453N90004
NATICH
NEWSLETTER
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 November 1990
Clean Air Act Update: Enactment!
On October 26, 1990, the
House of Representatives over-
whelmingly approved the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990. The
Senate followed suit on October
27. President Bush then signed the
Amendment into law on November
15, 1990. A Special Edition of the
Newsletter is planned to familiarize
readers with the final provisions of
Title III.
State/Local Spotlight: Puget Sound
Adopts Air Toxics Regulation
In a continuing effort to reduce
air pollution and protect public
health, the Puget Sound Air Pollu-
tion Control Agency (PSAPCA)
has developed an air toxics regu-
lation. Regulation III, adopted
August 9, 1990, regulates air toxic
emissions from both new and ex-
isting sources.
New or modified air contami-
nant sources cannot obtain ap-
proval to construct until Best
Available Control Technology
(BACT) is applied and a toxic im-
pact analysis indicates the source
will not cause air pollution. The
BACT is determined on a case-by-
case basis during PSAPCA's
Notice of Construction review pro-
cess. The toxic impact analysis
compares modeled ambient con-
centrations of toxic air contam-
inants (TACs) to Acceptable Source
Impact Levels (ASILs).
The ASILs used in the toxic
impact analyses are based on those
developed by the Washington
Department of Ecology in their
proposed regulation to control
toxic air contaminants from new
sources. Carcinogens for ASILs
correspond to a risk of one in one
million; ASILs for noncarcinogens
are based on the American Con-
ference of Governmental Indus-
trial Hygienists Threshold Limit
Values divided by a safety factor
of 300.
Existing sources are also
evaluated by comparing modeled
ambient concentrations of TACS to
ASILs. Sources are prioritized for
evaluation according to the quanti-
ty and toxicity of emissions. If
ASILs are exceeded, BACT must
be employed. In cases where
several facilities are in the same
source category, a rule will be
developed that specifies control re-
quirements for that industry. This
provides economic equity to all af-
fected sources by requiring all
facilities to comply with the re-
quirements of the rule on the same
schedule. Specific regulations were
adopted to control toxic emissions
from chromic acid plating and
anodizing facilities, vapor de-
In This Issue
Development of Inhalation
Reference Concentrations
Proceeds 2
Wisconsin's Authority
Upheld in Challenge to Air
Toxics Rule 4
Pollution Prevention
Programs Receive
NEWMOA Assistance 5
Oregon Limits
Consumer use
of CFCs and Halon 7
Santa Barbara Develops
Comphensive Risk
Assessment Model 8
Health Effects
Summary for Steel Mills
Now Available 9
EPA Produces Wood
Smoke Public Service
Announcements 9
greasers, and dry cleaners. The
PSAPCA is developing regulations
that are scheduled for release in
the spring of 1991, for ethylene
oxide sterilizers, auto refinishing,
and polyester resin manufacturing.
For further information on
Regulation III, contact Margaret
Corbin at (206) 296-7469.

-------
Development of Inhalation
Reference Concentrations Proceeds
During the last 3 years, EPA
has undertaken a major effort to
develop a method for derivation of
inhalation reference concentrations
(RfCs), formerly referred to as in-
halation reference doses (RfDs).*
The recent change in nomen-
clature more clearly distinguishes
between the oral and inhalation
reference values and more accur-
ately reflects that the RfC is ex-
pressed as an exposure concentra-
tion rather than as a dose. An RfC
is an estimate (with uncertainty
spanning perhaps an order of
magnitude) of the daily exposure
to the human population (including
sensitive populations) that is likely
to be without appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a life-
time. The inhalation RfC method
differs from the oral
method in the use of
dosimetric adjust-
ments of observed ef-
fect levels (e.g.,
NOAEL and LOAEL)
to calculate human
equivalent concentra-
tions (HECs) and in
the increased atten-
tion to possible
portal-of-entry ef-
fects. The dosimetric
adjustments differ
depending on
whether the agent is
a particle or a gas
and whether the
observed effect is in
the respiratory tract
or extrarespiratory.
The HEC values
then become the
basis for the
operational derivation of the in-
halation RfC by application of
uncertainty factors.
