NATIONAL AIR TOXICS INFORMATION
CLEARINGHOUSE NEWSLETTER
&EFA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards	Volume 5 Number 3
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711	March 1988
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Adminis
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
fl	State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
IN THIS ISSUE
CLEARINGHOUSE ANNOUNCES PLANS FOR REMAINDER OF FY 88	1
STATE/LOCAL AGENCY SPOTLIGHT! MONTEREY BAY USING RULE 1000 PERMIT
GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AND MODIFIED TOXICS SOURCES	2
BAY AREA ACCELERATES AIR TOXICS PROGRAM, PROPOSES CHROMIUM RULE	4
NEW JERSEY PROPOSES RULES FOR NATION'S FIRST CHEMICAL ACCIDENT
PREVENTION LEGISLATION	6
ONTARIO INITIATES AIR TOXICS ASSESSMENT	7
DAYTON, OHIO, AGENCY CONSIDERS NATIONAL PARTICULATE NETWORK DATA	7
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER - UPDATE	8
HOUSTON REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM NOW INCLUDES SPECIATED VOCs	10
AIR TOXICS WORKSHOPS PLANNED	10
OAOPS PUBLISHES TOXIC AIR EMISSION REPORT FOR BENZENE	11
CLEARINGHOUSE ANNOUNCES PLANS FOR
REMAINDER OF FY 88
NATICH Updates and Demonstration Disk
Development Underway
The National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse
has outlined work that will be performed throughout the
remainder of this fiscal year. This will include the
development of improved report programs for the on-line
data biase, NATICH, and the development of a
demonstration diskette. One new on-line report program
will allow users to interactively specify complex search
criteria for the source test data contained in NATICH.
This program will be similar to the permit report program
developed last year, allowing a user to sort the data by
source category [using Standard Industrial Classifica-
tion (SIC) Codes], by pollutant (using pollutant name or
Chemical Abstract Services number), andlor by the year
the permit was issued or the source test was conducted.
In addition, improved programs will allow users to sort
permit and source test data for specific source
categories by 2,3, or 4-digit SIC codes and whether or
not the permit or source test was designated as notable
by the agency that submitted the information.
The Clearinghouse is developing a personal
computer-based floppy diskette that will demonstrate the
types of data and retrieval options available through the
on-line data base. It is scheduled for distribution in July.
For more information, contact John Vandenberg at (919)
541-0850 or (FTS) 629-0850.
Annual Data Collection Forms Distributed
The Clearinghouse annual data collection forms
were distributed by STAPPA and ALAPCO to the direc-
tor of each State and local air pollution control agency
at the end of February. The forms request new and up-
dated information for inclusion in NATICH. A major
change was made this year to the information requested
on the regulatory programs of State and local agencies.
This year, the "Yes/No" question/response format was
replaced by a "Current/Future/No" format that will yield
a more comprehensive understanding of regulatory pro-
grams. It is essential that all agencies submit this revised
regulatory program information (Form 2), since the
Clearinghouse plans to consider all previous Form 2
data as obsolete in June 1988. In addition, State and
local agencies may now submit information on the status
of ongoing research and regulatory development proj-
ects. To submit this information, complete Form 8. If you
have any questions about the forms or methods for
responding to the questionnaires, contact the Clear-

-------
inghouse staff at (919) 541-0850 or (FTS) 629-0850.
Risk Communication Explored In Special Report
The Clearinghouse will publish a special report ear-
ly this summer on risk communication. The purpose of
this report is to describe the experiences of State and
local air programs in communicating the results of risk
assessments to the public. This should be helpful to
State and local agencies that are beginning to undertake
quantitative cancer risk assessments. The report will
present case studies on risk communication efforts
undertaken by Puget Sound (Washington) Air Pollution
Control Agency, the San Diego County (California) Air
Pollution Control District, and Maryland's Department of
the Environment. Each case study will briefly describe
the source, the risk assessment approach and the
results of the risk assessment. The report will also
discuss the characterization of risk assessment results,
the process for communicating risk and each agency's
evaluation of their risk communication effort. For more
information, contact Karen Blanchard at (919) 541-5503
or (FTS) 629-5503.
STATE/LOCAL AGENCY SPC
MONTEREY BAY USING l?U
PERMIT GUIDELINES AND
NEW AND MODIFIED TOXI
By L. D. Odle, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollutlo
In 1985, the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Con-
trol District (the District) established regulatory guidance
for toxic air contaminants (TACs), by adopting Rule 1000,
Guidelines and Requirements for New and Modified
Sources Emitting Toxic Air Contaminants. Rule 1000 pro-
vides guidance to the District staff, industry, and the
public on the evaluation and permitting of stationary
sources of TACs. It is based on the following premises:
•	that the public has the right to know the bases for
the issuance or denial of permits for sources of
TACs;
•	that permit applicants need a clear understanding
of the permit procedures and data requirements;
•	the District needs to ensure consistency in the per-
mit evaluation process; and
•	that control technology that clearly exists for reduc-
ing stack emissions of TACs should be applied to
appropriate sources.
Rule lOOO Outlined
The purposes of Rule 1000 are:
•	to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, the
emission into the atmosphere within the District of
TACs, which may cause or contribute to an increase
in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or
which may pose a present or potential hazard to
human health; and
•	to prevent occurrences which may endanger the
health and welfare of the public within the District
and to assure that no person will suffer material im-
pairment of health or functional capacity.
Part 2 of Rule 1000 - Assumptions, Determinations,
and the Use of Data - defines terms and assumptions
used and identifies the use of appropriate data. It should
yruGHTt
ILE lOOO -
REQUIREMENTS FOR
CS SOURCES
n Control District
assure consistency in the evaluation of permit applica-
tions.
