DSHW-2014-004625 - 0901a0688040fbdb

March 10,2014
8200-FY14-079
Mr. Scott T. Anderson, Executive Secretary
State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
195 N.1950 W.
P.O. Box 144880
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4880
Re: ATK Launch Systems-Promontory EPA ID number UTD009081357*/
Revised Addendum Air Dispersion Modeling Report for Open Burning and Open
Detonation at ATK Launch Systems in Promontory, Utah
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Enclosed is the Revised Addendum Air Dispersion Modeling Report for Open Burning
and Open Detonation (OB/OD) at ATK Launch Systems Inc. ("ATK") in Promontory,
Utah. The information from this modeling report is necessary to conduct the Human
Health and Ecological Risk Assessments for ATK's OB/OD operations.
Please contact me if you have any questions concerning this report. My telephone
number is [phone] or you can contact Blair Palmer at [phone].
Sincerely
George E. Gooch, Manager
Environmental Compliance
cc: JeffVandel
ADDENDUM
AIR DISPERSION MODELING REPORT FOR
OPEN BURNING AND OPEN DETONATION AT
ATK LAUNCH SYSTEMS IN PROMONTORY, UTAH
Revision
Prepared for:
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Prepared by:
(fit
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.
2790 Mosside Boulevard
Monroeville, Pennsylvania 15146
Project No. 146690
March 2014
Table of Contents
List of Tables iv
List of Figures iv
List of Attachments iv
List of Acronyms & Abbreviations v
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Description of Emission Source 3
2.1 Open Burning 3
2.2 Open Detonation 3
3.0 Emission Rates of Regulated Air Pollutants and Air Toxics 4
3.1 NAAQS Analysis 4
3.2 Air Toxics Analysis 5
4.0 Emission Source Parameters 8
4.1 Emission Rate 8
4.1.1 M-136 Stations 8
4.1.2 M-225 Stations 9
4.2 Release Height of Vapor Cloud 9
4.2.1 Open Burning 9
4.2.2 Open Detonation 10
4.3 Initial Dimensions of Vapor Cloud 10
4.3.1 Open Burning 10
43.2 Open Detonation 11
4.4 Other Source Parameters 12
4.4.1 M-136 Stations 12
4.4.2 M-225 Stations 13
4.5 Summary of AERMOD Modeling Parameters 13
4.5.1 M-136 Stations 13
4.5.2 M-225 Stations 16
5.0 Model Defaults and Assumptions 19
6.0 Meteorological Data 20
6.1 Meteorological Data Processing 20
6.2 Land Use and Surface Characteristics 20
7.0 Receptor Grid Layout 22
8.0 Modeled Output 24
8.1 Maximum One-Hour Impact 24
8.2 Maximum Three-Hour and 24-Hour Impacts 24
8.3 Maximum Annual Impact 24
CB&I Environmental S Infrastructure, Inc. jj Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
" ATK Launch Systems
9.0 Compliance Demonstration with NAAQS and Air Toxic Standards 26
9.1 NAAQS Analysis 26
9.2 Air Toxics Analysis 27
10.0 Development of Air Dispersion Factors for Risk Assessment 30
10.1 Receptor Locations 30
10.2 Pollutant Phases 34
10.3 One-Hour ADF for Concentration 37
10.4 Annual ADF for Concentration 37
10.5 Annual ADF for Deposition 38
10.6 Summary of ADFs 38
11.0 Conclusion 39
Attachments
CBSI Environmental I Infrastructure, Inc. iii Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
List of Tables
Table 3-1 Criteria Pollutants Considered in NAAQS Compliance Demonstration
Table 3-2 Maximum Emission Factors including Background Concentrations - Criteria Pollutants
Table 3-3 Acute and Chronic Air Toxic Screening Levels
Table 3-4 Maximum Emission Factors including Background Concentrations - Air Toxics
Table 4-1 M-136 Source Parameters
Table 4-2 M-136 Actual Emission Rates for Criteria Pollutants
Table 4-3 M-136 Actual Emission Rates for Air Toxics
Table 4-4 M-225 Source Parameters
Table 4-5 M-225 Actual Emission Rates for Criteria Pollutants
Table 4-6 M-225 Actual Emission Rates for Air Toxics
Table 9-1 Results of Cumulative Impact for M-136 and M-225 - Criteria Pollutants
Table 9-2 Results of Cumulative Impact for M-136 and M-225 - Acute One-Hour Air Toxics
Table 9-3 Results of Cumulative Impact for M-136 and M-225 - Chronic 24-Hour Air Toxics
Table 10-1 Particle Distribution Data
List of Figures
Figure 7-1 Off-site/Boundary Receptor Grid Layout
Figure 10-1 M-136 On-site Receptor Grid Layout
Figure 10-2 M-225 On-site Receptor Grid Layout
Figure 10-3 Discrete Receptor Grid Layout
List of Attachments
Attachment 1 Vapor Cloud Heights
Attachment 2 Summary of Screened Hours
Attachment 3 Detailed Modeling Results
Attachment 4 Modeling Inputs/Outputs
Attachment 5 Summary of ADFs for the Risk Assessment
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc iv Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
List of Acronyms & Abbreviations
ug/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
ADFs air dispersion factors
AERMOD American Meteorological Society/USEPA Regulatory Modeling System
ATK ATK Launch Systems
g/s grams per second
HHRAP Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol
km kilometers
lbs pounds
m meter
m/sec meter per second
m2 square meter
MEI maximum exposed individual
mph miles per hour
MST Mountain Standard Time
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NLCD92 National Land Cover Data 1992
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
OB open burning
OBODM Open Burn/Open Detonation Model
OD open detonation
ODOBi Open Detonation Open Bum Improved
PG Pasquill-Gifford
PM particulate matter
ppb parts per billion
SO2 sulfur dioxide
TSLs toxic screening levels
UDSHW Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
CBSI Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. V Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
1.0 Introduction
ATK Launch Systems (ATK), located 30 miles west 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 M-136 and M-225
and are subject to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 40 CFR 264, Subpart X permitting
requirements for miscellaneous treatment units.
The Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
(UDSHW) required ATK to conduct human health and ecological risk assessments in support of
a new Subpart X permit application. Before the human health and ecological risk assessments
can be conducted, an air dispersion modeling analysis must be performed to evaluate the air
quality impact of the M-136 and M-225 treatment units. The results of the air dispersion
modeling analysis will be entered into human health and ecological risk assessment models to
determine the risk from the ATK OB/OD treatment units.
ATK submitted a preliminary air dispersion modeling draft report prepared by Tetra Tech for the
OB/OD treatment units in March 2012. UDSHW made several comments on this report in a
letter dated May 29, 2012. Subsequently, Tetra Tech prepared a final air dispersion modeling
report dated July 2012 entitled "Revised Air Dispersion Modeling Assessment Report for Open
Burn and Open Detonation Treatment Units at ATK Launch Systems," which is referred to as
"preliminary modeling" or "preliminary modeling report" in this document.
The preliminary modeling was conducted using the Open Burn/Open Detonation Model
(OBODM) per approved protocol, which is included as Section 2.0 of the July 2012 preliminary
modeling report. OBODM is specifically designed to predict the air quality impact of OB and
OD treatment of obsolete weapons, solid rocket propellants, and associated manufacturing
wastes. The OB and OD treatment of waste propellants and propellant-contaminated materials
can be classified as instantaneous events for OD treatment and as quasi-continuous events for
OB treatment. The model is also designed to use either empirical emission factors such as those
derived in the Dugway Proving Ground Bang Box™ or emissions predicted by a products of
combustion model. The emission factors used in the preliminary modeling and in this modeling
analysis were the results of testing performed in the Open Detonation/Open Burning Improved
(ODOBi) test chamber. OBODM calculates peak air concentration, time-weighted air concen-
trations, and dosage (time-integrated concentration) for OB and OD releases. It can also
consider the effects on concentration and dosage of the gravitational settling and deposition of
particulates.
CB&I Environmental I Infrastructure, Inc. 1 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
However, OBODM has several limitations which constrain the modeling in this application. For
example, OBODM can handle only 100 receptors at a time, cannot predict deposition in complex
terrain, and uses older algorithms for downwind dispersion of emitted pollutants.
To overcome these limitations, ATK proposed a hybrid approach for the air modeling using the
OBODM with the American Meteorological Society/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) Regulatory Modeling System (AERMOD) model, which is the USEPA's preferred
dispersion model for short range transport (up to 50 kilometers [km]). OBODM has two distinct
parts. The first part simulates the OB and OD events and generates initial parameters of the
emission cloud (emission rate, cloud height, cloud diameter), and the second part is the
downwind dispersion of the emission cloud. The main limitation of OBODM is in the second
part (i.e., dispersion). The downwind dispersion is better handled by AERMOD which has
practically no limitation on the number of receptors, can easily handle complex terrain, and
handles dispersion of emission clouds based on state-of-the-art understanding of atmospheric
turbulence.
Thus, the revised air quality assessment was conducted using this hybrid approach based on the
emission rates derived from ODOBi testing with the initial source parameters from OBODM and
using these parameters in AERMOD to predict downwind dispersion and deposition. This report
describes the details of this hybrid modeling approach, presents the results of the air quality
impact analysis with respect to air quality standards, and presents the dispersion modeling results
developed to support the risk assessment.
CBJd Environmental i Infrastructure, Inc. 2 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
2.0 Description of Emission Source
The two activities in the facility are OB and OD. OB treatment is considered a quasi-continuous
source because the treatment event is usually complete within one hour. OD is considered an
instantaneous source because treatment is completed within milliseconds. The approach to
modeling these two types of events was as follows.
2.1 Open Burning
OB results in combustion of the energetics and rapid rise of the hot combustion products due to
buoyancy until a final height is reached. At this point, the emission cloud has no upward
momentum and starts to disperse downwind. This event was simulated as an elevated volume
source with the stack height equal to the final cloud height predicted from OBODM. Details of
source parameters are described in Section 4.0.
2.2 Open Detonation
OD results in instantaneous combustion and immediate rise of the emission cloud to a final
height. The cloud height is based on the reactive waste weight, wind speed, and atmospheric
stability. Once elevated, this cloud disperses downwind. This event was simulated as an
elevated volume source. Details of source parameters are described in Section 4.0.
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 3 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
3.0 Emission Rates of Regulated Air Pollutants and Air Toxics
One of the objectives of the air quality analysis was to determine compliance with all applicable
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and air toxics screening levels. The NAAQS
and air toxics modeling pollutants and corresponding emission rates are described below.
