NATIONAL AIR TOXICS INFORMATION
CLEARINGHOUSE NEWSLETTER
£ CPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards	Volume 5 Number 2
\/LI / \ Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711	January 1988
©TtVaV ("5)1"°)/A U R\ R	State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
^) U/rALr u /n\ U /r-AUni/nA Li	Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
IN THIS ISSUE
CLEARINGHOUSE ENCOURAGES STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES TO SUBMIT
UPDATED INFORMATION		
STATE/LOCAL AGENCY SPOTLIGHT TEXAS AIR CONTROL BOARD	2
A CASE STUDY FOR COBALT OXIDE	4
KANSAS AIR TOXICS STRATEGY BASED ON AMBIENT GUIDELINE APPROACH	6
NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION HIGHLIGHTS AIR TOXIC RESEARCH NEEDS	7
ERA'S OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVE IN AIR TOXICS
RESEARCH		
OAQPS REPORTS LINK POLLUTANTS AND SOURCES	10
WOODSTOVE SMOKE EMISSIONS STUDY RESULTS RELEASED	11
CLEARINGHOUSE ENCOURAGES
STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES TO
SUBMIT UPDATED INFORMATION
Annual Data Collection Begins
During February, STAPPA and ALAPCO will
distribute data collection forms to the director of each
State and local air pollution control agency. These forms
request agencies to update information currently con-
tained in the on-line data base, NATICH, as well as to pro-
vide new information to expand the data base. The Clear-
inghouse staff is prepared to assist State and local agen-
cies regarding the annual data collection process.
Please contact the Clearinghouse staff at (919) 541-0850
or (FTS) 629-0850, if you have any questions.
Clearinghouse Preparing Special Report on Risk
Communication
Be on the lookout for the next Clearinghouse
special report to be published this spring. It will present
three case studies on how a State or local air pollution
control agency communicated the results of a source-
specific risk assessment to the public. The report should
be most useful to State and local agencies that are just
beginning to do risk assessments. These agencies' risk
communication efforts-those that were successful and
those that were not-will be described.
The report will cover the following topics: (1) ac-
tivities prior to the public release of the risk assessment
results, (2) characterization of the risk assessment
results, (3) processes used for communicating risk and
(4) self-evaluations of the agencies' risk communication
efforts. It will also include advice on what techniques
might be especially helpful in presenting risk assess-
ment results to the public. For more information, contact
Karen Blanchard of the Clearinghouse staff at (919)
541-5503 or (FTS) 629-5503.
On-line Access to NATICH Encouraged
Information contained in the Clearinghouse data
base, NATICH, may be obtained through direct computer
access or from hardcopy reports. On-line access to the
data base is usually preferred because: (1) it allows flex-
ibility in sorting the data by a number of different
variables or combinations of variables, (2) it contains
more current data and (3) it allows review of all permit
and source test data. In addition to viewing data, State
and local agency personnel may obtain access to
NATICH data entry programs in order to add to or modify
the data base information for their agency. Direct entry

-------
and editing of data are strongly encouraged as State or
local agencies can maintain up-to-date records in
NATICH as well as add new information as soon as it
becomes available. For more information on accessing
NATICH, State and local agency staff should contact the
appropriate EPA Regional Office Air Toxics Contact listed
at right or the Clearinghouse staff: John Vandenberg,
Beth Hassett, Nancy Riley, Karen Blanchard or Bob
Schell, Pollutant Assessment Branch, MD-13, U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-0850 or (FTS) 629-0850.
Please note that to obtain authorization for your user ID
to access NATICH, you must contact the Clearinghouse
staff. Members of the private sector may obtain access
to NATICH by contacting Lois Grooms of the National
Technical Information Service at (703) 487-4807.
Region
Contact
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
XI
X
Margaret McDonough
(617) 565-3231 or (FTS) 835-3231
Sarah Levinson
(617) 565-3232 or (FTS) 835-3232
Bob Kelly
(212) 264-2517 or (FTS) 264-2517
Iz Milner
(215) 597-9090 or (FTS) 597-9090
Sharon Porter
(404) 881-2864 or (FTS) 257-2864
Melvin Russell
(404) 881-2864 or (FTS) 257-2864
Harriet Croke
(312) 353-6009 or (FTS) 353-6009
Jill Lyons
(214) 655-7208 or (FTS) 255-7208
Wayne Kaiser
(913) 236-2893 or (FTS) 757-2983
DeWitt Baulch
(303) 293-1761 or (FTS) 564-1761
Kathy Diehl
(415) 974-8381 or (FTS) 454-8381
Dave Kircher
(206) 442-4198 or (FTS) 399-4198
STATE/LOCAL AGENCY SPOTLIGHT*
TEXAS AIR CONTROL BOARD
by Wayne Burnopr Technical Support and Regulation Development Program,
Texas Air Control Board:
The Texas Air Control Board (TACB) has general
legal authority under the Texas Clean Air Act, which (1)
prohibits emissions of air contaminants that are injurious
to health and property, (2) establishes an appointed air
pollution control board, and (3) gives that board the
authority to promulgate administrative rules pursuant to
the legislation's intent.
New/Modified Source Review Outlined
The TACB began a new/modified source permit
review (NSR) program in 1972 for all air contaminants,
both criteria and noncriteria. This review starts with an
engineering evaluation of the process to determine Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) on a case-by-case
basis. The resulting emissions are quantified and disper-
sion modeling performed to predict residual ground level
concentrations. Ambient impacts are evaluated in light
of best available health effects information and with the
help of internal guidelines based on the application of
uncertainty factors to occupational standards. Generally,
the guideline is 1 percent (an uncertainty factor of 100)
of the occupational exposure limit for short-term
(30-minute) exposures and 0.1 percent (an uncertainty
factor of 1000) of the occupational exposure limit for long-
term (annual) exposures.
Control requirements can be adjusted based on the
health effects review. The use of guidelines rather than
standards provides needed flexibility in dealing with
potentially thousands of materials. It allows TACB's per-
mit reviewers to consider new toxicity information as
soon as it is available. In addition, it allows the reviewer
to consider information such as operating schedules, ad-
jacent property and types of health effects associated
with each substance.
• Disaster Potential Considered In
Perm It Review
The TACB permit reviewer also identifies toxic
chemicals with disaster potential from upsets or ac-
cidents. Characteristics that may be considered include
high acute toxicity, moderate to high vapor pressure,
high vapor density/resistance to dispersion, and
presence in volumes sufficient to result in life-
threatening off-plant impacts.
The permit applicant is asked to identify worst-case
disaster scenarios with associated emissions, and to
perform dispersion modeling. The impacts from disaster
scenarios are compared to lethal and toxic concentra-
tions of the compound. Process design changes or ad-
ditional control measures can be required, when ap-
propriate. Disaster contingency plans can be required
as permit provisions if it is not possible to eliminate the
possibility of a disastrous release. Such a plan would in-
clude provisions for notifying the general public and
public safety personnel.
