DSHW-2014-008690 - 0901a06880448f4a

Division of
Solid and Hazardous Waste
JUN 1 3 2014
7Dl4r-OOft0D
P.O. Box 707
Brigham City, Utah 84302
June 13, 2014
8200-FY15-13
Scott T. Anderson, Director
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
Draft Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol - Final
Dear Mr. Anderson:
ATK has completed the requested update of the Draft Human Health Risk Assessment
Protocol in response to comments received from the Division. Please direct questions on
this correspondence to Blair Palmer at [phone].
Sincerely
George E. Gooch, Manager
Environmental Services
c: JeffVandel
Division of
Solid and Hazardous Waste
JUN 1 3 2014
DRAFT
ATK LAUNCH SYSTEMS
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
PROTOCOL
FOR EVALUATION OF THE
OPEN BURNING AND OPEN DETONATION
UNITS
ATK LAUNCH SYSTEMS
PROMONTORY, UTAH
JUNE 2014
DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 REVISED HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL 1
1.1 Overview and Purpose 1
1.2 Introduction 2
2.0 Identification of Constituents of Potential Concern 5
2.1 Identifying Emission Sources and Emissions Rates 7
2.1.1 Identification of Emissions Sources 7
2.1.2 Summary of Emissions Rates 8
2.2 Identifying Compounds of Potential Concern 10
2.2.1 Step 1 Trial Burn and Fugitive Emissions 12
2.2.2 Step 2 Is Non-detected Compound Present in the Waste? 15
2.2.3 Step 3 Is the Non-detected Chemical Likely to be a Product of Incomplete Combustion? 20
2.2.4 Step 4 Are there: Related site-specific factors and is it possibly emitted? 27
2.3 Category E/Flare Wastes 27
3.0 Exposure Assessment 29
3.1 Exposure Setting Characterization 30
3.2 Exposure Scenarios 31
3.2.1 Farmer and Farmer Child 34
3.2.2 Adult and Child Resident 34
3.2.3 Acute Risk 35
3.2.4 Industrial Worker and Future Worker 35
3.3 Evaluation of Mercury 35
3.4 Evaluation of Chromium 36
3.5 Estimation of Media Concentrations 36
3.5.1 Calculation of COPC Concentrations in Air for Direct Inhalation 36
3.5.2 Calculation of COPC Concentrations in Soil 37
3.5.3 Calculation of COPC Concentration in Produce 37
3.5.4 Calculation of COPC Concentrations in Beef and Dairy Products 38
3.5.5 Calculation of COPC Concentrations in Pork 39
3.5.6 Calculation of COPC Concentrations in Chicken and Eggs 39
3.6 Quantifying Exposure 40
4.0 Risk and Hazard Characterization 41
4.1 Carcinogenic Risk 41
4.2 Noncarcinogenic Risk 42
4.3 Risks for Nursing Infants 44
l
DRAFT
4.4 Acute Exposure Resulting from Direct Inhalation 45
4.5 Comparison of Modeled Air Concentrations to Utah Toxic Screening Levels 47
4.6 Interpretation of Carcinogenic and Noncarcinogenic Risk Assessment Results 48
5.0 Uncertainty Assessment 50
5.1 Uncertainty in the Selection of Emissions Factors 50
5.2 Uncertainty in the Inclusion of Method Blanks and Background 50
5.3 Uncertainty Associated with Modeled Air Concentrations and Deposition 51
5.4 Uncertainty in Chemical Uptake, Food Chain Modeling and Dose Estimates 52
5.5 Potential Exposures to Hunters at Salt Creek Waterfowl Management Area and Bear River
Migratory Bird Refuge 52
5.6 Uncertainty in the Overall Risk Estimates 53
6.0 References 54
7.0 Figures 61
8.0 Tables 63
DRAFT
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1 LOCATION OF ATK PROMONTORY M-136 AND M-225 TREATMENT UNITS AND
DISCRETE MODELING RECEPTORS, PROMONTORY, UTAH 62
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Chemicals of Potential Concern from the ATK's Approved 2011 Human Health Risk
Assessment Protocol(a) 64
Table 2-1 Chemicals of Potential Concern, Detections and Emissions Factors for ATK
Promontory HHRA 76
Table 2-2 Chemical of Potential Concern Elimination Process (Non-Detect Compounds Not
Used by ATK or Found in Their Waste) (Non-Detect Compound and Unlikely Generated
During Burning) 84
Table 2-3 Table of Potential Elements/Compounds in Flare Wastes, and Associated Dose-
Response Information 96
Table 3-1 Summary of On-Site Receptors, ATK Promontory, Utah 97
Table 3-2 Summary of Off-Site Receptors, ATK Promontory, Utah 98
Table 3-3 Summary of Receptors and Exposure Pathways, ATK Promontory, Utah 99
Table 3-4 Exposure Assumptions, ATK Promontory, Utah 100
Table 3-5 Site Specific Inputs, ATK Promontory, Utah 101
Table 3-6 Chemical Parameters Not in the HHRAP Database, ATK Promontory, Utah 102
Table 3-7 Biotransfer Factors Not in the HHRAP Database, ATK Promontory, Utah 103
iii
DRAFT
Table 4-1 Changes in Oral Slope Factor Toxicity Data, ATK Promontory, Utah 104
Table 4-2 Changes in Inhalation Unit Risk Factor Toxicity Data, ATK Promontory, Utah. 105
Table 4-3 Changes in Oral Reference Dose Toxicity Data, ATK Promontory, Utah 106
Table 4-4 Changes in Inhalation Reference Concentration Toxicity Data, ATK Promontory,
Utah 107
Table 4-5 Human Health Data for Chemicals not in the HHRAP Database, ATK Promontory,
Utah 108
Table 4-6 Changes in Acute Inhalation Exposure Criteria, ATK Promontory, Utah 112
Table 4-7 Acute Inhalation Exposure Criteria, ATK Promontory, Utah 113
iv
DRAFT
ABBREVIATIONS
2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
AP Ammonium Perchlorate
ATK ATK Launch Systems
BEHP Bis-ethyl hexyl phthalate
COPC Chemicals of Potential Concern
DNOP Di(n)octyl phthalate
DOD Department of Defense
HHRAP Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol
HHRAP Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion
Facilities
HMX High Melting explosive (octahydro-l,3,5,7-tetranitro-l,3,5,7-tetra)
/-RAP-/? View Industrial Risk Assessment Program
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
OB Open burning
OD Open detonation
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Association
PAHs Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PICs Products of Incomplete Combustion
POHCs Principle Organic Hazardous Constituents
RDX Royal Dutch explosive (hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-l,3,5-triazine)
SVOCs Semi Volatile Organic Compounds
TCDD-TE Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin -Toxic Equivalents
TDA Toluenediamine
TDI Toluene diisocyanate
TNT Trinitrotoluene
UDSHW Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Solid and Hazardous
Waste
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
v
DRAFT
1.0 REVISED HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL
1.1 Overview and Purpose
In June 2011, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Solid and Hazardous
Waste (DEQ) approved a Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) (TetraTech,
201 la) to evaluate potential emissions from ATK Launch Systems (ATK), Brigham City, Utah,
open burning (OB) and open detonation (OD) units. These units treat propellants and propellant
contaminated materials, and waste from other manufacturing processes. The protocol was in
support of ATK Subpart X Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit
requirements. The approved HHRAP document was prepared using a number of assumptions
consistent with risk assessment guidance at that time, but since then a number of risk assessment
assumptions have been revised, and the model used to calculate air concentrations and deposition
has been improved to incorporate a more "state of the art" modeling protocol for ODOB
practices. In addition, the emissions have been re-evaluated to cover a wider range of materials
processed at the burning grounds. The protocol also assumed that wastes contained some
material that were not used or processed by ATK, and that by-products were generated when it is
highly unlikely that the processed used by ATK actually generated these by-products.
In 2012, TetraTech prepared a Revised Air Dispersion Modeling Assessment Report for Open
Burn and Open Detonation Treatment Units at ATK Launch Systems Brigham City, Utah (July
2012. (Second Modeling Report, TetraTech 2102) This second modeling report was not
approved by the Utah DEQ, but has been added to the administrative record as correspondence
between ATK and DEQ. Following discussions between ATK and the DEQ, on the best
techniques for modeling open burn /open detonation (OB/OD) emissions, a revised air dispersion
model protocol was prepared by CB&I (formerly Shaw Environmental) called the ADDENDUM
Air Dispersion Modeling Protocol for Open Burning and Open Detonation at A TK Launch
Systems in Promontory, Utah (CB&I, February 2013).
The purpose of this revision of the human health risk assessment protocol is to systematically re-
examine overly conservative and now out-of-date assumptions related to OB/OD emissions
reflected in the 2011 Approved Protocol; provide alternative assumptions and approaches;
provide site-specific information; and, where appropriate, scientific literature to support the
1
DRAFT
proposed changes in the risk assessment methodology. In addition, this revision retains the
original purpose of presenting the methodology and parameters that will be used in estimating
and characterizing the potential risks and hazards associated with OB and OD operations at M-
136 and M-225. Based on the information provided, ATK proposes acceptance of this protocol,
including the alternative assumptions and approaches, to support the development of risk and
hazard estimates more indicative of actual unit operations over the life of the RCRA operating
permit.
This Revised HHRAP will be used in conjunction with the DEQ-approved revised modeling
protocol developed by CB&I (2013), to develop risk estimates for the RCRA Subpart X permit.
1.2 Introduction
ATK currently operates OB and OD units for the treatment of propellants, propellant
contaminated materials, and other wastes. These treatment units are identified as M-136 and M-
225 are indicated on Figure 1, a map of the risk assessment study area, and are subject to RCRA
40 CFR 264 Subpart X permitting requirements for miscellaneous treatment units. ATK is
required by permit condition to evaluate the human health risk associated with the units.
The HHRA will be prepared in accordance with the USEPA guidance document titled, Human
Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities (HHRAP)
(USEPA, 2005). Risk estimates will be produced using the commercially available software
provided by Lakes Environmental, Industrial Risk Assessment Program - Human Health for the
U.S.EPA OSW Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (Lakes, 2014), referred to as /-RAP-/?
View, with the modifications identified in this protocol. The risk assessment will be prepared
using version 4.03 of the /-RAP-/? View program, or the latest version at the time of protocol
approval. Based on conversations with Lakes Environmental, a new version of the /-RAP-/?
View model may be released in 2014, if this revised version is unavailable at the time the
protocol is approved, the current version will be used. The risk assessment will include both
direct and indirect exposure pathways. Direct risks address exposure to constituents emitted
from the OB/OD sources through inhalation. The dermal contact exposure pathway is
considered insignificant, and will not be evaluated quantitatively. Indirect risks address exposure
to constituents emitted from the OB/OD sources resulting from contact with soil, plants, on
2
DRAFT
which emitted constituents have been deposited or taken up via root uptake, and the ingestion of
above-ground produce, beef and milk, and mother's milk.
Prior to conducting the HHRA, it is important 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. There are two key documents that support this revised
HHRA protocol and the subsequent risk assessment: the Waste Characterization and Air
Dispersion Modeling Protocol document section 1,2,3 (Tetra Tech, 2011), and the Addendum
Air Dispersion Modeling Protocol (CB&I, 2013). These documents provide information on the
facility setting, production processes, normal and maximum production rates, the types of waste
treated, and the quantities of waste stored and treated are provided in the CB&I protocol (2013).
The revised model is a hybrid model of the USEPA's OBODM and AERMOD models, and is
more appropriate for ATK's facility because it uses OBODM to model the open burn and open
detonation process, and uses AERMOD, to model downwind dispersion because it is a better
model for plume dispersion based on state-of-the art understanding of atmospheric turbulence, its
ability to handle complex terrain, and deposition characteristics.
The results of site characterization are incorporated into the air dispersion model. The air
dispersion model predicts the air quality impact from the M-136 and M-225 treatment units, and
the results of the air dispersion modeling analysis are imported into the Lake's HHRA model.
An overview of the dispersion model is included in the air modeling protocol.
This Revised HHRAP is based on the approved 2011 TetraTech HHRAP (TetraTech, 201 la).
Section 2 develops a list of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) for Promontory, based on
Table 1 of the 2011 HHRAP, with modifications. Table 1-1 in this report reproduces Table 1 of
the 2011 HHRAP, but the list of COPC has been alphabetized, and shows another column
indicating if the COI was detected in one or both of the Open Detonation/Open Burn (ODOBi)
tests conducted by ATK in 1997 and 2006. The COPCs and emissions factors identified in this
Revised HHRAP are similar to those listed as COPCs in Table 1-1 (the COPCs from 2011), with
some minor modifications, as discussed in Section 2.
Sections 3 through Section 6 of this revised HHRAP contain essentially the same information,
with minor revisions, and address the basic components of risk assessment: exposure assessment,
3
DRAFT
toxicity assessment, risk characterization, and uncertainty. This protocol identifies the default
exposure pathways, and parameters identified for the ATK Promontory Facility, that are
consistent with the USEPA's incineration risk assessment guidance. Any exceptions to these
pathways or parameters, and the rationale for their use, are identified in this protocol.
DRAFT
2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
The Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) for Hazardous Waste Combustion
Facilities (USEPA, 2005) identifies the methodology for selecting the COPCs, and this process
is presented in this section of the Revised HHRAP. The 2005 guidance is designed to be flexible
enough to be effective at a wide range of facilities throughout the US, especially those with
emissions stacks that may be readily sampled. The guidance is designed for a wide range of
wastes. The starting point for the COPC selection process is typically the collection of chemical
data that describes the nature of chemicals released from a facility. With normal facilities that
have emissions stacks, sampling is a relatively simple process because the stacks have sampling
ports, and the samples are submitted to an analyzing laboratory. For ATK, where there is no
stack to sample, emissions are determined by conducting small-scale experiments in a chamber
that allows for the emissions to be sampled. In these tests, particulate matter and volatile gasses
are sampled and submitted to an analytical laboratory for a full suite of analyses. This list of
chemicals is the starting point for the COPC selection process. Not all of the analytes in these
analytical suites are necessarily relevant to test bundles, and the COPC selection process is
undertaken to determine the chemicals that will be used in the risk assessment. The COPC
selection process is described in more detail below, and in summary it has the following steps: if
a chemical is detected it is selected as a COPCs and carried into the risk assessment; list the other
analytes at their detection limit and determine if they are in the wastes being processed (if Yes,
consider the chemical a COPC); determine if the chemical is a potential product of incomplete
combustion, (if Yes, consider the chemical a COPC), and if the chemical is not detected, not
present in the wastes being processed and not a potential product of incomplete combustion, the
chemical is not considered a COPC.
The COPC and their emissions rates are used to model estimated ambient air concentrations and
the concentrations of COPCs that might deposit onto soil. Criteria Pollutants carbon dioxides
(CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter-2.5 micron (PM2.5),
and particulate matter-10 micron (PM10) are assessed against National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), and will be excluded from the HHRA. They are excluded from the risk
assessment process because health effects are incorporated in the standard. These parameters are
5
DRAFT
evaluated in the air dispersion modeling report by comparing modeled air concentrations to the
NAAQS (CB&I, 2014). Lead is the only criteria pollutant that will be evaluated in the HHRA.
In addition to comparing estimated air concentrations to NAAQS, modeled air concentrations,
are also compared with Utah's Toxic Screening Levels, to ensure that the concentrations are in
compliance.
In addition, as indicated in Table 1-1, low molecular-weight volatile compounds (such as ethane
and methane) that have very low human toxicity and do not bioaccumulate in the food chains
will also not be evaluated in the HHRA.
ATK's waste stream is relatively homogeneous, and is predominantly a high-energy mixture of
the strong oxidizer perchlorate based propellant mixed with high temperature burning aluminum
fuel bounded into polymer resins, unused rocket and missile motors, a small volume of wastes
from the manufacturing of flares or Category E/Flare wastes, and laboratory waste from the
facility that may contain low levels of waste energetic compounds. The aluminum fuel coupled
with the perchlorate oxidizer and other energetic materials are designed to burn rapidly and
completely at high temperatures (around 5000° F compared to 1500°F at commercial
incinerators). ATK's destruction facility is unlike the majority of combustion facilities covered
by the HHRAP guidance that have stacks or fuel fired burners. ATK has an open burning
process that attempts to have a combustion process where high temperature burning helps
eliminate higher molecular weight compounds, and leave little or no significant residues at the
end of the process. Because there is no stack, Open Detonation/Open Burn incinerator (ODOBi)
emissions are based on tests performed in contained test environments where particulate and
gaseous emissions were sampled and the collected byproducts were analyzed (ATK, 1998; ATK
2009).
The USEPA's step-by-step COPC selection process is identified in Figure 2-3 of the USEPA's
2005 combustion guidance. The compounds concerned and the basis for their selection or
elimination is provided in the subsections below.
6
DRAFT
2.1 Identifying Emission Sources and Emissions Rates
2.1.1 Identification of Emissions Sources
There are two emissions sources at ATK Promontory: M-136, and M225. The description of the
sources provided below is taken from Section 4 (Emission Sources and Parameters) of the
modeling protocol.
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
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.
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:
7
DRAFT
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.
2.1.2 Summary of Emissions Rates
ATK's waste profiles were relatively constant for many years, and were predominantly the
results of the disposal of 1.3-Class propellant wastes with small amounts of 1.1-Class wastes,
contaminated waste, and visual distress flare manufacturing wastes. Recently, the percentage of
1.3-Class propellant wastes has decreased, and the objective of re-evaluation is to provide ATK
with a flexible operating permit and minimize or perhaps eliminate the need for a permit
modification during the life of the permit, based on the inclusion of higher amounts of 1.1-Class
wastes. To this end, the emissions factors from ODOBi tests performed using ATK's 1.3-Class
(ATK, 2007), and the 1.1-Class (ATK, 1998) wastes are being considered. The 2006 tests (with
results published in 2009) for 1.3-Class propellants are described above. The 1997 (results
published in 1998) tests using 1.1-Class propellant test samples were prepared with 65 percent
1.1-Class propellant and 35 percent waste material. To be conservative, the emissions factors
from both tests were compiled and brought into the COPC selection process. The higher
emissions were selected, except in very specific cases.
In addition, from time to time, illumination flare wastes are present in low amounts in ATK's
wastes, and although there are no specific emissions factors for these wastes, they contain
compounds that will be evaluated by comparing the toxicity of these chemicals to the relative
toxicity of other chemicals that were present in the ODOBi tests, for which risks will be
calculated. This is discussed in more detail in Section 2.3.
8
DRAFT
The Sampling Results for Emissions Characterization of Open Burning Waste Propellant
Materials (ATK, 2009) report provides details of the wastes processed by ATK and describes the
study used to determine the nature of the emissions from the processing of these wastes. These
test results form the basis of the emissions that are modeled, as described in Air Dispersion
Modeling Protocol for Open Burning and Open Detonation at ATK Launch Systems in
Promontory, Utah (CB&I, February 2013).
With the goal of keeping the risk assessment process relatively simple and understandable, yet
conservative, that is, to capture a reasonable maximum exposure and risk level from ATK's
process, emissions factors will be selected in accordance with the following process. In
summary, one emissions table (Table 2-1) has been developed that summarizes the emissions
factors that will be used in the process. To capture the potential emissions from a wide range of
wastes, and allow for flexibility in operations, but with the aim of being also conservative the
following process was used:
• Where a constituent is detected in either the 1.3- or 1.1 -Class ODOBi test, the emissions
factor is developed from the highest detection in all of the tests.
• Where one test showed the presence of a chemical and the other did not, the chemical is
assumed to be present at the level detected, and the emissions factor is based on the
detected concentration.
• Where a chemical is not detected in any ODOBi test (1.3- or 1.1 -Class) the highest
detection limit is used to develop the emissions factor, with the following exceptions:
o Where higher molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are
not detected, and are not formed in 1.3-Class waste emissions (see section
2.2.3.3), the detection limit for 1.1-Class wastes is used.
o Dioxins and difurans are evaluated as classes of compounds, and the 1.3-Class
detections are used because they lead to a higher 2,3-7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
dioxin toxic equivalent factor (TCDD-TEQ), and so higher risk (see section
2.2.1.2).
o Benzidine, 3,3'-dimethyl/dichlorobenzidine, 2-acetylaminofluorene,
3-methylcholanthrene and 7,12-dimethylbenzanthracene are eliminated from the
9
DRAFT
process for reasons provided in section 2.2.2.4 and 2.2.3.3, respectively. No
emissions factors are provided for these constituents.
The ODOBi tests were conducted with relatively small amounts of pure propellant wastes (2,130
grams (g)), and less propellant/trash wastes (873g). The processing conducted by ATK typically
involves 10,000-50,000 pounds (lbs) per burn, which results in more intense temperatures than
seen in the ODOBi studies. Also, the open burning process has adequate oxygen because there is
no constriction to airflow.
There are a number of key issues for the development of emissions factors from the test profiles,
and the ODOBi testing:
• ATK profiles all of the wastes that are sent to the burning grounds to determine the
nature of the wastes and to obtain a general inventory of the waste streams.
• ATK's wastes do not contain the metals lead, mercury, or chromium, and ATK strives to
keep these metals out of their wastes. There are some exceptions: laboratory waste of
barium chromate, and lead fulminate, these are present in such low quantities (milligram
quantities in contaminated waste); and from the Group D, profile #PR49 (primary
explosive with lead) which contains lead styphnate at 44% lead and lead azide at 71%
lead. Even though there is more of these wastes than for lead fulminate, they are not
considered consequential relative to the thousands of pounds processed by ATK in a
single burn (ATK Promontory Permit Attachment 11, January 2014). An emissions
factor for lead is provided, but it will not be evaluated quantitatively because the levels
potentially are low, there are no dose-response factors available for use in the Lakes
model, and the risk is expected to be insignificant. Barium is relatively non-toxic and
will not be evaluated quantitatively.
2.2 Identifying Compounds of Potential Concern
USEPA's 2005 HHRAP guidance documents the COPC selection process that allows for the
selection of compounds that should be evaluated throughout the risk assessment. Specifically in
the guidance, Section 2.3 and the associated Figure 2-3, COPC Identification, concisely and
clearly provides the process by which compounds are selected as COPCs and allows for the
10
DRAFT
elimination of compounds not processed or generated by the facility. The guidance is applicable
to all facilities, and so the COPC selection process provides for narrowing lists of compounds
quantitatively evaluated to capture the risks associated with the facility, and to make the process
more relevant to the facility under consideration. Narrowing the list of COPCs makes the
process more manageable, and provides a risk assessment that is less "highly uncertain" because
it is based on findings, and not assumptions. However, this revised HHRAP eliminates few
COPCs and evaluates chemicals that are detected, and those that are not detected, assuming they
are actually present at the detection limit of the test devised to measure emissions. Table 2-1
indicates which chemicals will be evaluated quantitatively. The risk assessment will use the
detection limit to calculate emissions factors. The inclusion of chemicals at their detection limit
leads to risks where there may be none, and their inclusion or exclusion will add uncertainty to
the risk assessment.
It is common in ODOBi studies to use an analytical process that attempts to quantify as many
potential principle organic hazardous constituents (POHCs) and products of incomplete
combustion (PICs) as possible. It is also common to conduct "blank" tests that help detect and
distinguish artifacts generated by the test itself. These artifacts are not related to process
emissions but are generated in the testing process. The presence of a metal or chemical
compound on the analyte list does not necessarily mean that it is expected as part of ATK's
emissions, or that it is generated by ATK; it is just part of the process used in the ODOBi
chamber.
To select COPCs for ATK's facility, the process shown in Figure 2-3 of the HHRAP (Figure 2-3,
COPC Identification; USEPA, 2005: pg 2-34) was followed. The resulting COPCs will be used
in conjunction with the DEQ-approved air quality modeling protocol to generate compound-
specific exposure point concentrations.
To summarize from the HHRAP guidance, "We recommend selecting the risk assessment COPC
from the stack test data." (USEPA, 2005; pg 2-32) In the case of Promontory, stack tests are
unavailable and ODOBi data serve the same function, that is, to provide a list of potential
emissions from materials processed at the facility.
11
DRAFT
2.2.1 Step 1 Trial Burn and Fugitive Emissions
The HHRAP guidance process starts with the question, "Was compound detected?" If "res" the
chemical is selected for quantitative evaluation in the risk assessment. Tables 1-1 and 2-1 show
the chemicals detected in the ODOBi 1.3- or 1.1-Class tests, and this subsection describes in
more detail the nature of the detections. More information is available from 1.3-Class testing
than 1.1-Class tests (ATK, 2009 & ATK, 1998)..
2.2.1.1 Metals
Data collected in the ODOBi tests were designed to mimic, to the extent possible, the conditions
used in ATK's process. ATK (2009) describes the process in more detail; test bundles
containing 1.3-Class propellant (with or without waste material) were placed in a test chamber
on stainless steel pans and ignited, as a test bundle burned the gasses emitted into the test
chamber were sampled but capturing the particulate matter, gases and volatilized chemicals in
sampling "trains" or a series of vessels designed to capture different types of chemicals. In this
process no metals would be destroyed they would simply be liberated from the materials being
burned and captured in the sampling trains.
However, there were some small but important differences in the way the ODOBi tests were
charged (ignited), and in the stainless steel pans used in the test compared with those used every
day by ATK. Test sample igniters used a nickel chromium electronic heating elements and black
powder to light the test bundles (38g was used to ignite the test bundles, and 38g was used in the
background test). The data generated by two 38g black powder tests were used to determine
background for the ignition test, and the stainless steel containing pans had a high percentage
(%) of chromium (15 %). When the igniters and pans were exposed to the high temperatures
generated in the test by burning AP propellant, they contributed to the emissions sampled in the
ODOBi tests. A description of the background tests performed and the results are provided in the
Sampling Results for Emission Characterization Of Open Burning Waste Propellant Materials
Volume I—Summary Report (ATK, 2009). The emissions factors provided in Table 2-1 have not
been adjusted or reduced to account for any contributions of emissions from background, and the
potential increased risk associated with the inclusion of background emissions from the test
igniters will be discussed in the uncertainty section of the risk assessment.
12
DRAFT
High levels of substances, such as chromium, generated in the ODOBi studies should be
considered testing artifacts, as they are not associated with ATK's normal operations. Consistent
with guidance, these artifacts of the ODOBi study will not be eliminated, but the risks will be
quantitatively evaluated, and the uncertainties related with these chemicals will be addressed in
the Uncertainty Section of this revised HHRA.
Chromium is a good example of where the ODOBi tests are likely affected by the presence of
substances in the test. ATK has analyzed their waste streams for the presence of chromium.
