NATIONAL AIR TOXICS INFORMATION
CLEARINGHOUSE NEWSLETTER
£% CPA 0ffice Air Quality Planning and Standards Volume 5 Number 6
ocrM Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 September 1988
g ahap©®
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
IN THIS ISSUE
CLEARINGHOUSE UPDATE: NEW STAFF, RISK DATA, DEMONSTRATION DISKETTE
PROGRAM, CLEARINGHOUSE REPORTS
STATE/LOCAL AGENCY SPOTLIGHT: RHODE ISLAND DEVELOPS
AIR TOXICS REGULATION
ERA'S CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER (CTCJ CONTINUES TO GROW 4
REVIEW OF TOXIC AIR POLLUTANTS AND NONCANCER HEALTH RISKS
UNDERWAY
EPA AND STATE AGENCIES TACKLE IMPROVING RADON RISK COMMUNICATION 6
EPA ANNOUNCES SECTION 313 RISK SCREENING GUIDE
EPA OUTLINES FOUR ALTERNATIVE POLICY APPROACHES FOR BENZENE 9
PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE IDAHO SAMPLING PROGRAM UNDER THE
INTEGRATED AIR CANCER PROJECT DESCRIBED
MONSANTO TARGETS NINETY PERCENT EMISSION REDUCTION 13
DO YOU NEED ROADMAPS7
CTC SPONSORS COURSE FOR HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATOR OPERATORS ...14
TOXIC AIR EMISSION INVENTORY REPORT AVAILABLE 14
URBAN AIR TOXICS WORKSHOPS SCHEDULED 14
CLEARINGHOUSE UPDATE:
NEW STAFF, RISK DATA, DEMONSTRATION
DISKETTE PROGRAM, CLEARINGHOUSE REPORTS
New Clearinghouse Staff Onboard
Recently, the Clearinghouse staff has undergone
some personnel changes. John Vandenberg, who had
been in charge of the NATICH data base, has taken a one
year assignment with the California Department of
Health Services. Beth Hassett, the primary contact for
development of this Newsletter and other Clearinghouse
publications, has been selected as the EPA Air Office's
recipient of a long-term training scholarship. Beth will be
on leave from the Agency for one year to study toxicology
at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Replac-
ing John is Tim Mohin; Scott Voorhees is taking over the
Newsletter duties from Beth. Nancy Riley continues in
her role as Newsletter mailing coordinator and will be the
project officer for the 1989 update of the Bibliography
and Ongoing Research and Regulatory Development
project reports. All three staff members respond to ques-
tions on the NATfCH data base and the Clearinghouse
in general. They can be reached at (919) 541-0850 or
(FTS) 629-0850.
Update of Point Source Risk Data
Soon to Be Available
Additional risk analyses for point sources performed
by the EPA's Pollutant Assessment Branch are sche-
duled to be available by the end of September through
the NATICH data base. These sources now number ap-
proximately 3500, representing 85 percent of the data
known to be available on point sources. Some values
represent updates to last year's estimates; the majority
are new, expanding the previous number of sources. The
Agency cautions that varying levels of uncertainty are
associated with the data, which must be considered in
any use made of the data.
-------
For further information about accessing the NATICH
data base, contact the Clearinghouse staff; for questions
about the data themselves, contact Tim Mohin. Both can
be reached at the Clearinghouse number listed above.
These data also appear in the annual data base report
on State, local and EPA air toxics activities*
NATICH Demonstration Diskette Program
Now Available
As reported in the July 1988 issue, a diskette pro-
gram is now available to illustrate some of the types of
data and retrieval options in the NATICH data base.
Response to this announcement has been favorable,
with over 25 requests addressed thus far. These re-
quests have been made by both industry and all sectors
of government. To obtain a copy of this program, please
send an unformatted double-sided, double density, 5.25
inch diskette to Nancy Riley, U.S. EPA, MD-13, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711.
Clearinghouse Reports Now Available
Several Clearinghouse reports have recently been
published and distributed. These include "Case Studies
in Risk Communication,"** updates to the Bibliography,
Ongoing Research, and associated index, and the
"NATICH Data Base Report on State, Local and EPA Air
Toxics Activities."
These documents are distributed free of charge to
governmental and nonprofit organizations. If you are not
on the mailing list to receive these and other documents
but would like to be, call Nancy Riley at the Clear-
inghouse number listed above.
The private sector may obtain copies from Radian
Corporation by sending a written request and advance
payment to Barbara Maxey, Radian Corporation, Post
Office Box 201088, Austin, Texas 78720-1088. Document
prices are listed below. The reports will also be available
through the National Technical Information Service later
this fall.
*See mention later in this article
"See related articles in the January and March 1988
Newsletters.
RECENT NATIONAL AIR TOXICS
INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE REPORTS
Report Title Prlc*
Case Studies in Risk Communication $ 915
(EPA-450/5 88 03, June 1988)
Ongoing Research and Regulatory Developments $1990
(EPA-450/5-88-004, July 1988)
Bibliography of Solected Reports and $1905
Federal Register Noticos Related to Air
Toxics - Volume 2 Citations 1988
(EPA-450/5-88-005, July 1988)
Bibliography ot Seleclod Reports and $38 25
Federal Register Noticos Related to Air
Toxics - Index - 1988
(EPA-450/5-88-006, July 1988)
Data Base Report on Stale, Local and EPA $47 70
Air Toxics Activities
(EPA-450/5-88-007, July 1988)
STATE/LOCAL AGENCY SPC
RHODE ISLAND DEVELOPS
TOXICS REGULATION
By Barbara Morln, Division of Air and Hazardou
Department of Environmental Management
After several years in preparation, the Rhode Island
Air Toxics Regulation took effect on March 28,1988. The
regulation development process began when the Rhode
Island Division of Air and Hazardous Materials (DAHM)
recognized that the State's existing air quality program
could not adequately address the possible impact of tox-
ic air emissions on public health. This article chronicles
the regulation's development process.
Because the Rhode Island air staff is small with
limited resources, it was important to develop a program
to concentrate on sources with the greatest potential
public health impact, using available staff for enforce-
ment. The regulation also had to be integrated with the
existing air program, preventing any duplication of efforts.
XTLIGHTi
; air
I Materials, Rhode Island
With these considerations, 40 substances were in-
itially included in the regulation. They were chosen
because of (1) toxicity (all have the potential to produce
acute or chronic health effects at ambient concentra-
tions) and (2) quantities used or emitted in Rhode Island
An inventory of a variety of potential air toxics sources
was conducted to estimate emissions.
