United States	Air and Radiation	July 1993
Environmental Protection	Research Triangle Park, NC 22711 EPA 453/N-93-004
Agency	(MD-13)
&EPA KIATICH
I Newsletter
National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse
In This Issue...
Accidental Release Prevention Required
by Clean Air Act	3
NATICH BBS Brochure Available	4
Section 112(1) Rule Proposed	5
EPA Seeks Input from Air Toxics
Inventory Users	5
EPA Indoor Air/Pollution Prevention
Workshop Identifies Research
Strategies	6
Frequently Used
Acronyms
AEERL-
Air and Energy Engineer-
ing Research laboratory
BBS -
Bulletin Board System
CAA-
Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1990
MACT-
Maximum Achievable
Control Technology
OAQPS -
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
TTN -
Technology Transfer
Network
EPA Issues Guidance on Integrating CAA
Title V and Section 112 Policy Issues*
by Julie Andresen, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
The provisions of Title V of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA) estab-
lish a nationwide operating permits pro-
gram for stationary sources of air pollu-
tion. This program will consolidate all of
a source's obligations (termed applicable
requirements) under the CAA into a
State-issued, federally enforceable
permit document for terms of up to
5 years. Since States must submit an
operating permits program to EPA by
November 15, 1993, they are very inter-
ested in the CAA Section 112 require-
ments that will need to be implemented
through the permits program. States
have requested guidance from EPA on
resolving overlapping policy issues of
Title V and Section 112 so that they will
be able to integrate air toxics standards
and programs with their operating
permits as smoothly as possible.
To respond to States' requests,
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) Director John Seitz
addressed some of the key issues related
to the legal authority for implementing
Section 112 through the operating per-
(continued on page 2)
State/Local Spotlight:
Idaho Revising Air Toxics Regulations*
by Tim Teater, Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
Two years ago, the Idaho House
Environmental Affairs Committee intro-
duced a bill supported by industry to
limit the State Division of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) to air quality regulations
no more stringent than those of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Industry's main concern was that the
control of toxic air pollutants (TAPs)
being addressed by existing State policy
instead of specific regulations hindered
their long-term planning. This bill was
defeated because the DEQ felt some air
quality regulations must be more strin-
gent than Federal rules, but it resulted in
a commitment to work with the Idaho
Association of Commerce and Industry
(IACI) to develop regulations to control
TAPs from new industrial sources.
(continued on page 2)
Paper copies of Newsletter
may be eliminated. See
page 2 for details.
Produced in ST/^PIM /
conjunction State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
with Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials

-------
Guidance on Policy
Issues (continued from page 1)
mits program in an April 13 guidance
memorandum to the EPA Regional
Division Air Directors. Under this guid-
ance, full EPA approval is contingent on
the operating permits program contain-
ing the authority and/or commitments to
provide that permits issued by the oper-
ating permits program will assure com-
pliance with all applicable Section 112
requirements. Specifically, the State
Attorney General's statement should cer-
tify that the State has authority to issue
permits that assure compliance with all
currently applicable requirements
(including CAA Section 112) and that the
State will expeditiously adopt any new
authority needed to implement future
EPA Section 112 requirements.'Hie
guidance memorandum also addresses
cases where general statutory (legisla-
tive) authority to issue permits imple-
menting Section 112 is present at the
time of program submittal, but the State
Attorney General is unable to certify that
explicit legal authority exists to carry out
specific Section 112 requirements. In
such cases, the State's Governor may
instead submit a commitment to adopt
and implement additional requirements
as needed for the timely issuance of
permits that implement applicable
Section 112 requirements. EPA will rely
on these commitments in granting pro-
gram approvals provided that the under-
lying legislative authority would not pre-
vent a State from meeting the commit-
ments.