Provisions for exposure determinations incorporate
firm guidelines for the monitoring and modeling of
source emissions to determine the maximum point of im-
pact and pollutant concentrations at the facility property
line. Modeling is the primary tool used to determine
ambient pollutant concentrations. Simple Gaussian
dispersion models, as found in the EPA Users Network
for Applied Modeling of Air Pollutants (UNAMAP) series
are often used. Other models may be used on a case-
by-case basis.
A number of issues create significant uncertainty in
ambient monitoring of TACs; therefore, Rule 1000 does
not rely solely on this mechanism for estimating public
exposures. Problems include the inability of current
monitoring techniques to accurately and regularly moni-
tor concentrations of concern; high costs; and the in-
ability to extrapolate the monitoring data, that is, the data
reflect only one specific location whose microgeographic
meteorology may vary considerably and frequently.
Rule 1000 requires that all emission points from the
facility be addressed, including those traditionally
termed "fugitive." TACs may often be reactive, undergo
alterations in the atmosphere or within the facility opera-
tions, or become entrained in a company's product. The
reaction intermediates or other fates of the emitted
substance are to be considered in the permit evaluation.
If the intermediates cannot be adequately addressed,
the evaluator must assume a worst-case point of emis-
sion. Although introduced to the atmospheric environ-
ment in gaseous, liquid particulate, vapor or aerosol
form, all subsequent modes of environmental entrain-
ment of the substance are to be taken into account in the
source assessment.
-
2

-------
Rule Supports State's Policies for
Noncardnogenlc and Carcinogenic TACs
Rule 1000 itemizes assumptions used in potency
and toxicity determinations. In the Rule, the toxic nature
of substances considered to be threshold toxicants is
assumed to be reflected by occupational standards,
where reliable data to the contrary are not available.
Listed in Rule 1000, then, are the permissible exposure
limits (PELs) developed by the California Occupational
Safety and Health Agency and published in the Califor-
nia Administrative Code (Title 8), and the threshold limit
values (TLVs) published by the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists(ACGIH). During the
process of adopting Rule 1000, the applicability of
occupational limits to ambient exposures of TACs was
extensively discussed. These limits, however, represent
the most complete listing of quantified acceptable ex-
posure levels available.
The use of acceptable occupational levels occurs
in the Rule 1000 regulatory scheme because they are:
•	based on years of research data using both animal
and human studies;
•	used by other regulatory agencies, particularly
other State agencies; and
•	readily available.
For TACs deemed potential carcinogens (CTACs),
Rule 1000 applies limits which follow closely the policies
of the California Department of Health Services
(CDOHS). This assumes that substances that are
suspected CTACs exhibit no threshold for carcinogenic
action. In other words, unlike many TACs, CTACs are
assumed to have no "safe" levels of exposure. This con-
servative assumption is prudent in light of the
mechanistic principles of carcinogenesis. In fact, in the
currently accepted mechanism for carcinogenesis, most
agents are assumed to have similar cellular etiology.
Because the frequency of tumorgenesis and the time-
to-tumor are tied to exposure amounts, the TACs in ques-
tion are assumed to add to the biological burden already
in existence for the organism. Therefore, in considering
a facility that emits a suspected CTAC, the risk
associated with these emissions is assumed to be above
the normal background. The lack of threshold or safe ex-
posure level for carcinogens has been assumed as a
basic principle in the proposed regulatory programs of
many regulatory agencies. As of 1985, EPA as well as
16 of 44 State agencies with existing or developing air
toxic programs incorporated cancer risk assessment
techniques.
For CTACs, exposure assessment is a primary com-
ponent in the risk assessment process. The two primary
assumptions, itemized in Rule 1000, are:
•	that the population affected remains in place for 70
years (lifetime); and
•	that the exposure to the pollutant concentration
occurs without deviation over 70 continuous years.
For different models, these assumptions may be
modified, but the basic conservative premise of a lifetime
of continuous exposure remains.
Rule Defines Control Technologies
Part 3 - Definitions of Rule 1000 - defines terms used
in the rule. Among these definitions are two types of con-
trol technology: Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) and Feasible Control Technology (FCT). The
BACT definition is identical to that contained in the
District's New Source Review rule, Rule 207 (Review of
New or Modified Sources).
FCT differs from BACT in that it need not be proven
by use. This level of control is included to motivate the
development and use of controls that are workable but
are not currently in use on the applicant's source
category. Because the control mechanisms for TACs are
so much more diverse than those for criteria pollutants,
the use of state-of-the-art equipment to control many of
the pollutants is uncommon. This does not mean,
however, that the permit applicant may avoid respon-
sibility for polluting simply because the source may be
unique.
Of particular importance in Part 3 are the definition
and list of CTACs. This definition is based substantially
on the CDOHS Carcinogen Policy as are the 25 poten-
tial CTACs listed. Similarly, these 25 compounds are
referenced by evidence of carcinogenicity in humans
and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experi-
mental animals in the International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC, 1972-1983). These compounds are
also considered by the California Air Resources Board
to be "... compounds of significant concern in Califor-
nia... with ... sufficient information available to pursue
listing as Toxic Air Contaminants (with) no significant ad-
ditional information pending ..."
BACT and Compliance with Ambient Level
Required for TAC Emissions
Part 4 - Requirements - sets forth the requirements
expected of the applicant. The basic requirements for
TACs considered to have a safe level of exposure
(threshold toxicants) are:
•	installation of BACT;
•	average emission concentration limits of 1/420th of
the PEL on an annual basis;
•	limits at least equal to the PEL in any 15 minute con-
tinuous period; and
•	submittal of a Pollutant Status Report that
discusses the TAC and control technology to be
used and identifies alternate compounds and con-
trol technology.
The adjusted PEL limits incorporate uncertainty fac-
tors and are patterned after those in New York's Air
Guide-1. The annual average factor includes the conver-
sion constant of the 8-hour, 5-day week occupational
3

-------
standard to ambient (168 hours per week) exposure and
the application of an uncertainty factor of 100.