The inhalation RfC method-
ology has been published as an ex-
ternal review draft entitled "In-
terim Methods for Development of
Inhalation Reference Concentra-
tions," EPA/600/8-90/066A. The
methodology document was
reviewed by the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) on October 26, 1990,
and is available for public review
and comment (55 FR 39321,
September 26, 1990). The public
comment period ends December
12, 1990. A background document
for the Integrated Risk Informa-
tion System, IRIS,** that provides
the conceptual basis of the metho-
dology and discusses the applica-
tion of dosimetric adjustments is
included as part of the SAB
review.
The verification process for
the RfC involves submitting a pro-
posed value and summary sheet (in
the format of the IRIS summary)
and the supporting documentation
to the RfD/RfC Work Group for
review. The Work Group is com-
prised of scientists from EPA
headquarters offices and several
EPA Regional Offices and meets
monthly to review and consider
submitted chemical files. Most RfC
files are prepared by the EPA's En-
vironmental Criteria and Assess-
ment Office, although any parti-
cipating office may submit files.
Three outcomes are possible
following Work Group review. If
Work Group members agree on
the RfC value and supporting
documentation, the RfC is con-
sidered "verified." If the Work
Group consensus is that the data
base for a chemical is currently in-
sufficient to support derivation of
an RfC, the status of the RfC is
"not verifiable" (see inset). Either
status represents a final decision
by the Work Group and the infor-
mation is entered into IRIS. Alter-
natively, if consensus is not reached
because additional issues must
first be addressed, the RfC status
is "under review" and the file is
returned to the submitting office
with specific requests for altera-
tions or additional
information.
As of October
1990, 39 final deci-
sions have been
made by the Work
Group. These include
28 verified RfCs
(listed in Table 1) and
11 not verifiable
RfCs (see inset).
Nineteen of these
decisions were made
during the period
from May 1988 to
April 1990, at the
same time as work to
complete the method-
ology was under way.
Between April and
September 1990, 20
more decisions have
been reached. An ad-
ditional 28 chemicals
are now under review and approxi-
mately 80 more RfCs are under de-
velopment. The RfCs for 40 chemi-
cals were initiated at the request of
the Superfund program. The major-
ity of the remaining chemicals are
listed in the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1990 and have been desig-
nated as higher priority by the EPA
Table 1. Verfied RfCs (as of October 1, 1990)
Acetaldehyde
Ethylene glycol monobutyl
Acrolein
ether
Acrylic acid
Hexane, n-
Aniline
Hydrogen chloride
Bromomethane
Hydrogen sulfide
Carbon disulfide
Manganese
Chlorine dioxide
Mercury (inorganic)
Chromium
Nitrobenzene
Cumene
Propylene glycol monomethyl
Dichlorobenzene, p-
ether
Dichloromethane
Propylene oxide
Dichloropropene, 1,3-
Tetrahydrofuran
Dimethylamine
Toluene
Dimethylformamide
Vinyl acetate
Epichlorohydrin
Xylenes
2

-------
(continued)
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. In addition, several
RfCs are being developed in
response to requests from EPA
Regional Offices or State agencies.
The results of final decisions
made by the Work Group are then
prepared for loading on the IRIS.
Changes in the chemical summary
sheet requested by the Work
Group are incorporated and the
summary sheet is written in stan-
dard IRIS format. Significant
changes were required in the con-
version factor section of the sum-
mary sheets in order to accom-
modate the new procedures used
in the inhalation RfC development
in a form compatible with E-Mail,
and these format changes ac-
counted for much of the delay in
loading RfCs onto IRIS. The first
RfC summary sheets were loaded
in August 1990, and currently
eight inhalation RfCs are available
to the public through IRIS. Efforts
to eliminate the backlog of verified
RfCs are progressing. The IRIS
document for verified RfCs in-
cludes a description of the prin-
cipal study, the critical effect,
study concentrations at which the
effect occurred, the HEC calcula-
tion, and uncertainty factors used
to derive the RfC, as well as
descriptions of the supporting
studies and a discussion of the con-
fidence in the RfC. For chemicals
that were determined to be not
verifiable, the IRIS document con-
tains a brief statement indicating
that the data were reviewed and
found to be inadequate to support
derivation of an RfC, with contact
names and telephone numbers.
In the continuing effort to im-
prove risk assessment methodolo-
gies used by EPA, research focus-
ing on decreasing the uncertainties
in extrapolation between species,
durations, or effect levels, and on
improving the dosimetric adjust-
ments for calculation of the HEC
is now being conducted within EPA."
