NATICH
NEWSLETTER
453N92018
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
©D'AWA II AILAl?©®
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
Produced by the National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse
May 1992
Special Feature:
Japan's Air Pollution Control Program Outlined*
by Scott Voorhees**, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Federal activities to control air
pollution in Japan are coordinated
by the Japan Environment Agency's
Air Quality Bureau (AQB). More
fully integrated than EPA's Office
of Air Quality Planning and Stan-
dards, its closest U. S. counterpart,
the AQB regulates criteria pollu-
tants and air toxics from stationary
and mobile sources in one office
with a staff of about 60. "Air pollu-
tion" is more broadly defined in
Japan than in the United States and
includes noise, odors, and vibra-
tion, in addition to pollutants and
their sources. This is probably due
in part to the highly urbanized
nature of Japanese society and the
relative absence of restrictive zoning.
Regulations of air toxics under
Japan's Air Pollution Prevention
Law (APPL) is limited when com-
pared to the U.S. Clean Air Act.
The AQB air toxics program regu-
lates a limited number of sources,
such as furnaces and incinerators,
for cadmium and its compounds,
chlorine, hydrogen chloride, fluo-
rine, hydrogen fluoride, silicon
fluoride, and lead and its compounds.
The AQB has begun to address
compounds that pose health risks
to nearby residents by monitoring
trichloroethylene, perchloroethy-
lene, carbon tetrachloride, chloro-
form, ethylene dichloride, and
1,1,1-trichloroethane. The Bureau
has also started a more aggressive
evaluation of asbestos exposures by
conducting an initial survey to
identify sources.
The AQB primarily focuses on
what APPL terms "soot and smoke"
emissions and particulates. The
soot and smoke emissions result
from combustion and incineration
processes. Pollutants addressed in-
clude SOx, NOx, particulates, cad-
mium, hydrogen fluoride, and lead.
Approximately 150,000 of these
(continued on page 2)
EPA, State, and Local Agencies
Hold Risk Assessment Roundtable
by Joann Held, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
Representatives from eight
States and one local agency met
with EPA staff on April 1 and 2 in
Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, for a roundtable discus-
sion to share information on how
different agencies use risk assess-
ment. The meeting was motivated
primarily by the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) study of EPA
risk assessment procedures, which
was mandated by the 1990 Clean
JUN 22 1992
Air Act Amendments. STAPPA and
ALAPCO representatives are pre-
paring comments for the NAS com-
mittee on issues most important to
State and local agencies, such as
the use of risk assessment in the
permitting process, the need to con-
tinue to address the most exposed
individual in exposure scenarios,
and the need for more guidance on
risk assessment techniques.
(continued on page 3)
LIBRARY V
¦1.3. EfflviROMtt»rAL
j I SON, N.J. 08817
In This Issue...
Great Lakes States Develop
Air Toxics Inventory 3
AIRS Graphics Development
Nears Completion 5
Dioxins and Dibenzofurans
Identified at Ohio Industrial
Hazardous Waste Inciner-
ators 6
Air RISC Holds "All-Hands
Meeting" 7
MARAMA Appoints Executive
Director 8
Printed on Recycled Paper
rSQX 162*0?

-------
Japan's Program Outlined (continued from page 1)
sources were in operation in 1983.
The particulate sources are divided
into a general category that targets
dust-producing processes and a
special particulate category for
those particulates that are consid-
ered hazardous (currently limited
to asbestos compounds). Five types
of sources, numbering about 50,000
in 1983, fall into the general par-
ticulate class: coke ovens, storage
piles, conveyor belts, and crushing
and grinding machines. The special
particulate sources encompass nine
asbestos-generating processes, in-
cluding separation and wetting,
for an estimated
total of 300
sources in 1990.
Standards for the
general par-
ticulate sources
are unique in
that control is
achieved with
construction,
use, and mainte-
nance standards,
rather than emis-
sion limits.