2

-------
• Waste Disposal Rules List NSR Procedure
The TACB and the Texas Water Commission have
adopted, in a joint rulemaking, regulations for control of
air pollution from hazardous waste or solid waste
management facilities. These regulations became effec-
tive April 30,1986. Further, in another joint rulemaking,
the TACB and the Texas Department of Health have
adopted regulations for the control of air pollution from
municipal solid waste facilities. These regulations
became effective December 17, 1986. Both final rules
outline air emission requirements and new source review
procedures. The TACB staff provides comments and per-
mit provisions to be included in permits for appropriate
hazardous and solid waste management facilities.
Specific Toxics Regulated at Existing Sources
The TACB enforces the federal national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants for asbestos,
beryllium, vinyl chloride monomer, mercury, benzene,
and arsenic. In addition, the State has regulations ap-
plicable to hydrogen sulfide, sulfuric acid mist, beryllium,
fluorides and lead.
The staff has also undertaken reviews with respect
to sources of acrylonitrile (AN), epichlorohydrin, hex-
avalent chromium, and arsenic. Five AN sources were
evaluated under the AN pilot program (EPA/State ini-
tiatives). Negotiations have been initiated with the one
AN source identified for additional control. The staff has
also investigated two facilities that are producers/con-
sumers of epichlorohydrin. No additional control was
determined to be necessary in connection with the
epichlorohydrin sources. The TACB has investigated a
source of hexavalent chromium as a promoted initiative
and determined that no additional control was required.
The arsenic review identified significant concentrations
in the vicinity of a smelter in El Paso, but concluded that
controls installed pursuant to the lead control strategy
should be adequate.
Inventory Includes All Major Sources
The TACB operates a point source data base which
is used to collect and maintain Statewide emissions in-
ventory (El) data including records of allowable emis-
sions authorized through the new source (permitting)
program. An El, including toxic emissions, was last com-
pleted in 1980-1981 for approximately 800 major sources
in the State. In addition, existing (nonpermitted) sources
were required to register for FY86 under a Grandfathered
Source Registration Program. El data have been up-
dated by requiring existing grandfathered facilities to
register emissions information.
A comprehensive Statewide El including toxic emis-
sions was completed in 1987 for sources greater than
1,000 tons/year (TPY) of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
or volatile organic compounds (VOC) under the National
Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. An update has
also been initiated for sources of VOC between 100 TPY
and 1,000 TPY (Class A VOC Inventory).
Monitoring Programs Assess Variety of Toxics
The TACB is currently finalizing the Gulf Coast Com-
munity Exposure study. The purpose of the study is to
assess public exposure to ten noncriteria air con-
taminants in Harris, Galveston, Jefferson, and Orange
counties. The major tasks of the study are to verify emis-
sions estimates, determine ambient concentrations and
evaluate human exposure to acrylonitrile, arsenic,
benzene, epichlorohydrin, ethylene oxide, for-
maldehyde, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls, polynuclear
aromatics, and vinyl chloride. To date, monitoring has
been performed and emissions data analyzed for the ten
compounds.
In addition, the TACB has participated in a
Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston monitoring program
[nonmethane organic compound (NMOC) air toxics
initiative] in which samples were collected and
characterized for formaldehyde, organics and trace
heavy metals. The Board's central laboratory currently
analyzes samples from its particulate monitoring net-
work for a variety of elements, including heavy metals.
A mobile monitoring laboratory monitors in areas iden-
tified by the TACB staff or in response to citizen com-
plaints concerning possible health effects.
Research Underway on Detecting
Health Impacts
The Research Division is currently supporting
research at the University of Texas Medical Branch at
Galveston to establish a biological test system capable
of monitoring for potential toxic health impacts in am-
bient air. There have been some encouraging signs that
it may be possible to develop tests sensitive enough to
detect such effects. The Research Division is also draft-
ing workplans for evaluating the Dallas/Fort Worth and
Houston areas pursuant to EPA grant objectives. Ac-
tivities under the workplan will be initiated soon, and a
final report submitted to EPA by September of 1988.
Release Response Capabilities in Place
Reports of process upsets are received in the twelve
regional offices and a response is made to those with
potential to affect public health. In addition, the central
office staff has been operating a pilot project to develop
a screening technique that will better identify releases
warranting additional examination by the agency. Cur-
rently, an index is calculated based on the toxicity of the
substance and its emission rate. Those with higher in-
dex values can be identified for additional attention.
An Emergency Action Center coordinates the
Board's response in support of the State's Division of
Emergency Management operated by the Department
of Public Safety. Federal funds are being used to con-
struct an emergency response trailer that can support
the operation of personnel responding to an emergen-
cy including hazardous air emissions. The trailer will
house a command center, personnel protective equip-
ment, and personnel decontamination facilities.
3

-------
For further information on the Texas Air Control 6330 Highway 290 East, Austin, Texas, 78723, (512)
Board's air toxics work, contact Wayne Burnop, TACB, 451-5711.
A CASE STUDY FOR COBALT OXIDE
by Dale Fentress, Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Board
In December 1985, the Chattanooga-Hamilton
County Air Pollution Control Bureau (APCB) discovered
that the Velsicol Chemical Company (VCC) was emitting
cobalt oxide in an area of Chattanooga, Tennessee,
characterized by residential sections intertwined with
heavy industry. This case study summarizes
chronologically the Agency's 23-month-long permitting
proceeding aimed at controlling the cobalt emissions.
The APCB was confronted with several issues and pro-
blems typical of those which agencies encounter in the
regulation of air toxics.
Industrial Setting Described
Located in the Alton Park community in South Chat-
tanooga, VCC is a manufacturer of benzoyl chloride,
benzotrichloride, benzoic acid and other specialty
chemicals. Several foundries, a filter paper manufac-
turer, a cotton cellulose processing plant, a glass
manufacturer, a wood preservative operation, a
manufacturer of edible oil and, until August 1987, a foun-
dry coke plant are also located in Alton Park.
The community has been the focus of many coor-
dinated efforts by the APCB with the U.S. EPA, the Ten-
nessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the Tennessee
Department of Health and Environment to assess the
magnitude of the health problem in the area and imple-
ment various programs to clean up the environment.
Past activities have included ambient toxic air monitor-
ing studies, the closure and remediation of hazardous
waste dump sites, biological monitoring of the local
vegetation, a community epidemiological survey, an in-
door air study (current), and the organization of a task
force composed of community, industry and government
representatives to address citizens' concerns and help
direct future projects.
The APCB has been aware that the ambient air in
Alton Park may present an unacceptable health risk due
to human exposure to the "soup" of air toxics that ex-
ists in the area. The fact that the risk has not yet been
quantified (although Alton Park is the subject of a cur-
rent urban study to address this concern), coupled with
the high level of community awareness, has led to a very
conservative philosophy in terms of permitting new
sources of noncriteria pollutants in the Alton Park area.