For more information on the
SAB review of the RfC methodol-
ogy document, contact Annie
Jarabek at (919) 541-4847 or (FTS)
629-4847. For questions about RfC
derivation, contact Dan Guth at
(919) 541-4930 or (FTS) 629-4930.
*See related artcile in July 1988
Newsletter.
* *See related articles in the
Newsletter issues: March 1987,
July 1988, and May 1989.
Why an RfC Receives
A "Not Verifiable" Status
The Work Group considers the minimum basis for the derivation
of an RfC to be a well-conducted subchronic inhalation study that ex-
amines portal-of-entry effects. This decision rule is applied with some
flexibility. In the absence of adequate inhalation studies, data from
other routes may be used, provided that portal-of-entry effects can be
ruled out and dosimetry can be established for the routes of concern.
The portal-of-entry effects are particularly important because of the
many known cases in which respiratory effects by inhalation exposure
are much more serious than effects resulting from an equivalent oral
dose. For example, route-to-route extrapolation was considered for
acrylamide because there are no chronic or subchronic inhalation
studies. Route-to-route extrapolation was not used because of short-
term studies showing possible respiratory effects.
When portal-of-entry effects can be ruled out, the available
literature is reviewed for pharmacokinetic, absorption, and excretion
data for the exposure routes of interest to be used in estimating
equivalent doses. To date, route-to-route extrapolation has not been
used to derive an inhalation RfC because adequate data have not been
available to rule out portal-of-entry effects and to establish dosimetry
via the route of interest.
The 11 chemicals for which the RfC status is Not Verifiable as of
October 1,1990, are as follows:
Acetophenone	Malathion
Acrylamide	Mercuric chloride
Biphenyl	Phenol
Di-n-butyl phthalate	Phosgene
Dimethylphthalate	Quinone
Hydroquinone
For most of these, no subchronic inhalation study is available. For ex-
ample, for biphenyl and dimethylphthalate, the single subchronic in-
halation studies available had experimental design problems and poor
reporting of results. For dibutylphthalate, the available inhalation
studies were of acceptable duration, but poorly reported and did not
adequately evaluate respiratory system or target organ effects.
Respiratory effects of phosgene have been extensively studied, but on-
ly acute exposures, not subchronic effects, have been examined. The
Agency is now exploring the use of EPA authority to obtain the addi-
tional testing that is needed in order to allow derivation of a verified
RfC.
3

-------
Wisconsin's Authority Upheld in Challenge to Air Toxics Rule
by Vicki Rudell, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Air Toxics Unit
Prior to promulgation in Oc-
tober 1988, the Wisconsin Depart-
ment of Natural Resources'
(WDNR) new rule for control of
Hazardous Pollutants, NR 445 (see
inset), met with industry resis-
tance. Several associations in-
cluding the Wisconsin Hospital
Association, Wisconsin Manufac-
turers and Commerce, Printing In-
dustries of Wisconsin, Wisconsin
Paper Council, United Foundry-
men of Wisconsin, Wisconsin
Wood Products Manufacturers,
and the American Petroleum In-
stitute filed suit against the rule in
Dane County Circuit Court. The
suit involved three basic claims:
the WDNR had exceeded its
statutory authority in adopting the
rule; hospitals did not receive
equal protection under the rule;
and the WDNR had inadequate
evidence to support the need for
the rule. The last of these claims,
a substantive due process claim,
was dismissed "without prejudice"
by the Circuit Court at the request
of the plaintiffs.
One issue under the plaintiff's
claim of exceeding statutory
authority related to the apparent
lack of data from WDNR to
demonstrate adverse health effects
for each chemical. Another issue
under that claim was an interest of
the Wisconsin Petroleum Institute
and related to the regulation of
benzene in NR 445. The Petro-
leum Institute maintained the
The court found "absurd" the
plantiff's claim that the WDNR
should have made a separate
finding on each of the 405
regulated substances.
WDNR exceeded its statutory
authority when it included benzene
in NR 445 because that compound
is regulated under the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
established by the Federal Clean
Air Act.
The claim of hospitals not
receiving equal protection was
based on the requirement that in-
cinerators meet LAER standards.