Ammonium perchlorate (AP) propellant contains 16 percent aluminum, which contains between
0 and 20 parts per million (ppm) chromium (ATK, 2013b). If it were assumed that aluminum
contains 20ppm chromium, AP waste would contain between zero and 3.2 ppm. However, the
ODOBi test released up to 130ppm (1.3xl0"5 lbs/lb, Table 7, ATK, 2007), more chromium than
available in the waste. Therefore, there has to be an alternative source of chromium to complete
the mass balance. The burn pans contained 15% chromium in the steel, and provided the
additional chromium found in the emissions. The chromium in the stainless steel pans has been
shown to aerosolize during welding. In 2003, welding fumes were sampled to protect workers
during steel pan welding operations (ATK, 2003). The air during welding was found to contain
0.6 to 3.3 micrograms of chromium per cubic meter of air (//g/m3), or 0.28 to 1.6 ppm. The
temperatures attained during the open burn and open detonation process were high, and
TetraTech, 201 lb (pg. 4-6) indicated flame temperatures of 4976°F (100% AP propellant),
2950°F (85% AP propellant), and 2260°F (65% AP propellant). These temperatures were higher
than temperatures found in steel welding operations (1500°F) (NiDI, 1988), and welding data
from ATK shows that chromium was generated during welding the open burn and open
detonation pans in the ODOBi Chamber (ATK, 2003). Therefore, during the test the
aerosolization of chromium from the test pans could lead to an overestimation of chromium risk
from ATK's emissions. The potential contribution of chromium from stainless steel pans to the
test emissions versus the emissions of chromium under normal operating conditions will be
discussed in the uncertainty section of the risk assessment.
13
DRAFT
2.2.1.2 Dioxins and Difurans
It is known from previous risk assessments of this type that chemical compounds that
bioaccumulate and magnify in food chains often present the majority of the risk from the open
burn and open detonation process, and the groups of compounds known as dioxins and difurans
are of the greatest interest. Dioxins and difurans were detected in the ODOBi tests, and will be
evaluated quantitatively as a class of compounds, rather than on a compound-by-compound
basis, an approach that is consistent with USEPA, 2005. When selecting the emissions factors
for these classes of compounds, the revised HHRAP will use the 1-3-Class emissions factors. By
way of example, to show that the 1.3-Class waste emissions factors are a conservative choice for
the HHRAP, the table below shows the emissions of the most toxic dioxin congener, 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) for the 1.3- and 1.1-Class AP waste compared with the
TCDD-toxic equivalents (TCDD-TE), or the sum of the dioxin wastes multiplied by their toxic
equivalents factor.
Comparison of Emissions from 1.3- and i.l-Class Wastes
Chemical of Potential Concern
Emission Factor (lb/lb)
1.3-Class
Emissions
1.1-Class
Emissions
2,3,7,8-TCDD (single compound) 2.3E-12 6.3E-11
TCDD-TE (the class of carcinogenic
dibenzooxins and dibenzofurans)
1.8E-10 3.8E-11
Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins are a mix of 75 congeners (molecules with different numbers of
chlorines in different positions), and polychlorinated dibenzodifurans have 135 congeners. To
capture the risk from so many different compounds the risk assessment process uses one value
that combines the toxic potency for each molecule compared with 2,3,7,8-TCDD, to give TCDD-
Toxic Equivalents (TCDD-TE). The table above also shows the TCDD-TE for the 1.3- and 1.1-
Classes of waste. Assuming the risk is directly related to the emissions, the higher the emissions,
the higher the risk, and the table above shows that there are higher TCDD-TE emissions from the
1.3-Class wastes.
14
DRAFT
Therefore, the 1.3-Class propellants would have more dioxin risk than the 1.1-Class, and
therefore the 1.3-Class emissions are considered the higher and are used to represent emissions
from ATK materials. It can be seen that the TCDD-TE for the 1.3-Class waste is higher by
almost a factor of five.
A systemic discussion of the non-detected chemicals follows in Section 2.2.2: in summary,
where a chemical was analyzed and not detected it was included for quantitative evaluation in
the HHRA except where there is practical, operational, scientific or technical support for the
chemical will be eliminated. Non-detected chemicals that were eliminated were discussed with
DEQ, and are justified in the text provided below.
2.2.2 Step 2 Is Non-detected Compound Present in the Waste?
The next question from Figure 2-3 in the HHRAP guidance asks, "Is non-detected compound
present in waste?" The chemicals not detected in the emissions from ATK's ODOBi tests are
indicated in Table 2-1. Table 2-2 provides a description of the non-detected chemical name with
a brief description of its use by industry, and a column indicating if ATK uses the compound (or
if it might be used by ATK), or if it is likely to be in ATK's waste streams. Table 2-2 also
indicates if the non-detected chemicals might be formed in the open burn and open detonation
process.
ATK is selective about its waste streams and does not accept general commercial wastes from
outside sources. However, ATK accepts wastes from their own clients, such as Department of
Defense (DOD) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and ATK has
typically originated these materials, which include unused rocket motors, and other process
waste streams related to businesses at their facilities. The primary waste stream is resin bound
perchlorate oxidizer mixed with aluminum as the fuel that may, in some formulations, contain
energetic compounds such as HMX (high melting explosive) and RDX (Royal Dutch explosive).
Pure propellant burns around 4976°F (TetraTech, 201 lb), in comparison to municipal
incinerators, which are designed to reach a maximum temperature of 1,560°F, and hazardous
waste incinerators, which burn at 1,400 to 2,200°F. Aluminum burns at 6920T; any material
burned with the propellant burns quickly and at high temperatures. ATK also processes
15
DRAFT
discarded rocket motors from various discontinued programs that contain highly energetic solid
rocket fuel materials, and illumination flare wastes.
The chemicals in Table 2-2 were not detected in ATK's emissions. If they were present, they
would be quantified at the lower limit of quantitation, or at concentrations above their detection
limits. Detection limits vary for each chemical and are also shown in Table 2-2. The chemicals
in Table 2-2 have been grouped for ease of analysis, and a general summary is provided here.
2.2.2.1 Metals
Metals cannot be generated in the open burn and open detonation process, and the following
metals were not detected and so may only be present if they are present in the wastes: barium,
cobalt, magnesium, mercury, selenium and thallium.
Barium is a metal with low toxicity, and it will be evaluated quantitatively. Cobalt will also be
evaluated quantitatively. Magnesium was eliminated from the 2011 HHRAP because it is
considered an essential nutrient and is generally considered as safe, and to be consistent with the
2011 HHRAP it will not be evaluated quantitatively. In March 2014, ATK analyzed propellant
for the presence of mercury and it was not detected at a method detection limit of 0.03 mg/kg or
30 micrograms per kilogram (ATK, 2014b). The most abundant form of mercury is inorganic
mercury (II), and an emissions factor was determined (Table 2-1) for the quantitative evaluation
of mercury. The Lakes model evaluates mercury as particulate bound, and mercury vapor, and
based on the analysis of ATK's waste stream the actual amount of mercury in emissions is
expected to be low. Dimethyl mercury is not expected as this is know to be a sediment related
form of mercury, and will not be formed. Selenium is a low abundance metal that will be
evaluated quantitatively. Thallium will also be evaluated quantitatively; it was excluded during
the COPC selection process in 2011 because there was no dose response information available.
However, dose-response data are available at this time.
2.2.2.2 Alcohols, Phenols and Ethers
Alcohols are used in many laboratories; low molecular weight alcohols are relatively volatile,
and alcohols burn readily. Ethers are used as solvents and also burn easily, but the high
molecular weight ethers shown in Table 2-2 are not used by ATK. Phenols are aromatic alcohols
16
DRAFT
used in the manufacture of synthetic organic compounds, such as dyes, pharmaceuticals, and
agricultural products. ATK does not use phenols in its manufacturing process. Phenols are used
in carbon cloths that wrap motors, and will be included in the risk assessment. Some phenol and
chlorophenol compounds were detected in the ODOBi studies, as shown in Table 2-1.
Pentachlorophenol is a wood preservative and is not used by ATK; however, this compound will
also be evaluated quantitative. Alcohols, phenols and ethers will also be evaluated
quantitatively.
2.2.2.3 Aldehydes
The broad class of aldehydes listed in Table 2-2 is not used by ATK. The non-detected
aldehydes in this table will be evaluated quantitatively.
2.2.2.4 Amine, Aniline, Hydrazine and Benzidine Compounds
Amines are found in some polymer components and in some epoxy-based resins that are used in
rocket motors. These polymer materials may have amines present, but only low levels of free
amine would be present in these polymer matrices. However, the risks from amines will be
evaluated quantitatively.
Hydrazine is used as a liquid fuel in some rocket motors, specifically in the power nozzles,
direction and control systems. It is not used in solid rocket fuels. Liquid propellants containing
hydrazine are not treated by OB/OD at the Promontory facility. Hydrazine is highly flammable,
especially in combination with other fuels, and if it were present it would be rapidly destroyed.
Based on comment-responses with the Utah DSHW, hydrazine and diphenylhydrazine will not
be considered quantitatively in the risk assessment.
Benzidine compounds (benzidine, 3,3'-dimethylbenzidine and 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine) are not
contained in ATK's wastes, nor would they be found in ATK's emissions. The predominant uses
for benzidine and benzidine-compounds were in the production of dyes, especially azo dyes in
the leather, textile, and paper industries. However, benzidine, and benzidine-compounds are no
longer produced for commercial sale in the United States. In 1973, Occupational Safety and
Health Association (OSHA) regulations banned United States production of benzidine. In
addition, benzidine is no longer imported into the United States nor is it used in any significant
17
DRAFT
amounts by industry (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; ATSDR, 1995). ATK
does not import or use benzidine and benzidine-compounds, and they would not be found in
ATK's waste streams.
The emissions data from the ODOBi test burns using some propellant/waste bundles showed no
presence of benzidine. Based on the lack of detections, and the unstable nature of the benzidine
molecule, and the high temperatures involved, benzidine and benzidine-compounds are not
believed to be present, and will not be quantified.
2.2.2.5 Polvnuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PAHs are found in oils, coal tars and coal. They are not manufactured or used by ATK, and are
unlikely to be found in ATK's wastes. PAHs are used in chemical and biochemical research, but
not in energetics or propellant research. Selected PAHs may be generated as PICs during the
open burn and open detonation process; they are discussed in greater depth below (see Section
2.2.3.3).
2.2.2.6 Phthalates
Phthalates were detected in ATK's ODOBi studies. They are a component of polymer
formulations and are found in small quantities in ATK's manufacturing process. These
compounds are used in the plastics industry, and may be found in some plastic wastes burned by
ATK. Phthalates are generally used in small quantities in plastics, and because plastics only
represent a small percentage of ATK's waste, they are unlikely to be present in any significant
quantity in the emissions. Small quantities of plastics are used in the manufacture of motors, and
a description of the phthalates possibly used by ATK is shown in Table 2-2. In earlier guidance
USEPA recommended always including bis(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate (BEHP) and di(n-octyl)
phthalate (DNOP) in every risk assessment. USEPA no longer recommends automatically
including phthalates in risk assessments (USEPA, 2005; pg 259). In their guidance, USEPA
indicates that there is no apparent mechanism for phthalate to be formed as products of
incomplete combustion (PICs) by burning other chemical compounds. Two phthalates were
detected in the ODOBi tests, and are most likely due to being present in waste, or a laboratory
artifact, as phthalates are commonly found in analytical laboratory background. Guidance
18
DRAFT
indicates that facilities that burn plastics or materials with phthalate plasticizers should carefully
consider the potential for phthalate plasticizers to exist in gaseous emissions due to incomplete
combustion. The phthalates BEHP and DNOP were detected in ATK's test emissions and
phthalates will be considered quantitatively.
2.2.2.7 Nitroaromatic compounds
Nitroaromatic compounds are present in different forms of energetic compounds and motor
fuels. Nitroaromatic organic compounds such as 1,3-dinitrobenzene, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 2,6-
dinitrotoluene, nitrobenzene, and pentachloronitrobenzene (or close relatives such as
toluenediamine [TDA] and toluene diisocyanate [TD1]—derivatives of dinitrotoluene) are
typically associated with explosives. Dinitrotoluene is used to make two products: trinitrotoluene
and TDA. Nitrocarbon compounds are a significant component of RDX (hexahydro-1,3,5-
trinitro-l,3,5-triazine) and HMX (octahydro-l,3,5,7-tetranitro-l,3,5,7-tetra). Neither of these
were detected, and it is unlikely that nitrobenzene compounds were generated because these
compounds contain no aromatic rings. However, trinitrotoluene (TNT) may be present in
explosive mixtures processed by ATK. Nitroaromatic compounds will be evaluated
quantitatively. All of these compounds including RDX and HMX are energetically unstable.
Understandably no residues of these compounds were detected. All of these compounds fuel the
burning process and are likely consumed by the process. HMX and RDX are unlikely to survive
the process and they will not be evaluated quantitatively. Because it is unlikely that HMX,
RDX, and TNT residues may result from incomplete treatment, and these explosives will be
added to the list of analytes to be monitored under the operating permit.
Other Semi Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are
identified in Table 2-2. The majority of these compounds are research compounds or used by
synthetic chemistry laboratories in the manufacture of synthetic chemicals. On occasion, ATK
uses liquid solvents in their laboratories. ATK takes significant steps to prevent the open
burning of solvents but contracts disposal through a licensed off-site disposal contractor.
However, ATK's laboratories may dispose of small quantities of energetic compounds and/or
fuels contained in small volumes of solvent, soaked in paper, rags or other absorbent materials.
These compounds will be evaluated quantitatively.
19
DRAFT
2.2.3 Step 3 Is the Non-detected Chemical Likely to be a Product of Incomplete
Combustion?
Step 3 asks, "Does non-detect have a high potential to be emitted?" It is hypothetically possible
that PICs are released in the open burn and open detonation process, and this subsection
discusses the possibility that non-detected COPCs might be formed. The guidance asks if a non-
detected chemical has a "high potential" to be detected. Table 2-2 shows non-detected chemicals
and whether they will be included in the risk assessment, even though the majority of these
chemicals are not used by ATK, and are unlikely to be generated. Where indicated, these
chemicals are included because they are on the analyte list of the ODOBi test analyses. With
only a few exceptions, most of these chemicals will be evaluated quantitatively. For those not
evaluated, reasons are provided in Table 2-2 and in the text.
2.2.3.1 Metals
Metals cannot be generated in the open burn and open detonation process, and cannot be
generated as part of the combustion process. However, metals such as chromium may be found
in emissions due to their presence in the igniters, and the test pans, or trace amounts in
contaminated waste. The metals could be aerosolized in the heat of the test. Metals will be
evaluated quantitatively in the HHRA, as discussed above.
2.2.3.2 Polychlorinated Dibenzo(p)dioxins and Dibenzofurans
Some dioxins and difurans were detected in the ODOBi studies, and all dioxins and difurans are
evaluated quantitatively. Consistent with USEPA's HHRAP guidance (USEPA, 2005) dioxins
will be assessed using the Toxic Equivalent Factor (TEF) method will be used to determine the
risks associated with dioxins and furans. These constituents are generated in the process and it
will be assumed that all 210 individual congeners are produced. Table 2-1 shows the 7-dioxin
congener groups and 10 difuran congener groups for which there are TEFs.
2.2.3.3 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
PAHs are a broad class of chemical compounds, ranging from two aromatic ring compounds,
such as naphthalene, to complex six (or more) aromatic ring compounds such as indeno( 1,2,3-
20
DRAFT
cd)pyrene. PAHs are found as by-products in many combustion processes and have been found
in some of ATK's emissions.
1.3-Class Propellant PAH Emissions
The 1.3-Class ODOBi tests evaluated 100 % propellant, 85 percent propellant—15% trash, and
65% propellant—35% trash to determine emissions. In these tests, PAHs were generated and
were found in emissions gases. The lower the number of aromatic rings, the more frequently the
PAHs were detected. For example, the two aromatic ring PAH naphthalene was detected in 16
of 18 samples, compared with three ring aromatic PAHs, such as fluoranthene (detected in 5 of
18 samples), and phenanthrene (detected in 8 of 18 samples). For lower molecular PAHs the
risks and hazards associated with the detected PAHs will be evaluated quantitatively using the
higher emissions factor of the 1.3- or 1.1-Class propellant.
However, the data from the 1.3-Class AP propellant indicates that higher molecular weight
PAHs are not generated in the ODOBi tests. No four, five or six ring PAHs were detected in
ATK's ODOBi studies of 1,3-Class propellants. Based on the research provided below, the
presence of aluminum and heat in the open burn and open detonation process restricted the
formation of PAHs, and/or led to the destruction of higher molecular weight PAH.
Michael P. Kramer, PhD and Senior Scientist with ATK's Explosives, Propellants and
Pyrotechnics Group noted that an open detonation event can be described as a very rapid and
efficient combustion event where the high-energy release rate and good oxygen balance of the
explosive only favors the formation of small stable molecules. The entropy term for this rapid
energy release drives all explosive materials to form the predicted carbon dioxide, water and
nitrogen gas species. In experiments where attempts were made to capture all of the explosive
products, no molecules larger than the predicted CO2, H2O and N2 species were found except for
a very small amount of solid carbon. In addition to very efficient energy release, there was also
good mixing with the surrounding air, which further promoted the formation of CO2 and H2O
species (ATK, 2013a).
In an open burning event, the high-energy release in the flame zone and the extended mixing
with the surrounding air favored small product molecules. The formation of PAHs required a
21
DRAFT
carbon rich environment with long heating times at temperatures typically lower than open
combustion (ATK, 2013a).
ATK's ODOBi data indicate that these lower molecular PAH compounds were related to the
processing of trash because they appeared to increase with the percentage of trash in the test
material. The majority of the material processed by ATK is primarily waste perchlorate
propellant and high-energy material that does not contain a high volume of trash, and are
unlikely to produce significant quantities of PAHs.
It is important to recognize that the mechanism of PAH formation is different from that of dioxin
formation in open burn and open detonation processes. Dioxin formation is discussed by
USEPA in their 2003 document on dioxin toxicity (USEPA, 2003a) and is believed to involve a
range of pathways and mechanisms dependent on temperature, residence time, and the presence
of chlorine radicals, and oxychlorination. Chlorinated dioxins and difurans are energetically
relatively stable when formed, and are not easily destroyed after formation. Conversely, PAH
formation mechanisms vary with flame substrates, temperature, and combustion precursors.
Research using an acetylene or benzene flame system designed to produce high levels of PAHs
indicated that "cyclopentadienyl" is a key species for naphthalene formation, a key intermediate
precursor to PAH formation. The further growth process is based on hydrogen abstraction and
acetylene addition (Richter, et. al, 1999; Richter, 2000). In other words, higher molecular weight
PAHs were formed starting with two aromatic ring PAHs, such as naphthalene, and additional
rings were added through acetylene addition. The mole fraction of higher molecular PAHs were
lower (Richter, 2000) because they require the formation of lower molecular weight PAH as
precursors. For example, under these test conditions the peak mole fraction in the Flame I
experiments was low (5xl0-8) (Richter, 1999). Unlike dioxins, higher molecular weight PAHs
were not energy sinks, and were actually destroyed at higher temperatures. In fact, a free energy
barrier appears in the range 1400°K to 1800°K range, which increased sharply with increasing
temperature (Richter, 2000, pg 598). It should be noted that the experimental conditions in these
tests are significantly different from ATK's open burn and open detonation process, which is
deficient in hydrogen and acetylene.
22
DRAFT
In previous incineration guidance, USEPA (USEPA, 1994a; 1994b; 1994c; 1998a) recommended
evaluating seven potentially carcinogenic PAHs as COPCs (shown in the table below).
Summary of Higher Molecular Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons,
Ring Number, Detections and Cancer Potency for 1.3-CIass Emissions
PAH Name Number of
Aromatic
Rings
Detected in
ODOBi
Emissions!
Relative
Potencyft
Oral Slope Factor
multiplied by
Relative Potency
Benzo(a)anthracene No 0.1 0.73
Chrysene No 0.001 0.007
Benzo(a)pyrene No 1.0 7.3
Benzo(b)fluoranthene No 0.1 0.73
Benzo(k)fluoranthene No 0.01 0.073
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene No 1.0 7.3
Indeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene No 0.1 0.73
Benzo(ghi)perylene No NA
NOTES
t Emissions from ATK, 2009 for 1 -3 Propellant and Propellant with Trash
tt USEPA, 2005, Table 2-8.
f f f USEPA Regional Screening Levels
The USEPA focused on these high molecular weight PAHs because these are often found in
samples from incineration stacks, and are associated with soot, wood fires and tobacco smoke.
However, in the 2005 incineration guidance the USEPA's guidance states (pg 2-72), "Based on
the toxicity and combustion chemistry of PAHs, we generally recommend that stack gas testing
confirm the absence of these compounds from stack emissions." ATK's ODOBi studies
confirmed the absence of the seven potentially carcinogenic PAHs in the 1.3-Class tests.
In 1.3-Class propellant tests, only three ring PAHs were detected. As described above, the higher
emissions factors of the 1.3- or 1.1-Class AP propellant will be evaluated quantitatively.
Higher molecular weight PAHs were not detected in 1.3-Class tests because incineration at
temperatures above 570°F (300°C) with longer residence times, in the presence of aluminum
significantly decreases PAHs. As described by Miiller, "Naphthalene as well as 15 PAHs of the
23
DRAFT
EPA priority list and some identified methyl-PAH decrease nearly exponentially with increasing
aluminum proportion." (Miiller, et, al., 1997)
Five and six aromatic ring PAHs were not detected in the 1.3-Class propellant tests. Higher
molecular weight compounds are typically associated with burning rubber, tires and other high
molecular weight petroleum products, and by comparison low levels are produced from trash
(Bjorseth and Ramdahl, 1985, pg 12). They are also more predominant in lower temperature
combustion processes, and were found when combustion temperatures were lower (Bjorseth and
Ramdahl, 1985, pg 4). So it is not surprising that the seven potentially carcinogenic PAHs were
not detected in the high temperature open burn and open detonation process with perchlorate as
the driving force.
Two recent scientific studies provide technical support and show that higher molecular weight
PAHs (five and six ring) are not formed in the open burning of AP wastes and munitions. A
report on small arm and light weapons ammunition destruction stated:
"With the exception of small quantities of naphthalene and its alkylated sister compounds,
emission products larger than the molecules in the EM were not found in the detonation and burn
plumes. This is consistent with detonation theory and chemical kinetic mechanisms. It also
confirms that collisions between CxHy- radicals (molecular fragments produced by the
detonation/deflagration) are the source of the aromatic hydrocarbons. Thus, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons containing three or more aromatic rings are not likely to be produced by OB and
OD events." (SALW, 2004, pg. 4)
A study titled, "Innovative Technology Development for Comprehensive Air Quality
Characterization from Open Burning" (SERDP, 2012), showed the levels and types of PAHs
from the open burning of a number of five different test rockets and munitions, including
Sparrow rocket motors that contained AP, Ml, M26, SPCF and M31A1E1. These munitions
contained both 1.1 and 1.3 propellants. Table 3-3 (pg. 20) shows that no five or six ring PAHs
were detected in emissions.
Further, as previously stated, the PW85-15 ODOBi test sample included diesel fuel. The
percentage of diesel fuel present in the wastes are quite low, and as shown in analytical data
24
DRAFT
previously provided to the Division, the diesel contains no four, five or six ring PAHs in the
original samples. Therefore, no higher molecular weight PAHs were expected in the PW85-15
ODOBi test sample.
Other studies provide evidence that higher molecular weight PAHs are not formed. For example,
a study by Mitchell and Suggs (USEPA, 1998b) showed that AP mixed with other material
containing four percent diesel (Study 7, pg. 60) was evaluated under open burn conditions that
captured combustion by-products, including high molecular weight PAHs (pg 66) and did not
detect PAHs.
It was noted in the modeling protocol (TetraTech, 201 lb) that ATK uses desensitizing agents,
such as shingle oil and diesel fuel. These items were included in the PW85-15 ODOBi test
sample. Benzo(ghi)perylene is a six ring PAH, and was not detected in waste emission for 1,3-
Class propellants. As reported by Mitchel and Suggs (USEPA, 1998b) the Emission Factors for
the Disposal of Energetic Materials by OB/OD, in two of the test samples identified in Study 2
(Aluminized Propellant Manufacturing Waste Surrogate and Diesel Fuel and Dunnage
Surrogate) that contained various amounts of diesel fuel, benzo(ghi)perylene was not reported as
a detected compound.
Based on these results, higher molecular weight PAHs do not appear to be formed with 1.3-Class
propellant, or they are destroyed, and will not be evaluated quantitatively. Further, the detection
limit for the 1.1 -Class propellant will be evaluated quantitatively where high molecular weight
PAHs are not detected.
/. 1-Class Propellant PAH Emissions
Low levels of PAH were detected in the one study conducted by ATK with 65% 1.1-Class
propellant mixed with 35% trash. The emissions from 1.1 -Class propellants with higher trash
levels contained PAHs at low concentrations. These PAHs will be evaluated quantitatively using
the measured concentration and emissions factor for the detected chemicals. The PAHs detected
in 1.1-Class propellant test samples include: anthracene, chrysene, pyrene,
indeno(l,2,3,cd)pyrene, chrysene, 2-methylmaphthalene, benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(b)anthracene, benzo(k)anthracene, and benzo(ghi)perylene. These will be quantitatively
25
DRAFT
evaluated. Benzo[a]pyrene and dibenzo[a,h]anthracene were not detected in either the 1.3- or
1.1-Class propellant studies. It will be assumed that where a PAH was not detected the detection
limit from the 1.1 -Class propellant study will be used to provide emissions factors for
quantitative evaluation. The inclusion of emissions factors for non-detected compounds from 1.1
emissions tests is to provide ATK flexibility with operations under their permit and minimize or
perhaps eliminate the need for a permit modification during the life of the permit.
Methylated PAH Emissions
One low molecular weight methyl-PAH (2-methylnaphthalene) was detected in the 1.1-Class
ODOBi test, and this compound will be evaluated quantitatively. With the exception of this
compound, no other methyl PAHs were detected due to the fact that the formation of higher
molecular weight methyl-PAHs are not favored in the mechanism of PAH formation. Based on
the mechanism of PAH formation, higher molecular weight methyl-PAHs are less likely to be
formed in the high temperature open burn and open detonation process because they would need
to form from lower molecular weight methylated-PAH compounds by the addition of one or
more PAH. The formation of dimethyl-PAH is statistically even more unlikely because two
methyl-PAH would need to react to form a dimethyl PAH. This is borne out experimentally.
Mtiller, et. al. (1997) investigated the presence of methyl-PAHs in the open burn and open
detonation process in the presence of aluminum and found none. Therefore, higher molecular
methyl-PAH (such as dimethylbenzanthracene (a four ring PAH) will not be evaluated
quantitatively in the HHRA.
2-Acetvlaminofluorene and 3-Methylcholanthrene
Another chemical listed in Table 2-2 that appears on the analyte list is 2-acetylaminofluorene.
