453N90003
NATICH
NEWSLETTER
oBtt
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
Produced by the National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse September 1990
New OAQPS Director and Acting Deputy Director Appointed
After a six-year tenure as
Director of the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS),
Gerald A. Emison accepted the
position of Deputy Regional Ad-
ministrator in Region X. Effective
July 30, 1990, John S. Seitz be-
came the new director of OAQPS.
John has been with EPA since
1971, most recently as Director of
the OAQPS Stationary Source
Compliance Division. He has also
served as Deputy Director of the
Office of Compliance Monitoring,
Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, and has been active in
the development and implementa-
tion of TSCA, FIFRA, and RCRA.
John will be based in Washington
until June 1991, after which he
will make his home in Durham,
North Carolina.
Also effective July 30, 1990,
Lydia N. Wegman began her ap-
pointment as Acting Deputy Direc-
tor of OAQPS. Lydia most recently
served as senior legal and policy
advisor to William Rosenberg,
Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR).
Lydia has been closely involved in
OAR's work on the Cleaq.Air Act
Amendments, as well as many
regulatory matters. Her extensive
experience with the air program,
both as an attorney and a policy
advisor, makes her well suited to
work with OAQPS in implement-
ing the new law. Lydia has also
served as a special assistant to the
Director of the Office of Mobile
Sources, in addition to her posi-
tions as a Staff Attorney and Act-
ing Assistant General Counsel in
the Air Division of the Office of
the General Counsel.
Clean Air Act Update: Committee
Considers Senate Air Toxics Offer
Since the last newsletter arti-
cle was published there has not
been a great deal of progress on
the Clean Air Act amendments.
The last article focused on
changes which had occurred in the
air toxics provisions (Title III of
the amendments) during the
debate in the House of Represen-
tatives. To recap the status of the
amendments, both the House and
the Senate passed their own ver-
sions of amendments to the Clean
Air Act this spring. The Senate
bill, S. 1630, was passed on April
3, 1990, and the House bill,
originally H.R. 3030, was passed
on May 23, 1990, and the number
was changed to S. 1630 to match
the Senate bill. To convene a con-
ference committee, the two ver-
sions of any bill must have the
same number.
In June, Senate Majority
Leader Mitchell (D-ME) an-
nounced nine Senate conferees and
Speaker Foley (D-WA) announced
142 House conferees selected to
participate in the House/Senate
conference committee on the Clean
Air Act amendments. Senator Max
Baucus (D-MT) was appointed as
the chairman of the conference
committee, while Representative
John Dingell (D-MI) chairs the
House conferees.
Negotiations on the differences
between the bills began before
Congress recessed for August.
(continued on page 2)
In This Issue
NCC Revises
Security Policy 2
Hillsborough County Adopts
Asbestos Fee Schedule 3
Region VI Participates in
EPA's Comparative
Risk Project 4
New York Area Air Tbxics
Study Nears Completion 5
OTS Wraps Up Section 313
Data Quality Audit 7
Massachusetts Act Promotes
Tbxics Use Reduction 7
EPA Publishes Final Emission
Standards for Comfort
Cooling Tbwers 8
Air Tbxics Program
Development Manual
Available 9

-------
NCC Revises Security Policy
Users of the NATICH data
base or other programs on the
National Computer Center (NCC)
IBM mainframe should be aware
that beginning August 13, 1990,
the National Data Processing Divi-
sion began implementing and en-
forcing the revised NCC IBM
Mainframe Security Policy. The
policy revisions are required to
ensure that only registered users
can access the NCC and its
resources. The revised policy is
available in the on-line data set
'JUSD.POLICIES.MANUAL.'
The sections of the policy
most applicable to NATICH users
are those related to user-IDs and
passwords. Only one user-ID may
be owned and this ID cannot be
shared among users. Shared use-
IDs will be revoked and denied
access to the system. The shared
user-ID will be removed from the
system 90 days after revocation
unless an IRM Manager (formerly,
ADP Coordinator)* or Account
Manager has taken steps to iden-
tify the owner of the user-ID.
Only the owner of a user-ID
(as recorded by the Time Sharing
Services Management System
(TSSMS)) may request a password
reset for a user-ID. An IRM
Manager or an Account Manager
may make this request for users,
but this type of password reset will
be valid for only two weeks. After
two weeks, written justification
must be provided to TSSMS by
the ADP coordinator or Account
Manager for the continued use of
the user-ID. Multiple password
changes, used to cycle passwords
ten times back to an old password
value, are against the Policy.
Multiple password changes will be
monitored, and users who violate
the Policy will have their user-IDs
revoked immediately. Any user-ID
not used for a year to access the
NCC IBM 3090 will also be re-
moved from the system.
If you believe you are current-
ly in violation of any of the policy
revisions, you should contact your
IRM Manager or Account Manager,
or if you have questions about the
NCC IBM Mainframe Security
Policy, please contact user support at
(919) 541-7862, or 1-800-334-2405.