The rule requires LAER controls
without allowing incinerators to
demonstrate that their emissions
do not exceed de minimis stan-
dards (as other facilities are al-
lowed to do under the rule) and,
therefore, unfairly, the hospitals
claimed, regulates incinerators.
The Circuit Court found that
the WDNR did have statutory
authority to enact the rule. The
Court also found that the rule's
requirements for municipal and
infectious waste incinerators did
not violate the equal protection
clauses of the Federal and State
constitutions.
The plaintiffs filed an appeal
with the Wisconsin Court of Ap-
peals. On May 17, 1990, the Court
of Appeals released its decision on
the litigation challenging the
WDNR's Hazardous Air Pollution
Rule. The Court of Appeals af-
firmed that the WDNR had acted
within its authority and in com-
pliance with statutory procedures
when it promulgated the air toxics
Wisconsin's Air Toxics Rule Highlighted
In October 1988, Wisconsin promulgated NR 445, Wisconsin Ad-
ministrative Code, regulating hazardous air pollutants from stationary
sources. The rule regulates 405 compounds that appear on four lists.
Three are lists of noncancer-causing compounds that are regulated as
acute toxins. The fourth category is a list of the known and suspected
human carcinogens. The rule establishes facility de minimis emission
levels for each compound. If a facility emits less than the de minimis
level established in the rule, the compound is not regulated.
For the acute toxins, the rule establishes 24-hour acceptable am-
bient air concentrations at the property boundary as 2.4 percent of the
American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH) recommended Threshold Limit Values for each toxic. Short-
term (1-hour) ambient air concentrations are also specified as one
tenth of one percent of the ACGIH ceiling value. Facilities demon-
strate compliance with these acceptable ambient air standards using
computer models to predict the impact of toxic air emissions from
their facilities.
For the carcinogens, the rule establishes technology-based emis-
sion standards. For known human carcinogens, the standard is
established as the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) and for
suspected human carcinogens the standard is Best Available Control
Technology (BACT). Municipal and medical waste incinerators are re-
quired by rule to limit emissions to LAER.
For existing sources, the rule requires notifying the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) if the facility has potential
emissions of any of the 405 compounds that exceed the de minimis
level specified in the rule. These facilities must also submit com-
pliance plans that WDNR reviews. Once approved, the facility must
demonstrate compliance with the plan. New sources are required to
comply with the rule upon start-up.
4

-------
Wisconsin (continued)
rule. In fact, the Court found that
the statutes expressly authorized
the WDNR to enact the rule and
that the statute was unambiguous.
On the issue of benzene, the
Court of Appeals ruled the depart-
ment did not exceed its authority
because NR 445 regulates dif-
ferent sources of benzene than the
Clean Air Act. In addition, the
court found "absurd" the plaintiff's
claim that the WDNR should have
made a separate finding on each of
the 405 regulated substances. The
court said the "only reasonable
reading" of the statute is that the
Natural Resources Board's single
finding of need for the rule con-
stitutes a finding that emission
standards were needed for each
substance. The plaintiffs' remain-
ing option at this point was to peti-
tion the Wisconsin Supreme Court
to review the case. The plaintiffs
had 30 days to file a petition,
which they did not do.
On the equal protection claim,
the Court of Appeals agreed with
the hospital group that the WDNR
had created a separate classifica-
tion for municipal and infectious
waste incinerators, but could not
decide whether there was a factual
basis in the record before the
Court for doing so. Thus, the
Court sent the question back to the
Circuit Court for full trial. The
Court of Appeals noted that the
only plaintiffs remaining for this
action are the Wisconsin Hospital
Association and the Shawano Com-
munity Hospital. These two plain-
tiffs may pursue this action in a
Circuit Court trial; however, no
trial court hearing has been
scheduled nor is one expected in
the near future.
Although the plaintiffs may
pursue the due process and the
equal protection claims in the Cir-
cuit Court, the implementation of
the regulation continues.
For additional information on
NR 445, contact Vicki Rudell, 101
South Webster Street, Post Office
Box 7921, Madison, Wisconsin
53703 or call (608) 267-0571.
*Portions of this article were taken
from the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources "Hazardous Air
Pollution Court Decision Fact
Sheet."