This chemical is a research chemical and is used in chemical synthesis as a reactive intermediate
because it is a three ring compound with a reactive functional group attached to the molecule. It
is not used by ATK, it is not in their wastes, and it also unlikely to be formed because the
reactive functional group would bond with other molecules in the open burn and open detonation
process. It is unlikely to survive the open burn and open detonation process, and has not been
seen in other studies of munitions and AP wastes (US Army, 2009). This chemical will not be
evaluated quantitatively.
26
DRAFT
3-Methylcholanthrene is a research compound used in medical, biochemical and synthetic
chemistry research. It is highly unlikely this chemical will be formed in high temperature
incineration and it will not be evaluated quantitatively.
2.2.4 Step 4 Are there: Related site-specific factors and is it possibly emitted?
From a site-specific perspective it is important to re-emphasize that ATK's process destroys
material that is highly energetic, ATK's process burns rapidly with intensity by generating a hot
flame under controlled burn conditions. Perchlorate is a strong oxidizer and provides a
significant boost to contaminated waste incineration. The burning of trash or contaminated
waste is not the objective of ATK's process; the objective is the disposal of perchlorate based
propellant results from "off-specification" rocket motors and fuel, missile rocket fuel and
laboratory waste contaminated with lower levels of energetic wastes. Apart from the issues
discussed above, there are no site-specific factors that would lead to the inclusion of other
COPCs.
Particulate emissions associated with the ATK facility were modeled for each worst case
scenario from M-136 and M-225. Particulate Matter (PM) smaller than 2.5 and 10 micrometers
were modeled and compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM-
2.5 and PM-10 (CB&I, 2013). No exceedances of the NAAQS for PM-2.5 and PM-10 were
shown at the ATK property boundary when comparing the modeled concentration for PM-2.5
and PM-10 to the respective NAAQS (CB&I, 2014).
In summary, the chemical constituents that will be evaluated quantitatively are all of the
chemicals shown in Table 2-1, and the constituents shown in Table 2-2 with a "Yes" in the far
right column.
2J Category E/Flare Wastes
ATK produces three types of Military Flares; infrared illumination, visible illumination, and
decoy/countermeasure flares. Waste illuminate and contaminated material resulting from the
manufacturing process is treated by open burning. The volume of these waste streams varies
depending on the contracts requested by the Military. The quantity of these waste streams has
varied from 40,000 - 165,000 lb. /yr. over an eight year period. At the time of ATK's 1997 and
27
DRAFT
2006 OB/OD tests the volume of flare wastes was also low and there are no specific flare
emissions factors available. In the absence of these factors, ATK believes the use of the
proposed Emissions Factors (Table 2-1) is appropriate to represent these wastes because the
amount of this waste stream is very insignificant compared to the magnitude of the 1.3 propellant
wastes that has been treated over the last eight year period. The maximum quantity of this waste
stream is approximately one-half the maximum quantity of 1.1 propellant waste that has been
treated over the last eight year period. And although the amount of flare wastes process by ATK
was higher in 2013 than in previous years, this higher level of flare wastes is not expected to
continue.
Flare formulations are both proprietary and subject to non-disclosure for security reasons.
However, the primary propellant is 1.3-Class material with other components added, and these
components would represent an even smaller amount of material.
Some of the wastes contain the elements, or compounds of: boron, bismuth, cesium, indium,
iron, silicon, tin, zinc and zirconium. The toxicological information on many of these chemicals
is unavailable, and the table below shows information that is available. None of these chemicals
appear to be carcinogenic, or carcinogenicity data is unavailable. Lead has been discussed
previously. With the exception of zirconium, the chemicals have relatively low toxicity. This is
shown by comparison to iron, which has an oral reference-dose (RfD0) of 0.7 mg/kg/day, and
which is a nutritionally required element. All of the elements or compounds are in a similar
range to this RfD0, with the exception of zirconium. This element would represent such a small
proportion of the waste as to be trivial. See Table 2-3 Potential Elements/Compounds in Flare
Wastes.
28
DRAFT
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 areas, with conservatism incorporated to ensure protectiveness of
potential receptors not directly evaluated, such as special subpopulations and regionally specific
land uses.
The risk assessment exposure assumptions in the Lakes model are based on the default
assumptions available in 2005 when the HHRAP guidance was published. In February 2104, the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) issued Directive 9200.1-120
(USEPA, 2014), which revised a number of the default risk assessment assumptions. The 2014
default assumptions will be incorporated into the Lakes model and used for the Promontory
HHRA, as discussed in Section 3.2.
29
DRAFT
3.1 Exposure Setting 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) within and beyond the ATK facility boundary.
As shown on Table 4-4 in the TetraTech air dispersion modeling report (TetraTech, 201 lb), the
predominant wind direction is from northwest through the northeast. 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. There are no sensitive subpopulations within the 10 km assessment area. 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, 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-l 36
and M-225 treatment units.
30
DRAFT
• North Plant Main Administration Building and Main Manufacturing Area located 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 located 1.8 miles
south of M-136 and 3.9 miles west-northwest of M-225.
• Christensen Residence. This residential dwelling is located due north of ATK.
• The 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.
• Thatcher Residence located northeast of ATK.
• Penrose Residence located east of ATK.
In addition, at the request of the State of Utah a qualitative evaluation of risk will be performed
at the following locations and presented in the uncertainty section of the HHRA:
• Salt Creek Waterfowl Management Area
• Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge
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 that the following exposure scenarios be evaluated:
• Farmer
• Farmer Child
• Adult Resident
• Child Resident
31
DRAFT
• 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 (Bio-West Inc., December 2008;Walsh Environmental, May 2002). Consequently,
ingestion of fish and ingestion of surface water (as drinking water) will not be evaluated. At the
request of the State of Utah, one receptor not specified in the guidance document, the on-site
industrial worker will also be evaluated in the HHRA.
While farmers or residents are not currently located within the facility boundaries it is possible
for the area within the facility boundaries to be developed for residential or agricultural use if the
facility was closed in the future. Therefore, exposures (except for inhalation) will be evaluated
for farmers or residents for all receptor locations beyond 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 current worker at the AutoLiv facility, the Main North
Administration and Manufacturing Area, the Main South Administration and Manufacturing
Area; and a future worker at the location of the maximum on-site air concentration as determined
by the air dispersion modeling, only. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 list the receptors that will be evaluated
at the on-site and off-site receptor locations, respectively.
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.
32
DRAFT
• Ingestion of Groundwater. US EPA (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. US EPA (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 (US EPA, 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 (US EPA, 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 3-3
presents the exposure pathways, which will be evaluated for each of the recommended scenarios
and Table 3-4 presents the exposure assumptions that will be used to evaluate each exposure
pathway.
33
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
34
DRAFT
• 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.
3.2.4 Industrial Worker 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 i-RA?-h View and represent annual average concentrations. Risks will be calculated for a
current worker at the AutoLiv facility, the Main North Administration and Manufacturing Area,
the Main South Administration and Manufacturing Area; and a future worker at the location of
the maximum on-site impact.
3.3 Evaluation of Mercury
In accordance with the HHRAP guidance mercury will be evaluated as follows:
• Elemental mercury will be evaluated only through direct inhalation of the vapor phase;
• Divalent mercury will be evaluated only through both direct inhalation and indirect
exposure to vapor and particle-bound mercuric chloride; and
• Methyl mercury will be not evaluated because this chemical is only formed in aquatic
systems, which are not evaluated here.
35
DRAFT
3.4 Evaluation of Chromium
According to the HHRAP guidance (USEPA, 2005, pg 2-44) hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) is
unlikely to be emitted from a combustor. The guidance states, "Trivalent chromium is the most
common form found in nature, and chromium in biological materials is probably always
trivalent. There is no evidence that trivalent chromium is converted to hexavalent forms in
biological systems. Hexavalent chromium readily crosses cell membranes and is reduced
intracellularly to trivalent chromium." The open burning open detonation process is highly
oxidative because of the presence of aluminum and perchlorate, and chromium is likely oxidized
initially to Cr(VI). Based on this, the following will be used in the HHRA:
• It will be assumed that 100% of the emissions are Cr(VI), which is conservative for
chromium in soil and through plant uptake mechanisms; and
• It is assumed Cr(III) will be evaluated through the evaluation of chromium as Cr(VI),
although this is highly conservative.
3.5 Estimation of Media Concentrations
Media concentrations are derived based upon the results of the air dispersion model. The
USEPA Guidance (US EPA, 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
inputted into i-RAP-h View to derive these media concentrations. Vapor phase, particle, and
particle bound air dispersion modeling results will be used in the estimation of the media
concentrations. The default parameters identified in USEPA's HHRAP are already incorporated
in /-RAP-/i 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.
3.5.1 Calculation of COPC Concentrations in Air for Direct Inhalation
COPC concentrations in air are calculated by summing the vapor phase, particle phase, and
particle bound 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.
36
DRAFT
3.5.2 Calculation of COPC Concentrations in Soil
COPC concentrations in soil are calculated by summing the vapor phase, particle phase, and
particle bound 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 and in these cases site-specific values will be used. The site-specific
parameters are summarized in Table 3-5.
3.5.3 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
37
DRAFT
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 3-6 summarizes chemical properties that are incorporated into the
model for those chemicals not listed. Following a review of the chemical properties in the
HHRAP database a number of these were found to be different to those currently available.
Table 3-6 indicates the values that have been revised for this protocol. Also, biotransfer factors
that are useful in evaluating the uptake of chemicals into produce are provided for these
chemicals in Table 3-7. Biotransfer factors have been recalculated for higher molecular PAHs
because for many of these compounds, the Henry's Law constant (H) in the HHRAP Database is
inconsistent with those currently used by EPA. For example, H for dibenz[a,h]anthracene in the
Q
database is 1.5x10" atmosphere-cubic meters per mole, yet the Regional Screening Levels
Tables gives H as 1.4xl0"7 atmosphere-cubic meters per mole. Table 3-7 shows changes to the
chemical properties that have been updated in this HHRAP. Chemical properties were obtained
from the Risk Assessment Information System (RAIS) Internet site, USEPA's Superfund
Chemical Data Matrix (US EPA, 2004) and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection Land Recycling Program (PDEP, 2014) online chemical and physical properties
database. Biotransfer factors were calculated using the equations presented in Appendix A of the
HHRAP guidance. Table 3-7 also shows biotransfer factors that have been updated based on
changes to chemical properties. Sample calculations for the calculation of the biotransfer factors
will be presented in an appendix to the HHRA.
3.5.4 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.
38
DRAFT
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:
• 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 (US EPA, 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 3-7.
3.5.5 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 3-7.
3.5.6 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 3-7.
39
DRAFT
3.6 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:
1 = ( Cgen • CR • EF • ED ) / ( BW • AT)
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) (US EPA, 1989). All exposure inputs for the various receptors being evaluated are the
default exposure assumptions provided in USEPA's HHRAP and are presented in Table 3-6.
40
DRAFT
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 1 x 10"6 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
And cancer risk is defined by the following equation for inhalation exposures:
Cancer Risk = EC • IUR • 1,000 //g/mg
Where:
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg-day)
EC = Exposure Concentration (mg/m3)
CSF = Cancer Slope Factor (mg/kg-day)"1
IUR = Inhalation Unit Risk Og/m3)"1
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 Riskj = 2J Cancer Risk;
Where:
Cancer Riskr = Total cancer risk for a specific exposure pathway
Cancer Riskj = 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.
41
DRAFT
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 (US EPA, 2003a):
• Tier 1 - Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (Online).
• Tier 2 - 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.
• Tier 3 - 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).
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 4-1 presents toxicity values for chemicals for which the
values listed in HHRAP have been revised since the document was published and Table 4-2
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.
42
DRAFT
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/m3)
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.
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 = Zi HQ,
Where:
HI = Total hazard for a specific exposure pathway
HQj = Hazard Quotient for COPCs
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
43
DRAFT
• 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 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. USEPA recommended sources or
surrogate compounds will be used to represent those compounds based on toxicological
properties and structural similarities. Table 4-1 presents toxicity values for chemicals for which
the values listed in HHRAP have been revised since the document was published and Table 4-2
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 a target level of 60 pg/kg-day 2,3,7,8-TCDD
TEQ (US EPA, 2005). The toxicity equivalency factors (TEFs) presented in the 2005 HHRAP
guidance are based on values published by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1998. In
2005 the WHO (2006) published new TEFs and in 2010 US EPA (2010) officially accepted the
44
DRAFT
2005 WHO TEFs. Therefore, the WHO 2005 TEFs will be used to evaluate dioxins/furans in
this analysis. The dioxin/furan congeners and corresponding TEFs are listed below:
Congener TEF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD 0.0003
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF 0.0003
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDD 0.01
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDF 0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HPCDF 0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDD 0.1
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDD 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDF 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDD 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDF 0.1
1,2,3,7,8-PECDD
1,2,3,7,8-PECDF 0.03
2,3,4,6,7,8-HXCDF 0.1
2,3,4,7,8-PECDF 0.3
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have not been identified as COPCs; therefore dioxin-like
PCBs will not be evaluated in the HHRA.
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:
45
DRAFT
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 (CalEPA, 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 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).
Table 4-3 presents benchmarks for chemicals for which the values listed in HHARP have been
revised since the document was published and Table 4-4 presents benchmarks for those
chemicals not listed in USEPA's HHRAP.
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 (AHQinri).
46
DRAFT
The AHQinh is calculated as follows:
AHQinh (Cacute« 0.001)/AIEC.
Where:
AHQinh
0.001 =
C
AIEC =
•acute
= Acute hazard quotient (unitless)
Acute air concentration (ug/m3)
Acute inhalation exposure criteria (mg/m )
Conversion factor (mg/|!g)
In the assessment of acute toxicity from COPCs, reviewed health benchmarks (AIEC) are
recommended. However, for numerous compounds, a complete set of AIECs 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.
4.5 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:
47
DRAFT
• TL V 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.
The modeled 1-hour and 24-hour air concentrations at each receptor location will be compared to
their respective UDAQ TSLs.
4.6 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"4 to 1 x 10"6). USEPA has defined the range of 1 x 1<T* to 1 x 10"6
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"6.
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 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.
48
DRAFT
For acute exposures resulting from direct inhalation, the chemical specific AHQmh will be
considered potentially significant if above 1, in a grey area between 1 and 10, and significant
above 10.
49
DRAFT
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 will be discussed in the uncertainty analysis.
5.1 Uncertainty in the Selection of Emissions Factors
The emissions factors in Table 2-1 are selected based on the ODOBi tests performed for ATK at
Dugway proving ground, as described in the 2011 Approved Modeling Protocol. Emissions
factors were selected as described in Section 2.1.2 to represent the emissions from all classes of
propellants. The uncertainty of using 1.3-Class propellant emissions will be discussed in this
section of the HHRA report. In Section 2 of the protocol, a comparison of the emissions of
TCDD-TE from 1.3-Class and 1.1-Class propellant is provided. This section of the report will
expand on this issue and discuss the risks associated with VOCs and metals, based on the
selected emissions factors.
Based on discussions with the Utah DEQ, the emissions factors for non-detected compounds
were included in the HHRA process. The uncertainty associated with the assumption that non-
detected chemical compounds are actually present at their method detection limits will also be
included in the discussion of uncertainty.
5.2 Uncertainty in the Inclusion of Method Blanks and Background
The ODOBi tests were conducted by igniting the test bundles using black powder and ignition
wire, the bundles were contained in stainless Where a chemical is not detected, trays, and the
bundles are smaller than those actually burned by ATK. These differences will contribute
background chemicals to the tests, and this will be discussed in the uncertainty section of the
report.
50
DRAFT
Chromium is a good example of where the ODOBi tests may have been affected by the presence
of substances in the test. ATK has analyzed their waste streams for the presence of chromium.
Ammonium perchlorate (AP) propellant contains 16% aluminum, which contains between 0 and
20 parts per million (ppm) chromium (ATK, 2013b). If it were assumed that aluminum contains
20 ppm chromium, AP waste would contain between zero and 3.2ppm. However, the ODOBi
test released up to 130 ppm (1.3xl0"5 lbs/lb, Table 7, ATK, 2009), more chromium than available
in the waste. Therefore, there has to be an alternative source of chromium to complete the mass
balance. The burn pans contain 15 percent chromium in the steel, and provide the additional
chromium found in the emissions. The chromium in the stainless steep pans has been shown to
aerosolize during welding. In 2003, welding fumes were sampled to protect workers during steel
pan welding operations (ATK, 2003). The air during welding was found to contain 0.6 to 3.3
micrograms of chromium per cubic meter of air. The temperatures attained during the open burn
and open detonation process are high, and TetraTech, 201 lb (pg. 4-6) indicates flame
temperatures of 4976°F (100% AP propellant), 2950°F (85% AP propellant), and 2260°F (65%
AP propellant). These temperatures are higher than temperatures found in steel welding
operations (1500°F) (NiDI, 1988), and where welding data from ATK shows that chromium is
generated during welding the incineration pans used by ATK in the ODOBi Chamber (ATK,
2003). The aerosolization of chromium from the pans will lead to an overestimation of
chromium risk from ATK's emissions.
Mercury was detected in one sample of emissions from pure AP propellant. This too is likely to
be an artifact of the testing process, and the presence of mercury in the pans, the ignition sources,
and the wastes will be discussed the uncertainty section.
5.3 Uncertainty Associated with Modeled Air Concentrations and Deposition
The modeling process contains a number of assumptions, some are thought to overestimate and
some to underestimate ambient air concentrations, and deposition. These will be discussed in the
uncertainty section of the report. Mercury was not detected in propellant, and assuming it is
present is at a method detection limit of 0.03 mg/kg or 30 micrograms per kilogram (ATK,
2014b) is conservative. The Lakes model evaluates mercury as particulate bound, and mercury
vapor, and the conservative nature of these assumptions will be evaluated in the risk assessment.
51
DRAFT
5.4 Uncertainty in Chemical Uptake, Food Chain Modeling and Dose Estimates
Chemical deposition is modeled to provided soil and foliage chemical concentrations, especially
for hydrophobic compounds, like dioxins, that have a propensity to bio-accumulate. In some
cases uptake factors are measured, and in some cases they are estimated based on physical-
chemistry parameters. These estimates introduce additional uncertainty into the risk assessment
process. Where possible, bio-uptake and bio-accumulation factors will be taken from the EPA's
Incineration Guidance (EPA, 2005). However, to the extent possible, default factors will be
evaluated to determine if more scientifically accurate and appropriate factors can be used in the
risk assessment process. Table 3-6 shows chemical specific parameters that have been modified,
and Table 3-7 shows biotransfer factors that have changed based on these modifications. The
uncertainty associated with the selection and use of uptake, biotransfer and bio-accumulation
factors will be discussed.
5.5 Potential Exposures to Hunters at Salt Creek Waterfowl Management Area and
Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge
Hunters at the Salt Creek Waterfowl Management Area and Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge
could be exposed to constituents of concern via ingestion of contaminated birds. This exposure
pathway is not typically evaluated in HHRAs and standard default exposure assumptions for this
pathway do not exist. The incremental risk associated with the ingestion of game by hunters are
expected to be at least an order of magnitude less than other dietary exposure risk associated with
a resident farmer (adult and child) scenario modeled at the maximum deposition location for
target constituents. Consequently, as requested by the State of Utah, potential exposures to
hunters via ingestion of contaminated birds will be evaluated qualitatively in the HHRA. The
qualitative assessment will address the following:
• The potential for the Salt Creek Waterfowl Management Area and Bear River Migratory
Bird Refugee to be impacted by open burning/open detonation operations at the two
OB/OD sites at the Promontory facility.
• Based on the nature and fate transport characteristics of the primary constituents:
52
DRAFT
o Describe how (and to what degree) game species may be exposed to site
constituents.
o Do the primary constituents at issue have the capacity to bioaccumulate,
bioconcentrate, or biomagnify? Please evaluate the significance of these
phenomena.
o Are any of these constituents preferentially sequestered in (edible) muscle tissue?
• What is the relative contribution (excess incremental lifetime cancer risk or hazard) of
risk associated with game species consumption by recreational hunters to the total
residential human health risk (e.g., potential for order-of-magnitude change)?
5.6 Uncertainty in the Overall Risk Estimates
There is uncertainty in the overall risk assessment process, and there will be uncertainty on the
final risk estimates. It is important to understand which assumptions have a potential impact on
the overall risk assessment results and which do not because there may be key assumptions that
drive the risks, and implementing regulatory requirements based on an assumption may not be
the most appropriate method of regulating the Facility. For example, if a chemical is not
detected, it is assumed to be present, and its emissions factor is based on an elevated method
detection limit, the risk assessment would be based on an assumption rather than on real data.
These and other uncertainties in the risk assessment process will be examined in this section of
the report.
53
DRAFT
6.0 REFERENCES
ATK, 1998 Draft Sampling Results for Alliant "Slum" Emission Characterization, Volumes
1, 2, and 3; Prepared for U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground Dugway, Utah, March
ATK, 2003 Welding Fumes Air Sampling Results, Memorandum from Chris Burrows, to Jeff
Perry, ATK Aerospace, Magna, UT
ATK, 2003b Analysis of metals in the Aluminum contained in AP Wastes, Personal
Communication from ATK
ATK, 2009 Sampling Results for Emission Characterization Of Open Burning Waste
Propellant Materials Volume I—Summary Report, Appendix I-A—Analyte Lists and
Appendix I-B—Emission Factors Summary Data, October
ATK, 2013a Personal Communication from Michael P. Kramer PhD, Senior Scientist with
ATK's Explosives, Propellants and Pyrotechnics Group, to Stephen Foster, Ph.D. Terra
Mentis Environmental, December
ATK, 2014 Approval letter from the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste, to Mr.
Blair Palmer
ATK, 2014a Personal communication from Blair Palmer to Stephen Foster, May 2014, these
data will be provided with the HHRA
ATK Promontory Permit Attachment 11 January 2014 ATK Launch Systems Inc.
Promontory Hazardous Waste Storage Permit January 2014, Attachment 11
ATSDR, 1995 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Toxicological
Profile for Benzidine, U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Atlanta, GA
Bio-West Inc, December 2008 Aquatic Species Inventory of Shotgun, Pipe, Fish and
Horseshoe Spring near Promontory, Utah, December 2008
54
DRAFT
Bjorseth, A. and Ramdahl, T. Handbook of PAH: Emissions Sources and Recent Advances in
Analytical Chemistry, Volume 2, Marcel Decider Inc., NY, NY, 1985
CalEPA, 1999 Air Toxics Hot Spot Program Risk Assessment Guideline, Part I, The
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants. California
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,
March
CB&I, 2013 ADDENDUM Air Dispersion Modeling Protocol for Open Burning and Open
Detonation at ATK Launch Systems in Promontory, Utah, Shaw Environmental &
Infrastructure, Inc., Baton Rouge, LA, February
CB&I, 2014 Air Dispersion Modeling Report for Open Burn and Open Detonation at ATK
Launch Systems in Promontory, Utah, CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.,
Monroeville, PA, March
DoE, 2001 Definitions for Different TEEL Levels Department of Energy
Kwon E., and Castaldi, M.J., Poly cyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) formation in thermal
degradation ofStyrene Butadiene Copolymer (SBR), Proceedings: 14th North American
Waste to Energy Conference, May 1-3, 2006, Tampa, Florida, pg 79 to 89
Lakes, 2014 Industrial Risk Assessment Program (i-RAP-h View) -Human Health Risk
Assessment Protocol, Lakes Environmental, Toronto, Canada, purchased March
Lemieux, P.M., C.W. Lee, J.D. Kilgore, and J.V. Ryan. 1999. "Emissions of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls as Products of Incomplete Combustion from Incinerators." Presented at the
1999 International Conference on Incineration and Thermal Treatment Technologies.
Orlando, Florida. May.
MDH, 2001 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Methods for Estimating Health Risks from
Carcinogenic PAHs, Minnesota Department of Public Health, Health Risk Assessment
Unit, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/guidance/pahmemo.html
55
DRAFT
Miiller, J.. Dongmann, G., Frischkorn,C.G.B., The effect of aluminium on the formation of PAH,
Methyl-PAH and chlorinated aromatic compounds during thermal decomposition of
PVC, Chemistry and Dynamics of the Geosphere, Volume 43, Issue 2, October 1997, pg
157 to 168
NiDI, 1988 Welding of Stainless Steels and Other Joining Methods, Nickel Development
Institute, and American Iron and Steel Institute, A Designers' Handbook Series, 9002
NOAA, 2001 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Public Exposure Guidelines,
September
PDEP, 2104 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Land Recycling Program,
online chemical database;
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portel/server.pt/communi1y/land_recyclingjrogram/205
Richter, H., 2000. "Formation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and their growth to
soot—a review of chemical reaction pathways." Progress in Energy and Combustion
Science, volume 26, pg 565 to 608
Richter, H., W. J. Grieco, J. B. Howard. 1999. Formation mechanism of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons andfullerenes in premixed benzene flames. Combustion and Flame,
Volume 119,pg 1 to 22
SALW, 2004 Small Arms and Light Weapons Ammunition Destruction, Environmental
Releases from Open Burning and Open Detonation Events, The South Eastern Europe
Clearinghouse for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons, United Nations
Development Programme, May, pg 4
SCAPA, 2001 Revision 17 of ERPGs and TEELs for Chemicals of Concern, Subcommittee on
Consequence Assessment and Protective Actions, U.S. Department of Energy, January
SERDP, 2012 Innovative Technology Development for Comprehensive Air Quality
Characterization from Open Burning, WP-2153, Final Report, Strategic Environmental
Research and Development Program, Arlington, VA 22203, February
56
DRAFT
TetraTech, 201 la ATK Launch Systems Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for
Evaluation of Open Burning and Open Detonation Units, ATK Launch Systems,
Promontory Utah, May
TetraTech, 201 lb ATK Launch Systems Waste Characterization and Air Dispersion
Modeling Protocol for Use in the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, ATK
Launch Systems, Promontory Utah, April
TetraTech, 2102 Revised Air Dispersion Modeling Assessment Report for Open Burn and
Open Detonation Treatment Units at ATK Launch Systems Brigham City, ATK Launch
Systems Promontory, Utah,
US Army, 2009 Background Document, Report on Revisions to 5th Edition AP-42 Chapter
15 - Ordinance Detonation, Emissions Factors Developed Based on Phase IX Testing
Conducted at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, U.S. Army Environmental Command,
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, July
US EPA, 2000 Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds, Part I: Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like
Compounds, Volume 2: Sources of Dioxin-Like Compounds in the United States, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Exposure Assessment, Draft Final
Report, EPA/600/P-00/001Bb, September
USEPA 2010 Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human Health
Risk Assessments of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds.