In addition
to these facility-
based standards,
the AQB has set
ambient limits
for SO2, CO, and
suspended parti-
culate matter,
(defined as par-
ticles «10 |xm),
photochemical
oxidants, and
NO2. Plans to
achieve these
standards are based on integrated
programs using emission standards
for both mobile and stationary
sources. A comparison of Japanese
and U.S. ambient standards is shown
in Table 1.
Prefectural governors, analog-
ous to U.S. State governors, are
responsible for compliance with
emissions standards and established
ambient levels. In some areas, they
may also enforce fuel use standards
and areawide composite SOg and
NOx emission standards. Additionally,
they may elect to set stricter stan-
dards where the national standards
are insufficient.
Japan's APPL also provides
guidance for vehicle exhaust limits
based on the vehicle type, weight,
and manufacture date; fuel type; and
engine and exhaust system designs.
Regulated pollutants include CO,
diesel smoke, NOx, and hydrocar-
bons. Responsibility for compliance
lies with the Transport Ministry.
At present, the AQB is having
the greatest compliance difficulty
with the NOx and particulate stan-
dards. In urban areas, the Bureau
is tightening standards on NOx
from diesel trucks and is encourag-
ing the use of low emission vehicles
like methanol-fueled and electric
cars by means including tax incen-
tives and promotional campaigns.
The AQB has also developed a plan
to reduce emissions from traffic in
the Tokyo/Yokohama and Osaka/
Kobe areas by methods to improve
2
traffic flow such as eliminating
intersections by building overpasses
and underpasses and computerized
traffic control, especially during
rush hours. Furthermore, a study
is underway to address the high
ambient pollutant levels at truck
terminals and intersections. For
particulates, AQB has begun
research to disaggregate the rela-
tive source contributions to better
target control measures. Diesel-
powered vehicles are estimated to
contribute 20 to 40 percent of aggre-
gate particulates, and the AQB is
already focusing on this source.
For additional
information, con-
tact Scott
Voorhees, U. S.
EPA, Office of
Air Quality Plan-
ning and Stan-
dards, MD-15,
Research Triangle
Park, North
Carolina 27711,
(919) 541-5348.
* Adapted from a
paper by Scott
Voorhees entitled
"Air Pollution
Policies and
Regulations in
Japan," No.
91-115.18,
published for the
Annual Meeting
of the Air & Waste
Management
Association in
Vancouver, June
16-21, 1991.
**Scott Voorhees, a former editor of
the NATICH Newsletter, spent nine
months of 1991 on a work detail in
Japan. As a recipient of a Fulbright
Research Grant, Scott worked with
the Japan Environment Agency and
was able to evaluate their air pollu-
tion control program.
Table 1.
Comparison of Japanese and U.S. Ambient Standards
Pollutant
Japanese Standard
U.S. Primary Standard
Level
Time Period
Level
Time Period
S02
0.04 ppm
Daily average of hourly
values
0.03 ppm
Annual average
0.1 ppm
Single hourly value
0.14 ppm
24 hour
CO
10 ppm
Daily average of hourly
values
9 ppm
8 hour
20 ppm
Average of hourly values,
8 consecutive hours
35 ppm
1 hour
SPMa (Japan)
PM10 (U.S.)
0.10 mg/m3
Daily average of hourly
values
0.05 mg/m3
Annual average
0.20 mg/m3
Single hourly value
0.15 mg/m3
24 hour
no2
0.04-0.06
ppm
Daily average of hourly
values
0.053 ppm
Annual average
Photochemical
oxidantsb (Japan)
Ozone (U.S.)
0.06 ppm
(total hydro-
carbons)
Single hourly value
0.12 ppm
1 hour
Lead
-
-
1.5 |i.g/m3
Quarterly
* Suspended particulate matter.
Photochemical oxidants include peroxyacetyl nitrate, ozone, and other oxidizing substances
produced by photochemical reactions.