Pollution Prevention Programs Receive NEWMOA Assistance
by Terri Goldberg, Pollution Prevention Program Manager Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association
During the past few years, all
of the States in the Northeast have
initiated multimedia pollution
prevention regulatory and /or
technical assistance programs.
Figure 1 shows the distribution.
These programs grew out of con-
cern about the cross-media pro-
blems associated with traditional
pollution control measures com-
bined with the belief that source
reduction is the preferred method
for achieving environmental goals.
To assist States in the North-
east with their pollution prevention
technical assistance and toxics use
reduction programs, the Northeast
Waste Management Officials'
Association (NEWMOA) initiated
the Northeast Multi-Media Pollu-
tion Prevention (NEMPP) Project
in 1989. The NEWMOA is a non-
profit interstate governmental
organization that provides tech-
nical assistance, a policy discussion
forum, training, and research for
State solid and hazardous waste
management officials. The
NEWMOA is similar in its struc-
ture and activities to NESCAUM
and was established in 1986 by the
directors of State solid and hazar-
dous waste programs in New
England. During the past year, New
Jersey and New York have joined
NEWMOA. The organization is
supported by State and EPA
funding.
Figure 1. Multimedia Pollution Prevention Program Activity in the Northeast
KEY
Technical Assistance:
| [ On-Site:
RI, MA, NY, NJ
Grants to small
businesses:
RI, CT
Legal Requirements:
HU Develop pollution
prevention plan:
MA, ME, NY',
VT*
Develop pollution
prevention
permits program:
MA
*For hazardous waste
generators only.
Note: Tbxics use legis-
lation is pending in NJ.
5

-------
Pollution (continued)
How is Pollution Prevention Defined?
Within EPA and the States, the definition of pollution prevention
is controversial. The groups involved in developing pollution preven-
tion programs primarily disagree over the types of recycling that
should be included in the definition of pollution prevention. Several
State programs equate pollution prevention to toxics use reduction. For
example, in Massachusetts, toxics use reduction is defined to include:
•	replacing a hazardous substance with a nontoxic or less toxic
substance;
•	substituting a nontoxic or less toxic end product for an existing pro-
duct that is toxic upon use, release, or disposal;
•	redesigning or modifying a production unit, including
modernization;
•	improving the operation and maintenance of production equipment,
including better housekeeping practices, adjusting processes, in-
specting products and processes more frequently, and using pro-
duction control equipment or methods; and
•	recycling, reusing, or extending the use of toxics by using equip-
ment and methods that become integral to the production unit.
The EPA headquarters is preparing a policy statement on pollu-
tion prevention that will include the Agency's definition. This state-
ment is scheduled to be released within the next few months. The
draft statement is currently under internal review. The Regional Of-
fices, including Region I, have been critical of the draft definition
primarily because it excludes recycling. Region I had released an in-
terim pollution prevention definition last summer that explicitly in-
cludes environmentally friendly recycling.
This debate may be concluded by Congress's passage of the pollu-
tion prevention bill proposed by Rep. Howard Wolpe (D-MI) in the
House (H.R. 1457) and Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) in the Senate
(S. 585). The legislation, which is nonregulatory in scope, would:
•	impose comprehensive reporting requirements on industry for their
hazardous waste generation,
•	establish a research program, and
•	provide funds for a matching grants program to support State
technical assistance efforts to industry.
The legislation is currently awaiting President Bush's signature.
The NEMPP project currently
has three components:
•	establishing a pollution preven-
tion clearinghouse that will in-
clude technical documents, case
studies, listings of upcoming
meetings and conferences, and a
list of pollution prevention
experts;
•	conducting training sessions for
State officials and industry
representatives on toxics use
reduction and recycling policies,
strategies, and technologies; and
•	researching reduction strategies
for major toxic metals in in-
cinerator emissions and ash.
The clearinghouse is available to
both the public and the private
sectors.
The NEMPP project recently
initiated several training programs.
It is co-sponsoring a pollution
prevention workshop in November
for State inspectors with the
Center for Environmental Manage-
ment at Tufts University and the
Massachusetts Office of Technical
Assistance. The workshop is
designed to introduce State
environmental inspectors for air,
water, and waste management to
pollution prevention concepts and
how they can be applied in their
regulatory activities.
Another sponsored training
program is a 1-day technical forum
on metal finishing firms in the
Northeast. The NEMPP plans to
present similar sessions for other
prevalent industry groups.
