United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air and Radiation
Research Triangle Park, NC 22711
(MD-13)
January 1993
EPA 453/N-93-001
Natich
ewsletter
National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse
In This Issue...
Update on EPA's RIHRA Program 5
Region VII Evaluates Open-Path
FUR Systems for Air Toxics	6
Frequently Used

Acronyms
CAA-
Clean Air Act Amend-

ments of 1990
GACT-
Generally Available

Control Technology
HAPs-
Hazardous Air

Pollutants
HON-
Hazardous Organic

NESHAP
MACT-
Maximum Achievable

Control Technology
NESHAF
- National Emission Stan-

dards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants
OAQPS -
Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards
~
Rftcyciftd/Recyciable
Printed with Soy/CanoJa Ink on paper that
contain# at least 50% post-consumer recycled fiber 1
Clean Air Act Activities:
EPA Issues New Standards*
Recent EPA activity in air toxics
includes the promulgation of the Early
Reductions rule on December 29, 1992
(57 FR 61970), and two proposed National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) during December
1992. The proposed standards will reduce
emissions from the Synthetic Organic-
Chemical Manufacturing Industry
(SOCMI) and coke ovens. On September
24,1992, EPA also published the schedule
for setting standards for source categories.
Early Reductions Rule Promulgated
The Early Reductions Program**
offers facilities a six-year compliance
extension from maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) or generally
available control technology (GACT)
standards required by the Clean Air Act
(CAA) if they achieve early reductions in
emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs). Regulations to implement this
rule were proposed on June 13, 1991,
and finalized on December 29, 1992. One
significant change was made following
proposal, based on comments received
during the public comment period: the
pollutants on the high-risk list were in-
creased from 35 to 47; 17 pollutants were
added and 5 were deleted (see Table 1).
(continued on page 2)
Ohio Studies Air Toxics Risk
by Paul Koval, David Nuber, and Phil Downey,
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Air Pollution Control
the work. With the technology and
methodology available from EPA's
UATMP and a rising concern for in-
creased cancer risks from multipollutant,
multisource interactions in urban areas,
Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Con-
trol (DAPC), initiated a preliminary
sampling program for VOCs throughout
the State.
(continued on page 3)
Produced in STAPIPA / ALAIPCS©
conjunction State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
with Association of Local Air Polution Control Officials
Ohio EPA has conducted several
studies on noncriteria pollutants and
their potential impact on human health
and the environment. These studies
were triggered by the Urban Air Toxics
Monitoring Program (UATMP). But until
recently, attempts to assess volatile
organic compound (VOC) concentrations
in ambient air have been hampered by a
lack of appropriate equipment to perform
f
1
L o
'001
6 vy t j v#

