Appendix_B_Human_Health_Risk_Assessment.pdf

OB/OD Unit

Human Health Risk Assessment

For

Tooele Army Depot-North Area Tooele, Utah

Contract No. W91278-12-D-0011 Task Order No. 0004

September 2015

Prepared for

Tooele Army Depot-North Area (TEAD-N) Under Contract to

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mobile District prepared by

Tetra Tech, Inc.

amber.kelly Typewritten Text

7475 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 REVISED RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH

2.1 Risk Assessment Guidance

2.2 Data Evaluation

2.3 Exposure Assessment

2.4 Toxicity Assessment

2.5 Risk Characterization

3.0 REVISED HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

3.1 Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices

3.2 Lead Exposures

3.3 Breast Milk Pathway

3.4 Acute Hazard Characterization from Direct Inhalation

3.5 Risks Based on Soil Sampling Data

4.0 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

4.1 Uncertainty Associated with Evaluation of Lead

4.2 Uncertainty Associated with Risks Based on Soil Sampling Data

5.0 REFERENCE

APPENDICES - Appear on CD only

Appendix A Evaluation of Risks Using Emission Factors Based on the 95% Upper Confidence Limit Appendix B Supplement Information for Chemicals of Potential Concern Appendix C Supplement AIHQ Values Appendix D IRAP-h Input/Output Files (Stand-Alone CD) Appendix E Hazard Indices and Cancer Risks by Exposure Pathway Appendix F Hazard Indices by Target Organ Appendix G Acute Hazard Quotients Appendix H RAGS Part D Spreadsheet for On-Site OB/OD Workers Appendix I Adult Lead Model Results Appendix J RAGS Part D Spreadsheets for Evaluation of Non-Detected Chemicals amber.kelly Typewritten Text amber.kelly Typewritten Text

7475 iv

TABLES

Table 2-1 COPCS for the Human Health Risk Assessment Table 2-2 Summary of Receptors Table 2-3 Summary of Exposure Pathways Table 3-1 Summary of Cancer Risks Table 3-2 Summary of Hazard Indices Table 3-3 Summary of Hazard Indices by Exposure Pathway for South/West OB/OD TEAD-North Boundary Table 3-4 Summary of Cancer Risks by Exposure Pathway for South/West OB/OD TEAD-North Boundary Table 3-5 Major Contributors to Risk From Ingestion of Produce for Receptors at the South/West OB/OD TEAD-North Boundary Table 3-6 Major Contributors to Risk From Ingestion of Milk for Receptors at the South/West OB/OD TEAD-North Boundary Table 3-7 Summary of Lead Concentrations in Surface Soil, Air, and Surface Water Table 3-8 Summary of Breast Milk Average Daily Dose (2,3,7,8-TCDD) TEQ Table 3-9 Acute Inhalation Hazardous Quotient Table 3-10 Major Contributors to Acute Inhalation Hazard Quotient Table 3-11 Summary of Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices for On-Site Workers Exposed to Surface Soil Table 3-12 Adult Lead Modeling Results Table 4-1 Summary of Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices Associated with Non-Detected Chemicals

FIGURES

Figure 2-1 TEAD-North Location Map Figure 2-2 USGS Map of TEAD-North and Surrounding Area Figure 2-3 Aerial Photo of TEAD-North and Surrounding Area Figure 2-4 Tooele City Map Figure 2-5 Zoning Map of TEAD-North and Surrounding Area

7475 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Tooele Army Depot-North Area (TEAD-N) submitted Attachment 26-OB/OD Risk Assessment and Risk

Management to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) in April 2002. Attachment 26 was submitted to support modification (September 2005) of the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA) Permit to include Module VI for the Open Burning (OB) and Open Detonation (OD) Unit at TEAD-

N. The Permit also includes static firing (SF) that is conducted at the OB/OD Unit.

Changes in operational needs for TEAD-N warrant the evaluation of modified OB/OD treatment limits (from those specified in the initial Permit). Also, additional OB/OD emission factor test data are now available.

Therefore, the human health risk assessment included in Attachment 26 of the Permit Application has been updated in the sections that follow and re-titled as Attachment 17b. These risk results have been used for the development of the TEAD-N OB/OD Risk Management Plan (RMP).

The revised human health risk assessment is summarized in the sections that follow. These Sections provide the complete human health risk assessment (HHRA) information and data needed to support the

TEAD-N Risk Management Plan.

7475 2

2.0 REVISED RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH

2.1 RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE

The HHRA for the Permit Application was based on the Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities (USEPA, July 1998) and commercially available software developed by Lakes Environmental, Industrial Risk Assessment Program – Human Health for the U.S. EPA OSW Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP), referred to as IRAP-h View. The HHRAP was updated by U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 6 in September 2005 and IRAP-h View was updated in February 2005. The revised HHRA was prepared using version 3.2 of the IRAP-h View program.

The overall methodology for preparing HHRAs for combustion facilities presented in the updated 2005 HHRAP guidance has not changed from the 1998 HHRAP guidance. However, revisions in the updated 2005 HHRAP guidance that could have an impact on the results of the initial analysis included revisions to the chemical and physical constants used in the food change modeling and the hierarchy for acute toxicity values.

2.2 DATA EVALUATION

The data evaluation for the revised HHRA was performed using the methodology presented in the original HHRA. The chemicals evaluated in the revised HHRA are presented in Table 2.1 and correspond to chemicals that had nonzero OB/OD/SF emission factors based on Attachment 25 Addendum No. 1.

2.3 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

The revised HHRA evaluated risks to the receptors identified in the original HHRA. The revised HHRA also evaluated the same receptor locations as the original HHRA with the addition of the guard shack receptor location. Table 2.2 lists the receptors and locations evaluated in the revised HHRA. Receptor locations were determined using the location of the maximum air concentrations estimated by the air dispersion modeling. There are currently no receptors located at the south/west OB/OD TEAD-N boundary. Table 2.3 lists the exposure pathways that were evaluated for each receptor.

The location of the site is shown in Figure 2-1. Figure 2-2 shows the USGS topographic map for TEAD-N and the surrounding area. An aerial photo of the site is shown in Figure 2-3. Figure 2- 4 shows the land use for city of Tooele. Figure 2-5 shows the zoning map for TEAD-N and the surrounding areas. A detail description of land use in the area was included in the HHRA presented in Attachment 17. As can be seen from Figure 2-4 land use in Tooele is a mainly residential along with some areas of commercial/industrial development. As can be seen from Figure 2-5, land south and west of TEAD-N is zoned for multiple use (i.e., agricultural, grazing, and mining) while land east and north of the site is zoned residential and commercial.

Typically HHRAs are preformed using 95% UCLs. As discussed in Attachment 17a the database for the emission factors was inadequate to calculate statistically defensible 95% UCLs, therefore

7475 3 the HHRA was performed using average emission factors. An evaluation of the human health risks using emission factors based on the 95% UCL is presented in Appendix A.

In accordance with the HHRAP guidance annual air concentrations were used to estimate cancer risks. The annual air concentrations for the OB, OD, and SF units are based on days on which these units are in operation and do not include non-operational days. This is a conservative assumption that deviates for standard risk assessment methodology because the exposure point concentrations should represent the average concentration over the time period for which the receptor is exposed.

