The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDSHW-2010-032003 - 0901a0688016cc9a18 February 2010 8200-FY10-081 :-tB -• ? 2011' Mr. Dennis R. Downs, Executive Secretary UTAH UiVISION GF State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality SOLID & HAZARDOUS WASTE Divisionof Solid and Hazardous Waste o'Ojt?. OCI^^ 288N.1460W. P.O. Box 144880 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4880 Attention: JeffVandel Re: ATK Launch Systems-Promontory EPA ID number UTD009081357 Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol Dear Mr.Downs: This letter accompanies a draft copy ofthe Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Protocol for use in the Subpart X permitting ofthe open buming and open detonation operations at the ATK Launch Systems Promontory Utah facility. Contained within this protocol are several tables listing chemicals ofpotential concem to be evaluated in the HHRA. These lists of chemicals ofpotential concem may change pending a response from the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste (UDSHW) to a request that was submitted by ATK in November of 2009. The request submitted to the UDSHW was for compounds that could be dropped from further consideration in the Risk Assessment for the ATK Promontory open buming and open detonation Subpart X permitting. These compounds would not be expected to be generated from waste treated at the ATK Promontory Facility. Please contact me if you have any questions conceming this report. My telephone number is (435)863-8490 or you can contact Blair Palmer at (435)863-2430. Sincerely David P. Gosen, P.E., Director Environmental Services DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL 1.0 INTRODUCTION ATK Launch Systems (ATK), located approximately 30 miles northwest of Brigham City, Utah, currently operates open burning (OB) and open detonation (OD) units for the treatment of hazardous waste propellants and propellant contaminated materials. These treatment units are identified as M-136 and M- 225 and are subject to RCRA 40 CFR 264 Subpart X permitting requirements for miscellaneous treatment units. These units are currently operating as interim status facilities. The Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste (UDSHW) requires ATK to conduct a human health risk assessment (HHRA) in support of a new Subpart X permit application. This HHRA is being prepared in accordance with the USEPA guidance document titled. Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities (HHRAP) (USEPA, September 2005). Risk estimates will be produced using commercially available software provided by Lakes Environmental, Industrial Risk Assessment Program - Human Health for the U.S.EPA OSW Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP), referred to as \RAP-h View. The risk assessment will be prepared using version 4.0 of the IRAP-/? View program. Risk assessments prepared for these facilities include the evaluation of both direct and indirect risks. Direct risks address exposure to constituents emitted from the OB/OD sources through inhalation. Indirect risks address exposure to constituents emitted from the OB/OD sources resulting from contact with soil, plants, or water bodies on which emitted constituents have been deposited. Indirect exposure also includes ingestion of above- ground fruits, vegetables, beef and milk, and freshwater fish. Prior to conducting the HHRA, it is essential to characterize the OB/OD facility. Basic facility information is provided to enable reviewers to establish a contextual sense of the facility regarding how it relates to other facilities. Information such as the setting characterization, production processes, normal and maximum production rates, types of waste storage and treatment, and the type and quantities of waste stored and treated are provided in the ATK Launch Systems Waste Characterization and Air Dispersion Modeling Protocol for Use in the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments (TtNUS, 2010). The results of this site characterization are incorporated into an air dispersion model. This air dispersion model predicts the air quality impact of the M-136 and M-225 treatment units. The results of the air dispersion modeling analysis are inputs for the human health risk assessment model. An overview of the dispersion model is included in the air modeling protocol. DRAFT The remainder of this Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol addresses the basic components of risk assessment: identification of constituents of potential concern (COPC), exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. For the purposes of this risk assessment, default exposure pathways and parameters identified in the USEPA's HHRAP are being incorporated into the risk assessment. Any exceptions to these pathways or parameters and the rationale for their use are identified in this protocol. 2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN The methodology for identifying the chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) is described in Section 3 of the air modeling protocol. Table 1 presents the COPCs that will be evaluated in the HHRA. Not all of the parameters identified in Section 3 of the air modeling protocol will be evaluated in the HHRA. Criteria pollutants (carbon dioxides, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and PM2.5, PMIO) with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards will be excluded from the HHRA. These parameters will be addressed as specified in the air modeling protocol. In addition, low molecular-weight volatiles (ethane, ethylene, and methane) that have very low human toxicity and do not bioaccumulate up the food chains will not be evaluated in the HHRA. 3.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT The exposure assessment identifies the exposure scenarios that should be evaluated in the risk assessment to estimate the type and magnitude of human exposure to COPC emissions from the OB/OD treatment units. An exposure scenario is a combination of exposure pathways to which a single receptor may be subjected. Human receptors may come into contact with COPCs emitted to the atmosphere via two primary exposure routes, either directly via inhalation; or indirectly via subsequent ingestion of water, soil, vegetation, and animals that became contaminated by COPCs through the food chain. Exposure to COPCs may occur via numerous exposure pathways. Each exposure pathway consists of four fundament components: (1) an exposure route; (2) a source and mechanism of COPC release; (3) a retention medium, or a transport mechanism and subsequent retention medium in cases involving media transfer of COPCs; and (4) a point of potential human contact with the contaminated medium. Humans, plants, and animals in the assessment may take up COPCs directly from the air or indirectly via the media receiving deposition. The exposure scenarios recommended for evaluation in USEPA's HHRAP are generally conservative in nature and are not intended to be entirely representative of actual scenarios at all sites. They are intended to allow for standardized and reproducible evaluation of risks across most sites and land use DRAFT areas, with conservatism incorporated to ensure protectiveness of potential receptors not directly evaluated, such as special subpopulations and regionally specific land uses. 3.1 Exposure Settinq Characterization Risk will be characterized for the maximum vapor phase and deposition concentration location(s) with a general grid of 10 kilometers (km) from each treatment unit and at discrete receptor locations. The general receptor grid is discussed in Section 4.6 of the air dispersion modeling protocol. The general receptor grid will be used to determine the maximum 1-hour and annual vapor and deposition concentration location(s) beyond the ATK facility boundary. Based on prior experience modeling for OB/OD treatment units in flat and complex terrain, the location of the maximum impact has always occurred within 3 km of the source. Consequently, no general grid receptors are proposed beyond a 10 km radius from each treatment unit. It should be noted that while the general grid will extend only to 10 km, OBODM will also be used to estimate short term and annual contaminant concentrations at discrete receptor locations potentially impacted by M-136 and M-225 emissions. Discrete receptors are defined as special receptors that exist within or outside of the general grid. The list of proposed discrete locations is based on those recommended for evaluation in the guidance, as well as those requested for evaluation by the State of Utah during a meeting on March 13, 2002. The following is a list of discrete receptors that are proposed for evaluation in the risk assessment: • The Adam's Ranch, which is the closest dwelling to M-136 and is located approximately 2 km south- southwest of M-136. • The Holmgren Ranch Pond, which is the closest domestic dwelling to the M-225 and is located approximately 2 km east-southeast of M-225. • Four facility boundary receptors that were selected based on the annual prevailing wind directions that were measured over a five-year period (1997 through 2001) at the M-245 meteorological monitoring station. • AutoLiv Facility. This is the offsite commercial business that is located between the M-136 and M-225 treatment units. • Christensen Residence. This residential dwelling is located due north of ATK. • The Thiokol Ranch Pond, which is located approximately 14 km southwest of M-225. DRAFT Subsequent to the March 2002 meeting ATK identified the following additional receptor which will be evaluated in the risk assessment. • The Howell Dairy Farm just north of the ATK northern property boundary. All discrete receptors listed above are shown in Figure 1. The spring pools (Shotgun, Pipe, Fish, etc.) located south of the facility along Highway 83 are not selected as discrete receptor points for the human health risk assessment because the water in the spring pools is not used as a drinking water source and there are no game fish present in these water bodies. 