated enforcement of the standard to either of its States, New York or New Jersey. A report is under development that will describe techniques which have been shown to improve program effectiveness in several areas: (1) degree of delega- tion/localization, (2) inspection targeting criteria, (3) in- spection procedures and documentation of violations, (4) information collection, storage and retrieval, (5) in- 10 ------- spector training and qualifications, (6) contractor train- ing and outreach programs, (7) threat potential, and (8) EPA assistance and oversight. Techniques which have been shown to increase the percentage of sources which notify EPA or States about removal operations (a major problem in this program), as well as techniques which may increase the degree of substantive compliance are included in the report. Questions about this project should be referred to Jim Engel, EPA, OAQPS, Sta- tionary Source Compliance Division, (202) 382-2877 or (FTS) 382-2877. EPA WORKS TO ENHANCE LOCAL AIR TOXICS PROGR AIR TOXICS MULTI-YEAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROGRESS REVIEWED Over the past 6 months, EPA has received 63 air toxics multi-year development plans (MYDPs) from State and local agencies* These plans lay the groundwork for allocating Section 105 grant dollars to State and local agencies in a flexible, yet progressive, manner. The plans currently emphasize broad assessment activities which will (1) develop an emissions inventory and (2) begin air toxics review through the permitting system. In addition, EPA is encouraging the review of urban air toxics problems for approximately 30 urban areas and the screening and evaluation of certain high risk point sources.** During FY87 EPA, through its Regional Offices, will be working with the State and local agencies to develop MYDPs which cover a basic range of activities important to the assessment and mitigation of air toxics problems. The Agency is encouraged by the initial response from the State and local agencies in submitting MYDPs and will continue to develop technical guidance and other assistance to aid the implementation of MYDPs. For more information, contact Bruce Polkowsky, EPA, (919) 541-5591 or (FTS) 629-5591. PERMIT REVIEW SUPPORT BEING PREPARED On June 3, 1986, the Administrator remanded a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit deci- sion involving the North County, California Resource Recovery project. The remand strongly affirms that con- sideration must,be given, within the best available con- trol technology determination, to the effects of STATE AND AMS "pollutants not regulated under the Act" (in that case, dioxins and furans). EPA's Office of Air Quality Plan- ning and Standards (OAQPS) is developing guidance for implementing the North County remand regarding con- sideration of toxics in PSD permitting. Modifications were made with respect to the type of analyses required and EPA enforcement authority. In general, this EPA guidance is likely to stress the Agency's commitment to technical support and refers to both the National Air Tox- ics Information Clearinghouse and the new Control Technology Center.*** A wide range of significant permitting issues are be- ing explored in preparation for the national air toxics workshops. These workshops are scheduled by the Air Toxics Program Section, OAQPS, to be presented in four locations across the country in March through May. The "permit program experiences" session will review several case examples given by five States participating on the panel. Source types being considered include: municipal waste combustion, ethylene oxide steriliza- tion, urethane foam production, air scrubbing, and chemical production. These sessions should reveal much about State permitting approaches including ways to improve the use of traditional criteria pollutant permit programs to address air toxics issues. For more informa- tion, contact Kirt Cox, EPA, OAQPS, (919) 541-5697 or (FTS) 629-5697. *See related articles in June 1986 issue, pp. 8-9; September 1986, p.12 **See related articles elsewhere in this Newsletter. ***See related articles in December 1986 issue, pp. 2-3. OAQPS REQUESTS INFORIV AIR TOXICS EMISSION FAC One of the ways in which the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) provides technical support to State and local agencies as they develop and implement air toxics control programs is by offering guidance and technical resources on how to compile air toxics emissions inventories. In order to up- date and expand the current number of toxic air 1ATION ON TORS emissions documents, OAQPS is requesting air toxics emissions data compiled by State and local air pollution agencies. Information submitted to the National Air Tox- ics Information Clearinghouse will be considered for this project and does not need to be resubmitted to EPA. State and local emissions information will be included in further updates of a report OAQPS will soon publish 11 ------- entitled, "Preliminary Compilation of Air Pollution Emis- sion Factors for Selected Air Toxics." This report is in- tended to assist air pollution control agencies and others in making preliminary estimates of emissions of toxic air pollutants. Emission factors will be provided for selected air toxic compounds only-not for all potential air toxics. The major sources of emission factors in this report will be the EPA emission reports in two series: "Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of (Substance)" and "Survey of (Substance) Emissions Sources." Because many of these emission factors have not been verified for accuracy or validity, OAQPS considers them to be preliminary. The report will present a list of emission factors for selected air toxics and associate the emission factors to various levels of source activity. If your agency has air toxics emissions data to contribute, or if you would like to obtain copies of the report, please contact Anne Pope, EPA, OAQPS, (919) 541-5522 or (FTS) 629-5522. INFORMATION NEEDED The Department of Public Utilities, Toledo, Ohio, would like details about the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for controlling emissions of air pollutants from creosote retorts and heated creosote storage tanks. If your agency has had experience in mak- ing such a BACT determination, please call Jeffrey A. Twaddle, (419) 693-0350. The National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse Newsletter is published by the National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse to assist State and local air agencies making decisions on noncriteria air pollutant emissions. The Clearinghouse is being implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Strategies and Air Standards Division, Pollutant Assessment Branch as part of a joint effort with the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO). The National Air Toxics Information Newsletter is prepared by Radian Corporation under EPA, Contract Number 68-02-4330, Work Assignment 14. The EPA Project Officer is Beth Hassett, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Telephone: (919) 541-5519 The Radian Project Director is Alice Pelland, P.O. Box 13000, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, —(»I9) 541-9100. - I Bo NuWijIuICi i.i prepared primarily fcjr ^tate and local air pollution control agencies and is distributed free of charge. Those wishing to report address changes ¦wmU flu suhy LuntBLTfffS Nancy RiWfcPA bAQBJh|919) 541-5519. Please contact either the Project Director or the Project Officer with any comments you might ni°""lL"l III 'Jl ""IIISTTewsletter or wt^sdj^^jiifns for future newsletters. Entries in the newsletter are written by Radian Corporation or EPA staff unless other- wise indicated. 4. The views expressed in the National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse Newsletter so not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Pro- tection Agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use by EPA. FIRST CLASS MAIL U.S. Postage Paid E.P.A. Permit No. G-35 ------- |