2.4 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT

The toxicity assessment was performed in accordance with the updated 2005 HHRAP guidance.

The 2005 HHRAP guidance follows current USEPA guidance which uses a different hierarchy for selecting toxicity criteria than the hierarchy that was used in the 1998 HHRAP. The current USEPA guidance recommends the following sources for obtaining cancer slope factors and reference doses (USEPA, 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).

The 2005 HHRAP guidance recommends the following hierarchy for selecting acute toxicity criteria:

1. Cal/EPA Acute RELs – the concentration in air at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated in the general population, including sensitive individuals, for a specified exposure period (Cal/EPA, 1999).

2. Acute inhalation exposure guidelines (AEGL-1) – “the airborne concentration of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure” (NOAA, 2001).

3. Level 1 emergency planning guidelines (ERPG-1) – “the maximum concentration in air below which it is believed nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse effects or perceiving a clearly defined objectionable odor” (DoE, 2001; SCAPA, 2001).

7475 4

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).

The 2005 HHRAP toxicity criteria database was checked for updated values. In addition, the above sources were used to obtain toxicity criteria for chemicals which were not listed in the 2005 HHRAP database. Supplemental and updated reference doses and cancer slope factors are presented in Appendix B. Supplemental and updated acute inhalation exposure criteria are presented in Appendix C.

2.5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION

The risk characterization was performed using the methodology presented in the original HHRA except that the Utah Toxic Screening Levels (TSLs) were not used. The detailed human health risk assessment (that includes the inhalation pathway) process takes precedence over the Utah TSLs.

7475 5

TABLE 2.1 COPCS FOR THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

Cas No. COPC Listed in USEPA

HHRAP

Database(1)

Supplemental Input(2)

Quantitatively Evaluated(3)

71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane X X X 3268-87-9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzodioxin X X X

39001-02-0 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzofuran X X X 35822-46-9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzodioxin X X 67562-39-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran X X 55673-89-7 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran X X 70648-26-9 1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran X X 39227-28-6 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin X X 57117-44-9 1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran X X 57653-85-7 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin X X 72918-21-9 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzofuran X X 19408-74-3 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin X X 57117-41-6 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran X X X 40321-76-4 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin X X

120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene X X 95-63-6 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene X X 107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane X X 78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane X X 463-49-0 1,2-Propadiene

1,3-Butadiyne 108-67-8 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene X X 99-35-4 1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene X X 106-99-0 1,3-Butadiene X X 541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 99-65-0 1,3-Dinitrobenzene X X 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene X X 123-91-1 1,4-Dioxane X X 71-36-3 1-Butanol X X 123-92-2 1-Butanol 3-methyl-acetate 137-32-6 1-Butanol, 2-methyl- 123-51-3 1-Butanol, 3-methyl-

1-Butanol, 3-methyl-, acetate 689-97-4 1-Buten-3-yne 106-98-9 1-Butene

1-Butene / Isobutylene 592-76-7 1-Heptene 592-41-6 1-Hexene 522-43-0 1-Nitropryene

7789-99-3 1-Pentanol,2-methyl-, acetate 109-67-1 1-Pentene 71-23-8 1-Propanol

1-Propene, 2-methyl- 1-Propene,2-methyl-Isomer

74-99-7 1-Propyne 60851-34-5 2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran X X 57117-31-4 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran X X X 51207-31-9 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran X X

7475 6

Cas No. COPC Listed in USEPA

HHRAP

Database(1)

Supplemental Input(2)

Quantitatively Evaluated(3)

1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin X X 118-96-7 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene X X 51-28-5 2,4-Dinitrophenol X X 121-14-2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene X X 606-20-2 2,6-Dinitrotoluene X X

35572-78-2 2-Amino-4,6-Dinitrotoluene X X 78-93-3 2-Butanone X X

4170-30-3 2-Butenal 503-17-3 2-Butyne

2-Hexanol 2-methyl-2,3-pentanediol

91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene X X 95-48-7 2-methylphenol X X 119-75-5 2-Nitrodiphenylamine 581-89-5 2-Nitronaphthalene 88-75-5 2-Nitrophenol X X 88-72-2 2-Nitrotoluene X X 108-11-2 2-Pentanol, 4-methyl- 67-63-0 2-Propanol 78-85-3 2-Propenal, 2-methyl- 78-94-4 3-Buten-2-one

3-Chloropropene 620-14-4 3-Ethyltoluene 99-08-1 3-Nitrotoluene X X

19406-51-0 4-Amino-2,6-Dinitrotoluene X X 59-50-7 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol X X

4-Ethyltoluene 100-02-7 4-Nitrophenol X X 99-99-0 4-Nitrotoluene X X 83-32-9 Acenaphthene X X 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene X X 75-07-0 Acetaldehyde X X 64-19-7 Acetic Acid 123-86-4 Acetic Acid, butyl ester 142-92-7 Acetic Acid, hexyl ester 67-64-1 Acetone X X 75-05-8 Acetonitrile X X 98-86-2 Acetophenone X X 74-86-2 Acetylene 107-02-8 Acrolein X X 107-13-1 Acrylonitrile X X

Aliphatic with triple C-N bond 107-05-1 Allyl Chloride X X 98-83-9 Alpha Methyl Styrene X X

7429-90-5 Aluminum X X 7664-41-7 Ammonia X X 120-12-7 Anthracene X X

7440-36-0 Antimony X X 7440-38-2 Arsenic X X

7475 7

Cas No. COPC Listed in USEPA

HHRAP

Database(1)

Supplemental Input(2)

Quantitatively Evaluated(3)

7440-39-3 Barium X X X 100-52-7 Benzaldehyde X X

Benzaldehyde, 4-ethyl- 53951-50-1 Benzaldehyde,ethyl-

71-43-2 Benzene X X 102-96-5 Benzene, (2-nitroethenyl)- 96-09-3 Benzene, (epoxyethyl)-, R, Benzene, 1,3,5-trimethyl- Benzene, 1-ethenyl-3-methyl- Benzene, 1-ethyl-2methyl- Benzene, 2-methyl- 1,3,5-trinitro

103-65-1 Benzene, propyl- Benzenecarbothioic acid, 2,6-dic

56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene X X 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene X X 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene X X 192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene X X 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene X X 271-89-6 Benzofuran 65-85-0 Benzoic acid X X 100-47-0 Benzonitrile X X 100-51-6 Benzyl alcohol X X X 100-44-7 Benzyl chloride X X

1195-79-5 Bicyclo [2.2.1] heptan-2-one, 1,3,3-trimethyl- Bicyclo [2.2.1] heptan-2-one, 5,5,6-trimethyl-, exo-

10385-78-1 Bicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2-one, 1,7,7-trimethyl-, (1S)- Bicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2-one, 5,5,6-trimethyl-, endo-

92-52-4 Biphenyl X X 117-81-7 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate X X 507-70-0 Borneol 74-83-9 Bromomethane X X 123-72-8 Butanal 141-32-2 Butyl acrylate 85-68-7 Butylbenzylphthalate X X 123-72-8 Butyraldehyde