3.2 Exposure Scenarios USEPA's HHRAP recommends thatthe following exposure scenarios be evaluated: Farmer Farmer Child Adult Resident Child Resident Fisher Fisher Child Acute Risk With the exception of the fisher and the fisher child, all receptors specified in the guidance document will be evaluated. Fisherman and their children will not be evaluated because of the general poor surface water quality, the intermittent flow of surface water near the treatment units, and the absence of game fish in the local water bodies. Surface water in the area is comprised mainly of irrigation return water with a high total dissolved solid content. In addition, fishermen do not currently exist within the study area and are not expected to be in the study area in the future. Consequently, ingestion of fish and ingestion of surface water (as drinking water) will not be evaluated. At the request of the State of Utah, two receptors not specified in the guidance document, the industrial worker at the AutoLiv Plant and a future industrial worker at the location of the maximum on-site impact will also be evaluated in the HHRA. ATK will first evaluate risks assuming the most sensitive receptors and the maximum operating conditions, which will be farmers and residents located off of the ATK property. Once risk has been evaluated for the most sensitive receptor, ATK will establish what the actual conditions are at the predicted highest points of impact and base risks and controls (material burned, etc) on the basis ofthe most sensitive receptor. Currently farmers or residents are not located within the facility boundaries nor DRAFT are they expected to be in the future, in addition, if the site were developed for agricultural or residential purposes in the future then most likely the source areas would be removed. Therefore, exposures will not be evaluated for farmers or residents for receptor locations within the facility boundary (i.e., maximum on- site annual air concentration receptor locations associated with the source areas). On-site exposures will be evaluated for a worker at the AutoLiv facility and a future worker at the location of the maximum on- site air concentration as determined by the air dispersion modeling. In accordance with USEPA's HHRAP, the following exposure pathways will not be evaluated in the HHRA because USEPA has determined that these pathways are insignificant for combustion emissions. • Ingestion of Groundwater USEPA (1998) found that groundwater is an insignificant exposure pathway for combustion emissions. In addition, groundwater at the site is being addressed in a separate risk assessment. • Inhalation of Resuspended Dust. USEPA (1990) found that risk estimates from inhalation of resuspended dust were insignificant. It is anticipated exposure through direct inhalation of vapor and particle phase COPCs and incidental ingestion of soil will be much more significant. • Dermal Exposure to Surface Water, Soil, or Air. Available data indicate that the contribution of dermal exposures to soils to overall risk is typically small (USEPA, 1995, 1996). For example, the risk assessment conducted for the Waste Technologies Industries, Inc., hazardous waste incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio, indicated that the risk resulting from soil ingestion and dermal contact for an adult farmer in a subarea with high exposures was 50-fold less than the risk from any other exposure pathway and 300-fold less than the total estimated risk (USEPA, 1995, 1996). Also, there are significant uncertainties associated with estimating potential COPC exposure via the dermal exposure pathway. The most significant of these uncertainties are associated with determining the impact of soil characteristics and the extent of exposure (e.g., the amount of soil on skin and the length of exposure) on estimating compound-specific absorption fractions (ABS). • Inhalation of COPCs and Ingestion of Water by Animals. USEPA does not recommend these animal exposure pathways in calculating animal tissue concentrations because it is expected their contribution to the total risk is negligible compared to the contributions of the recommended exposure pathways. USEPA recommended exposure scenarios are discussed in the following subsections. Table 2 presents the exposure pathways, which will be evaluated for each of the recommended scenarios. DRAFT 3.2.1 Farmer and Farmer Child The farmer exposure scenario is evaluated to account for the combination of exposure pathways to which a receptor may be exposed in a farm or ranch exposure setting. The farmer is assumed to be exposed to COPCs emitted from the facility through the following exposure pathways: Direct inhalation of vapors and particles Incidental ingestion of soil Ingestion of homegrown produce Ingestion of homegrown beef Ingestion of milk from homegrown cows Ingestion of homegrown chicken Ingestion of eggs from homegrown chicken Ingestion of homegrown pork Ingestion of breast milk (evaluated only for dioxins/furans) For the farmer scenario, the receptor is assumed to consume a fraction from each food group to make up a total consumption rate, and all amounts consumed are assumed to be homegrown. 3.2.2 Adult and Child Resident The residential scenario is evaluated to account for the combination of exposure pathways to which a receptor may be exposed in an urban or rural (nonfarm) setting. The resident is assumed to be exposed to COPCs from the emission source through the following exposure pathways: • • Direct inhalation of vapors and particles Incidental ingestion of soil Ingestion of homegrown produce Ingestion of breast milk (evaluated only for dioxins/furans) 3.2.3 Acute Risk In addition to long-term chronic effects evaluated in the other recommended scenarios, the acute exposure scenario is evaluated to account for short-term effects of exposure to maximum 1-hour concentrations of COPCs in emissions from the facility through direct inhalation of vapors and particles. DRAFT 3.2.4 Industrial Worker (AutoLiv) and Future Worker The industrial worker scenario is evaluated to account for exposure to COPCs during a workday. The exposure pathway is direct inhalation of particulates and vapors. Incremental lifetime cancer risks (ILCRs) and hazard indices (His) for the industrial worker will be calculated using USEPA standard default exposure assumptions. It will be assumed that the industrial worker will be exposed 8 hours/day, 250 days/year for 25 years. Air concentrations will be calculated with IRAP-Zi View and represent annual average concentrations. Risks will be calculated for a current worker at the AutoLiv facility and a future worker at the location of the maximum on-site impact. 3.3 Estimation of Media Concentrations Media concentrations are derived based upon the results of the air dispersion model. The USEPA Guidance (September 2005) specifies how concentrations are calculated for air, soil, produce, beef and dairy products, pork and chicken. The results of the air dispersion model are incorporated into IRAP-/? View to derive these media concentrations. The default parameters identified in USEPA's HHRAP are already incorporated in IRAP-/? View. For those constituents not included in USEPA's HHRAP, specific parameters were developed and entered into the model. These exceptions will be discussed in this section. 3.3.1 Calculation of COPC Concentrations in Air for Direct Inhalation COPC concentrations in air are calculated by summing the vapor phase and particle phase air concentrations. Air concentrations used in the evaluation of chronic exposure via direct inhalation are calculated using annual average concentrations. Air concentrations used in the evaluation of acute exposure via direct inhalation are calculated using maximum hourly concentrations^ 3.3.2 Calculation of COPC Concentrations in Soil COPC concentrations in soil are calculated by summing the vapor phase and particle phase deposition of COPCs on the soil. Dry deposition of particles and vapors are considered, with dry deposition of vapors calculated from the vapor air concentration and the dry deposition velocity. Wet deposition was not considered because the treatment units do not operate during precipitation events. The calculation of soil concentrations incorporates a term that accounts for loss of COPCs by several fate and transport mechanisms, such as leaching, erosion, runoff, degradation, and volatilization. These mechanisms lower the soil concentrations associated with the deposition rate. The annual average COPC soil concentration over the period of deposition is used to evaluate carcinogenic exposures. The highest annual COPC soil concentration is used to evaluate noncarcinogenic exposures. USEPA recommended conservative default values will be used in the calculations. There are no default values for some input parameters DRAFT and in these cases site-specific values will be used. The site-specific parameters are summarized in Table 3. 