The April memorandum also out-
lines more specific guidance for EPA
Regional Offices to follow when review-
ing State operating permits program sub-
mittals specifically for Sections 112(d),
(0, and (h), EPA emissions standards;
(g), case-by-case maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) for modi-
fied/constructed/reconstructed major
toxic sources; (i) (5), early reductions;
0), case-by-case MACT hammer; (1),
State air toxics programs**; (r), acciden-
tal release plans**; and the general provi-
sions. Regional Offices can download the
memorandum from the Management
Accountability Process System (MAPS),
and State offices can download the memo
from the Stale and local air directors
(SLAD) bulletin board system. Also, the
memorandum can be obtained from the
OAQPS Technology Transfer Network
using the "Policy Guidance Documents"
option under Title V, Operating Permits
from the Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAA) bulletin board system.
Other issues related to the overlap of
CAA Title V and Section 112 provisions
will be addressed in forthcoming guid-
ance and memoranda.
Eor further information, contact
Mary Haslam, U.S. EPA, OAQPS,
MD- 13, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, or call (919) 541-5502.
*See related article in the July 1992
Newsletter.
* *See related articles in this issue.
Important
Information on
Future Newsletters
Due to the increased cost of produc-
tion, future issues of the NATICH
Newsletter may be available only by
accessing it on the NATICH Bulletin
Board System (BBS) available
through EPA's Technology Transfer
Network (TTN). Eliminating the
paper copy of the Newsletter is an envi-
ronmentally friendly alternative and
would reduce the Newsletter's produc-
tion costs substantially. The BBS is
available to any interested user for the
price of a phone call. For information
on accessing the Newsletter through the
NATICH BBS, see the announcement
in this issue titled NATICH BBS
Brochures Available or call the TTN
hotline at (919) 541-5384.
The Newsletter staff will be inform-
ing you on the availability of paper
copies soon. Meanwhile give the BBS a
try. If you have questions or comments
on how accessing the NATICH
Newsletter by the BBS will affect you,
please submit them in writing to
Laurel Driver, EPA OAQPS, MD-13,
Research Triangle Park, North
Idaho
(continued from page 1)
As the first step in this process, DEQ
drafted basic modifications to the exist-
ing air quality regulations, codifying the
TAPs policy. These proposed regulations
were then presented to the IACI, which
started months of negotiations over the
intent as well as the content and wording
of the proposed rules.
Former Policy and Proposed
Regulations Compared
The major change that came out of
the negotiations pertained to carcinogen
emissions with risk levels between 1 in
100,000 and 1 in 1,000,000 incidences of
cancer. The former policy required
sources to use the best available control
technology (BACT), whereas the pro-
posed regulations require reasonably
available control technology for toxics
(T-RACT). Carcinogen emissions at a
risk level greater than 1 in 100,000 inci-
dences of cancer are still prohibited.
Under the former policy, the DEQ
regulated 1043 chemicals and also con-
sidered "off-list chemicals" as part of the
permit process. However, the DEQ may
only consider the 1043 listed chemicals
in the permit process under the pro-
posed rules. This list includes any toxic
chemicals that the DEQ considers to be
a potential concern, and for which there
are published occupational exposure
data, U.S. EPA unit risk factors, or any
other health-related data. Eor unlisted
chemicals for which no exposure data
are available that are identified on a
permit application, the DEQ proposed
to develop exposure and ambient stan-
dards at the time of permit application if
deemed necessary. This proved to be
the most contentious and controversial
aspect of the proposed rules.
Under the previous New Source
(continued on page 3)
2

-------
(continued from page 2)
Review policy, the DEQ could consider
background ambient levels and the total
emissions of a facility. The proposed reg-
ulations clarified that these rules apply to
new sources only and that ambient prob-
lems and total facility emissions would
be addressed by the Title V operating
permits program.**
In the proposed rules, a number of
exemptions were clarified, new defini-
tions were added, and special provisions
for remediation and short-term sources
were developed. The exemptions were
classified into four categories including
some pilot plants, some laboratories,
some stationary internal combustion
engines, and most agricultural activities.