Such uncertainty factors are frequently used when
little is known about the effects of pollutant exposure, as
is the case with sensitive populations, such as the
elderly, children, fetuses, and those with existing health
problems. Occupational standards are based strictly on
exposure of a particular pollutant to a healthy adult.
Another unknown item in using uncertainty factors is the
difference in atmospheric behavior between the indoor
workplace environment and ambient air. Indoor pollutant
concentrations can be relatively well defined since most
workplace environments have artificially controlled air
exchanges that can be accurately calculated. By com-
parison, ambient conditions are subject to great vari-
ability, which can only be roughly estimated at best.
BACT and Risk Level Required for
CTAC Emissions
The rule is based on the assumption that CTACs do
not have acceptable threshold values. The basic re-
quirements of CTACs in Rule 1000 are:
•	installation of BACT;
•	acceptable cancer risk of one incidence per 100,000
persons exposed, demonstrated in a risk
assessment;
•	CTAC emission limit of 1/420th PEL or the PEL for
a 15-minute averaging period; and
•	submittal of an updated CTAC Pollutant Status
Report each successive fifth year for the life of the
facility.
Pollutants that are deemed CTACs are evaluated
using risk assessment techniques. Additionally, CTACs
are evaluated for toxic effects other than cancer. The
limits resulting from risk assessment are based on long-
term (70 years) exposure and are patterned after the cur-
rent accepted principles of the mechanism of cancer:
latency, permanent heritable cellular changes, multi-
step, etc. Toxicity, on the other hand, is concerned with
the gross effects of a pollutant at the organ level; loss
of cells is of importance only when an organ or system
function is affected. Toxicity effects are not inheritable
or significant at the single cell level. Permanent degrada-
tion occurs through direct destruction of masses of cells.
Underthe rule, every five years, sources emitting CTACs
are to submit a Pollutant Status Report that reviews the
risk assessment parameters and methods for further
control. This requirement can be waived if the emissions
are of insignificant hazard and little would be gained by
the preparation of such a report.
The last part of Rule 1000, Part 5, is a list of poten-
tial TACs and acceptable ambient limits.
Since the control of TACs is a dynamic regulatory
arena, Rule 1000 cannot address all pollutants from all
sources for all possible situations. Rather, the Rule lays
out regulatory guidelines to allow most emission sources
and the public a workable approach toward healthy co-
existence. Toward that end, Rule 1000 has functioned
admirably since its adoption in early 1985.
Rule 1000 Challenged In Court
Rule 1000 is currently before the California
Appellate Court. After the Rule's adoption, the District
was sued by the Western Oil and Gas Association on the
grounds that the State program (AB 1807) preempted the
District from adopting any toxic regulations until after the
State acted. The lower court held in favor of the District
on all accounts. The Appellate Court is expected to
release a decision shortly.
Questions regarding this report may be addressed
to L. D. Odle, Executive Officer, Monterey Bay Unified
Air Pollution Control District, at (408) 443-1135.
BAY AREA ACCELERATES
PROPOSES CHROMIUM RU
In 1986, the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) launched a major program for the
San Francisco Bay Region to reduce risk from exposure
to ambient levels of toxic air contaminants* This program
complements existing Federal and State activities aimed
at reducing risks from toxic air contaminants.
California's air toxics legislation (AB1807) requires
that the Air Resources Board (CARB) develop control
measures cooperatively with local districts for pollutants
CARB has designated as toxic air contaminants.** Once
CARB approves an Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM),
the districts then have 6 months in which to adopt a rule
or regulation for existing sources within the source
category addressed by the control measure. Local
districts must adopt regulations no less stringent than
*IR TOXICS PROGRAM,
LE
those adopted by CARB.
The CARB process has not proceeded as quickly
as originally hoped. To address the growing concern
about exposures to toxic air contaminants, the BAAQMD
Board of Directors adopted a resolution on December
2,1987, to expand and accelerate the BAAQMD's pro-
gram to control toxic air contaminants. This accelerated
seven-point program is aimed at identifying air toxics hot
spots as soon as possible, and then mitigating the
responsible emissions if they are likely to cause adverse
health effects.
After hearing testimony from residents living in an
alleged toxic hot spot and holding a public meeting in
the area, the BAAQMD Board of Directors expressed
concern for the need to hasten the process by which air
4

-------
toxic hot spots are identified and mitigated.
The accelerated program has these seven points:
1.	Implement the Connelly Bill*** (AB 2588) require-
ments for identifying air toxic hot spots as rapidly
as possible, working with the CARB and the State
Department of Health Services.
2.	Develop regulations consistent with the priority and
schedule identified in Table 1.
3.	Request the Contra Costa County Health Depart-
ment to immediately survey the North Rich-
mond/Parchester Village area for toxic related
disease and cancer.
4.	Institute or continue hot spot monitoring as hot
spots are revealed via the Connelly process, or
through other means.
5.	Continue present process of monitoring hot spots
that have been identified.
6.	Continue methylene chloride and ethylene oxide
rule development per the schedule presented in
Table 1.
7.	Where hot spot monitoring reveals pollutant levels
that could cause adverse health effects to residents
in the area, initiate appropriate steps to mitigate the
emissions, after consultation with the appropriate
State and local health officials.
BAAQMD Proposes Hexavalent Chromium Rule
In February, BAAQMD proposed a rule that would
reduce emissions of hexavalent chromium from the af-
fected sources by at least 97 percent. The District's pro-
posed rule is modeled on the CARB's draft Air Toxic Con-
trol Measure (ATCM) developed under the procedure
mandated by AB 1807.
The sources covered in the BAAQMD proposed rule
are decorative chrome plating, hard chrome plating, and
chromic acid anodizing. Hexavalent chromium, in the
form of chromic acid mist, is emitted from these sources.