Source Described and History Outlined
In April 1981, VCC was issued a permit for the
plant's fuel burning system, allowing the use of benzoic
acid residue as an alternate fuel in the company's two
Wickes boilers. Benzoic acid residue is a material
generated as a by-product from the benzoic acid produc-
tion process. The boilers were already designed and per-
mitted to burn gas, #2 fuel oil, and #6 fuel oil. The
residue, which is a solid at ambient conditions, has a
high heating value (approximately 13,500 Btu/pound),
and reportedly has approximately the same viscosity as
water at temperatures moderately above its melting point
(approximately 250°F). The APCB did not view the burn-
ing of the residue as requiring best available control
technology since the boilers were designed to accom-
modate the alternate fuel.
The VCC was permitted to burn "clean" residue,
which is generated continuously from production and
stored in designated holding tanks, in addition to
"dirty" residue that has been stockpiled over the years
in an unsheltered area of the plant site. Since the entire
fuel burning system was uncontrolled and the plant is
located in what was, at the time, a primary particulate
nonattainment area, VCC was limited to a total combined
particulate mass emission rate of 20.4 Ib/hr [reasonably
available control technology (RACT)].
Problem Identified
In cooperation with the TVA, ambient monitoring
was initiated in a select location of Alton Park in January
1984. Sampling for criteria pollutants and PM10 was
started in April 1984 and sampling for 25 organic com-
pounds followed in March 1985. All data gathering efforts
continued through March 1986 with sampling of all
pollutants conducted every sixth day. PM^ samples
were collected on 37 MM TeflonR filters with 2
micrometer pore size. Analysis of 49 elements was by
proton-induced X-ray fluorescence. Organics were col-
lected in Tenax Sorbent with a polyurethane foam
backup and analyzed using a GC/MS.
While reviewing the preliminary results of the study
in December 1985, the APCB became concerned with
what appeared to be elevated levels of airborne cobalt
that were measured on at least one occasion at over 400
ng/m3 on a 24-hour basis at the monitoring site. In ad-
dition, the average measured value of 34.5 ng/m3
(24-hour average) was well over what our research
showed to be a more typical urban value of 5 ng/m3. The
APCB quickly associated the higher ambient cobalt
levels with cobalt emission data on the Wickes boiler ob-
tained only two months prior from the VCC.
Originally, only estimates for particulate emissions
were submitted by VCC regarding the use of benzoic
4

-------
acid residue as fuel. Although the APCB did not know
it at the time of application, the residue contained cobalt
naphthanate, which is used as a catalyst for the air ox-
idation of toluene, and is converted to cobalt oxide in the
combustion chamber of the boilers. The VCC had failed
to submit the information on cobalt because it is an
unregulated pollutant. The APCB management was also
unaware that one of the Wickes boilers had already been
source tested for cobalt in March 1980 while firing the
residue. It was not until October 1985 that the results of
the source test were forwarded to the APCB. While
originally permitted to burn "dirty" residue, VCC never
incinerated the "dirty" residue except under test condi-
tions, presumably because the undisclosed 1980 test
had shown that, in this mode, VCC could not comply with
the RACT particulate standard.
Health and Legal Issues Summarized
Taking the position that VCC had failed to inform the
APCB of the cobalt emissions from the Wickes boilers
as required by law, the APCB prohibited the use of ben-
zoic acid residue as fuel until the impact of the cobalt
emissions could be studied and assessed. The APCB
requires that even though specific pollutants may be
unregulated (by an emission limitation), affected facilities
must still submit data on the speciated emissions from
all air pollution sources. In response, the VCC filed an
administrative appeal with the Air Pollution Control
Board. The appeal contended that the APCB was aware
of the cobalt emissions when the original air permit to
burn the residue was granted; however, no supporting
documentation attesting to this fact could be provided
by either party. The administrative appeal had the effect
of placing a "stay" on any Bureau enforcement pro-
ceedings and VCC continued to operate as before,
although VCC did update their permitting forms to show
the emissions of cobalt.
In September 1986, the APCB received a document
entitled "Risk Assessment of Cobalt," which was
prepared by toxicologists retained by the VCC's legal
counsel as part of the permit process. The report con-
tained, among other relevant information, a compilation
of health studies involving human and animal exposure
to cobalt and cobalt salts.
Of the referenced citations in the report, a study by
Kerfoot, et al. (1975)* was chosen as being the most ap-
propriate in which to model an acceptable daily intake
(ADI) value. According to the authors of the report, the
derived value represented a safe level for continuous
human exposure. The ADI concept was used since no
data were available suggesting that cobalt or cobalt com-
pounds produced nonthreshold health effects via inhala-
tion. The study involved miniature swine inhaling
metallic cobalt concentrations of either 100,000 ng/m3
or 1,000,000 ng/m3 for 6 hr/day, 5 day/week, for 3
months. At the end of the exposure period, the animals
suffered respiratory effects (a decrease in ventilatory
compliance) and cardiac effects (a decrease in the
amplitude of T-wave and QRS signals). Based on the
lowest observed effects level (LOEL) of 100,000 ng/m3
taken from the study, VCC derived an ADI of 240 ng/m3
and then compared that standard to the average
measured ambient concentration of 34.5 ng/m3 (24-hour
average). They concluded that the level of cobalt in the
air attributable to the Wickes boilers posed an insignifi-
cant human health risk.
After critiquing the report, the APCB agreed that,
considering the available health data, cobalt appears to
be a threshold toxicant and the development of an am-
bient guideline concentration was appropriate. The
APCB disagreed, however, with the magnitude of the
derived ADI. Using EPA's reference dose (RfD)** con-
cept and the Kerfoot, et al. data, the ambient guideline
value would be reduced to 10 ng/m3 since all of the
defined safety factors would be invoked [i.e., 10-fold fac-
tors for extrapolating between members of the human
population, animal to human extrapolation, extrapolation
from subchronic to chronic exposures and using a LOEL
instead of a no observed effect level (NOEL)].
The APCB also argued that the comparison of the
guideline value to the measured concentrations was less
than conservative. The monitoring station was posi-
tioned at an elevation paralleling that of the boilers' stack
base and, hence, the sampling ports were testing air a
substantial distance below the critical receptor height of
the boiler plume(s). Moreover, the area meteorological
data (which by that time had been validated) indicated
very little wind frequency in the direction of the boiler
stacks toward the sampling station, which, of course, had
a significant effect on the long-term average concentra-
tions.
In May 1987, VCC responded that using the Kerfoot,
et al. data was an exceptionally conservative approach
in determining what the guideline concentration should
be and said it wanted to revise the risk assessment and
resubmit the document. The APCB agreed since refined
modeling had yet to be performed in order to predict the
annual average cobalt concentrations.