The new definitions include those for
pilot plants, sensitive receptor, T-RACT,
potential to emit, environmental remedia-
tion source and short-term source.
The special provisions for remedia-
tion and short-term sources were devel-
oped to allow somewhat increased emis-
sions for a term of less than 5 years.
Examples of these include an industrial
process that would only have an opera-
tional life of 5 years or a remediation
source that will result in the cleanup of
ground water or some other contami-
nated medium or area, provided that the
increased emissions scenario will last no
longer than 5 years and result in a net
environmental benefit.
Proposed Regulations Resubmitted
for Public Comment
The few initial public comments
received were critical of changing from
BACT to RACT and the new risk levels.
Industry comments were also negative.
Specifically, industry argued that some of
the 1043 listed chemicals lacked preset
limits, which would impede adequate
planning; too many chemicals were to be
regulated; and proposed regulations
were too stringent. Industry did not sup-
port the proposed rules.
Idaho's DEQ is now revising the pro-
posed regulations and plans to resubmit
them for public comment and State
Board of Health and Welfare approval in
the fall.
Eor further information, contact Tim
Teater, Idaho Air Quality Bureau, DEQ,
Department of Health and Welfare, 1410
North Hilton, Boise, Idaho 83706, or call
(208) 334-5898.
*See related article in the July 1991
Newsletter.
* *See related article in this issue.
Accidental Release Prevention Required by the
Clean Air Act*
by Coriolana Simon, EPA Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office
legislation cannot stop accidents
from happening, but Congress has taken
seriously the concern about accidental
releases of hazardous chemicals. The
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(CAA) contain specific provisions for
accident prevention in Section 112(r)
under air toxics. Essentially, the law
says, since industry is the agent that uses
hazardous chemicals, it is industry's
responsibility to operate safely. This
means identifying hazards, designing
and maintaining safe facilities, and mini-
mizing the consequences of any acciden-
tal releases that do occur.
Preventing chemical accidents is not
a new concept. Awareness of these risks
was heightened suddenly in 1986 with
the Bhopal disaster in India, and then
was brought home a short time later with
the release of aldicarb oxime in Institute,
West Virginia. Yes, it can happen here.
Since then, numerous voluntary safe-
ty practices have been established, but
the new CAA provisions formalize the
core of these practices. The primary
requirement under Section 112 (r) is that
facilities that produce, process, handle,
store, or use certain listed hazardous
chemicals in any other way, in quantities
above specified thresholds for each
chemical, must develop a program for
managing the risks associated with their
operations.
EPA Proposes Rule
In January of this year, EPA pub-
lished the proposed Section 112 (r) rule
(58 FR 5102), which sets forth a list of
substances and their thresholds. As pro-
posed, the list includes 100 acutely toxic
substances, of which 16 are mandated by
Congress (see Table 1); 62 flammable
gases and liquids; and high explosives as
a category. The substances listed will
determine which facilities are subject to
the Section 112(r) accident prevention
regulations. Affected facilities will be
required to develop and implement a risk
(continued on page 4)
Table 1.
The 16 CAA-Mandated Substances
Ammonia
Anhydrous ammonia
Anhydrous hydrogen chloride
Anhydrous sulfur dioxide
Bromine
Chlorine
Ethylene oxide
Hydrogen cyanide
Hydrogen fluoride
Hydrogen sulfide
Methyl chloride
Methyl isocyanate
Phosgene
Sulfur trioxide
Toluene diisocyanate
Vinyl chloride
3

-------
Accidental Release Prevention (continued from page 3)
How Prevention
Relates to Other CM
Provisions
The accidental release prevention
program is closely linked to the OSHA
process safety management standard
issued February 24,1992 (29 CFR
Part 1910), which is in CAA Section 304.
This OSHA standard spells out the ele-
ments of process safety management
necessary for chemical accident pre-
vention. It also provides the basis for
the accident prevention component in
EPA's risk management program rule
now being reviewed by OMB. In this
way, EPA's risk management program
builds on OSHA's standard.