7440-43-9 Cadmium X X 7440-70-2 Calcium 79-92-5 Camphene 76-22-2 Camphor

Camphor & Benzoic Acid 124-38-9 Carbon dioxide 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide X X 630-08-0 Carbon monoxide 56-23-5 Carbon tetrachloride X X

7782-50-5 Chlorine X X 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene X X X 75-00-3 Chloroethane X X 67-66-3 Chloroform X X

7475 8

Cas No. COPC Listed in USEPA

HHRAP

Database(1)

Supplemental Input(2)

Quantitatively Evaluated(3)

74-87-3 Chloromethane X X 25168-05-2 Chlorotoluenes 7440-47-3 Chromium X X 218-01-9 Chrysene X X 590-18-1 cis-2-Butene 627-20-3 cis-2-Pentene

7440-48-4 Cobalt X X 7440-50-8 Copper X X 98-82-8 Cumene X X 110-82-7 Cyclohexane X X 108-94-1 Cyclohexanone X X

Cyclopentane, methylene- isomer 142-29-0 Cyclopentene 112-31-2 Decanal 53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene X X 132-64-9 Dibenzofuran X X

Dichlorodiflouromethane 60-29-7 Diethyl ether X X 84-66-2 Diethylphthalate X X

Dimethylbenzene isomer 84-74-2 Di-n-butylphthalate X X 117-84-0 Di-n-octylphthalate X X 122-39-4 Diphenylamine X X 629-97-0 Docosane 143-07-7 Dodecanoic acid 112-95-8 Eicosane

7440-44-0 Elemental Carbon 74-84-0 Ethane 460-19-5 Ethanedinitrile X X 64-17-5 Ethanol 111-76-2 Ethanol, 2-butoxy- X X 937-30-4 Ethanone, 1-(4-ethylphenyl)-

1009-61-6 Ethanone, 1,1'-(1,4-phenylene)bi 75-00-3 Ethyl chloride X X 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene X X

Ethylbenzoic acid 74-85-1 Ethylene

25550-14-5 Ethylmethylbenzene isomer Filterable particulate matter 10 micron Filterable particulate matter 10 micron Filterable particulate matter 10 micron Filterable particulate matter 2.5 micron Filterable particulate matter 2.5 micron

206-44-0 Fluoranthene X X 86-73-7 Fluorene X X 50-00-0 Formaldehyde X X 76-13-1 Freon 113 X X 110-00-9 Furan X X

1191-99-7 Furan 2,3-dihydro-

7475 9

Cas No. COPC Listed in USEPA

HHRAP

Database(1)

Supplemental Input(2)

Quantitatively Evaluated(3)

1708-29-8 Furan, 2,5-dihydro 109-99-9 Furan, tetrahydro- X X 142-82-5 Heptane

Heptane, 3-methylene- 87-68-3 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene X X 118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene X X 544-76-3 Hexadecane 66-25-1 Hexanal

Hexane 124-04-9 Hexanedioic acid isomer

Hexanedioic acid, Bis (2-ethylhexyl) 630-06-8 Hexatriacontane

18540-29-9 Hexavalent Chromium X X

2691-41-0 HMX X X

7647-01-0 Hydrogen Chloride X X 74-90-8 Hydrogen Cyanide X X

7664-39-3 Hydrogen Fluoride 193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene X X

7439-89-6 Iron X X 124-76-5 Isoborneol 75-28-5 Isobutane 115-11-7 Isobutene 84-69-5 Isobutyl phthlate

Isobutylene 31394-54-4 Isoheptane

78-78-4 Isopentane 98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene X X

7439-92-1 Lead X X 7439-95-4 Magnesium 7439-96-5 Manganese X X 541-73-1 m-Dichlorobenzene X X

7439-97-6 Mercury X X 79-41-4 Methacrylic acid, isopropyl ester 74-82-8 Methane 75-52-5 Methane, nitro- 100-97-0 Methenamine 74-87-3 Methyl chloride X X 71-55-6 Methyl chloroform X X X 80-62-6 Methyl Methacrylate X X

1634-04-4 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether X X 108-87-2 Methylcyclohexane X X 96-37-7 Methylcyclopentane 75-09-2 Methylene chloride X X 630-03-5 Nanocosane 91-20-3 Naphthalene X X 106-97-8 n-Butane 124-18-5 n-Decane 142-82-5 n-Heptane 110-54-3 n-Hexane X X

7475 10

Cas No. COPC Listed in USEPA

HHRAP

Database(1)

Supplemental Input(2)

Quantitatively Evaluated(3)

7440-02-0 Nickel X X 7697-37-2 Nitric Acid

10102-43-9 Nitric oxide 98-95-3 Nitrobenzene X X

10102-44-0 Nitrogen dioxide Nitrogen Oxides

55-63-0 Nitroglycerine X X 556-88-7 Nitroguanidine (NQ) 75-52-5 Nitromethane 86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine X X 111-84-2 n-Nonane

Noanal 111-65-9 n-Octane

Nonadecane 112-05-0 Nonanoic acid 109-66-0 n-Pentane 630-02-4 Octacosane

Octane 95-50-1 o-Dichlorobenzene X X

Organic Carbon 95-47-6 o-Xylene X X

Particulate Cyanide Particulate Perchlorate

106-46-7 p-Dichlorobenzene X X 78-11-5 Pentaerythritol tetranitrate 110-62-3 Pentanal

Pentane 630-07-9 Pentatriacontane 622-96-8 p-Ethyltoluene 85-01-8 Phenanthrene X X 108-95-2 Phenol X X

Phenol, 2-ethyl- 536-74-3 Phenylethyne

Propanal 74-98-6 Propane

Propane, 2,2-dimethoxy- Propanoic acid, 3- ethoxy, ethyl e

115-07-1 Propene 123-38-6 Proprionaldehyde 115-07-1 Propylene 74-99-7 Propyne 129-00-0 Pyrene X X 110-86-1 Pyridine X X

121-82-4 RDX X X

7782-49-2 Selenium X X 353-66-2 Silane, difluorodimethyl-

7475 11

Cas No. COPC Listed in USEPA

HHRAP

Database(1)

Supplemental Input(2)

Quantitatively Evaluated(3)

7440-22-4 Silver X X 7440-24-6 Strontium X X 100-42-5 Styrene X X

7446-09-5 Sulfur dioxide 7664-93-9 Sulfuric Acid

75-65-0 tert-Butyl Alcohol 12408-10-5 teterachlobenzene isomer 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethylene X X 646-31-1 Tetracosane

479-45-8 TETRYL X X

7440-28-0 Thallium X X 7440-32-6 Titanium X X 108-88-3 Toluene X X X

Total Carbon Total HpCDD Total HpCDF Total HxCDD Total HxCDF Total Non-methane Hydrocarbons Total PeCDD Total PeCDF Total TCDD Total TCDF

624-64-6 trans-2-Butene 4050-45-7 trans-2-Hexene 646-04-8 trans-2-Pentene 638-68-6 Triacontane 79-01-6 Trichloroethene X X 75-69-4 Trichloroflouromethane X X

25551-13-7 Trimethylbenzene isomer 88-89-1 Trinitrophenol (Picric Acid)

12789-66-1 TSP

7440-62-2 Vanadium X X 108-05-4 Vinyl acetate X X 75-01-4 Vinyl chloride X X

1330-20-7 Xylenes X X X 7440-66-6 Zinc X X 7440-67-7 Zirconium

Notes:

COPC - Chemical of Potential Concern HHRAP - Human health risk assessment protocol 1 - These chemicals were listed in the USEPA (2005) HHRAP Appendix A for consideration as a COPC. Also, they are listed in the corresponding version of the IRAP-h View risk software.