*See related article in the September
1989 Newsletter.
CAA Update (continued
Although several offers were
made, the only point of agreement
as of August 3rd was the provision
to end the production and use of
ozone depleting chemicals such as
chlorofluorocarbons. At the con-
ference committee meeting of July
25, 1990, Senator Durenberger
(R-MN) introduced an offer on air
toxics; however, no part of the
Senate offer had been accepted by
the House as of August. It must be
emphasized that no agreements on
air toxics have been made as yet
and these provisions may or may
not be included in the final bill.
Highlights of the Senate offer are
described below. Three of the ma-
jor provisions discussed in previous
newsletters* are presented in
detail as a review; the remainder
of the Senate offer is discussed
briefly.
Review of Residual Risks:
Both bills have provisions that
would address the risk remaining
after the application of maximum
available control technology
(MACT). The Senate bill requires
studies of risk assessment by the
page 1)
National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) and by an independent risk
commission appointed by the
President and Congress. Legis-
lative recommendations of the
commission for control of residual
risks would be given expedited
review in Congress. The House bill
requires a study of risk assessment
by EPA without expedited review
of any legislative recommendations.
Both bills require Congress to
enact legislation recommended by
the studies - within 5 years of enact-
ment in the Senate version, 8 years
for the House. If new legislation is
not enacted within the specified
timeframes, each bill also includes
a default procedure for evaluating
residual risks. The Senate bill
would default to a system of bright
line risk evaluations based on the
cancer risk to the most exposed in-
dividual; the House bill default is
the ample margin of safety stan-
dard currently in place under Sec-
tion 112. The Senate offer retains
the default bright line risk levels,
the NAS study and some portions
of the expedited review, but would
substitute the EPA report required
by the House bill for the work of
the risk assessment commission.
"Voluntary" Reductions: The
Senate offer adopts the House pro-
visions on voluntary reductions,
except for the baseline year for
calculating reductions which is re-
tained at 1985. This offer would
replace the Senate MACT exemp-
tion for 90 percent or 95 percent
voluntary reductions with the
5-year MACT compliance exten-
sion as provided by the House bill.
Permits: The Senate offer re-
tains the Title III permit program
(which is separate from the general
permit program), but adds 2 years
to the implementation date. In ad-
dition, the offer retains the best
professional judgement (case-by-
case best technology) permit provi-
sion if EPA fails to promulgate
MACT on schedule.
MACT Standards: The defini-
tion of MACT for existing sources
in the Senate and the House bills
differ slightly. The Senate version
would require that, where data are
available, MACT be at least as
2

-------
CAA Update (continued)
stringent as the level of control
achieved by the best performing 10
percent of similar sources, or the
three best performing sources if
there are fewer than 30 facilities in
the source category. The House
bill would require that where data
are available, MACT be at least as
stringent as the level of control
achieved by the best performing 15
percent of similar sources, or the
five best performing sources if
there are fewer than 30 facilities in
the source category. The House
provision excludes from considera-
tion facilities achieving the lowest
achievable emission rate (LAER)
as defined by Section 171, within
12 months prior to promulgation,
when determining MACT for ex-
isting sources. The Senate com-
promise offer retains the Senate
version of the provisions for defin-
ing MACT for existing sources.
Negligible Risk: The House
bill includes a provision which
would allow individual facilities to
develop a demonstration of negligi-
ble risk on a site-specific basis in
lieu of compliance with applicable
MACT or residual risk standards.
Like other areas of the country
with a high growth rate, Florida's
Hillsborough County (Tampa) En-
vironmental Protection Commis-
sion (EPC) has found that demands
on its asbestos abatement program
for renovation and demolition pro-
jects have increased. In fact, in the
five years the program has existed,
the number of notifications the
EPC received increased by 370
percent. Therefore, the Commis-
sion adopted a fee schedule for the
inspections to help defray the cost
of enforcing the asbestos NESHAP,
which includes inspector entry into
active removal areas* Since accept-
ing subdelegation for enforcement
from the State of Florida, the EPC
has received some guidance from
Such a demonstration would be
based on the risk estimates for the
most exposed individual (using
site-specific information). The ap-
plication for such a waiver would
have to demonstrate less than a 1
in 1,000,000 risk of cancer and an
ample margin of safety for non-
cancer effects for the most exposed
individual.
The Senate bill has a very sim-
ilar provision but the negligible
risk demonstrations would be
allowed only after a facility has
complied with an applicable MACT
standard. The target risk levels
would be based on the residual
risk levels in the Senate bill (i.e., 1
in 10,000 or 1 in 1,000,000 cancer
risk and ample margin of safety
for noncancer effects to the most
exposed individual). In other
words, sources could avoid com-
pliance with applicable residual
risk standards by demonstrating
compliance with a level of either 1
in 10,000 or 1 in 1,000,000 risk of
cancer and ample margin of safety
for noncancer effects to the most
exposed individual. The Senate of-
fer retains the provision for allow-
EPA and the State Department of
Environmental Regulation, but has
worked out most of the program's
mechanics itself.
Commission Contacted Contractors
In September 1989, the EPC
sent a letter and questionnaire to
commercial demolition/renovation
contractors in its jurisdiction ex-
plaining revisions to the demolition
and renovation permit process.