After substance selection was complete, regulators
developed the following procedure for deriving Accep-
table Ambient Levels (AALs): staff members first review
a combination of primary and secondary toxicity data
sources to establish dose-response relationships for the
toxic effects associated with each listed substance and
to identify No Observed and Lowest Observed Adverse
2
-------
Effect Levels (NOAELs and LOAELs). AALs are then
derived by applying appropriate safety factors to NOAEL
or LOAEL values to protect against threshold type effects
and by using linear multistage modeling for evaluating
carcinogenic effects. A one in 1 million (or less) to one
in 100,000 risk level is considered the maximum accep-
table for carcinogenic effects. Averaging times vary,
depending on the health effect of concern (e.g., 1 hour
for irritants, 24 hours for teratogens and annual for car-
cinogens). If a particular substance exhibits more than
one health effect, two AALs with different averaging
times are established. These AALs are listed in the Air
Toxics Regulation and are considered enforceable stan-
dards.
At the time that the Air Toxics Regulation was be-
ing developed, the air permitting regulation already in-
cluded requirements for operating permits. Because of
staff limitations, however, the operating permit program
had never been implemented. The Department decid-
ed to use that program to determine compliance with the
AALs and to enforce the new regulation. The Air Toxics
Regulation requires that sources of listed substances
register annually with the DAHM, supplying applicable
use and production quantities and associated process
information. The DAHM then uses methodology
specified in the Air Toxics Guidelines accompanying the
regulation to prioritize sources based on potential health
impact. Factors considered in prioritization include quan-
tity and toxicity of emissions, certainty of available emis-
sions estimates, and proximity of the source to other
sources and to residential areas. Starting with the
highest priority sources, companies are required to apply
for operating permits. As part of the application, sources
must supply all information necessary for DAHM to run
dispersion models to determine ground-level impacts of
listed substances. With this system, DAHM can control
the rate at which the permits come up for review while
ensuring that the most significant sources are reviewed
first. Upon review of the application and followup inspec-
tions, consent agreements are negotiated with sources
that exceed the AALs.
Some source categories, because they are too
numerous to review on an individual source basis, are
handled differently. These include the large number of
small degreasers and dry cleaners using three listed
solvents-trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene and
methylene chloride. Instead, technology requirements
were specified in the regulation for these source
categories. The DAHM believes that by requiring
sources to comply with these requirements, ambient im-
pacts will not exceed the AALs. Larger degreasers are
also subject to the operating permit requirements and
thus are required to demonstrate compliance with the
AALs.
An Air Toxics Advisory Committee was formed ear-
ly in the regulatory development process. Participants
were drawn from industry, environmental and health
organizations, academia, the legislature, the U.S. EPA,
and the Rhode Island Department of Health. Experts in
such areas as chemistry, toxicology and environmental
studies were included. The advisory committee met
monthly for approximately 1 year, reviewing all phases
of the program as they were developed and offering
recommendations for improvements. In addition, drafts
of the regulation were distributed to members of the
public upon request. All suggestions offered by
members of the advisory committee and the general
public were carefully considered and, when appropriate,
incorporated into the program by the Department.
Despite this effort to consider the concerns of the
regulated community and other interested parties dur-
ing the development process, several industry represen-
tatives objected to the regulation at the public hearing
held in May 1987. However, representatives of en-
vironmental, health and citizens' organizations as well
as State and Federal agencies were generally in favor
of the regulation. After consideration of all comments
received, the regulation was promulgated with minor
changes. A Statewide federation of local Chambers of
Commerce has since filed suit in State court seeking to
revoke the regulation. The suit is still pending, but will
be resolved soon, it is hoped. In the meantime, an at-
tempt by the Chambers to obtain a temporary restrain-
ing order has been denied by the court and implemen-
tation of the regulation is proceeding.
At present, the first phase in implementation
(registration and prioritization) is complete. Potential
sources were identified from prior air pollution inven-
tories, hazardous waste manifests, manufacturers' direc-
tories, and lists of dischargers to local sewage treatment
plants. Operating permit applications have recently been
sent to the six highest priority sources. Rhode Island's
organics-in-air ambient sampling program is being used
to verify estimated impacts and to identify additional
sources and hot spot areas. Meanwhile, an intern has
visited virtually every dry cleaning establishment in the
State in order to compile baseline data on process and
control equipment. Each establishment is then notified
of any modifications necessary to comply with the
regulation. A similar inspection program is underway
with degreasers. Further, a solvent substitution
workshop, aimed at reducing the use of toxic solvents
by degreasing sources, is planned for the fall. The im-
plementation of this regulation has primarily affected ex-
isting sources, since new and modified sources were
already required to demonstrate that they have Best
Available Control Technology for all pollutants prior to
permitting.
Rhode Island's current air toxics program will review
the regulation annually and, as necessary, return to
public hearing with recommended alterations, including
additions of substances to the list of regulated toxics and
modifications of AALs based on new data received.
Although the development of this regulation took longer
3
-------
than expected and has presented many unanticipated
problems, DAHM believes that the final product will be
both workable and effective as an approach to confron-
ting Rhode Island's air toxics problems.
For further information on the regulation, call Bar-
bara Morin at the Division of Air and Hazardous
Materials, Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management, (401) 277-2808.
EPA'S CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER (CTC)
CONTINUES TO GROW
The CTC continues to support State and local air
pollution control agencies and EPA Regional Offices.
Previous NATICH articles have reported on the CTC and
its support of air pollution control programs* The
HOTLINE is currently receiving about 50 telephone re-
quests for assistance per month up from about 15 re-
quests in December 1987. In addition to increases in the
number of calls to the HOTLINE, the CTC has recently
completed four projects and has begun several other
projects as detailed below.
Center Completes Four Projects
With the New Jersey Department of Environmen-
tal Protection, Bureau of Air Pollution Control, CTC is
developing PC-based software for evaluation of permit
applications using EPA's handbook. "Control
Technologies for Hazardous Air Pollutants"
(EPA-625/6-86/014) and New Jersey's permitting exper-
tise. The software calculates a design and costs for eight
control devices based on stream characteristics and
control device parameters. The software and tutorial
manual are available at no cost to State and local air
pollution control agencies only. For details call Sharon
Nolen at (919) 541-7607.
In a joint effort with the Northeast States for Coor-
dinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), the CTC is
developing an interim protocol for sampling municipal
waste combustors. An expert work group was assembl-
ed from EPA, State and local agency, industry, and con-
tractor personnel. The group reached a consensus on
which sampling methods should be used and publish-
ed a report documenting their agreements. For details
call Larry Johnson at (919) 541-7943.
The Florida Department of Environmental Regula-
tion, Bureau of Air Quality Management, requested that
the CTC evaluate emissions from burning of plastics
potentially contaminated with agricultural pesticides.
Two methods of burning the plastics were evaluated us-
ing both clean and used plastics. Data on the types and
levels of emissions were provided to the State, which is
now developing regulations. Additional chemical
analyses and health effects information requested by the
State were completed in August 1988. Call William Linak
at (919) 541-5792 for further information.
The CTC and STAPPA/ALAPCO co-sponsored a
workshop on hazardous and toxic air pollutant control
technologies and air toxics control technology permit-
ting issues as a follow-up to the 1987 National Air Tox-
ics Workshop. Held in spring 1988, the workshop provid-
ed information on the application of air toxics control
technology. Case studies were presented and discuss-
ed from industry and regulatory perspectives. The third
day of the workshop gave regulatory personnel an op-
portunity to discuss policy and permitting concerns. For
details, call Norman Kolujian at (513) 569-7349.