2 - Toxicity information for chemical was available in USEPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (USEPA, 1997), and USEPA Region 3 Risk-Based Concentration Table (April, 2007).

3 - A chemical was quantitatively evaluated in the human health risk assessment if there was current toxicity criteria available or if an appropriate surrogate could be identified if there was no current toxicity criteria available.

7475 12

TABLE 2.2 SUMMARY OF RECEPTORS

Receptor Firing

Control Point

Guard Shack

North/East OB/OD Unit Boundary

South/West

OB/OD TEAD

Boundary(1)

Grantsville Tooele Stockton Grantsville Reservoir

Rush Lake

On-Site Worker X X X Child Resident X X X X Adult Resident X X X X Child Farmer X X X X Adult Farmer X X X X Child Recreational Fisher X(2) X(2) X(2) X(2) X(3) X(3) Adult Recreational Fisher X(2) X(2) X(2) X(2) X(3) X(3) Notes:

1 - Hypothetical (potential future) receptors at the maximum off-site concentration location based on the dispersion modeling.

2 - Recreational fisher is assume to ingest fish caught in Grantsville Reservoir.

3 - Evaluated only for ingestion of fish.

7475 13

TABLE 2.3 SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

Exposure Pathway

A du lt Fa rm er

F ar m er

C hi ld du lt R es id en t

R es id en t C du lt Fi sh er

F is he r C cu te R ec ep to r

In du st ria l W or ke r

Inhalation of Vapors and Particulates X X X X X X X X Incidental Ingestion of Soil X X X X X X Ingestion of Drinking Water from Surface Water Sources X X X X X X Ingestion of Homegrown Produce X X X X X X Ingestion of Homegrown Beef X X Ingestion of Milk from Homegrown Cows X X Ingestion of Homegrown Chicken X X Ingestion of Eggs from Homegrown Chickens X X Ingestion of Homegrown Pork X X Ingestion of Fish X X Ingestion of Breast Milk(1) X X X

Notes:

X - Indicates that this pathway is quantitatively evaluated for receptor.

Tooele Army Depot - South

To Salt Lake City & SLC Int'l Airport

Tooele Army Depot - North

OB/OD Area

Grantsville Reservoir

Grantsville

Tooele Valley Airport

Tooele

StocktonRush Lake

5 50

Miles

PGH P:\GIS\TOOELE\MAPDOCS\MXD\TOOELE_NORTH_SITEMAP.MXD 09/01/15 JEE

CONTRACT NUMBER

FIGURE NO. REV

0FIGURE 2-1

TEAD - NORTH LOCATION MAP

TOOELE, UTAH

TO NUMBER

DATE

AS NOTED

SCALE

DATECHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

J. ENGLISH 07/25/14

B. JUPIN 09/01/15

Topographic map provided by ESRI's ArcGIS Online USA Topo Maps map service (© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed).

TEAD

North

Salt Lake City

§̈¦80

§̈¦15

§̈¦70

§̈¦84

U t a h

W y o m i n g

C o l o r a d o

I d a h o

A r i z o n a amber.kelly Typewritten Text amber.kelly Typewritten Text amber.kelly Typewritten Text amber.kelly Typewritten Text

PGH P:\GIS\TOOELE\MAPDOCS\MXD\TOOELE_NORTH_LOCAL_SITEMAP_1117.MXD 09/01/15 JEE

1 10

Miles

USGS MAP OF TEAD-NORTH AND SURROUNDING AREA

TOOELE, UTAH

DATE

AS NOTED

SCALE

DATECHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

J. ENGLISH 08/28/15

B. JUPIN 09/01/15

DATEREVISED BY

CONTRACT NUMBER

APPROVED BY

REVFIGURE NO.

APPROVED BY

DATE

DATE

TO NUMBER

FIGURE 2-2

Topographic map provided by ESRI's ArcGIS Online USA Topo Maps map service (© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed).

amber.kelly

PGH P:\GIS\TOOELE\MAPDOCS\MXD\TOOELE_NORTH_AERIAL_1117.MXD 09/01/15 JEE

1 10

Miles

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF TEAD-NORTH AND SURROUNDING AREA

TOOELE, UTAH

DATE

AS NOTED

SCALE

DATECHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

J. ENGLISH 08/28/15

B. JUPIN 09/01/15

DATEREVISED BY

CONTRACT NUMBER

APPROVED BY

REVFIGURE NO.

APPROVED BY

DATE

DATE

TO NUMBER

FIGURE 2-3

Aerial photograph provided by ESRI's ArcGIS Online World Imagery map service (© 2014 ESRI and its data suppliers)

Legend

Facility Boundary amber.kelly

PGH P:\GIS\TOOELE\MAPDOCS\MXD\CITY_LAND_USE_PLAN_2015.MXD 09/01/15 JEE

CONTRACT NUMBER

APPROVED BY

REVFIGURE NO.

APPROVED BY

DATE

DATE

TO NUMBER

FIGURE 2-4

TOOELE CITY MAP

GENERAL PLAN - LAND USE ELEMENT

TOOELE, UTAH

DATE

AS NOTED

SCALE

DATECHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

J. ENGLISH 08/28/15

B. JUPIN 09/01/15

DATEREVISED BY

09/01/15 amber.kelly

PGH P:\GIS\TOOELE\MAPDOCS\MXD\TOOELE_NORTH_LAND_USE_ZONES_2015.MXD 09/01/15 JEE

2 20

Miles

ZONING MAP OF TEAD-NORTH AND SURROUNDING AREA

TOOELE, UTAH

DATE

AS NOTED

SCALE

DATECHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

J. ENGLISH 08/28/15

B. JUPIN 09/01/15

DATEREVISED BY

CONTRACT NUMBER

APPROVED BY

REVFIGURE NO.

APPROVED BY

DATE

DATE

TO NUMBER

FIGURE 2-5

Legend

Facility Boundary

A-20, A-40 M-G

MG-EX

MU-40

R-M-7

RR-1, 5, 10

C-T C-G C-H

T-I

RRS

P-2

Agricultural Manufacturing General Mining, Quarry, Sand and Gravel Excavation Multiple Use Multiple Residential Rural Residental Commercial Tourism Commercial General Commercial Highway Technology Industries Recreation & Racing Sports Planned Rural Residential amber.kelly

7475 19

3.0 REVISED HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

The revised dispersion modeling results were used as input to the IRAP-h View model to obtain quantitative risk and hazard characterization estimates commensurate with the HHRA and TEAD- N protocol. These risk and hazard characterization results include the following:

• Cancer risks and hazard indices

• The results of the risk assessment of exposure to lead

• The results of the risk assessment of exposure to COPCs from the consumption of breast milk

• An acute hazard characterization of direct inhalation of COPCs in air.