An updated version of the VCC risk assessment
document emphasized a study by Morgan (1983)*** in-
volving the chronic exposure of men to cobalt oxide in
the workplace. In the study, men who worked with pro-
cessing cobalt oxide did not experience significant
adverse health effects compared to a control group. The
median exposure concentration was 200,000 ng/m3 and
median service of the exposed population in the depart-
ment handling the cobalt oxide was 10.7 years. The
VCC's risk assessment suggested that the use of the
Morgan data would yield a value several orders of
magnitude higher than the Kerfoot, et al. data based on
the RfD concept. Still, the VCC report insisted that their
original guideline value of 240 ng/m3 was an ap-
propriate, conservative ADI and should be the final
number to consider.
In view of the Morgan data, the APCB conceded
5

-------
that an annual average concentration of 240 ng/m3
should be the accepted standard. Based on modeling
results of COMPLEX 1 for long-term averages, however,
the APCB demonstrated that, with only one boiler firing
benzoic acid residue, the proposed ADI may be met or
exceeded at several receptors on a ridge located west
of the stack(s). It was also evident, based on the
Bureau's emission inventory, that several other airborne
chemicals in the area had the potential to cause some
type of pulmonary disorder (e.g., chronic bronchitis) that
was the same or nearly the same as that of exposure to
elevated concentrations of cobalt oxide. Although ex-
posure to some of the other chemicals did not elicit the
same toxicological end point(s) as exposure to cobalt ox-
ide, EPA's hazard index for chemical mixtures**** at
some receptors in the area may have been exceeded
several-fold. The APCB argued that their position was
supported by the results of the epidemiological survey
conducted in the area that showed that there was a
statistically significant greater prevalence of self-
reported respiratory diseases for all ages of onset (over
a control group) including coughing, wheezing,
breathlessness, and other adverse lung effects.
Problem Resolved
From its beginning with problem identification in
December 1985 and the subsequent APCB attempt to
prohibit burning benzoic acid residue as fuel, the APCB
faced several legal and health issues before a resolution
in the form of an Agreed Order was entered in November
1987. The Order, by means of 14 special permit condi-
tions, limited the cobalt emission rate to a level
commensurate with ambient levels of 240 ng/m3 or less
on an annual basis.
The permit conditions called for a limit on both the
clean and dirty residue flow to burners and mandated
that the VCC install and operate a particulate control
device of 60 percent or greater efficiency when the com-
pany starts burning the dirty residue. The control equip-
ment was required to operate whenever clean or dirty
residue is being burned as fuel until such time the inven-
tory of dirty residue had been depleted. In addition to the
Order, VCC agreed, upon receipt of the certificate allow-
ing the burning of benzoic acid residue, to withdraw the
administrative appeal filed with the Air Pollution Control
Board and reimburse the APCB for costs incurred in con-
junction with the benzoic acid/cobalt research. The cer-
tificate of operation with the aforementioned limitations
was issued November 9, 1987.
For more information on this case study, contact
Dale Fentress, Air Toxics Coordinator, Chattanooga-
Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Board, (615)
867-4321.
*Kerfoot, E.J., W.G. Fredrick, and E. Domeier, 1975,
American Industrial Hygienist Association, 36:17.
**An RfD is defined as an estimate (with uncertainty
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily
exposure to the human population (including sensitive
subpopulations) that is likely to be without appreciable
risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.
"•Morgan, L.G., 1983, J. Soc. Occup. Med., 33:181.
****51 FR 34014
KANSAS AIR TOXICS STRA1
AMBIENT GUIDELINE APP
Adopted in November 1987, the Kansas Air Toxics
Strategy proposes a permit review process for new or
modified sources not affected by the State's current
review process. The strategy surpasses the current
review process (i.e., new source performance standards
and prevention of significant deterioration rules) which,
the Department acknowledges, has resulted in a large
degree of emission control for toxic air contaminants.
That success stems from the fact that many of these con-
taminants fall into the general categories of particulate
matter or volatile organic compounds.
In the proposed toxics review process, once it has
been determined that a facility is a source of toxic air con-
taminants, the individual pollutants must be identified
and characteristics of the emission source quantified.
Based on the emission rate and other source
parameters, the Department proposes to use EPA
dispersion models to predict resulting ambient concen-
trations from the property line out to a distance of 5
rEGY BASED ON
ROACH
kilometers. The predicted ambient concentrations would
be compared to the Kansas Further Evaluation Level
(KFEL) for the particular chemical. The KFELs are
derived from American Conference of Governmental In-
dustrial Hygienists threshold limit values (TLVs) and are
based on annual average concentrations. KFELs are
based on the TLV multiplied by a factor of 1/420. If am-
bient concentrations beyond the fenceline are predicted
to exceed the KFEL, the source must propose emission
reduction techniques, including control equipment,
materials or process changes, changes in operating rate,
or other techniques. The ambient impact of the reduced
emission must then be predicted and compared to the
KFEL.
If the KFEL exceedance is predicted to occur, the
application of the best available control technology
(BACT) would be considered. The emission rate after
BACT would then be used to model revised ambient con-
centrations for comparison to the KFEL. If a source's
6

-------
emissions will cause ambient concentrations to exceed
the KFEL after BACT is installed, then the lowest
achievable emission rate (LAER) would be required for
the facility. BACT and LAER must be determined on a
case-by-case basis and will be specific to a certain
source or industry category. The LAER is the lowest
emission rate for the facility that can be obtained with
currently available technology. If the source's emissions
cause exceedances of the KFEL after LAER has been
realized, the Kansas strategy requires that a risk assess-
ment be conducted. A policy decision on whether to
grant or deny the permit would then be made. Further
guidance would be sought from toxicological, air quali-
ty, medical, and industrial experts before making this
decision.
If the facility's emissions will not cause ambient con-
centrations in excess of the KFEL, or exceed an ambient
level determined by the Bureau of Air Quality and Radia-
tion Control to be acceptable for the specific emission
source, then the Bureau's next step would be to deter-
mine if the source emits a carcinogen. If the source emits
air contaminants which are known or suspected human
carcinogens, BACT will be required on appropriate emis-
sion points. The ambient concentrations predicted from
the emissions with the proposed level of control
technology (BACT) will be used to conduct a risk assess-
ment based upon published, upper-bound, plausible
estimates of unit cancer risk factors. The risk assess-
ment will determine whether a significant risk exists. If
the risk from the source is determined to be insignificant,
a recommendation that the permit be granted will be
issued. If the results of the risk assessment indicate that
a significant risk exists, a more stringent level of control
(LAER) should be applied, and the risk after the applica-
tion of this technology should be determined. If the risk
from the carcinogens cannot be reduced below the
significant level through the application of control
technology, then a policy decision will be made as to
whether the permit should be granted or denied. For the
purpose of implementing the Kansas Air Toxics Strategy,
the Bureau plans to assume that a maximum individual
lifetime risk of 10"6 (one in one million) of developing
cancer due to the predicted exposure will be considered
insignificant.
For more information on the Kansas Air Toxics
Strategy, contact Harish Agarwal, Chief of Air Engineer-
ing and Enforcement, Bureau of Air Quality and Radia-
tion Control, Kansas Department of Health and the
Environment, (913) 296-1572.