In chrome plating, an electric current is applied to a work
piece in a plating bath of chromic acid. This converts the
hexavalent chromium to a metallic chromium coating.
This process is not very efficient. Most of the electrical
energy results in the breaking up of water molecules in
the plating bath, producing hydrogen and oxygen gases.
As these bubbles break the surface of the chromic acid
plating bath, a chromic acid mist (or aerosol) is emitted.
For decorative chrome plating, the BAAQMD proposed
rule requires that emissions from the plating tanks be
reduced by 95 percent through the use of a mist suppres-
sant, a layer of plastic balls, or an equivalent method
approved by the Air Pollution Control Officer. Operators
of decorative chrome plating tanks must submit a
description of the method they intend to use to comply
with the requirement. The BAAQMD and CARB staffs will
review these systems and hope to be able to approve
chemical systems on a generic basis. Acceptable ranges
of operating parameters will be specified in the BAAQMD
operating permit.
For hard chrome plating and acid anodizing, the
proposed rule requires that hexavalent chromium emis-
sions be controlled to certain specified levels. These
levels are expressed in units of emission per amp-hr of
current used. The emission cutoffs triggering required
levels of control are based on certain "natural" break-
points observed within the industry. The CARB has col-
lected information from around the State and has
observed that affected facilities may be classified into
three size categories. These size categories are reflected
in the cutoffs specified in Section 11-8-310 of the
BAAQMD proposed rule.
The allowable emission rates reflect the application
of currently available technology. Each of the emission
rates represents a quantum step in stringency, with only
very large facilities triggering the final level of controls.
The CARB engineers have based these emission rates
on test data collected in California's South Coast Air
Quality Management District and the San Diego Air
Pollution Control District. Small facilities will be able to
comply using demisters or low-pressure-drop packed
bed scrubbers. Medium-sized facilities will be required
to use low-pressure-drop packed bed scrubbers in com-
bination with demisters. Large facilities may be required
to use higher-pressure-drop scrubbers, electrostatic
precipitators, or other high efficiency control devices.
Process modifications, including changes to the ventila-
tion systems, may also be necessary in many cases.
Demisters are static baffles or pads placed across
the mist-laden air stream. They will remove 99 and
greater percent of mist from gas streams in certain ap-
plications. The collection efficiency is relatively poor,
however, for particles with diameters of less than 2
microns.
Most scrubbers used to control plating tank emis-
sions are packed bed scrubbers. The packing acts
similar to a mesh pad demister, capturing the mist par-
ticles as the gas stream flows in the tortuous path
through the bed. In a scrubber, however, the packing is
continuously wetted by recirculating water. Often a
demister is added at the scrubber outlet to capture any
water droplets entrained in the exiting gas. Wet scrub-
bers are expected to be somewhat superior to demisters
in removing small mist particles.
Other industries have achieved higher control effi-
ciencies. For example, the sulfuric acid industry has
achieved control up to 99.8 percent through the use of
electrostatic precipitators. These control devices are ex-
pected to be compatible with plating operations and
emissions, although never demonstrated in this service.
An operator may have to make process changes, such
as ventilation system modifications, to reach the required
emission rate for large platers.
The BAAQMD estimates that the proposed rule will
result in an average annual cost of from $9,000 for the
smallest emitting shops to $350,000 for the largest emit-
ting shops.
5

-------
For more information on the BAAQMD program,
contact Steve Hill, Manager, Toxics Evaluation Section
at (415) 771-6000, extension 233.
*See article in December 1986 Newsletter, pages 3-4.
**See related articles in May 1985 Newsletter, page 6,
and December 1984 Newsletter, pages 3-5.
'Briefly, the Connelly Bill requires facilities that manu-
facture, formulate, use, release or have the potential
to release from a specific list to compile emissions
inventory data and submit it to local districts. The
Districts use these data to assess the potential risk
posed to the public.
Table 1. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Control of Potentially
Toxic Air Contaminants - Proposed Program Schedule
Source Category1
Compound
Activity
Quarter
of Workshop
Chrome Plating
Chromium, Hexavalent2
Rule
1st of 88
Comfort Cooling Towers
Chromium, Hexavalent2
Rule
1st of 88
Demolition
Asbestos2
Enforcement
2nd of 88
Hospital Sterilizers
Ethylene Oxide
Rule
3rd of 88
Fumigation
Ethylene Oxide
Rule
1st of 89
Drycleaners (Dry to Dry Machines)
Perchloroethylene
Rule
3rd of 89
Quarried Serpentine
Asbestos2
Rule
4th of 89
Secondary Smelters
Cadmium2
Rule
4th of 89
Degreasers
Methylene Chloride
Rule
1st of 90
Hospital Incinerators
Dioxins2
Rule
3rd of 90
Residential Wood Combustion
PAH
Rule
1st of 91
Sources of Atmospheric Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Research
1st of 91
1 The relative order of the proposed control measure actions is based upon the following considerations:
potential public health impact, availability of toxicity data and controllability of sources. Some control measure
proposals have been moved up in the schedule due to expected action by the CARB.
2Denotes CARB identified Toxic Air Contaminant.
NEW JERSEY PROPOSES RULES FOR NATION'S FIRST
CHEMICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION LEGISLATION
By Allan T. Edwards, Chief, Bureau of Release Prevention,
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protec-
tion (DEP) has developed an innovative program to pre-
vent a catastrophic accidental release of extraordinarily
hazardous substances into the environment. The
impetus of this program was the New Jersey Toxic
Catastrophe Prevention Act (TCPA), the first mandatory
accidental release prevention law in the United States.