3.1 NAAQS Analysis
The criteria pollutants considered for NAAQS analysis, the averaging time, and design values
are shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Criteria Pollutants Considered in NAAQS Compliance Demonstration
Criteria
Pollutant
NAAQS
averaging time
Design
Concentration Method of Determination of Design Value
PM-10 24-Hour 150 ug/m3 Sixth highest of 5 years of meteorological data
PM-2.5 24-Hour 35 Ljg/m3 Average of first highest of 5 years of meteorological data
PM-2.5 Annual 12 ug/m3 Average of first highest of 5 years of meteorological data
S02 1-Hour 75 ppb
(195 |jg/m3)
Five-year average of the 99th percentile (4th highest) of the annual
distribution of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations
SO2 3-Hour 1,300 |jg/m3 Five-year average of 2nd highest (not to be exceeded once per year)
NO2 1-Hour 100 ppb
(189 ug/m3)
Five-year average of the 98th percentile (8th highest) of the annual
distribution of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations
NO2 Annual 100 |jg/m3 Maximum over 5 years of meteorological data
Notes: Carbon monoxide and lead NAAQS were not included because preliminary modeling, entitled "Revised Air Dispersion Modeling
Assessment Report for Open Burn and Open Detonation Treatment Units at ATK Launch Systems" dated July 2012 showed
compliance with NAAQS.
PM = Particulate matter.
NO2 = Nitrogen dioxide.
SO2 = Sulfur dioxide.
ppb = Parts per billion.
yg/m3 = Micrograms per cubic meter.
Although each pollutant and averaging period has its own method to determine the design value,
for this analysis, each maximum one-hour impact was averaged over the five-year period to
obtain an average maximum one-hour impact for NAAQS analysis for all pollutants except
PM-10 and annual NO2. This methodology is conservative for NAAQS. For PM-10 and annual
NO2, the maximum impact over the five-year period of one-hour and annual average
concentrations were considered, respectively.
The NAAQS modeling used emission factors from the preliminary modeling. The emission
factors were derived from ODOBi testing. These emission factors are maximum values and
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 4 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
include background concentrations expressed in pound of pollutant per pound of reactive waste
referenced from Table 2-5 of the July 2012 Tetra Tech modeling report. The emission factors
for NAAQS are shown Table 3-2.
Table 3-2: Maximum Emission Factors including Background Concentrations - Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant
PM-10
PM-2.5
S02
NO2
Maximum Emission Factor
(lb/lb reactive waste)
0.12
0.06
0.0005
0.0064
Reference: July 2012 Tetra Tech modeling report, Table 2-5.
3.2 Air Toxics Analysis
Air toxics included in the preliminary modeling dated July 2012 were compared to respective
Utah toxic screening levels (TSLs). The acute toxics and corresponding TSLs considered are
listed in Table 3-18 of the July 2012 preliminary modeling report. The maximum one-hour
concentrations were averaged over the five-year period and compared to the acute TSLs. The
chronic air toxics and corresponding TSLs are listed in Tables 3-35 and 3-52 of the preliminary
modeling report dated July 2012. The maximum 24-hour concentrations were averaged over the
five-year period and compared with the chronic TSLs. The acute one-hour and chronic 24-hour
TSLs are shown in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3: Acute and Chronic Air Toxic Screening Levels
Type of Air Toxic Pollutant Utah TSL Value
(MQ/m3)
Acute (1-Hour) Air Toxic
Isophorone
Formaldehyde
Hydrogen Chloride
Hydrogen Cyanide
1,2,4,-Trichlororbenzene
2,826
37
298
520
3,711
Chronic (24-Hour) Air Toxic
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
o-Toluidine
Phenol
CI2
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
1,4-Dioxane
Acetonitrile
2,004
292
642
48
1,819
49
2,402
1,119
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 5 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
Type of Air Toxic Pollutant Utah TSL Value
(Mg/m3)
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Cumene
Styrene
Toluene
Vinyl Chloride
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Selenium
145
18
172
350
1,535
1,628
151
8,193
2,840
2,512
28
17
0.11
0.02
0.11
0.67
6.7
0.33
1.11
3.3
6.7
The air toxics modeling used emission factors from the preliminary modeling, which was based
on emission factors derived from ODOBi testing. The emission factors are the maximum
emission rate which includes background concentrations expressed in pound of pollutant per
pound reactive waste. The emission factors for all air toxics are shown Table 3-4.
Table 3-4: Maximum Emission Factors including Background Concentrations - Air Toxics
Type of Air Toxic Pollutant Maximum Emission Factor
(lb/lb reactive waste)
Acute (1-Hour) Air Toxics
Isophorone
Formaldehyde
Hydrogen Chloride
Hydrogen Cyanide
1,2,4,-Trichlororbenzene
5.50E-07
4.70E-05
1.80E-02
2.20E-05
1.30E-06
Chronic (24-Hour) Air Toxics
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
o-Toluidine
Phenol
7.30E-07
5.50E-07
7.00E-06
2.40E-06
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 6 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
Type of Air Toxic Pollutant Maximum Emission Factor
(lb/lb reactive waste)
Cb
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
1,4-Dioxane
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Cumene
Styrene
Toluene
Vinyl Chloride
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Selenium
1.20E-02
7.30E-07
2.40E-05
6.40E-07
1.90E-05
1.60E-05
4.70E-05
1.30E-06
1.50E-05
2.50E-06
6.10E-06
1.30E-06
4.20E-07
9.90E-07
1.90E-05
7.60E-06
2.90E-05
5.50E-07
6.10E-07
2.00E-05
6.10E-07
9.40E-05
7.40E-08
5.80E-05
1.10E-04
1.60E-06
Reference: July 2012 Tetra Tech modeling report, Table 2-5.
To determine the emission rates used in AERMOD (in grams per second [g/s]), the maximum
emission factors were multiplied by the reactive waste weight for each scenario described in
Section 4.0. The treatment event for each scenario would be completed within one hour, and
only one scenario would occur per hour. Based on these assumptions and since AERMOD
considers emissions to be continuous over one hour, the emission rate per treatment event is
equivalent to the emission rate per hour. The calculated emission rates used in AERMOD for
each scenario are shown in Section 4.0. Additional details on the emission rate determination
and sample calculations are included in Section 4.5.1 for M-136 and in Section 4.5.2 for M-225.
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 7 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
4.0 Emission Source Parameters
Both the OB and OD events were modeled as elevated volume sources. The source parameters
required for dispersion of volume sources are:
• Emission rate
• Release height of vapor cloud
• Initial horizontal and vertical dimensions of the vapor cloud
The methodology for determination of these source parameters was based on several discussions
with UDSHW as described in this section.
4.1 Emission Rate
Emission rates were estimated based on quantity of reactive waste in OB/OD events and the
emission factors used in previous modeling referenced from Table 2-5 of the July 2012
preliminary modeling report. Modeling to assess ambient air quality impacts was conducted
using the estimated actual emission rates for each scenario. To reduce the number of required
model runs, the emission rates for a single pollutant (i.e., PM-2.5) were input to the model. The
single pollutant modeling results were then applied to the other pollutants that are part of the
impact analysis by scaling the modeled results by the ratio of the desired pollutant emission rate
to the modeled emission rate. However, modeling in support of the risk assessment was
conducted at a unit emission rate of 1 g/s to allow for application of pollutant-specific emission
rates within the risk assessment software.
The reactive waste quantities for each of the scenarios were based on the desired permit limits
which are listed below.
4.1.1 M-136 Stations
M-136 has 14 burn stations (1 through 14) and any one of the following alternative and mutually
exclusive scenarios could occur in these stations:
Scenario M-136-A
• Al: OB in six of Burn Stations 1 through 12 at 16,000 pounds (lbs) in each station
totaling 96,000 lbs reactive waste weight per event
• A2: 10,000 lbs reactive waste weight per event in Burn Station 13
• A3: 16,000 lbs reactive waste weight per event in Burn Station 14
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 8 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
Scenario M-136-B
• B: OB of 125,000 lbs of large rocket motors in Station 14
Scenario M-136-C
• C: OD of 600 lbs reactive waste in Stations 13 and 14 each, totaling 1,200 lbs
reactive waste weight per event
Any one of Scenarios M-136-A, M-136-B, or M-136-C could occur during a single treatment
event, and these scenarios would not occur simultaneously. Furthermore, only one treatment
event—either Scenario M-136-A, M-136-B, or M-136-C—is considered to occur at M-136 per
day. Within AERMOD, each scenario was modeled separately to obtain individual results to
evaluate the impact of each of the operating scenarios.
4.1.2 M-225 Stations
M-225 has four burn stations (1 through 4) and any one of the following alternative and mutually
exclusive scenarios could occur in these stations:
Scenario M-225-A
• A: OB of 1,125 lbs of reactive waste in each of the Burn Stations 1 through 4 for a
total of 4,500 lbs reactive waste weight per event
Scenario M-225-B
• B: OD of 600 lbs of reactive waste in Station 1
Either of the Scenarios M-225-A or M-225-B could occur during a single treatment event, and
these scenarios would not occur simultaneously. Furthermore, only one treatment event—either
Scenario M-225-A or M-225-B—is considered to occur at M-225 per day. Within AERMOD,
each scenario was modeled separately to obtain individual results to evaluate the impact of each
of the operating scenarios.
4.2 Release Height of Vapor Cloud
4.2.1 Open Burning
OB results in combustion of the energetics and rapid rise of the hot combustion products due to
buoyancy until a final height is reached. At this point, the emission cloud has no upward
momentum and starts to disperse downwind. This event was simulated as an elevated volume
source with the release height equal to the final cloud height predicted from OBODM.
Based on several discussions with UDSHW and its consultant, the following approach was used
for determination of cloud heights for OB events.
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 9 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
All of the unrestricted hours (i.e., the hours that meet the operating restriction described in
Section 5.0) were grouped based on wind speed and stability condition. The wind speeds were
grouped in four ranges as identified below:
• Category 0: 3.0 miles per hour (mph)-5.0 mph
• Category 1: 5.0 mph - 7.5 mph
• Category 2: 7.5 mph - 10.0 mph
• Category 3: 10.0 mph-12.5 mph
• Category 4: 12.5 mph - 15 mph
Atmospheric stabilities were grouped in six Pasquill-Gifford (PG) atmospheric stability classes
for each of the hours in each of the wind speed categories listed above.
The OBODM was used to determine the vapor cloud height for each combination of the PG
atmospheric stability class and wind speed categories. The vapor cloud heights were determined
for the lower threshold, the higher threshold, and midpoint for each wind speed category. To
ensure a conservative impact assessment, the minimum cloud height out of these three wind
speeds were considered for each combination of atmospheric stability and wind speed category.
This approach was presented in the March 2013 Hybrid Air Modeling Protocol and has been
discussed with and accepted by UDSHW. Attachment 1 shows all vapor cloud heights
determined by OBODM for each combination of the PG atmospheric stability class and wind
speed categories for OB. A summary of the lowest total cloud height for each scenario is also
provided.
The procedure outlined here for determining the vapor cloud heights specific to meteorological
conditions was conducted for each of the scenarios proposed for representing the OB/OD events.