The letter pointed out that all com-
mercial demolition projects - and
most renovation projects - are
subject to a prior notification re-
quirement: the EPC is allowed up
to 20 days from the postmark date
of the notification form to inspect
the affected building. The require-
ing an alternative emission limita-
tion based on risk only after
MACT has been applied.
The Senate offer also modifies
some provisions for area sources,
the Great Lakes Program, and ac-
cident prevention. No changes to
the Senate provisions for the pollu-
tant list, coke ovens, electric util-
ities, and municipal waste com-
bustors were offered.
A schedule for enactment of
the bill is unclear; however, it is
expected to be passed by this Con-
gress. If the conference committee
does not take final action before
the October recess, a "lame duck"
session could be convened after the
November elections to finish work
on the bill.
With limited space it is not
possible to cover all aspects of the
Senate air toxics offer. The pre-
ceding is a brief outline of some of
the more critical areas. If you have
any questions about this article,
please call Tim Mohin at (919)
541-5349 or (FTS) 629-5349.
*See related articles in these past
issues of the Newsletter: July 1990,
May 1990, March 1990.
Fee Schedule
ment applies even if contractors
believe no asbestos is present in
the building scheduled for
demolition.
The Commission enclosed a
questionnaire it had developed to
help contractors determine whe-
ther their projects would trigger the
asbestos notification requirements.
Intended for the contractors' use
only and not for submission to
EPC, the questionnaire asked
about the size of the commercial
project (or residential building if it
has five or more units) and the
number of square or linear feet of
friable asbestos present in the
building. If the contractor answers
"yes" to the pertinent questions,
then notification to the EPC is
Hillsborough County Adopts Asbestos
3

-------
Hillsborough (continued)
required and the EPC's own trained
asbestos specialist will inspect the
building. The EPC processed 402
demolition / renovation applications
in 1989. Of these, the specialist in-
spected half of the renovation sites
and all of the demolition sites.
EPC Assesses Fines for Violations
The EPC has authority to use
administrative, judicial, and refer-
ral enforcement actions against
asbestos NESHAP violators. In ad-
dition, the Commission collects
penalties through use of its agency
enforcement procedures. In 1989,
the EPC detected about a dozen
violations of the demolition/
renovation permit rules with
penalties ranging from $400 to
$3,000.
In April 1990, the Commission
started charging a user fee for
notifications. The EPC sent
outreach packages to businesses
and contractors telling them about
the new procedures and about
EPA interpretations of the
NESHAP regulations.
For further information on the
asbestos program in Hillsborough
County, call Ms. Susan Cameron of
the Air Pollution Control Division,
Environmental Protection Commis-
sion, at (813) 272-5530.
*See related articles on a model in-
spection program (March 1987) and
on the asbestos activities of the
California Air Resources Board
(December 1984, May 1985), Ohio
(March 1987) and Puget Sound
(March 1986).
Region VI Participates in EPA's
Comparative Risk Project
EPA Region VI is conducting a
study of its environmental prior-
ities by comparing the risks
associated with 22 problem areas
listed in Table 1. The goals will be
to:
•	pursue new approaches to en-
vironmental management;
•	improve the way priorities are
set;
•	make more informed decisions;
•	provide analytical tools and risk
rankings to implement manage-
ment strategies;
•	provide flexibility to identify
and address priorities of specific
regional concern that may differ
from EPA Headquarters' prior-
ities; and
•	focus limited resources to
achieve greatest risk reduction
and environmental benefit.
The evaluation follows those
previously conducted by Regions I,
III, and X.
The approach taken by Region
VI was to establish three work-
groups, one to address the health
aspects of each of the 22 problem
areas, the second to assess the
ecological aspects, and the third to
address the welfare aspects.
Although the workgroups can draw
Table 1
Region VI Environmental Problem Areas
(1)	Industrial Wastewater Discharges to Oceans, Lakes, and Rivers
(2)	Municipal Wastewater Discharges to Oceans, Lakes, and Rivers
(3)	Aggregated Public and Private Drinking Water Supplies
(4)	Nonpoint Source Discharges to Oceans, Lakes, and Rivers
(5)	Physical Degradation of Water and Wetland Habitats
(6)	Aggregated Ground Water Contamination
(7)	Storage Tanks
(8)	RCRA Hazardous Waste
(9)	Hazardous Waste Sites - Abandoned / Superfund Sites
(10)	Municipal Solid Waste Sites
(11)	Industrial Solid Waste Sites
(12)	Accidental Chemical Releases to the Environment
(13)	Pesticides
(14)	Sulfur Oxides and Nitrogen Oxides (including Acid Deposition)
(15)	Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
(16)	Airborne Lead
(17)	Particulate Matter
(18)	Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants
(19)	Indoor Air Pollutants other than Radon
(20)	Indoor Radon
(21)	Radiation other than Radon
(22)	Physical Degradation of Terrestrial Ecosystems/Habitats
Regional Specific Problem Areas
(23)	Gulf Coast
(24)	Lower Mississippi River
(25)	Oil Production/Storage/Transportation
(26)	United States - Mexico Border
Optional Problem Areas
(A)	Odor and Noise Pollution
(B)	Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
(C)	Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming
Note: The order does not represent any ranking.