New CTC Projects Cover Engineering Assistance,
Technical Guidance
The West Virginia Air Pollution Control Commission
requested an evaluation of a wastewater treatment
system at a chemical company that manufactures
chlorinated hydrocarbons. The CTC will evaluate the
company's emission controls and provide an impact
analysis to the State. Contact James Durham at (919)
541-5672.
For the San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District in California, the CTC is evaluating the effec-
tiveness of a scrubber used to control potential acciden-
tal releases of arsine and phosphine associated with
storage tanks at a semiconductor manufacturing plant.
A pilot scale test is being performed as a result of this
evaluation. Contact Leslie Evans at (919) 541-5410.
The Virginia Air Pollution Control Board has re-
quested assistance in evaluating controls of emissions
from wood treatment operations. The CTC will invest-
igate the control options for this type of source and report
to the Agency. Contact Bruce Moore at (919) 541-5460.
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Pro-
tection has requested assistance from the CTC
HOTLINE in obtaining additional reductions in VOC
emissions at an architectural coating operation. Call Jim
Berry at (919) 541-5605 for further information.
The CTC is preparing a document to provide infor-
mation on automobile refinishing shops and related
coating processes. The document covers coating and
solvent use, volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions
and control techniques, control costs and potential VOC
emission reductions. The publication should be available
in September 1988. Call Robert Btaszczak at (919)
541-5408 for details.
State and local agencies can use the information
provided by the CTC in "Control of VOC Emissions from
the Application of Traffic Markings" to develop strategies
for reducing VOC emissions from the application of
-------
traffic paints and marking materials. The publication will
cover application processes, VOC emissions and emis-
sion reduction, and cost benefits associated with using
more durable, low-VOC markings. The report will be
available in September 1988. The contact person is
Karen Catlett at (919) 541-0835.
The CTC is developing PC-based methodologies
and documentation for estimating emissions of volatile
organics and air toxics from surface impoundments
associated with wastewater treatment systems. The soft-
ware will be completed in draft form in October 1988.
Contact David Misenheimer at (919) 541-5473.
The CTC will model several standard air pollution
control systems using the computer program Advanced
System for Process Engineering (ASPEN). The CTC will
first model air strippers, condensers and steam strippers.
This project will allow the CTC HOTLINE managers to
provide quick, order-of-magnitude evaluations of the
design of air pollution control systems. Specifically, the
CTC will be able to provide State and local agencies a
report of the evaluation, including pertinent background
information and an explanation of the modeling, in a
relatively short time. Call Robert Lucas at (919) 541-5412
for further information.
The CTC will choose three or four States that have
developed innovative regulations for area sources to
document their rationale for choosing the sources and
developing the regulations. The project began in July
1988. Contact Sharon Nolen at (919) 541-7607.
In response to a number of HOTLINE requests, the
CTC will conduct a study of emissions from tire burning.
This project is scheduled to begin in August 1988. Call
Paul Lemieux at (919) 541-0962 for further information.
The CTC is preparing an informative brochure
linking the Control Technologies for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (HAP) manual and the Controlling Air Toxics
(CAT) software. The brochure will describe the uses and
availability of the HAP manual and the software and ex-
plain how to use them together. Michael Kosusko at (919)
541-2734 has details.
The CTC is conducting a preliminary study to
characterize the air pollution concerns with manufactur-
ing fiberglass marine structures. This project will be a
thorough assessment of the industry, related emission
problems and air pollution control technologies. Call
Chuck Davrin at (919) 541-7633 for further information.
Available CTC Documents Listed
"Evaluation of Emission Sources at a Waferboard
Manufacturing Plant" (EPA-450/3-87-021, NTIS
PB88-107-735), September 1987.
"Evaluation of Potential Emissions of TDI from Two
Facilities" (EPA-450/387-022, NTIS PB88-120-845), Oc-
tober 1987.
"Evaluation of Emission Factors for Formaldehyde
from Certain Wood Processing Operations"
(EPA-450/3-87-023, NTIS PB88-118-492), October 1987.
"Air Stripping of Contaminated Water Sources-Air
Emissions and Controls" (EPA-450/3-87-017, NTIS
PB88-106-166), August 1987.
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), Con-
trol Technology Center, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711.
"December 1986, June 1987, and March 1988 issues.
NOTE TO STATE AND LOCAL AGENCY READERS
Have a question on health, exposure or risk assessment associated with air toxics? Call Air RISC (Risk
Information Support Center) HOTLINE at (919) 541-0888 or (FTS) 629-0888.
REVIEW OF TOXIC AIR POLLUTANTS
AND NONCANCER HEALTH RISKS UNDERWAY
The EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Stan-
dards (OAQPS) has initiated a project to evaluate non-
cancer public health risks resulting from short-term and
long-term exposure to toxic air pollutants. The main
focus of this study is the evaluation of risk from exposure
to toxic air pollutants that are routinely emitted from in-
dustrial or commercial sources. Excluded from this
analysis is the consideration of occupational exposures,
indoor air pollutants, criteria air pollutants, secondary
atmospheric reaction products and accidental releases.
Project Goals Identified
The specific aims of this project are: (1) to develop
various approaches for broadly assessing noncancer
public health risks associated with short-term and long-
term exposure to nonaccidental releases of toxic air
pollutants, (2) to determine the availability of relevant
information, (3) to conduct any analyses of data that
5
-------
appear reasonable and feasible within the time and
resource constraints of this project and (4) to make
recommendations for future actions such as conducting
additional studies.
At present, there is no comprehensive data base
suitable for assessing noncancer public health risks
associated with exposure to toxic air pollutants. The data
sets that are available were originally collected for
various reasons using different research protocols.
Therefore, these data sets are not completely com-
parable. By analyzing these disparate sets of informa-
tion, however, it is hoped that some insight into the
overall problem can be gained.
Data Types Described
The following types of data will be collected and
analyzed: (1) ambient monitoring and exposure model-
ing data available to EPA, (2) epidemiologic data and (3)
descriptions of documents and potential local air pollu-
tion problems, including health, source and exposure in-
formation collected from EPA regional, State, and local
agencies. These analyses are independent, that is, data
from one analysis do not serve as input for another
analysis. It is thought that the uncertainties associated
with each data set are such that to use the results of one
analysis as a component of a second analysis would be
inappropriate. Rather, it is hoped that the results from
each analysis may provide information on a different
aspect of potential noncancer health impacts resulting
from exposure to toxic air pollutants.
Preliminary results from this noncancer risk project
should be available by the end of 1988. If you have data
that would be useful for this project or would like more
information on the project, please contact Dr. Ila Cote,
U.S. EPA, OAQPS, Pollutant Assessment Branch, MD-13,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919)
541-5342 or (FTS) 629-5342.