In the case of scenarios that consider simultaneous events at multiple burn stations, only one
representative burn station was modeled in OBODM for each scenario. The resulting vapor
cloud height was then applied to each of the other identical burn stations for that scenario.
4.2.2 Open Detonation
The same procedure described for OB was used for determination of vapor cloud height for OD
using the OBODM. Attachment 1 shows all vapor cloud heights determined by OBODM for
each combination of the PG atmospheric stability class and wind speed categories for OD. A
summary of the lowest total cloud height for each scenario is also provided.
4.3 Initial Dimensions of Vapor Cloud
4.3.1 Open Burning
During rapid rise of the cloud from the OB, atmospheric air is entrained and the dimension of the
cloud increases. OBODM does not calculate the initial release diameter for quasi-continuous
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc 10 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
releases, such as open burns. Therefore, site observations of burn operations were utilized in
estimating this parameter. Based on videos of the open burning events, the final dimensions of
the cloud at final plume height are typically four to eight times larger than the dimension of the
burn pans. As a conservative estimate, the cloud diameter was based on four times the
equivalent diameter of the burn pans. Because the burn stations have multiple adjacent burn
pans, the equivalent diameter was based on the total area covered by the reactive waste. It is
assumed that the vapor cloud plume is a sphere.
The burn pan layout was estimated to be four burn pans in a square pattern. Due to the circular
shape of the cloud plume, the burn pan equivalent diameter is estimated assuming the burn pan
area is circular. A sample calculation to determine the cloud diameter for Scenario M-136A-1 is
shown in Example 4-1.
Example 4-1:
• M-136A-1 single burn pan size: 8 feet by 13 feet
• Burn pan area of four M-136A-1 burn pans: 16 feet by 26 feet (square pattern)
The initial volume source diameter is estimated to be four times the burn pan equivalent diameter
or 28.06 meters (m).
Per AERMOD guidance, the initial vertical and horizontal dimensions of an elevated volume
source, such as the vapor cloud, were calculated by dividing the initial cloud diameter (i.e., four
times equivalent diameter covered by reactive waste on burn pans) by a factor of 4.3. Detailed
parameters for all scenarios are provided in Table 4-1.
4.3.2 Open Detonation
The initial dimension of the vapor cloud was obtained directly from the OBODM output. As
described earlier in this document, OBODM was used to model each combination of wind speed
category and PG atmospheric stability considered in this phase of the analysis. OBODM yielded
the same initial vapor cloud diameter for each OD scenario modeled, regardless of the
meteorological conditions considered. Calculation of vapor cloud dimensions for buoyant
sources is described in Section 2.6.3 of Volume 2 of the OBODM User's Guide, dated April
1998. The initial vapor cloud diameter for detonations, as presented in the OBODM output,
4 * Burn Pan Area 4 * 38.65 m2
Burn Pan Equivalent Diameter =
n n
= 7.01m
CB&t Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 11 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
appears to be calculated using Equation 2-75 of the OBODM User's Guide and is assumed to
represent the initial diameter of the cloud immediately after detonation. Note that the initial
diameter is the only lateral dimension reported in the OBODM output. Equation 2-75
determines the initial radius as a function of the quantity of material detonated, the effective heat
content of the material detonated, and the ambient temperature, among other parameters. For
this analysis, the ambient temperature used in OBODM was a default temperature of 293 degrees
Kelvin. The modeled ambient temperature was kept constant for each combination of wind
speed category and atmospheric stability evaluated. Based on a cursory analysis, variations in
the ambient air temperature do not have a significant effect on the initial diameter determined by
OBODM. However, at this time, OBODM is not actively supported by its developers or by any
regulatory agency, and it is not entirely clear from the User's Guide how the equations presented
in Section 2.6.3 are used by the model. The application of the equations for determining cloud
dimensions using OBODM is considered an area of uncertainty in this analysis.
Per AERMOD guidance, the initial vertical and horizontal dimensions of an elevated volume
source, such as the vapor cloud, were calculated by dividing the initial vapor cloud diameter by a
factor of 4.3. Detailed parameters for all scenarios are provided in Table 4-4.
4.4 Other Source Parameters
4.4.1 M-136 Stations
Burn Stations 1 through 12 are clustered within 100 m of each other. Six of the 12 stations
located closest to the western property line (Stations 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 11) were modeled as six
separate sources. Burn Stations 13 and 14 were modeled separately.
From previous modeling and from burn information provided by the facility, the following
assumptions were made:
• Burn Stations 1 through 12 each consist of four adjacent burn pans. The average
dimension of each burn pan is 8 feet by 13 feet, and the burn pan layout per station is
approximated as an area of 16 feet by 26 feet.
• Burn Station 13 consists of two adjacent burn pans. The average dimension of each
pan is 6 feet by 9 feet, and the burn pan layout for this station is approximated as an
area of 9 feet by 12 feet.
• Burn Station 14 consists of four adjacent burn pans. The average dimension of each
burn pan is 8 feet by 13 feet, and the burn pan layout for this station is approximated
as an area of 16 feet by 26 feet.
• The dimension of the rocket motor burn area at Burn Station 14 is assumed to be
5 feet by 50 feet.
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc 12 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
• The height of burn stations = 1.0 m.
• The detonation will be started at ground level.
4.4.2 M-225 Stations
Burn Stations 1 through 4 are clustered within 100 m and were modeled as a single source
located approximately at the center of the cluster. The OD pit was modeled separately. From
previous modeling and from burn information provided by the facility, the following
assumptions were made:
• Burn Stations 1 through 4 each consist of one burn pan, having an average pan
dimension of 6 feet by 17 feet.
• The height of burn stations = 1.0 m.
• The detonation will be started at ground level.
4.5 Summary of AERMOD Modeling Parameters
Based on the information, a summary of the actual parameters used for modeling are described
below.
4.5.1 M-136 Stations
The source parameters for M-136 are shown in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: M-136 Source Parameters
Parameter M-136-A1 M-136-A2 M-136-A3 M-136B M-136-C
OB/OD Identification OB OB OB OB OD
Daily Quantity Burned
(Ib reactive waste) 96,000 10,000 16,000 125,000 1,200
Annual Quantity Burned
(Ib reactive waste) 6720,000 840,000 840,000 1,500,000 100,000
Burn Pan Area (m2) 38.65 10.03 38.65 23.23
Burn Pan Equivalent Diameter (m) 7.01 3.57 7.01 5.44
Volume Source Diameter (m) 28.06 14.3 28.06 21.75 19.51
Initial Sigma Y (m) 6.53 3.32 6.53 5.06 4.54
Initial Sigma Z (m) 6.53 3.32 6.53 5.06 4.54
Release height (m) 238 219.3 238 297 189.7
Notes: m2 = Square meter,
m = Mefer.
To determine the emission rates used in AERMOD, the maximum emission factors described in
Section 3.0 were multiplied by the daily quantity burned for each scenario. The actual emission
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 13 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
rates were determined based on the reactive waste for each scenario and assuming only one event
would occur per hour. A sample calculation for PM-10 for Scenario M-136A-1 is shown
Example 4-2.
Example 4-2:
• M-136A-1 reactive waste: 96,000 lbs
• Maximum PM-10 emission factor from Table 3-2: 0.12 lb/lb reactive waste
/ lb \ lb
Emission Rate = 96,000 lb reactive waste * 0.12 — ;
\eventJ lb reactive waste
= 11,520 lb/event
Since AERMOD considers emissions to be continuous over one hour and based on the
assumption that each event would occur within one hour, the lb per event is equal to the lb per
hour emission rate.
/ lb \ /lb\ lb
Emission Rate = Emission Rate — = 11,520 —
\eventJ \hrJ nr
Converting to grams per second:
Emission Rate ) = 11,52 g\ lb 453.6 g hr
' • — * *
hr lb
_ =1,451.5-3600 s s
The actual emission rates for NAAQS and air toxics are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3,
respectively.
Table 4-2: M-136 Actual Emission Rates for Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant
Emission Rate (g/s)
M-136-A1 M-136-A2 M-136-A3 M-136-B M-136-C
PM-10
PM-2.5
S02
NO2
1,451.5
725.8
6.0
77.4
151.2
75.6
0.6
8.1
241.9
121.0
1.0
12.9
1,890.0
945.0
7.9
100.8
18.1
9.1
0.1
1.0
Table 4-3: M-136 Actual Emission Rates for Air Toxics
Pollutant
Emission Rate
(g/s)
M-136-A
Isophorone 8.45E-03
Formaldehyde 7.22E-01
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 14 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
Pollutant
Hydrogen Chloride
Hydrogen Cyanide
1,2,4,-Trichlororbenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene2
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
o-Toluidine
Phenol
CI2
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
1,4-Dioxane
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Cumene
Styrene
Toluene
Vinyl Chloride
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Selenium
Emission Rate
(g/s)
M-136-A
2.77E+02
3.38E-01
2.00E-02
1.12E-02
8.45E-03
1.08E-01
3.69E-02
1.84E+02
1.12E-02
3.69E-01
9.84E-03
2.92E-01
2.46E-01
7.22E-01
2.00E-02
2.31 E-01
3.84E-02
9.38E-02
2.00E-02
6.46E-03
1.52E-02
2.92E-01
1.17E-01
4.46E-01
8.45E-03
9.38E-03
3.07E-01
9.38E-03
1.44E+00
1.14E-03
8.92E-01
1.69E+00
2.46E-02
Note: Air toxics modeling was only completed for Scenario M-136-A because that scenario was determined to have the greatest impact.
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 15 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
4.5.2 M-225 Stations
The source parameters for Scenarios M-225 are shown in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4: M-225 Source Parameters
Parameter M-225-A M-225-B
OB/OD Identification OB OD
Daily Quantity Burned (Ib reactive waste) 4,500 600
Annual Quantity Burned (Ib reactive waste) 55,000 10,000
Burn Pan Area (m2) 9.48
Burn Pan Equivalent Diameter (m) 3.47
Volume Source Diameter (m) 13.89 19.51
Initial Sigma Y (m) 3.23 4.54
Initial Sigma Z (m) 3.23 4.54
Release height (m) 148.8 189.7
To determine the emission rates used in AERMOD, the maximum emission factors described in
Section 3.0 were multiplied by the daily quantity burned for each scenario. The actual emission
rates were determined based on the reactive waste for each scenario and assuming only one event
would occur per hour. A sample calculation for PM-10 for Scenario M-225-A is shown
Example 4-3.
Example 4-3:
• M-225-A reactive waste: 4,500 lbs
• Maximum PM-10 emission factor from Table 3-2: 0.12 lb/lb reactive waste
/ lb \ lb Emission Rate = 4,500 lb reactive waste * 0.12 — : = 540 lb/event \event) lb reactive waste
Since AERMOD considers emissions to be continuous over one hour and based on the
assumption that each event would occur within one hour, the lb per event is equal to the lb per
hour emission rate.