3.3.3 Calculation of COPC Concentration in Produce Indirect exposure resulting from ingestion of produce depends on the total concentration of COPCs in the plants. Because of general differences in contamination mechanisms, consideration of indirect exposure separates produce into two categories—above-ground produce and below-ground produce. Above- ground produce is assumed to be contaminated by three possible mechanisms: • Direct deposition of particles—wet and dry deposition of particle phase COPCs on the leaves and fruits of plants. • Vapor transfer—uptake of vapor phase COPCs by plants through their foliage. • Root uptake—root uptake of COPCs available from the soil and their transfer to the above-ground portions of the plant. The total COPC concentration in above-ground exposed produce is calculated as a sum of contamination occurring through all three of these mechanisms. Below-ground produce is assumed to be contaminated through only one mechanism—root uptake of COPCs available from soil. Default values are available in USEPA's HHRAP for most chemicals being assessed in this risk assessment. However, Table 4 summarizes chemical properties that are incorporated into the model for those chemicals not listed. Also, biotransfer factors that are useful in evaluating the uptake of chemicals into produce are provided for these chemicals in Table 5. 3.3.4 Calculation of COPC Concentrations in Beef and Dairy Products COPC concentrations in beef tissue and milk products are estimated based on the amount of COPCs cattle are assumed to consume through their diet. The cattle's diet is assumed to consist of: • forage (pasture grass and hay). • silage (forage that has been stored and fermented). • grain. Additional contamination may occur through the cattle's ingestion of soil. The total COPC concentration in the feed items is calculated as the sum of contamination occurring though the following mechanisms: DRAFT • Direct deposition of particles—wet and dry deposition of particle phase COPCs onto forage and silage. • Vapor transfer—uptake of vapor phase COPCs by forage and silage through foliage. • Root uptake—root uptake of COPCs available from the soil and their transfer to the above-ground portions of forage, silage, and grain. As previous discussed, USEPA considered (USEPA, 2005) exposures through ingestion of water to be insignificant and are not evaluated for animals. The biotransfer factors for those chemicals not included in USEPA's HHRAP are summarized in Table 5. 3.3.5 Calculation of COPC Concentrations in Pork COPC concentrations in pork tissue are estimated based on the amount of COPCs that swine are assumed to consume through their diet, which is assumed to consist of silage and grain. Additional COPC contamination of pork tissue may occur through the ingestion of soil by the animal. The calculation of COPC concentrations in pork is similar to that for beef with the exception of some intake factors and biotransfer factors. As for beef, the biotransfer factors for those chemicals not listed in USEPA's HHRAP are summarized in Table 5. 3.3.6 Calculation of COPC Concentrations in Chicken and Eggs Estimates of the COPC concentrations in chicken and eggs are based on the amount of COPCs that chickens consume through ingestion of grain and soil. Chickens are assumed to be free-range animals that have contact with soil and are assumed to consume 10 percent of their diet as soil. Grain ingested by chickens is assumed to have originated from the exposure scenario location; therefore, 100 percent of the grain consumed is assumed to be contaminated. As for beef and pork, the biotransfer factors for those chemicals not listed in USEPA's HHRAP are summarized in Table 5. 3.4 Quantifying Exposure Exposure occurs over a period of time and is usually expressed in terms of milligrams of COPC per kilogram of body weight per day. The following general equation is used to estimate ingestion intakes: I = ( Cgen • CR • EF • ED ) / ( BW • AT ) DRAFT And the following equation is used to estimate inhalation intakes: I = ( Cair • ET • EF • ED) / (AT • 24 hours/day) where I = intake—the amount of COPC consumed by the receptor Cgen = generic COPC concentration in media of concern Cair = COPC concentration in air CR = consumption rate ET = exposure time EF = exposure frequency ED = exposure duration BW = body weight AT = averaging time—the period over which exposure is averaged (days); for carcinogens the averaging time is 25,550 days, based on a lifetime exposure of 70 years; for noncarcinogens, averaging time equals ED (years) multiplied by 365 days/year. The variables listed above are used to calculate receptor-specific exposures to COPCs. The exposures calculated in a risk assessment are intended to represent reasonable maximum exposure (RME) conditions as described in USEPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) (USEPA 1989). All exposure inputs for the various receptors being evaluated are the default exposure assumptions provided in USEPA's HHRAP. 4.0 RISK AND HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 4.1 Carcinogenic Risk The risk associated with exposure to carcinogens is evaluated as a probability that a receptor will develop cancer based on the exposure assumptions defined in the model. The cancer slope factor is used in risk assessments to estimate upper bound lifetime probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of exposure to a particular level of a potential carcinogen. For example, a risk of 1x10"® is interpreted to mean than an individual has no more than, and likely less than, a one in 1,000,000 chance of developing cancer from the exposure being evaluated. Cancer risk is defined by the following equation for ingestion exposures: Cancer Risk = LADD • CSF 10 DRAFT And cancer risk is defined by the following equation for inhalation exposures: Cancer Risk = EC • lUR • 1,000 ug/mg where LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg-day) EC = Exposure Concentration (mg/m^) CSF = Cancer Slope Factor (mg/kg-day)"^ lUR = Inhalation Unit Risk (ug/m^)"^ Within a specific exposure pathway, receptors may be exposed to more than one COPC. The total risk associated with exposure to all COPCs through a single exposure pathway is estimated as follows: Cancer Riskr = I, Cancer Risk where Cancer Riskj = Total cancer risk for a specific exposure pathway Cancer Risk = Cancer risk for COPC i for a specific exposure pathway. At particular exposure scenario locations, receptors may be exposed through a number of exposure pathways. Risks from multiple exposure pathways should be summed for a given receptor specific to each recommended exposure scenario. In the assessment of carcinogenic risk from COPCs, USEPA-derived or reviewed health benchmarks (cancer slope factors) are recommended. The USEPA recommended hierarchy for obtaining cancer slope factors is (USEPA, 2003): • Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (Online). • USEPA Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs) - The Office of Research and Development/National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center develops PPRTVs on a chemical specific basis when requested by USEPA's Superfund program. • Other Toxicity Values - These sources include but are not limited to California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) toxicity values, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs), and the Annual Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) (USEPA, 1997). 11 DRAFT However, for numerous compounds, a complete set of inhalation and oral cancer slope factors are not available. For those compounds where slope factors are not available in USEPA's HHRAP, values will be obtained from the USEPA approved sources listed above or surrogate compounds will be used to represent those compounds based on toxicological properties and structural similarities. Also, the toxicity information (i.e., cancer slope factors [CSFs] and reference doses [RfDs]) presented in USEPA's HHRAP will be reviewed and updated as necessary prior to risk estimation. Table 6 presents toxicity values for chemicals for which the values listed in HHRAP have been revised since the document was published and Table 7 presents toxicity values for COPCs which do not have toxicity values listed in HHRAP. 4.2 Noncarcinogenic Risk The risk associated with exposure to noncarcinogens is defined in terms of a hazard index. Hazard is quantified as the potential for developing noncarcinogenic health effects as a result of exposure to COPCs, averaged over an exposure period. A hazard is not a probability, but rather a measure of the magnitude of a receptor's potential exposure relative to a standard exposure level, referred to as a reference dose or reference concentration. The standard exposure level is calculated over a similar exposure period and is estimated to pose no appreciable likelihood of adverse health effects to potential receptors, including special populations. The Hazard Quotient for ingestion exposures is defined by the following equation: HQ = ADD / RfD And the Hazard Quotient for inhalation exposures is defined by: HQ = EC / RfC where HQ = Hazard Quotient ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day) EC = Exposure Concentration (mg/m^) RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day) RfC = Reference Concentration (mg/m^) An HQ that is less than or equal to one is considered to be health-protective. Generally, the more the HQ value exceeds one, the greater is the level of concern. However, the level of concern does not increase linearly as an HQ exceeds one. This is because noncarcinogenic effects are generally modeled as threshold effects. 