-------
Risk Assessment Roundtable (continued from page 1)
EPA staff presented initiatives
being pursued to improve the way
that risk assessment is done as well
as updates of ongoing activities.
These include:
•	Revisions to risk assessment
guidelines (originally published
in the Federal Register in 1986)
that include the Carcinogen
Classification System;
•	The role of EPA's Risk Assess-
ment Forum* whose work involves
coordinating the development of
the risk assessment guidelines;
•	The status of reference concen-
tration (RfC)** development and
possible inclusion of related infor-
mation in EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS);
•	Development of new benchmark
methods for determining short-
term RfCs, a more sophisticated
method to determine primary
health effects;
•	Evaluation of the high end of
exposure distributions (includ-
ing concentration and duration);
•	Revisions to the Human Exposure
Model (HEM-ID***; and
•	Preliminary development of
methods for residual risk
assessment.
Updates on these EPA initiatives
will be summarized at a special risk
assessment session during the Title
III workshop for State and local
agencies that will be held in North
Carolina, August 12-14, 1992.
STAPPA/ALAPCO represen-
tatives explained in their presenta-
tions that the public expects risk
assessment to be used and that the
agencies must frequently explain
and defend these risk assessments
at public meetings. Risk assessment
at the State and local level is mainly
used as part of the permitting pro-
cess, which often requires that some
type of control technology be consid-
ered prior to the risk assessment.
That is, State and local agencies
focus on residual risk assessment,
or risk after controls are applied.
Several critical issues raised
and discussed by the State and local
agency representatives included:
•	Making it clear to NAS and
EPA, among others, that the
goal of State and local programs
is to minimize risk;
•	EPA recognizing that many
State and local policies are
driven by the need to com-
municate risk to the public and
to ensure that the public feels
protected;
•	Realizing the need to balance
industry's voice with advocates
for the public who support the
widespread use of risk assess-
ment;
•	Understanding the need for all
agencies to articulate the values
that influence the way risk
assessments are done;
•	Recognizing the Federal/State/
local agency partnership in risk
assessment as illustrated by the
use of EPA tools such as RfCs,
unit risk factors, and the Car-
cinogen Classification System to
build programs;
•	Developing risk assessment
guidance and tools that are
descriptive, rather than
proscriptive;
•	Realizing the difficulty for States
to continue with programs that
are more stringent than the
Federal air toxics regulations
developed under the Clean Air
Act; and
•	Finding opportunities for State
and local agencies to participate
in the risk assessment develop-
ment process.
As follow up to the roundtable,
STAPPA/ALAPCO representatives
will prepare and submit comments
to the NAS to address these issues;
EPA will provide a list of issues to
be addressed by EPA's Risk Assess-
ment Forum in the near future; and
efforts are underway to involve
State and local agency represen-
tatives in the forum.
For more information about
the risk assessment roundtable,
contact Joann Held, (609) 633-1113.
*See related article in the November
1988 Newsletter.
*	*See related article in the Novem-
ber 1990 Newsletter.
*	* *See related article in the May
1991 Newsletter.
Great Lakes States Develop Air Toxics Inventory
by Carol Ratza, Great Lakes Commission and John Vial, Michigan Department of Natural Resources
In 1986, the governors of Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wis-
consin signed The Great Lakes Toxic
Substances Control Agreement.
This established a framework for
coordinating regional action to con-
trol toxic pollutants entering the
Great Lakes system. Principle VI of
this Agreement required the States
"... to work cooperatively to improve
the region's information retrieval
and technical analysis capabilities,
recognizing that compatible data
bases are key to the development
of effective regulations and the con-
trol of toxic substances Basin-wide."
In subsequent meetings on the
Agreement, the environmental pro-
tection agencies from the eight
signatory States acknowledged the
significant impact that atmospheric
deposition has on the Great Lakes
(continued on page 4)
3

-------
Great Lakes States
(continued from page 3)
Table 1.