-------
New Standards
(continued from page 1)
The primary reason for adding
specific pollutants was that EPA revised
the methodology used to select the
pollutants (described in the preamble to
the final rule). Five pollutants were
deleted because of revisions to health
effects data since the time the rule was
proposed [e.g., a change in the reference
concentration (RfC,*** see Table 2)]. In
addition, the weighting factors for five
pollutants were increased to account for
bioaccumulation or persistence of the
pollutants.
The Early Reductions Program cur-
rently has 70 enforceable commitments
under review, which translates into over
30 million pounds of HAP reductions.
For additional information, contact****
David Beck, (919) 541-5421, or Rick
Colyer, (919) 541-5262.
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON)
Proposed
The Hazardous Organic NESHAP
(HON) was proposed on December 31,
1992 (57 FR 62608), and will regulate
HAP emissions from the SOCMI source
category as well as from seven non-
SOCMI processes. Because the SOCMI
source category covers so many sources,
the HON is expected to result in a larger
reduction in emissions than achieved
with any other single NESHAP. The
HON is expected to reduce HAP emis-
sions by more than 500,000 tons each
year after it is fully implemented.
Major provisions of the HON
include specific MACT requirements for
five kinds of emission points, parameter
monitoring, and emissions trading.
Background information on the HON
and emissions trading can be found in
the July 1992 issue of the NATICH
Newsletter.
The parameter monitoring provision
will be used to demonstrate compliance
with the HON's operating requirements.
Sources would be required to monitor
operating parameters of emission control
devices and report periods during which
the measured parameter values are out-
side certain site-specific ranges. EPA is
proposing to allow sources to set site-
specific ranges for each control to
account for variation in emission point
(continued on page 3)
Table 1.
List of High-Risk Pollutants3
CAS No.
Chemical
Weighting
Factor
53963
2-Acetylaminofluorene
100
107028
Acrolein
100b
79061
Acrylamide
10
79107
Acrylic acid
10
107131
Acrylonitrile
10
0
Arsenic compounds
100
1332214
Asbestos
100
71432
Benzene
10
92875
Benzidine
1,000
0
Beryllium compounds
10
542881
Bis (chloromethyl) ether
1,000
106990
1,3-Butadiene
10
0
Cadmium compounds
10
57749
Chlordane
100h
532274
2-Chloroacetophenone
100
0
Chromium compounds
100
107302
Chloromethyl methyl ether
10
0
Coke oven emissions
10
334883
Diazomethane
10
132649
Dibenzofurans
10
96128
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
10
111444
Dichloroethyl ether
1°
79447
Dimethyl carbamoyl chloride
100 ™
122667
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
10
106934
Ethylene dibromide (Dibromoethane)
10
151564
Ethylenimine (Aziridine)
100
75128
Ethylene oxide
10
76448
Heptachlor
100b
118741
Hexachlorobenzene
.a
o
o
77474
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
10
302012
Hydrazine
100
O
Manganese compounds
10
0
Mercury compounds
.e
o
o
101688
Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI)
10
60344
Methyl hydrazine
10
624839
Methyl isocyanate
10
0
Nickel compounds
10
62759
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
100
684935
N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
1,000
56382
Parathion
10
75445
Phosgene
10
7803512
Phosphine
10
7723140
Phosphorus
10
75558
1,2-Propylenimine (2-Methyl aziridine)
100
1746016
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
100,000
8001352
Toxaphene (Chlorinated camphene)
100
75014
Vinyl chloride
10 ^
8 Pollutants in boldface were added to this list.
b Weighting factor was adjusted from 10 to 100.
2

-------
New Standards (continued from page 2)
Table 2.
Pollutants Deleted from the High-Risk List
CAS No.
Chemical
Weighting
Factor
98077
Benzotrichloride
10
126998
Chloroprene
10
79345
1, 1,2,2-Tetraehloroethane
10
584849
2,4-Toluene diisocyanate
10
75354
Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloroethylene)
10
racteristics and control device
igns because available data indicated
that establishing minimum or maximum
parameter values applicable to all con-
trols would be difficult.
This provision was included in the
HON because of developments in a
related program, the operating permits
program. For this program, the preamble
to the final rule directs EPA to include
monitoring in all future regulations to
assure continuous compliance with emis-
sion standards. This type of monitoring
is considered "enhanced monitoring"
because it provides data to determine
compliance. For the HON, compliance
with the numerical emission limits is
determined by performance tests, but
continuous parameter monitoring is used
to determine compliance with the
operating requirements. The monitoring
data will also allow source owners or
operators to certify whether compliance
was continuous or intermittent through-
out the reporting period as required by
the compliance certification provisions of
• operating permits program rule.
In addition, EPA is developing a
separate rule for all sources subject to
MACT that will detail the process that
sources must follow to develop enhanced
monitoring and compliance certifications.
Future MACT standards will include
enhanced monitoring and compliance
certification provisions as appropriate for
the types of controls being required.
For further information on the HON
proposal, contact Daphne McMurrer,
(919) 541-0248. For additional informa-
tion on enhanced monitoring or com-
pliance certifications, contact Jane
Engert (703) 308-8677, Stationary Source
Compliance Division, Mail Code
EN-341W, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Coke Oven Standard Proposed
Another MACT standard was pro-
posed on December 4, 1992 (57 FR
57534), which is expected to reduce coke
oven emissions by approximately 1500-
«0 tons/year when implemented. At
current level of control, coke oven
batteries release approximately 1826
tons/year of coke oven emissions. These
emissions, which contain polycyclic
organic matter, benzene, and other
chemicals than can cause cancer, are
among the most toxic of all air pollutants.
The coke oven standard was
developed through regulatory negotia-
tion, in which representatives from State
and local agencies, industry, environ-
mental groups, and other interested par-
ties participate in EPA's decision-making
process. For further information, contact
Amanda Agnew, (919) 541-5268.
Source Category Schedule Proposed
The source category schedule for
emission standards was proposed on
September 24, 1992 (57 FR 44147). This
schedule dictates when standards are
due for each category on the initial list of
Ohio's Approach Summarized
In the summer of 1990, DAPC con-
ducted field trials of its VOC canister
sampling equipment. By the summer
of 1991, the initial program had been
expanded to include an increased number
of samples collected at existing sites and
sampling locations; this sampling was
conducted in a complementary manner
to the 1990 sampling. The 1990 and 1991
data were combined and used in risk
assessments for sites with a sufficient
sampling size.
A total of 70 SUMMA® canister
samples were collected in 14 counties
during several different 24-hour time
periods. The sampling locations ranged
from areas of light industry to urban
source categories. A 30-day public com-
ment period ended on October 26, 1992,
and 18 comments were received. For
additional information, see the Federal
Register notice or contact Chuck French,
(919) 541-0467.
*See related articles in the July 1992
issue.
*	*For background information, see also
the July 1991 issue of the Newsletter.
*	* *See related article in this issue.
*** *All EPA contacts for the standards
discussed in this article can be reached at
the following address: U.S. EPA, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), MD-13, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711.
land use. The samples were analyzed for
41 nonpolar VOC target compounds.
Of the 41 target compounds, 29 were
identified and measured in the samples
collected (see Table 1). Only two com-
pounds, benzene and toluene, were iden-
tified in every sample. Three compounds,
1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane,
and benzyl chloride, were only found
once in the 70 samples.
Risk Appears Higher for Two Cities
For each site, the criterion for con-
ducting a risk assessment was the
availability of monitoring data for at least
5 days of a 365-day period. Sufficient data
were available for three of the sampling
(continued on page 4)
Ohio Studies Air Toxics (continued from page 1)
3