EPA/100/R-10/005. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, December
USEPA, 1989 Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Interim Final), EPA/540/1-89/002, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Washington, D.C., EPA/540/1-89/002, December
USEPA, 1990 Interim Final Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with
Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office. Office of Research and Development. EPA-600-90-003, January
57
DRAFT
USEPA, 1994a Draft Revision, Implementation Guidance for Conducting Indirect
Exposure Analysis at RCRA Combustion Units. Attachment, Draft Exposure Assessment
Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. US Environmental
Protection Agency, April
USEPA, 1994b Draft, Guidance on Trial Burns. Attachment B, Draft Exposure
Assessment Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. US
Environmental Protection Agency, May
USEPA, 1994c Revised Draft, Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at
Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure
Assessment Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency Response and Remediation,
December
USEPA, 1994d Benzofajpyrene, Integrated Risk Information System, US Environmental
Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/iris
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
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
58
DRAFT
USEPA, 1998a Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Multiple
Pathways of Exposure to Combustor Emissions (MPE). Update to EPA/600/6-90/003. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center
for Environmental Assessment, EPA/600/R-98/137. December.
USEPA, 1998b Emissions Factors for the Disposal of Energetics Materials by Open
Burning and Open Detonation, William Mitchell and Jack Suggs, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-98/103, August
USEPA, 2003a Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds, National Academy Sciences (NAS) Review
Draft; Part 1: Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-like Compounds; Volume 1: Source of
Dioxin-like Compounds in the United States; Section 2: Mechanism of Formation of
Dioxin-like Compounds During Combustion of Organic Matter, EPA/P-00/001 Cb,
December
USEPA, 2003b Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments. Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, OSWER 9285.7-53, Washington,
DC, December
USEPA, 2004 Superfund Chemical Data Matrix, January 28. Located online at:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm
USEPA, 2005 Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) for Hazardous Waste
Combustion Facilities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, EPA530-R-05-006, September
USEPA, 2014 Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of
Standard Default Exposure Factors, Memorandum from Dana Stalcup, Acting Director,
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation and
Technology Innovation, to Superfund national Policy Managers, Regions 1-10, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Directive 9200.1-120, February
Walsh Environmental May 2002 Screening Level Endangerment Assessment Thiokol
Propulsion, Northern Utah May, 2002
59
DRAFT
WHO, 1998 Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for Humans and
Wildlife; Environmental Health Perspectives; Volume 106, Number 12. December.
WHO, 2006 The 2005 World Health Organization Re-evaluation of Human and Mammalian
Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds; Toxicological
Sciences, July
60
FIGURES
DRAFT
Figure 1
LOCATION OF ATK. PROMONTORY M-136 AND M-225 TREATMENT UNITS AND DISCRETE
MODELING RECEPTORS, PROMONTORY, UTAH
62
V:li
rtowe» Dairy
ChristensejiRan*]
"i I (196669,4619480Jr
- + 390669
384669
376670,4619479 4617480
Thatcher
Boundary m
4615480
Blue Creak I ( wl-136
4613480 4615480
r\uto\w
I Penrose^—~-
Sal_reeKWrt«l»
Boundary#3l ; ,\' +
4611480 (613480
Mams Ranch] I -
Mea V7l Boundary ri
— - ''4611480
M-225
46O7480l';:-. JU Ranch FondlA* K'.' ,'5.T•" v Holmgren
Boundary «
4605480 1607480
4603480 4605480 It A
r -iPE if Ji v
• 1 i 5 1601480 4603480
4601480
^-r396669_a9f°J-;'/ . BiverBirdRetuge dear
ATK Ranch Pond
378669 376670,4599479
'-t
9,500
^Feet Legend
# Discrete Receptor
Treatment Unit
I—] 10 km Radius
- "FacilityBoundary ILr * 5 -—wTT
—
. „mrc7 4/20/11J
CTO NUMBER NUMBER CONTBftCl
0 ATE ^PROVED TETRATECH
PROMONTORY, UTAH _
APPROVED BY
f IGORE NO
S. STROZ
TABLES
DRAFT
Table 1-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern from the ATK's Approved 2011 Human Health
Risk Assessment Protocol^)
Cas No. COPC Classification
Listed in USEPA
HHRAP
Database'1'
Toxicity
Information
Available™
Quantitatively
Evaluated'3*
Detected in 1.3 or
1.1 Class
Propellant Tests'4'
83-32-9 Acenaphthene SVOC Yes Yes Yes
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene SVOC No Yes Yes
75-07-0 Acetaldehyde Carbonyls Yes Yes Yes
67-64-Acetone Carbonyls Yes Yes Yes
75-05-8 Acetonitrile VOC Yes Yes Yes
98-86-2 Acetophenone SVOC Yes Yes Yes
53-96-3 Acetylaminofluorene, 2-SVOC No Yes No (c) ND
74-86-2 Acetylene VOC No No Not Toxic
107-13-Acrylonitrile VOC Yes Yes Yes
100-44-7 alpha-Chlorotoluene VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
7429-90-5 Aluminum Metals No Yes Yes
92-67-Aminobiphenyl, 4-SVOC No Yes Yes ND
62-53-3 Aniline SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
120-12-7 Anthracene SVOC Yes Yes Yes
7440-36-0 Antimony Metals Yes Yes Yes
7440-38-2 Arsenic Metals Yes Yes Yes
7440-39-3 Barium Metals Yes Yes Yes ND
100-52-7 Benzaldehyde Carbonyls Yes Yes Yes
71-43-2 Benzene VOC Yes Yes Yes
92-87-5 Benzidine SVOC No Yes No(c) ND
56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene SVOC Yes Yes Yes 1-1
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene SVOC Yes Yes Yes 1-1
DRAFT
Table 1-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern from the ATK's Approved 2011 Human Health
Risk Assessment Protocol^)
Cas No. COPC Classification
Listed in USEPA
HHRAP
Database'1'
Toxicity
Information
Available'2'
Quantitatively
Evaluated'3*
Detected in 1.3 or
1.1 Class
Propellant Tests'4'
191-24-2 Benzo(ghi)perylene SVOC No Yes Yes 1-1
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene SVOC Yes Yes Yes 1-1
65-85-0 Benzoic acid SVOC Yes Yes Yes
100-51-6 Benzyl alcohol SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
111-91-1 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane SVOC No Yes Yes ND
111-44-4 bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
39638-32-9 bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether SVOC No No No ND
117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
75-25-2 Bromoform VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
74-83-9 Bromomethane VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
101-55-3 Bromophenyl phenyl ether,
4-svoc Yes Yes Yes ND
106-99-0 Butadiene, 1,3-VOC No No No
106-97-8 Butane VOC No No Not Toxic
78-93-3 Butanone (MEK), 2-VOC Yes Yes Yes
106-98-9 Butene, 1-VOC No Yes Yes
590-18-1 Butene, cis-2-VOC No Yes Yes
624-64-6 butene, trans-2-VOC No Yes Yes
85-68-7 Butyl benzyl phthalate SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
109-69-3 Butylchloride, n-VOC No No No ND
Butyraldehydes, MEK Carbonyls No No No
7440-43-9 Cadmium Metals Yes Yes Yes ND
86-74-8 Carbazole SVOC No Yes Yes ND
DRAFT
Table 1-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern from the ATK's Approved 2011 Human Health
Risk Assessment Protocol^)
Cas No. COPC Classification
Listed in USEPA
HHRAP
Database0'
Toxicity
Information
Available'2'
Quantitatively
Evaluated'3'
Detected in 1.3 or
1.1 Class
Propellant Tests'4'
75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide VOC Yes Yes Yes
56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride VOC Yes Yes Yes
59-50-7 Chloro-3-methylphenol, 4-SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
107-14-2 Chloroacetonitrile VOC No Yes Yes ND
106-47-8 Chloroaniline, 4-SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
108-90-7 Chlorobenzene VOC Yes Yes Yes
75-00-3 Chloroethane VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
67-66-3 Chloroform VOC Yes Yes Yes
74-87-3 Chloromethane VOC Yes Yes Yes
90-13-1 Chloronaphthalene, SVOC No Yes Yes
91-58-7 Chloronaphthalene, 2-SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
95-57-8 Chlorophenol, 2-SVOC Yes Yes Yes
107-05-1 Chloropropene, 3-VOC No No No
7440-47-3 Chromium (b) Metals Yes Yes Yes
218-01-9 Chrysene SVOC Yes Yes Yes
7782-50-5 CI2 HCL/C12/NH4 Yes Yes Yes
630-08-0 CO CEM No No No
124-38-9 CO, CEM No No No
7440-48-4 Cobalt Metals No Yes Yes ND
7440-50-8 Copper Metals No Yes Yes
4170-30-3 Crotonaldehyde Carbonyls No Yes Yes ND
98-82-8 Cumene VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
10-82-7 Cyclohexane VOC No Yes Yes
287-92-3 Cyclopentane VOC No No Not Toxic
DRAFT
Table 1-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern from the ATK's Approved 2011 Human Health
Risk Assessment Protocol^
Cas No. COPC Classification
Listed in USEPA
HHRAP
Database0'
Toxicity
Information
Available™
Quantitatively
Evaluated'3'
Detected in 1.3 or
1.1 Class
Propellant Tests'4'
124-18-5 Decane VOC No No Not Toxic
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
132-64-9 Dibenzofuran SVOC No Yes Yes
124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
106-93-4 Dibromoethane (EDB), 1,2-VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
95-50-1 Dichlorobenzene, 1,2- (a) VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
541-73-1 Dichlorobenzene, 1,3-(a) VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
106-46-7 Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- (a) VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
91-94-1 Dichlorobenzidine, 3,3'-SVOC Yes Yes No (c) ND
75-34-3 Dichloroethane, 1,1-VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
107-06-2 Dichloroethane, 1,2-VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
75-35-4 Dichloroethene, 1,1-VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
156-59-2 Dichloroethene, cis-1,2-VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
156-60-5 Dichloroethene, trans-1,2-VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
120-83-2 Dichlorophenol, 2,4-SVOC Yes Yes Yes
87-65-0 Dichlorophenol, 2,6-SVOC No Yes Yes
78-87-5 Dichloropropane, 1,2-VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
10062-01-5 Dichloropropene, cis-1,3-VOC No Yes Yes
10061-02-6 Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-VOC No Yes Yes ND
84-66-2 Diethyl phthalate SVOC Yes Yes Yes
141-93-5 Diethylbenzene, 1,3-VOC No No No ND
105-05-5 Diethylbenzene, 1,4-VOC No Yes Yes ND
105-67-9 Dimethyl phenol, 2,4-SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
131-Dimethyl phthalate SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
DRAFT
Table 1-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern from the ATK's Approved 2011 Human Health
Risk Assessment Protocol*3)
Cas No. COPC Classification
Listed in USEPA
HHRAP
Database'"
Toxicity
Information
Available'2'
Quantitatively
Evaluated'3'
Detected in 1.3 or
1.1 Class
Propellant Tests'4'
60-1 Dimethylaminoazobenzene,
Jt SVOC No Yes Yes ND
57-97-6 Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene,
7,12-svoc No Yes No(c) ND
5779-94-2 Dimethylbenzaldehyde, 2,5-Carbonyls No Yes Yes ND
119-93-7 Dimethylbenzidine, 3,3'-SVOC No Yes No (c) ND
75-83-2 Dimethylbutane, 2,2-VOC No Yes Yes ND
79-29-8 Dimethylbutane, 2,3-VOC No Yes Yes
565-59-3 Dimethylpentane, 2,3-VOC No Yes Yes
108-08-7 Dimethylpentane, 2,4-VOC No Yes Yes ND
84-74-2 Di-n-butyl phthalate SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
534-52-1 Dinitro-2-methylphenol, 4,6-SVOC No Yes Yes ND
99-65-0 Dinitrobenzene, 1,3-SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
51-28-5 Dinitrophenol, 2,4-SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
121-14-2 Dinitrotoluene, 2,4-SVOC Yes Yes Yes
606-20-2 Dinitrotoluene, 2,6-SVOC Yes Yes Yes
17-84-0 Di-n-octyl phthalate SVOC Yes Yes Yes
123-91-1 Dioxane, 1,4-VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
122-39-4 Diphenylamine SVOC No Yes Yes ND
74-84-0 Ethane VOC No No Not Toxic
64-17-5 Ethanol VOC No No No
74-85-1 Ethene VOC No No Not Toxic
100-41-4 Ethyl benzene VOC Yes Yes Yes
60-29-7 Ethyl Ether VOC No Yes Yes ND
97-63-2 Ethyl Methacrylate VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
DRAFT
Table 1-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern from the ATK's Approved 2011 Human Health
Risk Assessment Protocol^
Cas No. COPC Classification
Listed in USEPA
HHRAP
Database™
Toxicity
Information
Available™
Quantitatively
Evaluated13'
Detected in 1.3 or
1.1 Class
Propellant Tests'4'
62-50-0 Ethyl methanesulfonate SVOC Yes Yes No (c) ND
-14-3 Ethyltoluene, 2-VOC No Yes Yes ND
620-14-4 Ethyltoluene, 3-VOC No Yes Yes
622-96-8 Ethyltoluene, 4-VOC No Yes Yes
206-44-0 Fluoranthene SVOC Yes Yes Yes
86-73-7 Fluorene SVOC Yes Yes Yes
50-00-0 Formaldehyde Carbonyls Yes Yes Yes
7647-01-0 HC1 HCL/C12/NH3 Yes Yes Yes
74-90-8 HCN HCL/C12/NH6 No No No
142-82-5 Heptane VOC No No Not Toxic
118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene SVOC Yes Yes Yes
87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene (a) SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
77-47-4 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene SVOC Yes Yes Yes
67-72-1 Hexachloroethane SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
1888-71-7 Hexach 1 oropropene SVOC No Yes Yes
66-25-1 Hexanal Carbonyls No No No
110-54-3 Hexane VOC No Yes Yes
591-78-6 Hexanone, 2-VOC No Yes Yes ND
592-41-6 Hexene, 1-VOC No No No
35822-46-9 HpCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Dioxins/furans Yes Yes Yes
67562-39-4 HpCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Dioxins/furans Yes Yes Yes
55673-89-7 HpCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Dioxins/furans Yes Yes Yes
39227-28-6 HxCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8-Dioxins/furans Yes Yes Yes
57653-85-7 HxCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8-Dioxins/furans Yes Yes Yes
DRAFT
Table 1-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern from the ATK's Approved 2011 Human Health
Risk Assessment Protocol^)
Cas No. COPC Classification
Listed in USEPA
HHRAP
Database™
Toxicity
Information
Available™
Quantitatively
Evaluated™
Detected in 1.3 or
1.1 Class
Propellant Tests'4'
19408-74-3 HxCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9-Dioxins/furans Yes Yes Yes
70648-26-9 HxCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8-Dioxins/furans Yes Yes Yes
57117-44-9 HxCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8-Dioxins/furans Yes Yes Yes
72918-21-9 HxCDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9-Dioxins/furans Yes Yes Yes
60851-34-5 HxCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8-Dioxins/furans Yes Yes Yes
193-39-5 Indeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene SVOC Yes Yes Yes
75-28-5 Isobutane VOC No No Not Toxic
590-86-3 Isopentanal Carbonyls No No No ND
78-78-4 Isopentane VOC No No Not Toxic
78-59-1 Isophorone SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
7439-92-1 Lead Metals Yes Yes Yes
7439-95-4 Magnesium Metals No No No ND
7439-96-5 Manganese Metals No Yes Yes
7439-97-6 Mercury Metals Yes Yes Yes
126-98-7 Methacrylonitrile VOC Yes Yes Yes
96-33-3 Methyl Acrylate VOC No No No ND
80-62-6 Methyl Methacry late VOC No Yes Yes ND
66-27-3 Methyl methanesulfonate SVOC No No No ND
1634-04-4 Methyl tert-butyl ether VOC No Yes Yes ND
108-10-Methyl-2-pentanone, 4-VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
56-49-5 Methylcholanthrene, 3-SVOC No No No ND
108-87-2 Methylcyclohexane VOC No Yes Yes
96-37-7 Methylcyclopentane VOC No No No
75-09-2 Methylene Chloride VOC Yes Yes Yes
DRAFT
Table 1-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern from the ATK's Approved 2011 Human Health
Risk Assessment Protocol*3)
Cas No. COPC Classification
Listed in USEPA
HHRAP
Database'1'
Toxicity
Information
Available'2'
Quantitatively
Evaluated'3'
Detected in 1.3 or
1.1 Class
Propellant Tests'4'
540-84-1 Methylheptane, 2-VOC No Yes Yes
589-81-Methylheptane, 3-VOC No Yes Yes
591-76-4 Methylhexane, 2-VOC No Yes Yes
589-34-4 Methylhexane, 3-VOC No Yes Yes
91-57-6 Methylnaphthalene, 2-SVOC No Yes Yes ND
107-83-5 Methylpentane, 2-VOC No Yes Yes
96-14-0 Methylpentane, 3-VOC No Yes Yes
95-48-7 Methylphenoi, 2-SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
Methylphenoi, 3- &
Methylphenoi, 4-SVOC No Yes Yes ND
91-20-3 Naphthalene SVOC Yes Yes Yes
134-32-7 Naphthylamine, 1-SVOC No Yes Yes ND
91-59-8 Naphthylamine, 2-SVOC No Yes Yes ND
7664-41-7 NH3 HCL/C12/NH5 No No No
7440-02-0 Nickel Metals Yes Yes Yes
88-74-4 Nitroaniline, 2-SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
99-09-2 Nitroaniline, 3-SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
100-01-6 Nitroaniline, 4-SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
98-95-3 Nitrobenzene SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
88-75-5 Nitrophenol, 2-SVOC Yes Yes Yes
100-02-7 Nitrophenol, 4-SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
79-46-9 Nitropropane, 2-VOC No No No
N-Nitro-o-toluidine SVOC No No No ND
55-18-5 N-Nitrosodiethylamine SVOC No Yes Yes ND
62-75-9 N-Nitrosodimethylamine SVOC No Yes Yes ND
DRAFT
Table 1-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern from the ATK's Approved 2011 Human Health
Risk Assessment Protocol*3)
Cas No. COPC Classification
Listed in USEPA
HHRAP
Database'0
Toxicity
Information
Available'2'
Quantitatively
Evaluated'3'
Detected in 1.3 or
1.1 Class
Propellant Tests'4'
924-16-3 N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
621-64-7 N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
10595-95-6 N-Nitrosomethylethylamine SVOC No Yes Yes ND
59-89-2 N-Nitrosomorpholine SVOC No Yes Yes ND
1-84-2 Nonane VOC No No Not Toxic
NA NOX CEM No No No
3268-87-9 OCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Dioxins/furans Yes Yes Yes
39001-02-0 OCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Dioxins/furans Yes Yes Yes
11-65-9 Octane VOC No No Not Toxic
40321-76-4 PeCDD, 1,2,3,7,8-Dioxins/furans Yes Yes Yes
57117-41-6 PeCDF, 1,2,3,7,8-Dioxins/furans Yes Yes Yes
57117-31-4 PeCDF, 2,3,4,7,8-Dioxins/furans Yes Yes Yes
608-93-5 Pentachlorobenzene SVOC Yes Yes Yes
76-01-7 Pentachloroethane SVOC No Yes Yes ND
82-68-8 Pentachloronitrobenzene SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
110-62-3 Pentanal Carbonyls No No No
109-66-0 Pentane VOC No No Not Toxic
109-67-1 Pentene, 1-VOC No No No
627-20-3 Pentene, cis-2-VOC No No Not Toxic ND
646-04-8 Pentene, trans-2-VOC No No No
14797-73-0 Perchlorate Perchlorates NO Yes Yes Unknown
85-01-8 Phenanthrene SVOC Yes Yes Yes
DRAFT
Table 1-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern from the ATK's Approved 2011 Human Health
Risk Assessment Protocol*3)
Cas No. COPC Classification
Listed in USEPA
HHRAP
Database'1'
Toxicity
Information
Available'2'
Quantitatively
Evaluated'3'
Detected in 1.3 or
1.1 Class
Propellant Tests'4'
108-95-2 Phenol SVOC Yes Yes Yes
7723-14-0 Phosphorus Metals No Yes Yes
123-38-6 Propanal Carbonyls No Yes Yes
74-98-6 Propane VOC No No Not Toxic ND
67-63-0 Propanol, 2-VOC No No No ND
103-65-1 Propylbenzene VOC No Yes Yes
115-07-1 Propylene VOC No Yes Yes
129-00-0 Pyrene SVOC Yes Yes Yes
110-86-1 Pyridine SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
7782-49-2 Selenium Metals Yes Yes Yes ND
7440-22-4 Silver Metals Yes Yes Yes
7446-09-5 S02 CEM No No No
100-42-5 Styrene VOC Yes Yes Yes
1746-01-6 TCDD, 2,3,7,8-Dioxins/furans Yes Yes Yes
51207-31-9 TCDF, 2,3,7,8-Dioxins/furans Yes Yes Yes
95-94-3 Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5-SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
79-34-5 Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene VOC Yes Yes Yes
58-90-2 Tetrachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6-SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
109-99-9 Tetrahydrofuran VOC Yes Yes Yes
7440-28-0 Thallium Metals Yes Yes No ND
TNMOC VOC No No No
Tolualdehyde, m,p-Carbonyls No No No ND
529-20-4 Tolualdehyde, o-Carbonyls No Yes Yes
DRAFT
Table 1-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern from the ATK's Approved 2011 Human Health
Risk Assessment Protocol*3)
Cas No. COPC Classification
Listed in USEPA
HHRAP
Database0'
Toxicity
Information
Available™
Quantitatively
Evaluated'3'
Detected in 1.3 or
1.1 Class
Propellant Tests'4'
108-88-3 Toluene VOC Yes Yes Yes
95-53-4 Toluidine, o-SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
120-82-1 Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4- (a) VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
71-55-6 Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
79-00-5 Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-VOC Yes Yes Yes ND
79-01-6 Trichloroethene VOC Yes Yes Yes
95-95-4 Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5-SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
88-06-2 Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-SVOC Yes Yes Yes
526-73-8 Trimethylbenzene, 1,2,3-VOC No Yes Yes ND
95-63-6 Trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-VOC No Yes Yes
108-67-8 Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-VOC Yes Yes Yes
565-75-3 Trimethylpentane, 2,3,4-VOC No Yes Yes ND
99-35-4 Trinitrobenzene, 1,3,5-SVOC Yes Yes Yes ND
120-21-4 Undecane VOC No Yes Yes
75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride VOC Yes Yes Yes
Xylene, m,p-VOC No Yes Yes
95-47-6 Xylene, o-VOC Yes Yes Yes
7440-66-6 Zinc Metals Yes Yes Yes
NOTES:
CEM Continuous Emissions Monitors:: SVOC Setnivolatile organic chemicals: VOC Volatile organic chemicals
ND Not detected
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), and USEPA Regional Screening Level Table (November, 2013). Surrogates are
proposed for phenanthrene and 1,3-dichlorbenzene.
3 - If, "Yes" the chemical was listed for quantitative evaluation in the 2011 HHRAP; selected chemicals have changed, as described in this
protocol.