Toxic Air Pollutants for Great Lakes Emission Inventory
ecosystem, identified specific toxic
air pollutants of concern to the
Great Lakes Basin, and agreed to
work together to develop a regional
air toxic emissions inventory for
these pollutants. As a first step, a
regional inventory was deemed
necessary to identify all emission
sources, quantify loadings of the
pollutants to the air and water in the
Great Lakes Basin, assist in devel-
oping and evaluating regulatory pro-
grams to control the toxicants, and
to better direct regional air monitor-
ing efforts for the pollutants.
The State agencies chose 25
toxic air pollutants for study (see
Table 1) because of their potential
to bioaccumulate and adversely im-
pact aquatic organisms or because
they pose a threat to human health
through direct inhalation. Twenty-
two of these pollutants were subse-
quently included as hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) under Section
112 of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAA). Only di-n-
octyl phthalate, polychlorinated
dibenzodioxins (PCDDs), and
polychlorinated dibenzofurans
(PCDFs) were not included as
HAPs (note that 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofurans
are on the CAA list).
Recognizing their limited
resources to establish and maintain
a regional inventory, the State
agencies approached the Great
Lakes Commission, the Great Lakes
Protection Fund, the U.S. EPA
Region V Office, and the U.S. EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards to create a strategic plan
for developing the air toxics inven-
tory and to fund its implementation.
The Great Lakes Commission
agreed to oversee and administer
implementation of the strategic
plan, with the States providing
technical input and guidance
through a standing technical steer-
ing committee chaired by the
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources. The Commission was
established in 1955 by the Great
Lakes Basin Compact, which was
1.
Alkylated lead compounds
16.
2.
Arsenic

3.
Benzo(a)pyrene
17.
4.
Cadmium

5.
Carbon tetrachloride
18.
6.
Chromium

7.
1,2-Dichloroethane
19.
8.
Diethylhexyl phthalate


(DEHP)
20.
9*
Di-n-butyl phthalate
21.
10.
Di-n-octyl phthalate
22.
11.
Hexachlorobenzene

12
Hexachlorobutadiene
23.
13
Hexachloroethane

14.
Lead
24.
15. Mercury
25.
signed by the eight Great Lakes
States. The Great I.akes Commis-
sion was founded, as stated in its
charter, to "promote the orderly,
integrated and comprehensive devel-
opment, use and conservation of
the water resources of the Great
Lakes Basin." The purpose of the
Commission has been to guide,
protect, and advance the common
interests of its membership in the
areas of regional environmental
quality, resource management, and
economic development.
The Great Lakes Protection
Fund is providing major financial
support for the regional emission
inventory. The U. S. EPA is also
helping to fund the inventory efforts
and is providing technical assistance.
The Great Lakes Protection
Fund is the nation's first multistate
environmental endowment. The
fund was begun in October 1989 by
the governors of the eight Great
Lakes States to protect the overall
health of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
It provides a permanent source of
funding to implement the strategies
of the Great Lakes Toxic Substances
Control Agreement as well as the
Polychlorinated biphenyls,
total, (PCBs)
Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins,
total, (PCDDs)
Polychlorinated dibenzofurans,
total, (PCDFs)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
total, (PAHs)
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
Tetrachloroethene
(Perchloroethylene)
Trichloroethene
(Trichloroethylene)
2.4.5-T	richlorophenol
2.4.6-Trichlorophenol
Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement.
'Hie air toxics inventory is be-
ing developed in three successive
phases. Phase one, completed in
November 1991, was to prepare
technical specifications for develop-
ing the regional air toxics data base
and to select a technical consultant
to create a toxic pollutant estima-
tion protocol.