-------
Ohio Studies Air Toxics (continued from page 3)
locations: Cleveland, Columbus, and Cin-
cinnati. For the assessment, only the
inhalation route of exposure to the com-
pounds was evaluated. Carcinogenic com-
pounds were evaluated using the U.S. EPA
guidelines for carcinogenic risk assess-
ment. Noncarcinogenic compounds were
evaluated based upon the U.S. EPA inhala-
tion reference concentration (RfC) * meth-
odology for those compounds for which
RfCs were available. For the exposure
assessment component of the risk assess-
ment, the average ambient air concentra-
tions measured at each site were used.
The aggregate carcinogenic risk for
the monitoring locations in Cleveland
and Columbus fell within the acceptable
range of 10' and 10''. The aggregate car-
cinogenic risk for the Cincinnati monitor-
ing site appears to be at the upperlimit of
the acceptable range, although high con-
centrations of one particular compound
tended to drive the results of the risk
assessment. The aggregate percentages
of the RfC, a measure of the
noncancer risk, for Cincinnati and Colum-
bus were below 100 percent. In Cleve-
land, where concentrations of p-dichloro-
benzene drove the percentage of the RfC
above 100 percent, DAPC is continuing
monitoring to determine why the concen-
trations for this compound are so high.
Although the ability to increase the
number of actual sampling sites will be
determined by budgetary constraints,
DAPC plans to continue the existing
monitoring program. Ohio EPA plans to
conduct a more comprehensive ambient
air VOC monitoring program and more
accurate and detailed urban air toxics
risk assessments.
For a copy of the full report of this
study with details on sampling, analysis,
and results, please write David Nuber,
Toxicologist, Ohio EPA, Division of Air
Pollution Control, 1800 Watermark
Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43215. The
length of the report necessitates that
Ohio EPA charge a $15 fee. Please make
checks payable to Treasurer, State of
Ohio. (It is available to Federal, State,
and local agencies at no charge.) For
more information, call David Nuber at
(614) 644-2270.
*See related article in this issue.
Table 1.
Compounds That Have Been Measured in Ambient Air Samples
Collected in Ohio"