EPA AND STATE AGENCIES
IMPROVING RADON RISK
Since radon gas is a natural phenomenon, seeping
out of soil and accumulating in houses, radon emissions
and attendant public health risks cannot be controlled
by the regulatory approaches applied to industry.
Therefore, the U.S. EPA and State and local agencies
have been working together to inform the public about
their potential risks from exposure. This activity has
stressed how to test for radon in houses and how high
levels can be reduced.
In the area of risk communication research, two joint
EPA/State projects are in progress in Maryland and New
York. Specifically, these projects are designed to
evaluate the effectiveness of various techniques in com-
municating the risks associated with radon exposure.
The intent is to come up with recommendations for
strengthening the risk communication strategies for this
important environmental contaminant, as well as to iden-
tify techniques that may be applied to a broad spectrum
of chemicals.
Maryland Study Tests
Multiple Communication Methods
The joint EPA/Maryland study nearing completion
is examining how to motivate citizens to test for radon
in their houses. The study is testing the relative effec-
tiveness of "multiple hit, multiple channel" communica-
tion methods and materials in two test cities. A third ci-
ty, receiving no study-generated information, serves as
a comparison.
Under the study, radio public service an-
nouncements, a pamphlet enclosed with utility bills, and
four posters were developed and tested for their effec-
TACKLE
COMMUNICATION
tiveness in educating the public and encouraging radon
testing. One of the test cities also used a 20-minute slide
show and active participation by local elected officials.
A report on the study, which also identifies ways to
increase Federal and State resources by working with
private organizations or local government, will be
available in October. In the meantime, preliminary results
show that:
— The utility pamphlet was an effective and low-
cost information source. Calls to the State
showed the pamphlets spurred readers to seek
additional information.
— The slide show provides a consistent message
about radon that can be used by government
officials as well as other communicators.
— Organizing community events leading to local
news publicity also helped disseminate infor-
mation more widely and raised overall
awareness.
For further information on the EPA/Maryland Radon
Risk Communication Project, call Nancy Zahedi, U.S.
EPA, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, at (202)
382-5355.
New York Study Tests
Risk Communication Methods
The New York State Energy and Research Develop-
ment Authority (NYSERDA) has sampled 2,300 single-
family households to determine State-wide radon ex-
posure. The households were selected randomly within
seven areas representing the major geological forma-
6
-------
tions across the State. Although participants were pro-
mised copies of the monitoring results, NYSERDA had
not decided what information to send participants to help
them understand the results.
EPA joined New York's program to provide materials
for informing the homeowners about health risks and
ways to reduce them. EPA's goals have been to evaluate
the effectiveness of various materials in the
homeowner's understanding of the test results and to
determine whether homeowners with higher levels are
more likely to reduce them. This is in contrast to the
Maryland study, which examines various methods of
motivating people to test their houses.
To measure the response to the materials, baseline
surveys of citizens' knowledge were conducted first.
Then, each household was given one of four different in-
formation booklets on radon risk, or the 1986 EPA
publication "A Citizen's Guide to Radon" or a one-page
fact sheet. Telephone surveys were used to evaluate
their effectiveness in terms of three key issues: learning
about radon, ability to form a risk perception consistent
with the homeowner's radon reading and demand for
additional information. Final data collection on the
mitigation portion of the study will take place this fall, with
a report due out in the spring of 1989.
Among the preliminary results reached about radon
risk communication were these:
— The one-page fact sheet was sent only to
homeowners with very low radon readings.
That format, however, caused the most con-
cern; recipients felt they did not have enough
information to decide whether they should do
anything about their radon levels.
— All the booklets surpassed the one-page fact
sheet in effectiveness, but no one format is
best for all three issues evaluated. Publications
using quantitative information help people form
risk perceptions. On the other hand, publica-
tions that were "directive" (i.e., describing ac-
tion to be taken above specific levels) led peo-
ple to think they had enough information to
make a decision.
For further information, contact Ann Fisher, U.S.
EPA, Office of Policy Analysis, at (202) 382-5500.
EPA ANNOUNCES SECTIOr
RISK SCREENING GUIDE
By David Klauder, U.S. EPA/Office of Toxic Substa
In recent years, the American public has become
increasingly aware of and concerned about the risks
associated with exposure to toxic industrial chemicals.
This awareness is reflected in the environmental legisla-
tion enacted by Congress and particularly in the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(or Title III) of the 1986 Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA). Under Section 313 of Title
III, certain manufacturing facilities must submit annual
reports* for each toxic chemical manufactured, im-
ported, processed, or used at the facility, as prescribed
in the reporting rule (53 FR 4500).
Facilities subject to toxic chemical release reporting
are required to submit data on toxic chemical releases
each year beginning in 1987 to the EPA and the State
in which they are located. Releases of each chemical in-
to each environmental medium were to have been
recorded separately. If monitoring data were not
available, these total annual emissions, including ac-
cidental releases, were to have been estimated by the
reporting facility.
Section 313 also requires EPA to make these emis-
sions data available to the public through computeriz-
ed telecommunications and other means. The informa-
tion reported on 1987 releases will first be available to
the public in the spring of 1989. Congress did not direct
a 313
inces
EPA or the States to evaluate or interpret these data.
However, EPA expects the public to have many ques-
tions about these data, especially about emissions oc-
curring in their own communities. Many people will want
to know the potential health and environmental
significance of the chemical releases reported under
Section 313. Citizens will also want to know what is be-
ing done to control these releases at the local, State, and
Federal levels. They may demand to know why any
chemical deemed "toxic" is being released at all.
Concerned citizens are likely to contact their local
government officials to try to get answers to these ques-
tions. Given the limited resources and expertise on tox-
ic chemicals within most local governments, many of
these callers will be referred to State health officials
and/or to EPA Regional offices. In anticipation of this
scenario, EPA's Office of Toxic Substances has drafted
a Section 313 data evaluation manual, The Risk Screen-
ing Guide (Interim Final).
The Risk Screening Guide is intended to help those
who will be evaluating Section 313 emissions data in
order to make statements about the potential for health
and/or ecological effects. The manual suggests steps
that can be taken to answer two key issues of concern
regarding Section 313 emissions data:
7
-------
1. How can one respond effectively to health and
ecological inquiries from the public?
2. How can the releases of greatest potential con-
cern from a public health or environmental
standpoint be identified from the thousands of
forms submitted so that these critical cases can
be further investigated?
Concerning the first issue, the manual offers
guidance in responding to risk-related questions that the
public will likely ask when the data are made available
(for example, "How dangerous for my health are these
specific releases?"). Also, general strategies for handl-
ing inquiries, tracking telephone calls, assembling
resources and disseminating information are presented.
With respect to the second issue, the manual
describes how to use Section 313 data as a supplement
to existing Federal, State and local information in setting
priorities for follow-up data collection. While health
officials want to pay attention to every site that poses a
potential problem and every question from a concern-
ed citizen, it would be impossible to treat them all equal-
ly. Therefore, this manual shows how to rank those
chemicals or sites that appear to pose the most im-
mediate or serious concerns.