The following target levels or benchmarks for characterizing risks and hazards were based on the TEAD-N Protocol:

• Cancer risk less than or equal to 1 x 10-6 for off-site receptors and 1 x 10-4 for on-site workers

• HI less than or equal to 1.0 for noncarcinogens

• Media-specific concentrations for lead o Air concentration of less than or equal to 1.5 µg/m3 (maximum quarterly concentration based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS]/Utah Ambient Air Quality Standards [UAAQS]) o Soil concentration of less than or equal to 400 mg/kg (based on the OSWER screening level for residential exposures) o Drinking water concentration of 4 µg/L

• Average daily dose of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (based on application of toxicity equivalent factor for other dioxins and furans) to nursing infants exposed to contaminated breast milk of 60 pg/kg-day (based on the HHRA Protocol)

• Acute Hazard Quotient (AQC) for inhalation less than or equal to 1.0.

In accordance with the HHRAP guidance cancer risks and hazard indices for all receptors are calculated using the annual or yearly air concentrations. AQCs were calculated using maximum one hour air concentrations and acute inhalation exposure criteria.

7475 20

The following sections discuss the results of the revised HHRA. IRAP-h modeling input/output files are provided in Appendix D. However, the IRAP-h software is needed to read these files.

3.1 CANCER RISKS AND HAZARD INDICES

Cancer risks and hazard indices are summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, respectively. Cancer risks and hazard indices were less than the target levels for all receptors at all locations with the exception of the south/west OB/OD TEAD-N boundary. Cancer risks for all receptors (hypothetical) exceeded the target level of 1 x 10-6 at the south/west OB/OD TEAD-N boundary.

Emissions from the OB unit were the major contributor to the elevated cancer risks. Hazard indices exceeded the target level of 1 for all receptors with the exception of the hypothetical adult resident at the south/west OB/OD TEAD-N boundary. Emissions from the OD and SF units were the major contributors to the elevated hazard indices. As noted above there are currently no receptors located at the south/west OB/OD TEAD-N boundary.

Tables 3-3 and 3-4 present a summary of cancer risks and hazard indices for hypothetical receptors at the south/west OB/OD TEAD-N boundary by exposure pathway. Cancer risks and hazard indices for receptors at the other receptor locations are presented in Appendix E. Ingestion of produce was the major contributor to the elevated cancer risks for the child and adult recreational fisher and the child and adult resident. Ingestion of produce and ingestion of milk were the major contributors to the elevated cancer risks for the child and adult farmer. Ingestion of produce was the major contributor to the elevated hazard index for the child recreational fisher and child resident. Ingestion of produce and ingestion of milk were the major contributors to the elevated hazard index for the child and adult farmers. HIs for individual target organs were all less than one (Appendix F), although target organs effects were not available for all chemicals (e.g., lead).

Table 3.5 lists the major contributors to the elevated cancer risks and hazard indices for ingestion of produce for hypothetical receptors at the south/west OB/OD TEAD-N boundary. Emissions of lead from the OB and SF units and cadmium from the OD unit were the major contributors to the elevated cancer risks for all receptors. Emissions of lead from the OB and SF units were the major contributors to the elevated hazard indices for the child recreational fisher, child resident, child farmer, and adult farmer.

Table 3.6 lists the major contributors to the elevated cancer risks and hazard indices for ingestion of milk for the child and adult farmers at the south/west OB/OD TEAD-N boundary. For the child farmer, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene for the OD unit and lead from the OB and SF units were the major contributors to the elevated cancer risks. For the adult farmer, benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, lead, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD from the OD unit and lead from the OB and SF units were the major contributors to the elevated cancer risks. Lead from the OB and SF units was the major contributor to the elevated hazard indices for the child and adult farmer.

3.2 LEAD EXPOSURES

Table 3.7 presents a summary of estimated lead concentrations in surface soil, air, and surface water. The estimated lead concentrations in each medium are all significantly less than the chemical-specific target levels referenced in the preceding text.

7475 21

3.3 BREAST MILK PATHWAY

Estimated 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ concentrations in breast milk are presented in Table 3.8. The estimated concentrations are all significantly less than the chemical-specific target level of 60 pg/kg-day referenced in the preceding text.

3.4 ACUTE HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION FROM DIRECT INHALATION

Table 3.9 summarizes the AHQs for the direct inhalation exposure pathway. AHQs for chemicals by source are listed in Appendix G. AHQs for the OD and SF units were less than the target level of 1. AHQs for the OB unit exceeded the target level of 1 at the Firing Control Point, Guard Shack, North/East OB/OD Boundary, and South/West OB/OD TEAD-N Boundary. Table 3.10 lists the chemicals which were the major contributors to the AHQs. Lead, hydrogen chloride, and chlorine were the major contributors to the AHQs for the OB unit.

3.5 RISKS BASED ON SOIL SAMPLING DATA

3.5.1 Risk for Chemicals Other than Lead

A risk assessment was performed on the surface soil data that was collected at the site in April 2006 (TtNUS, 2006), July 2007 (TtNUS, 2007), November 2009 (TtNUS, 2010), and October 2014 (Tetra Tech, 2015). Soil data were collected from the OB, OD, and SF Units and risks associated with exposure to surface soil were evaluated for an OB/OD worker. The risk assessment was conducted in accordance with USEPA’s Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) Part A (USEPA, 1989). The OB/OD worker was assumed to be exposed to surface soil by incidental ingestion and dermal contact. Three scenarios were evaluated: 1) the OB/OD worker had no personnel protective equipment, 2) the OB/OD worker wore long sleeve shirts and gloves, and 3) a future outdoor industrial worker. The exposure assumptions used in this HHRA are presented in the RAGS Part D Table 4s in Appendix H.

Standard USEPA default exposure assumptions were used for the unprotected worker and future outdoor worker scenarios which assumed that the worker’s hands, forearms, and head were exposed. These body surface areas correspond to an exposed total body surface area of 3,527 cm2 (USEPA, 2014). For the protected worker it was assumed that only the head was exposed which corresponds to an exposed total body surface area of 1,250 cm2. An incidental ingestion rate of 100 mg/day was used for the both the unprotected and protected worker (USEPA, 2014). The soil adherence rate was assumed to be 0.12 mg/cm2 for both the unprotected and protected worker (USEPA, 2014). Workers may be at the OB unit 60 days a year, at the OD unit 120 days a year, and at the SF unit 60 days a year. The unprotected and protected workers only have contact with one unit each work day. The future outdoor worker was assumed to be exposed 250 days a year

(USEPA, 2014).

The exposure point concentration (EPC) is calculated for COPCs only and is an estimate of the chemical concentration within an exposure unit (EU) likely to be contacted over time by a receptor and is used to estimate exposure intakes. An exposure unit is defined as the area typically encountered/ traversed by a receptor under a particular land use scenario. Four EUs were evaluated

7475 22 in this analysis, the OB unit, the OD unit, the SF unit, and all three units combined. Two types of soil samples were collected at the OB, OD, and SF units. Discrete soil samples were collected from all three units in 2006, 2007, and 2009. Soil samples collected in 2014 were collected using the incremental sampling methodology (ISM). EPCs for discrete soil samples were calculated following the USEPA’s Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites (2002) and using USEPA’s ProUCL software version 5.0.00 (2013a).