NATIONAL GOVERNORS'
HIGHLIGHTS AIR TOXIC RE
In September 1987, the National Governors'
Association (NGA), under the auspices of the U.S. EPA
Office of Research and Development, convened a
meeting to discuss the air toxics research needs of the
States* Representatives of eight States-California, Con-
necticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
York, Ohio and Texas-and two interstate groups, STAP-
PA and NESCAUM, participated in the meeting, which
provided a forum for State officials to discuss their air
toxics research agendas and needs, as well as to hear
about pertinent EPA air toxics research activities.
The major State air toxics research needs identified
at the September meeting make up three broad
categories: (1) source assessment and ambient monitor-
ing, (2) risk assessment and (3) modeling.
States Call for Emission Factor Development
Source assessment and monitoring are fundamen-
tal to air toxics programs; they provide the foundation for
risk evaluations necessary for determining a control
strategy. State representatives noted that the most press-
ing need in this area seems to be the development of
emission factors. Reliable emission factors allow more
accurate estimates of the release of specific chemical
compounds into the air from various chemical pro-
cesses. Such information, coupled with data on health
ASSOCIATION
SEARCH NEEDS
effects, would then be used to set abatement priorities.
Other source assessment research needs raised at
the meeting include the following: (1) development of
stack testing methods and monitoring for continuous
and intermittent emissions; (2) development of in-
novative control options for smaller sources of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) since, in the aggregate,
these are potentially large sources of toxics; (3) assess-
ment of intermittent emissions and how they relate to ex-
posures; (4) identification of control options for nontradi-
tional "area" sources, such as VOCs from waste ponds;
(5) development of an "off-the-shelf" method for field
monitoring VOCs; and (6) compilation of information on
background levels of toxic chemicals in air.
Better Risk Assessment Methods Needed
Human health risk assessment is another major
area needing research. Most of the concerns expressed
about risk assessment involve methodology-namely,
how can effective standards be set in the face of so much
uncertainty about the data? State officials want guidance
on how to develop adequate regulations in the absence
of occupational standards or exposure data, how to
estimate the health threat of toxic chemicals in air when
there are multiple exposure routes, and whether it is valid
to use linear dose-extrapolation from high to low doses.
7

-------
control technology center
Air Pollution Control Support Provided by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Research and Development
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY C
During its first year of operation, EPA's Control
Technology Center (CTC)* has provided control
technology assistance to State and local (S/L) air pollu-
tion control agencies in several ways. Over 200 requests
from many different S/L air pollution control agencies
were received and responded to, at no charge, through
the CTC's HOTLINE. The CTC provides the HOTLINE for
ZENTER - UPDATE
initial rapid responses based on information available
immediately from EPA and the expertise of its staff and
contractors. The HOTLINE can be used by S/L agencies
for answers to questions that may range from relatively
simple to complex. Call Fred Dimmick at (919) 541-0800
for the CTC's HOTLINE.
ENGINEERING ASSISTANCI
Four special engineering assistance projects have
been completed at the request of S/L agencies.
Documents describing these projects are:
•	"Evaluation of Emission Sources at a Wafer-
board Manufacturing Plant" (EPA-450/3-87-021).*
•	"Evaluation of Potential Emissions of TDI from
Two Facilities" (EPA-450/3-87-022).*
•	"Evaluation of Emission Factors for Formalde-
hyde from Certain Wood Processing Operations"
E EFFORTS COMPLETED
(EPA-450/3-87-023).
• "Air Stripping of Contaminated Water Sources -
Air Emissions and Controls" (EPA-450/3-87-017)
Copies are available to State and local agencies
from the CTC HOTLINE, (919) 541-0800.
*See June 1987 Issue of the Newsletter (page 4) for a
further description of the CTC.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE C
Over the last year, the CTC has grown in several
ways. Therefore, a summary of the most often asked
questions and CTC responses are provided below. If you
have any other questions, contact the HOTLINE at (919)
541-0800 or (FTS) 629-0800.
What is the Control Technology Center?
The Control Technology Center (CTC) is an EPA-
operated service center for providing technical
assistance to State and local agencies on air pollution
control technology. It is operated by the Office of
Research and Development and the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards in Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. The CTC is an informal, easy-to-use ser-
vice available to all staff at State and local agencies, at
no cost.
TC ANSWERED
Is the CTC limited to air toxics problems only?
No. The CTC initially was conceived to help imple-
ment the Agency's air toxics strategy. Now, the CTC has
been expanded to provide control technology assistance
on all air pollutants and control activities relative to the
air program.
How do 1 use the CTC?
Call the HOTLINE at (919) 541-0800 or (FTS)
629-0800. Explain your problem or request. You will then
be put in contact with the EPA staff engineer who is most
knowledgeable about the particular source category,
technology, and/or pollutant involved. The staff engineer
can provide consultation and whatever knowledge, data,
information, or documentation that is readily available.
When requested, the CTC can provide more in-depth

-------
assistance on control technology probelms. The
HOTLINE is the first point of contact for all CTC services,
so call the HOTLINE if you have any questions about the
CTC.
Is there a charge for use of the
CTC services or a need for an Interagency
agreement In order to use the CTC?
Absolutely not. The CTC is free of any type of
charges, even if CTC contractors are used. There is no
need to have an interagency agreement in place or to
use any of your agency's Section 105 grant funds.
Sometimes, the CTC co-funds projects with States. This
has been done where both parties had planned a proj-
ect and decided to pool resources and expertise in order
to produce a better product. The CTC is always recep-
tive to such arrangements. Co-funding, however, is not
a condition for obtaining CTC assistance.
What can I do if my problem Is not solved
after a HOTLINE referral?
The EPA engineers initially assigned to your prob-
lem will provide you with whatever help they can based
upon their knowledge and experience. Sometimes, this
may not fully answer your question. In such cases, con-
tact the HOTLINE again. While the CTC attempts to
assign the appropriate people to your problem, the ini-
tial contact may not always be successful. In these
cases, the CTC will explore other options available for
helping you. For example, there may be other engineers
on staff who are able to help you once your need is bet-
ter understood. The CTC also has several contractors
available who can provide assistance on short notice at
no cost to the requesting agency.
The aim of the CTC is to be as supportive to air pollu-
tion control agencies as possible, so do not be timid
about redialing the HOTLINE if you have not received
the answer you need. The CTC is glad to provide the ser-
vice, and recontacting the HOTLINE ensures that all of
the CTC's support mechanisms have been attempted.
Can the CTC provide assistance that goes beyond
the rapid response capability of the HOTLINE?
Yes. When appropriate, the CTC can provide in-
depth engineering assistance to State and local agen-
cies on individual problems. In judging when engineer-
ing assistance is appropriate, the CTC will consider the
importance of the problem to the State or local agency,
the degree to which application of EPA knowledge and
expertise can help solve the problem efficiently, and the
availability of CTC resources. The level of assistance pro-
vided will vary depending on individual requestor's
needs. Typically, this type of assistance has involved such
activities as on-site visits or plant inspections by EPA and
contractor staff, subsequent engineering analysis, and
preparation of a report containing findings, control op-
tions, and the impacts of the various control options.