12 DRAFT As with carcinogenic chemicals, a receptor may be exposed to multiple chemicals associated with noncarcinogenic health effects. Specifically, the total noncarcinogenic hazard attributable to exposure to all COPCs through a single exposure pathway is known as a hazard index (HI). Consistent with the procedure for addressing carcinogenic risks, the noncarcinogenic hazards from all chemicals are summed. The HI is defined as: HI = Ii HQi where HI = Total hazard for a specific exposure pathway HQi = Hazard Quotient for COPC i This summation methodology assumes that health effects of the various COPCs to which a receptor is exposed is additive. Specifically, this methodology is a simplification of the HI concept because it does not directly consider the portal of entry associated with each exposure pathway or the often unique toxic endpoints and toxicity mechanisms of the various COPCs. If the total HI for all pathways exceeds one, further evaluation is needed. The total HI for an exposure pathway can exceed the target hazard level as a result of either • One or more COPCs with an HQ exceeding the target hazard level, or • The summation of several COPC-specific HQs that are each less than the target hazard level. In the former case, the presence of at least one COPC-specific hazard greater than the target hazard level is interpreted as indicating the potential for noncarcinogenic health effects. In the latter case, a detailed analysis is required to determine whether the potential for noncarcinogenic health effects is accurately estimated by the total HI, because the toxicological effects associated with exposure to multiple chemicals, often through different exposure pathways, may not be additive; therefore, the total HI may overestimate the potential for noncarcinogenic health effects. To address this issue, COPC-specific hazards are summed according to major health effects and target organs or systems. The highest segregated HI resulting from the process is the basis for evaluation of noncarcinogenic risk. If the segregated HI exceeds the target hazard level, there is a potential for noncarcinogenic health effects. In the assessment of noncarcinogenic risk from COPCs, USEPA-derived or reviewed health benchmarks (reference doses and reference concentrations) are recommended. Reference doses and reference concentrations are obtained from the same sources as the cancer slope factors. However, for numerous compounds, a complete set of reference doses and reference concentrations are not available. For those compounds where these values are not available in USEPA's HHRAP, values will be obtained from U.S. 13 DRAFT USEPA recommended sources or surrogate compounds will be used to represent those compounds based on toxicological properties and structural similarities. Table 6 presents toxicity values for chemicals for which the values listed in HHARP have been revised since the document was published and Table 7 presents toxicity values for COPCs which do not have toxicity values listed in HHRAP. 4.3 Risks for Nursing Infants Risks for nursing infants will be evaluated by comparing the estimated 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalent concentrations (TEQ) in breast milk to target level of 60 pg/kg-day 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ (USEPA, 2005). 4.4 Acute Exposure Resulting from Direct Inhalation In addition to chronic effects, acute effects are considered from direct inhalation of vapor phase and particle phase COPCs. It is assumed that short-term emissions will not have a significant impact through the indirect exposure pathways. Therefore, acute effects are only evaluated through the short-term (maximum 1-hour) inhalation of vapors and particulates exposure pathway. A hierarchical approach has been developed for establishing acute inhalation exposure guidelines using information from a variety of organizations. The hierarchical approach is summarized below: 1. Cal/EPA Acute Reference Exposure Levels (RELs) - the concentration in air at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated in the general population, including sensitive individuals, for a specified exposure period (Cal/EPA, 1999). 2. Acute inhalation exposure guidelines (AEGL-1) - "the airborne concentration of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure." (NOAA 2001). 3. Level 1 emergency planning guidelines (ERPG-1) - "the maximum concentration in air below which it is believed nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse effects or perceiving a clearly defined objectionable odor" (DoE 2001; SCAPA 2001). 4. Temporary emergency exposure limits (TEEL-1) - "the maximum concentration in air below which it is believed nearly all individuals could be exposed without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or perceiving a clearly defined objectionable odor," (DoE 2001; SCAPA 2001). 5. AEGL-2 values - "the airborne concentration of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other 14 DRAFT serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to escape." AEGL-2 values are to be used only if lower ERPG-1 or TEEL-1 values are not available. (NOAA 2001). The hierarchy is presented in order of preference, from 1 (most preferred) to 5 (least preferred). To characterize the potential for adverse health effects from acute exposure to COPC-specific emissions, the acute air concentration (Cacute) resulting from maximum emissions over a one-hour period should be compared to COPC-specific acute inhalation exposure criteria (AIEC) to calculate the acute hazard quotient (AHQinh). The AHQinh is calculated as follows: AHQinh = (Cacute •0.001)/AIEC. Where: AHQinh = Acute hazard quotient (unitless) Cacute = Acute air concentration (pg/m^) AIEC = Acute inhalation exposure criteria (mg/m^) 0.001 = Conversion factor (mg/pg) In the assessment of acute toxicity from COPCs, reviewed health benchmarks (AIEC) are recommended. However, for numerous compounds, a complete set of AlECs are not available. For those compounds where these values were not available in USEPA's HHRAP, values will be obtained from literature or surrogate compounds will be used to represent those compounds based on toxicological properties and structural similarities. Table 8 presents a list benchmarks for those chemicals not listed in USEPA's HHRAP. 4.5 Interpretation of Carcinogenic and Noncarcinogenic Risk Assessment Results To interpret the quantitative risks calculated cancer risks were interpreted using the U.S. USEPA's target range (1 x 10'" to 1 x 10"®). USEPA has defined the range of 1 x 10"* to 1 x 10"® as the cancer target range for hazardous waste facilities addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act (RCRA). For this HHRA, cancer risks for on-site workers will be considered unacceptable if they exceed 1x10"^. Cancer risks for off-site receptors will be considered unacceptable if they exceed 1 x 10"®. His will be considered potentially significant if above 1, in a grey area between 1 and 10, and significant above 10. If an HI exceeds unity, target organ effects associated with exposure to COPCs will be considered. Only those HQs for chemicals that affect the same target organ(s) or exhibit similar critical 15 DRAFT effect(s) are regarded as truly additive. Consequently, it may be possible for a cumulative HI to exceed 1.0, but no adverse health effects are anticipated if the COPCs do not affect the same target organ or exhibit the same critical effect. For acute exposures resulting from direct inhalation, the chemical specific AHQinh will be considered potentially significant if above 1, in a grey area between 1 and 10, and significant above 10. 4.6 Comparison of Modeled Air Concentrations to Utah Toxic Screening Levels The Utah Department of Air Quality (UDAQ) has adopted Toxic Screening Levels (TSLs) to assist in the evaluation of hazardous air pollutants released into the atmosphere from sources seeking a new or modified Approved Order (AO). The TSLs do not constitute a standard which the impact of a source's toxic emission cannot exceed. Rather, they are screening levels above which the UDAQ has determined that additional information should be obtained to substantiate that the model predicted concentration would not expose sensitive individuals, animals, or vegetation, to unnecessary health risks. TSLs are derived from Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) listed in the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents. Values reported in the ACGIH handbook are based on specific exposure limits to a healthy adult in the work place. Persons who would be overly sensitive to such an exposure, such as children, the elderly, or the physically ill, would require thresholds lower than the TLVs. To ensure protection for sensitive individuals and to facilitate the use of longer concentration averaging periods for chronic and carcinogenic hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) chemicals, uncertainty factors are applied as follows: • TLV divided by 10 - relate the threshold of an average healthy adult to that of a sensitive individual. • TLV divided by 3 - converts the 8-hour TLV to a 24-hour concentration (chronic and carcinogenic HAPs only). • TLV divided by 3 - additional safety factor for carcinogens. The above safety factors, when applied to the TLVs, result in the following TSLs and concentration averaging periods for comparison with model-predicted concentrations. • Acute HAPs - TLV/10 (instantaneous concentration), averaging period of 1-hour or less. • Chronic HAPs - TLV/30, 24-hour average period. • Carcinogenic HAPs - TLV/90, 24-hour averaging period. 