In general, the concentration selected for the EPC was the value recommended by the ProUCL guidance, subject to final review by the risk assessor or a statistician. EPCs for ISM samples were calculated following the Incremental Sampling Methodology (ITRC, 2012). The distribution-based UCL and the rationale for selecting the EPCs for each zone are described on the RAGS Part D Table 3s’ presented in Appendices H and I.

Cancer risks and hazard indices were estimated for four exposure units (EUs). The OB, OD, and SF units were treated as separate EUs. Also the three units were combined and treated as one EU.

Potential cancer risks and hazard indices are summarized in Table 3.11. The results of the risk assessment in RAGS Part D format are included in Appendix H. Hazard indices for unprotected workers, protected workers, and a future outdoor industrial worker were less than or equal to unity (1), indicating that adverse noncarcinogenic effects are not anticipated for these receptors under the defined exposure conditions.

Cancer risks for unprotected workers, protected workers, and a future outdoor industrial worker were less that the target level of 1 x 10-4.

3.5.2 Risks for Lead

Surface soil samples (based on 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2014 data) from the OB/OD Unit were evaluated for potential risks to onsite workers. Concentrations of lead in surface soil from the OB Unit in 2006 (1,620 mg/kg), 2007 (8,840 mg/kg), 2009 (27,000 mg/kg), and 2014 (11,000 mg/kg) exceeded the USEPA screening level of 800 mg/kg for industrial workers (USEPA, 2015).

Exposures to lead in surface soil posed to industrial workers were evaluated using a slope factor approach developed by the USEPA TRW for lead (USEPA, 2003b, 2009c). As the model (often referred to as the “Adult Lead Model”), recommends, average lead concentrations in surface soil were used as the EPCs, and central tendency exposure assumptions were used to estimate receptor intake (USEPA, 2003a, 2009c). Thus, the incidental soil ingestion rate is assumed to be 50 mg/day (USEPA, 2003b, 2009c). An exposure frequency of 60 days/year is assumed for the OB worker, 210 days/year for an OB/OD/SF worker, and 219 days/year for the outdoor worker. Values of 1.8 and 1.0 µg/dL were used for the standard deviation and baseline blood lead concentration, respectively, (USEPA, 2009c). Default parameters were used for the remaining model input parameters. Results of the model runs are summarized in Table 3.12 and model printouts are included in Appendix I.

For the 2006 surface soil samples, results for all workers do not exceed the USEPA goal of no more than 5% of children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding a 10 µg/dL blood-lead level. For the 2007 and 2014 surface soil samples, results for outdoor workers exposed to soil at the OB unit exceeded the USEPA goal of no more than 5% of children exceeding a 10 µg/dL blood-lead level.

7475 23

For the 2009 surface soil samples, results for OB workers and outdoor workers exposed to soil at the OB unit exceeded the USEPA goal of no more than 5% of children exceeding a 10 µg/dL blood-lead level.

7475 24

TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF CANCER RISKS

Receptor OD OB SF Total Firing Control Point Adult Worker(1) 5E-09 3E-08 3E-09 4E-08 Guard Shack Adult Worker(1) 6E-09 8E-08 5E-09 9E-08 North/East OB/OD Unit Boundary Adult Worker(1) 3E-08 5E-07 4E-08 5E-07 South/West OB/OD TEAD Boundary Child Resident 4E-07 1E-06 4E-07 2E-06 Adult Resident 8E-07 2E-06 9E-07 4E-06 Child Farmer 1E-06 2E-06 1E-06 4E-06 Adult Farmer 3E-06 7E-06 4E-06 1E-05 Child Recreational Fisher(2) 4E-07 1E-06 4E-07 2E-06 Adult Recreational Fisher(2) 8E-07 2E-06 9E-07 4E-06 Grantsville Child Resident 9E-09 5E-08 9E-09 7E-08 Adult Resident 2E-08 1E-07 2E-08 1E-07 Child Farmer 2E-08 1E-07 2E-08 1E-07 Adult Farmer 7E-08 4E-07 7E-08 5E-07 Child Recreational Fisher(2) 9E-09 6E-08 9E-09 7E-08 Adult Recreational Fisher(2) 2E-08 1E-07 2E-08 2E-07 Tooele Child Resident 2E-09 8E-09 2E-09 1E-08 Adult Resident 3E-09 2E-08 3E-09 2E-08 Child Farmer 3E-09 2E-08 4E-09 2E-08 Adult Farmer 1E-08 5E-08 1E-08 8E-08 Child Recreational Fisher(2) 2E-09 1E-08 2E-09 1E-08 Adult Recreational Fisher(2) 3E-09 3E-08 3E-09 4E-08 Stockton Child Resident 4E-09 2E-08 5E-09 3E-08 Adult Resident 8E-09 5E-08 9E-09 6E-08 Child Farmer 9E-09 5E-08 1E-08 7E-08 Adult Farmer 3E-08 2E-07 4E-08 2E-07 Child Recreational Fisher(2) 4E-09 3E-08 5E-09 4E-08 Adult Recreational Fisher(2) 8E-09 6E-08 9E-09 8E-08 Grantsville Reservoir Child Recreational Fisher(3) 4E-16 3E-09 3E-17 3E-09 Adult Recreational Fisher(3) 2E-15 2E-08 1E-16 2E-08 Rush Lake Child Recreational Fisher(3) 3E-15 4E-09 5E-17 4E-09 Adult Recreational Fisher(3) 2E-14 2E-08 3E-16 2E-08 Notes:

1 - Exposed only by Inhalation.

2 - Assumes fishing occurs at Grantsville Reservoir.

3 - Exposed only by ingestion of fish.

Shaded values exceed target level of 1 x 10-6.

7475 25

TABLE 3.2 SUMMARY OF HAZARD INDICES

Firing Control Point Adult Worker(1) 2E-02 2E-03 1E-03 2E-02 Guard Shack Adult Worker(1) 2E-02 6E-03 2E-03 3E-02 North/East OB/OD Unit Boundary Adult Worker(1) 9E-02 4E-02 1E-02 1E-01 South/West OB/OD TEAD Boundary Child Resident 1E+00 2E-01 1E+00 3E+00 Adult Resident 6E-01 8E-02 5E-01 1E+00 Child Farmer 3E+00 4E-01 3E+00 7E+00 Adult Farmer 2E+00 2E-01 2E+00 4E+00 Child Recreational Fisher(2) 1E+00 2E-01 1E+00 3E+00 Adult Recreational Fisher(2) 6E-01 8E-02 5E-01 1E+00 Grantsville Child Resident 5E-02 2E-02 3E-02 9E-02 Adult Resident 2E-02 8E-03 1E-02 4E-02 Child Farmer 8E-02 3E-02 6E-02 2E-01 Adult Farmer 4E-02 1E-02 3E-02 9E-02 Child Recreational Fisher(2) 5E-02 2E-02 3E-02 9E-02 Adult Recreational Fisher(2) 2E-02 8E-03 1E-02 4E-02 Tooele Child Resident 2E-02 1E-02 5E-03 4E-02 Adult Resident 9E-03 4E-03 2E-03 2E-02 Child Farmer 3E-02 1E-02 1E-02 5E-02 Adult Farmer 1E-02 5E-03 5E-03 2E-02 Child Recreational Fisher(2) 2E-02 1E-02 5E-03 4E-02 Adult Recreational Fisher(2) 9E-03 5E-03 2E-03 2E-02 Stockton Child Resident 3E-02 1E-02 1E-02 6E-02 Adult Resident 1E-02 6E-03 5E-03 2E-02 Child Farmer 3E-02 1E-02 1E-02 5E-02 Adult Farmer 1E-02 5E-03 5E-03 2E-02 Child Recreational Fisher(2) 2E-02 1E-02 5E-03 4E-02 Adult Recreational Fisher(2) 9E-03 5E-03 2E-03 2E-02 Grantsville Reservoir Child Recreational Fisher(3) 4E-05 1E-04 4E-11 1E-04 Adult Recreational Fisher(3) 4E-05 1E-04 4E-11 1E-04 Rush Lake Child Recreational Fisher(3) 6E-05 1E-04 1E-10 2E-04

Adult Recreational Fisher(3) 6E-05 1E-04 1E-10 2E-04

Notes:

1 - Exposed only by Inhalation.