Do I need to go through my management chain
to request CTC assistance?
No. The CTC is designed to provide an available and
easily accessed mechanism for acquiring technical
assistance. Anyone employed by a State or local agen-
cy can use the HOTLINE without any prior approval or
coordination. Sometimes, however, a HOTLINE request
may reveal a circumstance where in-depth engineering
assistance is appropriate. At this point, involvement of
your management is necessary to determine the urgen-
cy of the need and to develop the scope of CTC involve-
ment. Often, management coordination can be done
over the HOTLINE. Written requests are required only
when needed to clarify the nature and scope of request.
What If I have a "trivial" question?
Call the HOTLINE. There is no such thing as a trivial
question! The CTC recognizes that the staff at State and
local agencies often are spread thin and individuals may
have to deal with a wide range of industries on short
notice. One of the principles behind the CTC is that it is
inefficient for a number of State and local engineers to
research the same technical questions and problems
that EPA already has addressed. The CTC is designed
to provide ready access and quick responses to fun-
damental as well as complex technical issues. Please
do not hesitate to call the CTC because you feel that your
question may be "trivial" or too simple.
What are some of the
up and coming CTC projects?
The CTC has the following projects underway:
•	Interim MWC Test Protocol - A cooperative effort
between the CTC, NESCAUM, and the State of Connec-
ticut to develop an interim municipal waste combustor
(MWC) sampling protocol is almost complete.
•	Advisory System for Control of Air Toxics (CAT) - The
CTC, in cooperation with the State of New Jersey's Divi-
sion of Environmental Quality, is developing a computer
program which assists permit engineers in reviewing
permit applications involving air toxics. The software will
be usable on IBM-compatible PC systems.
•	Surface Impoundment Emission Factor Software -
The CTC is beginning to develop a user-friendly personal
computer program for estimating air emissions from sur-
face impoundments.
•	Workshops - The CTC, in cooperation with STAPPA/
ALAPCO, is planning two workshops on control
technology aspects of permitting. Please call Michael
Trutna or Kirt Cox at (919) 541-5345 or (FTS) 629-5345
for further information on these workshops.
For further information on the CTC, call Fred Dim-
mick at the CTC HOTLINE, (919) 541-0800 or (FTS)
629-0800. You may send requests, information or sug-
gestions to the Control Technology Center, c/o Fred Dim-
mick (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711.

-------
Officials also expressed an interest in addressing
noncarcinogenic health effects of toxic chemicals, not
just carcinogenic effects. In addition, several officials
were concerned that the risk assessment process for air
toxics does not now take into account exposure from
other environmental media. In essence, State en-
vironmental managers need to know how to get the "big-
gest bang for the buck" when controlling toxic pollutants
from all sources.
Improved risk assessment methodologies are
critical for effective air toxics regulations. A fundamen-
tal part of risk assessment work depends on the existing
epidemiologic data on the biological effects of toxic air
pollutants. Officials from three of the eight States at the
meeting said they wanted more information on biological
effects test systems and bioassays of toxic air pollutants.
More Detail Needed In Air Toxics Models
Finally, State officials said that enhanced computer
models for dispersion and transformation of air toxics are
needed. New modeling techniques that could simulate
the behavior of pollutants heavier than air or highly reac-
tive would greatly aid State air toxics programs. Accord-
ing to several State officials, there is a need to develop
models to simulate the behavior of complex mixtures of
toxic air pollutants, and to help assess the total human
exposure to toxic chemicals from all environmental
media. Modeling methods are also needed to simulate
the chemical behavior of air pollution promoters in the
environment (e.g., particulate matter that provides a sur-
face upon which other air pollutants can absorb as in the
case of acid rain precursors).
Recommendations Offered for Further
State/EPA Communication about Air Toxics
There was consensus among State officials that
enhanced communication is necessary to avoid duplica-
tion of effort and to ensure the most effective use of State
and Federal resources devoted to air toxics research.
Some of the suggestions for further communication
about air toxics research include:
•	Existing communication vehicles, such as the Na-
tional Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse, can be
used to strengthen the linkages among States, and
between States and EPA. Regional organizations,
such as NESCAUM, might also be able to facilitate
communication.
•	Regional offices of EPA, the "natural" conduit be-
tween States and ORD, should be encouraged to
commit at least one full-time professional to
research planning.
•	Regular meetings convened under the aegis of
STAPPA or NGA could also provide input.
For more information on the NGA effort to identify
State air toxics research needs, contact June Wiaz,
NGA, (202) 624-5300. In addition to identifying State
research needs for all environmental media, the NGA
project facilitates technology transfer and technical
assistance between ORD and States. The project is
funded by the newly created EPA ORD Office of
Technology Transfer and Regulatory Support (OTTRS).
OTTRS Director, Dr. Peter Preuss, participated in the air
toxics workshop and is committed to expanding the
usefulness of ORD products to State officials. The
NGA/ORD project is managed by Jim Solyst, NGA, (202)
624-7739, and Morris Altschuler, EPA, ORD, OTTRS,
(202) 382-7667 or (FTS) 382-7667.
*See related article on current EPA research activities
on air toxics in this Newsletter.
EPA'S OFFICE OF RESEARC
ACTIVE IN AIR TOXICS RES
The technical research arm of EPA, the Office of
Research and Development (ORD), emphasizes
research designed to meet Agency regulatory needs and
to provide technical support to EPA program offices and
regions as well as to State and local agencies. ORD is
made up of a number of laboratories and offices ad-
dressing many environmental research needs. The
following five groups are involved in air toxics research
programs:
•	Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
(OHEA),
•	Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
(AEERL),
•	Atmospheric Sciences Research Laboratory
(ASRL),
H AND DEVELOPMENT
;earch
•	Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
(EMSL), and
•	Health Effects Research Laboratory (HERL).
Some projects are undertaken by the individual
groups while others, such as the Integrated Air Cancer
Project ,* are done as a joint effort among more than one
group. Air toxics research performed by these five ORD
groups is described below.**
OHEA Work Used by Several
State/Local Agencies
The groups within OHEA consolidate, evaluate, and
interpret scientific information on toxic air pollutants.
Many State and local agencies have relied on OHEA
publications in development and implementation of air
8

-------
toxics programs. Each of the five parts of OHEA is listed
below and some of the work done relevant to air toxics
is highlighted.
•	Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office - Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina (ECAO-RTP)
ECAO-RTP prepares health assessment sum-
maries (HAS), which provide an initial review of literature
on the health effects of specific chemicals. In addition,
ECAO-RTP compiles health assessment documents
(HAD), which are more comprehensive assessments of
health data. Information in HAS and HAD is used in EPA
risk assessments, the basis for Agency decisions on
regulation of specific hazardous air pollutants. ECAO-
RTP is working with OAQPS to form a Health and Risk
Center, which will provide State and local agencies with
information and technical guidance on specific problems
relating to the health and risk assessment of toxic air
pollutants.