DRAFT
Table 1-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern from the ATK's Approved 2011 Human Health
Risk Assessment Protocol*3)
Cas No. COPC Classification
Listed in USEPA
HHRAP
Database™
Toxicity
Information
Available™
Quantitatively
Evaluated™
Detected in 1.3 or
1.1 Class
Propellant Tests™
4 - All of the chemical in this table will be evaluated. Non detected chemicals will also be evaluated in the uncertainty section
NOTES:
(a) Taken from Table 1 (TetraTech, 201 la)
(b) Table 1 of TetraTech, 201 la identified chromium as chromium (III) and not chromium (VI), which has been added to Table 2-1
below
(c) Eliminated from Table 2-1, see the text for detailed justification
DRAFT
Table 2-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern, Detections and Emissions
Factors for ATK Promontory HHRA
COPC Class of
Chemical
Detected Maximum Emissions
Factor (lbs/lbs)
Aluminum Metals 4.0E-02
Antimony Metals 2.9E-05
Arsenic Metals 5.5E-07
Barium Metals ND 3.9E-07
Cadmium Metals ND 4.7E-08
Chromium Metals 2.0E-05 (a)
Chromium (VI) Metals 2.0E-05 (a)
Cobalt Metals ND 1.2E-07
Copper Metals 2.5E-05
Lead Metals 4.1E-05
Manganese Metals 9.4E-05
Mercury Metals 7.4E-08
Nickel Metals 5.8E-05
Phosphorus Metals 1.1E-04
Selenium Metals ND 1.6E-06
Silver Metals .2E-06
Thallium Metals ND 4.3E-06
Zinc Metals 5.6E-05
Perchlorate Perchlorate ND 4.9E-07
HpCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Dioxins/Furans 2.9E-11
HpCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Dioxins/Furans 7.3E-10
HpCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Dioxins/Furans 1.9E-10
HxCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8-Dioxins/Furans 3.5E-12
HxCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8-Dioxins/Furans 8.9E-12
HxCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9-Dioxins/Furans 6.1E-12
HxCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8-Dioxins/Furans 2.6E-10
HxCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8-Dioxins/Furans 1.6E-10
HxCDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9-Dioxins/Furans 1.2E-10
HxCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8-Dioxins/Furans 1.9E-10
OCDD Dioxins/Furans 3.7E-11
OCDF Dioxins/Furans 5.3E-10
PeCDD, 1,2,3,7,8-Dioxins/Furans 6.7E-12
PeCDF, 1,2,3,7,8-Dioxins/Furans 8.0E-11
PeCDF, 2,3,4,7,8-Dioxins/Furans 1.6E-10
TCDD, 2,3,7,8-Dioxins/Furans 2.3E-12
DRAFT
Table 2-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern, Detections and Emissions
Factors for ATK Promontory HHRA
COPC Class of
Chemical
Detected Maximum Emissions
Factor (lbs/lbs)
TCDF, 2,3,7,8-Dioxins/Furans 4.0E-11
TEQ Dioxins/Furans 1.8E-10
Acetone VOCs 2.4E-05
Acetonitrile VOCs 1.9E-05
Acetylene VOCs 2.4E-04
Acrylonitrile VOCs 1.6E-05
alpha-Chlorotoluene VOCs ND 5.7E-07
Benzene VOCs 1.2E-04
Bromodichloro
methane VOCs ND 7.8E-07
Bromoform VOCs ND 1.3E-06
Bromomethane VOCs ND 1.2E-07
Butadiene, 1,3-VOCs 2.4E-05
Butane VOCs 1.8E-05
Butanone (MEK), 2-VOCs 3.9E-06
Butene, 1-VOCs 2.2E-05
Butene, cis-2-VOCs 1.7E-06
butene, trans-2-VOCs 7.7E-06
Butylchloride, n-VOCs ND 1.2E-05
Carbon Disulfide VOCs 9.8E-06
Carbon Tetrachloride VOCs .5E-05
Chloroacetonitrile VOCs ND 1.1E-06
Chlorobenzene VOCs 2.5E-06
Chloroethane VOCs ND 4.4E-07
Chloroform VOCs 6.1E-06
Chloromethane VOCs 1.4E-05
Chloropropene, 3-VOCs 4.7E-06
Cumene VOCs ND 4.2E-07
Cyclohexane VOCs 2.5E-06
Cyclopentane VOCs 1.8E-06
Decane VOCs 8.6E-05
Dibromochloro
methane VOCs ND 8.8E-07
Dibromoethane
(EDB), 1,2-VOCs ND 8.9E-07
Dichloroethane, 1,1-VOCs ND 3.2E-07
Dichloroethane, 1,2-VOCs ND 5.4E-07
Dichloroethene, 1,1-VOCs ND 4.3E-07
Dichloroethene, cis-VOCs ND 1.2E-07
DRAFT
Table 2-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern, Detections and Emissions
Factors for ATK Promontory HHRA
COPC Class of
Chemical
Detected Maximum Emissions
Factor (lbs/lbs)
1,2-
Dichloroethene, trans-
1,2-VOCs ND 7.2E-07
Dichloropropane, 1,2-VOCs ND 3.7E-07
Dichloropropene, cis-
1,3-VOCs 1.3E-06
Dichloropropene,
trans-1,3-VOCs ND 6.1E-07
Diethylbenzene, 1,3-VOCs ND 5.0E-07
Diethylbenzene, 1,4-VOCs ND 6.7E-07
Dimethylbutane, 2,2-VOCs ND 1.4E-06
Dimethylbutane, 2,3-VOCs 3.5E-06
Dimethylpentane, 2,3-VOCs 1.4E-05
Dimethylpentane, 2,4-VOCs ND 5.2E-06
Dioxane, 1,4-VOCs ND 6.4E-07
Ethane VOCs 2.1E-05
Ethanol VOCs 1.6E-06
Ethene VOCs I.8E-04
Ethyl Benzene VOCs 1.1E-05
Ethyl Ether VOCs ND 2.5E-06
Ethyl Methacrylate VOCs ND 1.6E-06
Ethyltoluene, 2-VOCs ND 4.5E-07
Ethyltoluene, 3-VOCs 4.8E-06
Ethyltoluene, 4-VOCs 5.3E-06
Heptane VOCs 1.8E-05
Hexane VOCs 9.8E-06
Hexanone, 2-VOCs ND 2.0E-06
Hexene, 1-VOCs 2.0E-05
Isobutane VOCs 2.8E-06
Isopentane VOCs 2.0E-05
Methacrylonitrile VOCs 5.9E-06
Methyl Acrylate VOCs ND 1.2E-06
Methyl Methacrylate VOCs ND 1.6E-06
Methyl tert-butyl ether VOCs ND 1.3E-05
Methyl-2-pentanone,
4-VOCs ND 8.2E-07
Methylcyclohexane VOCs 1.2E-05
Methylcyclopentane VOCs 5.6E-06
Methylene Chloride VOCs 2.4E-04
Methylheptane, 2-VOCs 2.4E-05
DRAFT
Table 2-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern, Detections and Emissions
Factors for ATK Promontory HHRA
COPC Class of
Chemical
Detected Maximum Emissions
Factor (lbs/lbs)
Methylheptane, 3-VOCs 3.5E-06
Methylhexane, 2-VOCs 1.7E-05
Methylhexane, 3-VOCs 2.2E-05
Methylpentane, 2-VOCs .1E-05
Methylpentane, 3-VOCs 7.1E-06
Nitropropane, 2-VOCs 2.8E-06
Nonane VOCs 3.7E-05
Octane VOCs 8.4E-05
Pentane VOCs 3.1E-05
Pentene, 1-VOCs 1.2E-05
Pentene, cis-2-VOCs ND 7.0E-07
Pentene, trans-2-VOCs 1.7E-06
Propane VOCs ND 8.7E-06
Propanol, 2-VOCs ND 3.0E-07
Propylbenzene VOCs 4.6E-06
Propylene VOCs 4.9E-05
Styrene VOCs 1.3E-06
Tetrachloroethane,
1,1,2,2-VOCs ND 4.2E-07
Tetrachloroethene VOCs 2.5E-06
Tetrahydrofuran VOCs 9.0E-07
TNMOC VOCs 9.4E-04
Toluene VOCs 2.8E-05
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-VOCs ND 2.7E-07
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-VOCs ND 7.3E-07
Trichloroethene VOCs 9.4E-07
Trimethylbenzene,
1,2,3-VOCs ND 4.2E-07
Trimethylbenzene,
1,2,4-VOCs 2.5E-05
Trimethylbenzene,
1,3,5-VOCs 1.9E-05
Trimethylpentane,
2,3,4 VOCs ND 8.2E-06
Undecane VOCs 1.2E-05
Vinyl Chloride VOCs 7.6E-06
Xylene, m,p-VOCs 2.2E-05
Xylene, o-VOCs 1.3E-05
Acetaldehyde Carbonyls 9.3E-05
Benzaldehyde Carbonyls 3.8E-05
DRAFT
Table 2-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern, Detections and Emissions
Factors for ATK Promontory HHRA
COPC Class of
Chemical
Detected Maximum Emissions
Factor (lbs/lbs)
Butyraldehydes, Carbonyls 1.4E-05
Crotonaldehyde Carbonyls ND 3.2E-06
Dimethylbenzaldehyde
,2,5-Carbonyls ND 2.7E-05
Formaldehyde Carbonyls 4.7E-05
Hexanal Carbonyls 1.4E-05
Isopentanal Carbonyls ND 1.4E-05
Pentanal Carbonyls 3.9E-05
Propanal Carbonyls 5.2E-05
Tolualdehyde, m,p-Carbonyls ND .4E-05
Tolualdehyde, o-Carbonyls 4.0E-05
CO CEM 7.36E-03
CO, CEM 1.06E+00
NOX CEM 6.4E-03
S02 CEM 6.43E-03
HC1 HCL/C12/NH3 1.78E-02
C12 HCL/C12/NH3 1.18E-02
NH3 HCL/C12/NH3 3.19E-05
HCN HCN 2.19E-05
Acenaphthene SVOC 5.48E-07
Acenaphthylene SVOC 3.08E-06
Acetophenone SVOC 2.68E-06
Acetylaminofiuorene,
2-svoc ND Not a COPC
Aminobiphenyl, 4-SVOC ND 1.1E-05
Aniline SVOC ND 8.00E-06
Anthracene SVOC 1.3E-07
Benzidine SVOC ND Not a COPC
Benzo(a)anthracene SVOC ND 5.86E-07
Benzo(a)pyrene SVOC ND 7.69E-08
Benzo(b)fluoranthene SVOC ND 1.15E-06
Benzo(ghi)perylene SVOC ND 4.55E-07
Benzo(k)fluoranthene SVOC ND 1.15E-06
Benzoic acid SVOC 6.24E-05
Benzyl alcohol SVOC ND 7.77E+07
bis(2-
Chloroethoxy)methane SVOC ND 5.48E-07
bis(2-
ChloroethyQether SVOC ND 6.13E-07
DRAFT
Table 2-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern, Detections and Emissions
Factors for ATK Promontory HHRA
COPC Class of
Chemical
Detected Maximum Emissions
Factor (lbs/lbs)
bis(2-
Chloroisopropyl)ether SVOC ND 8.32E-07
bis(2-
Ethylhexyl)phthalate SVOC ND 1.17E-06
Bromophenyl phenyl
ether, 4-SVOC ND 5.48E-07
Butyl benzyl phthalate SVOC ND 1.50E-07
Carbazole SVOC ND 7.01E-07
Chloro-3-
methylphenol, 4-SVOC ND 6.79E-07
Chloroaniline, 4-SVOC ND 1.55E-07
Chloronaphthalene, 1-SVOC 5.48E-07
Chloronaphthalene, 2-SVOC ND 5.48E-07
Chlorophenol, 2-SVOC 1.92E-06
Chrysene SVOC 7.23E-07
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene SVOC ND 1.02E-07
Dibenzofuran SVOC 5.48E-07
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-SVOC 5.59E-07
Dichlorobenzene, 1,3-SVOC 6.24E-07
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-SVOC 5.81E-07
Dichlorobenzidine,
3,3'-SVOC ND Not a COPC
Dichlorophenol, 2,4-SVOC 9.26E-07
Dichlorophenol, 2,6-SVOC 5.48E-07
Diethyl phthalate SVOC 8.00E-07
Dimethyl phenol, 2,4-SVOC ND 6.90E-06
Dimethyl phthalate SVOC ND 5.48E-07
Dimethylaminoazoben
zene, p-SVOC ND 5.48E-07
Dimethylbenz(a)anthra
cene, 7,12-SVOC ND Not a COPC
Dimethylbenzidine,
3,3'-SVOC ND Not a COPC
Di-n-butyl phthalate SVOC ND 1.10E-05
Dinitro-2-
methylphenol, 4,6-SVOC ND 9.53E-06
Dinitrobenzene, 1,3-SVOC ND 5.70E-07
Dinitrophenol, 2,4-SVOC ND 2.41E-05
Dinitrotoluene, 2,4-SVOC 5.48E-07
Dinitrotoluene, 2,6-SVOC 5.63 E-07
Di-n-octyl phthalate SVOC 3.70E-06
Diphenylamine SVOC ND 5.48E-07
Ethyl
methanesulfonate SVOC ND 5.48E-07
Fluoranthene SVOC 2.63 E-06
Fluorene SVOC 6.53E-07
Hexachlorobenzene SVOC 4.66E-06
DRAFT
Table 2-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern, Detections and Emissions
Factors for ATK Promontory HHRA
COPC Class of
Chemical
Detected Maximum Emissions
Factor (lbs/lbs)
Hexachlorobutadiene SVOC ND 8.11E-07
Hexachlorocyclopenta
diene SVOC 1.1OE-05
Hexachloroethane SVOC ND 5.91E-07
Hexach loropropene SVOC 7.89E-07
Indeno( 1,2,3-
cd)pyrene SVOC 1-1 3.98E-07
Isophorone SVOC ND 5.48E-07
Methyl
methanesulfonate SVOC ND 6.02E-07
Methylcholanthrene,
3-svoc ND 6.67E-07
Methylnaphthalene, 2-SVOC ND 7.47E-06
Methylphenoi, 2-SVOC ND 3.29E-06
Methylphenoi, 3- &
Methylphenoi, 4-SVOC ND 2.57E-07
Naphthalene SVOC 9.16E-05
Naphthylamine, 1-SVOC ND 1.1 OE-05
Naphthylamine, 2-SVOC ND 1.1E-05
Nitroaniline, 2-SVOC ND 5.48E-07
Nitroaniline, 3-SVOC ND 2.19E-06
Nitroaniline, 4-SVOC ND 2.19E-06
Nitrobenzene SVOC ND 6.24E-07
Nitrophenol, 2-SVOC 4.71E-06
Nitrophenol, 4-SVOC ND 3.61E-06
N-Nitro-o-toluidine SVOC ND 2.77E-07
N-Nitrosodiethylamine SVOC ND 5.48E-07
N-
Nitrosodimethylamine SVOC ND 5.58E-07
N-Nitrosodi-n-
butylamine SVOC ND 5.48E-07
N-Nitrosodi-n-
propylamine SVOC ND 5.48E-07
N-Nitrosodiphenyl
amine SVOC ND 9.75E-08
N-Nitrosomethylethyl
amine SVOC ND 9.09E-07
N-Nitrosomorpholine SVOC ND 5.48E-07
Pentachlorobenzene SVOC 5.48E-07
Pentachloroethane SVOC ND 6.98E-07
Pentachloronitro
benzene SVOC ND 5.81E-07
Pentachlorophenol SVOC ND 2.74E-05
Phenanthrene SVOC 3.17E-06
Phenol SVOC 2.98E-06
Pyrene SVOC 2.25E-06
Pyridine SVOC ND 8.11E-07
DRAFT
Table 2-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern, Detections and Emissions
Factors for ATK Promontory HHRA
COPC Class of
Chemical
Detected Maximum Emissions
Factor (lbs/lbs)
Tetrachlorobenzene,
1,2,4,5-SVOC ND 5.48E-07
Tetrachlorophenol,
2,3,4,6-SVOC ND 7.12E-07
Toluidine, o-SVOC ND 7.01E-06
Trichlorobenzene,
1,2,4-SVOC 6.46E-07
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5-SVOC ND 1.42E-06
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-SVOC 1.31E-06
Trinitrobenzene, 1,3,5-SVOC ND 5.48E-07
NOTES
(a) The emissions of chromium (VI) will be adjusted to be 100% of chromium
Table 2-2
Chemical of Potential Concern Elimination Process
(Non-Detect Compounds Not Used by ATK or Found in Their Waste)
Non-Detect Compound and Unlikely Generated During Burning)
Analyte MDL Typical Use of Chemical Present in
Waste?
Generated
or Possibly
Emitted?
Considered
a COPC
Metals
Barium 9.6 fig
Barium has only a few industrial applications. The metal has been
historically used in vacuum tubes, semiconductors and in drilling fluids,
and in purer form, as X-ray radio contrastagents. ATK uses barium in
small amounts in the flare initiation systems in the form of barium
nitrate.
Yes
Not
Generated,
may be
emitted
Yes
Cadmium 0.5 fig
Cadmium use is decreasing and with the exception of its use in nickel-
cadmium and cadmium-tellurium batteries it is not used. ATK does not
burn batteries, or use cadmium, but these are a low possibility it may
present at low levels in ATK's waste.
No
Not
Generated,
may be
emitted
Yes
Cobalt
Cobalt-based blue pigments have been used since ancient times for
jewelry and paints, and to impart a distinctive blue tint to glass. Not
used by ATK.
Unlikely
Not
Generated,
may be
emitted
Yes
Magnesium 88.5 fig
In humans, magnesium is the eleventh most abundant element by mass
in the body. Magnesium compounds are used medicinally as common
laxatives and antacids. ATK does not use magnesium in its
manufacturing processes. ATK uses magnesium in flare manufacturing.
Yes
Emitted but
human
nutrient
No
Selenium 2.8 fig
Commercially, selenium is produced as a byproduct in the refining of
these ores, most often during copper production. The chief commercial
uses for selenium today are in glassmaking and pigments. Selenium is a
semiconductors, photocells and in electronics. ATK does not use
selenium.
No
Not
Generated,
may be
emitted
Yes
Thallium 3-5 fig
Approximately 60-70% of thallium production is used in the electronics
industry, and the remainder is used in the pharmaceutical and glass
manufacturing industry. ATK does not use thallium.
No
Not
Generated,
or emitted
(a)
Yes
Alcohols, Phenols and Ethers
Benzyl alcohol 35/ig Used as a general solvent for inks, paints, lacquers, and epoxy resin
coatings. No Possibly
emitted Yes
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)
methane 0.5 fig A synthetic organic compound; chiefly used in the production of
polysulfide polymers; used as a solvent. No Unlikely Yes
84
Table 2-2
Chemical of Potential Concern Elimination Process
(Non-Detect Compounds Not Used by ATK or Found in Their Waste)
Non-Detect Compound and Unlikely Generated During Burning)
Analyte 1MDL Typical Use of Chemical Present in
Waste?
Generated
or Possibly
Emitted?
Considered
a COPC
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether 0.6 fig
Selective solvent for production of high-grade lubricating oils,
intermediate & cross-linker in organic synthesis. Used in aerosols and
as a pesticide.
No Unlikely Yes
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)
ether 0.8 fig Used as an intermediate in the manufacture of dyes, resins, and
pharmaceuticals; used in textile processes. No Unlikely Yes
4-Bromophenyl phenyl
ether 0-5 fig Research chemical; used as flame retardant additives in polymers. No Unlikely Yes
Pentachlorophenol 25 fig Used as a wood preservative for utility poles, cross arms, and fence
posts. No Possibly
emitted Yes
2-Propanol 4ppbv Used as a general solvent for inks, paints, lacquers, and epoxy resin
coatings. No Possibly
emitted Yes
2-Mcthylphenol 3.0 fig Synthetic chemical used primarily in the manufacture of dyestuffs, No Possibly
emitted Yes
3-Methylphenol & 4-
Methylphenol 2.0 fig Synthetic chemical used primarily in the manufacture of dyestuffs, No Possibly
emitted Yes
4-Nitrophenol 3-3 fig Chemical intermediate for insecticides, leather preservatives, leather
treatment. No Possibly
emitted Yes
4,6-Dinitro-2-
methylphenol 8-7 fig Used as an insecticide, fungicide, herbicide, and defoliant. No
Used as a pesticide for paper mills preservative and a component in
pentahlorophenol (wood preservative).
Used as a herbicide, defoliant; formerly used as a wood preservative and
antimildew treatment for textiles.
Possibly
emitted Yes
2,3,4,6-
Tetrachlorophenol 0.7 fig No Possibly
emitted Yes
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 1-3 fig No Possibly
emitted Yes
2,4-Dimethylphenol 6.3 fig
Used in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, plastics, and additives to
gasolines and lubricants, and solvents. The test items did contain
plastics, solvents and diesel fuel.
No Possibly
emitted Yes
2,4-Dinitrophenol 22 fig
Used in making dyes, wood preservatives, explosives, insect control
substances, and other chemicals, and as a photographic developer. This
compound may be released during burning since the test items
contained propellant.
Yes Possibly
emitted Yes
4-Chloro-3-0.6 fig Used as an external germicide; preservative for glues, gums, paints, No Possibly Yes
85
Table 2-2
Chemical of Potential Concern Elimination Process
(Non-Detect Compounds Not Used by ATK or Found in Their Waste)
Non-Detect Compound and Unlikely Generated During Burning)
Analyte MDL Typical Use of Chemical Present in
Waste?
Generated
or Possibly
Emitted?
Considered
a COPC
methylphenoi inks, and textiles. emitted
Aldehydes
2,5-
Dimethylbenzaldehyde 0.5 fig Used in synthetic organic reactions No Possibly
emitted Yes
Crotonaldehyde 0.3 fig Used in synthetic organic reactions No Possibly
emitted Yes
Isopentanal 0.3 fig Used in flavoring compounds, resin chemistry, and rubber accelerators
flavor ingredient for foods and beverages. No Possibly
emitted Yes
m,p-Tolualdehyde 0.3 fig Used in synthetic organic reactions No Possibly
emitted Yes
Amine, Aniline, Hydrazine and Benzidine Compounds
Aniline 7-3 fig
A volatile amine that ignites readily. The largest sources of aniline
release are from its primary uses as a chemical intermediate in the
production of polymers, pesticides, pharmaceuticals and dyes. ATK
does not engage in these activities
No Unlikely Yes
4-Chloroaniline 6.0 fig Used as in intermediate in dyes, pharmaceuticals, and agricultural
chemicals. No
4-Nitroaniline 2.0 fig Chemical intermediate for antioxidants, dyes, pigments, gasoline gum
inhibitors, and veterinary medicine; also used as a corrosion inhibitor. No
Unlikely
Unlikely
Yes
Yes
-Naphthylamine 10 fig
Intermediate for dyes, herbicides, and rodenticides. It is not a
component of ordnance items or propellant and would not be expected
in emissions from the OB test.
No Unlikely Yes
Yes 2-Naphthylamine \0fig Chemical intermediate for dyes and rubber oxidants. Used to produce 2-
chloronaphthylamine No Unlikely
2-Nitroaniline 0.5 fig
Chemical intermediate for antioxidants, dyes, pigments, gasoline gum
inhibitors, and veterinary medicine; also used as a corrosion inhibitor.
Small amount possible in ATK's waste.
Yes Unlikely Yes
3-Nitroaniline 2-0 fig
Chemical intermediate for antioxidants, dyes, pigments, gasoline gum
inhibitors, and veterinary medicine; also used as a corrosion inhibitor.
Small amount possible in ATK's waste.
Yes Unlikely Yes
4-Aminobiphenyl 10 fg 4-Aminobiphenyl is no longer manufactured commercially; it was used No Unlikely Yes
86
Table 2-2
Chemical of Potential Concern Elimination Process
(Non-Detect Compounds Not Used by ATK or Found in Their Waste)
Non-Detect Compound and Unlikely Generated During Burning)
Analytc MDL Typical Use of Chemical Present in
Waste?
Generated
or Possibly
Emitted?
Considered
a COPC
as a rubber antioxidant and a dye intermediate in the past
Benzidine 51 /#g Used in the manufacture of dyes and as a reagent for detecting cyanide.
Banned in the US since 1973. No No No
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-7.4 fig
Used as chemical intermediates to produce pigments that are produced
commercially in the USA (Pigment Yellows 12, 13, 14, 17, 34, & 55).
Banned in the US since 1973.
No No No
Dimethylbenzidine
3,3'-50 Jig
Very sensitive reagent for detection of gold and free chlorine in water.
Chemical intermediate for dyes. Curing agent for urethane resins.
Banned in the US since 1973.
No No No
Diphenylamine 0.5 fig Used in the manufacture of dyes; stabilizing nitrocellulose explosives
and celluloid. Yes Unlikely Yes
Hydrazine NA
Hydrazine is found at low levels in some rocket motor directional
systems, and may be found in ATK wastes. Hydrazine is highly
flammable and reactive and will be destroyed in the incineration process
No No No
N-Nitro-o-toluidine 8.0 fig
Synthetic chemical used primarily in the manufacture of dyestuffs,
although it is also used in the production of rubber, chemicals, and
pesticides and as a curing agent for epoxy resin systems.
No Unlikely Yes
N-Nitrosodiethylamine 0.5 fig
Used as a rubber accelerator, staining retarder for natural and synthetic
rubbers, vulcanization retarder, and to make p-nitrosodiphenylamine.
Recent information on N-nitrosodiphenylamine (NDPhA) indicates that
it is no longer produced in the USA.
No Unlikely Yes
N-
Nitrosodimethylamine 0-5 fig
/V-Nitrosodimethylamine is primarily used as a research chemical. N-
Nitrosodimethylamine has been used as an antioxidant, as an additive
for lubricants, and as a softener of copolymers
No Unlikely Yes
N-Nitrosodi-n-
butylamine 0.5 fig Not commercially produced in any significant quantity but has been
used in the dye industry No Unlikely Yes
N-Nitrosodi-n-
propylamine 0-5 fig
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (DPN) is apparently not commercially
produced in any significant quantity but has been found as a
contaminant in the substituted dinitrotrifluarin herbicides and has been
detected in effluent from a textile plant.
No Unlikely Yes
N-0.9 fig Used as a rubber accelerator, staining retarder for natural and synthetic
87
Table 2-2
Chemical of Potential Concern Elimination Process
(Non-Detect Compounds Not Used by ATK or Found in Their Waste)
Non-Detect Compound and Unlikely Generated During Burning)
Analytc MDL Typical Use of Chemical Present in
Waste?
Generated
or Possibly
Emitted?
Considered
a COPC
N itrosod ipheny lam ine rubbers, vulcanization retarder, and to make p-nitrosodiphenylamine.
Recent information on N-nitrosodiphenylamine (NDPhA) indicates that
it is no longer produced in the USA.
No Unlikely Yes
N-Nitrosomethylethyl
amine 0.8 /ig
Used as a rubber accelerator, staining retarder for natural and synthetic
rubbers, vulcanization retarder, and to make p-nitrosodiphenylamine.
Recent information on N-nitrosodiphenylamine indicates that it is no
longer produced in the USA.
No Unlikely Yes
Pyridine 0.7 fig
Used as a chemical intermediate and solvent. ATK has a small amount
of reactive waste that contain pyridine. Yes
Trace Unlikely Yes
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 0-5 fig Intermediate for benzidine, dyes, motor oil additive. Rapidly
decomposes when released into the air. No No No
p-Dimethylaminoazo
benzene 0.5 fig
Uses as a dye intermediate, in photosensitive polymers and reusable
films, as an indicator in volumetric analysis, in tests for oxidized fat,
and as a coloring agent.
No Unlikely Yes
o-Toluidine 6.4 fig
Synthetic chemical used primarily in the manufacture of dyestuffs,
although 11 is also used in the production of rubber, chemicals, and
pesticides and as a curing agent for epoxy resin systems.
No Unlikely Yes
HC1/C12/NH3 (Evaluated against Criteria Pollutants)
CI, 28.8 ftg Chlorine gas. A volatile compounds not in ATK's waste. It would be
contained in cylinders and ATK has other disposal methods. Yes Yes Yes
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
2-Acetylaminofluorene 0-5 fig
Used as a research chemical, a reactive intermediate in chemical
synthesis and research. Relatively unstable molecule and unlikely to
survive the in the incineration process. No No(b) No
2-Chloronaphthalene 0-5//g
Monochloronaphthalenes have been used for chemical resistant gage
fluids and instrument seals, as heat exchange fluids, high boiling
specialty solvents, color dispersions, as crank case additives to dissolve
sludge and gums, and as ingredients in motor tune-up compounds.
No Unlikely Yes
3-Methylcholanthrene 0-5//g Research chemical used in cancer research. No No (b) No
88
Table 2-2
Chemical of Potential Concern Elimination Process
(Non-Detect Compounds Not Used by ATK or Found in Their Waste)
Non-Detect Compound and Unlikely Generated During Burning)
Analyte 1MDL Typical Use of Chemical Present in
Waste?
Generated
or Possibly
Emitted?
Considered
a COPC
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.5Ag
Five ring PAH, especially high exposure will occur through the
smoking of cigarettes and the ingestion of certain foods (e.g., smoked
and charcoal broiled meats and fish).
No
Not in 1.3
possible in
1-1 (c)
Yes
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0-5/ig Five ring PAH, common in coal products. Not detected in ODOBi
emissions and unlikely to be formed in the incineration process. No
Not in 1.3
possible in
1-1 (d)
Yes
7,12-
Dimethyibenz(a,h)anth
racene
0.5/tg
A four ring methyl-PAH used in experimental cancer and DNA
research. Not detected in ODOBi emissions and unlikely to be formed
in the incineration process.
No No (e) No
Phthalates
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
phthalate 10//g Used as a plasticizer. Possibly Possibly
emitted Yes
Butyl benzyl phthalate 0.6/vg Used as a plasticizer, may be present in plastics Possibly Possibly
emitted Yes
Dimethyl phthalate 0.5^g Used as a solvent and plasticizer, may be present in plastics Possibly Possibly
emitted Yes
Di-n-butyl phthalate 10/ig Used primarily as a plasticizer, may be present in plastics Possibly Possibly
emitted Yes
Other Semi Volatile Organic Compounds
1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorobenzene 0.5//g
Intermediate in the production of herbicides, insecticides, and
defoliants. It is not a component of ordnance items or propellant.