-------
Region VI (continued)
on the methodologies used by
Regions I, III, and X, each has
developed its own ranking and
assessment system. For example,
the ecological workgroup has
opted to evaluate the Region's 21
ecoregions instead of the tradi-
tional geographic or political areas.
One of the 22 problem areas
is air toxics, which includes
organic compounds and heavy
metals but not criteria pollutants.
As part of the data assessment,
Region VI is collecting data on
point and mobile sources of air tox-
ics and their contribution to each
metropolitan area.
For the point source contribu-
tions, the source of information
used for determining the area of
impact has been the 1987 and
1988 Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) data* These data, in con-
New York Area Air
The Staten Island/New Jersey
Urban Air Toxics Assessment Pro-
ject is a bi-State study funded by
various federal, State, local, and
academic groups* The project was
planned in 1986, started in 1987,
and is entering its final year. The
project is designed to
•	monitor ambient air toxics,
•	update emission inventories, and
•	conduct an exposure/risk
assessment.
Project Prompted by Odor
Complaints
Staten Island residents have
complained about periodic in-
stances of malodorous air pre-
sumably blowing across the Arthur
Kill** from industrialized areas in
New Jersey. Further, the residents
questioned whether the odors
might mean health risks to Staten
Islanders, and the lack of ambient
air toxics data became an obstacle
to addressing this concern. A
series of spills and accidental re-
junction with SAS/GRAPH soft-
ware, have produced maps which
identify the facility locations and
code each according to its release
totals. These will then be used to
determine the area affected by the
air toxic releases. Other sources of
information used for evaluating
point sources emissions include ex-
isting inventories, risk assessments
done for specific areas or source
categories, and air monitoring data
collected by the States, Toxic Air
Monitoring System**, Urban Air
Toxics Monitoring Program
(UATMP), Nonmethane Organic
Compounds (NMOC) Program,
and others.
The current plan for estima-
ting mobile source emissions is to
use emission factors supplied by
the EPA's Office of Mobile Sources
and data on vehicle-miles-traveled
Toxics Study Nears
leases reinforced the residents'
concerns about the quality of their
air.
Possible sources of odor in-
clude New Jersey's pharmaceutical
plants, oil refineries, chemical
storage facilities, and sewage treat-
ment plants - as well as Staten
Island's Fresh Kills landfill, the
largest in the world. In addition,
the New York City Department of
Health and the College of Staten
Island claimed, on the basis of
cancer statistics, that the incidence
of lung cancer in Staten Island and
in Hudson and Middlesex Counties
in New Jersey was higher than in
surrounding areas.
The Region II office worked
with industry, State and local agen-
cies, and concerned citizens' groups
to address accidental releases and
odors. However, neither New York
nor New Jersey had a population
exposure data base to consult to
determine the risks attributable
to air toxics in the project area.
As a result, the air toxics assess-
from the States.
A report on the study thus far
will be submitted this summer to
the Regional Administrator and
Division Directors. This year the
Region has focused on identifying
data sources and beginning inven-
tory development. Changes in
prioritization based on their find-
ings will be described in the report
and implemented as the study con-
tinues. For more information on
the project, contact Tom Driscoll,
Region VI Air Toxics Coordinator
at (214)655-7223.
*	See related articles in these past
issues of the Newsletter: May 1988,
January 1990, May 1990.
*	* See related articles in these past
issues of the Newsletter: March
1986, June 1987, December 1989.
Completion
ment project began.
How the Project Is Being
Conducted
The project includes 15 am-
bient air monitoring sites (see
Figure 1), analyzing for VOCs (13
sites), metals (7 sites), formal-
dehyde (5 sites), and collecting
wind data (5 sites). An indoor air
assessment is in progress as well.
At present, outdoor ambient
air monitoring is complete. Most
sites gathered data from summer
1988 through the end of Septem-
ber 1989. Approximately half of
the VOC monitoring sites were
operated for the full 2-year sam-
pling period. Quality assurance
reports on the data are now being
prepared and the data that were
submitted are being checked for
errors.
Exposure assessment/risk
characterization for ambient air
and additional data analysis are
scheduled for completion in
5

-------
New York (continued)
December 1990 and September
1991. Microinventories for toxic
compounds targeted by the project
have been performed around each
air monitoring site. This informa-
tion will be used to determine
sources of any local influences on
air toxics near the site that might
affect the overall representative-
ness of the data. The information
will also help in comparing the
data with existing State air toxics
inventories.
The indoor air component of
the project which began in July is
comparing air from four houses
(two in New Jersey and two on
Staten Island) with air at two
neighboring ambient air monitor-
ing sites. This study is to be com-
pleted in the spring of 1991.