Frequency
Maximum
Minimum

Observed in
Concentration
Concentration
Compound
70 Samples
Measured (jAg/m3)
Detected (n.g/m3)
Benzene
70
145.59
0.52
Toluene
70
73.92
2.20
Trichlorofluoromethane
69
38.37
0.48
m + p-Xylene
69
57.55
0.45
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
68
49.91
0.63
Dichlorodifluoromethane
67
206.51
0.63
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
(i5
18.22
0.62
o-Xylene
65
21.14
0.49
Ethylbenzene
63
15.84
0.48
Dichloromethane
50
77.68
0.42
Tetrachloroethene
49
72.90
0.80
Styrene
46
39.44
0.42
Carbon tetrachloride
44
0.93
0.62
4-Ethyl toluene
43
7.86
0.53
Methyl chloride
43
56.50
0.35
1,1,2-Trichloro-



1,2,2-trifluoroethane
41
14.70
0.77
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzen<:
40
15.20
0.52
p-I)iehlorobenzene
29
26.80
0.61
Trichloroethene
20
17.03
0.55 ^
3-Chloropropene
14
1.28
0.30
T richloromethane
14
12.00
0.49
Chlorobenzene
10
6.19
0.46
m-Dichlorobenzene
5
3.79
1.56
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
5
21.30
0.89
o-Dichlorobenzene
3
2.27
0.64
Methyl bromide
2
62.50
57.50
Benzyl chloride
1
0.83
0.83
1,2-DichIoroethane
1
1.09
1.09
1,1-Dichloroethene
1
0.94
0.94
"Target compounds not detected were the following: vinyl chloride, ethyl chloride, 1,1-dichlor-
oethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,2-dichIoro-l, 1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane,
cis-l,2-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloropropane, cis-l,3-dichloropropene, trans-l,3-dichloropropene,
1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,2-dibromomethane, and hexachlorobutadiene.
Readers Take Note
The correct OSHA exposure limit for lead is 50 \ig/m3 (8-hour time-
weighted average) The correct EPA Reference Air Concentration is 0.09
pg/m3 (quarterly average), The values appearing in the last footnote to the ,
"Lead Contamination Hazard" article on page 3 in the November 1992 *
issue were incorrect. The Newsletter staff apologizes for any inconvenience.
4