Further, The Risk Screening Guide appendices are
directories of resources, including EPA Regional and
State Section 313 contacts, guidance on estimating likely
rates of release for certain chemical uses, and a toxici-
ty ranking matrix for Section 313 chemicals. Finally, a
hard copy version of ROADMAPS, a supplementary Sec-
tion 313 chemical information directory described
elsewhere in this issue, is included in the guidance
manual.
Some of the Guide's key points are summarized
below. First, the Section 313 data will be useful for risk
screening only. In the context of Section 313, risk screen-
ing is a type of risk assessment used when data are
limited. The process results in a qualitative expression
of risk (high, medium, low). Risk screening is useful for
establishing risk-based priorities and information need-
ed for follow-up chemical- or site-specific risk assess-
ment activities.
During the first years of reporting, Section 313 data,
when taken alone, will not support quantitative expres-
sions of risk. These data are expected to be of limited
quality and type for assessing potential risk because of
uncertainties associated with release estimates and the
lack of information on rates of release.
The Section 313 data are being provided by
manufacturers without any new monitoring or
measurements required by law. In other words, much of
the information in the Toxic Release Inventory will be
based on calculated release estimates, not on actual
release measurements. There will be no prior analysis
or interpretation of the data by any organization, in-
cluding EPA. Also, since manufacturers will be reporting
these data for the first time, omissions, misunderstan-
dings and inaccuracies may occur in reporting.
Under the current reporting rule, there is no require-
ment that information on frequency, duration or peak
releases be supplied. However, information on release
patterns is critical to the assessment of potential risks
of most toxic chemicals, since the level of exposure to
target organisms, including humans, is a major compo-
nent of a chemical risk assessment.
Second, the release of a toxic chemical does not
automatically result in exposure. For exposure to occur,
the chemical must first travel from the facility to people,
animals, or other organisms of concern. Many factors in-
fluence whether a chemical reaches a target organism
and in what concentration. Chemicals may break down
or be diluted once they are released. Such factors must
be evaluated before exposure can be estimated from
release data.
Third, exposure to a toxic chemical does not
automatically result in toxicity. Risk is a measure,
qualitative or quantitative, of the likelihood that exposure
to measured or estimated concentrations of a toxic
chemical will cause toxic effects. Obviously, the lower the
exposure, the less of the risk of a given effect.
The risk screening approach presented in the Guide
is intended to assist health officials in identifying the
chemicals and facilities which require a follow-up risk
assessment to better characterize the extent and
magnitude of potential risks. The approach should also
help the user understand what kinds of information need
to be collected in order to do a more detailed quantitative
risk assessment.
After potential risks or relative risks are assessed,
a determination must be made as to the "acceptability"
of the risks. Although the Guide does not address this
subject directly, it does offer a bibliography of risk com-
munication approaches.
A final version of the Guide is to be prepared and
widely distributed prior to EPA's public announcement
of 1987 emissions data in the spring of 1989. The cur-
rent version of the guidance manual (September 1,1988,
Interim Final) is undergoing field testing in the EPA
Regions, selected State and local governments, and
community service organizations. The final document
will reflect these groups' comments and suggestions for
improvement. For further information on what risk-
related conclusions can and cannot be drawn from Sec-
tion 313 data alone or for copies of The Risk Screening
Guide (Interim Final), contact Dr. David S. Klauder,
TS-778, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, S. W., Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 382-3628,
(FTS) 382-3628.
'See related articles in the December 1986 and
September 1987 Newsletters.
8
-------
EPA OUTLINES FOUR ALTERNATIVE
POLICY APPROACHES FOR BENZENE
UPDATE ON SARA 313 FACT SHEETS
As an update to a July 1988 Newsletter article, over 150 fact sheets on specific chemicals in the Super-
fund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Section 313 have been distributed to State air pollution
control agencies. Copies are available through your State Sara Title III Toxic Release Inventory contact. In-
formation on State contacts can be found in the NATICH data base ("clearinghouse reports" menu, "agen-
cy reports" submenu).
On July 20, 1988, EPA proposed four alternative
policy approaches for setting national emission stan-
dards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) in the Ju-
ly 28, 1988, Federal Register. Also presented were the
decisions that would result from the application of each
approach to four benzene source categories:
ethylbenzene/styrene (EB/S) process vents, benzene
storage vessels, benzene equipment leaks, and coke by-
product recovery plants. Alternative standards result
from the application of each approach to each source
category; the standards are being proposed under Sec-
tion 112 of the Clean Air Act.
This proposal is the first NESHAP action that
implements the decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals in July 1987 on vinyl chloride. In Vinyl Chloride
the court set out a two-step process for EPA to follow in
setting NESHAP under Section 112. The two steps are
to establish a "safe" or "acceptable" level of risk based
on health considerations; and to select a level that pro-
vides an ample margin of safety. Once a safe or accep-
table risk level is assured, the Administrator is free to
consider the cost and technological feasibility of further
control.
Previous Benzene Actions Reviewed
The EPA listed benzene as a hazardous air pollu-
tant under Section 112 in 1977 because of its carcinogen-
ic properties. The listing led to the development in 1980
and 1981 of proposed standards for benzene emissions
from maleic anhydride process vents, EB/S process
vent, benzene storage vessels and benzene equipment
leaks. After public comment, EPA published final stan-
dards in 1984 for benzene equipment leaks, but withdrew
its proposals for the first three sources. The withdrawals
were based on the conclusion that both the benzene
health risks to the public from these three source
categories and the potential reductions in health risks
achievable with available control techniques were too
small to warrant Federal regulatory action under Section
112. Also on that date, EPA proposed a standard for ben-
zene emissions from coke by-product recovery plants.
Shortly thereafter, the Natural Resources Defense
Council filed suit seeking review of EPA's three
withdrawals and the final standard for the benzene
equipment leaks. Following the Vinyl Chloride decision,
EPA requested a voluntary remand in the benzene case
to reconsider its 1984 decisions. The court approved the
voluntary remand and established a schedule for issu-
ing the proposed and final rules. The Agency also decid-
ed to reconsider the proposed standard for benzene
emissions from coke by-product recovery plants and to
publish a supplemental proposal.
How the Four Alternative Policy Approaches
Work Within the Ttoo-Step NESHAP Process
1. The Acceptable Risk Decision Step
The first approach to defining acceptable risk, or
"case-by-case approach," considers all risk information
for a given pollutant-maximum individual risk, risk
distribution and incidence--as well as the estimated
limitations and uncertainties. In decisions on acceptable
risk under this approach, the preference is for risk to fall
in the range of 10"4 or less. However, a higher maximum
individual risk, for example, 10 3, may be acceptable
under certain circumstances, depending on the overall
distribution of the population at different risk levels, the
overall potential for increased incidence of disease, and
other risk considerations. The case-by-case approach
captures the qualitative as well as quantitative informa-
tion in the risk assessment by recognizing the dif-
ferences in the quality of the underlying assumptions.