The NEMPP is also organiz-
ing a pollution prevention con-
ference on pulp and paper manu-
facturing facilities in the Northeast
which is tentatively scheduled for
early 1991. The purpose will be to
create a dialogue on opportunities
in this industry in the Northeast.
A broad range of groups will be in-
volved including industry represen-
tatives, State and Federal officials
from environment and labor
departments, and environmental
groups.
In addition to these training
and outreach efforts, NEMPP is
sponsoring research on options for
reducing the toxic metals in
household batteries. The most re-
cent topic is household batteries
that are a significant source of
mercury and cadmium in munici-
pal solid waste. The NEMPP has
been investigating options for
recycling and reducing the use of
these metals in the batteries as an
alternative to incineration and a
means of reducing potential en-
vironmental impacts.
For more information on
NEMPP's programs, opportunities
for involvement, and State pollu-
tion prevention activities, call Terri
Goldberg at (617) 367-8558, or write
to NEWMOA, 85 Merrimac Street,
Boston, Massachusetts 02114.
6

-------
Oregon Limits Consumer Use of CFCs and Halons
by Gregg Lande, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
The 1989 Oregon Legislative
Assembly declared it the policy of
the State to reduce the use of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and
halons to promote recycling and to
encourage substitution with less
dangerous substances. As a result,
ORS 468.12-21 expanded upon
Oregon's earlier aerosol spray pro-
hibition (ORS 468.600-10, 1977) by
addressing the problem of
stratospheric ozone depletion in
two new ways.
First, it further reduces the
use of CFCs and halons by the
general public. In order to en-
courage the substitution of alter-
native chemicals, the statute pro-
hibits after July 1, 1990, wholesale
selling, and after January 1, 1991,
retail selling of certain products
containing CFCs and halons. This
includes: packaging foam blown
with CFCs, "do-it-yourself" size
containers of automobile air condi-
tioner coolant, small halon fire ex-
tinguishers for residential use, and
CFC-containing coolants and
cleaners used in noncommercial or
nonmedical applications.
Second, it focuses control on
emissions of CFC-12 from auto-
mobile air conditioners, which ac-
count for about 16 percent of the
A DEQ survey indicated that
shops specializing in auto air
conditioners who service over 100
autos per year can pay for the
equipment in less then 2 years.
total CFC released. These emis-
sions can be reduced considerably
when the coolant is recovered and
recycled during servicing, repair,
and disposal.
The statute required the
Oregon Environmental Quality
Commission to determine when
equipment for the recovery and
recycling of automobile air condi-
tioner coolant (principally CFC-12)
becomes "affordable and avail-
able," and to set standards for the
equipment and its operation.
Information gathered by Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) staff and refined during
public hearings indicated that at
least seven different manufacturers
were producing recovery and
recycling equipment meeting
Underwriter's Laboratory stan-
dards. The purchase price of this
equipment ranges from about
$2400 to $7000, but savings in
CFC purchases provide a
mechanism for many shops to
recover this capital outlay expense.
A DEQ survey indicated that
shops specializing in auto air con-
ditioners who service over 100 per
year can pay for the equipment in
less than 2 years. Moderate size
repair shops and those associated
with dealerships will take longer to
recover their costs. Rural service
stations and small shops will have
to either raise their prices or
discontinue this type of work.
Administrative rules to imple-
ment this law were proposed by
the DEQ based on an agreement
Oregon CFC Ban Keeps Step with Clean Air Act Amendments
According to the Montreal Protocol as revised in
June 1990, CFCs and halons must be completely
phased out by the year 2000. In addition to the
phase-out, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
require interim reductions and other related changes
to the existing protocol, including the elimination of
methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride. All of
these chemicals are Class I substances. The Mon-
treal Protocol also specifies phase-out dates for
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCPCs), which are Class
II substances.
To reduce the use of CFCs to the 'lowest
achievable level," EPA must promulgate regulations
by January 1,1992, that require the maximum cap-
ture and reuse of CFCs when servicing air condition-
ing and refrigeration equipment, including motor
vehicle air conditioners. Deliberate release of either
Class I or II substances will be illegal after July 1,
1992. Oregon's rule on auto air conditioners takes ef-
fect nearly a full year ahead of Federal rules. The
Oregon law requires CFC recycling after August 10,
1991,	with small shops having until August 10,
1992,	to comply.