To complement the project,
Region II has initiated The Staten
Island Citizens' Odor Network. Six
homeowners were selected from a
group of volunteers to take am-
bient air samples each time they
noticed odors. Sample analysis will
be completed by September,
followed by data analysis in the
fall.
For further information, con-
tact Robert F. Kelly, project coor-
dinator, Air Programs Branch, Air
and Waste Management Division,
EPA Region II, at (212) 264-2517.
*The U.S. EPA (Region II), the
New York State Department of En-
vironmental Conservation, The New
Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, The New York State
Department of Health, and the Col-
lege of Staten Island, The University
of Medicine and Dentistry of New
Jersey.
* *Kill is a Dutch word meaning
creek, stream or channel.
Figure 1
SI/NJ IJATAP Monitoring Locations
\ Newark Airport •
W
• D
V.F
SITES
WesU'rlcitfh
Travis
Annandale
Great Kills
Port Richmond
Dongan Hills
Pumping Station
Clifton
Tottenville
Arthur Kill
Elizabeth
B.	Carteret
C.	Sewaren
I). Piscataway
E. Highland Park
KEY:
V = Volatile Organic Compounds
P = Particulates • Trace Metals & BaP
W = Meteorology
K = Formaldehyde
6

-------
OTS Wraps Up Section 313 Data Quality Audit
The Office of Toxic Substances
(OTS) has been working with con-
tractors to perform data quality
audits for the 1987 reports submit-
ted under SARA Title III, Section
313* These audits include tele-
phone calls to randomly selected
facilities and to follow up on ques-
tions about Form R data, and
visits to 160 facilities.
A summary of the site visits
has recently been completed. Upon
extrapolation of these results to
the TRI data base, the quality of
the data appears good. However,
the data collected indicated that
almost one tenth of the release
quantities contained in the TRI
data base would have been omitted
had facility personnel correctly ap-
plied threshold determinations, ac-
tivity categories, and exemptions.
Conversely, the number of missing
release estimates was approximate-
ly one tenth of the total number of
release estimates in the TRI data
base and the resulting cancellation
effect may be misrepresentative.
Five main problem areas were
identified:
•	chemicals reported that need
not have been reported
(incorrectly-included chemicals);
•	chemicals that were not
reported but should have been
(incorrectly-omitted chemicals);
•	chemical releases that need not
have been reported;
•	chemical releases not reported
that should have been reported;
and
• chemical releases reported that
should have been reported as a
quantity greater than one order-
of-magnitude different than the
reported quantity.
The largest errors, both in
terms of frequency and total
releases, were in misunderstanding
instructions and definitions such as
for threshold determinations, ac-
tivity categories, and exemptions.
Audits Find Facilities Report
Despite Being Below Thresholds
About 6,000 additional reports
should have been filed, compared
to 8,000 that were filed unneces-
sarily. The primary reason for
underreporting the numbers of
chemicals was overlooking an ac-
tivity - manufacturing byproducts
or using wastewater treatment
chemicals, cleaning chemicals, and
other miscellaneous chemicals.
The overreporting of chemicals in
use below threshold quantities was
assumed to be due to the lack of
understanding of thresholds and
facilities' taking a conservative ap-
proach by including chemicals if
use quantities were close to
thresholds. Secondary reasons
were misinterpreting qualifiers
such as "fume" or "dust" and
miscalculating use quantities to
compare to thresholds.
Slight Underreporting of Releases
Seen during Site Visits
Overall, reported releases
averaged about 2 percent less than
site surveyor estimates. Facilities
generally selected a reasonable ap-
proach to release estimation.
Eight-four percent of the values
were correct to within one order of
magnitude. Typical errors were the
unnecessary reporting of any dis-
charges to water, on-site releases to
land, and off-site transfers to
POTWs. Overlooked releases in-
cluded fugitives, stacks, and non-
POTW off-site transfers. Facilities
also tended not to account for
neutralization of acids or bases,
reported total waste transferred off
site instead of the chemicals alone,
and included recycled chemicals in
waste releases.
The second year of the quality
assurance program is now under-
way. In addition to another series
of telephone calls, 90 site visits
have been completed. The OTS is
focusing on the chemical and
petroleum refining industries and
SIC Codes 34 through 38 (equip-
ment manufacturers). Collation of
the data continues and statistical
analysis will begin in the fall.
State and local agencies may
request copies of the report from
Larry Longanecker, U.S. EPA, Of-
fice of Toxic Substances, TS-779,
401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
DC 20460, (202) 382-3667.
"See related article in the January
1989 issue.
Massachusetts Act Promotes Toxics Use Reduction
by Manik Roy, Ph.D., Source Reduction Policy Coordinator Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
The Massachusetts Toxics Use
Reduction Act (TURA) went into
effect on September 24, 1989. The
Act, which received support from
both industry and environmental
groups, establishes a statewide
goal of reducing the amount of tox-
ic waste generated by 50 percent
by 1997. It calls for industry to
evaluate their use of toxics and
develop Tbxics Use Reduction
Plans, and for the Commonwealth
to institute programs that provide
technical assistance. The Act also
requires that an administrative
council be established to address
such issues as allocations of funds
collected under TURA and, after
1995, designating industry "Priori-
ty User Segments" whose toxics
use reduction plans and perfor-
mance may be subject to regula-
tory scrutiny. Decisions of the Ad-
ministrative Council are aided by
7

-------
Massachusetts (continued)
an Advisory Board made up of
representatives from industry, en-
vironmental groups, and health
organizations.