Possibly generated in the incineration process
No Possibly
generated Yes
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.6//g
Solvent in chemical manufacturing, dyes & intermediates, dielectric
fluid, synthetic transformer oils, lubricants, heat-transfer medium,
insecticides. Possibly generated in the incineration process
No Possibly
generated Yes
,2-Dichlorobenzene O.Sftg
A colorless to pale yellow liquid used to make herbicides. It is not a
component of ordnance items or propellant. Possibly generated in the
incineration process
No Possibly
generated Yes
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene 0.5^g Used to manufacture explosives Yes Possibly
generated Yes
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0-6Ag Used as a fumigant and insecticide No Possibly Yes
89
Table 2-2
Chemical of Potential Concern Elimination Process
(Non-Detect Compounds Not Used by ATK or Found in Their Waste)
Non-Detect Compound and Unlikely Generated During Burning)
Analyte MDL Typical Use of Chemical Present in
Waste?
Generated
or Possibly
Emitted?
Considered
a COPC
Used to produce aniline, which has wide application in the manufacture
of dyes. Possibly generated in the incineration process
generated
1,3-Dinitrobenzene 0.5/ig No Possibly
generated Yes
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.5/ig
Commonly used in mothballs and toilet deodorizer blocks. It is not a
component of ordnance items or propellant. Possibly generated in the
incineration process
No Possibly
generated Yes
Dinoseb Pesticide, weed killer. Not used by ATK No NO
Ethyl methanesulfonate Research chemical No Unlikely Yes
Hexachlorobutadiene
Used as a solvent for elastomers, heat-transfer liquid, transformer and
hydraulic fluids and as a wash liquor for removing C4 and higher
hydrocarbons.
No Unlikely Yes
Hexachlorocyclo-
pentadiene Research chemical No Unlikely Yes
Ilexachloroethane 0.5/<g
It is an impurity in some chlorinated solvents, and formation of very
small amounts during chlorination of sewage effluent prior to discharge.
Possibly generated in the incineration process No Unlikely Yes
Carbazole 0-6/Jg Found in coal tar, roofing creosote, asphalt, and other coal-related
products. Not used by ATK. No Possibly
generated Yes
Yes Isophorone 0.5^g
Used as a solvent for a large number of natural and synthetic polymers,
resins, waxes, fats, oils, and pesticides, in addition to being used as a
chemical intermediate
No Possibly
generated
Isosafrole 0.5//g Occurs naturally as a principal component of the essential oil star anise
and also at low quantities in the essential oils of other spices. No Unlikely No
Methyl
methanesulfonate 0.6/xg Research chemical No Unlikely Yes
Nitrobenzene 0.6//g
Used as a research chemical and as a starting reagent in manufacturing.
Found in petroleum products. May be a breakdown product of
dinitrobenzene compounds
No Possibly
emitted Yes
N-Nitrosomorpholine 0.5f4g Also called (D)-limonene, and is both a naturally occurring and a
synthetically produced terpene, which is used in flavors and fragrances, No Unlikely Yes
90
Table 2-2
Chemical of Potential Concern Elimination Process
(Non-Detect Compounds Not Used by ATK or Found in Their Waste)
Non-Detect Compound and Unlikely Generated During Burning)
Analyte MDL Typical Use of Chemical Present in
Waste?
Generated
or Possibly
Emitted?
Considered
a COPC
as a solvent and for numerous other commercial uses.
N-TMitrosopiperidine Used as a research chemicals and not for commercial purposes. No No
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 0.5/ig A carcinogenic nitrosamine formed from preservatives in meats during
their preparation or in the liver during metabolism. No
Research chemical. Possibly generated in the incineration process
Unlikely No
Pentachloroethane 0-5m
Used as an intermediate, herbicide, fungicide for seed and soil
treatment, and as a slime inhibitor in industrial waters. Possibly
generated in the incineration process
No Unlikely Yes
Pcntachloronitro
benzene o.5m No
Analgesic, fever-reducing drug
Possibly
emitted Yes
Phenacetin 0-5m No
The principal component of brown camphor oil and found in small
amounts in a wide variety of plants.
Highly
Unlikely No
Safrole 0.5m No Highly
Unlikely No
CS l.O^g Tear gas No Highly
Unlikely No
VOCs
,1,1-Trichloroethane lppbv Used in vapor degreasing, metal cleaning, etc. found in landfill
leachates and volatile emissions. ATK uses some TCA low levels Yes Possibly
emitted Yes
,1,2,2-
fetrachloroethane lppbv Solvent for fats, oils, waxes, resins, cellulose sulfur, rubber. No Possibly
emitted Yes
,1,2-Trichloroethane lppbv
Used in adhesives, production of tubing, in lacquer, and coating
formulations. Intermediate in the production of vinylidine chloride, as a
solvent and component of adhesives
No Possibly
emitted Yes
-Dichloroethane lppbv Used as a chemical intermediate and solvent. Used by ATK. Yes Possibly
emitted Yes
,1-Dichloroethene lppbv Used as co-monomer, primarily with vinyl chloride; in adhesives;
component of synthetic fibers. No Possibly
emitted Yes
,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 4ppbv Solvent in chemical manufacturing, degreasing, oil removal, and present
in gasoline. Yes Possibly
emitted Yes
,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 4ppbv
Solvent in chemical manufacturing, dyes & intermediates, dielectric
fluid, synthetic transformer oils, lubricants, heat-transfer medium,
insecticides.
No Possibly
emitted Yes
91
Table 2-2
Chemical of Potential Concern Elimination Process
(Non-Detect Compounds Not Used by ATK or Found in Their Waste)
Non-Detect Compound and Unlikely Generated During Burning)
Analyte MDL Typical Use of Chemical Present in
Waste?
Generated
or Possibly
Emitted?
Considered
a COPC
1,2-Dibromoethane
(EDB) lppbv Used as a solvent for resins, gums, and waxes and as a chemical
intermediate in the synthesis of dyes and pharmaceuticals. No Possibly
emitted Yes
1,2-Dichlorobcnzene lppbv Used to make herbicides. It is not a component of ordnance items or
propellant. No Possibly
emitted Yes
1,2-Dichloroethane lppbv Used as a chemical intermediate, solvent, and use as a lead scavenger in
gasoline. No Possibly
emitted Yes
1,2-Dichloropropane lppbv Solvent in chemical manufacturing, degreasing, oil removal, and present
in gasoline. No Possibly
emitted Yes
1,3-Dichlorobenzene lppbv Used as a fumigant and insecticide. No Possibly
emitted Yes
1,3-Diethylbenzene 4ppbv Chemical reagent.. Not used by ATK, but may be present in solvent
residues at low levels. No Possibly
emitted Yes
,4-I)ichlorobenzene lppbv Used to make herbicides. It is not a component of ordnance items or
propellant. No Possibly
emitted Yes
1,4-I)iethylbenzene 4ppbv Chemical reagent. . Not used by ATK, but may be present in solvent
residues at low levels. No Possibly
emitted Yes
1,4-Dioxanc 4ppbv Solvent and degreasing compound, petroleum additive and a solvent
stabilizer Yes Possibly
emitted Yes
2,2-Dimcthylbutane 4ppbv Solvent and degreasing compound, petroleum compound. Not used by
ATK, but may be present in solvent residues at low levels. No Possibly
emitted Yes
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane 4ppbv Solvent and degreasing compound, petroleum compound. Not used by
ATK, but may be present in solvent residues at low levels. No Possibly
emitted Yes
2,4-Dimethylpentane 4ppbv Solvent and degreasing compound, petroleum compound. Not used by
ATK, but may be present in solvent residues at low levels. No Possibly
emitted Yes
2-Ethyltoluene 4ppbv Solvent and degreasing compound, petroleum compound. Not used by
ATK, but may be present in solvent residues at low levels. No Possibly
emitted
2-Hexanone 4ppbv A common organic solvent may be present in trace amount. Yes Possibly
emitted
Yes
Yes
4-Methyl-2-pentanone lppbv Used as an organic solvent. May be used by ATK, and residues may be
present at low levels. No Possibly
emitted Yes
alpha-Chlorotoluene lppbv Chemical solvent and reagent. Not used by ATK No Possibly Yes
92
Table 2-2
Chemical of Potential Concern Elimination Process
(Non-Detect Compounds Not Used by ATK or Found in Their Waste)
Non-Detect Compound and Unlikely Generated During Burning)
Analyte MDL Typical Use of Chemical Present in
Waste?
Generated
or Possibly
Emitted?
Considered
a COPC
emitted
Bromodich loromethane lppbv Chemical solvent and reagent. Not used by ATK. By-product of water
purification. No Possibly
emitted Yes
Bromoform lppbv Chemical solvent and reagent. Not used by ATK No Possibly
emitted Yes
Bromomethane lppbv Chemical solvent and reagent. Small quantities used by ATK. Yes Possibly
emitted Yes
Chloroacetonitrile lOppbv Major uses as an organic intermediate in the manufacture of the
insecticide fenoxycarb and the cardiovascular drug guanethidine. No Possibly
emitted Yes
Chloroethane lppbv Chemical solvent and reagent. No Possibly
emitted Yes
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene lppbv
Used as a solvent for waxes, resins, and acetylcellulose. It is also used
in the extraction of rubber, as a refrigerant, in the manufacture of
pharmaceuticals and artificial pearls and in the extraction of oils and
fats from fish and meat.
No Possibly
emitted Yes
cis-2-Pentene 4ppbv Chemical intermediate for petroleum resins and sec-amyl alcohols. It is
also used as a polymerization inhibitor and hydrocarbon solvent. No Possibly
emitted Yes
Cumene lppbv
A constituent of crude oil and finished fuels. It is released to the
environment as a result of its production and processing from petroleum
refining, the evaporation and combustion of petroleum products, and by
the use of a variety of products containing cumene.
No Possibly
emitted Yes
Dibromochloro
methane lppbv Used as a chemical intermediate in the manufacture of fire
extinguishing agents, aerosol propellants, refrigerants, and pesticides. No Possibly
emitted Yes
Ethyl Ether 4ppbv
Used as a solvent for waxes, fats, oils, alkaloids, gums, resins,
nitrocellulose, hydrocarbons, raw rubber, smokeless powder, textiles,
rayon, plastic, and dyes; Used as an anesthetic in human and animal
medicine
Yes Possibly
emitted Yes
Ethyl Methacrylate 1Oppbv
Base material for coatings and adhesives. It is used in resins, solvent,
coatings, adhesives, oil additives, dental products, textile emulsions,
leather and paper finishing. It is also used as a chemical intermediate in
organic synthesis.
Yes Possibly
emitted Yes
93
Table 2-2
Chemical of Potential Concern Elimination Process
(Non-Detect Compounds Not Used by ATK or Found in Their Waste)
Non-Detect Compound and Unlikely Generated During Burning)
Analyte MDL Typical Use of Chemical Present in
Waste?
Generated
or Possibly
Emitted?
Considered
a COPC
Freon 11 lppbv
Freons may be released to the environment as emissions from
production, storage, transport, turbine engines, use as a foaming agent,
refrigerant, and solvent, or use in the manufacture of fluoropolymers,
and may be released to soil from the disposal of products containing this
compound (e.g. commercial industrial refrigeration units). Highly
volatile, and relatively non-toxic.
No Unlikely No
Freon 113 lppbv Refrigerant degreasing solvent, highly volatile, and relatively non-toxic No Unlikely No
Freon 114 lppbv Refrigerant degreasing solvent, highly volatile, and relatively non-toxic No Unlikely No
Freon 12 lppbv Refrigerant degreasing solvent, highly volatile, and relatively non-toxic No Unlikely No
Hexachlorobutadiene 4ppbv
Used as a solvent for elastomers, heat-transfer liquid, transformer and
hydraulic fluids and as a wash liquor for removing C4 and higher
hydrocarbons.
No Possibly
emitted Yes
Isoprcne 4ppbv Used as a base material for the production of synthetic rubbers. No Unlikely Yes
Methyl Acrylate 4ppbv Used in the production of acrylic fibers in dental, medical, and
pharmaceutical sciences. No Possibly
emitted Yes
Methyl Methacrylate 4ppbv Used in the production of polymers such as surface coating resins,
plastics (Plexiglas and Lucite), ion exchange resins and plastic dentures. Yes
Methyl tert-buty) ether lppbv Octane booster in gasoline. No
Possibly
emitted
Possibly
emitted
Yes
Yes
n-Butylchloride IOppbv Solvent; chemical intermediate in the synthesis of alkylated anilines. No Possibly
emitted Yes
trans-1,2-
Dichloroethene lppbv
Used as a solvent for waxes, resins and acetylcellulose. It is also used in
the extraction of rubber, as a refrigerant, in the manufacture of
pharmaceuticals and artificial pearls and in the extraction of oils and
fats from fish and meat.
No Possibly
emitted Yes
trans-1,3-
Dichloropropene lppbv Used as a chemical intermediate and corrosion inhibition agent. No Possibly
emitted Yes
ABBREVIATIONS
/jg Micrograms ppbv Parts per billion by volume
NOTES
94
Table 2-2
Chemical of Potential Concern Elimination Process
(Non-Detect Compounds Not Used by ATK or Found in Their Waste)
Non-Detect Compound and Unlikely Generated During Burning)
Analyte MDL Typical Use of Chemical Present in
Waste?
Generated
or Possibly
Emitted?
Considered
a COPC
(a) Thallium is of low abundance.
(b) Reactive compound, see text for a discussion on 2-acetylaminofiuorene and 3-Methylcholanthrene
(c) A higher molecular weight PAH not formed in the 1.3-Class incineration process, see text for a discussion on benzo(a)pyrene
(d) A higher molecular weight PAH not formed in the incineration process, see text for a discussion on dibenz(a,h)anthracene
(e) A methylated PAH not formed in the incineration process, see text for a discussion on dimethylbenz(a,h)anthracene
95
Table 2-3
Table of Potential Elements/Compounds in Flare Wastes,
and Associated Dose-Response Information
Materials
Oral
Reference
Dose
(mg/kg/day)
Inhalation
Reference
Concentration
0*g/m3)
Cancer
Ingestion
Slope Factor
Inhalation
Unit Risk
Bismuth NA NA NA NA
Boron 0.02 2.00E-02
Cesium NA NA NA NA
Indium NA NA NA NA
Iron 0.7 Nutritional Element
Lead azide and styphnate NA NA NA NA
Silicon Non toxic
Strontium 0.6
Tin 0.6
Triacety tin 8.0
Zinc Powder 0.3 Nutritional Element
Zirconium 8.00E-05
96
Table 3-1
SUMMARY OF ON-SITE RECEPTORS
ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH
Receptor Boundary #1 Boundary #2 Boundary #3 Boundary #4
M-136
Maximum
On-site
M-225
Maximum
On-site
Combined
M-136
& M-225
Maximum
On-site
AutoLiv
Facility
North Plant Main
Administration
Building and Main
Manufacturing
Area
South Plant Main
Administration
Building and Main
Manufacturing
Area
On-Site Worker
Child Resident
Adult Resident
Child Farmer
Adult Farmer
X - indicates that the receptor will be quantitatively evaluated at this location.
Table 3-2
SUMMARY OF OFF-SITE RECEPTORS
ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH
Receptor
M-136
Maximum
Off-site
M-225
Maximum
Off-site
Combined
M-136
& M-225
Maximum
Off-site
Adam's
Ranch
Holmgren
Ranch
Chrlstensen
Residence
ATK Ranch
Pond
Howell Dairy
Farm
Thatcher
Residence
Penrose
Residence
Salt Creek
Waterfowl
Management
Area
Child Resident
Adult Resident
Child Farmer
Adult Farmer
Recreational Hunter (1)
X - Indicates that the receptor will be quantitatively evaluated at this location
1 - A qualitative risk evaluation will be presented in the uncertainty analysis for this receptor.
Table 3-3
SUMMARY OF RECEPTORS AND EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH
Exposure Pathway
Inhalation of Vapors and Particulates
0 o
to *-w c •o F
(0
O
ra
a> o c
0)
4-1
.2 £
W rj
T3
<
0) •o
t/>
0
0 o c 0
w 0 DC
T3 <
(0
= 1 £
o
0
i
3 T3
x(D x(D x(D JC(2L x(3)
Incidental Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Drinking Water from Surface Water Sources if! (4)
Ingestion of Homegrown Produce
Ingestion of Homegrown Beef
Ingestion of Milk from Homegrown Cows
Ingestion of Homegrown Chickens
Ingestion of Eggs from Homegrown Chickens
Ingestion of Homegrown Pork
Ingestion of Fish (5) (5)
Ingestion of Breast Milk
Acute Risk from Inhalation of Vapor and Particulates'7'
Notes:
(1) - Inhalation exposures will only be evaluated at the off-site receptor locations.
(2) - Evaluated for a worker at the AutoLiv facility, North Plant Main Administration Building and South Plant Main Administration Buildi
(3) - Evaluated for a worker at the location of the maximum on-site impact.
(4) - Surface water in the area is not suitable for use as a drinking water source.
(5) - Fishing does not occur in the area due to general poor surface water quality, intermittent surface water flow in the
vicinity of the treatment units, and lack of game fish in local water bodies.
(6) - Ingestion of breast milk is evaluated for an infant for dioxins/furans only
(7) - Evaluated using maximum one hour chemical concentrations in air at each location.
Table 3-4
EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH
RECEPTOR Resident
Adult'1'
Resident
Child11'
Farmer
Adult' .(1)
Farmer
Child'11
Industrial
Worker*21 Units
All Exposures
Averaging time for carcinogens 70 70 70 70 70 vr
Averaging time for noncarcinogens 20 40 25
Exposure duration 20 40 25 _yx_ Exposure frequency 350 350 350 350 250 dav/yr
Body weight 80 15 80 15 80 _kg_
Time period at the beginning of combustion
Length of exposure duration 20 40 25
Inhalation
Inhalation exposure duration 20 40 25 _YJ_
Inhalation exposure freguencv 350 350 350 350 250 day/yr
Inhalation exposure time 20 24 24 24 hr/dav
Drinking Water
Fraction of contaminated drinking water NA NA NA NA NA
Consumption rate of drinking water NA NA NA NA NA L/day
Incidental Ingestion of Soil
Fraction of contaminated soil 1 1
Consumption rate of soil 0.0001 0 0002 0.0001 0.0002 0<3) kg/d
Ingestion of Poultry
Fraction of contaminated poultry
Consumption rate of poultry 0.00066 0.00045 kg/kg-day FW
Ingestion of Produce
Fraction of contaminated produce 1
Consumption rate of aboveground produce 0.00032 0.00077 0.00047 0.00113 kg/kg-day DW
Consumption rate of protected aboveground produce 0.00061 0.0015 0.00064 0.00157 kg/kg-day DW
Consumption rate of belowground produce 0.00014 0.00023 0.00017 0.00028 kg/kg-day DW
Ingestion of Beef
Fraction of contaminated beef 1
Consumption rate of beef 0.00122 0.00075 kg/kg-day FW
Ingestion of Eggs
Fraction of contaminated eggs
Consumption rate of eggs 0.00075 0.00054 kg/kg-dav FW
Ingestion of Milk
Fraction of contaminated milk
Consumption rate of milk 0.01367 0.02268 kg/kg-dav FW
Ingestion of Pork
Fraction of contaminated pork 1
Consumption rate of pork 0.00055 0.00042 kg/kg-dav FW
Ingestion of Breast Milk
Bodav weight - infant 9.4
Exposure duration - infant year
Proportion of ingested dioxin that is stored in fat 0.9
Proportion of mother's weight that is fat 0.3
Fraction of fat in breast milk 0.04
Fraction of ingested contaminant that is absorbed 0.9
Half life of dioxin in adults 2555 days
Ingestion rate of breast milk 0.688 ka/dav
DW - Dry weight of soil or plant/animal tissue.
FW - Fresh weight (or whole/wet weight) of plant or animal tissue.
NA - Not applicable
1 - Values from USEPA's Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. September 2005.
2 - Values are from USEPA's Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites. December 2002.
3 - It is assumed an industrial worker is inside a building
Table 3-5
SITE-SPECIFIC INPUT VALUES
ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH
Parameter Value Source
Ev, Average annual evapotranspiration (cm/yr) 64 Hydrologic Atlas of Utah1
I, Average annual irrigation (cm/yr) 55 Lower end of range in Baes and others' (2)
P, Average annual precipitation (cm/yr) 36 Western Regional Climate Center(3)
RO, Runoff (cm/yr) 0.64 McGuinness(4), Busby(5)
Wind Velocity (m/s) 4.1 M245 Meteorological Station Data from 1997 to 2001
Notes:
1 - Hydrologic Atlas of Utah. Logan, UT: Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan, UT, 1968.
2 - Baes, C.F., 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.
(http://rais.ornl.gov/documents/ornl5786.pdf).
3 - Data from the Thiokol Plant 78 weather station. (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl7ut8668).
4 - McGuinness, C.L. 1964. Generalized Map Showing Annual Runoff and Productive Aquifers in the Conterminous United States
(http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ha194).
5 - Busby, M.W.1966. Annual Runoff in the Conterminous United States, (http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ha212).