This program was signed into law in January 1986*
The program is designed to require any facility in
the State having an Extraordinarily Hazardous
Substance (EHS) in an amount greater than its repor-
table quantity to have an established Risk Management
Program (RMP). An RMP is the sum total of programs
for the purpose of minimizing extraordinarily hazardous
substance accident risks. It includes requirements for:
—	safety review of the design of new and existing
equipment;
—	standard operating procedures;
—	preventive maintenance programs;
—	operator training and accident investigation
procedures;
—	risk assessment for specific pieces of equipment
or operating alternatives;
—	emergency response planning; and
—	internal or external audit procedures to ensure pro-
grams are being administered as planned.
The TCPA is being administered by the DEP's
Bureau of Release Prevention. This Bureau has been
staffed to manage the TCPA program effectively. A
6

-------
subgroup consisting of chemical safety engineers has
been formed that will be instrumental in the operations
of the Bureau. These professionals bring with them a
wide variety of experience in the design and operation
of the chemical and allied industries.
Currently, over 800 facilities have registered under
the TCPA as having greater than the reportable quantity
of an EHS. These consist of 225 chemical facilities, 291
potable water treatment plants and 288 wastewater
plants. One hundred ninety-three of the chemical
facilities and 340 of the potable and wastewater treat-
ment plants stated that they have an existing RMP.
The Bureau proposed regulations in the September
21,1987, issue of the New Jersey Register to implement
the TCPA program. These regulations include: the
framework, practices, and procedures of the TCPA pro-
gram, the minimum requirements for a RMP, and a
generic extraordinarily hazardous substance risk reduc-
tion work plan to be used by those facilities that do not
have a Risk Management Program. An expanded list of
EHSs is also included in the regulations. The Act
originally listed 11 EHSs; 94 are proposed to be added
to this list. These substances have been selected based
on volatility and toxicity. A fee schedule has also been
proposed, since the Act stated that the TCPA program
must be self-supporting.
Confidentiality regulations have also been prepared
and were proposed in the February 16,1988, New Jersey
Register.
According to Neil P. Mulvey, Assistant Director for the
Department's Release Prevention and Emergency
Response element, "The regulations being presented
represent a win-win situation for all parties involved. First
of all, New Jersey's public gains by the added assurance
that the risk of death or injury from a catastrophic chemi-
cal accident will be decreased to the lowest possible
level. Additionally, it has been shown in several studies
that the proper use of hazard analysis and risk assess-
ment procedures can reduce the accidental shutdown
and startup, resulting in immediate benefits to the facility."
For additional information about the status of the
TCPA program, contact Allan T. Edwards, Chief of the
Bureau of Release Prevention at (609) 633-7289.
*See related article in September 1986 Newsletter,
pages 5-6.
ONTARIO INITIATES AIR T
The provincial government of Ontario has em-
barked on air toxics studies in several areas, including
development of a regulatory strategy for Ontario and
comprehensive assessments of toxic chemicals. The
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OME) is compiling
an Air Monitoring Archives of Toxic Substances for On-
tario and the remainder of eastern North America. Air
monitoring studies, terrestrial and aquatic studies, and
wet and dry deposition studies are being conducted to
quantify toxic chemical levels in Ontario. The ambient
toxics monitoring network commencing this year will
entail weekly sampling at 30 stations across Ontario. The
target list of compounds includes 140 species of volatile
organic compounds and 40 to 50 polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons. Dioxins and furans also will be included.
Trace metals have been monitored as part of the par-
ticulate monitoring system for the past 15 years; much
of these data will be included as well. Specifically, the
toxic pollutants of interest are: volatile organochlorines,
benzene, mono/diaromatic hydrocarbons, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons, phenols, respirable particles,
arsenic, mercury, nickel, cadmium, lead, and pesticides.
In addition, emissions inventories of toxic com-
OXICS ASSESSMENT
pounds are being compiled and mesoscale dispersion
models (both short and long-term) are being developed.
These short and long-term dispersion models will be
used to describe and predict the behavior and impact
of toxic contaminants in the atmosphere. The predictive
modeling and regulatory activities require a comprehen-
sive compilation of all relevant air toxics data for an area
that reaches beyond provincial boundaries. In addition,
ambient concentration data and related toxics informa-
tion for areas outside of Ontario will be needed for com-
parative analyses.
Specifically, the task at hand entails contacting
scientists involved in air toxics monitoring across the
United States and Canada, seeking their cooperation in
providing air toxics monitoring data. The project is under
the direction of Chris Fung of the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment [(416) 235-5770J. Concord Scientific Cor-
poration has been contracted to compile the air toxics
archive for the North American continent.
Anyone interested in participating in this informa-
tion exchange may contact Margot Brideau, Concord
Scientific Corporation, 2 Tippett Road, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada M3H 2V2, (416) 630-6331.
DAYTON, OHIO, AGENCY C
PARTICULATE NETWORK I
For many years, the Regional Air Pollution Control
Agency (RAPCA), representing six counties around
IONSIDERS NATIONAL
)ATA
Dayton, Ohio, has been including data from filters placed
at a downtown Dayton monitoring site in a U.S. EPA
7

-------
metals analysis program. This study is part of the Na-
tional Particulate Network (NPN). One filter is submitted
every 12 days.
The current interest in toxics has highlighted the
value of these analyses for use by local agencies. The
NPN data can be useful for addressing several general
questions:
—	What are the trends in ambient air metals?
—	What are the sources?
—	What are the average and maximum
concentrations?
—	What are the risks associated with these
concentrations?
Trends Explored
For 1980 through July 1986, apparent trends on
RAPCA's graphs of the annual averages have been
dramatically higher for iron and manganese; lower for
copper, lead and TSP; and slightly higher for cobalt.
Trend determination for other metals is not possible
because levels were below, or obscured by, noise levels
in the filters.
While the downward lead trend is easily traced to
unleaded gasoline, the reason for the other trends is less
easily identified.