•	Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office - Cincinnati, Ohio (ECAO-CINN)
ECAO-CINN has developed a survey of EPA's risk
assessment methodologies for municipal waste in-
cineration and has reviewed and developed health ef-
fects documentation on certain air toxics. In collabora-
tion with ECAO-RTP, this office is leading the effort to
develop a method to derive inhalation risk reference
doses. ECAO-CINN also prepares HAS and HAD to be
used in EPA risk assessments.
•	Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG) -
Washington, D.C.
CAG is known to many State and local agencies for
providing technical support in the evaluation of car-
cinogenicity data. CAG has a leading role in the develop-
ment and evaluation of dose-response models and the
establishment of unit cancer risk factors for use in quan-
titative cancer risk assessment for toxic air pollutants.
•	Exposure Assessment Group (EAG) -
Washington, O.C.
EAG is responsible for the development of meth-
odologies for assessing exposure to pollutants through
various environmental pathways. EAG conducts and
reviews exposure assessments as well as compiles in-
formation on various exposure factors (e.g., body weight,
activity pattern) used in cancer risk assessments.
•	Reproductive Assessment Group (REAGJ -
Washington, D.C.
REAG develops and reviews documentation on
reproductive, developmental and mutagenic effects for
ECAO's HAS and HAD. REAG also conducts and spon-
sors research in these areas, and like the other OHEA
groups, provides technical support within and outside
the Agency.
Representatives from each OHEA group and from
each EPA program office have formed a committee to
address the reduction of uncertainty in risk assessment.
In FY88, the committee's areas of research will include
methods for characterizing uncertainty in risk assess-
ment, biologically-based dose-response models, models
to estimate exposure and dose, and approaches to link
exposure, dose, and outcome.
AEERL Active In Control
Technology Assessment
AEERL, located in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, is charged with the development and assess-
ment of control technologies and process modifications
needed to establish and meet standards for air emis-
sions. With regard to air toxics, the lab conducts en-
vironmental assessment and control technology
development activities to characterize sources of toxic
air pollutants, assess the applicability and costs of ex-
isting technologies, and develop process modifications
and new technologies for controlling toxic air pollutants.
Some current program activities include evaluating
catalysts and developing alternative designs for
woodstoves; conducting generic studies of industrial
flares, catalytic oxidation, and adsorption; and support-
ing EPA's Hazardous Waste Engineering Research
Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio, in fundamental and ap-
plied hazardous waste incineration research. AEERL is
also part of the EPA's Control Technology Center (CTC),
which is a joint effort with OAQPS and the Center for En-
vironmental Research Information. The CTC has the ex-
press purpose of providing technical assistance to State
and local air agencies.***
ASRL Examines Toxics Formation and Fate
ASRL conducts research to investigate chemical
and physical processes related to the distribution and
composition of air pollution in the atmosphere. Located
in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, ASRL studies
emissions from mobile sources and natural sources as
well as from stationary sources. Like the other ORD labs,
ASRL focuses part of its research specifically on air tox-
ics. ASRL's air toxics research program addresses the
formation, transport, removal rates, reaction products,
and ultimate fate of hazardous pollutants in the at-
mosphere, as well as the formation of complex mixtures
of toxic pollutants in urban environments and the ex-
posure patterns of pollutants in urban areas. Some cur-
rent projects include developing a data base on volatile
organic compound measurements in the atmosphere
and studying the atmospheric transformation of non-
mutagenic air pollutants into mutagenic products.
EMSL Addresses Monitoring Needs
EMSL focuses its research efforts on the develop-
ment and improvement of monitoring systems for
measuring air pollutants in the ambient air from both sta-
tionary and mobile sources. Research includes the
9

-------
Development and operation of special monitoring net-
works. EMSL has several projects directed at air toxics
monitoring. Some of these include the establishment of
a network of toxic air monitoring systems (TAMS),
development of a test method for dioxin emissions,
development of a method for measuring ethylene oxide
control device efficiency at sterilizers, and development
of source testing methods for acrylonitrile, butadiene,
carbon tetrachloride, chloroform and formaldehyde. This
laboratory is currently involved in research on emissions
from municipal waste combustion and woodstoves.
EMSL is located in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina.
HERL Studying Risk Assessment Process Needs
The major mission of HERL is to provide hazard
assessment research in support of risk assessment for
both carcinogens and noncarcinogens. HERL scientists
are doing research in the following areas to provide in-
formation on the health effects of hazardous air
pollutants: (1) dose-response data on toxicological ef-
fects, (2) development of models to improve the use of
toxicological data in risk assessments, (3) identification
of toxic components of air pollution, and (4) improvement
of assessments of human cancer risk from hazardous
air pollutants. Some current activities include: (1) study-
ing a wide range of health effects (e.g., neurotoxicity,
hepatotoxicity, teratogenicity, and immunotoxicity) of
selected toxic air pollutants following inhalation exposure
of laboratory animals; (2) examining the mutagenicity,
metabolism, bioavailability, dosimetry, and DNA binding
of several nitrated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons;
and (3) conducting short-term bioassays of field samples
collected as part of the Integrated Air Cancer Project.
Information Exchange Mechanisms Described
An important goal of ORD research is to meet the
needs of State and local agencies. Therefore, informa-
tion exchange between ORD and these agencies is very
important. There are several ways by which this ex-
change of information takes place. Direct contact with
ORD staff serves as an informal means of sharing or re-
questing information on risk assessment or control and
monitoring of air toxics, whereas Agency activities such
as the Control Technology Center in Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, and the Center for Environmental
Research Information in Cincinnati, Ohio, provide a more
formal means of technology transfer. The results of ORD
research are made available to the public by the publica-
tion of EPA reports, manuals and articles in peer-
reviewed scientific journals. The EPA Air and Radiation
Research Committee has an air toxics work group made
up of representatives from ORD and OAQPS. This work
group helps to set research priorities by identifying
research needs of EPA air program offices as well as of
State and local agencies. Other activities or groups work-
ing to see that the exchange of information on air toxics
research needs and results takes place include: (1) the
National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse through
its on-line data base and annual special reports listing
ongoing research and regulatory development projects
and bibliographic citations, (2) the National Governors'
Association through activities such as the September
1987 State air toxics workshop,*** and (3) STAPPA/ALAP-
CO through the Research and Development Subcom-
mittee of the Air Toxics Policy Group.
For more information on air toxics research, contact
Robert Kellam, U.S. EPA, OAQPS, (919) 541-5647 or
(FTS) 629-5647; or Fred Hauchman, U.S. EPA, OAQPS,
(919) 541-5339 or (FTS) 629-5339.