16 DRAFT The modeled 1-hour and 24-hour air concentrations at each receptor location will be compared to their respective UDAQ TSLs. 5.0 UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT The goal of the uncertainty analysis is to identify important uncertainties and limitations associated with the HHRA. Uncertainties are associated with all elements of the risk assessment process from selection of COPCs through the exposure and toxicity assessment and risk/hazard characterization steps. In most cases, the methodology used to prepare the HHRA incorporates conservative assumptions with the goal of limiting the potential to underestimate receptor-specific exposures, risks, and hazards. The following presents some examples of the type of uncertainties that may be discussed in the uncertainty analysis. Route to Route Extrapolation of Toxicitv Criteria For chemicals without inhalation toxicity values, USEPA's HHRAP will use the oral toxicity value to evaluate inhalation exposures. And in some instances, oral toxicity values are extrapolated from inhalation criteria. This practice introduces uncertainty into the risk assessment since chemicals may exhibit different adverse effects for different routes of exposure. Evaluation of Risks Associated with the Particle-Bound Phase The OBODM provides unitized output for vapor and particle phases. The IRAP-h View software assumes that all semivolatile organic compounds SVOCs with a fraction of vapor phase between 0.05 and 1 are associated with the particle-bound phase. Since the OBODM does not provide unitized output for the particle-bound phase, results for SVOCs COPCs are based on vapor phase values only. The significance of this uncertainty will be evaluated by analyzing in IRAP-/? View, the particle phase output as particle-bound phase output. REFERENCES California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), 1999. Air Toxics Hot Spot Program Risk Assessment Guideline, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. March. Department of Energy (DoE). 2001. Definitions for Different TEEL Levels. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2001. Public Exposure Guidelines. September 6. 17 DRAFT Subcommittee on Consequence Assessment and Protective Actions (SCAPA). 2001. Revision 17 of ERPGs and TEELs for Chemicals of Concern. U.S. Department of Energy. January 10. Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. (TtNUS). 2010. ATK Launch Systems Waste Characterization and Air Dispersion Modeling Protocol for Use in the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments. USEPA, 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund - Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Interim Final). EPA/540/1-89/002, Washington, D.C, December, USEPA, 1990. Interim Final Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. ORD. EPA-600-90-003. January. USEPA, 1995. Waste Technologies Industries Screening Human Health Risk Assessment (SHHRA): Evaluation of Potential Risk from Exposures to Routine Operating Emissions. Volume V, External Review Draft, U,S, EPA Region 5, Chicago, Illinois, USEPA, 1996, Public Participation Record for Screening Risk Assessment for Operation of the Tooele Chemical Demilitarization Facility at the Tooele Chemical Activity and Resulting Permit Modification, June 20, USEPA, 1997, Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables FY 1997, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C, July, USEPA, 1998, Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Multiple Pathways of Exposure to Combustor Emissions (MPE), Update to EPA/600/6-90/003, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, U,S, EPA, EPA/600/R-98/137, December, USEPA, 2003, Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, OSWER 9285,7-53, Washington, DC, December 5, USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2005. Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities, EPA530-R-05-006, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D,C., September, 18 TABLE 1 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN EVALUATED IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH PAGE 1 OF 8 Cas No. COPC Listed in USEPA HHRAP Database'^' Toxicity Information Available'*' Quantitatively Evaluated*'* Metals 1 7429-90-5 7440-36-0 7440-38-2 7440-39-3 7440^1-7 7440-43-9 7440-47-3 7440-48-4 7440-50-8 7439-92-1 7439-95-4 7439-96-5 7439-97-6 7440-02-0 7723-14-0 7782-49-2 7440-22-4 7440-28-0 7440-66-6 Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Phosphorus Selenium Silver Thallium Zinc Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Perchlorates 14797-73-0 Perchlorate Yes Yes Semivolatile Organic Compounds 95-94-3 120-82-1 95-50-1 122-66-7 99-35-4 541-73-1 99-65-0 106-46-7 90-13-1 134-32-7 58-90-2 95-95-4 88-06-2 120-83-2 105-67-9 51-28-5 121-14-2 87-65-0 606-20-2 53-96-3 91-58-7 95-57-8 91-57-6 95-48-7 91-59-8 88-74-4 88-75-5 91-94-1 119-93-7 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene 1,3-Dichloroben2ene 1,3-Dinitroben2ene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1 -Chloronaphthalene 1-Naphthylamine 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Acetylaminofluorene 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Naphthylamine 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TABLE 1 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN EVALUATED IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH PAGE 2 OF 8 Cas No. COPC Listed in USEPA HHRAP Database'^' Toxicity Information Available'*' Quantitatively Evaluated'^' Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Continued) I 56-49-5 NA 99-09-2 534-52-1 92-67-1 101-55-3 59-50-7 106-47-8 7005-72-3 100-01-6 100-02-7 57-97-6 83-32-9 208-96-8 98-86-2 62-53-3 120-12-7 92-87-5 56-55-3 50-32-8 205-99-2 191-24-2 207-08-9 65-85-0 100-51-6 111-91-1 111-44-4 39638-32-9 117-81-7 85-68-7 86-74-8 13466-78-9 218-01-9 112-31-2 2303-16-4 53-70-3 132-64-9 84-66-2 131-11-3 84-74-2 117-84-0 88-85-7 122-39-4 62-50-0 206-44-0 86-73-7 118-74-1 87-68-3 77-47-4 67-72-1 3-Methylcholanthrene 3-Methylphenol & 4-Methylphenol 3-Nitroaniline 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Aminobiphenyl 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Aniline Anthracene Benzidine Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Ben2o(b)fluoranthene Ben20(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzyl alcohol bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane bis{2-Chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole delta 3-Carene Chrysene CS Decanal Diallate Dibenzo(a, h)anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dinoseb Diphenylamine Ethyl methanesulfonate Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not Toxic Yes Not Toxic Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TABLE 1 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN EVALUATED IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH PAGE 3 OF 8 Cas No. COPC Listed in USEPA HHRAP Database"' Toxicity Information Available'*' Quantitatively Evaluated'^' Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Continued) | 1888-71-7 193-39-5 78-59-1 120-58-1 143-50-0 5989-27-5 534-22-5 66-27-3 56-49-5 562-27-6 91-20-3 130-15-4 98-95-3 99-55-8 56-57-5 NA 55-18-5 62-75-9 924-16-3 621-64-7 86-30-6 10595-95-6 59-89-2 100-75-4 930-55-2 95-53-4 60-11-7 608-93-5 76-01-7 82-68-8 87-86-5 62-*4-2 85-01-8 108-95-2 109-06-6 129-00-0 110-86-1 94-59-7 106-49-0 Hexachloropropene lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Isophorone Isosafrole Kepone d-Limonene 2-Methyl furan Methyl methanesulfonate 3-Methylcholanthrene 2-Methylheptane Naphthalene 1,4-Naphthoquinone Nitrobenzene 5-Nitro-o-toluidine 4-Nitroquinoline-1 -oxide N-Nitro-o-toluidine N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine N-Nitrosomorpholine N-Nitrosopiperidine N-Nitrosopyrrolidine o-Toluidine p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene Pentachlorobenzene Pentachloroethane Pentachloronitrobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenacetin Phenanthrene Phenol 2-Picoline Pyrene Pyridine Safrole p-Toluidine Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not Toxic Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Dioxins/Furans 1746-01-6 40321-76-4 39227-28-6 57653-85-7 19408-74-3 35822-46-9 3268-87-9 51207-31-9 57117-41-6 57117-31^ 70648-26-9 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDF 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TABLE 1 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN EVALUATED IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH PAGE 4 OF 8 Cas No. COPC Listed in USEPA HHRAP Database'^' Toxicity Information Available'*' Quantitatively Evaluated'" Dioxins/Furans (Continued) { 57117-44-9 60851-34-5 72918-21-9 67562-39-4 55673-89-7 39001-02-0 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Carbonyls | 5779-94-2 75-07-0 67-64-1 100-52-7 4170-30-3 123-73-9 50-00-0 98-01-1 111-71-7 66-25-1 590-86-3 NA NA 529-20-4 110-62-3 123-38-6 2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde Acetaldehyde Acetone Benzaldehyde Crotonaldehyde Crotonaldehyde Formaldehyde Furfural Heptanal Hexanal Isopentanal m,p-Tolualdehyde MEK/Butyraldehydes o-Tolualdehyde Pentanal Propanal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not Toxic Yes Yes HCI/CI2/NH3 1 7647-01-0 7782-50-5 7664-41-7 74-90-8 HCI CI2 NH3 HCN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Volatile Organic Compounds 71-55-6 79-34-5 79-00-5 75-34-3 75-35-4 526-73-8 120-82-1 95-63-6 106-93-4 95-50-1 107-06-2 78-87-5 108-67-8 106-99-0 541-73-1 141-93-5 106-46-7 105-05-5 123-91-1 106-98-9 592-41-6 109-67-1 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-T richlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromoethane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-bichloropropane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Butadiene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Diethylbenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Diethylbenzene 1,4-Dioxane 1-Butene 1-Hexene 1-Pentene Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TABLE 1 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN EVALUATED IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH PAGE 5 OF 8 Cas No. COPC Listed in USEPA HHRAP Database'^' Toxicity Information Available'*' Quantitatively Evaluated"' Volatile Organic Compounds (Continued) { 540-84-1 75-83-2 565-75-3 79-29-8 565-59-3 108-08-7 78-93-3 611-14-3 591-78-6 540-84-1 591-74-6 107-83-5 79-46-9 67-63-0 107-05-1 620-14-4 589-81-1 96-14-0 96-14-0 622-96-8 108-10-1 67-64-1 75-05-8 74-86-2 107-13-1 100-44-7 71-43-2 75-27-4 75-25-2 74-83-9 106-97-8 25167-67-3 106-98-9 