Iron and manganese, in particular, are puzzling. A
1981 study of local TSP filters by the Brehm Laboratory
of Wright State University showed iron and manganese
with a high correlation, as did RAPCA's analysis of the
NPN data (r = 0.91). Both pollutants also exhibit mark-
ed seasonality, with peaks in April through June, and
depressions in October through December. The Brehm
Laboratory report suggests both pollutants are also
bimodal. These data suggest that there are two common
sources or source groups for the two metals. Possible
sources for RAPCA's site are foundries, coal burning
facilities, and incinerators.
Pollutant Concentrations and Associated Risks
Presented
Listed below are the 7-year average concentrations
for each pollutant, except where a trend seemed clear.
In such cases, the most recent annual average is given
as being more representative. Unit risk factors from EPA
are also listed. Multiplying the average concentrations
by the unit risk factors, RAPCA has estimated lifetime
individual cancer risks resulting from exposure to metal
concentrations represented by the NPN averages.
Individual
Element
Average
ug/m3*
Annual
Type
Unit Risk
per ug/m3
Lifetime Risk
per Million
Arsenic
0.0036
7-yr
4.3 x 10"3
15 x 10-e
Barium
0.2001
7-yr
NA
-
Beryllium
0.1059*
7-yr
2.4 x 10"3
0.25 x 10-6
Cadmium
0.0015
7-yr
1.8 x 10-3
2.7 x 10-6
Chromium(VI)
0.0082
7-yr
1.2 x 10-2
98 x 10-6
Cobalt
0.0009
7-yr
NA
--
Copper
0.1028
7-yr
NA
-
Iron
1.5300
last yr
NA
-
Manganese
0.0303
last yr
NA
-
Molybdenum
0.0031
7-yr
NA
-
Nickel
0.0064
7-yr
2.4 x 10"4
1.5 x 10-6
Lead
0.0848
last yr
NA
..
Vanadium
0.0032
7-yr
NA
-
Zinc
0.1133
last yr
NA
-
Cumulative:



117 x 10-6
NA means not applicable. These metals are not recognized as
carcinogens.
'Beryllium units are: nanograms/m3, all others are ug/m3.
Note that the cumulative figure represents an upper
bound. That is, the cumulative individual lifetime cancer
risk for exposure to just arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, and nickel is at most 117 in a million. Popula-
tion risks cannot be estimated as the representativeness
of this site has yet to be determined.
Conclusions Reached
A simple analysis shows that the upper bound of the
cumulative individual lifetime cancer risk associated with
just the metals arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
and nickel is on the order of 117 chances out of a million.
Although this is an upper bound, RAPCA considers this
risk sufficiently large to warrant further investigation.
RAPCA plans to pursue the search for an explana-
tion of the metals trends at the NPN site. Furthermore,
RAPCA will attempt to expand the metals analysis pro-
gram for the Dayton area. The representativeness of this
single site needs to be determined. Cooperative efforts
with local universities have been proposed and appear
to be imminent.
Reported EPA studies of NPN data seem to deal
only with aggregate national statistics. RAPCA en-
courages State and local agencies to analyze their NPN
data on a site-specific basis.
For further information on RAPCA's toxics work,
contact Andrew Lindstrom, Regional Air Pollution Con-
trol Agency, Montgomery County (Ohio) Combined
Health District, (513) 225-4898.
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER - UPDATE
Response to the Control Technology Center's (CTC)
efforts to strengthen the HOTLINE operation has been
rewarding.* About 40 requests for assistance were
received in January, more than double the monthly
average during 1987. Staff in EPA's Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards and EPA's Air and Energy
Engineering Research Laboratory responded to these
requests at no charge.
In January, CTC representatives presented a sum-
mary of the CTC programs, including the HOTLINE, and
8

-------
demonstrated the Control of Air Toxics Advisory System
at an Air Pollution Training Institute course on permitting.
The HOTLINE received several requests for assistance
as a result of this effort. Also during January, the CTC
sent a list of questions to its STAPPA/ALAPCO work-
group for use in collecting information on HOTLINE
effectiveness. This workgroup will be contacting about
one-quarter of the State and local (S/L) agencies who
used the HOTLINE in 1987. In addition, the CTC has
begun to automate the HOTLINE'S tracking system to
help in processing S/L requests for assistance.
CTC Active In Test Protocol, Air Toxics Control,
Workshops, Infectious Waste Incinerators
The CTC has the following projects underway:
•	Interim MWC Test Protocol - This cooperative effort
between the CTC, NESCAUM, and the State of Con-
necticut to develop an interim municipal waste com-
bustor (MWC) sampling protocol is complete. With
the protocol scheduled for printing in late March,
now is the time for requesting this useful document.
The title is "Recommended Guidelines for Stack
Testing at Municipal Waste Combustor Facilities."
This document can be ordered by calling Sharon
Nolen at (919) 541-7607 or (FTS) 629-7607. The
document is available to S/L agencies at no charge.
•	Advisory System for Control of Air Toxics (CAT) - The
CTC, in cooperation with the State of New Jersey's
Division of Environmental Quality, has developed
a computer program that assists permit engineers
in reviewing applications that regulate air toxics.
The software automates many of the calculations
found in the Hazardous Air Pollutant manual (EPA
Publication No. 625/6-86-014, "Control Technolo-
gies for Hazardous Air Pollutants") and will be
usable on IBM-compatible PC systems. You can ob-
tain a copy of the software, the instructional text
"Controlling Air Toxics - Advisory System," and the
HAP manual by calling Sharon Nolen at (919)
541-7607 or (FTS) 629-7607. These documents are
available to S/L agencies at no charge.
•	Workshops - The CTC is planning workshops on
nontraditional VOC emission sources. Because
these workshops are being developed now to help
S/L agencies characterize and control these
sources, the CTC is asking for S/L agency input on
what source categories to consider in these
workshops. Call Fred Dimmick at the HOTLINE,
(919) 541-0800 or (FTS) 629-0800, to give your sug-
gestions on workshop content.