( lb \ (lb\ Emission Rate = Emission Rate I —I — 540 -\event) \hr) nr
( lb \ (lb\ lb
^ • 1 — C-wi i pplrtti Dn+a I 1 — CAI1
Converting to grams per second:
/#\ lb 453.6 5 hr g Emission Rate [ — ) — 540 — * —-— * = 68.0 — W hr lb 3600 s s
The emission rates for NAAQS and air toxics are shown in Tables 4-5 and 4-6, respectively.
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 16 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
Table 4-5: M-225 Actual Emission Rates for Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant
Emission Rate (g/s)
M-225-A M-225-B
PM-10 68.0 9.1
PM-2.5 34.0 4.5
S02 0.3 0.04
NO2 3.6 0.5
Table 4-6: M-225 Actual Emission Rates for Air Toxics
Pollutant
Emission Rate
(g/s)
M-225-A
Isophorone 3.12E-04
Formaldehyde 2.66E-02
Hydrogen Chloride 1.02E+01
Hydrogen Cyanide 1.25E-02
1,2,4,-Trichlororbenzene 7.37E-04
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 4.14E-04
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 3.12E-04
o-Toluidine 3.97E-03
Phenol 1.36E-03
CI2 6.80E+00
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 4.14E-04
1,3-Butadiene 1.36E-02
1,4-Dioxane 3.63E-04
Acetonitrile 1.08E-02
Acrylonitrile 9.07E-03
Benzene 2.66E-02
Bromoform 7.37E-04
Carbon Tetrachloride 8.51 E-03
Chlorobenzene 1.42E-03
Chloroform 3.46E-03
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 7.37E-04
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 17 Addendum to Mr Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
Pollutant
Cumene
Styrene
Toluene
Vinyl Chloride
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Selenium
Emission Rate
(g/s)
M-225-A
2.38E-04
5.61E-04
1.08E-02
4.31 E-03
1.64E-02
3.12E-04
3.46E-04
1.13E-02
3.46E-04
5.33E-02
4.20E-05
3.29E-02
6.24E-02
9.07E-04
Note: Air toxics modeling was only completed for Scenario M-225-A because that scenario was determined to have the greatest impact.
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 18 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
5.0 Model Defaults and Assumptions
USEPA's AERMOD (version 12345) was used for estimating the impact of the vapor cloud on
downwind receptors. To ensure the AERMOD results represent a significant refinement, the
following restrictions were considered for modeling:
• The events will occur only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. Mountain Standard Time
(MST) and 6:00 p.m. MST
• The wind speed during the events will be between 3 mph and 15 mph
• The Clearing Index during the events will be 500 or higher
Five years of meteorological data were screened for potential operating hours considering these
restrictions. The summary of screened hours is shown in Attachment 2. These hours were
modeled for the ambient impact assessment and the risk assessment.
Hourly emission rate files were used in AERMOD to ensure modeling occurred only during the
hours that met restrictions defined above. The hourly emission rate files identify the emission
rate (g/s), release height (m), initial horizontal diameter (m), and initial vertical diameter (m) for
each hour of meteorological data. An example of one hour of hourly meteorological data is
shown below:
SO HOUREMIS 97 01 04 13 M136_A1_1 120.96 218.5 6.53 6.53
With the parameters defined as follows:
• Emission rate of 120.96 g/s
• Release height of 218.5 m for Stability Class 4 (Class D) and Wind Speed Category 4
(12.5 mph to 15 mph)
• Initial horizontal diameter of 6.53 m
• Initial vertical diameter of 6.53 m
CBSI Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 19 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
6.0 Meteorological Data
6.1 Meteorological Data Processing
Five years (1997 to 2001) of on-site meteorological data obtained from the site were used in the
preliminary modeling. As stated in Section 2.13.1 of the preliminary modeling report, the on-site
meteorological data used were collected at the M-245 meteorological monitoring station, located
approximately 0.35 km southwest of the M-225 treatment unit at an elevation of about 5,000 feet
above mean sea level. The same meteorological data were used after reprocessing the data for
AERMOD using the preprocessor, AERMET (version 12345). Non-urban (i.e., rural) land use
determined from previous modeling was used in AERMET. The five years (1997 through 2001)
of on-site hourly meteorological data were obtained from the site in CD-144 format and included
wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and barometric pressure monitored at the site along
with concurrent ceiling height and opaque cloud cover from Hill Air Force Base. Twice daily
upper air data for Salt Lake City were obtained in Forecast Systems Laboratory format from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth System Research Laboratory
Radiosonde Database. The hourly surface meteorological observations were then used along
with the twice daily Salt Lake City upper air data in the AERMET pre-preprocessor to develop
surface and vertical profile meteorological databases for use in AERMOD. This processing was
conducted in accordance with the latest USEPA AERMOD Implementation Guide dated
March 19, 2009.
6.2 Land Use and Surface Characteristics
The surface characteristics used in processing the meteorological data in AERMET were
developed using the USEPA's AERSURFACE program (version 13016). The AERSURFACE
program requires the input of digital land cover data from the United States Geological Survey
National Land Cover Data 1992 archives (NLCD92), which it uses to determine the land cover
types for the user-specified location. AERSURFACE matches the NLCD92 land cover
categories to seasonal values of albedo, Bowen ratio, and surface roughness. Values of surface
characteristics are calculated based on the land cover data for the area surrounding the site of the
surface meteorological data collection.
For this application, land use data were obtained for the area surrounding the ATK site and were
used in AERSURFACE to generate values of albedo, Bowen ratio, and surface roughness as a
function of the four seasons (i.e., winter, spring, summer, and fall) and for each of six 60-degree
directional sectors. This approach of generating surface characteristics at the site of the surface
meteorological data collection is consistent with the latest USEPA guidance (i.e., AERMOD
Implementation Guide dated March 19, 2009, Ref. 7.7).
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 20 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
The specific inputs and assumptions used in the AERSURFACE runs are as follows:
• Center latitude (decimal degrees): 41.854
• Center longitude (decimal degrees): -112.432
• Datum: NAD83
• Study radius (km) for surface roughness: 1.0
• Airport? No
• Continuous snow cover? No
• Surface moisture? Dry
• Arid region? Yes
• Month/season assignments? Default
• Late autumn after frost and harvest, or winter with no snow: 12 1 2
• Winter with continuous snow on the ground: 0
• Transitional spring (partial green coverage, short annuals): 3 4 5
• Midsummer with lush vegetation: 6 7 8
• Autumn with unharvested cropland: 9 10 11
The meteorological data files including the processing data files have been provided in
Attachment 4.
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure. Inc 21 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
7.0 Receptor Grid Layout
For NAAQS and air toxics analysis, an off-site receptor grid was used to determine the
maximum off-site ground level concentrations. The layout of the receptors was as follows:
Discrete receptors were placed along the property fence line at 100-m intervals. A Cartesian
receptor grid starting from the property line extended up to 10 km in all directions. This
Cartesian receptor grid was spaced at 100-m intervals to a distance of 3 km from the facility and
at 500-m intervals between 3 km and 10 km from the facility. The off-site/boundary receptor
grid is shown in Figure 7-1.
>0©©0GO© 00
jHBHHI • G © O (5,8 O O O (
| 0 S 589,6891
Figure 7-1: Off-site/Boundary Receptor Grid Layout
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 22 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
The terrain data for each receptor were processed using AERMOD's terrain data preprocessor,
AERMAP. Using AERMAP, the base elevation and hill height scale values were determined for
each receptor. The digital terrain data were obtained from 1 arc second National Elevation
Dataset.
The receptor grids used in the modeling conducted in support of the risk assessment are
discussed in detail in Section 10.1 and include the off-site receptor grid described above.
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 23 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
8.0 Modeled Output
The OB and OD events were considered for only one hour per day. NAAQS compliance was
demonstrated by comparing the design modeled concentration for all pollutants and averaging
times with the respective NAAQS. The methodologies for one-hour, three-hour, 24-hour, and
annual impacts are described as follows.
8.1 Maximum One-Hour Impact
AERMOD was used to calculate the maximum one-hour average impact over each year of five
years of meteorological data covering all of the unrestricted hours of operation. This is the
maximum one-hour average concentration for the OB/OD operations in any day of the year for
each of the five years. These five one-hour average impacts for the five years were averaged to
obtain the five-year average maximum one-hour impact.
8.2 Maximum Three-Hour and 24-Hour Impacts
Because only one hour of OB/OD events will occur in any day (and there is no impact during the
remainder of the day), the maximum values of three-hour and 24-hour averages were also based
on the one-hour maximum value. For example, the maximum 24-hour average concentration in
any year was calculated by dividing the maximum one-hour concentration for that year by a
factor of 24 as shown below:
Maxx-hr
Max2±-hr = 24
Where:
•1
Max24.hr = Maximum 24-hour average concentration in ug/m
Maxi.hr = Maximum one-hour average concentration in ug/m
Similarly, for the maximum three-hour concentrations, the maximum one-hour average is
divided by three. The maximum three-hour and 24-hour averages for each of the five years were
averaged to obtain the five-year average value for each short-term averaging time.
8.3 Maximum Annual Impact
The annual total OB and OD quantities are restricted by permitted levels. To account for this
limitation on annual OB/OD quantities, the following calculation was used:
CBSI Environmental S Infrastructure, Inc 24 Addendum ID Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
-daily
Maxannual = -
Qgnnual * i UD 7) * LtiKmax
8760
Where:
Maxannuai = Maximum annual average concentration in ug/m3
Qannuai = Annual quantity of reactive waste in OB/OD (lbs)
Qdaiiy = Daily quantity of reactive waste in OB/OD (lbs)
lHRmax = Maximum one-hour impact based on daily reactive waste quantity
8760 = Number of hours per year
Note: The term [Qannuai/Qdaiiy] represents the total number of days per year the OB/OD
events can occur to reach the annual permitted quantities.
This assumes that for each hour the OB/OD operations were carried out to meet the annual
quantity, the impact was the same as the maximum one-hour determined previously. This is a
conservative assumption.
Each year of maximum one-hour average impact obtained from AERMOD was used to calculate
the maximum annual impact for each year. The five maximum annual impacts were averaged to
obtain the five-year average annual impact.
The permitted annual reactive waste quantities for the OB/OD operations are as follows. These
quantities were used as the "Qannuai" in the above equation to calculate the maximum annual
average concentrations.