Another CAA provision, Section 507,
requires States to establish a Small
Business Stationary Source Technical
and Environmental Compliance
Assistance Program. States were
required to submit a revision to their
State Implementation Plan (SIP) to
include these programs, which must
be operating by November 15,1994.
Each State's small business assistance
center must provide, among other sub-
jects, information on accidental release
prevention and detection: alternative
technologies, process changes, prod-
ucts, and methods of operation that
help reduce air pollution. Because
approximately two-thirds of the 140,000
sources that could fall under the acci-
dental release prevention program are
small businesses, it is important for the
States' implementing agencies to coor-
dinate closely with the small business
assistance program.
A critical though complex link also
exists between the accidental release
prevention program and the Title V
permitting program.* Many, though
not all, of the facilities subject to the
permit rule will also be subject to the
Section 112(r) requirements. For this
reason, States must be certain that
their Title V programs include the
authority for ensuring compliance with
Section 112(r).
*See related article in this issue.
management program. P3PA estimates
that about 140,000 facilities may be
affected, including facilities from most
manufacturing sectors, cold-storage facil-
ities that use ammonia as a refrigerant,
public drinking water and wastewater
treatment systems, wholesalers of chemi-
cals, propane retailers, and utilities.
Risk Management Plan Required
The requirement for a risk manage-
ment program, summarized in a plan, is
included in a second rule now undergo-
ing review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). These plans must
cover off-site consequence analyses,
including worst-case scenarios, a 5-year
accident history, a prevention program,
and an emergency response program.
Facilities must submit their risk manage-
ment plans to the new Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board required
under Section 112(r), to the States in
which the facilities are located, and to
local emergency planners. The plans will
also be made available to the public. In
this way, information about chemical risk
in the community—and what facilities
are doing to lower it—will complement
the information already available under
the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) or the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthor-
ization Act (SARATitle III). As with
other sections of the CAA, the intent of
this legislation is for States to be respon-
sible for implementing and enforcing the
Section 112(r) regulations. 'Hie Agency
expects the final rule to be published in
early 1994.
Benefits to States and Local
Communities
The accidental release prevention
program can be beneficial to State and
local officials by requiring industry to
focus on managing the risk posed by use
of hazardous chemicals. The results will
improve safeguards to protect the public
and the environment from accidental
releases and will lower the potential for
such accidents to occur. Since this
program has direct links to the Occu-
pational Safety and Health Administra-
tion (OSHA) process safety management
standard as well as to EPCRA, it can
encourage coordination among the vari-
ous State and local government entities
responsible for accident prevention (see
sidebar).
Information from the risk manage-
ment plans required by Section 112(r)
will be useful for emergency planning
activities, community development, and
the siting of facilities, as well as CM per-
mitting. In the event of a chemical acci-
dent, States and local officials will have
new information on the potential chemi-
cal and process hazards associated with
particular sources that may prove invalu-
able in determining emergency response
actions. 'Die new accidental release pre-
vention program can ultimately provide
States and local communities with a
broad, comprehensive view of the haz-
ards posed by sources handling chemi-
cals that have the potential to cause a cat-
astrophic accident.
For more information, call EPA's
Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Information Hotline,
(800) 535-0202 (voice) or (800) 535-7672
(TDD).
*See related article in the July 1992
Newsletter.
NATICH BBS
Brochure
Available
An EPA brochure, Using the
NATICH Bulletin Board System, is
now available. It explains how to
access the BBS that is now part of
the OAQPS Technology Transfer
Network (TTN) and describes the
information available. To request a
copy, call the Clearinghouse staff at
(919) 541-0850 or send a BBS
message to the SYSOP, Vasu Kilaru.