2 - Assumes fishing occurs at Grantsville Reservoir.

Shaded values exceed target level of 1.

7475 26

TABLE 3.3 SUMMARY OF HAZARD INDICES BY EXPOSURE PATHWAY FOR SOUTH/WEST OB/OD TEAD

BOUNDARY

Exposure Pathway Adult Farmer

Child Farmer

Adult Recreational

Fisher

Child Recreational

Fisher Adult

Resident Child

Resident

Inhalation 6E-02 2E-01 8E-02 2E-01 8E-02 2E-01 Ingestion of Produce 2E+00 4E+00 1E+00 3E+00 1E+00 3E+00 Ingestion of Beef 1E-01 8E-02 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 Ingestion of Chicken 4E-07 3E-07 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 Ingestion of Drinking Water 1E-02 3E-02 1E-02 3E-02 1E-02 3E-02 Ingestion of Eggs 1E-08 8E-09 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 Ingestion of Fish 0E+00 0E+00 1E-04 1E-04 0E+00 0E+00 Ingestion of Milk 2E+00 3E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 Ingestion of Pork 3E-04 2E-04 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 Ingestion of Soil 2E-04 1E-03 2E-04 1E-03 2E-04 1E-03 Total Hazard Index 4E+00 7E+00 1E+00 3E+00 1E+00 3E+00

Shaded values exceeded noncarcinogenic target level of 1.

7475 27

TABLE 3.4 SUMMARY OF CANCER RISKS

BY EXPOSURE PATHWAY FOR SOUTH/WEST OB/OD TEAD-NORTH BOUNDARY

Farmer

Child Farmer

Adult Recreational

Fisher

Child Recreational

Fisher Adult

Resident Child

Resident

Inhalation 6E-07 3E-07 6E-07 3E-07 6E-07 3E-07 Ingestion of Produce 6E-06 2E-06 3E-06 1E-06 3E-06 1E-06 Ingestion of Beef 1E-06 9E-08 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 Ingestion of Chicken 1E-10 1E-11 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 Ingestion of Drinking Water 7E-09 2E-09 5E-09 2E-09 5E-09 2E-09 Ingestion of Eggs 5E-11 6E-12 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 Ingestion of Fish 0E+00 0E+00 2E-08 3E-09 0E+00 0E+00 Ingestion of Milk 6E-06 1E-06 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 Ingestion of Pork 3E-08 3E-09 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 0E+00 Ingestion of Soil 7E-10 9E-10 5E-10 9E-10 5E-10 9E-10 Total Cancer Risk 1E-05 4E-06 4E-06 2E-06 4E-06 2E-06

Shaded values exceed target risk level of 1 x 10-6.

7475 28

TABLE 3.5 MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO RISK FROM INGESTION OF PRODUCE

FOR RECEPTORS AT THE SOUTH/WEST OB/OD TEAD-NORTH BOUNDARY

Receptor Source Chemical Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient

Child Resident OB Lead 4E-07 1E+00 OD Cadmium 7E-07 -- SF Lead 4E-07 1E+00 Adult Resident OB Lead 8E-07 5E-01 OD Cadmium 1E-06 -- SF Lead 8E-07 5E-01 Child Recreational Fisher OB Lead 4E-07 1E+00 OD Cadmium 7E-07 -- SF Lead 4E-07 1E+00 Adult Recreational Fisher OB Lead 8E-07 5E-01 OD Cadmium 1E-06 -- SF Lead 8E-07 5E-01 Child Farmer OB Lead 5E-07 2E+00 OD Cadmium 1E-06 -- OD Lead -- 1E-01 SF Lead 6E-07 2E+00 Adult Farmer OB Lead 2E-06 7E-01 OD Cadmium 3E-06 -- SF Lead 2E-06 7E-01

Notes:

Major contributors are those chemicals with cancer risks greater than 1 x 10-7 or hazard quotients greater than 0.1.

7475 29

TABLE 3.6 MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO RISK FROM INGESTION OF MILK

FOR RECEPTORS AT THE SOUTH/WEST OB/OD TEAD-NORTH BOUNDARY

Receptor Source Chemical Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient

Child Farmer OD Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 3E-07 -- OB Lead 4E-07 1E+00 SF Lead 5E-07 1E+00 Adult Farmer OD Benzo(a)pyrene 3E-07 -- OD Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1E-06 -- OD Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 3E-07 -- OD Lead 1E-07 -- OD TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8- 2E-07 -- OB Lead 2E-06 9E-01 SF Lead 2E-06 9E-01 Notes:

Major contributors are those chemicals with cancer risks greater than 1 x 10-7 or hazard quotients greater than 0.1.

7475 30

TABLE 3.7 SUMMARY OF LEAD CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE SOIL, AIR,

AND SURFACE WATER

Location Source Maximum Soil Concentration

(mg/kg)

Air Concentration

(µg/m3)

Maximum Water Concentration

(µg/L)

Firing Control Point OB 2.6E-03 4.5E-03 --

OD 1.3E-04 2.3E-04 --

SF 1.3E-03 2.3E-03 --

Total 4.0E-03 6.9E-03 -- Grantsville OB 4.2E-04 1.2E-03 --

OD 5.9E-05 1.6E-04 --

SF 4.4E-04 1.3E-03 --

Total 9.2E-04 2.6E-03 -- Grantsville Reservoir OB 2.2E-04 6.2E-04 1.2E-02

OD 3.2E-05 9.0E-05 1.5E-03

SF 2.2E-04 6.4E-04 1.1E-02

Total 4.6E-04 1.4E-03 2.4E-02 Guard Shack OB 2.2E-03 4.8E-03 --

OD 3.1E-04 6.2E-04 --

SF 1.8E-03 3.9E-03 --

Total 4.3E-03 9.3E-03 -- North/East OB/OD Boundary OB 1.3E-02 2.3E-02 --

OD 3.0E-03 3.6E-03 --

SF 1.8E-02 3.0E-02 --

Total 3.4E-02 5.8E-02 -- Rush Lake OB 2.9E-04 8.6E-04 1.6E-02

OD 3.7E-05 1.1E-04 2.0E-03

SF 3.3E-04 9.3E-04 1.7E-02

Total 6.5E-04 1.9E-03 3.5E-02 South/West OB/OD TEAD Boundary OB 2.2E-02 3.4E-02 --

OD 1.3E-03 2.5E-03 --

SF 2.3E-02 3.8E-02 --

Total 4.7E-02 7.4E-02 -- Stockton OB 1.8E-04 5.3E-04 --

OD 2.5E-05 7.2E-05 --

SF 2.2E-04 6.4E-04 --

Total 4.3E-04 1.2E-03 -- Tooele OB 6.3E-05 1.9E-04 --

OD 7.7E-06 2.4E-05 --

SF 6.8E-05 2.0E-04 --

Total 1.4E-04 4.1E-04 --

Shaded values are greater than target levels.