Phase two, which began in
March 1992, requires development
of the pollutant estimation protocol
and creation of a plan to implement
the emissions inventory. The tasks
specified in phase two include:
•	Development of point, area, and
mobile source emission factors,
•	Quality assurance of emission
factor data,
•	Development and updating of
emission inventory activity
parameters (measurable quan-
tities, such as pounds per hour
throughput or number of vehicles
per day that when combined with |
an emissions factor results in an
estimated emissions rate), and
(continued on page 5)

-------
Great Lakes States (continued from page 4)
• Recommendations for system
automation and spatial resolu-
tion (a unit area over which
emissions may be applicable,
e.g., city, county, or square
mile).
Phase two is scheduled for comple-
tion by the end of February 1993.
The third and final phase in
developing the regional air toxics
inventory involves automating the
emissions protocol, acquiring and
loading data into the emissions
data base, and operating and main-
taining the inventory system. The
procedures and hardware to accom-
plish these tasks will be determined
as phase two progresses.
For more information on the
Great Lakes Air Toxics Inventory,
contact Carol Ratza, Great Lakes
Commission, the Argus II Building,
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103, (313)
. 665-9135.
AIRS Graphics Development Nears Completion
by Tom Link, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
In November 1991, OAQPS
began limited national testing of a
new utility designed to depict
Aerometric Information Retrieval
System (AIRS) data in the form of
geographical maps and statistical
graphics. The utility was developed
using the Statistical Analysis System
(SAS) software SAS/Graph™ on the
National Computer Center (NCC)
IBM mainframe that also houses
AIRS. AIRS is a computer-based
repository of air pollution informa-
tion for the United States, adminis-
tered by EPA's Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
National Air Data Branch (NADB).
Nationwide, about 160 test sites
were selected to participate in the
first test phase, based in part on
their having appropriate graphics
hardware/software, telecommuni-
cations, and NCC timesharing
option access. NADB provided
each with an AIRS Graphics Test
Kit describing the purpose of, soft-
ware/hardware requirements for,
and instructions on how to use
AIRS Graphics.
Early comments received
regarding users' needs for graphic
outputs and how well a system ser-
vicing the entire AIRS network
might work have been positive.
The Test Kit included a detailed
'Test Script" for assessing system
operating reliability, performance,
ease of use, and requested im-
provements. These test scripts
were returned to NADB for review
and statistical compilation by
January 31, 1992. New features and
improvements were implemented
during February and March prior
to the beginning of the next test
phase in April 1992. The goal of the
second phase is to provide all test
sites with all changes and enhance-
ments requested in the first phase.
All revisions will be finalized in this
phase to prepare for national
production.
I N T R O D U C
N G
AIRS
*
-------
Dioxins and Dibenzofurans Identified at
Ohio Industrial Hazardous Waste Incinerators
by Paul J. Koval and David C. Nuber, Division of Air Pollution Control, Ohio EPA
The Ohio EPA has completed
a report on emissions from munici-
pal refuse-derived fuel sources in
the State as part of an ongoing
effort to characterize the presence
of and the associated health risks
posed by polychlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlori-
nated dibenzofurans (PCDFs).*
Funded by the Ohio Air Quality
Development Authority, the Ohio
EPA conducted air monitoring for
hazardous waste rotary kiln incin-
erators at two sites, one of which
uses liquid hazardous waste as a
fuel supplement and incorporates
incinerator ash into cement produc-
tion. The results of the ambient air
monitoring were used in a risk
assessment to determine the health
risks associated with emissions
from these two facilities.
Ambient Levels Characterized
The Ohio EPA collected
24-hour samples at two rural areas
near both facilities. At Site 1, one
upwind and two downwind sam-
pling sites were located on public
property. At Site 2, one upwind and
three downwind samplers were
located on plant property, with two
samplers collocated at one site to
gather replicate samples. Samples
were analyzed using standard
methods that included spiking the
samples with radioactively labeled
dioxins.
Although measurable levels of
the radioactively labeled dioxins
were detected in the background
samples, these levels fell well below
the sample values detected and
were included (not subtracted) in
the reported concentration for each
sample. The concentrations for
each congener (a chemical com-
pound closely related to another in
composition and exerting similar or
antagonistic effects) class and the
representative 2,3,7,8-chlorinated
species were determined for each
Figure 1.