\

-------
Section 112(1) Rule Proposed*
by Tim Ream, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
A rule to implement Clean Air Act
Section 112(1) for State and local pro-
grams has been proposed and was pub-
lished in the Federal Register May 19
(58 FR 292%). 'ITiis rule will allow State
and local air pollution control agencies to
submit rules or programs to EPA for
approval. They can modify or substitute a
Federal air toxics rule with a State or
local rule or substitute Federal air toxics
emission standards with a State or local
program. If approved, a State or local
agency rule or program would become
Federally enforceable in lieu of an other-
wise applicable Federal Section 112 rule.
The proposed Section 112(1) rule
outlines criteria for approval of voluntary
submissions, under which the State or
local agency rule or program must be at
least as stringent as the Federal rule it is
intended to replace. State and local agen-
cies can choose among three options or a
combination to demonstrate their rules'
stringency:
1. Adjusting a Federal rule—This is the
simplest of the three options. EPA
has prepared a "pre-approved" list of
adjustments that a State or local air
pollution control agency may make
to a Federal rule. This option is con-
sidered the "streamlined" method.
2.	Substituting a State or local rule for
a Federal rule—'111is option involves
a rule-by-rule approval and a demon-
stration of stringency based on
source-level emission reductions. A
public notice and comment period
is associated with this option.
3.	Substituting a State or local program
for Federal emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants—For this
option, State or local agencies must
provide a commitment to meet
stringency requirements; to regu-
late every source and emission
point affected through State or local
law; and to express State or local
requirements in the form of the
Federal standard. This option also
involves a public notice and com-
ment period.
Approval can be granted for both emis-
sion standards (e.g., maximum achiev-
able control technology or generally
available control technology—MACT or
GACT—standards) and infrastructure
programs (e.g., Section 112(g), modifica-
tions) .
The benefits EPA anticipates with
this rule include:
•	Enabling State and local agencies
to preserve and build upon existing
rules and programs that are at least
as stringent as Federal rules and
make them federally enforceable;
and
•	Eliminating dual regulation when
State or local rules or programs are
at least as or more stringent than
Federal rules. This can reduce
costs and time to both industry and
regulatory agencies in permitting
and enforcement.
As a result of a lawsuit, a court-
ordered deadline for promulgation of this
rule by November 15,1993, has been
established. The public comment period
closed July 6.
The proposed rule can be down-
loaded from the OAQPS Technology
Transfer Network using the "Recently
Signed Rules" option of the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) bulletin board
system. For further information, contact
Sheila Milliken, U.S. EPA, OAQPS,
MD-13, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, or call (919) 541-2625.
*See related articles in the November 1992
Newsletter and this issue.
EPA Seeks Input from Air Toxics Inventory Users
by Chuck Mann, EPA Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
EPA's joint Emission Inventory
Oversight Group QEIOG) air toxics sub-
committee, which includes representa-
tives from OAQPS and EPA's Office of
Research and Development, requests
input from prospective State and local air
pollution control agency users of a com-
puterized data base management system
for air toxic emission inventory data.
JEIOG is considering three options
to support users' needs: an Oracle0" rela-
tional data base management system in a
client/server environment, a stand-alone
personal computer (PC)-based system,
or a PC-based system that functions as a
front end for a client/server data base. A
simple PC prototype for a system is cur-
rently available. This prototype, called
the Data Entry System for Preparing,
Estimating, and Reporting Air Toxic
Emissions (DESPERATE), can perform
basic data entry and report output func-
tions for both point- and area-source air
toxic emissions data, a capability that is
not currently available. Specific input
sought includes the type of data ele-
ments necessary and the basic system
functions desired. Fostering a common
format for data reporting is a short-term
goal of the data base management sys-
tem and EPA is seeking users' input on
long-term needs and goals.