M-136:
M-225:
• Scenario Al - Open Burn in Stations 1 throughl2: 6,720,000 lbs
• Scenario A2 - Open Burn in Station 13: 840,000 lbs
• Scenario A3-Open Burn in Station 14: 840,000 lbs
• Scenario B - Large Rocket Motor in Station 14: 1,500,000 lbs
• Scenario C - Open Detonation in Stations 13 and 14: 100,000 lbs
Scenario A - Open Burn in Stations 1 through 4: 55,000 lbs
Scenario B - Open Detonation in Station 1: 10,000 lbs
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc 25 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
9.0 Compliance Demonstration with NAAQS and Air Toxic Standards
One objective of the modeling was to determine compliance with all applicable NAAQS and air
toxics. The NAAQS and air toxics modeling results are described as follows:
9.1 NAAQS Analysis
NAAQS compliance was demonstrated by comparing the design modeled concentration for all
pollutants and averaging times with the respective NAAQS. No background concentrations were
added to the design modeled concentration because, as mentioned in Section 3.0, the emission
factors used for the modeling included background concentration. For all averaging times and
pollutants, Scenarios M-136-A and M-225-A had the highest impact. A flash drive of all
modeling results are shown in Attachment 3. The design modeled cumulative results are shown in
Table 9-1.
Table 9-1: Results of Cumulative Impact for M-136 and M-225 - Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Averaging
Time Group Rank
Design
Model
Cone.
(M9/m3)
NAAQS
(Mg'm3) % of NAAQS
Exceedance of
NAAQS?
(Yes/No)
PM-2.5
24-HR
Annual
M136_A 1ST 25.00 35
M225 A 1ST 1.48 35
Total 1ST 26.49 35
M136_A 1ST 5.75 12
M225_A 1ST 0.05 12
Total 1ST 5.81 12
71.44%
4.23%
75.67%
47.95%
0.44%
48.39%
No
No
No
No
No
No
PM-10 24-HR
M136_A 1ST 57.14 150
M225_A 1ST 3.65 150
Total 1ST 60.79 150
38.10%
2.43%
40.53%
No
No
No
NQ2
1-HR
Annual
M136_A 1ST 64.01 189
M225 A 1ST 3.79 189
Total 1ST 67.80 189
M136 A 1ST 0.70 100
M225_A 1ST 0.007 100
Total 1ST 0.71 100
33.87%
2.01%
35.87%
0.70%
0.007%
0.71%
No
No
No
No
No
No
SO2
1-HR
3-HR
M136 A 1ST 5.00 195
M225 A 1ST 0.30 195
Total 1ST 5.30 195
M136_A
M225_A
Total
1ST
1ST
1ST
1.67
0.10
1.77
1300
1300
1300
2.56%
0.15%
2.72%
0.13%
0.01%
0.14%
No
No
No
No
No
No
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 26 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
Pollutant Averaging
Time Group Rank
Design
Model
Cone.
(Mg/m3)
NAAQS
(Mg/m3) % of NAAQS
Exceedance of
NAAQS?
(Yes/No)
CO
1-HR
8-HR
M136_A 1ST 64.01 40,000
M225_A 1ST 3.79 40,000
Total 1ST 67.80 40,000
M136_A 1ST 8.00 10,000
M225_A 1ST 0.47 10,000
Total 1ST 8.48 10,000
0.16%
0.01%
0.17%
0.08%
0.005%
0.08%
No
No
No
No
No
No
The results for all pollutants and averaging times show compliance with NAAQS. Therefore, no
additional modeling was required. A flash drive of all modeling inputs and outputs is provided
in Attachment 4.
9.2 Air Toxics Analysis
Air toxics results were compared with short-term and long-term TSLs. Results of the NAAQS
analysis indicated that Scenarios M-136-A and M-225-A had the highest impact. Therefore,
only these scenarios were considered for the air toxics analysis. The design modeled cumulative
results for the acute and chronic air toxics are shown in Tables 9-2 and 9-3, respectively.
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 27 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
Table 9-2: Results of Cumulative Impact for M-136 and M-225 - Acute One-Hour Air Toxics
Air Toxic
Acute 1-hr
TSL Value
Mg/m3
Scenario M136A
1-HR Cone.
ug/m3
% ofTSL
Exceed
TSL?
(Yes/No)
Scenario M225A
1-HR Cone.
ug/m3
% of TSL
Exceed
TSL?
(Yes/No)
Total (M136Aand M225A)
1-HR
Cone.
ug/m3 TSL
Exceed TSL?
(Yes/No)
Isophorone 2,826 0.006 0.0002% No 0.0003 0.00001% No 0.006 0.0002% No
Formaldehyde 37 0.470 1.27% No 0.028 0.08% No 0.498 1.35% No
Hydrogen Chloride 298 180.034 60.41% No 10.662 3.58% No 190.696 63.99% No
Hydrogen Cyanide 520 0.220 0.04% No 0.013 0.003% No 0.233 0.04% No
1,2,4,-
Trichlororbenzene 3,711 0.013 0.0004% No 0.001 0.00002% No 0.014 0.0004% No
Table 9-3: Results of Cumulative Impact for M-136 and M-225 - Chronic 24-Hour Air Toxics
Air Toxic
Chronic
24-hr TSL
Value
ug/m3
Scenario M136A
24-HR Cone.
ug/m3
% ofTSL
Exceed
TSL?
(Yes/No)
Scenario M225A
24-HR
Cone.
ug/m3
% of TSL
Exceed
TSL?
(Yes/No)
Total (M136Aand M225A)
24-HR
Cone.
Mg/m3
%of
TSL
Exceed
TSL?
(Yes/No)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2004 3.04E-04 0.00% No 1.80E-05 0.00% No 3.22E-04 0.00% No
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2.29E-04 0.00% No 1.36E-05 0.00% No 2.43E-04 0.00% No
o-Toluidine 292 2.92E-03 0.00% No 1.73E-04 0.00% No 3.09E-03 0.00% No
Phenol 642 1.00E-03 0.00% No 5.92E-05 0.00% No 1.06E-03 0.00% No
CI2 48 5.00E+00 10.42% No 2.96E-01 0.62% No 5.30E+00 11.04% No
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1819 3.04E-04 0.00% No 1.80E-05 0.00% No 3.22E-04 0.00% No
1,3-Butadiene 49 1.00E-02 0.02% No 5.92E-04 0.00% No 1.06E-02 0.02% No
1,4-Dioxane 2402 2.67E-04 0.00% No 1.58E-05 0.00% No 2.83E-04 0.00% No
Acetonitrile 1119 7.92E-03 0.00% No 4.69E-04 0.00% No 8.39E-03 0.00% No
Acrylonitrile 145 6.67E-03 0.00% No 3.95E-04 0.00% No 7.06E-03 0.00% No
Benzene 18 1.96E-02 0.11% No 1.16E-03 0.01% No 2.07E-02 0.12% No
Bromoform 172 5.42E-04 0.00% No 3.21 E-05 0.00% No 5.74E-04 0.00% No
CB&I Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc. 28 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
Air Toxic
Chronic
24-hr TSL
Value
ug/m3
Scenario M136A
24-HR Cone.
pg/m3
% of TSL
Exceed
TSL?
(Yes/No)
Scenario M225A
24-HR
Cone.
Mg/m3
% of TSL
Exceed
TSL?
(Yes/No)
Total (M136Aand M225A)
24-HR
Cone.
Mg/m3
%of
TSL
Exceed
TSL?
(Yes/No)
Carbon Tetrachloride 350 6.25E-03 0.00% No 3.70E-04 0.00% No 6.62E-03 0.00% No
Chlorobenzene 1535 1.04E-03 0.00% No 6.17E-05 0.00% No 1.10E-03 0.00% No
Chloroform 1628 2.54E-03 0.00% No 1.51E-04 0.00% No 2.69E-03 0.00% No
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 151 5.42E-04 0.00% No 3.21 E-05 0.00% No 5.74E-04 0.00% No
Cumene 8193 1.75E-04 0.00% No 1.04E-05 0.00% No 1.85E-04 0.00% No
Styrene 2840 4.13E-04 0.00% No 2.44E-05 0.00% No 4.37E-04 0.00% No
Toluene 2512 7.92E-03 0.00% No 4.69E-04 0.00% No 8.39E-03 0.00% No
Vinyl Chloride 28 3.17E-03 0.01% No 1.88E-04 0.00% No 3.35E-03 0.01% No
Antimony 17 1.21E-02 0.07% No 7.16E-04 0.00% No 1.28E-02 0.08% No
Arsenic 0.11 2.29E-04 0.21% No 1.36E-05 0.01% No 2.43E-04 0.22% No
Cadmium 0.02 2.54E-04 1.27% No 1.51 E-05 0.08% No 2.69E-04 1.35% No
Chromium 0.11 8.33E-03 7.58% No 4.94E-04 0.45% No 8.83E-03 8.03% No
Cobalt 0.67 2.54E-04 0.04% No 1.51 E-05 0.00% No 2.69E-04 0.04% No
Manganese 6.7 3.92E-02 0.58% No 2.32E-03 0.03% No 4.15E-02 0.62% No
Mercury 0.33 3.08E-05 0.01% No 1.83E-06 0.00% No 3.27E-05 0.01% No
Nickel 1.11 2.42E-02 2.18% No 1.43E-03 0.13% No 2.56E-02 2.31% No
Phosphorus 3.3 4.58E-02 1.39% No 2.71 E-03 0.08% No 4.86E-02 1.47% No
Selenium 6.7 6.67E-04 0.01% No 3.95E-05 0.00% No 7.06E-04 0.01% No
The results for all pollutants and averaging times show compliance with Utah's TSLs. Therefore, no additional modeling was
required. A flash drive of all modeling inputs and outputs is provided in Attachment 4.
CB&I Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc. 29 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
10.0 Development of Air Dispersion Factors for Risk Assessment
In addition to demonstrating compliance with NAAQS and air toxics standards, another
objective of the modeling was to develop factors in support of future risk assessment. Human
health and ecological risk assessment requires maximum values of one-hour and annual average
air dispersion factors (ADFs) for gas concentration, particulate concentration, gas dry deposition,
and particulate dry deposition at selected receptor locations. These ADFs were generated using
the hybrid OBODM and AERMOD models as described earlier.
10.1 Receptor Locations
The ADFs were estimated at the maximum exposed individual (MEI) locations within the
facility and off site. The MEI locations are the locations of maximum impact at on-site and off-
site locations. The site boundary was included in both on-site and off-site receptor grids for
consistency.
The on-site receptor grid consisted of a Cartesian grid with 100-m spacing to cover the area
bounded by the facility property boundary. The worker safety buffer zones, consisting of an
approximate 2,000-foot radius around the M-136 location and an approximate 2,500-foot radius
around the M-225 location, were excluded from the on-site receptor grid when modeling each
scenario, respectively. These buffer zones represent the area from which field personnel are
excluded during OB/OD events. The off-site receptor grid and the site boundary receptors used
were as described in Section 7.0 for the air quality assessment. Figures 10-1 and 10-2 show the
on-site receptor grids for M-136 and M-225 modeling, respectively.
CB&I Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc 30 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
Figure 10-1: M-136 On-site Receptor Grid Layout
CB&I Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc. q A Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
^ ' ATK Launch Systems
Figure 10-2: M-225 On-site Receptor Grid Layout
In addition, the risk assessment will consider several discrete locations in and around the facility.