590-18-1 624-64-6 75-15-0 56-23-5 107-14-2 108-90-7 74-97-5 75-00-3 67-66-3 74-87-3 156-59-2 10061-01-5 590-18-1 627-20-3 98-82-8 110-82-7 287-92-3 142-29-0 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 2,2-Dimethylbutane 2,3,4-Trimethylpentane 2,3-Dimethylbutane 2,3-Dimethylpentane 2,4-Dimethylpentane 2-Butanone 2-Ethyltoluene 2-Hexanone 2-Methylheptane 2-Methylhexane 2-Methylpentane 2-Nitropropane 2-Propanol 3-Chloropropene 3-Ethyltoluene 3-Methylheptane 3-Methylhexane 3-Methylpentane 4-Ethyltoluene 4-Methyl-2-pentanone Acetone Acetonitrile Acetylene Acrylonitrile alpha-Chlorotoluene Benzene Bromodichloromethane Bromoform Bromomethane Butane Butene, l-(butylene) Butene, l-(Ethylethylene) Butene, cis-2- (butene, (Z)-2-;dimethylethylene) Butene, trans-2-(butene,(E)-2-) Carbon Disulflde Carbon Tetrachloride Chloroacetonitrile Chlorobenzene Chlorobromomethane Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane cis-1,2-Dichloroethene cis-1,3-Dichloropropene cis-2-Butene cis-2-Pentene Cumene Cyclohexane Cyclopentane Cyclopentene Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not Toxic Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not Toxic Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not Toxic Yes Yes Not Toxic Not Toxic TABLE 1 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN EVALUATED IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH PAGE 6 OF 8 Cas No. COPC Listed in USEPA HHRAP Database'" Toxicity Information Available'*' Quantitatively Evaluated'*' Volatile Organic Compounds (Continued) j 124-18-5 124-48-1 1320-37-2 1071-26-7 584-94-1 589-43-5 592-13-2 463-82-1 74-84-0 64-17-5 74-85-1 60-29-7 97-63-2 100-41-4 1678-91-7 74-85-1 619-99-8 611-141-3 75-69-4 76-13-1 76-14-2 75-71-8 142-82-5 110-43-0 87-68-3 110-54-3 592-41-6 7688-21-3 4050-45-7 75-28-5 78-78-4 78-79-5 NA 78-85-3 126-98-7 96-33-3 108-87-2 80-62-6 1634-04-4 563-46-2 563-45-1 763-29-1 691-37-2 513-35-9 625-27-4 691-38-3 108-87-2 96-37-7 75-09-2 591-76-4 589-34-4 Decane Dibromochloromethane Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 2,2-Dimethylheptane 2,3-Dimethylhexane 2,4-Dimethylhexane 2,5-Dimethylhexane 2,2-Dimethylpropane Ethane Ethanol Ethene Ethyl Ether Ethyl Methacrylate Ethylbenzene Ethylcyclohexane Ethylene (acetene) 3-Ethylhexane o-Ethyltoluene Freon 11 Freon 113 Freon 114 Freon 12 Heptane 2-Heptanone Hexachlorobutadiene Hexane 1-Hexene cis-2-Hexene trans-2-Hexene Isobutane Isopentane Isoprene m, p-Xylene Methacrolein Methacrylonitrile Methyl Acrylate Methyl cyclohexane Methyl Methacrylate Methyl tert-butyl ether 2-Methyl-1-butene 3-Methyl-1-butene 2-Methyl-1-pentene 4-Methyl-1-pentene 2-Methyl-2-butene ,2-Methyl-2-pentene, cis-4-Methyl-2-pentene Methylcyclohexane Methylcyclopentane Methylene Chloride 2-Methylhexane 3-Methylhexane Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not Toxic Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not Toxic Not Toxic Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not Toxic Yes Yes Yes Not Toxic Not Toxic Not Toxic Not Toxic Not Toxic Yes Yes Yes Not Toxic Yes Yes Not Toxic Not Toxic Not Toxic Not Toxic Not Toxic Not Toxic Not Toxic Yes Yes Yes Yes TABLE 1 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN EVALUATED IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH PAGE 7 OF 8 Cas No. COPC Listed in USEPA HHRAP Database'" Toxicity Information JWaUable'*' Volatile Organic Compounds (Continued) 624-91-9 78-82-0 109-69-3 75-52-5 124-19-6 111-84-2 124-13-0 111-65-9 95-47-6 109-66-0 109-66-0 107-87-9 109-67-1 627-20-3 646-04-8 536-74-3 80-56-8 127-91-3 74-98-6 79-09^ 115-07-1 103-65-1 115-07-1 100-42-5 127-18-4 109-99-9 NA 108-88-3 156-60-5 10061-02-6 624-64-6 646-04-8 79-01-6 107-39-1 107-40-4 NA 16747-26-5 1120-21-4 75-01-4 Methylnitrite 2-Methylpropanenitrile n-Butylchloride Nitromethane Nonanal Nonane Octanal Octane o-Xylene Pentane n-Pentane 2-Pentanone 1-Pentene cis-2-Pentene trans-2-Pentene Phenylacetylene alpha-Pinene beta-Pinene Propane Propanoic acid Propene Propylbenzene Propylene Styrene Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran TNMOC Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene trans-1,3-Dichloropropene trans-2-butene trans-2-Pentene Trichloroethene 2,4,4-Trimethyl-1-pentene 2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene & sec-Butylbenzene 2,2,4-Trimethylhexane Undecane Vinyl Chloride Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Quantitatively Evaluated'" Yes Not Toxic Not Toxic Yes Not Toxic Yes Yes Yes Not Toxic Not Toxic Not Toxic Not Toxic Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not Toxic Yes Not Toxic Not Toxic Yes Not Toxic Yes Yes CEM 124-38-9 630-08-0 7647-01-0 NA 7446-09-5 CO2 CO HCI NOX SO2 Yes Yes Yes TABLE 1 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN EVALUATED IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH PAGE 8 OF 8 Cas No. COPC Listed in USEPA HHRAP Database'" Toxicity Information Available'*' Quantitatively Evaluated'" Notes: COPC - Chemical of Potential Concern HHRAP - Human health risk assessment protocol 1 - These chemicals were listed in the USEPA (2005) HHRAP Appendix A for consideration as a COPC, 2 - USEPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (USEPA, 1997), and USEPA Regional Screening Level Table (December, 2009). 3-A chemical was quantitatively evaluated in the human health risk assessment if there was current toxicity criteria available or if an appropriate surrogate could be identified if there was no current toxicity criteria available. cy UJ -I CO < I- (0 >-< X < D. m cc 3 I CO < O t: Q. =) X s.- i- < z (0 o DC < Uu o >-oa < s s (0 >|S!y ainov je)|Jo/w leM^snpui 3jn;nj j8)|joM jeiJtsnpui }udJjno aouepjse^ )|npv tuepjse^ pimo jaujjej eoueisjsqns tinpv jeuuej aouejsjsqns Pimo >> .c n> Q. 2 3 (0 111 X ^ X X X X (0 B ro o € S. T3 C ro i£ o a. c g ro ro 1 — X X X X X X **— o c g "TO c 0} T3 O 5 rt" S rt a> 3 O CO 1 ro s CO E S ro cn c 15 c •c Q "o c o 10 Q) Ol c X X X X 0) o 3 •o 2 Q. c §. i o c g U) Q) c X X tD CD c i E o X 'o c g u> Q) D) C X X o O 1 §= E o X E 2 •*— o c g "w Q) c X X (0 c ^ o j= O c i E o X o c o U) Q) O) c X X c o o c 1 (U E o X E w cn crt UJ ^— O c o -^ ta cn c X X o QL c 1 E o X o c o w 0 D) 5 5 ^ ^ .c « la- 's c o O) vy "x ~x "X i to ro 2 CO "o c g (1) CT c .^' o 42 > _i 2 0) £: •JS (U -S£ ro 1 ro 3 .. ro w > B UJ O 1 Z T- o ro CL F c n E 3 F X ro fc JC o o 1 5 (U £ ro (1) •Jf o ro I. •o ro 3 m > UJ 1 CM (J S^ n ro J T3 ro OT ro o ro t: 3 « *-* C (I) ti p Q) c rf ro u 5! ro 5 0) o 3 </) o o in 11) o n 0 m ro (1 o c • Q.C m 0 c 0 CT O 0 3 •o ro 2 ro 0 sz c k. 3 O o o c s •D CT c .c u. 1 •* ic (1) F ro CT •»-u J5 TJ c ro ft) *-* c 3 *-, 0 E ro 2 0 £ O 3^ c <) > (A C ro a tn c X o •o £ v. c o •o QJ ro 3 ro •> tn m JC — e w ro 2 .a M.-o c o •*3 0 U) 1 in TABLE 3 SITE-SPECIFIC INPUT VALUES ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH Parameter Ev, Average annual evapotranspiration (cm/yr) 1, Average annual irrigation (cm/yr) P, Average annual precipitation (cm/yr) RO, Runoff (cm/yr) Wind Velocity (m/s) Value 64 30.54 36 2.54 4.1 Source Hvdroloqic Atlas of Utah'^> Calculated'^> Western Region Climate Center, Data from the Thiokol Plant 78 weather station. Baes and others'^* M245 Meteorological Station Data from 1997 to 2002 Notes: 1 - Hydrologic Atlas of Utah. Logan, UT: Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan, UT, 1968. 2 - The net water balance cannot be negative, the IRAP-h View model requires the sum of the annual average precipitation and irrigation to be greater than or equal to the sum of the annual evapotranspiration and runoff Therefore, an annual average irrigation value of 30.54 is used to produce a zero water balance, 3- Baes, CF,, R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen, and R.W. Shor. 1984. "Review and Analysis of Parameters and Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides Through Agriculture," Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. flC > N LU e^ u. t- O o lU t- _ 0. £ Q. f- 0. ?!<: & >-S < n 5*3 5f II ^1 -! '1 1 Ml 1 z III u 1 < - f 8 o § + rt f (0 9 § 1 V S o CM (0 1 1 § CM 1 <M + tu S s 1 *" 1 o ? = 1 o 1 rt ? UJ s LU 1 3 i a I - I i 9 I CO g 1 i rt t so 9 UJ CM s s o I 8 1 8 I \ I - 8 i C3 I CM 8 i i 8 i « O) i S 1 i r^ 3 + UJ CM 03' 1 z s 5 o - I rt s 9 8 i 1 O i I s o 1 1 r^ (M o - i i 8 8 i rt S i i r^ 9) 8 + UJ ! 1 CM o - f o .- 9 rt i g rt 8 rt 1 O 8 OD 8 ? 8 ltl 8 i 1 ! 1 (M" ^ - o + •* CM ! o <M 8 s i rt 9 i CM o 111 8 9 2 CM oo' • 1 o ° <i - 8 i o 9 UJ 9 CM 8 K r- CM 1 CM z 8! o 3 UJ 8 CM 1 1 5 o § i 6 § i rt 8 i 8 rt ^ 1 i S 1^ i o i CM § Ui Q- S i - s i o 9 UJ CO «b o 5 f ° i i 8 CM i i f ^ - i o 9 CM rt 1 3 i i 8 1 ! 3 CM ? UJ 3 8 (M 1 1 1^ 1 - 8 i O CO 9 1 f ° ! S i 8 i i o i 5 ri 8 i ? 1 o " 8 i o o i CM 8 I 1 1 8 CM (b 8 1 8 + 2 E i " 8 i i CM (O f " UJ n OD 1 1 CO CM O 1 i 1 CM" rt 1 - o ! C4 8 1 3 8 6 a 8 8 i ry 5 U) r«- CM CM ? Ui «) (- cy' S d o I CM ! 8 00 8 1 to i i 1 CO 8 i CM 1 fM 1 ft - 1 d i i 8 ? UJ cd 8 i r-' s 8 1 9 UJ $ 8 1 cy" - d i i 3 rt 8 + rt 3 S 1 o eo f CO i 1 8 1 « CO - a _ s s CM rt CO 1 s •s 8 UJ o CO 8 8 i CM 1 8 1 1 - o 1 8 5 i 1 o i 8 o i s 8 i cy s CM rt To - f d 1 8 i 1 rt 8 1 s tn (0 ^ § 1 CO 8 5 8 : - I O 1 8 1 5 I rt i f f^ s CO i o Ul s cn I CO 1 (M 1 'i to - 8 i o \ i cy i rt i iO " 8 i 5 I o rt ? UJ 8 CD E 9 cy - 8 i d 1 CO o i i 8 <o 1 1 CD 1 CM i cy I L i —1 8 i o 1 CM 8 S CO 8 i (O s ! 8 S i 1 CO ? o i rt 8 i CM ? fe rt u- 5 - 8 i o g a, 9 rt CM 8 i CM 1 CO ^ » r- 8 CO f CM 8 i cy 8 8 Si U. CM - d - i CM rt 8 LU rt 1 CM 1 8 €0 CM 8 i CM 8 1 i CO 1 (M i ~1 o 9 5 UJ O) o 2 i <M 8 s ^ r- 1 3 i n 8 CM ! 1 2 s ^ f 8 8 1 O tl( CM 1 rt 1 rt n i Ul s 1 rt i 8 1 5 - i d 1 rt CO 8 i CM i «0 S rt 1 cy 8 i ? UJ eo 1 cy" S CO ~l i d o ? ? 1 CM O rt 1 rt rt i rt 8 Ul 9 UJ o> s 1 iri D UJ o> uJ tfi CM i 3 J, 1 - f 8 o 8 CM O i rt S i rt ! 