EPA's schedule calls for a refined
version of DESPERATE, which uses
FoxPro"" data base software, to be avail-
able by the end of June on the Clearing-
house for Inventories and Emission
Factors (CHIEF) bulletin board system
of the OAQPS Technology Transfer
Network. The FoxPro® prototype is
being designed to interface with the
Factor Inventory Retrieval (FIRE) sys-
tem, after it is released later this year by
the Emission Inventory Branch of
OAQPS. This will support the calculation
of emissions using the FIRE emission
factor data base as well as capabilities to
generate special reports that are not
available through current systems.
For more information, contact
Chuck Mann, U.S. EPA, Air and Energy
Engineering Research Laboratory,
MD-62, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711 or call (919) 541-4593.
5

-------
EPA Indoor Air/Pollution Prevention Workshop
Identifies Research Strategies
by Kelly W. Leovic, EPA Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
EPA's Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory (AEERL) Indoor
Air Branch is researching the applica-
tion of pollution prevention techniques
for building materials, adhesives and
sealants, furniture, consumer products,
office equipment, and textiles to elimi-
nate and/or reduce sources of indoor air
pollution. AEERL's indoor air/pollution
prevention research is focused on the
development of low-emitting materials
that, when used in the same manner and
in the same space as an alternative mate-
rial, have reduced emissions.
To assist in prioritizing potential
areas of research for applying pollution
prevention to indoor air quality (IAQ),
AEERL held a workshop in March 1993
to bring together technical experts from
government, academia, and selected
industries in the fields of IAQ and pollu-
tion prevention. The workshop goals
were to identify major IAQ issues and
pollution prevention opportunities and to
suggest research strategies for LAQ/pol-
lution prevention.
The first part of the 2-day workshop
covered background information on
IAQ, pollution prevention, and AEERL's
strategy to combine the two. The 64
attendees then participated in one of six
workgroups focusing on pollution pre-
vention research in the following topic
areas: adhesives and sealants, building
materials, consumer products, furniture,
office equipment, and textiles. On the
second day, an ad hoc workgroup on bio-
contaminants (i.e., mold, mildew, and
fungi that can grow in the home or office)
was also added to the workgroup selec-
tions because of participants' interest.
Each of the workgroups addressed
two questions:
• Within each topic area, what mate-
rials/products are candidates for
IAQ/pollution prevention research?
The following selection criteria
were suggested: emissions and
usage patterns, the potential for
applying polution prevention, and
technical knowledge of the manufac-
turing process.
•	What should AEERL's pollution pre-
vention research strategy be in each
recommended area? This would
focus on technical approaches to pol-
lution prevention, not policy or regu-
latory issues.
In summary, the major themes from
the workshop were:
•	There is a desire for EPA to identify
the major IAQ problems. Many par-
ticipants focused discussions on the
relative importance of different IAQ
sources.
•	It was much more difficult to make
the link between IAQ and pollution
prevention than participants antici-
pated. More specific examples of
applying pollution prevention to IAQ
would be helpful in making this link.
•	The workgroups consistently identi-
fied a need for more emissions test-
ing, methods development, model-
ing, consumer education, and source
ranking.
•	The issue of proprietary information
must be considered in developing a
pollution prevention research
strategy.
•	Participants felt that research directed
at preventing biocontaminant growth
is important.
Detailed suggestions from each of the
seven workgroups are summarized in
Table 1. The suggestions are not meant as
a comprehensive listing or ranking of
AEERL research priorities, but only as
summaries of the topics discussed by the
participants.
The workshop proceedings are now
being finalized, and will be available this
fall. For more information, contact
Kelly Leovic, U.S. EPA, AEERL, MD-54,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
INSIDE IAQ
INSIDE IAQ is a new publication
to communicate indoor air research
conducted by EPA's Office of Research
and Development (ORD). It covers
indoor air research conducted in four
ORD components in Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina: AEERL, the
Atmospheric Research and Exposure
Assessment Laboratory (AREAL), the
Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office (ECAO), and the
Health Effects Research Laboratory
(HERL).