ADFs were determined for these discrete locations which are listed below:
• The Adam's Ranch, which is the closest domestic dwelling to M-136, is located
approximately 3 km south-southwest of M-136.
• The Holmgren Ranch, which is the closest domestic dwelling to M-225, is located
approximately 2 km east-southeast of M-225.
• Four facility boundary receptors that are selected based on the annual prevailing wind
direction measured over a five-year period (1997 through 2001) at the M-245
meteorological monitoring station.
CBSI Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc 32 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
• AutoLiv facility, an off-site commercial business located between the M-136 and
M-225 treatment units.
• Christensen residence, a residential dwelling located due north of ATK.
• Blue Creek perennial stream, which runs along the western boundary of M-136.
• The Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, located about 10.5 km south-southwest of
M-225.
• The Salt Creek Waterfowl Management Area, located 13 km east of ATK.
• The Thiokol Ranch Pond (ATK Ranch Pond), which is located approximately 14 km
southwest of M-225.
• The Howell Dairy Farm just north of the ATK northern property boundary.
• The Town of Penrose, located approximately 7 miles southeast of M-136.
• The Town of Thatcher, located approximately 7.5 miles due east of M-136.
• Two on-site discrete receptors to assess potential risk to ATK workers that are not
directly involved with the activities at the M-136 and M-225 treatment units. These
on-site discrete receptors represent areas where most non-treatment-related
employees spend their time on site. The on-site discrete receptors include the
following:
- North Plant Main Administration Building and Main Manufacturing Area -
2.5 miles north of M-136 and 6.7 miles north-northwest of M-225.
- South Plant Main Administration Building and Main Manufacturing Area -
1.8 miles south of M-136 and 3.9 miles west-northwest of M-225.
The discrete receptor grid is shown in Figure 10-3.
CB&I Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc 33 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
Figure 10-3: Discrete Receptor Grid Layout
10.2 Pollutant Phases
The following phases were considered in estimating the ADFs at the on-site MEI, off-site MEI,
and discrete receptors:
• Gas phase one-hour and annual concentrations
• Particle phase one-hour and annual concentrations
CB&I Environmental and infrastructure, Inc. 34 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
• Particle-bound phase one-hour and annual concentrations
• Gas phase annual dry deposition
• Particle phase annual dry deposition
• Particle-bound phase annual dry deposition
Note that ADFs are not estimated for wet deposition. This deposition mechanism is not
applicable for this assessment, since treatment operations are not conducted during precipitation
events.
As input to the risk assessment, the ADFs for each pollutant phase were developed using
AERMOD for the M-136 and M-225 scenarios described in Section 4.0 of this document.
The ADFs are based on a unit emission rate of 1 g/s for each source within a scenario. The
ADFs developed for each scenario will be multiplied by emission rates of specific pollutants in
the risk assessment to be conducted by other consultants. Mercury speciation and exposure will
be applied within the risk assessment model, which follows guidance for mercury evaluation
found in the Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) for Hazardous Waste
Combustion Facilities (USEPA, September 2005).
Within AERMOD, the gas phase dry deposition was modeled using a conservative deposition
velocity of 0.03 meter per second (m/sec), which is the highest of the default values specified in
the HHRAP guidance. This velocity is consistent with the value used in the preliminary
modeling performed by Tetra Tech and presented in their modeling report dated July 2012.
UDSHW accepted the velocity of 0.03 m/sec in Tetra Tech's modeling.
Modeling of the particle and particle-bound phases in AERMOD required the input of particle
size distribution data including: particle diameter, the mass distribution for particle phase
emissions, the surface area distribution for particle-bound phase emissions, and particle density.
The upper and lower bound diameter of each particle size category and the corresponding
particle mass fractions were generated by OBODM considering the particle information used in
previous modeling by Tetra Tech, which assumed a mass median particle diameter of
30 microns, a standard deviation of 2 microns, and 10 size categories. The mean particle size
diameter for each category was calculated from the upper and lower bounds obtained from the
OBODM particle data using Equation 3-1 in the HHRAP. For modeling of the particle-bound
phase, the equations in Section 3.2.3 of the HHRAP were used to calculate the surface area-
weighted distribution of the particle size categories. The particle size distribution data for
modeling of particle and particle-bound phases in AERMOD are summarized in Table 10-1.
CB&I Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc 35 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
Table 10-1: Particle Distribution Data
OBODM/Historical Modeling Calculated From HHRAP Guidance
Particle Size Category
Bounds Mass
Fraction
Mean Particle
Diameter*
(Mm)
Particle
Radius
(Mm)
Surface
Area
(Mm)2
Volume
(Mm)3
Surface
Area/
Volume
(Mm)1
Proportion
Available
Surface
Area
Fraction of
Total Surface
Area8
Lower Upper FM R = D/2 S=4*pi*RA2 V=(4/3)*pi*RA3 SN F = (S/V)*FM F/sum(F)
344 2.50 0.02265 2.99 1.50 28.17 14.06 2.00361 4.54E-02 7.72E-02
4.73 3.44 0.05202 4.12 2.06 53.29 36.58 1.45678 7.58E-02 1.29E-01
6.50 4.73 0.09708 5.66 2.83 100.68 95.00 1.05986 1.03E-01 1.75E-01
8.94 6.50 0.14713 7.78 3.89 190.34 246.92 0.77084 1.13E-01 1.93E-01
12.30 8.94 0.18113 10.71 5.35 360.21 642.85 0.56034 1.01E-01 1.73E-01
16.92 12.30 0.18113 14.73 7.37 681.71 1,673.68 0.40731 7.38E-02 1.25E-01
23.27 16.92 0.14713 20.26 10.13 1,289.63 4,354.83 0.29614 4.36E-02 7.41 E-02
32.01 23.27 0.09708 27.87 13.93 2,439.91 11,332.75 0.21530 2.09E-02 3.56E-02
44.04 32.01 0.05202 38.34 19.17 4,617.89 29,508.00 0.15650 8.14E-03 1.38E-02
60.57 44.04 0.02265 52.74 26.37 8,737.29 76,796.06 0.11377 2.58E-03 4.38E-03
Notes:
References: 2005 HHRAP Guidance (Section 3.2, Table 3-1).
A Mean Particle Diameter (D); USEPA's HHRAP Guidance, September 2005, Equation 3-1:
D = [0.25*(Di*3 + DiA2*D2 + Di*D2*2 + D2*3)]A(1/3)
Where: Di - lower bound cut of particle size category (ym)
D2 = upper bound cut of particle size category f/jm).
8 Surface area-based distribution for particle-bound phase modeling, as described in Section 3.2.3 of USEPA's HHRAP Guidance, September 2005.
CB&I Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc. 36 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
A particle density of 2.7 grams per cubic meter was applied for this assessment and was assumed
to be constant over all particle size categories. This value corresponds to the density of
aluminum, which was determined from historical testing to be the most abundant metal in the
OB and OD emissions and was the particle density used in previous modeling of the ATK
operations.
10.3 One-Hour ADF for Concentration
The one-hour ADFs were determined individually for each of the sources representing the
operating scenarios for M-136 and M-225 using unit emission rates for emission of gaseous and
particulate pollutants. As described for the air quality assessment, the unit emission rates were
input to AERMOD for each hour of unrestricted operation. For assessing acute risk, maximum
concentrations out of the five years modeled were determined for each modeled scenario at the
on-site MEI, off-site MEI, and at each of the discrete receptors, and these concentrations
represent the one-hour ADF values.
10.4 Annual ADF for Concentration
Annual values of concentration and deposition are used to assess chronic risk and are based on
the five-year averages determined from modeling. For developing the annual ADFs, the models
were programmed to yield one-hour concentration values at each receptor averaged over the
five-year meteorological period. In the same manner as for the annual impacts for the air quality
assessment, the annual ADFs were determined individually from the five-year average one-hour
concentrations for each modeled scenario as follows:
ADFannual
0 1-hr
^ daily
8760
Where:
ADFannuai = Maximum annual average concentration in pg/m3
Qannuai = Annual quantity of reactive waste in OB/OD (lbs)
Qdaiiy = Daily quantity of reactive waste in OB/OD (lbs)
ADF i .hr = 5-year average 1 -hour concentration based on daily reactive waste quantity
8760 = Number of hours per year
Note: The term [Qannual/Qdaiiy] represents the total number of days per year the OB/OD
events can occur to reach the annual permitted quantities.
CBSI Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc 37 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
Annual ADFs for the off-site MEI and the on-site MEI were calculated from the highest five-
year average one-hour concentration values for each scenario over the respective receptor sets.
For the sensitive receptors, annual ADFs were calculated from the five-year average one-hour
concentration values at each discrete receptor.
10.5 Annual ADF for Deposition
The procedure for determining the annual ADFs for dry deposition was similar to the calculation
of the annual ADFs for concentration. First, the five-year average one-hour values for dry
deposition were determined and then the annual ADFs were calculated using the equation shown
in Section 10.4 above.
10.6 Summary of ADFs
The ADFs developed for use in the risk assessment were determined for the M-136 and M-225
scenarios as described above. All modeling files used in determining these ADFs for the risk
assessment are included on the flash drive in Attachment 4. Tables of the ADFs for
concentration and deposition are presented for the off-site MEI, on-site MEI, and discrete
receptors on the flash drive in Attachment 5. Attachment 5 also includes contour plots of the
annual particle dry deposition and annual vapor air concentration for the worst-case event for OB
and OD at both burn grounds. Combined results for both the on-site and off-site receptors are
presented.
Scenario M-13 6-A is the worst-case OB scenario for this treatment location and consists of three
sub-scenarios: M-136-A1, M-136-A2, and M-136-A3. Each sub-scenario was modeled
separately for developing the ADFs, and individual results were obtained for each sub-scenario.
Since Scenario M-136-A1 is the driver and contributes the greatest impact compared to
M-136-A2 and M-136-A3, results from this sub-scenario have been plotted as representative of
M-136-A.
Furthermore, Scenario M-136-A1 was modeled considering simultaneous burns in six separate
burn stations. Since individual results were obtained for each burn station, the results from one
burn station have been plotted and are considered as representative. Similarly, the OD scenario
for this treatment area, M-136-C, was modeled considering two separate stations. The results
from one station have been plotted as representative of this scenario.
CB&I Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc. 38 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
11.0 Conclusion
To ensure the AERMOD results represent a significant refinement over the preliminary modeling
conducted solely with OBODM and to allow for evaluation of more realistic operating
conditions, the air quality modeling results consider that the OB and OD events occur for only
one hour per day and must meet the following criteria:
• The event will occur only between the hours 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. MST
• The wind speed during the event will be between 3 and 15 mph
• The Clearing Index during the events will be 500 or higher
The results indicate that Scenarios M-136-A and M-225-A have the greatest impact. The
cumulative impact of these two scenarios shows compliance with the NAAQS and Utah's acute
and chronic toxic screening levels. Therefore, no additional modeling is required if the above
restrictions are met when performing OB and OD events.