*See related articles in these Newsletters: February
1985, pages 2-3; May 1985, pages 2-3; December 1985,
pages 5-6; March 1986, page 7; June 1986, pages 5-6;
December 1986, page 9; and June 1987, page 9.
"Several areas of research that are related to air toxics,
such as research on indoor air pollution and
stratospheric ozone, are not discussed in this article.
***See related article in this Newsletter.
OAQPS REPORTS
LINK POLLUTANTS AND SOURCES
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS) has recently published two reports entitled
"Toxic Air Pollutant/Source Crosswalk - A Screening Tool
for Locating Possible Sources Emitting Toxic Air
Pollutants" and "Toxic Air Pollutant/Source Crosswalk
- Information Storage and Retrieval System User's
Manual." The respective report numbers are
EPA-450/4-87-023a and EPA-450/4-87-023b. The first
report presents an air toxics crosswalk that associates
emitting source categories with specific air toxics com-
pounds. This is a qualitative association and does not
provide any information about the quantities of pollutants
emitted from source categories. The crosswalk contains
pollutant names, CAS numbers, industrial source
categories (SIC codes) and emitting source classifica-
tions (SCC codes). A software system containing the
crosswalk was developed to allow easy access and up-
dating of the data. The second report explains how to
use the system. The system allows the user to add,
delete, edit, search, browse and print data.
The purpose of these reports is to assist air pollu-
tion control agencies in performing preliminary
10

-------
assessments of the types and sources of toxic com-
pounds present in an area. Single copies of these
reports are available by writing the EPA library at Mail
Drop 35, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711
or by calling (919) 541-2777 or (FTS) 629-2777. These
reports will also be available for a fee through the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) by calling
(703) 487-4650, although NTIS numbers have not yet
been assigned to the reports. The system and data base
are available to agency users who request them by
writing Anne Pope at Mail Drop 15, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 27711 or by calling (919) 541-5373
or (FTS) 629-5373.
WOODSTOVE SMOKE EMIS
STUDY RESULTS RELEASED
The New York State Energy Research and Develop-
ment Authority, the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
(CONEG) Policy Research Center, Inc., and EPA have
released the results of a two-year study that monitored
woodstoves in 68 houses near Glens Falls, New York,
and Waterbury, Vermont *
This study found that, in the house, woodstove
emissions varied greatly. New woodstoves that produce
less smoke when tested in laboratories actually can give
off as much smoke as an old-fashioned woodstove when
installed. Similarly, the same model stove can have
relatively low smoke emissions when installed in one
house and produce much more smoke in another. Even
with this variety of results, the study found that some new
woodstove models clearly did reduce smoke emissions.
The new stoves also consumed less wood and produced
less creosote, a cause of chimney fires.
The study, the first to monitor woodstove perfor-
mance in the home, monitored the performance of both
conventional woodstoves and advanced technology
stoves. The advanced technology stoves included
catalytic stoves (employing a secondary combustion
system with a catalyst to burn smoke at a lower
temperature), noncatalytic low-emission stoves (employ-
ing a secondary combustion system without a catalyst)
and conventional stoves retrofitted with catalytic devices.
The noncatalytic low-emission stoves produced, on
average, less smoke than the conventional stoves in the
study. The catalytic stoves, as a group, showed a
statistically insignificant reduction in smoke emissions
compared to the conventional stoves.
The study was conducted during the 1985-1986 and
1986-1987 heating seasons. Study sponsors are plan-
ning to continue this work to find out why some models
produced more smoke emissions than anticipated and
how to incorporate the lessons learned so that new
technology stoves will consistently achieve low emis-
sions.
;sions
)
Other results of the monitoring showed that:
•	Firebox size is a major factor in determining smoke
emissions from all stoves. In general, the larger the
firebox, the higher the emissions rate.
•	Two of the add-on devices reduced emissions con-
siderably, indicating that there may be promise for
an effective retrofit product.
•	Catalyst durability varied greatly. Rapid deteriora-
tion was noted in some combustors, all of which
were older models, with corresponding increases
in emissions. Other units and models held up well.
•	Wood did not have to be fed into the low-emission
stoves (which were generally smaller) more often
than in the conventional stoves, since only half as
much wood was used to fuel the low-emission
stoves due to their higher burning efficiency.
•	A large number of variables probably influenced the
performance of the woodstoves, including: operator
practices, chimney systems, fuel characteristics
and stove maintenance.
•	User satisfaction was high for most of the advanced
technology models.
Copies of the report or an Executive Summary are
available through the Energy Authority, Two Rockefeller
Plaza, Albany, New York 12223, (518) 465-6251. This
report is also available from the EPA library in Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, (919) 541-2795 or (FTS)
629-2795. Refer to EPA report numbers
EPA-600/7-87-026a (Volume I - The Northeast
Cooperative Woodstove Study) and EPA-600/7-87-026b
(Volume II - Technical Appendix).
*See previous Newsletter articles on woodstove emis-
sions and wood smoke in April 1984, February 1985,
December 1986, June 1987, and November 1987 issues.
CORRECTION
The volume and issue numbers for the November
1987 Newsletter appeared on the masthead incorrectly
as Volume 4, Number 5. The correct numbers are
Volume 5, Number 1. We apologize for the error.
11

-------
NEWSLETTER EDITORS
INVITE CASE STUDY CONT
Has your agency encountered and solved a long-
term air pollution problem such as the one the
Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control
Board faced?* If so, the Newsletter invites you to share
your experience with others in a new feature column to
RIBUTIONS
appear in subsequent Newsletters. To discuss possible
contributions, call Alice Pelland, Radian Corporation,
(919) 541-9100.
*See' 'A Case Study for Cobalt Oxide'' elsewhere in this
issue.
URBAN AIR TOXICS WORK2
The OAQPS is planning a workshop for State and
local agencies covering most air quality planning and
management activities in the field of urban air toxics. The
EPA is exploring interest in such presentations and possi-
>HOP PROPOSED
ble locations. One possibility is presentation to certain
State or local agencies, in their offices, free of charge.
Those who are interested may contact Bill Lamason, U.S.
EPA, OAQPS, (919) 541-5374 or (FTS) 629-5374.
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 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 Local Air Pollution Control
Officials (ALAPCO). The National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse Newsletter is prepared by Radian Corporation under EPA, Contract Number
68-02-4330, Work Assignment 34. The EPA Project Officer is Beth Hassett, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, Telephone: (919)541-0850. The Radian Project Director is Alice Pelland, P.O. Box 13000, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27709, (919)541-9100.
The Newsletter is prepared primarily for State and local air pollution control agencies and is distributed free of charge. Those wishing to report ad-
dress changes may do so by contacting Nancy Riley, EPA QAQPS (919) 541-0850. Please contact either the Project Officer with any comments you might
have pertaining to this newsletter or with suggestions for future newsletters. Articles in the newsletter are written by Radian Corporation or EPA staff
unless otherwise indicated.
The views expressed in the National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse Newsletter do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency. Mention of trade namces 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

-------