To reduce the initial burden on
industry, toxics are defined as the
list of chemicals subject to SARA
Title III Section 313 (SARA 313)
reporting. The inventories submit-
ted this year were the forms re-
quired by SARA 313. Gradually,
chemicals from the CERCLA list
will be added, as will additional
SIC Codes.
Recent activities at the Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection
(DEP) include working with a
group of industry representatives
and environmentalists to draft
criteria for evaluating the Toxics
Use Reduction Plans due in 1994
from "Large Quantity Toxics
Users" (initially the facilities re-
quired to report under SARA 313).
Several Massachusetts firms, in-
cluding ATT, Digital Equipment,
Monsanto, Polaroid, and a number
of smaller companies, have volun-
teered to develop plans to be eval-
uated using these draft criteria.
Their experiences will be used to
revise the final Toxics Use Reduc-
tion Plan Criteria to be promul-
gated by DEP in 1991.
Technical assistance programs
are already in place. The Toxics
Use Reduction Institute has been
established at Lowell University to
assist in training and engage in
research, development, and demon-
stration of toxics use reduction
methods. The Office of Technical
Assistance under the Department
of Environment Management
(DEM) has recently completed the
first year of the joint project with
the DEP. In the Blackstone Pro-
ject, which was partially funded by
EPA and the National Governors
Association, the project team
tested different methods of coor-
dinating inspections of compliance
with air, water, hazardous waste,
and Right-to-Know requirements,
biasing enforcement actions
towards source reduction, and
coordinating this regulatory activi-
ty with DEM's technical assistance
program. Based on visits to 26
facilities in SIC Codes 34 through
39 (metals) in the greater Worcester
area, the project's approach was
found to be cost-effective at meet-
ing a wide range of environmental
protection objectives, as well as
saving industry staff time. Further
testing is planned in FY91 in other
areas, involving other industry
groups and more DEP in spectors
from other regional offices.
To better define its industrial
population, the DEP undertook a
Toxics Use Survey. They are cur-
rently compiling and analyzing the
results of the survey which was ad-
ministered to 50,000 facilities. The
survey asked for information on
the annual manufacture, process-
ing, and use (as defined by SARA
313) of any SARA 313 or CERCLA
chemicals in amounts below
10,000 pounds; between 10,000
and 25,000 pounds; or over 25,000
pounds.
For an executive summary of
"The FY90 Report on the
Blackstone Project," or a copy of
the Draft Toxics Use Reduction
Plan Criteria, call Walter Hope at
(617) 292-5989. For a complete
copy of the 140-page Blackstone
Report, send a check for $8.60
made out to the "Commonwealth
of Massachusetts" to the State
Bookstore, Room 116, State
House, Boston, MA 02133. Other
inquiries on the Blackstone Project
may be directed to Lee Dillard,
(508) 792-7692. General questions
on TURA can be answered by
Linda Darveau, (617) 556-1075.
EPA Publishes Final Emission Standards
for Comfort Cooling Towers
Final rules were announced by
EPA on January 3, 1990, that pro-
hibit the use of hexavalent chro-
mium (Cr+6) in water cooling
devices called comfort cooling
towers* Hexavalent chromium has
been designated by EPA as a
Group A, or known human car-
cinogen. The rule, issued under
Section 6 of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), prohibits the
use of water treatment products
containing Cr+6 in new and ex-
isting comfort cooling towers. Hex-
avalent chromium has typically
been added to the cooling water to
prevent corrosion throughout the
system.
Comfort cooling towers are
cooling towers that exclusively
serve and are an integral part of
large-scale heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning or refrigeration
systems. The basic purpose of the
cooling tower is to remove heat
from air conditioning equipment.
Major users of comfort cooling
towers include hotels, hospitals,
shopping malls, and office
buildings. Cooling towers use fans
to draw or force air through warm
water as the water cascades from
the top to the bottom of the tower.
This rush of air causes some of the
water to evaporate and cools the
remaining water. As the water con-
taining Cr+6 falls through the cool-
ing tower, some droplets are car-
ried away in the air stream and
released into the ambient air. The
risk of lung cancer from these air
emissions is estimated to be as
high as 20 cases nationwide per
year.
Under the comfort cooling
8

-------
Comfort Cooling Tower (continued)
tower rule, the use of Cr+fi-based
chemicals in comfort cooling
towers and the distribution of
these chemicals in commerce for
use in comfort cooling towers is
prohibited. As a result, air emis-
sions of Cr+ti from comfort cooling
towers have been reduced to zero.
The rule was effective on February
16, 1990, for distributors of water
treatment chemicals, and on May
18, 1990 for comfort cooling tower
owners and operators.