CB&I Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc 39 Addendum to Air Quality Modeling Report
ATK Launch Systems
Attachment 1
Vapor Cloud Heights
Table A-l
OBODM Modeling for Plume Dimensions - M-136 Unit and M-225 Unit, ATK Promontory
Open Burning
Evaluation of Range of Stability Categories and Wind Speed Groups for Unrestricted Operating Hours
Summary of Lowest Total Cloud Heights
Wind Speed
(mph) | (m/s) Scenario
Lowest Total Cloud Height (m)
Quantity of Reactive Waste
per Burn Station Stability Stability
(lb) Class A* Class B**
Stability
Class C
3-5 1.34 - 2.24 M136 Scenario A-l - OB 16,000
M136 Scenario A-2-OB 10,000
M136 Scenario A-3 - OB 16,000
M136 Scenario B- OB 125,000
M225 Scenario A-OB 1,125
1364.4 1116.4 372.4
1255.3 1116.4 372.4
1364.4 1116.4 372.4
1364.4 1116.4 534.2
335.6 335.6 372.4
5-7.5 2.24-3.35 M136 Scenario A-l-OB 16,000
M136 Scenario A-2 - OB 10,000
M136 Scenario A-3 - OB 16,000
M136 Scenario B-OB 125,000
M225 Scenario A-OB 1,125
1328 930.4
1003.8 836.2
1328 930.4
1364.4 930.4
267.9 222.7
744.4
744.4
744.4
744.4
241.6
7.5-10 3.35-4.47 M136 Scenario A-l - OB 16,000
M136 Scenario A-2 - OB 10,000
M136 Scenario A-3-OB 16,000
M136 Scenario B-OB 125,000
M225 Scenario A-OB 1,125
827.9
626.6
827.9
930.4
166.2
744.4
626.6
744.4
744.4
166.2
10-12.5 4.47-5.59 M136 Scenario A-l - OB 16,000
M136 Scenario A-2 - OB 10,000
M136 Scenario A-3 - OB 16,000
M136Scenario B-OB 125,000
M225 Scenario A - OB 1,125
827.9
626.6
827.9
1116.4
166.2
661.2
500.9
661.2
930.4
132.3
12.5-15 5.59 - 6.71 M136 Scenario A-l - OB 16,000
M136 Scenario A-2 - OB 10,000
M136 Scenario A-3 - OB 16,000
M136Scenario B-OB 125,000
M225 Scenario A-OB 1,125
550.1
417.1
550.1
930.4
109.7
550.1
417.1
550.1
930.4
109.7
* A Stability is only valid for winds < 6 knots (6.9 mph or 3.08 m/s)
** B Stability is not valid at winds > 9 knots (10.364 mph or 4.63 m/s)
OBODM automatically adjusted the stability to C for these conditions.
lof 5 Attachment
Tabic A-2
OBODM Modeling for Plume Dimensions - M-136 Unit and M-225 Unit, ATK Promontory
Open Burning
Evaluation of Range of StabiBty Categories and Wind Speed Groups for Unrestricted Operating Hours
(mph)
Speed
(m/s)
Quantity of Reactive Waste
per Bum Station
(lb)
Stability Category A*
Total Cloud
Ht(m)
Stability Category B«
Total Cloud
Ht(m)
Stability Category C
Total Cloud
Ht(m)
Stability Category D
Total Cloud
Ht|m)
1.34 M136 Scenario A-l - OB 16,000 1364.4 1116.4 387.2 200
M136 Scenario A-2 - OB 10,000 1364.4 1116.4 372.4 196
M136 Scenario A-3 - OB 16,000 387.2
M136 Scenario B - OB 125,000 1116.4 549.3
M225 Scenario A - OB 1,125 561.6
M136 Scenario A-l -OB 16,000 1364.4 372.4
M136 Scenario A-2 -OB 1364.4 372.4
M136 Scenario A-3 -OB 1364.4 372.4
M136 Scenario B - OB 125,000
M225 Scenario A - OB 1,125 372.4
M136 Scenario A-l - OB 16,000 744.4
M136 Scenario A-2 - OB 10,000
M136 Scenario A-3 - OB 16,000 1116.4 744.4
M136 Scenario B - OB 744.4
M225 Scenario A - OB 1,125
M136 Scenario A-l - OB 16,000
M136 Scenario A-2 - OB 10,000
M136 Scenario A-3 - OB 16,000
M136 Scenario B - OB 125,000
M225 Scenario A - OB 1,125 31S.2
M136 Scenario A-l - OB 744.4
M136 Scenario A-2 - OB 744.4
M136 Scenario A-3 - OB 16,000
M136 Scenario B - OB 125,000
M225 Scenario A - OB 1,125 241.6
M136 Scenario A-l - OB 16,000
M136 Scenario A-2 - OB 10,000
M136 Scenario A-3 - OB 16,000 946.9
M136 Scenario B-OB 125,000 930.4
M225 Scenario A - OB 1,125 190.4 152.5
2of5 Attachment 1
Table A-2
OBODM Modeling for Plume Dimensions - M-136 Unit and M-22S Unit, ATK Promontory
Open Burning
Evaluation of Range of Stability Categories and Wind Speed Groups for Unrestricted Operating Hours
Wind
Impn)
Speed
(m/s)
Scenario
Quantity of Reactive Waste
per Bum Station
(lb)
Stability Category A*
Total Cloud
Ht(m)
Stability Category B*1
Total Cloud
Ht(m)
Stability Category C
Total Cloud
Ht(m)
Stability Category D
Total Cloud
Ht(m)
M136 Scenario A-l - OB 16,000 827.9 827.9 235.5
M136 Scenario A-2 -OB 10,000 626.6 626.6 216.4
M136 Scenario A-3-OB 827.9
M136 Scenario B - OB 125,000 930.4 295.7
M225 Scenario A - OB
M136 Scenario A-l -OB 16,000
M136 Scenario A-2 -OB 10,000
M136 Scenario A-3 - OB 16,000
M136 Scenario B-OB 125,000
M225 Scenario A - OB 1,125 147.3
5.59 M136 Scenario A-l - OB 16,000 661.2 218.5
M136 Scenario A-2 -OB 10,000 500.9 197
M136 Scenario A-3 -OB 16,000 661.2
M136 Scenario B - OB 125,000 930.4
M225 Scenario A - OB 1,125
M136 Scenario A-l - OB
M136 Scenario A-2 - OB 455.2
M136 Scenario A-3 - OB
M136 Scenario B - OB 125,000
M225 Scenario A - OB 1,125 119.9
M136 Scenario A-l - OB 16,000 550.1
M136 Scenario A-2 - OB 10,000
M136 Scenario A-3 - OB 16,000
M136 Scenario B - OB 125,000
M22S Scenario A - OB 1,125 109.7
* A Stability Is only valid for winds < 6 knots (6.9 mph or 3.08 m/s)
•* B Stability Is not valid at winds > 9 knots (10.364 mph or 4.63 m/i)
OBODM automatically adjusted the stability to C for thesa conditions.
3of5 Attachment 1
Table A-3
OBODM Modeling for Plume Dimensions - M-136 Unit and M-225 Unit, ATK Promontory
Open Detonation
Evaluation of Range of Stability Categories and Wind Speed Groups for Unrestricted Operating Hours
Summary of Lowest Total Cloud Heights
Wind Speed
(mph) (m/s) Scenario
Lowest Total Cloud Height (m)
Quantity of Reactive Waste
per Burn Station Stability Stability
(lb) Class A* Class B**
Stability
Class C
3-5 1.34-2.24 M136 Scenario A-l-OB 16,000
M136 Scenario A-2 - OB 10,000
M136 Scenario A-3-OB 16,000
M136Scenario B-OB 125,000
M136 Scenario C- OD 600
M225 Scenario A - OB 1,125
M225 Scenario B-OD 600
1364.4 1116.4
1255.3 1116.4
1364.4 1116.4
1364.4 1116.4
329.3 329.3
335.6 335.6
329.3 329.3
372.4
372.4
372.4
534.2
329.5
372.4
329.5
5-7.5 2.24-3.35 M136 Scenario A-l - OB 16,000
M136 Scenario A-2 - OB 10,000
M136 Scenario A-3 - OB 16,000
M136Scenario B-OB 125,000
M136 Scenario C- OD 600
M225 Scenario A -OB 1,125
M225 Scenario B - OD 600
1328 930.4
1003.8 836.2
1328 930.4
1364.4 930.4
311.1 297
267.9 222.7
311.1 297
744.4
744.4
744.4
744.4
297.1
241.6
297.1
7.5-10 3.35-4.47 M136 Scenario A-l-OB 16,000
M136 Scenario A-2 - OB 10,000
M136 Scenario A-3 -OB 16,000
M136Scenario B-OB 125,000
M136 Scenario C-OD 600
M225 Scenario A-OB 1,125
M225 Scenario B - OD 600
827.9
626.6
827.9
930.4
276
166.2
276
744.4
626.6
744.4
744.4
276
166.2
276
10-12.5 4.47-5.59 M136 Scenario A-l-OB 16,000
M136 Scenario A-2 - OB 10,000
M136 Scenario A-3 - OB 16,000
M136 Scenario B- OB 125,000
M136Scenario C-OD 600
M225 Scenario A-OB 1,125
M225 Scenario B - OD 600
827.9
626.6
827.9
1116.4
276
166.2
276
661.2
500.9
661.2
930.4
260.8
132.3
260.8
12.5-15 5.59 - 6.71 M136 Scenario A-l - OB 16,000
M136 Scenario A-2 - OB 10,000
M136 Scenario A-3 - OB 16,000
M136 Scenario B - OB 125,000
M136 Scenario C-OD 600
M225 Scenario A-OB 1,125
M225 Scenario B - OD 600
550.1 550.1
417.1 417.1
550.1 550.1
930.4 930.4
248.9 248.9
109.7 109.7
248.9 248.9
* A Stability is only valid for winds < 6 knots (6.9 mph or 3.08 m/s)
** B Stability is not valid at winds > 9 knots (10.364 mph or 4.63 m/s)
OBODM automatically adjusted the stability to C for these conditions.