TCDD Toxic Equivalents at Site 1.
HpCCD
4.3%
Figure 2.
TCDD Toxic Equivalents at Site 2.
HpCDD
0.6%
HxCDF	HpCDF
0.8%	8.0%
sample collected. Figures 1 and 2
illustrate the proportion of each
congener group with values above
the detection limits (based on aver-
age air concentrations) at each site.
Although the results at Site 1
indicate a higher downwind con-
centration of many congener groups,
these differences were not signifi-
cant. At Site 2, the downwind con-
centration of PCDFs was higher
than the upwind concentration, but,
again, the difference was not
statistically significant.
Risk Assessment Conducted
The risk assessment was con-
ducted using U.S. EPA-devised tox-
icity equivalence factors (TEFs) as
outlined in EPA's Interim Proce-
dures for Estimating Risks Associated
with Exposures to Mixtures of
Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and
Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs)
and in the 1989 update (EPA 625/3-
87/012 and EPA 625/3-89/016).
This method determines the tox-
icities of mixtures of PCDDs and
PCDFs by relating the toxicity fac-
tor of the non-2,3,7,8-TCDD to the
2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity. Using this
approach, each of the congener
concentrations has been multiplied
by the appropriate TEF to yield the
2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalent.
Table 1.
Aggregate Carcinogenic Risk Per Site
Monitoring Jjocation
Total TCDD Equivalent
Aggregate Risk Values
Site 1: Upwind
9.96 x 103
3.28 x 10'7
Site 1: Downwind
1.65 x 10'1
5.44 x 10"6
Site 1: Downwind
6.80 x 10'2
2.24 x 10-®
Site 2: Upwind
6.86 x 10"3
2.26 x 107
Site 2: Downwind
1.49 x 10"2
4.91 x 10"7
Site 2: Downwind
1.11 x W2
3.65 x 10"7
Site 2: Downwind
1.53 x 10"2
5.05 x 10 "7
6
-------
Dioxins and Dibenzofurans (continued from page 6)
In estimating carcinogenic
risks from the sum of the 2,3,7,8-
TCDD toxic equivalents, the con-
geners below the detection limits
were not included in the aggregate
risk values. Cancer risk was ob-
tained by multiplying the EPA Unit
Risk Value of 3.3 x 105 picograms
per cubic meter (pg/m:i) 1 by the
total toxic equivalent concentra-
tions. Table 1 presents the aggre-
gate carcinogenic risk by site.
From the risk assessment, the
Ohio EPA concluded that the cancer
risk from the inhalation of the
2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents at
both sampling sites was not
unreasonably high since 1 x 10"6 is
generally accepted as low risk.
Therefore, given the current scien-
tific understanding of the health
effects of PCDDs/PCDFs, the in-
cinerators do not present a signi-
ficant public health problem.
For more information, or to
request a copy of the monitoring
report or risk assessment, please
contact Dave Nuber, Toxicologist,
Division of Air Pollution Control,
Ohio EPA, 1800 Watermark Drive,
Columbus, Ohio 43215. Dave
Nuber or Paul Koval can also be
reached at (614) 644-2270.
*See related article in the November
1988 Newsletter.
Air RISC Holds "All-Hands Meeting"
by Holly Reid, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
The Air Risk Information Sup-
port Center (Air RISC) convened
an "all-hands meeting" on April 7
via video conference to discuss the
status of current projects and
future activities. Air RISC Steering
Committee members from North
Carolina, Washington, D.C., and
Cincinnati, Ohio, met with the
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) and the Envi-
ronmental Criteria and Assessment
Office (ECAO) staff who lead ongo-
ing Air RISC projects and/or
answer the Air RISC Hotline. Air
RISC is cosponsored by EPA's
OAQPS and ECAO (both the
Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, and Cincinnati, Ohio,
locations) to provide assistance to
State and local air pollution control
agencies on issues relating to
health, risk, and exposure assess-
ments. This service is best known
for providing a free, EPA-staffed
hotline to answer air toxics/health
risk questions.