-------
Update on EPA's RIHRA Program*
Risk assessment plays a fundamen-
icu role at EPA, both in establishing
priorities for standards required by the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA)
and in developing regulations to protect
public health. Risk assessment, as defined
by the National Academy of Sciences, is
the scientific characterization of the
potential adverse effects of environmen-
tal hazards on human health. The CAA
requires that the technology-based stan-
dards now being developed for hazard-
ous air pollutants (HAPs) be followed by
an evaluation of the residual health risks
remaining after compliance with these
standards eight or nine years after pro-
mulgation. Deferring risk assessments
for HAPs allows not only evaluation of
the risk assessment process, but also a
window of opportunity to perform critical
research to address the major uncertain-
ties affecting risk assessments.
In 1988, KPA's Office of Research
and Development (ORD) established the
Research to Improve Health Risk
Assessments (RIHRA) Program. The
«HRA mandate is to conduct systematic,
egrated, long-term research, rather
than to conduct short-term research in
response to near-term regulatory pro-
gram needs. The RIHRA program is
targeted to improve the process of risk
assessment while complementing other
EPA research programs that respond
directly to media-specific program needs
(e.g., air and water). The intent of the
program is to identify and conduct
research leading to improved risk
assessment procedures, primarily
through development of generic or
model compound-based risk assessment
models.
RIHRA research focuses on the
major factors affecting health risk
assessment: estimating human ex-
posures to a pollutant; estimating the
concentration and persistence of that
pollutant at critical target sites in the
body (e.g., pharmacokinetic modeling);
linking pharmacokinetic and mechanistic
data to generate scientifically sound risk
•essment models (e.g., biologically
ed dose-response modeling); and
characterizing uncertainty.
This article, the first in a series,
focuses on current activities supported
by RIHRA and other studies affecting
the methodology for deriving reference
doses (RfDs) and concentrations (RfCs).
Subsequent articles will report on
RIHRA research on benchmark-dose
modeling, which affects use of the
no-observed-adverse-effect level
(NOAEL) in calculating RfDs; research
leading to an improved scientific founda-
tion for physiologically based pharmaco-
kinetic modeling; and research on
derivation of parameters of the
Moolgavkar-Knudson cancer incidence
equation, which may significantly affect
cancer risk estimation at low doses.
These activities will advance the scien-
tific basis for risk assessment and lead to
improvements in risk assessments for all
regulatory programs.
Many EPA health effects studies,
including research supported through
RIHRA and other ORD research pro-
grams, in pharmacokinetics and
dosimetry, neurotoxicity, reproductive
toxicity, developmental toxicity,
pulmonary toxicity, and in statistical
analyses affect or will affect RfD and
inhalation RfC methodologies. Eor health
endpoints other than cancer, the Agency
currently uses an RfD for oral exposures
and an RfC for inhalation exposures. In
either approach, critical health data are
evaluated and NOAELs or lowest-
observed-adverse-effect levels (LOAELs)
are identified. The RfC methods also
dosimetrically adjust these levels for
interspecies differences. These levels are
divided by one or more uncertainty fac-
tors to derive an RfC or RfD from experi-
mental data. These uncertainty factors
are intended to account for:
1.	the variation in sensitivity among
members of the human population;
2.	the uncertainty in extrapolating
animal data to the case of humans;
3.	the uncertainty in extrapolating
from data obtained in a study that
is of less-than-lifetime exposure;
4.	the uncertainty in using LOAEL
data rather than NOAEL data; and
5.	the inability of any single study to
adequately address all possible
adverse outcomes in humans.
Historically, most uncertainty fac-
tors have been set at ten. Current
research to support or modify these
uncertainty factors will directly affect the
estimation of RfCs and chemical-specific
risk assessments. Ultimately, this
research will affect risk management
decisions.
RIHRA studies supplement and
build upon results from a host of prior
studies designed to improve RfD/RfC
methodology. In general, all of these
studies seek to improve or replace the
uncertainty factors used when deriving
RfCs and RfDs. Current research is
underway, for example, to study regional
dosimetry in the pulmonary tract of
humans, laboratory rodents, rhesus
monkeys, and in physical models. As a
result of these critical studies of
dosimetry, the EPA's RfC Workgroup has
modified the interspecies uncertainty
factor from 10 to 3 when dosimetric
adjustments are applied.
Additional RIHRA-supported
activities are designed to improve
understanding of the toxicological data
upon which RfCs and RfDs are based,
thereby reducing or improving the data
base uncertainty factor. Other critical
factors in RfC/RfD methodology under
study include evaluation of less-than-
lifetime exposures and variability in
human and laboratory populations.
Another important activity is the iden-
tification of critical health studies to
improve the foundation of RfC/RfD
methodology. RIHRA-supported research
leading to improvements on all these
fronts supports related research activities,
including the development and evalua-
tion of other methods to obtain data on
risks above the RfD/RfC. These methods
include categorical regression and
benchmark-dose modeling approaches.
Future articles will provide addi-
tional details on several of these
activities. For further information on
RIHRA, contact John Vandenberg, Ph.D.,
RIHRA Director, EPA Health Effects
Research Laboratory, MD-51, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, or
call (919) 541-4527.
*See related article in the July 1991
Newsletter.
5