Nonessential consumer products such as party
streamers, photographic cleaners, and noise horns
containing Class I substances will be banned within
2 months of enactment. Specified aerosol and non-
insulating foam products containing or manufactured
with Class II substances must be banned after Jan-
uary 1994. Oregon's ban on these substances takes
effect January 1991, 3 years ahead of Federal rules.
Warning labels are required on all containers of
Class I and Class II substances, and on all products
containing them if safe substitutes are available. All
such products must be labeled by 2015. The EPA
must also issue rules that make it unlawful to
replace a Class I or II substance with any compound
that may present an adverse effect on human health
or the environment, if safe substitutes are available.
Wholesale selling of certain halon- and CFC*
containing products is prohibited after July 1,1990,
and retail selling, after January 1,1991.
7

-------
Oregon (continued)
reached by the Automobile Manu-
facturer's Association, the Federal
EPA, the Society of Automotive
Engineers, and the Mobile Air
Conditioning Society. This group
established recycled coolant purity
standards and gave the task of
testing and certifying recycling
machines to Underwriter's
Laboratory. At its August 1990
meeting, the Commission decided
that equipment was indeed
available and affordable and
adopted rules for Control of Ozone
Depleting Chemicals (OAR
340-22-405 through 415). After
August 10, 1991, businesses are
prohibited from installing, servic-
ing, repairing, disposing of, or
otherwise treating automobile air
conditioners without recovering
and recycling the CFC coolant.
Small repair shops are given an ad-
ditional year to comply.
For further information, con-
tact Gregg Lande, Oregon Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality, at
(503) 229-5753.
Santa Barbara Develops
Comprehensive Risk Assessment Model
by Robert Sears, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District
The California Air Toxics "Hot
Spots" Information and Assess-
ment Act of 1987 (AB 2588)
established a statewide program to
identify air toxics sources that are
causing significant health risks*
AB 2588 requires each Air District
to develop risk prioritization pro-
cedures to identify facilities that
must prepare a risk assessment of
their air toxics emissions. Apply-
ing these procedures to facility-
specific annual and peak 1-hour
emission rates of approximately
150 listed substances, the Air
Districts will rank the facilities
according to potential health risk.
High priority facilities (and any
other facilities designated by an
Air District) will then submit a
risk assessment to quantify the
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic
health risks.
Recently, the Santa Barbara
County Air Pollution Control
District (SBAPCD) developed a
comprehensive model to imple-
ment the risk assessment re-
quirements of AB 2588. The
SBAPCD will use it to determine
which facilities have air toxics
emissions that are causing signifi-
cant health risks. This model,
ACE2588 (Assessment of
Chemical Exposure for AB 2588),
complements the California Air
Pollution Control Officers Associa-
tion (CAPCOA) Risk Assessment
Guidelines by providing a publicly
available model that can perform
the complicated risk assessments
required by many air toxics
sources. The goals in developing
ACE2588 were to (1) expedite the
preparation of risk assessments;
(2) expedite the review process; (3)
allow a consistent comparison
among facilities; (4) alleviate the
need to verify different risk assess-
ment models used by different
facilities; and (5) minimize the
need to revise and resubmit risk
assessments.
ACE2588 accommodates
multisource, multipollutant,
multipathway scenarios to quantify
individual excess cancer risks,
population excess cancer burden,
and acute and chronic noncar-
cinogenic exposures, including the
calculation of hazard indices. Acute
hazard indices are calculated for
the respiratory system; chronic
hazard indices are calculated for
the cardiovascular, central nervous
system, immune system, kidney,
liver, reproductive, and respiratory
system endpoints. In addition, the
model compares calculated risks to
regulatory agency-specified health
risk management levels to provide
information on acceptability of the
risks from the facility(ies) being
analyzed. All risks and risk
management levels are presented
on a one-page summary table.