•	Infectious Waste Incinerators - The CTC is very in-
terested in this subject. This interest began with a
large number of requests for HOTLINE assistance
and grew through contacts at STAPPA/ALAPCO
and State air pollution control agencies. As a begin-
ning, the CTC is planning to prepare materials to
help improve the operation of infectious waste
incinerators. The project is a technical assistance
project with the State of Maryland.
Technical Guidance Available on
Air Stripping
Over the last year, the CTC has completed four en-
gineering assistance projects. The documents describ-
ing these projects have been discussed in previous
Newsletters.** A discussion of the technical guidance
document on air stripping of contaminated water follows.
In response to a strong S/L interest in air stripping
of contaminated water, the CTC collected information
and data on the air emissions and controls for this source
of volatile organics (VO). This information was collected
through a literature search, telephone contacts and site
visits. Air stripping is used to remove VO from con-
taminated water. If the process is not controlled, it simply
transfers VO from the water into the atmosphere. A
major purpose of this effort was to investigate the air
emission controls currently used for air stripping, their
performance, and the capital and operating costs of
these controls.
The CTC published "Air Stripping of Contaminated
Water Sources - Air Emissions and Controls" (EPA
Publication No. 450/3-87-017) to document this project.
This document lists more than 150 air strippers, their
locations, and the particular chemicals of concern in
some of their VO emissions. Design and operating data
for several air strippers include water flow and VO con-
centrations, column height and diameter, air flow, the
reported removal efficiency, and other design factors. A
list of air stripping facilities using air emission controls
is also provided and the applicable control systems are
discussed in the context of these facilities. The capital
and operating costs are estimated using actual facility
data and standard EPA costing procedures. As an ap-
pendix to the document, a list of telephone contacts with
EPA, State/local, facility, and equipment vendor person-
nel is provided as well.
During development of this technical guidance
document, the CTC, along with S/L representatives and
EPA contractors, made three site visits. The document
gives general information, process descriptions, and
performance data for the air stripper and the air pollu-
tion control device for each site. State/local agencies can
obtain the document and the other CTC engineering
assistance documents at no cost by calling the CTC
HOTLINE at (919) 541-0800.
For further information, call Fred Dimmick at the
HOTLINE at (919) 541-0800 or (FTS) 629-0800. You may
send requests, information or suggestions to the CTC at:
U.S. EPA, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), Control
Technology Center, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711.
*See related articles in January 1988 and June 1987
Newsletters
"See June 1987 Newsletter
9

-------
HOUSTON REGIONAL MOf
NOW INCLUDES SPECIATEI
Over the past 7 years, the Houston Regional
Monitoring (HRM) program has collected data to serve
the information and air permitting needs of its
32-member firms located in the 900-square-mile Harris
County area. Originally charged with monitoring criteria
pollutants for Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Texas Air Control Board (TACB) permit infor-
mation needs, the HRM has recently set out to accom-
plish two new goals involving volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions that are of concern due to various new
regulations. The first goal is to develop a baseline
estimate of community exposure to a variety of VOC
which characterize a large representative class of "in-
dicator" compounds. The second is to provide support
during accidental chemical releases through direct call-
up and activation of sampling devices capable of
measuring ambient impacts for up to 125 compounds.
In pursuing these new goals, HRM will use a
monitoring network whose design TACB has accepted
as representative of air quality for PSD permitting pur-
poses for all member companies. The baseline com-
munity exposure measurements are being collected at
6 sites every 6 days for a minimum of 2 years. One hun-
dred seventy compounds are measured as indicative of
emissions (primarily fugitive) from industrial activities in
the area. The volatile indicator compounds are represen-
tative of the following classes of compounds:
•	aliphatic hydrocarbons,
•	aromatic hydrocarbons,
•	chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons,
•	chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons,
•	selected aldehydes and ketones,
•	selected alcohols and glycol ethers,
•	selected ethers and esters,
•	selected oxygenated compounds, and
•	selected nitrogen-containing organics.
The compounds are measured on a 24-hour inte-
grated basis using passivated stainless steel canisters
for gas phase compounds (organics). Since the station
aiTORING PROGRAM
DVOCs
sitings have been demonstrated to be representative of
industrial air quality impacts in the Harris County area
through modeling studies and 7 years of air quality data,
this program begins a long-term baseline data collection
effort that will help demonstrate the levels of many "in-
dicator" compounds.
To meet the goal of providing HRM member com-
panies with additional measurement capabilities during
an accidental release, each air monitoring station has
been equipped with a designated sampling device for
125 potentially hazardous compounds. The device can
be actuated by an HRM member company through a
telephone call to the station's computer. After activation
and a 3-hour sampling period, the samples are retrieved
from the monitoring network and sent to a laboratory for
analysis. The sampling method is based on vapor con-
centration on commercially available charcoal packed
in a glass cartridge system. The sampling system con-
sists of duplicate sets of three cartridges to provide for
primary, back-up, and field blank samples.
Analysis is accomplished by gas chromatography
with flame ionization detection. The 125 volatile organic
compounds can be detected at part-per-billion levels
with this approach. A total of 12 analyses are perform-
ed for each event. Each set of primary samples is
analyzed twice to provide accurate compound concen-
tration data and information on the sampling and
analysis variability. Each set of sampling back-up car-
tridges is analyzed to determine if any breakthrough may
have occurred during the sampling event. The field
blanks and a laboratory spike sample are analyzed for
quality control purposes.
Costs for fielding and maintenance of this air
monitoring capability are shared by HRM firms. The
costs to retrieve, analyze and report the charcoal car-
tridge system results are billed individually to the
member company using the system.
For more information on the Houston Regional
Monitoring program, contact Walt Crow, Radian Cor-
poration, Austin, Texas, at (512) 454-4797.