The three remaining approaches use fixed acceptable
risk numbers and consider the weight of evidence in the
second, or ample margin-of-safety, step.
The second approach is based on the total number
of cancer cases per year. The Agency proposes one
cancer case per year as acceptable because it is small
in relation to the millions of persons exposed to benzene
and in relation to the incidence associated with risks from
numerous everyday activities. This approach is com-
monly called the incidence-based approach.
9
-------
The remaining two approaches are based on
maximum-individual-risk levels of 1 x 10~4, one chance
in 10,000, and 1 x 10~6, one chance in one million.
2. The Ample Margin of Safety Decision Step
Once an acceptable risk level is chosen, then a
decision about establishing an ample margin of safety,
or selecting a standard that results in risks that are at or
below the acceptable risk level, must be made. Con-
siderations in determining a standard to provide an am-
ple margin of safety include the technical feasibility, cost
and economic impacts of controls, as well as all of the
health risk information. One question raised by the
benzene proposal is should all additional controls that
are technically feasible and cost effective be required,
no matter how small the risk reduction achieved?
Benzene Proposal Now Awaiting
Administrator's Decision
The July 20, 1988, proposal applies the four ap-
proaches to each of four categories of stationary sources
of benzene already outlined. (One source category for
which a benzene standard was proposed in 1980, maleic
anhydride process vents, no longer uses benzene.) The
baseline risk estimates for the benzene source
categories and the acceptable risk determinations under
the alternative approaches are summarized in Table 1.
Table 2 summarizes the levels that the Administrator pro-
posed as providing an ample margin of safety for each
of the four alternative approachs and for each source
category. The table shows the levels of control and the
associated risks.
The approach ultimately selected may be one of the
four described or a variation thereof. In addition to
reaching decisions on the benzene source categories,
the EPA intends to use this approach as the framework
for future NESHAP decisions. The framework adopted
for NESHAP, however, will not apply to other Agency pro-
grams. This is a result of the court's interpretation of the
process required for establishing NESHAP which did not
extend to regulatory decisions under any other statute
administered by EPA. Regulatory decisions under other
Acts will continue to be made according to those distinct
statutory mandates.
Additional information, along with the proposed
alternative standards, appears in the July 28, 1988,
Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking. Re-
quests for copies of the notice and questions may be
directed to Jan Meyer, U.S. EPA, OAQPS, MD-13,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919)
541-5254 or (FTS) 629-5254; or Gail Lacy, U.S. EPA,
OAQPS, (919) 541-5261 or (FTS) 629-5261 at the same
address.
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF ACCEPTABLE DECISIONS
UNDER THE ALTERNATIVE POLICY APPROACHES
Baseline Risk Estimates*
Cumulative Population* Noncumulatlve Incidence"
Is Baseline
Risk Acceptable
Approach
Source Category
MIRb
Casefyr'
>10'4
>IO"S
iio6
2lO"4
>10*
2;10"6
A
B
C
D
Ethylbenzene/Styrene
Process Vents
2 x 10"5
0.004
0
700
40,000
0
0.0002
0.001
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Benzene Storage
Vessels'
4 x 10 s
to
4 x 10"4
0.05
to
0.1
10
20,000
900,000
0
0.004
0.02
Yes
Yes
No
No
Equipment Leaks
NESHAP
6 x 10"4
0.2
3,000
60,000
1,000,000
0.007
0.02
0.04
Yes
Yes
No
No
Coke By-Product
Recovery Plants
6 X 10"3
3
100,000
3,000,000 30,000,000
0.4
0.9
1
Yes
No
No
No
aThe baseline level of control is described for each source category in Sections VII through X of the July 28, 1988,
Federal Register Notice.
bMaximum individual risk (MIR) is the increased risk of cancer due to exposure for 70 years (a lifetime) to the maximum modeled concentration.
cCase/yr is the annual incidence in the modeled population. This is a measure of population aggregate risk,
dThe estimated number of people exposed to benzene concentrations resulting in predicted individual risk levels above the level shown.
Population is cumulative.
"This is the estimated annual number of leukemia cases for the population exposed to each risk level. It is not cumulafive.
'The range of risks associated with storage vessels represents the range of emission estimates.
10
-------
TABLE 2.
SUMMARY OF AMPLE MARGIN OF SAFETY DECISIONS
UNDER THE ALTERNATIVE POLICY APPROACHES
Coke
By-Product Plants
Ethylbenzene/Styrene
Process Vents
Benzene Storage
Vessels
Equipment Leaks
Approach A: Case-by-Case
Level of Control
No additional control.
Cost effective
1984 NESHAP provides
Cost effective
Existing control provides
equipment.3
ample margin.
equipment and
ample margin.
work practices.b
MIRc/case/yr
2 x 10 5/0.004
3 x 10'5/0.04
6 x 10"4 / 0.2
4 x 10"4/0.2
Population at >10~4/106
0/40,000
0/80,000
3,000/1,000,000
2,000/2,000,000
Approach B: < 1 Case/Yr
Level of Control
Same as above.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Same as above.
MIR/case/yr
Same as above.
Same as above
Same as above.
Same as above.
Population at >10"4/10"6
Same as above.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Same as above
Approach C; si i 104
Level of Control
Same as above.
Same as above.
14 kg/dayd and
34 kg/dayd and
1984 NESHAP
controls required in
MIR/case/yr
Same as above
Same as above.
1 x 10 4/0.07
1 x 10"4/0.07
Population at > 10 4 /10"6
Same as above.
Same as above.
0/unknown
0/unknown
Approach D: ^1 x 10~4
Level of Control
5.5 kg/dayd
0.47 kg/dayd
0.14 kg/dayd
0.34 kg/dayd
MIR/case/yr
1 X 10"6/0 0007
1 x tO"6/0.002
t x to6/ 0.0007
1 x 10 6/0.0004
Population at >10"4/10"6
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
aControls required are internal floating roots on fixed roof vessels, effective primary seals and fittings on all vessels, and secondary seals on external
floating roof vessels.
^Controls required are gas blanketing on all process vessels, tar-bottom final coolers at foundry plants, wash-oil final coolers at furnace plants, and
leak detection and repair for equipment leaks.
CMIR = maximum individual lifetime risk.
dLimit on total benzene emissions from plant
PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE IDAHO SAMPLING
PROGRAM UNDER THE INTEGRATED
AIR CANCER PROJECT DESCRIBED*
Under the Integrated Air Cancer Project (IACP) the
initial field sampling programs in Raleigh, North
Carolina, and Albuquerque, New Mexico, have been
completed.** The first major field program was carried
out in Boise, Idaho, during the 1986-1987 heating
season. Boise was selected because it was considered
to be a relatively simple airshed, with only automotive
emissions and residential wood combustion (RWC) con-
tributing significantly to winter air pollution. The Boise
field program was a very extensive field effort, involving
sample collection at 20 residences and 7 ambient sites
over a 3-month period. Also, complementary laboratory
studies were undertaken on atmospheric transforma-
tions of combustion products, the effects of operating
conditions on woodstove emissions, and sampling
methodology development.