8 UJ CM 8 ! o UJ CO CM 1 c i o 8 (O 1 8 i 1 i ID i 3 g 03 § i i CM g 1 2 3 - 8 O CM UJ s n 1 rt ! s 8 Ul 00 8 8 + UJ ? 1 O + UJ 1 Q. i - i 9 CD 1 9 CM + Of CM o 8 9 ft 5 o i CM O + O o ^ B 8 i O 8 1 <o g i o + Ul Ol to i eo rt 1 rt' 1 CM 1 S S - 8 i o CM f 8 i2i 3 CO (O 1 rt «n 8 rt ? Ul UJ 8 r- CM 3 o 8 i 1 rt r- 3 1 CM s « CO I tti 8 fy o i cn 8 i to 1 ^ i - s i o 1 1 1 CM n ^ " 9 UJ o tft 3 1 1 1 3 O <D C i 1 n 3 1 UJ 1 oi 1 1 8 CO CM ! lO CM K ° Ul CN fi U 1 g 5 in - 8 i o i o CM 1 CM 1 3 8 Ul 9 h- CM s 3 1 1 CM i -n 1 1 1 1 2 ^ CO (0 i 8 + CD 1 1 1 CO - 3 i o ^ S r- i 1 CM CM 9 r- ^ 8 § I 8 1 1 If) *" 1 UJ o i i ° i at 1 CM 1 «i 3 1 oi ^ - 1 o 8 + UJ 1 eo ! I 1 a> 1 IO i i 1 ! 1 -1 1 i cy i CO f CO 8 + K tft CM 1 rt rt 3 + UJ Ul CM 8 1 U. i - 1 6 « 1 CM + fM f i i 1 I o 1 ? UJ Ot - 8 d i CO 1 i CM 1 tn i 1 CM O ltl 1 UJ 2 i - 8 i o • 00 1 1 CM 1 fV 1 tn i I s CM f id 9 UJ Ml C^ 9 iil fM - i C) 00 8 cy 1 ry 1 1 I i 8 i O 1 1 1 CN g - 8 i d ? 8 1 CM CM 1 UJ i Si i 1 CO 8 1 rsi 8 i i - 1 d 8 t CM 1 5 9 CO 1 CO 8 1 CM i rt' 1 CM 8 lb 8 8 1 CM rt "1 I 8 o cy 9 cy 1 (M f i CO i o + a ? 5 8 1 i 1 CM CM" 1 n 1 d 8 + ° I CM i o» o i r^' 9 UJ I f ? 1 - 8 i o 8 ° s s « 9 CM rt 9 1 1 O) 1 i 1 eo 8 g : CM S - 1 d 1 9 CM 9 CM i I g 03 i i 8 1 • i 1 o 1 cy CM rt I I ? S ° i I 1 9 g 9 a r-' « c n i a N (V -1 I 2 1 i 1 1 1 ot 8 i 9 8 s rt 9 U IC 8 + u s lO -] ll ol ^1 ! i cy - ry 1 to i CM O 1 cyl 3 O' O) 9 Ul 3 1 lO CM 1 iS < o a. i X k in . K > CM isgs UJ K " §3 2 tt. a *• I- 0, 2 < o •: rf s'! s-f II M -1 -1 1 i H^ 1 a. III o < - g i o s + CM 1 o cy 1 cy s + UJ CM 3 1 i ai O <b o o + UJ fi CM 9 1 S i CD - 8 i d 8 + UJ 3 o i 8 UJ 9 LU m 8 i oi i i 1 9 K rt ! a 9 « - 8 1 d 5 9 9 1 s 9 ! oi s Ul 3 1 csi 8 s cy 1 1 1 - 8 i d s 1 cy W 9 ° lb o lb Q UJ S «o' s * 3 I 1 o 9 i 9 UJ o 1 1 S - 8 i d s UJ 3 o 1 CO 9 S 9 UJ o (O s i 8 CO 3 oi 9 5 9 s 1 9 Ol' 1 1 CM i - 8 i O 8 g i csi 9 S CM ? R CM 3 i 9 UJ eci 9 UJ i 1 9 cy - f o s + 8 i oi i oi s CM S 8 5 9 rj 9 9 UJ s 9 8 - i d i 3 J* 1^ i + p 3 i 9 s CM 1 8 CM 1 CC7 1 c> - 8 i d 8 i oi 8 + UJ r^ 5 s + UJ cy cb 1 1 s eo cb I o ! i - i d 8 8 rt 1 9 8 1 eo 1 ai I 1 CO I I ID CO ^ 01 o - 8 i d o i rt' 9 lb i oi 8 oi 8 rt 1 p 1 csi 1 CO i CM 1 oi 9 1 1 - 1 d eb 1 i oi I CM 9 S in I 9 UJ in 1 1 CM 8 1 i CD 1 CM i i - d 9 cy 1 CO 1 CO g + cb s i 8 i i ID s S (b + wi 1 oi 1 g M •0 OI 1 - i d 9 5 9 CM 1 CO 9 8 rt' 1 CJ> oi 3 8 lil S «r 3 cy 3 CM 9 ! 2 4 3 ,.1 1 ; S .1 SI $ 5 £ OOo c o T ii§ .1 ^ " c ., m a. o * I iH « > 0. S • S 2 g E STS S 2 S3 c £ J« «itlof fc t t >^ E o : " O n • S ft jf : 5" g:i i S S E-I loif! » n i -*- I £'^§55o«5e8|i « • "Q o . . « I I ' « o . O ' (• f O O TI Z X o o ^ ^ ^ < m < II KS2 i & m 1 1 2 2 s 1 2 1 1 > f ! g s i 1 f 5 f f 1 a ^ f CB 1 S s •c 3 M a s Q 1 1 1 3 1 CM 8 + 1 s 8 S )^ CO CO s CO 5 UJ m cb 3 cy 9 UJ oi 8 UJ K rvi UJ CM 1 1 1 s -• 3 in o 9 UJ c\i 3 9 CD CO CN CN s s tM CO o ^' CD CO 8 i CO 9 LU QO OJ 2 O i o t\i 1 ! 00 + UJ CD 3 CM 9 Ui s CO 1 pi 8 UJ cri - CM UJ CO r- oo UJ 5 CM 9 UJ o i 4 o 9 Ui cn 9 UJ s 1 cb 8 Ui s s CO CD Ui UJ o + Ui • o + UJ CO o i ID CO o i eb 1 1 i o o oi 1 CD fy 1 oi s Si CTJ s UJ CO CO 8 + UJ f 1 O + UJ s oi 9 UJ 5 9 UJ s 1^ 5 o o UJ cn o i 2 CM S i ob s Ui CO •<• ob 9 UJ 1? lri s i, CO CJ) 1 CO oo CM xn S 8 c*i 9 ffi UJ CO 9 UJ oi 8 1 S Tt' S CO oi S CD oi cp CO 9 CO g + Hi lri 9 CM 1 f CJ 1 CO 9 ° oi in o S eb 9 UJ fM f Ui 00 to ry i Ui CO V o s oo CD s + UJ f 5 CO 9 UJ 8 9 UJ s lri 9 in o + Ui s CD i s lb CO 8 + UJ cn CO cb 9 1 1 1 5 1 1 CO 1 8 CD ! 6 8 b f 8 b 8 6 8 i d 8 + UJ 8 d d 8 8 d 1 8 d 1 d 1 o 1 8 CO 8 d S CM r-. o % CM UJ w fv' 9 UJ p 9 s o I + UJ q od 9 UJ 3 oi ^ 1 9 tu 1 S ft CN 9 UJ 5> CO 1 CN CO 8 UJ in r- cb o q o 1 9 UJ o i 8 8 oi O + UJ CN i I i s i o i 2 UJ n •fl- 1 lri 5 CD' O in oi 2 R oi 8 UJ f UJ 8 o + CO 8 + 6 5 (M 9 1 fM OQ cvi g IO cri UJ oj 8 iri s oi 3 oi i o 5 ? UJ + UJ 1 4 oj oi c^ 9 CM fM 9 g UJ to 9 111 fsi fy S 1 •fl^ CO oi CM S 5 to 9 CO 9 UJ lO + 3 CM 3 9 5 9 OJ 9 oi 8 00 g CO 2 oi 1 CD cri 9 UJ s CM ft f UJ n O OJ" i a i 9 ? CO to oj 1 OJ 1 in CO 2 CM s <b 9 UJ in •fl^ 9 UJ in •fl^ 9 9 I 8 1 9 Ui lri 1 1 i csi ? H 9 s s ,'i s fy oj f' 9 2 i i i oi 9 1 CD 9 CM 1 ry 9 CO s + Ui m CN cri 9 UJ i? coi OJ 9 Ui CM 9 8 8 i 1 (71 9 CO 9 s CO 8 UJ o + UJ 8 ILI OJ CO 5 i CO 3 1 CM 8 CO UJ •fl-oi i i 8 i d 8 i, 8 d 9 s CO 9 s Ui ?5 o il 8 UJ c^ 5 9 CO 9 2 tn 9 CO OI 3 5 CM i 1 8 + lb 8 + Ui cb 9 lii § CO 2 § to I ft 9 UJ 4 S 2 oi 8 fM 3 3 in 2 oo CM 9 oi s i 8 •fl^ 3 9 UJ § rsi 9 Ui s CN CM O il 8 o oi 1 CM CD 2 m 3 + UJ s 8 + UJ 8 d 9 Ul 8 UJ IO q LiJ ry •fl^ in 9 3 tri 9 tti cb 9 UJ q 1 1^ 9 UJ s in i 8 i) 8 b i tn CO in 8 Ui to g rg to i lri o i lri Ui s OJ 8 + UJ CD ob CO u. 2 oi 1 oi UJ h-' in ^ ? CO 9 CD to q u!l s UJ o oi to 9 UJ o CM 9 oi 9 g CJP g + UJ 8 U- 3 ^ i 5 i CD 9 UJ 1 CM 9 8 fM OI O UJ s CO 9 CO 2 8 OI 3 s tM 9 Ui •fl^ 9 UJ •fl^ 8 Ui 8 4 9 '3 1 5 c^ fM" CO 3 8 cb 1 tb UJ 8 S LU 9 CM h-' Ui s cb tn 1 8 + 8 i, cb CO 8 il CJ> tri 9 "S. £ 1 9 1 s O) fb UJ 8 b 8 UJ CO Ui tn I CO UJ CO CO CO o rsi 9 UJ R CM O UJ K <6 9 1 O 3 ob 1 CO 1 UJ CD CD' 9 5 3 CTI 8 o oi 1 UJ CO 8 UJ fl- pj 9 CO 9 cb 3 tb lri o o CM" 00 q Uf cb 9 CM 1 8 d ^ UJ oi g CM UJ s oi 8 o lil in o UJ K 1^ 9 Ui •fl- to 9 UJ •fl- COi i 9 g 3 00 i 9 CM I fSJ 1 1 CO fy to 9 CD UJ s 1^ UJ s i 9 2 9 (D CO CO oi 1 lri i CO 8 b !? S 5 8 UJ 8 CO 1 in UJ r-(^ •& <6 o CD (b o i lri 9 lri 9 a in 9 g fl-cb 1 2 s 9 oi 8 HI 8 UJ 8 oi UJ cy 3 fl^ s CO to s Psi 9 UJ ff CM 9 UJ 5 il B oi 1 8 O) o + UJ UJ 8 1 1 E 1 9 5 1 lri UJ to CO tsj UJ oi •fl^ 1 CO 9 UJ CO o f s ob s cb 1 ! i 8 i CO 8 i CO 8 •fl-' to fsj 1 O oi •< 1 tsi 9 rsi ? ui ft tb Ui ft CO 1 UJ CM to i tb ! ft CO UJ 5 ^ s •T CO o csi 8 Ui 5 oi •«• 1 oi 2 o> oi ft fb UJ CO CO 8 + UJ tb i cb UJ I 4 8 i 8 i fb UJ n cb 8 2 Si. ? Ui OO CM CO 8 + •fl- 9 •fl-tb 1 1 tD •>* 9 lri i 9 UJ 3 oi 8 lri oj i csi i 3 ft tb 8 3 CO 1 lb UJ s CTi i o> 9 O + UJ cb 1 3 fSJ 9 tb to o CNi fb 8 1 g •fl-' 2 IS m ob 1^ o ft i -fl^ eb 9 UJ in to to 1 rg 1 cb •* 1 UJ tn tb 8 r-' I CO i oi ? 2 9 oi 9 UJ i:: csi 1 tb 8 + UJ tb o OJ 2 CM CO fM 1 to 9 s r>: o OJ i to i tb tb 8 1 h-' i oi 1 csi 1 in i Ui 3. fsi CM 2 HI ft cb i fsi 2 CD lri 9 9 2 ry tq 2 8 O CM 9 1 UJ CM 8 i) 5 tb CM o> 3 8 -fl UJ eb i <b s g •fl^ 1 •fl^ 1 UJ ? UJ oi 9 UJ CD ! 2 z J. i 1 8 tri s -fl= 8 ai 8 tri fO 1 1 ? s ai 8 oi 9 fsi 9 8 fsi 3 in UJ 3 lb 8 + Ui CO : CD •* 8 CO (b 8 CO 1 CO 8 + UJ 3 d 8 CD O + UJ CO fsi i csi CM CO 8 i, s tb 8 1 «0 •* CO h-' s cb Ul 9 UJ ry 1 fM •» ? CD 8 a 00' i 9 CM 1- 2 9 oi i •* 1 Ul s pg 1 cn rg f 8 1 8 •fl^ 9 Ui PW 9 Ui oi 1 q tb iS i 8 K CO i •* 2 8 9 Csi UJ o oi 1 fM 2 04 8 Ui 8 UJ CD eb 1 UJ rg cb 3 CO ! Ol I ! ft cb 8 UJ 5 v 3 to fl- OJ 9 UJ o csi r ^ fg 9 2 oi 1 CD rb s + Si! IO eb 8 ij ry cb 9 Ul tb ffi m 8 Ui ft cb 8 i r • UJ tp •fl-' 3 rsi 9 UJ o oi Ui 9 2 fsi 9 2 OJ 8 + li! CD tb 8 + ss CO eo 8 + UJ cri 3 8 lri 8 + S fl- oi ob 3. eo 9 2 rg 2 CO l 8 lri 1 UJ lri ul s o to to V ffi 1 ! i 1 i o in 1 o il 9 UJ CD CO 1 oi ? Ul 5 3 Ul to 9 pg 8 UJ o tb 9 s cb 5 + UJ 00 9 % ry' i co' g i lri to «S i 1 u. 1 2 2 1 2 ! 2 i 2 1 1 & 1 a m t j § « 1 1 1 5 u. 1 •o 1 j 1 C» •5 cn V 3 1 1 "5 •4 "n i s 9 Ul 3 g t oi 8 Sii pg PM 9 9 UJ ft fb 1 oi s UJ r^ CO lri 9 3 in 2 8 - 9 UJ 3 8 UJ o s PI i 9 Ul 3 3 i py o 'k OJ rg 9 q 9 UJ to 3 g oi 9 Ui r^ CD lri 2 in 9 Ul 3 2 OJ :2 8 + UJ 5 o I ry i 9 Ui 3 g t oi py 2 04 rvi 9 g g Sil ft CO 9 fsi ft in 9 g 9 9 Ul CM 2 rg <P 8 UJ 9 Ui •fl^ • o 4 fM S 9 Sii cq 3 1 fM OJ 2 OJ fsj 9 q co cb 3 OJ 8 Ul ft lri 9 g 3 q LU 3 9 UJ s 8 UJ tp 5 £ a u'i fM" s ^ 9 ILI CM q S fM CM 9 g CM Psi 9 q 8 Ui CO 1 oi 2 CD lri 9 g 9 2 cy 'P 2 s 8 UJ S 9 Ul •fl^ 9 9 Oi oT fg 1 < z i 1 1 5 1 1 i < z < z < z 1 t UJ to 8 + UJ CD cb 8 + fl^ CO i q 8 •fl-' 8 Ui CO •fl- oi o fsi CM 2 csi 8 S oi 8 + to cb 8 i CD fb 8 + UJ ry CO s to UJ t^ 9 Ul q ij fM 2 pg Psj 9 s 8 Ui 1^ to cb 9 U) CJt fsi 8 Ui ft lri 9 6 3 S2 2 3 9 UJ s 8 + UJ to 4 £ UJ c^ i to 1 lri + UJ 5 lri 1 2 s 2 2 oj 1 8 1 2 CD lri lri 8 1 •fl- 1 g «b 1 6 CO •* CD 1 fsi f t' 2 CO fl= + 2 lri o + 2 lri f eb CM 2 3 oi 1 u to uS 2 fM rsi i q 9 8 tb 2 8 csi 3 Ui § py 9 lri 9 3 CM 9 UJ fM oi q UI CM ni 9 UJ CD o i ot oi 2 OI 9 1 8 CM 3 fM 9 g q ft fb 3 UJ oo lri o g o Ul 9 UJ 3 1 8 + Ui 9 •fl^ CM i S 9 1 3 eg fg psi 9 8 9 UJ ft fb UJ ff cy 9 UJ ft vi 2 9 9 UJ cy (P 9 UJ 3 8 + UJ 9 c* i s 9 UJ 1^ 5 3 q 9 111 8 lO co' 9 c\i s g Csi Ui s •fl^ a CD 1 CO o + tb o il eb 3 3 3 z p^ 1 i cb 1 9 8 fsi UJ 8 UJ 8 9 UJ ? tb CD 9 Ui i 9 •fl= o + 9 g eg ! 1 9 UJ lO i ? fb in 9 tb 3 8 •fl^ 3 s eo 1 rg CD 3 tb 9 g O + Ui lO 9 tb 9 Ui SI o a. CM i + UJ 8 csi i 3 i 8 i Psi m q ^ £ UJ cb Ul ^w to <D' eo 9 Ui ft lb 9 g O oi o i; 8 fM 9 Ul 3 fv.' i 8 il ft ui § •fl^ q 8 •fl-' CO csi CO o UJ o csi 2 a ^ 8 2 oi 9 2 oi CD fb UJ ft cb 8 + Ui fg eb 3 8 lb V i 9 CO CO 9 g q UJ to tb 3 to oi fM 9 Ui 3 UJ 8 8 2 lb 8 + 2 lb 9 Ui fb 9 fb 8 i rg 1 .e j 1- oi S CJl 8 fsi CO 8 g rg f^' 8 Ul o CO eb CO 3 fsi i fl-1^ lri 1^' CM O i 8 g CO oi 8 i, 8 csj 9 CO 3 4 i £ I 2 c c o O ffi S t) "E S o c ^- SS CO 0 Is' 8 8 S " ° s I # i •? « 1 S '^ T= -^ lfl i 8. I .E .S c S ? S _ C 5 43 Q- o fi !S iO •fi a -S o S S E £ £ a- Z ^ J jr ^ ^ ^ _ _ friff)fpfTioo(p(niT^fpfi^o 1 1 > > ffi cv CO C X z TABLE 6 CHANGES IN HUMAN HEALTH TOXICITY DATA ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH PAGE 1 OF 2 TABLE 6 CHANGES IN HUMAN HEALTH TOXICITY DATA ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH PAGE 2 OF 2 Notes: A = Agency for Toxic Subsistences and Disease Registry (ATSDR) C = California Environmental Protection Agency H - USEPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST), I - USEPA IRIS Database, January 2010, NA - No toxicity criteria available, P = Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value (PPRTV) W - The value in the HHRAP database is no longer valid and no new criteria Is available. ^^^^i>l^'?!S; tu CO < < < Q a. X X z Ui -1 OQ < O z (/} -I < o s UJ I o tt o >• oc o 1-z o s u. O ^^ >• < I-o X o I- X t--I < UJ I z < s X 1 Re f e r e n c e Co n c e n t r a t t o n (m g / m * ) Re f e r e n c e Do s e (m g / k g / d a y ) Ca n c e r S l o p e Fa c t o r (m g / k g / d a v ) ' 1 d z 1 CN 9 UJ o CN 9 LU o CO UJ o 9 m q (U c to 2 a i Q CO i o i 1 o 1 UJ o cp LLJ q < Z < z 0) c •>J OJ 2 Q. 5 «? CO o <D c 1 UJ o o + UJ q M— 9 m q CM o 9 uil T— s c 9 in in 0 0 1 i < z CO 9 Ul CO + UJ CN csi (V 1 z 1 z CT) in c:) in 0 Q s < UJ 0 to < z < z 'J= c 2 8 CO 2 0 .c 0 CN 1 Ul Q 9 CN CN 0 Ul 0 < Z z (U c CN CO i Q- 1 0 UJ 0 csi CN s 0 < z < z 2 1 a a) E b CN 9 00 t I 0 ? Ul 0 CD i < Z < z 2 •s 0 >. 