The rule does not prohibit the
continued use of Cr+6-based
chemicals in other types of cooling
systems (i.e., industrial cooling
towers and closed water cooling
systems). The EPA distinguished
comfort cooling towers from in-
dustrial cooling towers because of
differences in cooling system con-
struction materials and operating
conditions. Industrial cooling
towers are being evaluated for
possible regulation by EPA.
The rule does require
distributors of Cr+6-based water
treatment chemicals to comply
with recordkeeping, labeling, and
reporting requirements for Cr+6
shipments for non-comfort cooling
tower uses. Distributors must (1)
place a warning label on containers
of water-treatment chemicals con-
taining Cr+6-based compounds that
are distributed for use in cooling
systems; (2) keep records of
Cr+6-based water treatment chem-
ical shipments to cooling system
users for a minimum of 2 years
from the date of sale; and (3) pro-
vide an initial report identifying
themselves as distributors and
giving their headquarters address
and shipment office locations.
Distributors also have to provide
updated information to EPA in the
future as changes occur. The warn-
ing labels tell of the increased risk
of lung cancer from exposure to
Cr+6 air emissions and prohibition
of its use in comfort cooling
towers.
For further information, con-
tact Debbie W. Stackhouse, U.S.
EPA, Emission Standards Division
(MD-13), Research Triangle Park,
NC 27711,(919) 541-5258 or
(FTS) 629-5258.
*See related articles in these past
issues of the Newsletter: May 1988,
January 1989.
Air Toxics Program Development Manual Available
This program development
manual was developed by EPA at
the request of STAPPA/ALAPCO.
The manual is intended to assist
State and local agencies in making
informed decisions about the
development of air toxics control
programs and to enhance the con-
sistency among State and local
program approaches. Insight is
provided into how to make critical
decisions regarding program scope
and stringency, evaluation of pro-
gram impacts, coordination with
other air programs, and achieve-
ment of overall program goals.
Readers will also be given informa-
tion on where to go for help, and
the latest information on a variety
of other topics ranging from
reference concentrations to risk
communication.
In order to develop this docu-
ment, the advice and experience of
State and local agencies were
sought and incorporated into the
manual. The manual both iden-
tifies and addresses issues and
decision points faced by agencies
in various stages of program
development by illustrating the ex-
periences of EPA and State and
local agencies. While the informa-
tion presented does not represent
EPA policy, it should prove useful
to the many State and local agen-
cies now actively engaged in air
toxics program development.
To obtain a copy of Designing
and Implementing an Air Tbxics
Control Program: A Program
Development Manual for State and
Local Agencies, contact Martha H.
Keating, U.S. EPA, Emission Stan-
dards Division (MD-13), Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, (919)
541-5340 or (FTS) 629-5340.
OAQPS Releases Air Toxics Data Base: XATEF
OAQPS has recently released
the new Crosswalk Air Toxic Emis-
sion Factor Data Base Manage-
ment System - XATEF (pronounced
ZAY-TIF). The XATEF updates,
revises, and combines the previous
XWALK* and ATEF data base
management systems. It is an IBM
AT Personal Computer application
designed to facilitate the rapid
identification and cross-referencing
of toxic air pollutant/emission
source associations. The system
also provides toxic air pollutant
emission factors for these associa-
tions, if available. The data in
XATEF are derived from Tbxic Air
Pollutant/Source Crosswalk - A
Screening Tbol for Locating Possible
Sources Emitting Tbxic Air
Substances, Second Edition
(EPA-450/2-89-017) and Tbxic Air
Pollutant Emission Factors - A
Compilation for Selected Air Tbxic
9

-------
(continued)
Compounds and Sources, Second
Edition (EPA-450/2-90-011).
The XATEF requires an IBM
AT Personal Computer or compati-
ble machine that runs MS-DOS or
PC-DOS version 3.0 or later. It
also needs at least 640 kilobytes of
free RAM, a fixed disk with at
least 20 megabytes of storage, and
a 5-V4 inch external drive. The
system is distributed on one high
density (1.2 MB) 5-V4 inch diskette
accompanied by a user's manual.
Government agencies can obtain
the system and user's manual, and
further information on XATEF by
contacting Anne Pope, U.S. EPA,
MD-15, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27711, (919) 541-5375 or
(FTS) 629-5373. Other organiza-
tions should order XATEF through
NTIS (available later this year) or
Radian Corporation (contact Joel
Watson at (919) 541-9100).
*See related article in the March
1990 Newsletter.
Air Risk Continues Health/Risk/Exposure
Assessment Assistance
The Air Risk Information Sup-
port Center's (Air RISC) most re-
cent support to EPA Regions and
State and local agencies has been
in risk communication and health
effects of hydrogen chloride (HC1).
The Air RISC will make sum-
maries of these projects available
this fall as the projects are con-
cluded.
The first project addresses
multiple requests from State and
local agencies for help in improv-
ing communication of risks to the
general public. Air RISC is pro-
ducing three educational brochures
that will serve as citizens' guides
to assessing risks from toxic air
pollutants, evaluating exposures to
toxic air pollutants, and putting
health risks into perspective. In ad-
dition, the Center is preparing a
"how-to" guide that suggests ways
that State and local agencies can
more actively involve the public in
their decision-making process.