Results of Residential Sampling Summarized
During the residential sampling, ten pairs of homes,
one pair per week, were monitored during the field pro-
gram. Each pair of homes consisted of one house with
a wood-burning stove or fireplace, and a nearby house
without a wood-burning appliance. The paired homes
were matched to be similar in age, type of construction,
number and age of occupants, daily activities, etc.
Homes with confounding sources, like smoking, were ex-
cluded. The paired homes were within 1/4-mile of each
other, and within 1/2-mile of one of the primary or aux-
iliary monitoring sites.
Sampling at each pair of homes lasted for four days,
starting on Saturday morning at 7 a.m. and continuing
through 7 a.m. Wednesday morning. A 12-hour sample
collection schedule, identical to the ambient schedule
11
-------
was followed in all cases. Identical, concurrent samples
for particles, semivolatile compounds, and gases were
collected at five locations: inside each of the paired
homes, outside the home without a wood-burning ap-
pliance, and at the Elm Grove Park and fire station
primary sites. In addition, concurrent samples were ob-
tained by the Woodstove Dilution Sampling Systems
from the stack of the homes with wood-burning
appliances.
The residential samples occasionally revealed high
particulate loadings (greater than 100 micrograms per
cubic meter) indoors. The high loadings sometimes coin-
cided with high outdoor loadings, but were also found
at one house where the woodstove leaked smoke into
the house. High particulate loadings were found at
another residence as a result of operating an ultrasonic
humidifier. On the average, all houses showed higher
concentrations indoors for total nonmethane organic
compounds and aldehydes than were found outdoors.
Benzene concentrations inside the houses were similar
to outdoor levels. The GC/MS analyses of a limited set
of filters and the XAD-2 samples from the residential
study showed that the woodstove emissions and the am-
bient air samples both contained significant quantities
of methoxybenzenes. Methoxybenzenes are probable
pyrolysis products from the lignin in wood and are found
in these samples at concentrations much higher than the
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The mutagenicity of
the indoor and outdoor samples was also compared. On
average for all the houses, the mutagenicity of the par-
ticulate samples and of the XAD-2 samples was approx-
imately equal. The indoor particulate mutagenicity
measurements were generally lower than the com-
parable outdoor values, but they seemed to correlate
moderately well (r = 0.7). Overall, roughly half of the
variation in the indoor particulate mutagenicity was ex-
plained by variation in the outdoor measurement of the
mutagenicity of the filter samples.
Results of Ambient Sampling
Activities Summarized
Ambient sampling in Boise showed that particulate
mass loadings were reasonably uniformly distributed
across the city and were significantly higher than at the
background site. Particulate loadings at night were 50
percent greater than during the day. On average, 60 per-
cent of the fine particulate mass loading was found to
be extractable organic matter (EOM). A multiple linear
regression approach using lead*** and a potassium-
based tracer for motor vehicles and wood smoke,
respectively, was used to apportion the EOM to these
two sources. The RWC was found to be the dominant
contributor to the EOM loadings at both Elm Grove Park
and the fire station. Meteorological experiments in-
dicated a previously unknown periodicity in the wind flow
patterns during inversion episodes at Boise. When in-
ert tracers were released from chimneys in the Boise
area, each plume spread out rapidly to form a very wide
plume, which then remained relatively constant as it pro-
gressed downwind. The implication of these data is that
ambient sites like Elm Grove Park are affected by plumes
from many woodstoves and fireplaces, not just a few.
Complementary Laboratory Studies
Briefly Outlined
The research and development activities included:
1. atmosphere transformation studies,
2. source laboratory studies,
3. XAD-2 preparation methods, and
4. sampling methods development.
In the chemical transformation study, photo-
chemical oxidation of wood smoke and automobile emis-
sions appears to significantly increase the quantities of
mutagenic species in the gas phase, in addition to those
bound to the particles or on XAD-2. Source laboratory
measurements have successfully shown strong correla-
tions between operating variables such as wood species
and burn rate and emission characteristics such as PAH
emission rate. Source characterization studies suggest
that PAH emissions may be higher at lower altitudes, that
is, lower at sea level than at Boise.
The methods development projects included: (1) a
new procedure for the preparation and extraction of
XAD-2 sorbent medium for large scale sampling and (2)
the evaluation of the high volume PM 2.5 virtual impac-
tor. The procedure developed for XAD-2 cleaning and
subsequent sample extraction is an effective, easy-to-
use method that reduces the preparation time and cost
of preparing a large volume of XAD-2. The virtual impac-
tor, designed to provide two distinct fractions of particle
size (0-2.5 um and 2.5-10 um), at a flow rate of the tradi-
tional high volume sampler. Preliminary results show
good field adaptability and correlation to the standard
dichotomous sampler. This sample will be used to col-
lect large quantities of particulate matter for bioassay
analyses in future ICAP field studies.
Individual papers describing the research activities
will be published in the Symposium Proceedings, due
out this fall. If you would like more information on the
IACP, please contact Barbara Andon, IACP Coordinator
at (919) 541-7532 or (FTS) 629-7532.
*Papers were presented at the joint EPA/APCA
Symposium "Measurement of Toxic and Related
Air Pollutants," in Raleigh, North Carolina,
May 1983.
"•Laboratory studies complementing this field work
are described in the December 1986 Newsletter. Also
see related articles in the June and September 1987
issues.
'"Despite a recent reduction in the lead content of
leaded gasoline, lead still appeared to be a viable tracer
for automotive emissions.
12
-------
MONSANTO TARGETS NIN
EMISSION REDUCTION
By Charles D. Malloch, Director, Regulatory Man.
Monsanto Company
On June 30, in concert with disclosure of its Super-
fund Amendments Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III
Section 313 releases, Monsanto's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer Richard J. Mahoney stated that, "By
the end of 1992, we intend to reduce air emissions of
hazardous chemicals, worldwide, by 90 percent from
those being reported tomorrow. When we reach that
target, we will then continue to work toward the ultimate
goal of zero emissions." Monsanto's goal is to reduce the
20 million pounds of reported 1987 air releases over the
next four and a half years. The commitment is worldwide,
with comparable programs being developed for Monsan-
to's manufacturing operations in Europe, Asia, Latin
America, Australia and Canada.
The best scientific and medical data available to
Monsanto show that Monsanto's emissions do not pose
a health risk to the communities surrounding its more
than 40 plant locations. This is due in part to Monsan-
to's routine use of emission reduction technology. This
includes, but is not limited to, the use of Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT), Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) and Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate (LAER) technologies, specified under the
Clean Air Act. However, Mr. Mahoney sees room for im-
provement: "We have technology in hand to achieve a
ETY PERCENT
agement,
portion of the 1992 target. The rest must come from as
yet undeveloped technologies which we intend to find
and put into practice."