0 9 CN 00 6 1 1 CO 9 Ul 0 co < •0 (0 0 0 CN CN in a 9 Ul 0 CN 9 Ul 0 < z < z (1) c c 1 E •c CN CN 1 i 2 0 cvi CN 9 Ul 0 i < z <1> c S c >< £ i5 cJ) CN" CO ci) in lA Q. 1 q Ul 0 CN < Z < z 2 co" CN CO in tv. 1 ' < z CN q UJ CN 0 + Ul in CN 8 £ c JS, "RJ c 0) .a sz •Q) E 9 CSI r-" 2 c:) in t 1 ' r- 9 Ul q 1 < Z 0) ?. .c to "D to £ > CO i 00 CL UJ Q 9 UJ 0 CN CN s 0 < z < z (U c fl) 1 CN 9 •<* ^: CJ> in c >. UJ 8 + m q 9 Ul q 0 Ul in CN 0 9 Ul T— to 0 ili CN CO 1 1 i f Ul 0 •^ S q T- 0 UJ in csi 0 S ID 5 1 1 CO 6 CN CO 0 9 m q 0 UJ m CN 0 UJ to c (U 1 Ul 4 CN CN CO Q. UJ 2 0 CN 9 Ul 0 1 i 1 E b 1 CN CN CN ' < z i < z Q. Ul 0 CJ) (0 £ 0 -5 1^ 1 X ? UJ 0 CO T— ? UI 0 CO < z < z CO C 0 2 UL CO 2 0 1 0 •5 b X 2 0 cvi 2 0 CN < z < z •* c 0 2 u. CN 5 a UJ 9 UJ 0 CN 9 Ul 0 < z i 1 3 .Q > £ CN CN d> 1^ 1 9 Ul 0 rv' i + Ul ro « 1 9 CN 9 0 00 ' 1 < 2 I CN q UJ 0 (N € CO 0 0 s 1 0 i5 CN" 1 CO i CO •5 c 0) .c & 0 b ci CN q in 00 1 1 2 q ^ 1 1 00 06 00 1 < Z CN 9 Ul 0 06 < z ro a ro c s 0 § (V CJ> ' < z UJ CO 0 ? UJ CN c "5 1 1 z CN 9 0 CO O) a. UJ Q 1 2 0 oi 9 UJ 0 4 < z 1 a> c 1 t CO 9 (I) - < I- O X o I- X \- < UJ X z < s I CM UJ % Q. 1 3 OT Re f e r e n c e Co n c e n t r a t i o n (m g / m ' ) Re f e r e n c e Do s e (m g / k g / d a y ) Ca n c e r S l o p e Fa c t o r (m g / k g / d a y ) - ' 3 "E « s. o 6 z o 1 1 ^ o 1 g CO < z (V 1 1 Q. i 2 Q. O Ul o CO < z < z < z 0) in CO it < Z s Ul q '^ < z CL CN 2 C "C O) z 9 CO 9 in in X CN 2 CO < z < z ^ iS ro 3 o CO CN I s < z i UJ o CN o CO o UJ lri O T— ? Ul oq -r- O. o s c 3 U. < z s Ul q c 2 £ S C<( 9 CN CN 1 1 5 s o s CO CO O o + UJ CN CN 0) £ c ro o 1 c^ in I in to c 9 Ul q h-: X CO . Q. ^ CO 9 UJ q c 1 il c<< 9 .1 1 CO 9 Ul q a CO 2 0 0 Ul 9 ro 2 rv lri 2 •3 0 i 8 1 X Csl 2 0 lri ? UJ 0 CO < Z < 2 ^c— i (1> c s 2 Q- 0 8 + UJ 0 CO 1 < z < Z d) 1 CD 9 8 r- 0) s •> a 2 CL 0 0 0 + UJ 0 Q6 < z < z < z 0) m 1 '0 06 in 0) c 1 QL 0 8 + UJ 0 CO < Z < z < z (1) c 0) <o in CN s 1 2 Q. 0 8 + Ul 0 ro i < Z 1 0) c 1 CN 10 1 CN CD <0 (I) E 2 0 1 < z Ul 0 csi 0 in 9 Ul f^ co CN q Ul CN CD 0) c ro .c '5 § E 1 0 sz 0 in 9 I-V ro £ 0) E 2 0 3 sr 2 0 •5 b X 9 UJ 0 CN 9 Ul 0 CN i < z 1 1 0 3 ro 1 2 0 b 0 CO X 9 Ul 0 IV: X Ul 0 CD < z i 0) c ro & JZ •>, % E '9 CN CN" CD r- 2 a) X 0 li 0 tv: X CN q Ul 0 CD < Z 1 C ro X 'S E '9 CO CN" 0) c 2 0 tv: X 9 CO < z < z v >• Q 4 CN 00 in 2 ro X (i> X 2 q 1^ X CN 0 1 UJ 0 CD < Z < z 0) C 0) r: 1 'D lA CN 3 in 0) 9 Ul 0 r-: ^ Ul 0 CD < z ^ 11) 1 E 9 CSI CN" Ci 00 5? 0) 0 •0 0 i 0 CO ' < z < z 0) c ro .c 0 £ Ul T— CO S: 2 CL 0 Ul 0 CO < z < z 1 ro <u c 0) ili 5 1 to 1 I 2 0 tv: X CD i 1 CO 83 CO 1 0 0 Ul 0 CN < z 0) c 0) 3 1 ijj 6 CO 1 5 0 c 1 C<1 CN 2 0 CO s UJ 0 lri < Z < z 0) c 0 c 1 0 C<S 1 0) 1 "TO s < oi < Z Ul CN CN < z c '5 1 1 CO i 0 i + Ul 0 CD i < Z c: s 0) .c 1 •55 CN 00 0 (1) c X 9 Ul 0 tv: X CN 9 Ul 0 CD 1 to c in d) c i •t^ 9 Ul 0 t^ X ? Ul 0 CO < z 1 ro CO ; Q. CN 2 CN < Z CL Ul 0 cri < z 0) c ro 1 z in CN in hv i 8 + Ul 0 t < z iS c 0) CL c: q 0 1 3 .Q 0 <0 •5, i + Ul 0 CO I UJ 0 06 § ^ 8 iS c CN 2 9 2 0) UJ p 9 UJ 0 CN < z 1 to i ro to JZ a 9 10 rv UJ -I OQ < 1- SS 01 < o a. X X z o 2X OT< < 3 i>.-,o 5 K u. O Z Kg u. O <? I-o X o I- X 1-_1 < Ul X Z < s X Ul 15 < a. § 3 « Re f e r e n c e Co n c e n t r a t i o n (m g / m ' ) Re f e r e n c e Do s e (m g / k g / d a y ) Un i t R i s k Fa c t o r (u g / m ' ) - ' Ca n c e r S l o p e Fa c t o r (m g / k g / d a y ) " ' "TO 0 i £ 0 6 Z OT >> Q. 2 CL 0 8 + UJ 0 CO < z i < z 2 «) a 2 t s 0) i t "1 4 CN CL CO 9 Ul 0 < z 1 < z <1> c V N C E CD 6 S! oa 0) 0) .Q "S5 E CM 1 0 c - c^ I T CN 0 6 CO ^ Ss .0 •5 CL sz 0 ro 2 Q. Q. < X a Ul X CL > Q. UJ Q 1 If-0 g S c to E i^ c^ E ui W ^ ro c £ eg -£ 0 0 E 3 to 2 ts CL >. Si in 0 to Q- "1 r= W C! 0 0 CN L. 1 c" ,2 2 Q. ro 0) £ c 0 -> c Ul •5 ro (U 5 £ Q ro o) ro .g "C N •II 0 0 £-2 0 a Z UJ < < z 5 to tn 3 CJ ro tn i2 ro in 0 0 CN « .D £ a a. 0) W Ul CO 3 cn .2 0 ro u. c .0 in 3 .0 £ 0 0 0) !8 § tn 3 0 •2 ro X 2 Q. .t_j c 10 tn to tn in £ "TO 0) X c ro E 3 X CL ,„ ^1 X - X 1 p UJ X ifi to .0 ro H ro E E 3 CO -£ a) ^ tn tj Ul •(0 0) I < a. Ul 3 I ^ CL c tu tu 2 g> ro < > §,$• 21- 5 * c ,9? E « 0 i- > tu c CL ... ro .2 c £ S (TI C 0 a It II X 0 a TABLE 8 ACUTE INHALATION EXPOSURE CRITERIA FOR CHEMICALS NOT IN HHRAP DATABASE ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH PAGE 1 OF 3 CAS No. 526-73-8 95-63-6 105-05-5 90-13-1 134-32-7 540-84-1 75-83-2 565-75-3 79-29-8 565-59-3 108-08-7 5779-94-2 87-65-0 1 53-96-3 611-14-3 591-78-6 540-84-1 591-74-6 91-57-6 107-83-5 91-59-8 119-93-7 620-14-4 589-81-1 96-14-0 96-14-0 534-52-1 92-67-1 622-96-8 57-97-6 208-96-8 7429-90-5 92-87-5 191-24-2 111-91-1 25167-67-3 106-98-9 590-18-1 624-64-6 Chemical 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,4-Diethylbenzene 1-Chloronaphthalene 1-Naphthylamine 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 2,2-Dimethylbutane 2,3,4-Trimethylpentane 2,3-Dimethyibutane 2,3-Dimethyipentane 2,4-Dimethylpentane 2,5-Dimethylbenzaiciehycle 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2-Acetyiaminofluorene 2-Ethyltoluene 2-Hexanone 2-Methylheptane 2-Methylhexane 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylpentane 2-Naphthylamine 3,3'-Dimethylbenziciine 3-Ethyltoluene 3-Methylheptane 3-Methylhexane 3-Methylpentane 3-Methyiphenol & 4-Methylphenol 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Aminobiphenyl 4-Ethyltoluene 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene Acenaphthylene Aluminum Benzidine Benzo(g,h,i)perylene bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane Butene, l-(butylene) Butene, l-(Ethylethylene) cis-2-Butene trans-2-Butene Acute Inhalation Exposure Criteria"' (mg/m') 688 688 NA 20 1.5 1,500 1,500 NA NA NA NA NA 5 15 500 40 1,500 NA 3 1,500 5 0.3 NA NA 1,500 1,500 NA 0.2 1.5 500 NA 0.2 5 0.5 30 15 NA 1,500 150,000 1,500 TABLE 8 ACUTE INHALATION EXPOSURE CRITERIA FOR CHEMICALS NOT IN HHRAP DATABASE ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH PAGE 2 OF 3 CAS No. 86-74-8 107-14-2 74-97-5 10061-01-5 7440-48-4 7440-50-8 4170-30-3 110-82-7 2303-16-4 1320-37-2 1071-26-7 584-94-1 589-43-5 592-13-2 463-82-1 88-85-7 122-39-4 1678-91-7 74-85-1 619-99-8 611-141-3 76-13-1 76-14-2 98-01-1 110-43-0 1888-71-7 110-54-3 143-50-0 7439-96-5 78-85-3 534-22-5 80-62-6 1634-04-4 56-49-5 108-87-2 562-27-6 591-76-4 589-34-4 75-52-5 99-55-8 Chemical Carbazole Chloroacetonitrile Chlorobromomethane cis-1,3-Dichloropropene Cobalt Copper Crotonaldehyde Cyclohexane Diallate Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 2,2-Dimethylheptane 2,3-Dimethylhexane 2,4-Dimethylhexane 2,5-Dimethylhexane 2,2-Dimethylpropane Dinoseb Diphenylamine Ethylcyclohexane Ethylene 3-Ethylhexane o-Ethyltoluene Freon 113 Freon 114 Furfural 2-Heptanone Hexachloropropene Hexane Kepone Manganese Methacrolein 2-Methyl furan Methyl Methacrylate Methyl tert-butyl ether 3-Methylcholanthrene Methylcyclohexane 2-Methylheptane 2-Methylhexane 3-Methylhexane Nitromethane 5-Nitro-o-toluidine Acute Inhalation Exposure Criteria'^' (mg/m') 2.5 12.5 3,000 0.6 0.3 3 0.544 1,000 NA 200,000 350 NA NA NA 1,500 2.5 30 NA 600 NA NA 10,000 20,000 8 400 4 1,500 0.003 3 0.573 60 69.6 180 0.6 5,000 NA NA NA 150 3 TABLE 8 ACUTE INHALATION EXPOSURE CRITERIA FOR CHEMICALS NOT IN HHRAP DATABASE ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH PAGE 3 OF 3 CAS No. 56-57-5 55-18-5 62-75-9 10595-95-6 59-89-2 930-55-2 529-20-4 60-11-7 76-01-7 109-66-0 107-87-9 14797-73-0 536-74-3 7723-14-0 109-06-8 123-38-6 115-07-1 103-65-1 115-07-1 106-49-0 10061-02-6 1120-21-4 Chemical 4-Nitroquinoline-1 -oxide N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine N-Nitrosomorpholine N-Nitrosopyrrolidine o-Tolualdehyde p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene Pentachloroethane n-Pentane 2-Pentanone Perchlorate Phenylacetylene Phosphorus 2-Picoline Propanal Propene Propylbenzene Propylene p-Toluidine trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene & sec-Butylbenzene Undecane Acute Inhalation Exposure Criteria'^' (mg/m') NA NA 10 NA 1.25 NA NA 50 126 350 500 NA 100 0.15 20 107 2,500 400 2,500 15 75 688 6 Notes: 1 - U.S. Department of Energy, Protective Action Criteria (PAC) with AEGLs, ERPGs, & TEELs: Rev 25 for Chemicals of Concern. http://www.hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/wshp/chem_safety/teel,html NA - Not available. ^^^1:, 1 1 ' - k- • •1 ! . 'r ii tm. rr LVTS^IS' Cl-V D' HOWBtOrtvk —X ) k-x" .-r^ .w^ •^ S .^ "V*^, _-> ' ^ ' ^ ^^/ A -X- N> V/'^ "-^"^ '^' J / \<^ii •v.^ -:-V-i^. Vv, Ran^ft*,.^- ^4 ^b;\^ T '~'i ! h"^'. . ^^i^^' ^ni p^sv' \ I cii^^^' ^ r^^v^ \376670,4619479\ - |378669|,... .. |384669| 13866691 J. 1396669, 46f9480|*, ¥ Mmm .. ,jifi.,,^iV-<, 1461 54^ |46>3480| i^v"*'L'v-^> wsn^so .-^' \Blu»Crmli~*d ,.r\>i"J,;7,-, 146054801 ^•^t 1460^4801 ^A/ ^(fe-\i. -ff n i(iM-^<Ki'-^iA iK^X/»^ • \ hj^^^^~. \ J^ ^ lWa*a»»»icliffDnJl -VV 'OS.' -V-s; -4^^ » ! ^1^^ y^Jr~= s^ r« ~ >^ l-iY'^^ •) I, m. :).^^• -V Si (- > r '4 -f '•^v..,. i!^'' i^ —-_^' }''. -.„.--*': -^-i- :T!S??' / X —•. i • -.v-;.-*-!.- '>i»==-j 4615480? /,•'•' |46<3480| 4611480 Wh^ f' \ 376670, 4599479\ 378669 13806691 -<c^.-''-W\V r Q « t • I I » LEGEND • Discrete Ret^eptor •^ Treatment Unit ,'^f Fatyiity Boundary