Target Levels:

Soil = 400 mg/kg Air = 1.5 µg/m3 Water = 4 µg/L

7475 31

TABLE 3.8 SUMMARY OF BREAST MILK AVERAGE DAILY DOSE (2,3,7,8-TCDD) TEQ

Location Receptor Source Concentration (pg/kg-day)

Grantsville Adult Farmer OD 5.7E-03 Adult Recreational Fisher OD 1.9E-05 Adult Resident OD 1.5E-05 South/West OB/OB TEAD Boundary Adult Farmer OD 8.8E-02 Adult Recreational Fisher OD 2.3E-04 Adult Resident OD 2.3E-04 Stockton Adult Farmer OD 2.5E-03 Adult Recreational Fisher OD 1.1E-05 Adult Resident OD 6.7E-06 Tooele Adult Farmer OD 8.5E-04 Adult Recreational Fisher OD 6.4E-06 Adult Resident OD 2.3E-06

Target level = 60 pg/kg-day for 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ

7475 32

TABLE 3.9 ACUTE INHALATION HAZARD QUOTIENT

Source Firing Control Point

Guard Shack

North/East

OB/OD

Boundary

South/West

OD/OD TEAD

Boundary Grantsville Grantsville

Reservoir Rush Lake Stockton Tooele

OB 2E+00 9E-01 2E+00 2E+00 5E-01 4E-01 4E-01 4E-01 3E-01

OD 3E-01 5E-01 1E+00 1E+00 3E-01 4E-01 3E-01 3E-01 2E-01

SF 5E-01 3E-01 6E-01 6E-01 2E-01 2E-01 1E-01 1E-01 1E-01

7475 33

TABLE 3.10 MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THE ACUTE INHALATION HAZARD QUOTIENT

Source Chemical Firing

Control Point

Guard Shack

North/East OB/OD Boundary

South/West

OB/OD TEAD

Boundary OB Lead 5E-01 3E-01 5E-01 6E-01

Hydrogen chloride 8E-01 4E-01 9E-01 1E+00 Chlorine 3E-01 1E-01 3E-01 3E-01 Total 2E+00 9E-01 2E+00 2E+00

Notes: Major contributors are those chemicals with an acute hazard quotient greater than 0.1.

7475 34

TABLE 3.11 SUMMARY OF CANCER RISKS AND HAZARD INDICES FOR ON-

SITE WORKERS

EXPOSED TO SURFACE SOIL

Source Unprotect Workers(1)

Cancer Risk Hazard Index 2006 2007 2009 2014 2006 2007 2009 2014

OB Unit 1E-06 4E-06 2E-06 1E-06 0.3 0.05 0.05 0.09 OD Unit 2E-06 4E-06 2E-06 8E-07 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.05 SF Unit 2E-06 (4) 4E-06 3E-06 0.2 (4) 0.1 0.1 All Soils 6E-06 1E-05 1E-05 7E-06 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3

Source Protected Workers(2)

Cancer Risk Hazard Index 2006 2007 2009 2014 2006 2007 2009 2014

OB Unit 1E-06 4E-06 2E-06 1E-06 0.2 0.05 0.05 0.08 OD Unit 2E-06 4E-06 2E-06 7E-07 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.04 SF Unit 2E-06 (4) 4E-06 3E-06 0.2 (4) 0.09 0.1 All Soils 5E-06 1E-05 1E-05 7E-06 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3

Source Future Outdoor Workers(3)

Cancer Risk Hazard Index 2006 2007 2009 2014 2006 2007 2009 2014

OB Unit 6E-06 2E-05 8E-06 6E-06 1 0.2 0.2 0.4 OD Unit 4E-06 9E-06 4E-06 2E-06 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.1 SF Unit 7E-06 (4) 2E-05 1E-05 0.8 (4) 0.4 0.5 All Soils 7E-06 1E-05 1E-05 9E-06 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4

Notes:

1 - Unprotected workers head, hands, and forearms are assumed to be exposed.

2 - Protected workers are assumes to wear gloves and long sleeved shirts, only the head is assumed to be exposed.

3 - Default USEPA industrial worker.

4 - No surface soil samples were collected at the SF unit in 2007.

7475 35

TABLE 3.12 ADULT LEAD MODELING RESULTS

2006 2007 2009 2014 Blood Lead Geometric

Mean Concentration

(µg/dL)

Percent of Receptors Exceeding 10 µg/dL

Blood Lead Geometric

Mean Concentration

(µg/dL)

Percent of Receptors Exceeding 10 µg/dL

Blood Lead Geometric

Mean Concentration

(µg/dL)

Percent of Receptors Exceeding 10 µg/dL

Blood Lead Geometric

Mean Concentration

(µg/dL)

Percent of Receptors Exceeding 10 µg/dL

OB Workers(1) 1.4 0.02% 2.8 0.9% 4.6 6.5% 3.3 2.0%

(2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 1.1 0.01%

OB/OD/SF

Workers(3) 2.3 0.4% 2.3 0.4% 3.5 2.3% 2.7 0.8%

Outdoor Workers - OB Unit(4) 2.3 0.4% 7.5 25% 14 65% 9.5 39%

Outdoor Workers – SF Unit(4) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 1.5 0.04%

Outdoor Workers - All Units(5) 2.4 0.4% 2.4 0.4% 3.6 2.6% 2.8 0.9%

Notes:

1 - OB workers are exposed to the OB unit 60 days a year.

2 – Lead concentrations in soil were below the OSWER screening level of 400 mg/kg at the SF Unit in 2006, 2007, and 2009.

3 - OB/OD/SF workers are exposed to the entire site (OB, OD, & SF units) 210 days a year.

4 - Outdoor workers are the default USEPA industrial worker and are assumed to be exposed to the OB unit 219 days a year.

5 - Outdoor workers are the default USEPA industrial worker and are assumed to be exposed to the entire site (OB, OD, & SF units) 219 days a year.

7475 36

4.0 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

The revised HHRA was prepared following the methodology presented in the original HHRA and the TEAD-N protocol. The uncertainty analysis presented as part of the original HHRA is also applicable to this analysis. The only new significant sources of uncertainty involves the evaluation of lead and chemicals that were not detected in surface soil samples which might be present in soil at concentrations below the detection limits.

4.1 UNCERTAINTY ASSOCIATED WITH EVALUATION OF LEAD

Lead was identified as a major contributor to the elevated cancer risks and hazard indices for receptors at the South/West OB/OD TEAD-N Boundary. However, USEPA’s IRIS database does not currently list a reference dose (RfD) or reference concentration (RfC) for lead because a threshold level for exposure has not been established.