The Steering Committee
reviewed a status report for Fiscal
Year 1991 (FY 91) and noted accom-
plishments, the most important of
which was responding to over 600
requests for assistance. Air RISC
publications, such as "A Risk Com-
munication Guide for State and
Local Agencies" and public educa-
tion materials sent to the directors
of approximately 300 State and
local air pollution control agencies,
were highlighted. The Steering
Committee also officially intro-
duced the inclusion of criteria
pollutants in the scope of Air RISC
expertise, historically limited to air
toxics. New committee members,
Norm Childs of ECAO and Dave
McKee of OAQPS, were introduced
to provide expertise in the areas of
health and risk assessment of
criteria pollutants.
The committee also reviewed
the progress of ongoing technical
assistance projects, all of which are
scheduled for completion early in
FY 93. Projects discussed included
the "Descriptive Guide to Risk
Assessment Methodologies," which
will aid State and local agencies in
making decisions about how and
when to use risk assessment. The
committee also received reports on
a study to characterize and quantify
emissions from heated asphalt and
to evaluate the toxicity from both
short- and long-term exposure, the
characterization of emissions and
exposure from open tire burning,
the development of citizen's guides
on the incineration of municipal
and medical waste, preparation of
an odor thresholds report*, and an
assessment of the noncancer
respiratory effects of residential
wood smoke emissions.
Ideas for new Air RISC
technical assistance projects were
discussed, most of which were
received through Hotline calls from
State and local agencies and
Regional EPA Offices. Funding was
approved for four new projects to
begin in FY 92 and scheduled for
completion in FY 93: a document
on the risk assessment of crystal-
line silica, a video on risk assess-
ment principles for inhaled hazard-
ous air pollutants, a preliminary
assessment of risk and exposure
from aerial pesticide spraying, and
a workshop on the use of the
benchmark dose approach in risk
assessment.
For more information or to
request copies of Air RISC reports,
call EPA's Air RISC Hotline, (919)
541-0888.
*See related article in the November
1991 Newsletter.
7
-------
MARAMA Appoints Executive Director
George Ferreri, Director of
Maryland's Air Management Ad-
ministration, announced in March
the appointment of James Ham-
bright as Executive Director of the
Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Manage-
ment Association (MARAMA).*
Mr. Hambright formerly served as
Director of the Pennsylvania
Bureau of Air Quality Control.
MARAMA was officially
organized on February 26, 1990, by
the States of Delaware, Maryland,
New Jersey, North Carolina, and
Pennsylvania, and the District of
Columbia, the City of Philadelphia,
and Allegheny County (Pittsburgh).
The purpose of the Associa-
tion is to evaluate current and
emerging air quality issues and
problems and to define program
requirements that can be resolved
most effectively by a regional
strategy. MARAMA expects to
develop and implement procedures
that will ensure a high degree of
program consistency among the air
pollution control agencies in the
Mid-Atlantic Region. MARAMA will
help coordinate control strategy
development, regulation develop-
ment, air monitor siting and opera-
tion, and staff training; it will also
undertake any other actvities con-
sidered appropriate by the member
agencies. One of the first tasks
scheduled is to coordinate State
Implementation Plan (SIP) activi-
ties among MARAMA members.
*See related article in the May 1990
Newsletter.
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-D1-0125, Work Assignment 1-6. The EPA Editor is Carol Jones, EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Telephone: (919) 541-5341. The Radian Project Director
is Linda Cooper, Radian Corporation, 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 Corporation, 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.
&ER&
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Pollutant Assessment Branch
Carol Jones, (MD-13)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
FIRST CLASS MAIL
U.S. Postage Paid
E.RA.
Permit No. G-35
11111111111111 li ¦ 1111111 ¦ I >I *¦f I
-------