The primary goals of INSIDE
IAQ are to communicate EPA's
indoor air research in a timely man-
ner and to provide sources of more
detailed technical information. Its
target audience includes EPA
Program Offices; researchers; industry;
•and regional, State, and local environ-
mental officials. It will be distributed
twice a year.
The first issue, which will be
available this summer, provides back-
ground information on ORD's Indoor
Air Research Program and highlights
several ongoing and recently com-
pleted research projects. It also sum-
marizes recent ORD indoor air
research publications. Future issues
mil emphasize specific research pro-
jects. To be added to the mailing list
for INSIDE IAQ, fax (919) 541-2157
or mail your name and address to:
INSIDE IAQ
Attn: Kelly Leovic
U.S. EPA (MD-54)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
6

-------
Table 1.
Summary of Workgroup Suggestions
Workgroup Topics
Research and Pollution Prevention Recommendations
Adhesives and Caulks/Sealants
Material substitution and/or elimination; innovative technologies (e.g., a carpet with
an attached stick-on pad; solvent-free adhesives); process substitution (e.g., Velcro").
Biocontaminants
Improve biocontaminant measurement techniques; develop building codes to elimi-
nate substrates that support biocontaminant growth (e.g., moist areas); develop effec-
tive building cleaning schedules; and promote education on all these issues.
Building Materials
Vinyl and fabric wall coverings; heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC)
systems; interior panels; ceiling tiles; and electrical wire jacketing were discussed.
Research to include: studying the source and sink characteristics of materials; coat-
ing or sealing building materials with coatings that emit low quantities of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) to study the impact on VOC release; developing
easy-to-clean designs; studying the toxicity of emitted compounds; and studying the
emission mechanisms (e.g., physical, chemical, thermal).
Consumer Products
Packaging, delivery, storage, and disposal issues; consumer-based performance
standards development; total cost/benefit assessment; labeling; consumer educa-
tion on proper product use; source characterization; and test method develop-
ment.
Furniture
Furniture finishes and cleaning products were identified as potentially high emitters
of indoor air pollutants. Research to include; identification of all the emitters and
emission rates, the critical emissions and products, and the manufacturing changes
that might reduce emissions. Chamber studies could characterize emissions from
whole pieces of furniture and furniture components.
Office Equipment
Blueprint machines; dry printers and copiers; toner emissions; increasing toner
transfer efficiencies; the secondary toner market; equipment bakeouts (heating
equipment to release emissions in a controlled environment); propellants and other
dispensing agents; and office paper proliferation. Emission characterization, chemical
transformations and interactions with emissions from other sources, and product
aging should be studied. Other topics included: designing products that are easily
remanufactured (recycled); studying the relationship between emissions and using
less materials; evaluating the need for certain types of office equipment/products and
determining if lower-emitting products perform the same function.
Textiles
Measuring primary emissions from textile products and creating an emissions data
base; investigating source/sink behavior; understanding exposures and health
effects; studying product aging, maintenance, and raw materials; investigating emis-
sions from finishes (e.g., formaldehyde, fire retardants) and the option of using
mechanical finishes rather than chemical finishes; studying process changes (e.g.,
pressure drying rather than atmospheric drying); and investigating process design
changes (e.g., use optimally designed machines so that fabric does not need to be
sized).
7

-------
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 68-1)1-0125, Work Assignment 2-14. The EPA
Editor is laurel Driver, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
(919) 541-2859. The Radian Project Director is Linda Cooper, Radian Corporation, P.O. Box 13000, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27709, (919) 541-9100. Comments, articles, and ideas lor articles are welcome and should be sent to laurel
Driver or Linda Cooper.
The Newsletter is distributed free of charge. To report address changes or to be added to the mailing list, 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 commerical products does not constitute any endorsement or recommenda-
tion for use by EPA.
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Pollutant Assessment Branch, MD-13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
BULK RATE
Postage and Fees Paid
K.P.A.
Cj-35
EPA 453/N-93-004
July 1993

-------