AIR TOXICS WORKSHOPS F
The State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators (STAPPA), the Association of Local Air
Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO), and EPA are
cosponsoring workshops this spring as a follow-up to the
national air toxics workshops held in the spring of 1987.
Arrangements for the workshops are in various stages
of completion. The planned subjects, dates and loca-
tions of the workshops are as follows:
'LANNED
Control Technology/Air Toxics Permitting:
April 12-14 San Francisco, California
Hospital Waste Incinerators (HWI) and Hospital
Sterilizers:
May 10-12 San Francisco, California
Week of May 23 Baltimore, Maryland
10

-------
Air Toxics Modeling:
April 11-14
June
Waltham, Massachusetts
Midwest site to be determined
The Control Technology/Air Toxics Permitting
workshop was developed through the support of the
Control Technology Center. One session of this
workshop was held in March.
The workshops, similar to specialty conferences,
should be attended by personnel with a working
knowledge in the subject areas. The workshops are open
only to State or local agency (S/L) or EPA personnel ex-
cept for the first 2 days of the Control Technology/
Permitting Workshop, which are also open to industry.
The California Air Pollution Control Officials
Association is cosponsoring the HWI workshop in San
Francisco and the Northeast States for Coordinated Air
Use Management is cosponsoring the HWI workshop in
Baltimore and the modeling workshops.
Control Technology/Air Ibxlcs Permitting
to Examine Case Studies
One of the prime objectives of this workshop is to
promote better understanding between industry and
regulatory agencies on what air toxics control is appro-
priate within the S/L permitting process. During the first
2 days, several industry and EPA presenters will use
case examples to relay field experiences related to each
of several commonly used options to control air toxics
(e.g., combustion-related controls, process modification,
adsorption and absorption). A panel largely consisting
of S/L representatives will then respond to each presen-
tation on a particular control technology by discussing
its real world limitations and applicability. Day 3 will be
open only to S/L and EPA participants in order to allow
regulatory officials to focus on specific needs and issues
associated with air toxics permitting and to learn what
technical support is available to them from EPA (e.g.,
Control Technology Center assistance). For more
specific information on this workshop, please contact Kirt
Cox, U.S. EPA, OAQPS, (919) 541-5399 or (FTS)
629-5399.
Hospital Waste incineration and Hospital
Sterilizers Will Include Field TVIp
This specialty workshop will address S/L problems
associated with HWI and hospital sterilizers. The first 2
days of the workshop will be dedicated to defining the
nature of the HWI concerns (e.g., source characteriza-
tion, health effects) and S/L regulatory experiences in
addressing them. A morning session on Day 3 will focus
on the air toxics problems associated with the permit-
ting of hospital sterilizers. Other discussions are planned
to allow more specific concerns to be raised to a panel
of experts. A field trip to the Stanford Hospital Incinerator
(a state-of-the-art facility) will be held on the final day of
the west coast session. Additional information on this
workshop may be obtained from David Painter, U.S. EPA,
OAQPS, (919) 541-5355 or (FTS) 629-5355.
Air Toxics Modeling to Give
Flrst-Hand Experience
This 4 1/2-day workshop focuses on the modeling
of routine air toxics emissions. Attendees should have
some dispersion modeling experience. In particular, the
workshop will review and apply existing methods for
predicting ambient concentrations of toxic air con-
taminants by the application of appropriate models.
Limited time will be spent on the modeling of spills and
accidental releases. Workshop attendance will be
restricted by available computer space. Jim Dicke, U.S.
EPA, OAQPS, (919) 541-5682 or (FTS) 629-5682, may be
contacted for more detailed information on this
workshop.
A fee of up to $50.00 may be charged for conference
registration at some of the workshops. If you have ques-
tions regarding attendance or other questions concern-
ing the workshops, please call your EPA Regional
Office air toxics contact. Specific agenda-related in-
quiries should be addressed to Jim Dicke.
OAQPS PUBLISHES TOXIC AIR
EMISSION REPORT FOR BENZENE
EPA's OAQPS has published a report entitled
"Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources
of Benzene." This emission document is a part of the
report series of "Locating and Estimating Air Emissions
from Sources of (Substance)."* The purpose of the
benzene report is to assist air pollution control agencies
and others who are interested in locating potential air
emitters of benzene and making preliminary estimates
of their emissions.
The report number is EPA-450/4-84-007q. Single
copies of this report 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. The process to make the report available
through the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS) for a fee has been initiated. For further informa-
tion, contact Bill Kuykendal at (919) 541-5372 or (FTS)
629-5372.
*For complete listing of all reports in this series,
see the November 1987 Newsletter, pages 8-9.
11

-------
CORRECTION FOR HOSPITAL
WASTE COMBUSTION STUDY
The November 1987 Newsletter announced the
availability of a draft report entitled "Hospital Waste
Combustion Study - Data Gathering Phase." During
review of this report, it was noted that two tables had
been incorrectly titled. For Table 3-7 entitled "Data/
Factors for Chlorinated Dibenzofuran Emissions for
Hospital Waste Incinerators" and Table 3-8 entitled
"Data/Factors for Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxin Emis-
sions," the titles should be reversed. Table 3-7 provides
emissions data for dioxins and Table 3-8 provides emis-
sions data for furans. For further information on this
report, contact Rayburn Morrison, U.S. EPA, at (919)
541-5330 or (FTS) 629-5330.
COMING IN NEXT ISSUE:
AIR/SUPERFUIMD COORDINATION - AN IMPORTANT MULTIMEDIA EFFORT
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 Pollu-
tion 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 address changes may do so by contacting Nancy Riley, EPA OAQPS (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 so not necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute any endorsement or recommenda-
tion for use by EPA.
Beth Hassett
Pollutant Assessment Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MD-13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
FIRST CLASS MAIL
U.S. Postage Paid
E.P.A.
Permit No. G-35
Library
EPA, Region II
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837

-------