Table 3-6
CHEMICAL SPECIFIC INPUT PARAMETERS NOT IN HHRAP DATABASE
ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH
PAGE 1 OF 2
CAS No. Chemical
Molecular
Weight
q/mole
Melting
Point
K
Vapor
Pressure
atm
Water
Solubility
mq/L
H
atm-m3/mole
Da
cm2/sec
Dw
cm2/sec
Kow
unitless
Koc
mg/L
Kd,
cm3/g
Kd,w
L/kg
Kdb,
cm3/g
Ksg
(year)1
Fv
(unitless)
526-73-8 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1.20E+02 2.48E+02 1.69E+00 4.50E+01 4 36E-03 7.80E-02 9.03E-06 4.60E+03 8.10E+02 8.10E+00 6 07E+01 3.24E+01 O.OOE+00
95-63-6 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1 20E+02 2.29E+02 2.10E+00 5.70E+01 6 16E-03 6.07E-02 7.92E-06 4.30E+03 7.68E+02 7.68E+00 5.76E+01 3.07E+01 O.OOE+00
105-05-5 1,4-Diethylbenzene 1.34E+02 1 94E+02 1.06E+00 2.50E+01 7 55E-03 7 25E-02 8.39E-06 3 80E+04 4.31 E+03 4.31E+01 3.23E+02 1 72E+02 0 00E+00
106-98-9 1-Butene 5.61 E+01 8.80E+01 1.14E+01 2.00E+02 1.96E-01 1.30E-01 1.50E-05 5 89E+01 5.50E+01 5 50E-01 4.12E+00 2.20E+00 0.00E+00
90-13-1 1 -Chloronaphthalene 1.63E+02 2.70E+02 3.82E-05 1.70E+01 1.45E-02 4.56E-02 7 93E-06 1.00E+04 8 56E+03 8 56E+01 6.42E+02 3 42E+02 0.00E+00
134-32-7 1-Naphthylamine 1.43E+02 3.23E+02 5.59E-02 2.22E+03 4.10E-06 4.51 E-02 8 40E-06 1.70E+02 1.56E+02 1.56E+00 1.17E+01 6.24E+00 0 00E+00
540-84-1 2,2,4-Tri methylpentane 1.14E+02 1.66E+02 6.49E-02 2.40E+00 1.24E+02 5.74E-02 7.06E-06 1.20E+04 1.73E+03 1.73E+01 1.30E+02 6.92E+01 O.OOE+00
75-83-2 2,2-Dimethylbutane 8.62E+01 1.74E+02 3.19E+02 1.80E+01 1.52E+00 9.74E-02 1.13E-05 6 60E+03 1.08E+03 1 08E+01 8.08E+01 4 31 E+01 0.00E+00
565-75-3 2,3,4,-Tnmethylpentane 1.14E+02 1.64E+02 2.71 E+01 230E+00 1.77E+00 8.07E-02 9 34E-06 1.10E+04 1 62E+03 1 62E+01 1.21 E+02 6.46E+01 0.00E+00
79-29-8 2,3-Dimethylbutane 8 62E+01 1 44E+02 2.35E+02 2 30E+01 1.18E+00 9 74E-02 1 13E-05 2.60E+03 5.15E+02 5.15E+00 3.87E+01 2.06E+01 0 00E+00
565-59-3 2,3-Dimethylpentane 1.00E+02 1.38E+02 6.89E+01 5.30E+00 1.73E+00 8.81 E-02 1.02E-05 4.30E+03 7 68E+02 7.68E+00 5.76E+01 3.07E+01 0.00E+00
108-08-7 2,4-Dimethylpentane 1.00E+02 1 53E+02 7.94E+01 5.50E+00 1.90E+00 8.81 E-02 1.02E-05 4.30E+03 7.68E+02 7 68E+00 5.76E+01 3.07E+01 0.00E+OO
5779-94-2 2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde 1 34E+02 0 00E+00 1.31E-01 3 60E+02 1 64E-05 7 25E-02 8.39E-06 6 30E+02 5.65E+02 5.65E+00 4.24E+01 2.26E+01 0.00E+00
87-65-0 2,6-Dichlorophenol 1.63E+02 3.40E+02 2 17E-05 1.72E+02 2.00E-05 3.47E-02 8 80E-06 7.90E+02 7.06E+02 7 06E+00 5 29E+01 2.82E+01 0 0OE+00
611-14-3 2-Ethyltoluene 1.20E+02 2.56E+02 3.26E-03 7.50E+01 5.22E-03 5.83E-02 9.03E-06 4.30E+03 7 68E+02 7.68E+00 5.76E+01 3.07E+01 0.00E+0O
591-78-6 2-Hexanone 1.00E+02 2.17E+02 1.53E-02 1.72E+04 9.32E-05 7.04E-02 8.44E-06 2.40E+01 1.26E+01 1.26E-01 9.46E-01 5 05E-01 0.0OE+0O
562-27-6 2-Methylheptane 1.14E+02 1 64E+02 5.24E-02 1.24E+01 7.68E-01 2.00E-01 7.77E-06 1.30E+04 1.11E+04 1 11E+02 8.31 E+02 4.43E+02 0.00E+00
591-76-4 2-Methylhexane 1.00E+02 1.53E+02 1.97E-01 1 24E+01 7.68E-01 8.81 E-02 1.02E-05 1.30E+04 1.11E+04 1.11E+02 8.31 E+02 4.43E+02 0.00E+00
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 1.42E+02 3.08E+02 5.50E-02 2 46E+01 5.18E-04 5 24E-02 7 78E-06 7.20E+03 6.19E+03 6.19E+01 4.65E+02 2.48E+02 0.00E+00
107-83-5 2-Methylpentane 8 62E+01 1.19E+02 2.11 E+02 1.40E+01 1.71E+00 9.74E-02 1 13E-05 1.60E+03 3.51 E+02 3.51 E+00 2.63E+01 1.40E+01 0.00E+00
91-59-8 2-Naphthylamine 1.43E+02 3.27E+02 5.92E-09 1.89E+02 8.10E-08 6.94E-02 8.04E-06 4.90E+03 4.24E+03 4.24E+01 3.18E+02 1.70E+02 0.00E+00 0.76
620-14-4 3-Ethyltoluene 1.20E+02 1.78E+02 3.86E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.65E-02 9.03E-06 4.30E+03 7.68E+02 7 68E+00 5 76E+01 3 07E+01 0.00E+00
589-81-1 3-Methylheptane 1.14E+02 1 73E+02 1 96E+01 7.90E-01 3.72E+00 8.07E-02 9.34E-06 1.60E+04 2.17E+03 2.17E+01 1 63E+02 8.69E+01 0.00E+00
589-34-4 3-Methylhexane 1 00E+02 1.54E+02 1 45E-01 1.24E+01 7.68E-01 2.00E-01 7.77E-06 1.30E+04 1.11E+04 1.11 E+02 8.31 E+02 4.43E+02 0.00E+00
96-14-0 3-Methylpentane 1 00E+02 1.54E+02 6.15E+01 5.00E+00 1.64E+00 8 81 E-02 1 02E-05 5.10E+03 8.79E+02 8.79E+00 6.59E+01 3.51 E+01 0.O0E+00
3-Methylphenol & 4-Methylphenol 1.08E+02 2 85E+02 2.37E-04 2.27E+04 8.56E-07 7.29E-02 9.32E-06 8.90E+01 8.25E+01 8.25E-01 6.19E+00 3.30E+00 O.00E+00
534-52-1 4,6-Dmitro-2-methylphenol 1.98E+02 3.60E+02 1.58E-07 1 98E+02 1.40E-06 5.59E-02 6.53E-06 1.30E+02 1.20E+02 1.20E+00 8.98E+00 4.79E+00 O.OOE+00
92-67-1 4-Aminobiphenyl 1.69E+02 3.26E+02 5.00E-08 1.29E+02 1 73E-07 6.21 E-02 7.19E-06 6 30E+02 5.65E+02 5 65E+00 4.24E+01 2.26E+01 0.00E+00
622-96-8 4-Ethyltoluene 1.20E+02 2.11 E+02 3.90E-03 9.50E+01 4.90E-03 6.49E-02 7.80E-06 4.30E+03 7.68E+02 7.68E+00 5.76E+01 3.07E+01 0.00E+00
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 1.52E+02 3 66E+02 1.20E-06 1.61 E+01 1 14E-04 4.39E-02 7 53E-06 8.70E+03 7 46E+03 7.46E+01 5.60E+02 2.98E+02 0.00E+00
7429-90-5 Aluminum 3.00E+01 9 33E+02 0 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0 00E+00 O.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.0OE+0O 0.00E+00 0 00E+00 O.OOE+00
191-24-2 Benzo(ghi)perylene 2 76E+02 5.51 E+02 1.30E-13 2.60E-04 1.41E-07 4.90E-01 4.90E-06 4.30E+06 3.32E+06 3.32E+04 2.49E+05 1.33E+05 0 00E+00 0 00007
111-91-1 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 1 73E+02 2.41 E+02 1.74E-04 7.80E+03 3.85E-06 6.12E-02 7.08E-06 2 00E+01 1.90E+01 1.90E-01 1.43E+00 7.61 E-01 0 00E+0O
86-74-8 Carbazole 1.67E+02 5.19E+02 7.50E-07 7.48E+00 1.53E-08 3.90E-02 7.03E-06 5 20E+03 4.50E+03 4.50E+01 3.37E+02 1.80E+02 0.00E+00
107-14-2 Chloroacetonitnle 7.55E+01 2.48E+02 1.50E+01 1.00E+05 1.08E-05 1.06E-01 1.23E-05 3.00E+00 2.43E+00 2.43E-02 1 82E-01 9.72E-02 0 00E+00
10062-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 1.11 E+02 2.23E+02 4.47E-02 2.80E+03 2.94E-03 7.65E-02 1.02E-05 1.10E+02 4.21 E+01 4.21 E-01 3.16E+00 1 68E+00 0 00E+00
590-18-1 cis-2-Butene 5.61 E+01 1 34E+02 1.14E+01 2.00E+02 1.96E-01 1.30E-01 1.50E-05 5.89E+01 5.50E+01 5 50E-01 412E+00 2.20E+00 0.00E+00
7440-48-4 Cobalt 5.89E+01 1.77E+03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0 OOE+00 O.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+0O
7440-50-8 Copper 6 36E+01 1.36E+03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 O.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0 00E+00 0 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0 00E+00 0 OOE+00
4170-30-3 Crotonaldehyde 7.01 E+01 1.62E+02 2.50E-02 1.55E+05 1 13E-05 9.03E-02 1.02E-05 4.00E+00 3.91 E+00 3.91 E-02 2 93E-01 1.56E-01 O.OOE+00
110-82-7 Cyclohexane 8.42E+01 2.80E+02 1.30E-01 5.50E+01 1 50E-01 8 00E-02 9 11E-06 3.40E+02 1.03E+02 1 03E+00 7.72E+00 4.12E+00 0.00E+00
132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 1.68E+02 3 60E+02 2.48E-03 3.10E+00 2.13E-04 4.10E-02 7.38E-06 1.30E+04 1.11E+04 1.11E+02 8.31 E+02 4.43E+02 0.00E+00
122-39-4 Diphenylamine 1 69E+02 3.26E+02 8.06E-04 5 30E+01 2.69E-06 4.17E-02 7.63E-06 3 20E+03 2.79E+03 2.79E+01 2.09E+02 1.12E+02 0.00E+00
60-29-7 Ethyl Ether 7.41 E+01 1.57E+02 7.07E-01 6.04E+04 1.23E-03 8.52E-02 9.36E-06 6.76E+00 4 63E+00 4.63E-02 3.47E-01 1 85E-01 0.00E+0O
1888-71-7 Hexachloropropene 2.49E+02 1.94E+02 4.53E-04 4.50E+00 2.50E-02 6.36E-02 7 09E-06 2.40E+04 2 02E+04 2.02E+02 1.52E+03 8.09E+02 0.00E+00
110-54-3 Hexane 8.62E+01 1.78E+02 1.97E-01 9.50E+00 1.80E+00 7.31 E-02 8.17E-06 1.30E+04 1.84E+03 1 84E+01 1.38E+02 7.37E+01 0.00E+00
m,p-Xylene 1.06E+02 2.25E+02 1 09E-02 1.61 E+02 7.34E-03 7 00E-02 7.80E-06 1 60E+03 3.51 E+02 3.51 E+00 2.63E+01 1.40E+01 0 00E+00
7439-96-5 Manganese 5 49E+01 1.52E+03 0.00E+0O 0 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0 00E+00 0.00E+00 O.OOE+00 0 00E+00 0.00E+00
80-62-6 Methyl Methacrylate 1.00E+02 2 25E+02 3 85E+01 1.50E+04 3.19E-04 7.50E-02 9.21 E-06 2 40E+01 1 26E+01 1.26E-01 9 46E-01 5.05E-01 0 OOE+00
1634-04-4 Methyl tert-butyl ether 8 82E+01 1.65E+02 2.50E+02 5.10E+04 5.87E-04 7.53E-02 8.59E-06 9.00E+00 5 80E+00 5.80E-02 4 35E-01 2.32E-01 0.00E+00
108-87-2 Methylcyclohexane 9 82E+01 1.46E+02 6.05E-02 1.40E+01 4.40E-01 9 86E-02 8.50E-06 7.59E+03 1.20E+03 1.20E+01 9.03E+01 4.81 E+01 0.00E+00
55-18-5 N-Nitrosodiethylamine 1.02E+02 2.57E+02 1.13E-03 1.06E+05 3.63E-06 7 38E-02 9.13E-06 3 00E+00 2.95E+00 2.95E-02 2.21 E-01 1.18E-01 0.00E+00
62-75-9 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 7.41 E+01 2.34E+02 3 55E-03 1 00E+06 1.82E-06 9 88E-02 1.15E-05 3.00E-01 3 06E-01 3.06E-03 2.30E-02 1.23E-02 O.OOE+00
10595-95-6 N-Nitrosomethylethylamine 8.81 E+01 2 46E+02 2 75E-03 3 00E+05 1.44E-06 9.60E-02 1.12E-05 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1 00E-02 7 50E-02 4.00E-02 0.00E+00
59-89-2 N-Nitrosomorpholine 1 16E+02 3.02E+02 4 74E-05 1 00E+06 2.45E-08 7.98E-02 9.24E-06 3.00E+00 2.95E+00 2.95E-02 2.21 E-01 1 18E-01 0.00E+00
529-20-4 •-Tolualdehyde 1 20E+02 2 98E+02 3 35E-01 1.20E+03 1 48E-05 7.80E-02 9 04E-06 1.80E+02 1.65E+02 1.65E+00 1.24E+01 6.60E+00 0 00E+00 1
60-11-7 p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene 2 25E+02 3 84E+02 9.21 E-11 2.30E-01 2.34E-07 5 13E-02 5 94E-06 3 80E+04 3.18E+04 3.18E+02 2.38E+03 1 27E+03 0.00E+00 0.047
76-01-7 Pentachloroethane 2 02E+02 2.44E+02 4.61 E-03 4.80E+02 1 94E-03 5 51 E-02 6 38E-06 1.70E+03 1 50E+03 1 50E+01 1.12E+02 6.00E+01 0.00E+00 1
14797-73-0 Perchlorate 1.17E+02 1.61 E+02 0.00E+00 2.45E+05 0 00E+00 7.94E-02 9.20E-06 0 00E+00 0 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 O.OOE+00 0.00E+00
7723-14-0 Phosphorus 3.40E+01 317E+02 3 42E-05 3 30E+00 0.00E+00 1.81 E-01 2.1 OE-05 O.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0 00E+00 0.00E+00 O.OOE+00 0 00E+00
123-38-6 Propanal 5.81 E+01 2.65E+02 4 17E-01 3 06E+05 7.34E-05 1.10E-01 1 22E-05 4.00E+00 3.91 E+00 3 91 E-02 2 93E-01 1.56E-01 0 00E+00
103-65-1 Propylbenzene 1 20E+02 1.74E+02 4 51E-03 5 22E+01 1 05E-02 6.02E-02 7 83E-06 4 90E+03 851E+02 8.51 E+00 6.39E+01 3.41 E+01 0 00E+00
115-07-1 Propylene 4.21 E+01 8.80E+01 1.14E+01 2.00E+02 1 96E-01 1 10E-01 1 07E-05 5 89E+01 2.57E+01 2.57E-01 1 93E+00 1.03E+00 0 00E+00
10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 1 11E+02 2.23E+02 4.47E-02 2.80E+03 8 68E-04 7 63E-02 1.01 E-05 1.10E+02 4 21 E+01 4 21 E-01 3.16E+00 1.68E+00 0 00E+00
624-64-6 trans-2-Butene 421E+01 1 68E+02 1.14E+01 2.00E+02 1 96E-01 1.57E-01 1.82E-05 5 89E+01 5.50E+01 5 50E-01 4.12E+00 2 20E+00 0 00E+00
1120-21-4 Undecane 1.56E+02 211E+02 5 15E-04 4 00E-02 1 83E+00 4.70E-02 5 31 E-06 8.70E+06 319E+05 3.19E+03 2.39E+04 1 27E+04 0.00E+00
Table 3-6
CHEMICAL SPECIFIC INPUT PARAMETERS NOT IN HHRAP DATABASE
ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH
PAGE 2 OF 2
CAS No. Chemical
Molecular
Weight
q/mole
Melting
Point
K
Vapor
Pressure
atm
Water
Solubility
mq/L
H
atm-m3/mole
Da
cm2/sec
Dw
cm2/sec
Kow
unitless
Koc
mg/L
Kd.
cm3/g
Kdsw
L/kg
Kd„.
cm3/g
Ksg
(year)"1
Fv
(unitless)
Chemicals with Modified Physical Parameters
| Modified I Modified | Modified I Modified | Modified I Modified I Modified | Modified I Modified | Modified | Modified I Modified | Modified I Modified I 53-70-3 |Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
ABBREVIATIONS
H - Henry's Law Constant
Da - Diffusivity in air.
Dw - Diffusivity in water.
Kow - Octanol water partition coefficient.
Koc - Organic carbon partition coefficient
Kd, - Soil-water partition coefficient.
Kd,* - Suspended sediment-surface water partition coefficient
KdM - Bed sediment-sediment pore water partition coefficient.
ksg - COPC soil loss constant due to biotic and adiotjc degradation
Fv - Fraction of COPC air concentrations in vapor phase.
HHRAP - Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities, USEPA, September, 2005.
NA - Not available.
NOTES
(a) - Source: USEPA Regional Screening Levels, November 2013
Table 3-7
BIOTRANSFER FACTORS FOR CHEMICALS NOT IN HHRAP DATABASE, OR MODIFED BASED ON TABLE 3-6
ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH
PAGE 1 OF 3
Cas No. Chemical
RCF
ug/g DW plant
ug/g soil water
Br rootveg
unitless
Br ag
unitless
Br forage
unitless
Bv ag
ug/g DW plant
ug/g air
Bv forage
ug/g DW plant
ug/g air
Ba milk
day/kg FW
Ba beef
day/kg FW
Ba pork
day/kg FW
Ba egg
day/kg FW
Ba chicken
day/kg FW
Br grain
unitless
526-73-8 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 2.0E+01 2.5E+00 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 1.0E+01 1.0E+01 1.1 E-01 4.3E-03 2.0E-02 2.5E-02 8.6E-03 3.0E-01
95-63-6 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1.9E+01 2.5E+00 3.1 E-01 3.1 E-01 6.7E+00 6.7E+00 1.0E-01 4.2E-03 2.0E-02 2.4E-02 8.4E-03 3.1 E-01
105-05-5 1,4-Diethylbenzene 1.0E+02 2.4E+00 8.7E-02 8.7E-02 5.6E+01 5.6E+01 1.8E-01 7.3E-03 3.5E-02 4.2E-02 1.5E-02 8.7E-02
106-98-9 1-Butene 7.0E-01 1.3E+00 3.7E+00 3.7E+00 2.2E-03 2.2E-03 1.1 E-02 4.2E-04 2.0E-03 2.4E-03 8.4E-04 3.7E+00
90-13-1 1 -Chloronaphthalene 3.6E+01 4.2E-01 1.9E-01 1.9E-01 7.0E+00 7.0E+00 1.4E-01 5.5E-03 2.6E-02 3.1 E-02 1.1 E-02 1.9E-01
134-32-7 1-Naphthylamine 1.6E+00 1.0E+00 2.0E+00 2.0E+00 3.2E+02 3.2E+02 2.2E-02 8.6E-04 4.1 E-03 5.0E-03 1.7E-03 2.0E+00
540-84-1 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 4.2E+01 2.4E+00 1.7E-01 1.7E-01 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.4E-01 5.7E-03 2.7E-02 3.3E-02 1.1 E-02 1.7E-01
75-83-2 2,2-Dimethylbutane 2.6E+01 2.4E+00 2.4E-01 2.4E-01 4.3E-02 4.3E-02 1.2E-01 4.8E-03 2.3E-02 2.8E-02 9.7E-03 2.4E-01
565-75-3 2,3,4,-Trimethylpentane 3.9E+01 2.4E+00 1.8E-01 1.8E-01 6.4E-02 6.4E-02 1.4E-01 5.6E-03 2.7E-02 3.2E-02 1.1 E-02 1.8E-01
79-29-8 2,3-Dimethylbutane 1.3E+01 2.5E+00 4.1 E-01 4.1 E-01 2.1 E-02 2.1 E-02 8.7E-02 3.5E-03 1.7E-02 2.0E-02 7.0E-03 4.1 E-01
565-59-3 2,3-Dimethylpentane 1.9E+01 2.5E+00 3.1 E-01 3.1 E-01 2.4E-02 2.4E-02 1.0E-01 4.2E-03 2.0E-02 2.4E-02 8.4E-03 3.1 E-01
108-08-7 2,4-Dimethylpentane 1.9E+01 2.5E+00 3.1 E-01 3.1 E-01 2.2E-02 2.2E-02 1.0E-01 4.2E-03 2.0E-02 2.4E-02 8.4E-03 3.1 E-01
5779-94-2 2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde 4.3E+00 7.6E-01 9.3E-01 9.3E-01 3.3E+02 3.3E+02 4.6E-02 1.8E-03 8.7E-03 1.1 E-02 3.7E-03 9.3E-01
87-65-0 2,6-Dichlorophenol 5.1 E+00 7.3E-01 8.2E-01 8.2E-01 3.4E+02 3.4E+02 5.1 E-02 2.0E-03 9.7E-03 1.2E-02 4.1 E-03 8.2E-01
611-14-3 2-Ethyltoluene 1.9E+01 2.5E+00 3.1 E-01 3.1 E-01 7.9E+00 7.9E+00 1.0E-01 4.2E-03 2.0E-02 2.4E-02 8.4E-03 3.1 E-01
591-78-6 2-Hexanone 3.5E-01 2.8E+00 6.2E+00 6.2E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 5.3E-03 2.1E-04 1.0E-03 1.2E-03 4.3E-04 6.2E+00
562-27-6 2-Methylheptane 4.4E+01 4.0E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 1.8E-01 1.8E-01 1.5E-01 5.9E-03 2.8E-02 3.4E-02 1.2E-02 1.6E-01
591-76-4 2-Methylhexane 4.4E+01 4.0E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 1.8E-01 1.8E-01 1.5E-01 5.9E-03 2.8E-02 3.4E-02 1.2E-02 1.6E-01
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 2.8E+01 4.6E-01 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 1.4E+02 1.4E+02 1.2E-01 5.0E-03 2.4E-02 2.9E-02 9.9E-03 2.3E-01
107-83-5 2-Methylpentane 8.9E+00 2.5E+00 5.4E-01 5.4E-01 8.4E-03 8.4E-03 7.1 E-02 2.8E-03 1.4E-02 1.6E-02 5.7E-03 5.4E-01
91-59-8 2-Naphthylamine 2.1E+01 4.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 5.9E+05 5.9E+05 1.1 E-01 4.4E-03 2.1 E-02 2.5E-02 8.8E-03 2.9E-01
620-14-4 3-Ethyltoluene 1.9E+01 2.5E+00 3.1 E-01 3.1 E-01 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.0E-01 4.2E-03 2.0E-02 2.4E-02 8.4E-03 3.1 E-01
589-81-1 3-methylheptane 5.2E+01 2.4E+00 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 4.5E-02 4.5E-02 1.5E-01 6.2E-03 2.9E-02 3.6E-02 1.2E-02 1.4E-01
96-14-0 3-Methylhexane 2.2E+01 2.5E+00 2.8E-01 2.8E-01 3.0E-02 3.0E-02 1.1 E-01 4.4E-03 2.1 E-02 2.6E-02 8.9E-03 2.8E-01
589-34-4 3-Methylhexane 4.4E+01 4.0E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 1.8E-01 1.8E-01 1.5E-01 5.9E-03 2.8E-02 3.4E-02 1.2E-02 1.6E-01
3-Methylphenol & 4-Methylphenol 9.6E-01 1.2E+00 2.9E+00 2.9E+00 7.8E+02 7.8E+02 1.4E-02 5.6E-04 2.7E-03 3.2E-03 1.1 E-03 2.9E+00
534-52-1 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 1.3E+00 1.1 E+00 2.3E+00 2.3E+00 7.1 E+02 7.1 E+02 1.8E-02 7.3E-04 3.5E-03 4.2E-03 1.5E-03 2.3E+00
92-67-1 4-Aminobiphenyl 4.3E+00 7.6E-01 9.3E-01 9.3E-01 3.1E+04 3.1E+04 4.6E-02 1.8E-03 8.7E-03 1.1 E-02 3.7E-03 9.3E-01
622-96-8 4-Ethyltoluene 1.9E+01 2.5E+00 3.1 E-01 3.1 E-01 8.5E+00 8.5E+00 1.0E-01 4.2E-03 2.0E-02 2.4E-02 8.4E-03 3.1 E-01
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 3.3E+01 4.4E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 7.7E+02 7.7E+02 1.3E-01 5.3E-03 2.5E-02 3.0E-02 1.1 E-02 2.0E-01
7429-90-5 Aluminum 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
191-24-2 Benzo(ghi)perylene 3.9E+03 1.2E-01 5.7E-03 5.7E-03 4.6E+08 4.6E+08 1.5E-01 6.1 E-03 2.9E-02 3.5E-02 1.2E-02 5.7E-03
111-91-1 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 3.0E-01 1.6E+00 6.9E+00 6.9E+00 3.5E+01 3.5E+01 4.6E-03 1.8E-04 8.8E-04 1.1 E-03 3.7E-04 6.9E+00
86-74-8 Carbazole 2.2E+01 4.9E-01 2.8E-01 2.8E-01 3.3E+06 3.3E+06 1.1 E-01 4.5E-03 2.1 E-02 2.6E-02 9.0E-03 2.8E-01
107-14-2 Chloroacetonitrile 7.0E-02 2.9E+00 2.1 E+01 2.1E+01 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 8.5E-04 3.4E-05 1.6E-04 1.9E-04 6.8E-05 2.1 E+01
10062-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 1.1 E+00 2.7E+00 2.6E+00 2.6E+00 2.8E-01 2.8E-01 1.6E-02 6.5E-04 3.1 E-03 3.7E-03 1.3E-03 2.6E+00
590-18-1 cis-2-Butene 7.0E-01 1.3E+00 3.7E+00 3.7E+00 2.2E-03 2.2E-03 1.1 E-02 4.2E-04 2.0E-03 2.4E-03 8.4E-04 3.7E+00
7440-48-4 Cobalt 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
7440-50-8 Copper 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
4170-30-3 Crotonaldehyde 8.8E-02 2.2E+00 1.7E+01 1.7E+01 2.2E+00 2.2E+00 1.1 E-03 4.5E-05 2.1E-04 2.6E-04 8.9E-05 1.7E+01
110-82-7 Cyclohexane 2.7E+00 2.6E+00 1.3E+00 1.3E+00 1.9E-02 1.9E-02 3.3E-02 1.3E-03 6.2E-03 7.5E-03 2.6E-03 1.3E+00
132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 4.4E+01 4.0E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 6.3E+02 6.3E+02 1.5E-01 5.9E-03 2.8E-02 3.4E-02 1.2E-02 1.6E-01
122-39-4 Diphenylamine 1.5E+01 5.4E-01 3.6E-01 3.6E-01 1.1E+04 1.1E+04 9.4E-02 3.8E-03 1.8E-02 2.2E-02 7.5E-03 3.6E-01
60-29-7 Ethyl Ether 1.3E-01 2.8E+00 1.3E+01 1.3E+01 3.5E-02 3.5E-02 1.8E-03 7.3E-05 3.5E-04 4.2E-04 1.5E-04 1.3E+01
1888-71-7 Hexachloropropene 7.1 E+01 3.5E-01 1.1 E-01 1.1 E-01 1.0E+01 1.0E+01 1.7E-01 6.8E-03 3.2E-02 3.9E-02 1.4E-02 1.1 E-01
Table 3-7
BIOTRANSFER FACTORS FOR CHEMICALS NOT IN HHRAP DATABASE, OR MODIFED BASED ON TABLE 3-6
ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH
PAGE 2 OF 3
Cas No. Chemical
RCF
ug/g DW plant
ug/g soil water
Br rootveg
unitless
Br ag
unitless
Br forage
unitless
Bv ag_
ug/g DW plant
ug/g air
Bv forage
ug/q DW plant
ug/g air
Ba milk
day/kg FW
Ba beef
day/kg FW
Ba pork
day/kg FW
Ba egg_
day/kg FW
Ba chicken
day/kg FW
Br grain
unitless
110-54-3 Hexane 4.4E+01 2.4E+00 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 7.5E-02 7.5E-02 1.5E-01 5.9E-03 2.8E-02 3.4E-02 1.2E-02 1.6E-01
m,p-Xylene
7439-96-5 Manganese
8.9E+00 2.5E+00 5.4E-01 5.4E-01 2.0E+00 2.0E+00 7.1 E-02 2.8E-03 1.4E-02 1.6E-02 5.7E-03
0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
5.4E-01
0.0E+00
80-62-6 Methyl Methacrylate 3.5E-01 2.8E+00 6.2E+00 6.2E+00 5.2E-01 5.2E-01 5.3E-03 2.1E-04 1.0E-03 1.2E-03 4.3E-04 6.2E+00
1634-04-4 Methyl tert-butyl ether 1.6E-01 2.8E+00 1.1 E+01 1.1 E+01 9.9E-02 9.9E-02 2.3E-03 9.4E-05 4.5E-04 5.4E-04 1.9E-04 1.1 E+01
108-87-2 Methylcyclohexane 2.9E+01 2.4E+00 2.2E-01 2.2E-01 1.7E-01 1.7E-01 1.3E-01 5.0E-03 2.4E-02 2.9E-02 1.0E-02 2.2E-01
55-18-5 N-Nitrosodiethylamine 7.0E-02 2.4E+00 2.1E+01 2.1 E+01 5.0E+00 5.0E+00 8.5E-04 3.4E-05 1.6E-04 1.9E-04 6.8E-05 2.1 E+01
62-75-9 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 8.3E-01 2.7E+02 7.8E+01 7.8E+01 8.5E-01 8.5E-01 7.1E-05 2.9E-06 1.4E-05 1.6E-05 5.7E-06 7.8E+01
10595-95-6 N-Nitrosomethylethylamine 8.5E-01 8.5E+01 3.9E+01 3.9E+01 3.9E+00 3.9E+00 2.8E-04 1.1E-05 5.2E-05 6.3E-05 2.2E-05 3.9E+01
59-89-2 N-Nitrosomorpholine 7.0E-02 2.4E+00 2.1 E+01 2.1 E+01 7.4E+02 7.4E+02 8.5E-04 3.4E-05 1.6E-04 1.9E-04 6.8E-05 2.1 E+01
529-20-4 o-Tolualdehyde 1.6E+00 1.0E+00 1.9E+00 1.9E+00 9.5E+01 9.5E+01 2.2E-02 8.9E-04 4.2E-03 5.1 E-03 1.8E-03 1.9E+00
60-11-7 p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene 1.0E+02 3.2E-01 8.7E-02 8.7E-02 1.8E+06 1.8E+06 1.8E-01 7.3E-03 3.5E-02 4.2E-02 1.5E-02 8.7E-02
76-01-7 Pentach loroethane 9.3E+00 6.2E-01 5.3E-01 5.3E-01 7.9E+00 7.9E+00 7.3E-02 2.9E-03 1.4E-02 1.7E-02 5.8E-03 5.3E-01
14797-73-0 Perchlorate 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
7723-14-0 Phosphorus 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
123-38-6 Propanal 8.8E-02 2.2E+00 1.7E+01 1.7E+01 3.3E-01 3.3E-01 1.1 E-03 4.5E-05 2.1E-04 2.6E-04 8.9E-05 1.7E+01
103-65-1 Propylbenzene 2.1 E+01 2.5E+00 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 4.5E+00 4.5E+00 1.1 E-01 4.4E-03 2.1 E-02 2.5E-02 8.8E-03 2.9E-01
115-07-1 Propylene 7.0E-01 2.7E+00 3.7E+00 3.7E+00 2.2E-03 2.2E-03 1.1 E-02 4.2E-04 2.0E-03 2.4E-03 8.4E-04 3.7E+00
10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 1.1 E+00 2.7E+00 2.6E+00 2.6E+00 9.6E-01 9.6E-01 1.6E-02 6.5E-04 3.1 E-03 3.7E-03 1.3E-03 2.6E+00
624-64-6 trans-2-Butene 7.0E-01 1.3E+00 3.7E+00 3.7E+00 2.2E-03 2.2E-03 1.1 E-02 4.2E-04 2.0E-03 2.4E-03 8.4E-04 3.7E+00
1120-21-4 Undecane
Chemicals with Modified Biotransfer Factors
6.7E+03 2.1 E+00 3.8E-03 3.8E-03 7.5E+01 7.5E+01 1.3E-01 5.0E-03 2.4E-02 2.9E-02 1.0E-02 3.8E-03
53-70-3 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Modified Modified Modified Modified Modified Modified Modified Modified Modified Modified Modified Modified
Table 3-7
BIOTRANSFER FACTORS FOR CHEMICALS NOT IN HHRAP DATABASE, OR MODIFED BASED ON TABLE 3-6
ATK PROMONTORY, UTAH
PAGE 3 OF 3
Cas No. Chemical
RCF
ug/q DW plant
ug/g soil water
Br root vi
unitless
Br,
unitless
Br forage
unitless
Bv ag_
uq/q DW plant
ug/g air
Bv forage
uq/q DW plant
ug/g air
Ba milk
day/kg FW
Ba beef
day/kg FW
Ba pork
day/kg FW
Ba egg
day/kg FW
Ba chicken Br grain
day/kg FW unitless
Notes:
All values calculated according to the U.S. EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. EPA 530-D-98-001.