Thus far, a number of programs have been initiated
at Monsanto plants involving teams of engineers, scien-
tists and manufacturing personnel. The planned ap-
proach is for individual plants to scope out emission
reduction projects for their own facilities. Monsanto's cor-
porate staff is assisting in reviewing these programs so
that plants generating similar products will be aware of
developments at other locations. Individuals assigned
to the various operating units oversee these programs
at the corporate office. This arrangement not only en-
courages the exchange of ideas and information to ad-
dress common sources but also prevents redundant ef-
forts.
Although many of the programs are still in the plan-
ning stage, Monsanto's facilities are likely to first address
the larger sources, for which the reduction technology
is already available. Overall, projects will range from
"end of pipe" treatment to changes in process
technologies aimed at reducing the generation of air
emissions. In addition, improved maintenance and
management practices will be incorporated to reduce
fugitive and area emissions more effectively.
DO YOU NEED
ROADMAPS?
ROADMAPS is a data base designed to assist users
of the SARA Section 313 Toxic Release Inventory in iden-
tifying information needed to assess these chemicals.
Although ROADMAPS is primarily a directory to other
information sources, it does include a limited amount of
summary data on the listed chemicals. Categories of in-
formation covered for each chemical are:
1. Summary data on health and environmental
effects,
2. Listings of certain Federal regulations (primarily
those based on hazard or risk considerations)
applicable to the chemical, along with relevant
regulatory levels,
3. Citations for general information sources such
as Agency review documents and on-line data
bases (expanded descriptions of these informa-
tion sources are provided in an appendix to
ROADMAPS), and
4. Listings of activities from State air and water
programs and listings of State contacts from air,
water and Section 313 programs.
ROADMAPS is a menu-driven data base for use on
an IBM-compatible personal computer. The data base
is stored on five 5.25-inch double-sided, double density
(360KB) diskettes. The full data base, with synonym
search capability, requires a hard disk and 2.3
megabytes of storage to run. Without the synonym
search capability, the system can be run from a hard disk
with 1 megabyte of storage. The system also requires
DOS version 2.1 (or a more recent version) and 512K of
internal memory. Users can search the data base by CAS
number or chemical name to obtain complete informa-
tion on a specific chemical. In addition, lists of chemicals
with certain characteristics (say, carcinogens) or to which
certain regulations apply (for example, CERCLA) can be
obtained. The data base can also be searched by State
13
-------
to obtain lists of contacts and information for a specific
State. The expanded descriptions of information sources
are on a separate diskette with limited search capabili-
ty, but are not integrated into the data base itself.
The ROADMAPS diskettes and user's manual are
available from the TSCA Assistance Office at (202)
554-1404. For details on the system, call Jim Darr at (202)
382-3470.
CTC SPONSORS COURSE
FOR HOSPITAL WASTE INC
At the State of Maryland's request, the U.S. EPA
Control Technology Center (CTC) is overseeing the deve-
lopment of a training course for operators of hospital
waste incinerators. The EPA has contracted with
Midwest Research Institute to develop the course. A proj-
ect team has been formed from EPA's Emission Stan-
dards Division, Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory, Air Pollution Training Institute, Region III and
the State of Maryland to guide the effort. The course ob-
jective is to educate hospital waste incinerator operators
on proper operation and maintenance of the incinerator
and associated air pollution control devices to minimize
air pollution emissions. Once the course is prepared, it
will be available through EPA to other groups. The pri-
mary intention is to provide the course materials to the
States so that they may arrange to conduct their own
training courses.
INERATOR OPERATORS
The project is being conducted in two phases. The
goal of the first phase is to collect and evaluate available
information on the proper operation of hospital waste in-
cinerators and associated air pollution control devices.
The pertinent information collected will then be pre-
sented in an operation and maintenance manual. In the
second phase, information collected in Phase I will be
used to develop training course materials for hospital
waste incinerator operators. The materials include a stu-
dent's manual, instructor's manual, and presentation
slides. Course materials are scheduled for completion
at the beginning of 1989. For further information, call
James Eddinger, EPA/OAQPS, at (919) 541-5426, FTS
629-5426.
TOXIC AIR EMISSION
INVENTORY REPORT AVAI
The EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Stan-
dards has just published a new technical resource docu-
ment focused on the questionnaires State and local
agencies have used in collecting information on toxic air
emissions. State and local agencies should find the
document's pointers on designing and compiling air tox-
ics data useful as they develop their own inventories.
Single copies of the report, Compilation of Air Toxics
Emission Inventory Questionnaires, EPA-450/4-88-008,
ILABLE
June 1988, are available to State and local agencies free
of charge from the EPA Library, Mail Drop 32, U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-2777, (FTS) 629-2777
Those in the private sector may obtain the document,
Publication Number PB88236237/AS, for a fee from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, (703) 487-4650.
URBAN AIR TOXICS
WORKSHOPS SCHEDULED
The U.S. EPA and STAPPA/ALAPCO will sponsor ur-
ban air toxics workshops to be held January through
April 1989 in Denver, Baltimore and Southern California.
Each two-and-a-half day workshop will feature State and
local experience in assessing and mitigating urban air
toxics, as well as EPA's latest information on the topic.
Agencies that have recently completed major urban air
toxics studies will co-sponsor the workshops.
A small registration fee may be charged. For infor-
mation, contact Bill Lamason, U.S. EPA, Noncriteria
Pollutant Programs Branch, (MD-15), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5374, (FTS)
629-5374.
14
-------
NEED HELP?
If your agency needs help in finding information on
a specific air toxics question, you can announce that
need in the National Air Toxics Information Clear-
inghouse Newsletter. Your colleagues from other State
or local agencies who have such information will be able
to contact you with assistance. In addition, the Clearing-
house staff would like to receive your ideas for future
Newsletter articles. To list an information need in the next
issue or to submit an article or a suggestion for a future
Newsletter article, please call Alice Pelland, Radian Cor-
poration, (919) 541-9100.
The National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse Newsletter is published by the National Air Toxics In-
formation Clearinghouse to assist State and local agencies making decisions on noncriteria pollutant emissions.
The Clearinghouse is being implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Standards
Division, Pollutant Assessment Branch as part of a joint effort with the State and Local Air Pollution Control Of-
ficials (ALAPCO). The National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse Newletter is prepared by Radian Corporation
under EPA Contract Number 68-02-4330, Work Assignment 34. The EPA Project Officer is Scott Vorhees, EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Telephone:
(919)541-5519. The Radian Project Director is Alice Pelland, P.O. Box 13000, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27709, (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 the Project Officer either with any comments you might have pertaining to this
newsletter or with suggestions for future newsletters. Articles in the newsletter are written by Radian Corpora-
tion 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 Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute any endorsement or recommendation for use by EPA.
15
-------
Scott Vorhees
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
------- |