Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0161-0034
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-10-14T04:00Z

From:
Anne
Pope
Sent:
06/
10/
03
01:
15
PM
To:
Lynn
Dail/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc:
byrne.
dianne@
epa.
gov,
Dave
Guinnup/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
John
B
Chamberlin/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Katie
Warwick/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Ken
Hustvedt/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Leonard
Lazarus/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Lynn
Dail/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Maria
Pimentel/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Virgis
Brown/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject:
Re:
Briefing
for
Magnetic
Tape
Residual
Risk:
Test
Results
(
Document
link:
Lynn
Dail)

Lynn,

I
have
some
questions
concerning
the
analysis.
In
the
package,
you
stated
that
you
used
TRI
data.
I
was
wondering
why
the
1999
NEI
for
HAPs
was
not
used.
All
6
facilities
listed
in
the
presentation
had
data
in
the
1999
NEI
for
HAPs.
States
provided
the
data
for
the
6
facilities
and
all
3
states
provided
process
level
data
rather
than
a
total
facility
estimate
as
is
provided
in
TRI.
All
3
facilities
have
highly
resolved
data
with
several
processes
and
SCCs
reported.
TRI
only
reports
aggregated
emissions
at
the
facility
level.

More
HAPs
than
the
ones
listed
in
the
presentation
are
emitted
from
these
facilities.
In
addition
to
the
HAPs
listed,
OK
reported
1999
emissions
of
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
and
trichloroethylene
from
Imation.
I
do
not
know
the
toxicity
associated
with
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane,
but
TCE
is
one
of
the
Section
112k
HAPs.

anne