-------
Region VII Evaluates Open-Path FTIR Systems for Air Toxics*
by Jody Hudson, Region VII
Table 1.
OP-FTIR Qualitative Performance Summary Results
As Percent of Tune VOCs Were Correctly Identified
Chemical Specie
Cone. Range
(ppb)a
No. of
Releases
OP-FTIR Systems Tested
System A
<*)
System B
(%)
System C
(%)
Dichloromethane
130 - 230
6
100
100
100
1,1,1-T richloroethane
33 - 93
6
100
100
100
Trichloroethylene
255 - 330
3
100
100
100
Tetrachloroethylene
65 - 97
3
100
100
100
Freon 113
46-76
3
100
100
100
Chlorobenzene
29-78
3
100
100
67
Toluene
34 - 100
3
0
33
67
IsoOctane
34 - 110
ti
0
100
0
'"'Average concentration across 100-meter path as determined from canister data.
EPA Region VII and University of
Kansas researchers have completed a
field study to assess and document the
analytical capabilities of several open-
path Fourier transform infrared (OP-
FTIR) spectrometer systems. The study,
which was largely funded by the EPA's
Air/Superfund Coordination Program,
was conducted to answer questions from
the air monitoring community about the
application of OP-FTIR as an emerging
technology for measuring toxic air
pollutants in ambient air. Because of its
many advantages over traditional "point
monitoring" techniques, there is signifi-
cant, widespread interest both within
and outside the EPA in the use of OP-
FTIR as an air toxics monitoring tool.
However, many basic questions con-
cerning analytical capabilities have not
been answered or supported by well-
documented data, so many would-be
OP-FTIR users are reluctant to apply this
technology. These questions, related pri-
marily to the systems' analytical qualitative
and quantitative performance, include:
1. how well can the OP-FTIR systems
identify specific pollutants;
2.	how accurate are the concentration
measurements; and
3.	how reproducible are the measure-
ments?
The study was designed to answer these
and other questions regarding OP-FTIR
performance.
The study design involved conduct
ing a series of 15 controlled blind releases
(specific compounds and concentrations
unknown to operators) of a range of tox-
ic air pollutants. As these compounds
were released to the air, three different
OP-FTIR systems were operated side by
side to conduct concurrent measurements
through the resulting plume. The OP-FTIR
measurements were taken approximately
50 meters downwind of the release source
with a straight line path-length of 100 meters
through the plume. Concurrent canister
samples were collected with EPA Method
TO-14** to provide a reference for the
OP-FTIR data. Nine stainless-steel
canisters were deployed every 10 meters
across the path to characterize the
average concentration across the path-
length for each controlled release. The
network schematic is shown in Figure 1.
The study results (Table 1) showed
that all three OP-FTIR systems demon-
strated excellent qualitative performance
for the chlorinated VOCs released.
Quantitative performance was measu^
in terms of both accuracy and precision
relative to the canister results.
(continued on page 7)
Figure 1.
OP-FTIR Performance Study Network Design
6

-------
Region VII (continued from page 6)
Figure 2.
OP-FTIR Quantitative Performance Summary for Accuracy
Mean Accuracy
as Percent of
Reference Value
250-
225
200-
175-
150-
125-
100-
75
50
25
0
[ j System A
[] System B
! System C
As shown in Figures 2 and 3, accuracy
was best for the halogenated volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), which ranged
from 73 to 120 percent (expressed as
percentage of canister value). The preci-
sion was also good with most results
being 10 to 15 percent of the relative
standard deviation. A statistical data
analysis showed no difference at the
0.05 significance level (0.05a) between
the measurement data generated by the
OP-FTIR systems and Method TO-14 for
the aliphatic chlorinated VOCs released.
A more detailed discussion of this
study was presented at the June Air &
Waste Management Association's national
meeting in Kansas City. A copy of this
report can be obtained from Jody Hud-
son or Mark Thomas at (913) 551-5000.
*See related article in the September 1991
Newsletter.
* *EPA Method TO-14 uses SUMMA®
passivated canisters for ambient-level VOC
collection and is followed by cryogenic
preconcentration and gas chromatography/
mass spectrometry analysis.
Figure 3.
OP-FTIR Quantitative Performance Summary for Precision
Precision
as RSD%
\sSS,
[] System A
^System B
1! System C

v\VV
\
's

\
\


Attention Readers
The NATICH Bulletin Board
System is now available on the
QAQFS Technology Transfer Net-
work (TTN). The number to access
the TTN is (919)541-5742.
Necessary Communications
Settings:
8 Data bits
No parity
1 Stop bit
Full duplex
Terminal emulation - VT100,
VT102, or ANSI
For more information, contact
Vasu Kilaru, (919)541-5332.
7

-------
Tlic NAT1CH Newsletter is published six times a year by the National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse. The Newsletter
is prepared by Radian Corporation under KI'A Contract Number 68-1 >1-0125, Work Assignment 2-11. The KPA Editor is Carol
Jones, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Telephone: (910) fvl 1-fxVll.
'Hie Radian Project Director is Linda Cooper, Radian Corporation, P. (). Box 115000, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709,
(919)541-9100.
'Hie Newsletter is distributed tree 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 Pro-
tection Agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute any endorsement or recommendation lor
use by KI'A.
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Pollutant Assessment Branch
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
BULK RATE
Postage and Fees Paid
P.P. A.
EPA 453/N-93-001
January 1993

-------