RCF - Root concentration factor.
Br rootveg - Plant-soil bioconcentration factor for below ground produce.
Br ag - Plant-soil bioconcentration factor in above ground produce.
Br forage - Plant bioconcentration factor in forage.
Bv ag - Air to plant biotransfer factor for above ground produce.
Bv forage - Air to plant biotransfer factor for forage.
Ba mj|k - Biotransfer factor in milk.
Ba Deef - Biotransfer factor in beef.
Ba po^ - Biotransfer factor in pork.
Ba egg - Biotransfer factor in eggs.
Ba chicken - Biotransfer factor in chicken.
DW - Dry weight.
FW - Fresh weight.
HHRAP - Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities, USEPA, September, 2005.
NA - Not available.
Table 4-1
Changes in Oral Slope Factor Toxicity Data,
ATK Promontory, Utah
RSL HHRAP Difference
Chemical of Interest CAS# SFO ref SFO ref Risk %Diff
Chromium (VI) 18540-29-9 5.0E-01 NJ 0.0E+00 NA Incr. High
Dioxane, 1,4-123-91-1 1.0E-01 1.1 E-02 E2 Incr. 809%
Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-120-82-2.9E-02 3.6E-03 CA Incr. 706%
Trichloropropane, 1,2,3-96-18-4 3.0E+01 7.0E+00 Incr. 329%
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 4.6E-02 1.3E-02 CA Incr. 254%
Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 4.0E-01 1.2E-01 E2 Incr. 233%
Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 4.0E-02 1.4E-02 E2 Incr. 186%
Dinitrotoluene, 2,6-606-20-2 1.5E+00 6.8E-01 E2 Incr. 121%
-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-1746-01-6 1.3E+05 1.5E+05 El Deer. -13%
Carbon Tetrachloride 56-23-5 7.0E-02 .3E-01 E2 Deer. -46%
Vinyl Chloride 75-01-4 7.2E-01 1.5E+00 E2 Deer. -52%
Chlorobenzilate 510-15-6 1.1E-01 2.7E-01 Deer. -59%
Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 2.0E-03 7.5E-03 E2 Deer. -73%
Dibromo-3-
chloropropane, 1,2-96-12-8 8.0E-01 7.0E+00 CA Deer. -89%
Dieldrin 60-57-1 1.6E+01 I 1.6E+02 E2 Deer. -90%
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 2.1 E-03 I 5.2E-02 EN Deer. -96%
Risk = Incr. means calculated risk will be higher
% Diff = percent difference calculated as (RSL value - HHRAP value) / (HHRAP value)
HHRAP Reference
C Calculated (2005)
CA CalEPA (2005b)
EN EPA-NCEA
El U.S. EPA (1997b)
E2 U.S. EPA (2005a)
E3 U.S. EPA (2005b)
NA Not applicable
NJ U.S. EPA (2014)
RSL Reference Key: I=IRIS; P=PPRTV; A=ATSDR; C=Cal EPA; X=PPRTV Appendix; H=HEAST; J=New
Jersey; Q=EPA office of water; E=Environ, Criteria and Assess. Office; S=see user guide section 5
104
Table 4-2
Changes in Inhalation Unit Risk Factor Toxicity Data,
ATK Promontory, Utah
RSL HHRAP Difference
Chemical of Interest CAS# IUR ref IUR ref Risk %Diff
Chromium(VI) 18540-29-9 8.4E-02 1.2E-02 E2 Incr. 600%
Dibromo-3-
chloropropane, 96-12-8 6.0E-03 1.9E-03 CA Incr. 216%
Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 1.1E-05 4.0E-06 E2 Incr. 175%
Bromod ich lorometha
ne 75-27-4 3.7E-05 1.8E-05 Incr. 106%
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 4.1 E-06 2.0E-06 CA Incr. 105%
Dioxane, 1,4-123-91-1 5.0E-06 3.1 E-06 Incr. 61%
Dibromochloro
methane 124-48-1 2.7E-05 2.4E-05 Incr. 13%
Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 5.1 E-06 4.6E-06 CA Incr. 11%
Nickel Soluble Salts 7440-02-0 2.6E-04 2.4E-04 E2 Incr. 8%
Vinyl Chloride 75-01-4 4.4E-06 8.8E-06 E2 Deer. -50%
Carbon Tetrachloride 56-23-5 6.0E-06 1.5E-05 E2 Deer. -60%
Chlorobenzilate 510-15-6 3.1E-05 7.8E-05 El Deer. -60%
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 2.6E-07 5.9E-06 CA Deer. -96%
Methylene Chloride [ 75-09-2 I.0E-08 4.7E-07 E2 Deer. -98%
See Table 4.1 for abbreviations
Table 4-3
Changes in Oral Reference Dose Toxicity Data,
ATK Promontory, Utah
RSL HHRAP Difference
Chemical CAS# RfDO ref RfDO ref Risk %Diff
Cyanide (CN-) 57-12-5 6.0E-04 2.0E-02 E2 Incr. -97%
Dioxane, 1,4-123-91-1 3.0E-02 8.6E-01 Incr. -96%
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 5.0E-04 6.0E-03 EN Incr. -92%
Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 6.0E-03 6.0E-02 E2 Incr. -90%
Pentach loropheno 1 87-86-5 5.0E-03 3.0E-02 E2 Incr. -83%
Dichloroethane, 1,2-107-06-2 6.0E-03 3.0E-02 EN Incr. -80%
Chlorpyrifos 2921-88-2 I.0E-03 3.0E-03 E2 Incr. -67%
Dibromo-3-
chloropropane, 1,2-96-12-8 2.0E-04 5.7E-04 EN Incr. -65%
Toluene 108-88-3 8.0E-02 2.0E-01 E2 Incr. -60%
Formic Acid 64-18-6 9.0E-01 2.0E+00 El Incr. -55%
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 6.0E-03 1.0E-02 E2 Incr. -40%
Trichloropropane,
1,2,3-96-18-4 4.0E-03 6.0E-03 E2 Incr. -33%
-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-1746-01-6 7.0E-10 1.0E-09 (2005) Incr. -30%
Hexach loroethane 67-72-1 7.0E-04 1.0E-03 E2 Incr. -30%
Hexachlorocyclohexa
ne, Alpha-319-84-6 8.0E-03 5.7E-03 Deer. 40%
Dichlorobenzene,
1,4-106-46-7 7.0E-02 3.0E-02 EN Deer. 133%
Barium 7440-39-3 2.0E-01 7.0E-02 E2 Deer. 186%
Epichlorohydrin 106-89-8 6.0E-03 2.0E-03 El Deer. 200%
Methanol 67-56-1 2.0E+00 5.0E-01 E2 Deer. 300%
Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 2.0E-03 5.0E-04 E2 Deer. 300%
-Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 9.0E-01 2.0E-01 EN Deer. 350%
Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 1.0E-03 2.0E-04 El Deer. 400%
Carbon Tetrachloride 56-23-5 4.0E-03 7.0E-04 E2 Deer. 471%
Cresol, p-106-44-5 1.0E-01 5.0E-03 El Deer. 1900%
Acrylonitrile 107-13-1 4.0E-02 I.0E-03 El Deer. 3900%
Dichloropropane, 1,2-78-87-5 9.0E-02 1.1 E-03 Deer. 7795%
Trichloroethane,
1,1,1-71-55-6 2.0E+00 2.0E-02 EN Deer. 9900%
See Table 4.1 for abbreviations
106
Table 4-4
Changes in Inhalation Reference Concentration Toxicity Data,
ATK Promontory, Utah
RSL HHRAP Difference
RfCi ref RfCi ref Risk %Diff
Dichloroethane, 1,2-107-06-2 7.0E-03 2.4E+00 Incr. -100%
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 2.0E-03 6.0E-01 CA Incr. 100%
Dioxane, 1,4-123-91-1 3.0E-02 3.0E+00 CA Incr. -99%
-Cyanide (CN-) 57-12-5 8.0E-04 7.0E-02 Incr. -99%
Trichloropropane,
1,2,3-96-18-4 3.0E-04 2.1 E-02 Incr. -99%
Cadmium (Diet) 7440-43-9 1.OE-05 2.0E-04 EN Incr. -95%
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 4.0E-02 4.0E-01 EN Incr. -90%
Dibromomethane
(Methylene Bromide) 74-95-3 4.0E-03 X 3.5E-02 Incr. -89%
Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 6.0E-01 3.0E+00 El Incr. -80%
Mercuric Chloride
(and other Mercury
salts) 7487-94-7 3.0E-04 1.1 E-03 Incr. -73%
Nickel Soluble Salts 7440-02-0 9.0E-05 2.0E-04 Incr. -55%
Arsenic, Inorganic 7440-38-2 1.5E-05 3.OE-05 CA Incr. -50%
Dichlorodifluorometh
ane 75-71-8 .0E-01 2.0E-01 El Incr. -50%
Chlorine 7782-50-5 1.5E-04 2.0E-04 CA Incr. -25%
Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 5.0E-02 6.0E-02 EN Incr. -17%
Dichloroethylene,
1,2-trans-156-60-5 6.0E-02 7.0E-02 Incr. -14%
Ethyl Methacrylate 97-63-2 3.0E-01 3.2E-01 Incr. -6%
Carbon Tetrachloride 56-23-5 1.0E-01 4.0E-02 CA Deer. 150%
Cresol, o-95-48-7 6.0E-01 1.8E-01 Deer. 233%
Cresol, m-108-39-4 6.0E-01 1.8E-01 Deer. 243%
Methanol 67-56-1 2.0E+01 4.0E+00 CA Deer. 400%
-Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 2.0E+00 3.0E-01 EN Deer. 567%
Toluene 108-88-3 5.0E+00 4.0E-01 E2 Deer. 1150%
Chromium(VI) 18540-29-9 1.0E-04 8.0E-06 E2 Deer. 1150%
Cresol, p-106-44-5 6.0E-01 1.8E-02 Deer. 3329%
Methacrylonitrile 126-98-7 3.0E-02 7.0E-04 El Deer. 4186%
Acetone 67-64-1 3.1 E+01 3.5E-01 Deer. 8757%
Chloroform 67-66-3 9.8E-02 3.0E-04 EN Deer. 32567%
See Table 4.1 for abbreviations
107
Table 4-5
Human Health Data for Chemicals not in the HHRAP Database,
ATK Promontory, Utah
CAS No. Chemical
Cancer Slope
Factor
(mg/kg/day)'1
Unit Risk
Factor
(ug/m3);'
Reference
Dose
(mg/kg/day)
Reference
Concentration
(mg/m3) Surrogate
526-73-8
1,2,3-
Trimethylbenzene NA NA NA 7.0E-03
1,2,4-
Trimethylbenzene
95-63-6
1,2,4-
Trimethylbenzene NA NA NA 7.0E-03
105-05-5 1,4-Diethylbenzene 1.1 E-02 2.5E-06 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 Ethyl benzene
106-98-9 1-Butene NA NA NA 3.0E+00 Propylene
90-13-1 -Chloronaphthalene NA NA 8.0E-02 NA
134-32-7 1 -Naphthylamine 1.8E+00 NA NA NA 2-Naphthylamine
540-84-1
2,2,4-
Trimethylpentane NA NA 4.0E-02 2.0E-01 MADEP
75-83-2 2,2-Dimefhylbutane NA NA 4.0E-02 2.0E-01 MADEP
565-75-3
2,3,4,-
Trimethylpentane NA NA 4.0E-02 2.0E-01 MADEP
79-29-8 2,3-Dimethylbutane NA NA 4.0E-02 2.0E-01 MADEP
565-59-3 2,3-Dimethylpentane NA NA 4.0E-02 2.0E-01 MADEP
108-08-7 2,4-Dimethylpentane NA NA 4.0E-02 2.0E-01 MADEP
5779-94-2
2,5-Dimethylbenz
aldehyde NA NA 1.0E-01 NA Benzaldehyde
87-65-0 2,6-Dichlorophenol NA NA 3.0E-03 NA 2,4-Dichlorophenol
53-96-3 Acetylaminofluorene 3.8E+00 1.3 E-03 NA NA
611-14-3 2-Ethyltoluene 1.1 E-02 2.5E-06 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 Ethylbenzene
591-78-6 2-Hexanone NA NA 5.0E-03 3.0E-02
562-27-6 2-Methylheptane NA NA 4.0E-02 2.0E-01 MADEP
591-76-4 2-Methylhexane NA NA 6.0E-02 H 7.0E-01 Hexane
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene NA NA 4.0E-03 NA
107-83-5 2-Methylpentane NA NA 4.0E-02 2.0E-01 MADEP
91-59-8 2-Naphthylamine 1.8E+00 NA NA NA
620-14-4 3-Ethyltoluene 1.1 E-02 2.5E-06 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 Ethylbenzene
56-49-5 3-Methylcholanthrene 2.2E+01 6.3E-03 NA NA
589-81-1 3-methylheptane NA NA 4.0E-02 2.0E-01 MADEP
Table 4-5
Human Health Data for Chemicals not in the HHRAP Database,
ATK Promontory, Utah
CAS No. Chemical
Cancer Slope
Factor
(mg/kg/day)'1
Unit Risk
Factor
(US/™3)'1
Reference
Dose
(mg/kg/day)
Reference
Concentration
(mg/m3) Surrogate
589-34-4 3-Methylhexane NA NA 4.0E-02 2.0E-01 MADEP
3-Methylphenol & 4-
Methylphenol NA NA 5.0E-03 H 6.0E-01 4-Methylphenol
534-52-1
4,6-Dinitro-2-
methylphenol NA NA 8.0E-05 NA
92-67-4-Aminobiphenyl 2.1 E+01 6.0E-03 NA NA
622-96-8 4-Ethyltoluene 1.1 E-02 2.5E-06 1.0E-01 1 .OE+00 Ethylbenzene
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene NA NA 6.0E-02 NA Acenaphthene
7429-90-5 Aluminum NA NA
1.0E+0
0 5.0E-03
92-87-5 Benzidine 2.3 E+02 6.7E-02 3.0E-03 NA
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene NA NA 3.0E-02 NA Pyrene
11-91-1
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)
methane NA NA 3.0E-03 NA
86-74-8 Carbazole 2.0E-02 NA NA NA
107-14-2 Chloroacetonitrile NA NA NA 6.0E-02 Acetonitrile
10062-01-5
cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene 1.0E-01 4.0E-06 3.0E-02 2.0E-02 1,3-Dichloropropene
590-18-cis-2-Butene NA NA NA 3.0E+00 Propylene
7440-48-4 Cobalt NA 9.0E-03 3.0E-04 6.0E-06
7440-50-8 Copper NA NA 4.0E-02 H NA
4170-30-3 Crotonaldehyde .9E+00 H NA NA NA trans-Crotonaldehyde
110-82-7 Cyclohexane NA NA NA 6.0E+00
132-64-9 Dibenzofuran NA NA 1.0E-03 NA
122-39-4 Diphenylamine NA NA 2.5E-02 NA
60-29-7 Ethyl Ether NA NA 2.0E-01 NA
1888-71-7 Hexachloropropene 1.4E-02 4.0E-06 1.0E-03 NA Hexachloroethane
110-54-3 Hexane NA NA 6.0E-02 H 7.0E-01
m,p-Xylene NA NA 2.0E-01 1.0E-01 Xylene, Mixture
7439-96-5 Manganese NA NA 1.4E-01 5.0E-05
80-62-6 Methyl Methacrylate NA NA 1.4E+0 7.0E-01
Table 4-5
Human Health Data for Chemicals not in the HHRAP Database,
ATK Promontory, Utah
CAS No. Chemical
Cancer Slope
Factor
(mg/kg/day)1
Unit Risk
Factor
Reference
Dose
(mg/kg/day)
Reference
Concentration
(mg/m3) Surrogate
0
1634-04-4
Methyl tert-butyl
ether 1.8E-03 2.6E-07 NA 3.0E+00
108-87-2 Methylcyclohexane NA NA NA 6.0E+00 Cyclohexane
55-18-5
N-Nitrosodiethyl
amine 1.5E+02 4.3E-02 NA NA
62-75-9
N-Nitrosodi methyl
amine 5.1 E+01 1.4E-02 8.0E-06 4.0E-05
10595-95-6
N-Nitrosomethyl
ethylamine 2.2E+01 6.3E-03 NA NA
59-89-2 N-Nitrosomorpholine 6.7E+00 1.9E-03 NA NA
529-20-4 o-Tolualdehyde NA NA .0E-01 NA Benzaldehyde
60-11-7
p-Dimethylamino azo
benzene 4.6E+00 1.3 E-03 NA NA
76-01-7 Pentachloroethane 9.0E-02 NA NA NA
14797-73-0 Perchlorate NA NA 7.0E-04 NA
7723-14-0 Phosphorus NA NA 2.0E-05 NA
103-65-1 Propylbenzene NA NA 1.0E-01 4.0E-01
123-38-6 Propanal NA NA NA 3.0E+00 Propylene
15-07-Propylene NA NA NA 3.0E+00
10061-02-6
trans-1,3-
Dichloropropene 1.0E-01 4.0E-06 3.0E-02 2.0E-02 1,3-Dichloropropene
624-64-6 trans-2-Butene NA NA NA 3.0E+00 Propylene
1120-21-4 Undecane NA NA 1.0E-01 2.0E-01 MADEP
Notes:
NA - No toxicity criteria available.
MADEP - Characterizing Risks Posed by Petroleum Contaminated Sites: Implementation of the MADEP VPH/EPH Approach. Policy
#WSC-02-411 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, October 2002.
HHRAP - Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities, USEPA,
September, 2005.
I - Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
Table 4-5
Human Health Data for Chemicals not in the HHRAP Database,
ATK Promontory, Utah
CAS No. Chemical
Cancer Slope
Factor
(mg/kg/day)''
Unit Risk
Factor
(ug/m3)'1
Reference
Dose
(mg/kg/day)
Reference
Concentration
(mg/m3) Surrogate
H - USEPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
(HEAST).
C = California Environmental Protection Agency.
P = Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value (PPRTV).
Table 4-6
Changes in Acute Inhalation Exposure Criteria, ATK
Promontory, Utah
Acute
CAS No. Chemical Inhalation Exposure Criteria
(mg/m3)
7440-38-2 Arsenic 0.0002
50-00-0 Formaldehyde 0.055
7439-97-6 | Mercury | 0.0006
Source:
Cal EPA REL - California Environmental Protection Agency
Acute Reference Exposure Level, December 18, 2008.
Located online at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Table 4-7
Acute Inhalation Exposure Criteria, ATK Promontory, Utah
CAS No. Chemical
Acute Inhalation
Exposure Criteria
(mg/m3)
Source
526-73-8 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 688 DOE PAC
95-63-6 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 688 DOE PAC
106-99-0 1,3-Butadiene 1,480 DOE PAC
141-93-5 1,3-Diethylbenzene 125 DOE PAC
105-05-5 ,4-Diethylbenzene 500 Ethylbenzene
106-98-9 1-Butene 1,500 DOE PAC
90-13-1 1 -Chloronaphthalene 20 DOE PAC
592-41-6 1-Hexene 250 DOE PAC
134-32-7 1-Naphthylamine 1.5 DOE PAC
109-67-1 1-Pentene 2,500 DOE PAC
540-84-1 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 1,250 DOE PAC
75-83-2 2,2-Dimethylbutane 1,500 DOE PAC
5779-94-2 2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde 15 Benzaldehyde
87-65-0 2,6-Dichlorophenol 35 DOE PAC
53-96-3 2-Acetylaminofluorene 7.5 DOE PAC
611-14-3 2-Ethyltoluene 500 DOE PAC
591-78-6 2-Hexanone 40 DOE PAC
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene DOE PAC
107-83-5 2-Methylpentane 1,500 DOE PAC
91-59-8 2-Naphthylamine DOE PAC
79-46-9 2-Nitropropane 75 DOE PAC
67-63-0 2-Propanol 3.2 Cal EPA REL
119-93-7 3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine 0.3 DOE PAC
107-05-1 3-Chloropropene 8.76 DOE PAC
620-14-4 3-Ethyltoluene 500 Ethylbenzene
56-49-5 3-Methylcholanthrene 1.25 DOE PAC
96-14-0 3-Methylpentane 1,500 DOE PAC
3-Methylphenol & 4-
Methylphenol 20 4-Methylphenol
534-52-4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 0.2 PAC
92-67-1 4-Aminobiphenyl 10 DOE PAC
Table 4-7
Acute Inhalation Exposure Criteria, ATK Promontory, Utah
CAS No. Chemical
Acute Inhalation
Exposure Criteria
(mg/m3)
Source
622-96-8 4-Ethyltoluene 500 DOE PAC
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.2 DOE PAC
74-86-2 Acetylene 350 DOE PAC
7429-90-5 Aluminum DOE PAC
92-87-5 Benzidine 0.5 DOE PAC
191-24-2 Benzo(ghi)perylene 30 DOE PAC
11-91-1 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 15 DOE PAC
106-97-8 Butane 13,100 DOE PAC
86-74-8 Carbazole 2.5 DOE PAC
107-14-2 Chloroacetonitrile 12.5 DOE PAC
10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.6 DOE PAC
590-18-1 cis-2-Butene 150,000 DOE PAC
630-08-0 CO 23 Cal EPA REL
124-38-9 C02 50,000 DOE PAC
7440-48-4 Cobalt 0.3 DOE PAC
7440-50-8 Copper 0. Cal EPA REL
4170-30-3 Crotonaldehyde 0.544 DOE PAC
110-82-7 Cyclohexane 1,000 DOE PAC
287-92-3 Cyclopentane 5,000 DOE PAC
124-18-5 Decane 1 DOE PAC
132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 30 DOE PAC
122-39-4 Diphenylamine 100 DOE PAC
74-84-0 Ethane 3,500 DOE PAC
64-17-5 Ethanol 3,380 DOE PAC
74-85-Ethene 600 DOE PAC
60-29-7 Ethyl Ether 1,500 DOE PAC
74-90-8 HCN 2.1 Cal EPA REL
142-82-5 Heptane 1,500 DOE PAC
1888-71-7 Hexachloropropene DOE PAC
66-25-1 Hexanal 150 DOE PAC
Table 4-7
Acute Inhalation Exposure Criteria, ATK Promontory, Utah
CAS No. Chemical
Acute Inhalation
Exposure Criteria
(mg/m3)
Source
110-54-3 Hexane 1,500 DOE PAC
75-28-5 Isobutane 6,000 DOE PAC
78-78-4 Isopentane 1,500 DOE PAC
m,p-Xylene 600 m-xylene
7439-95-4 Magnesium DOE PAC
7439-96-5 Manganese DOE PAC
96-33-3 Methyl Acrylate DOE PAC
80-62-6 Methyl Methacrylate 69.6 DOE PAC
1634-04-4 Methyl tert-butyl ether 180 DOE PAC
108-87-2 Methylcyclohexane 5,000 DOE PAC
96-37-7 Methylcyclopentane 40 DOE PAC
109-69-3 n-Butylchloride 75 DOE PAC
7664-41-7 NH3 3.2 Cal EPA REL
62-75-9 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 10 DOE PAC
59-89-2 N-Nitrosomorpholine 1.25 DOE PAC
111-84-2 Nonane 1,000 DOE PAC
111-65-9 Octane 1,250 DOE PAC
529-20-4 o-Tolualdehyde 15 Benzaldehyde
60-11-7 p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene 12.5 DOE PAC
76-01-7 Pentachloroethane 126 DOE PAC
109-66-0 Pentane 350 DOE PAC
7723-14-0 Phosphorus 0.4 DOE PAC
123-38-6 Propanal 107 DOE PAC
74-98-6 Propane 9,910 DOE PAC
103-65-Propylbenzene 75 DOE PAC
115-07-1 Propylene 2,500 DOE PAC
7446-09-5 SO, 0.66 Cal EPA REL
10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 75 DOE PAC
624-64-6 trans-2-butene 1,500 DOE PAC
1120-21-4 Undecane DOE PAC
Table 4-7
Acute Inhalation Exposure Criteria, ATK Promontory, Utah
CAS No. Chemical
Acute Inhalation
Exposure Criteria
(mg/m3)
Source
Notes:
Cal EPA REL - California Environmental Protection Agency Acute Reference Exposure Level, December 18, 2008.
Located online at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
DOE PAC - U.S. Department of Energy, Protective Action Criteria (PAC) with AEGLs, ERPGs, & TEELs
Rev 26 for Chemicals of Concern, September 2010, Located online
at:http://www.hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/wshp/chem_safety/teel.html