4 of 5 Attachment
Table A-4
OBODM Modeling for Plume Dimensions - M-136 Unit end M-225 Unit, ATK Promontory
Open Detonation
Evaluation of Range of Stability Categories and Wind Speed Groups for Unrestricted Operating Hours
(mph)
Speed
(m/i)
quantity of Reactive Waste
per Bum Station
(lb)
Stability Category A*
Total Cloud
Ht(m)
Stability Category
Total Cloud
Ht(m)
Stability Category C
Total Cloud
Ht(m)
Stability Category D
Total Cloud
Ht|m)
1.34 M136 Scenario C-OD 600 374.9 374.9 375.1 155.3
M225 Scenario B - OD 600 374.9 374.9 375.1 155.3
M136 Scenario C-OD
M225 Scenario B-OD
2.24 M136 Scenario C - OD 600 329.3
M225 Scenario B - OD 329.S
2.79 M136 Scenario C-OD 179.8
M225 Scenario B - OD
3.35 M136 Scenario C-OD
M225 Scenario B - OD
3.91 M136 Scenario C-OD
M225 Scenario B - OD
M136 Scenario C-OD 276 276
M225 Scenario B - OD 600
5.03 M136 Scenario C-OD 600
M225 Scenario B - OD 267.9
5.59 M136 Scenario C-OD 260.8
M225 Scenario B - OD
6.15 M136 Scenario C-OD
M225 Scenario B - OD
6.71 M136 Scenario C-OD
M225 Scenario B - OD
* A Stability is onty valid for winds < 6 knots (6.9 mph or 3.08 m/s)
B Stability Is not valid at winds > 9 knots (10.364 mph or 4.63 m/s)
5 of 5 Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Summary of Screened Hours
ATK Promontory OBOD Modeling
Meteorological Data Analysis
Restrictions
Daytime Operations:
Beginning Operating Hour:
Last Operating Hour:
Clearing Index >=
10 (9 AM)
18 (6 PM)
500
Wind Speed Group M/s MPH
Group 0 1.34<=WS<2.24 3-5
Group 1 2.23<=WS<3.35 5-7.5
Group 2 3.35<=WS<4.47 7.5-10
Group 3 4.47<=WS<5.59 10-12.5
Group 4 5.59<=WS<6.71 12.5-15
Unrestricted Hours:
Meteorological Year
Atmospheric
Stability 1.34<=WS<2.24 2.23<=WS<3.35
Wind Speed Groups
3.35<=WS<4.47 4.47<=WS<5.59 5.59<=WS<6.71
1997
Total
33 99
32 120
14
71 233
12
94
55
161
70
121
193
1998
Total
31 86
19 121
13
56 220
24
103
29
156
81
119
200
1999
Total
33 101
42 134
18
86 253
29
133
40
202
69
137
206
2000
Total
34 115
18 102
18
60 235
32
158
57
247
102
168
272
2001
Total
37 142
17 132
24
62 298
20
182
56
258
106
163
270
Grand Total
1 Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Detailed Modeling Results
See Attached Flash Drive
Attachment 4
Modeling Inputs/Outputs
See Attached Flash Drive
Attachment 5
Summary of ADFs for the Risk Assessment
A1_4: Annual Cone - G, P, PB: Annual Dep •
3 z
Cone - G, P, PB; Annual Dep
A2, C13: Annual Dep - P, PB
A1_10, A1_4, A1_7, A1_8:
Annual Dep - P, PB /
11: Annual Dep
A1_1, A3, C14: Annual
A1 11: Annual Dep-P
Dep PB
PB
A2: 1-hr Cone-G, P, PB
A1_10: Annual Cone - G, P, PB: Annual Dep - G
A2, B: Annual Cone -G, P, PB; Annual Dep - G
HH A3 1-hr Cone- G p. PB
A3: Annual Cone - G, P, PB; Annual Dep
B: 1-hr Cone - G P, PB
A1 7: 1-hr Cone-G. P, PB
I
,3 k:
A1_1: 1-hr & Annual Cone - G, P, PB; Annual Dep-
A1_4:1-hrConc-G, P, PB
A1_4, A1_7, A1_8: Annual Cone: G, P, PB; Annual Dep - G
A1_10, A1_11: Annual Cone - G, P, PB; Annual Dep - G, P, PB
A2: Annual Dep - P
C13: Annual Dep - P, PB
C13: 1-hr & Annual Cone - G, P, PB; Annual Dep - G
A1_11: Annual Cone - G. P, PB; Annual Dep - G
C14: 1-hr Cone - G P, PB
A1_7, A1_8: Annual Cone - G, P, PB; Annual Dep - G
C13: 1-hr & Annual Cone - G, P, PB; Annual Dep - G
: 1-hr Cone - G, P, PB
C14: Annual Cone - G, P, PB; Annual Dep - G
• A1_10, A1_11: 1-hr Cone- G, P, PB
• A1_4, A1_7, A1_8: 1 hr Cone - G, P, PB
• A1_1: 1-hr Cone - G, P, PB
C14: 1-hr Cone - G, P, PB
A2, C14: Annual Cone - G, P, PB; Annual Dep - G
A3: Annual Cone - G, P, PB; Annual Dep - G
11: 1-hrConc-G, P, PB
1-hr Cone -G, P, PB
A1 A1
A2
\ A1_8: 1-hrConc-G P, PB
B: Annual Conc-G, P, PB; Annual Dep-G
2: Annual Dep - PB • 1 • *
/ B: Annual Dep - P, PB
A1_4, A1_7, A1_8, A3, C14: Annual Dep - P, PB
A3: 1-hrCone-G, P, PB
A1_1: Annual Dep -PB • LEGEND:
G
P
PB
GAS
PARTICLE
PARTICLE BOND
, Vji. ''.I j 2790 Mosside Boulevard
Monroevilte, PA 15146-2792
ATK LAUNCH SYSTEMS, INC.
PROMONTORY. UTAH
FIGURE A5-1
MAXIMUM ANNUAL AND 1-HOUR
CONCENTRATION AND ANNUAL
DEPOSITION FOR ONSITE AND OFFSITE
RECEPTORS FROM M-136 SOURCES
• B 1-hr Cone G, P, PB - Offsite
# B: Annual Cone - G; Annual
Dep-G
B:Annual Cone - G. P. PB: Annual Dep - G
B Annual Dep - P, PB
id....
A1-hr & Annual Cone - PB
B:1-hr Cone - G, Part. PB :1-hrConc-G; P, PB
nnual Dep-Part, PB
A:Annual Cone - G, P, PB; Annual Dep - G
AAnnual Dep - P, PB •
B:Annual Conc-P.PB LEGEND
m G GAS
P PARTICLE
PB PARTICLE BOND
SCALE
2000 FEET
2790 Mosside Boulevard
Monroeville. PA 15146-2792
a> A:1-hr & Annual Cone - G, P; Annual Dep - G, P, PB ATK LAUNCH SYSTEMS, INC
PROMONTORY. UTAH
FIGURE A5-2
MAXIMUM ANNUAL AND 1-HOUR
CONCENTRATION AND ANNUAL
DEPOSITION FOR ONSITE AND OFFSITE
RECEPTORS FROM M-225 SOURCES
Cont ours
0 0002?
0.0005
lj 0007J
<vM»t
0.002
0.003
O.OO*
3.1
36
\
NOTE:
CONCENTRATION IN (ug/m V(9/s)
2790 Mosside Boulevard
Monroeville, PA 15146-2792
ATK LAUNCH SYSTEMS, INC.
PROMONTORY, UTAH
FIGURE A5-3a
ANNUAL 5-YEAR AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION FOR OB AT M-136,
SCENARIO A1
Contours
a.ootvi
0.OOO2S
z S i ui fi is s s Ci 001 o z
0.0012
3.0014
100
M-136'-
3?
NOTE:
DEPOSITION IN (ug/m Vfg/s)
2790 Mosside Boulevard
Monroeville, PA 15146-2792
ATK LAUNCH SYSTEMS, INC.
PROMONTORY, UTAH
FIGURE A5-3b
ANNUAL 5-YEAR AVERAGE PARTICLE
DRY DEPOSITION FOR OB AT M-136,
SCENARIO A1
Contours
0.0005
0.001
B 0025
0 004
0.005
0.006
0 007
If
M
VA
BP* la 4 NOTE:
CONCENTRATION IN (ug/m Vte's)
SCALE
16000 FEET
2790 Mosside Boulevard
Monroeville, PA 15146-2792
ATK LAUNCH SYSTEMS, INC.
PROMONTORY. UTAH
FIGURE A5-4a
ANNUAL 5-YEAR AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION FOR OD AT M-136,
SCENARIO C
"rr
g UJ
p
a j
contours
0.00025
0.0005
i oo i
'. 00; f
0.002
0.0025
n nn?s
M-13©
D
NOTE:
DEPOSITION IN (ug/m ^/(g/s)
SCALE
16000 FEET
,4,v;V'".V ,i 2790 Mosside Boulevard
Monroeville, PA 15146-2792
ATK LAUNCH SYSTEMS, INC,
PROMONTORY, UTAH
FIGURE A5-4b
ANNUAL 5-YEAR AVERAGE PARTICLE
DRY DEPOSITION FOR OD AT M-136,
SCENARIO C
Contours
uriCI [II 2 0.00025
1.1 BOOB
(1 1X1876
0.001
0.0015
0 rv
fc
V
.MA225
^ypv .Jail MOTE
CONCENTRATION IN (ug/mV(g/ • If V
SCALE
8000 16000 FEET
2790 Mosside Boulevard
vlonroeville. PA 15146-2792
ATK LAUNCH SYSTEMS. INC
PROMONTORY. UTAH
FIGURE A5-5a
ANNUAL 5-YEAR AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION FOR OB AT M-225
SCENARIO A
5m
Q I
5 1
Contours
0.00003
0.00005
0 13001
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0003
W£25
NOTE
DEPOSITION IN (ug/rri )/(g/s)
SCALE
3000 16000 FEET
2790 Mosside Boulevard
Monroeville. PA 15146-2792
ATK LAUNCH SYSTEMS, INC.
PROMONTORY, UTAH
FIGURE A5-5D
ANNUAL 5-YEAR AVERAGE PARTICLE
DRY DEPOSITION FOR OB AT M-225,
SCENARIO A
»«»<
0.0001
0.00025
o ooes
0 .11107-
0.001
0.001 25
in; \
NOTE:
CONCENTRATION IN (ug/m V(g's)
SCALE
2790 Mosside Boulevard
Monroeville, PA 15146-2792
ATK LAUNCH SYSTEMS, INC.
PROMONTORY, UTAH
FIGURE A5-6a
ANNUAL 5-YEAR AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION FOR OD AT M-225.
SCENARIO B
O.OOODS
0.0001
0.0002
D.oooe
0.0004
0.0005
0.00055
s s
/M-225 • t .
I.
•1
6 s
NOTE:
DEPOSITION IN (ug/m2)/(g/s)
SCALE
300C 5000 FEET
---2790 Mosside Boulevard
Monroeville, PA 15146-2792
ATK LAUNCH SYSTEMS, INC
PROMONTORY. UTAH
FIGURE A5-6b
ANNUAL 5-YEAR AVERAGE PARTICLE
DRY DEPOSITION FOR OD AT M-225,
SCENARIO B
See Attached Flasb Drive
There is a
Non-uploadable
CD / Portable Drive /
Other Device
associated with this
document.
Please see the facility file for the
CD / Portable Drive / Other Device.