In addition to the summary
table, the ACE2588 generates:
Project-specific data and support-
ing information:
•	Toxicity data for all modeled
pollutants
•	Input emission rates for all
pollutants from each source
•	Input receptor data, including
population
•	Multipathway data used by the
model
Exposure information for each
receptor (from all sources
combined):
•	Peak 1-hour and annual-average
concentrations for each pollu-
tant (mg/m3)
•	Cancer risk and excess burden
by pathway
•	Total acute and chronic hazard
indices
Exposure information for the peak
receptor:
•	Cancer risk by pathway from
each source separately
•	Cancer risk and dose by
pathway for each pollutant from
all sources combined
•	Acute and chronic hazard in-
dices for each pollutant from all
sources combined
•	Acute and chronic hazard in-
dices for each pollutant from
each source separately.
Culpability analyses can also
be performed to analyze risks from
any source or combination of
8

-------
Santa Barbara (continued)
sources at selected receptor(s).
This is useful in determining
the effectiveness of mitigation
measures in reducing risks from a
facility.
The model requires project-
specific data on control options,
emissions, and the receptor, in-
cluding population. Ambient air
concentrations from each source
calculated using EPA air quality
models such as ISCST, MPTER,
OCD, and COMPLEX-1 are direct-
ly read by ACE2588, thus elimi-
nating data entry and reducing
chances for error. The remaining
data required are supplied by two
SBAPCD files. These files contain
default pollutant-specific toxicity
Health Effects Summary for
Steel Mills Now Available
The Air Risk Information Sup-
port Center (Air RISC) has recently
completed a document entitled
"Health Hazard Assessment Sum-
mary: Steel Mill Emissions." The
document, dated September 29,
1990, briefly summarizes the
data and pathway-specific data pro-
vided in the CAPCOA Risk
Assessment Guidelines.
Multipathway exposure is
calculated using algorithms
developed by the California Air
Resources Board and Department
of Health Services. Doses and risk
are calculated for inhalation, der-
mal, soil ingestion, water inges-
tion, fish ingestion, plant ingestion,
animal ingestion, and mother's
milk pathways for specified
pollutants. For AB 2588,
multipathway pollutants include:
arsenic and inorganic arsenic com-
pounds, beryllium, cadmium and
cadmium compounds, hexavalent
chromium, chlorinated dioxins and
health effects of selected metals,
VOCs, and complex mixtures. It is
available to Regional, State, and
local air pollution control programs
through the Air RISC hotline at
(919) 541-0888 or (FTS) 629-0888,
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST.
furans, lead and lead compounds,
mercury and mercury compounds,
nitrosamines, and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons. Exposure
to all other pollutants is considered
to occur only through inhalation.
Although ACE2588 was
designed for the AB 2588 pro-
gram, it has the potential to be
used for other regulatory programs
requiring risk assessments.
For additional information,
contact Robert Sears, Santa Bar-
bara County APCD, 26 Castilian
Drive, B-23, Goleta, California
93117, or call (805) 961-8915.
*See related articles in the July
1988 and March 1990 NATICH
Newsletters.
EPA Produces
Wood Smoke
Public Service
Announcements
The Office of Air Quality Plan-
ning and Standards (OAQPS) at
EPA has produced six public ser-
vice announcements on woodstoves
and fireplaces. The announce-
ments cover two themes: the
health effects of wood smoke and
the importance of properly operat-
ing and maintaining woodstoves.
The PMio contact at EPA
Regional Offices will be distri-
buting the public service an-
nouncements to State and local
agencies. The State and local agen-
cies can then approach television
station managers in areas where
wood smoke is a health hazard
about carrying the announcements
to improve the public awareness.
State and local agencies interested
in having the public service an-
nouncement shown in their com-
munity should call their PMio con-
tact at their EPA Regional Office.
Helpful Numbers
Air Risk Information Support Center
(Air RISC Hotline)	(919) 541-0888
(FTS) 629-0888
Control Tfechnology Center (Hotline).	(919) 541-0800
(FTS) 629-0800
NATICH Clearinghouse Staff	(919) 541-0850
(FTS) 629-0850
SARA Title III	1-800-535-0202
9

-------
The NATICH Newsletter 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 3-1. The EPA Project Officer is Martha Keating, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Telephone: (919)541-5346. The Radian Project Director is Susan
Buchanan, P. 0. Box 13000, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, (919)541-9100.
The Newsletter is 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.
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
I I
i i br v
n-H.. Recu on
Woodbridoe *venue
Kit WkW'-' '
f. J i <*oi' - lld
lilmiiililtiluilltliiiltlitll

-------