The second project conducted
by Air RISC responded to the
numerous requests for information
on the health hazards of short-
term exposure to HC1. The report
for this project will review
available quantitative risk assess-
ment approaches for evaluating
short-term health effects of HC1
exposure, including an evaluation
of dose-duration response ap-
proaches. In addition, it will pre-
sent a new mathematical model to
estimate the risk of exposure to
various HC1 concentrations and
durations.
The EPA Regions and State
and local agencies interested in
receiving these reports should con-
tact Holly Reid, Co-Chair Air
RISC, U.S. EPA, MD-13, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, (919) 541-5344 or (FTS)
629-5344. The Air RISC Hotline
number is (919) 541-0888 or (FTS)
629-0888.
*See related articles in these past
issues of the Newsletter: November
1988,	January 1989, December
1989.
New Bulletin Board System Offers Models
and Test Methods
The OAQPS Technical Support
Division (TSD), has initiated an
electronic bulletin board system.
The purpose of the TSD Bulletin
Board System is to foster tech-
nology transfer among the users of
regulatory air quality models and
stationary source emissions
testing. These areas of support are
identified on the Bulletin Board
System as the Support Center for
Regulatory Air Models (SCRAM)
and the Emission Measurement
Technical Information Center
(EMTIC).* The SCRAM provides
regulatory air quality models, up-
to-date information on model
status, Agency directives on
modeling issues, and a forum for
modeling user community interac-
tion. The focus of the EMTIC
Bulletin Board System is technical
guidance related to stationary
source emissions test methods.
This will promote consistent and
accurate test methods applications
in the development of national,
State, and local emission control
programs. Both offer computer
programs, test data, utility pro-
grams, news bulletins, messages,
and E-mail service.
The TSD Bulletin Board
System is designed to be user-
friendly and readily accessible
from anywhere in the country by
10

-------
Bulletin Board System (continued)
EPA, State, and local agencies, and
the private sector. It is operated
free of charge to the user. Access
requires a computer, a modem, and
a communications software pro-
gram capable of communicating at
1200 or 2400 baud, 8 data bits, 1
stop bit and no parity (8-N-l). The
Bulletin Board System telephone
number is (919) 541-5742 and can
be reached 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week. It also provides simulta-
neous service for up to ten users.
For additional information on
the bulletin board system, contact
Jerry Mersch, U.S. EPA, Technical
Support Division, (919) 541-5635
or (FTS) 629-5635.
*See related article in the March
1989 Newsletter.
New TRIS Guide and Hotline Available
The Toxic Chemical Release
Inventory System (TRIS) User's
Guide is undergoing final revision
for a September 1990 scheduled
release date. The Guide is a com-
plete and comprehensive reference
to TRIS, with broad coverage that
ranges from log on procedures and
legislative background to the exact
TRIS mainframe data base struc-
ture. Some major topics from the
table of contents include:
•	Access to TRIS
•	On-line Searching
•	Batch Reports
•	Making TRIS Work for You
•	TRIS ADABAS File
Descriptions
•	Regional Account Managers
Call User Support Hotline for Help
The TRIS user support hotline
is scheduled to start operation in
September 1990. TRIS is available
on an IBM 3090 mainframe and is
one of many applications supported
by EPA's National Computer Center
(NCC). The TRIS hotline focuses
exclusively on the TRIS data base
and can be reached at (202) 475-
9419, EPA Email EPA74013.
The phone line will be
answered 24 hours a day by an
automatic answering machine;
electronic mail will be checked
twice daily. A qualified TRIS
specialist is on duty 8:30 am to
5:30 pm Monday through Friday to
receive calls and respond to ques-
tions. For questions not related to
TRIS, please contact the ap-
propriate hotline number directly:
NCC User Support
(FTS) 629-7862
(919) 541-7862
(800) 334-2405 (outside
North Carolina)
EPCRA Hotline
(800) 535-0202
(202) 479-2449 (DC and
Alaska)
National Library of Medicine
(301) 496-6531
Additional comments and sug-
gestions about the Guide or TRIS
User Support Hotline are welcome
and should be forwarded to:
Ruby Boyd,
EPA/OTS (202) 475-8387
Email R.BOYD EPA7590
William Wallace,
EPA/OTS (202) 475-8680
Email W.WALLACE EPA74014
The NATICHNewsletter is published six times a year by the National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse.
The Newsletter is prepared by Radian Corporation under EPA Contract Number 68-D8-0065, Work Assign-
ment 2-5. The EPA Project Officer is Martha Keating, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Telephone: (919) 541-5340. The Radian Project Director is
Susan Buchanan, P.O. Box 13000, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, (919) 541-9100.
The Newsletters distributed free of charge. To report address changes, write Meredith Haley, Radian Cor-
poration, P.O. Box 13000, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709.
The views expressed in the NATICH 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.
Printed on recycled paper.
11

-------
Martha Keating
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

-------